Project Report

Coliseum City Football Stadium Revenue

Study

Prepared for

The Oakland Alameda County Coliseum

Authority

Submitted by

AECOM Technical Services, Inc (AECOM)

Front Row Marketing Services
November 21, 2013
Project No. 60289461

303 East Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL
312.373.7558

Suite 600

60601
FAX 312.373.6800

www. aecom.com

Table of Contents
I.

Introduction and Executive Summary ................................................................................. 7

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 7
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 7

II.

Local Market Conditions ..................................................................................................... 15

Local Economic and Demographic Analysis.......................................................................... 15
Demographic Trends .............................................................................................................. 16
Household Income Trends ..................................................................................................... 20
Employment............................................................................................................................ 23
Comparisons to Other NFL Markets ..................................................................................... 31

III. NFL and Stadium Conditions .............................................................................................. 40

Raiders Demand and Operations .......................................................................................... 40
Other Revenue Sources and NFL Revenue-Sharing ............................................................ 44
O.co Coliseum Characteristics, Demand, and Operations .................................................... 45
Other NFL Teams and Stadiums Characteristics, Demand, and Operations....................... 51
IV. New Stadium Market Demand and Operations ................................................................. 66
Premium Seating Discoveries and Recommendations ......................................................... 66
Non-Premium Ticketing .......................................................................................................... 70
Advertising & Sponsorships Discoveries and Recommendations ......................................... 70
Projected Future Operations .................................................................................................. 77
V.

Ancillary Development ........................................................................................................ 90

Site Overview ......................................................................................................................... 91
Market Study Overview .......................................................................................................... 92
Retail/Dining/Entertainment Market ....................................................................................... 93
Hotel Market ......................................................................................................................... 103
Hotel Performance Comparison ........................................................................................... 108
Residential Market................................................................................................................ 110
Office Market ........................................................................................................................ 115
Case Studies ........................................................................................................................ 118
Ancillary Development Potential Overview .......................................................................... 126
RDE Development Potential ................................................................................................ 128
Hotel Development Potential................................................................................................ 133
Residential Development Potential ...................................................................................... 135

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 1

Office Development Potential............................................................................................... 137

Economic and Fiscal Impact of Ancillary Development ....................................................... 140
Economic Impact Estimate................................................................................................... 143
Fiscal Impact Estimate ......................................................................................................... 144
VI. Stadium Financing Analysis ............................................................................................. 154
Funding of Other Similar Facilities ....................................................................................... 154
Operational Agreements for NFL Stadiums ......................................................................... 163
Potential Funding Opportunities in Oakland and Alameda County ..................................... 166

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 2

Index of Tables and Figures

Table 1: Forecasted Annual Stadium Usage Open-Air Stadium.................................................. 9
Table 2: Summary of Supportable Ancillary Development ........................................................... 11
Table 3: Taxes Captured by Implementation Method (000s) ........................................................ 13
Table 4: Debt Supported by Implementation Method (000s) ........................................................ 13
Table 5: Population Estimates and Projections (2000, 2010, 2011, 2020) ................................... 17
Table 6: Median Age...................................................................................................................... 18
Table 7: Average Household Size ................................................................................................. 19
Table 8: Family Households and Families with Children, 2011 .................................................... 19
Table 9: Households Projection, 2010-2020 ................................................................................. 19
Table 10: Median Household Income, 2011 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars ........................................ 20
Table 11: Distribution of Households by Household Income Detail, 2011 .................................... 22
Table 13: 2010 Employment by Major Industry ............................................................................. 24
Table 14: Employment Projection, Oakland and Alameda County ............................................... 25
Table 15: Fortune 500 companies in the Bay Area ....................................................................... 27
Table 16: Largest Employers in Alameda County by Employment, 2010..................................... 28
Table 17: Largest Employers in Contra Costa County by Employment, 2010 ............................. 28
Table 21: Population by Market ..................................................................................................... 33
Table 22: Age by Market................................................................................................................ 34
Table 23: Income by Market .......................................................................................................... 36
Table 24: Corporate Base by Market............................................................................................. 38
Table 25: Population per Company by Market .............................................................................. 39
Table 27: Authority Coliseum Budget ............................................................................................ 50
Table 28: NFL Stadium Characteristics ......................................................................................... 52
Table 29: Five-year Average NFL Attendance and % Capacity by Team, 2008-2012 ................. 54
Table 30: Ticket Sales at Top Outdoor Stadium and Festival Sites ............................................. 55
Table 31: Average Attendance and Ticket Sales at Select NFL Stadiums ................................... 56
Table 32: NFL Stadiums Events and Attendance ........................................................................ 57
Table 33: NFL Stadium Ownership and Management .................................................................. 58
Table 34: NFL Stadium Single Game and Season Ticket Price Ranges...................................... 59
Table 35: Average Regular NFL Ticket Price by Team, 2010-2012 ............................................. 60
Table 36: Average Premium NFL Ticket Price by Team, 2010-2012 ........................................... 60
Table 37: NFL Club Seat and Suite Ticket Price Ranges ............................................................. 61
Table 38: NFL Teams by Value ..................................................................................................... 62
Table 39: NFL Stadiums Financial Results .................................................................................. 65
Table 40: Recommended Luxury Suites ....................................................................................... 67
Table 41: Recommended Club Seats ........................................................................................... 68
Table 42: Recommended Loge Boxes .......................................................................................... 69
Table 43: Naming Rights Valuation ............................................................................................... 74
Table 44: Summary of Advertising & Sponsorship Revenue Projection (100% Sold Out) ........... 75
Table 45: Summary of Revenue Projections ................................................................................. 77
Table 46: Events and Attendance Open-Air Stadium ................................................................ 78
Table 47: Operating Revenues and Expenses Open-Air Stadium (000s) ................................. 81
Table 48: Operating Assumptions Open-Air Stadium ................................................................ 81
Table 49: Events and Attendance Retractable Roof Stadium.................................................... 87
Table 50: Operating Revenues and Expenses Retractable Roof Stadium (000s) .................... 88
Table 51: Site Capacity Summary ................................................................................................. 91
Table 52: ICSC Shopping Center Categories ............................................................................... 94

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 3

Table 53: General Performance Comparison of Regional Mall versus Destination Development
................................................................................................................................................ 96
Table 54: Retail Markets Comparison (1Q 2013)........................................................................ 102
Table 55: Submarket Composition .............................................................................................. 105
Table 56: Select Market Area Properties .................................................................................... 105
Table 57: Select Hotels in the Market Area Performance Indicators (2008 2012) .................. 108
Table 58: Office Markets Comparison (1Q 2013) ....................................................................... 117
Table 59: Selected Case Studies Ancillary Development by Use............................................... 126
Table 60: Summary On-Site Retail Inputs and Assumptions ...................................................... 129
Table 61: Summary Off-Site RDE Inputs and Assumptions ....................................................... 130
Table 62: Low RDE Demand Estimate (Stable Year of Operations) .......................................... 131
Table 63: Mid RDE Demand Estimate (Stable Year of Operations) ........................................... 132
Table 64: High RDE Demand Estimate (Stable Year of Operations) ......................................... 133
Table 65: Hotel Demand Estimate (2012 2022) ....................................................................... 135
Table 66: Residential Housing Demand Estimate (2012 2022) ............................................... 137
Table 67: Office Demand Estimate (2012 2022) ...................................................................... 139
Table 68: Summary Ancillary Development Estimates by Scenario ........................................... 140
Table 69: Construction Cost Model Inputs Ancillary Development .......................................... 142
Table 70: Operating Assumption Model Inputs Jobs ............................................................... 143
Table 71: One-time Ancillary Construction Economic Impact ..................................................... 143
Table 72: One-Time Stadium Construction Economic Impact .................................................... 144
Table 73: Annual Ancillary Development Economic Impact ....................................................... 144
Table 74: Stadium Development Sales Tax Estimate (Construction) ......................................... 145
Table 75: Ancillary Development Sales Tax Estimate (Construction) ........................................ 146
Table 76: Ancillary Development Sales Tax Estimate (Operations) ........................................... 147
Table 77: Ancillary Development Hotel Tax Estimate ................................................................. 147
Table 78: Parking Tax Assumptions ............................................................................................ 148
Table 79: Ancillary Development Parking Tax Estimate ............................................................. 148
Table 80: Ancillary Development Property Tax Estimate ............................................................ 149
Table 81: One-Time Construction Fiscal Revenue Impact Summary (Millions) ......................... 150
Table 82: Ancillary Developments Operations Fiscal Revenue Impact Summary (Millions) ..... 150
Table 83: Costs and Funding of New and Renovated NFL Stadiums ........................................ 155
Table 84: Public Funding Sources in Other NFL Stadiums ........................................................ 157
Table 86: Summary of Potential Tax Sources/Amounts and Supportable Debt (000s) ............. 174
Table 87: Taxes Captured by Implementation Method (000s) .................................................... 175
Table 88: Debt Supported by Implementation Method (000s) .................................................... 175

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 4

Figure 1: RMA Map........................................................................................................................ 16

Figure 2: Age Distribution, 2011 .................................................................................................... 18
Figure 4: Household Distribution by Household Income, 2011 ..................................................... 22
Figure 6: Map of Fortune 500 Companies in the Bay Area ........................................................... 26
Figure 7: Raiders Wins, Average Attendance, and Stadium Capacity ......................................... 41
Figure 8: Stadium Seating Map ..................................................................................................... 42
Figure 9: Raiders Financial Metrics, 2003-2013 ........................................................................... 63
Figure 10: Average Annual Percentage Change in Franchise Value from New Stadium ............ 64
Figure 11: Site Location and Regional Context............................................................................. 92
Figure 12: Competitive Regional Shopping Centers ..................................................................... 98
Figure 13: Oakland Office Market and Submarkets Map ............................................................ 100
Figure 14: Total Retail and Vacancy Trends in Oakland Airport Submarket ........................... 101
Figure 15: Taxable Retail Transactions Per Capita (2011 dollars) ............................................. 103
Figure 16: Oakland Hotel Market and Submarkets Map ............................................................. 104
Figure 17: Select Market Map ..................................................................................................... 106
Figure 18: Composition of Hotel Rooms in OAK Airport Market ................................................. 107
Figure 19: Occupancy Comparison (2008 2012) ..................................................................... 108
Figure 20: Average Daily Rate (ADR) Comparison (2008 2012) ............................................. 109
Figure 21: RevPAR Comparison (2008 2012) ......................................................................... 110
Figure 22: Oakland Residential Building Permits (2002 2012) ................................................ 111
Figure 23: Home Sales Comparison (2010 2012).................................................................... 112
Figure 24: Median Single-Family Homes Sale Price (2010 2012) ........................................... 112
Figure 25: Oakland-East Bay Market and Submarkets Map....................................................... 113
Figure 26: For-Rent Residential Vacancy (2008 2012) ............................................................ 114
Figure 27: Average For-Rent Asking Prices (2013) .................................................................... 114
Figure 28: Oakland Office Supply Map ....................................................................................... 115
Figure 29: Total Office Rent and Vacancy Trends in Oakland Airport Submarket .................. 116
Figure 30: Rentable Building Area Delivered (Square Feet)....................................................... 117
Figure 31: Costs and Share of Funding for NFL Stadium Construction ..................................... 156

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 5

General & Limiting Conditions

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the data contained in this report are accurate
as of the date of this study; however, factors exist that are outside the control of AECOM and that
may affect the estimates and/or projections noted herein. This study is based on estimates,
assumptions and other information developed by AECOM from its independent research effort,
general knowledge of the industry, and information provided by and consultations with the client and
the client's representatives. No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in reporting by the client,
the client's agent and representatives, or any other data source used in preparing or presenting this
study.
This report is based on information that was current as of November 2013 and AECOM has not
undertaken any update of its research effort since such date.
Because future events and circumstances, many of which are not known as of the date of this study,
may affect the estimates contained therein, no warranty or representation is made by AECOM that
any of the projected values or results contained in this study will actually be achieved.
Possession of this study does not carry with it the right of publication thereof or to use the name of
"AECOM" in any manner without first obtaining the prior written consent of AECOM. No abstracting,
excerpting or summarization of this study may be made without first obtaining the prior written
consent of AECOM. Further, AECOM has served solely in the capacity of consultant and has not
rendered any expert opinions. This report is not to be used in conjunction with any public or private
offering of securities, debt, equity, or other similar purpose where it may be relied upon to any degree
by any person other than the client, nor is any third party entitled to rely upon this report, without first
obtaining the prior written consent of AECOM. Any changes made to this study, or any use of the
study not specifically prescribed under agreement between the parties or otherwise expressly
approved by AECOM, shall be at the sole risk of the party making such changes or adopting such
use.
This study is qualified in its entirety by, and should be considered in light of, these limitations,
conditions and considerations.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 6

I. Introduction and Executive Summary

Introduction
AECOM Economics and Front Row Marketing Services were engaged by the Oakland Alameda
County Coliseum Authority to complete this study that addresses the market and financial feasibility
of a new NFL stadium and other real estate development on Authority-owned land in Oakland. Based
on these analyses, we provide conclusions and recommendations regarding development
opportunities for both the stadium and other land uses, and their implications. This document
summarizes the results of our research and analysis.
AECOM Economics is a real estate and land-use planning and consulting group with extensive
experience in the planning of sports, entertainment, convention, and other public-assembly facilities,
as well as commercial, office, residential, mixed-use, and other types of developments.
Front Row Marketing Services is a subsidiary of the sports and entertainment company ComcastSpectacor and analyzes, values, and markets multimedia rights, naming rights, premium seating,
sponsorships and advertising, and other properties and assets.

Executive Summary
Local Market Conditions

The market for the Raiders and other stadium events can extend well beyond Alameda, San
Francisco, and Contra Costa counties, and into Solano and San Joaquin counties as well as
Santa Clara County.

Generally, this broader market surrounding Oakland and Alameda County is one of the
largest and wealthiest economies in the country. The demographics of the City of Oakland
(such as population, income, and unemployment) generally underperform those of the
surrounding areas.

The local corporate base is largely centered to the south of Oakland and at the base of the
San Francisco Bay, in the Palo Alto-San Jose area. While 33 Fortune 500 companies are
headquartered in the Bay Area, only five are in Alameda County.

Compared to other NFL markets, Oakland as a city is relatively small and has a smaller
corporate base. As the size of the market considered expands (to include the entire metro
area), comparisons become more favorable to other NFL teams metro areas due to the
strong demographics of the overall Bay Area. However, the size of the Raiders market
effectively shrinks significantly when considering that it is shared with the San Francisco
49ers; only two other metro areas (New York and Washington DC) have two NFL teams.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 7

In addition to sharing the broader Bay Area market with the 49ers, there is also a great deal
of competition in general for discretionary spending in the market, from other professional
sports team, colleges and universities, and other forms of entertainment and recreation.

NFL and Stadium Conditions

The Raiders were originally founded in 1960 and are one of the most storied franchises in
professional football history. Aside from playing in Los Angeles from 1982 through 1994, the
Raiders have called the Bay Area home. Since returning to Oakland, the Raiders have played
at O.co Coliseum, which is owned by the Oakland Alameda County Coliseum Authority.
o

Since moving back to a renovated Coliseum in 1996, average attendance has

consistently been less than capacity. For the current 2013 season, the Coliseums
capacity has been reduced from approximately 63,000 to approximately 53,000
(which is the lowest in the league). In recent years, the Raiders total attendance and
attendance as a percent of capacity have been towards the bottom of the NFL.

Ticket prices for Raiders games are also relatively low compared to other NFL
teams.

Currently, supply of premium seating at Raiders games appears to exceed demand.

While the 5,600 club seats are sold, many luxury suites remain vacant. In addition,
the occupied premium seating has generally been sold with single-year contracts
rather than the more standard multi-year commitments.

The Raiders control very little advertising space within the Coliseum (the As retain
the rights to most advertising and its revenues).

The Raiders ability to generate revenues from food and beverage sales at their own
games is also limited, as the As also control F&B rights at the Coliseum. For
Raiders, an As affiliate pays a commission to the Coliseum, which then shares these
revenues with the team.

The Coliseum is the only remaining stadium in the US that still hosts both NFL and Major
League Baseball teams. When the Raiders returned to Oakland, the stadium underwent a
$120-million renovation to better accommodate the team, although (as described above) the
As had already controlled many revenue streams.
o

Aside from the Raiders and As, the Coliseum typically hosts a limited number of
other events per year, such as concerts, Monster Truck and Supercross, and other
sporting events.

Generally, due to the Coliseums age, it does not compare favorably to other NFL
stadiums and has a number of physical deficiencies. When Santa Claras Levis

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 8

Stadium opens next year, the Coliseum will be the NFLs oldest (not considering
three older stadiums that have been completely renovated).
o

However, the Coliseum site is particularly well-located within the Bay Area,
particularly in terms of access to public transit and Interstate 880.

New Stadium Demand and Operations

Working in conjunction with other project consultants and the Raiders, we have provided
recommendations regarding a new football-only stadium and forecasts of its future operations at the
Coliseum site.

We assume a new stadium with approximately 50,000 seats, including 75 luxury suites, 4,700
club seats, and 200 loge box seats.

In addition, we recommend that a new stadium be open-air, without a retractable roof. It

appears as though the usage of a roofed stadium in Oakland would be only marginally
greater than that of an open-air stadium, and the incremental cost would be significant. In
addition, its operating expenses would be greater and would more than offset any
incremental revenues.

The forecasted annual usage of a new, open-air stadium is summarized below.

Table 1: Forecasted Annual Stadium Usage Open-Air Stadium
# of
Events

Avg.
Atten.

Total
Atten.

Raiders - Preseason
Raiders - Regular Season
Concerts & Other Stadium Events (Major)
Concerts & Other Stadium Events (Minor)
Meetings and Conferences/Social Events
Conventions and Trade/Consumer Shows
Parking Lot/Other Events

2
8
5
3
10
2
3

40,000
50,000
40,000
7,500
100
3,000
1,500

80,000
400,000
200,000
22,500
1,000
6,000
4,500

Total

33

714,000

Source: AECOM

Based on a number of assumptions regarding use of the stadium, attendee characteristics,

and others, we forecast a net operating income of approximately $49 million in the stadiums
first year, on $68 million in revenues and approximately $20 million in expenses. This does
not consider any sharing of revenues or expenses between the team and any public-sector
body.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 9

Ancillary Development
We have also addressed the market for other real estate development on the broader site that
includes approximately 150 acres surrounding the Coliseum. In addition, we have considered
development potential under multiple scenarios, depending on how many teams remain on-site. As
the number of teams increases, the additional visitation to the site would help to support greater
levels of development. However, for uses such as residential and office, site visitation is less
important than broader market metrics, although it would help to provide critical mass and
placemaking.
Potential land uses considered include retail/dining/entertainment (RDE) and hotel, as well as
residential and office development, based on a preliminary review of the types of supporting
development that typically surround sports facilities and the anticipated uses that could have broader
market support in the Oakland area.

Retail: In general, the Oakland market and Coliseum site are within a very competitive retail
environment that is characterized by strong competition, relatively low nearby purchasing
power, and low lease rates.

Hotel: Through the beginning of 2013, the hotel market has improved to the point that new
hotel development becomes more attractive. Occupancy rates and room rates have been
increasing, although the performance of the hotel market in the Coliseums area has lagged
that of the broader market.

Residential: Similar to other uses, the Coliseum site is relatively challenged in regards to
residential development. Historical low demand and purchase prices/rental rates have not
characterized the Coliseum area as a highly sought-after location for residential development.
Any new residential development would generally have to create demand for a newer, higherquality product than the market would currently be expected to support.

Office: As with other uses, the submarket surrounding the Coliseum is relatively challenged
for potential new office development. Compared to other areas, vacancies are high, lease
rates are low, and there is currently no anticipated need for new development, unless other
on-site development helps to rebrand the area.

We believe that RDE and hotel development present the highest potential for near-term
demand, and that the current lack of RDE uses on-site is a missed opportunity. For other
uses in particular, the sites main challenge will be to create a destination that is viewed as
high-quality and can justify price premiums over current market rates. Creating this dynamic
is not unprecedented.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 10

The following table summarizes the estimated supportable development by type and
scenario.
Table 2: Summary of Supportable Ancillary Development
RDE (SF) General Retail (SF)

Hotel (Rooms)

Residential (Units)

Office (SF)

Base (Low)

45,000

4,000

170

550

52,000

Two Team (Mid)

61,000

7,000

200

1,050

79,000

Three Team (High)

90,000

10,000

230

1,500

106,000

We have also estimated the potential economic and fiscal impacts to Alameda County from
construction and operation of the ancillary real estate developments.
Economic impacts from construction of the ancillary real estate:
o

Jobs: depending on the scenario, employment impacts can range from

approximately 3,200 to 7,710.

Income: labor income can range from approximately $214 million to $520 million.

Total Output: can range from approximately $470 million to $1.2 billion.

Economic impacts from construction of the stadium:

o

Jobs: approximately 11,500.

Income: approximately $805 million.

Total Output: approximately $1.6 billion.

Economic impacts from operations of the ancillary real estate:

o

Jobs: depending on the scenario, employment impacts can range from

approximately 660 to 1,300.

Income: labor income can range from approximately $36 million to $70 million.

Total Output: can range from approximately $87 million to $167 million.

Fiscal impacts (city sales tax) from construction of the stadium and ancillary real estate can
range from $5.5 million to $7 million.
Fiscal impacts (to the city and county) from operations of the ancillary real estate can range
from $2.5 million to $5 million.

Stadium Financing Analysis

Construction costs for NFL stadiums have increased significantly in the last 50 years, to over
$1 billion. However, despite increased costs, the availability of new facility revenues has led
to greater private (team) investment in facility development. While stadiums were originally

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 11

built almost exclusively with public money, the four newest and planned NFL stadiums will be
built with 75 percent private dollars.

Contributions to stadium development by the public sector can include a wide range of tax
revenues, and/or other assets such as land, infrastructure, and its share of stadium revenues.
We have identified a number of existing and possible city and county tax streams that could
potentially be contributed towards new stadium development (with voter approval or City
Council or Board of Supervisors action). These taxes, the potential amount generated, and
the amount of stadium debt that they could potentially support, are summarized below.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 12

Table 3: Taxes Captured by Implementation Method (000s)

Method of Implementation
Tax Type

Geography and Facility

Ticket Tax/Fee

On-Site; Stadium

Parking Tax

On-Site; Stadium
On-Site; Other RE

Sales Tax

On-Site; All Development**

Citywide
On-Site; Stadium
On-Site; Other RE

Property Tax

On-Site; Other RE

TOT

Citywide
On-Site; Other RE

TOTAL

2/3 Majority Vote

City Council
Decision

Board of
Supervisors
Decision

Total

Other
$4,328

$4,328

$293
$119 - $203*

$293
$119 - $203*

$5,500 - $7,000*

$5,500 - $7,000*
$8,184
$108
$240 - $481*

$8,184
$108
$240 - $481*
$841 - $2,078*

$480 - $1,188*

$1,321 - $3,266*

$1,239

$1,239
$820 - $1,100*

$820 - $1,100*
$9,423

$7,921 - $11,263*

$480 - $1,188*

$4,328

$22,152 - $26,202*

*Range is dependent on development scenario.

**From construction only; not an annually recurring source.
Source: AECOM

Table 4: Debt Supported by Implementation Method (000s)

Method of Implementation
Tax Type

Geography and Facility

Ticket Tax/Fee

On-Site; Stadium

Parking Tax

On-Site; Stadium
On-Site; Other RE

Sales Tax

On-Site; All Development**

Citywide
On-Site; Stadium
On-Site; Other RE

Property Tax

On-Site; Other RE

TOT

Citywide
On-Site; Other RE

TOTAL

2/3 Majority Vote

City Council
Decision

Board of
Supervisors
Decision

Total

Other
$31,500

$2,125
$860 - $1,475*

$2,125
$860 - $1,475*

n/a

n/a
$59,500
$785
$1,750 - $3,500*

$59,500
$785
$1,750 - $3,500*
$6,100 - $15,000* $3,500 - $8,600*

$9,600 - $23,600*

$9,000

$9,000
$6,000 - $8,000*

$6,000 - $8,000*
$68,500

$31,500

$17,620 - $30,885* $3,500 - $8,600*

$31,500

$121,120 - $139,485*

*Range is dependent on development scenario.

**From construction only; not an annually recurring source.
Source: AECOM

Approximately $22 million to $26 million could be generated from these tax sources
beginning in 2018, including $5.5 million to $7.0 million that would be a one-time source of
sales tax revenue from construction. Based on assumed borrowing terms, these sources
could support approximately $120 million to $140 million in project debt.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 13

Assuming private operation of the stadium, its operations are estimated to generate
approximately $49 million in net income in 2018. Based on assumptions regarding taxable
borrowing that would be supported by stadium operations, this level of revenue could support
approximately $300 million in debt. In addition, new stadium development could provide the
Raiders with the opportunity to implement a Personal Seat License program and to
participate in the NFLs G4 program, which would provide additional sources of funding.

As a result, the identified tax and operating revenues are estimated to support approximately
$420 million to $440 million of development. Assuming a total stadium development cost of
approximately $1.1 billion, a significant funding gap would remain. However, other potential
sources of public and private revenues that could potentially be contributed to the project,
such as from other tax sources and lease revenue from ancillary development, as well as a
team-directed PSL program and the NFLs G4 program, have not been quantified.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 14

II. Local Market Conditions

In this section, we provide an overview of the local and regional market that would impact a new
stadium and from which it would draw. We also compare these local markets (at the city, county, and
metro area) to those of other current NFL teams.

Local Economic and Demographic Analysis

This section presents an analysis of economic, socioeconomic, and demographic factors and trends
relevant to the Oakland Coliseum market area. The analysis considers several geographic scales
including the City of Oakland, Alameda County, the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA), and the United States as a whole, for comparison. Oakland is a major port
city, located approximately six miles east of San Francisco and within Alameda County.
In general, many of the uses of a new NFL stadium will be supported by residents in Alameda and
Contra Costa Counties. Some uses, such as high-profile concerts and other events, will draw from a
larger area. For this reason and for the purposes of this report, the Regional Market Area (RMA) is
defined as the combined areas of Alameda, Contra Costa, Solano, and San Joaquin counties.
The purpose of local economic and demographic analysis is to identify characteristics of the market
area that may affect its capacity to support tenants and facility uses examined in this study.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 15

Figure 1: RMA Map

Source: ESRI Business Analyst; AECOM, 2013

Demographic Trends
Population
Error! Reference source not found. shows population of Oakland to have marginally decreased
between 2000 and 2010, unlike Alameda County, the RMA, and the MSA. Note that Oakland and the
region were in a significant economic boom period with record low unemployment rates and low
vacancy rates. After 2000, the regional economy cooled considerably, which led to outflows of
temporary workers who searched for employment elsewhere. In 1990, Oaklands population was
approximately 370,000 people compared to approximately 400,000 residents in 2012.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects population, housing, and employment
data for several counties (and cities within) specifically for the Bay Area, including three of the four
counties within the RMA: Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano Counties. The projected 2020
population for Oakland is 438,000, making up approximately 26 percent of the population of Alameda
County and representing an 11 percent growth over nine years. Oakland is expected to grow at a

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 16

compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 1.1 percent from 2011 to 2020, which is below the growth
rate for Alameda County, but above national annual growth rates.
Finally, the US Census projects population for states and the United States. The US is projected to
increase in population 6.7 percent over the same period from 312 million in 2011 to 334 million in
2020 at a growth rate of approximately 0.8 percent per year. Overall, the City and the surrounding
region will continue to grow at a pace faster than the US.
Table 5: Population Estimates and Projections (2000, 2010, 2011, 2020)
2000

2010

2011

2020

399,524

390,724

395,811

437,887

CAGR
2010-2020
1.13%

Alameda County

1,443,741

1,510,271

1,529,875

1,667,884

0.96%

RMA

3,350,697

3,657,946

3,708,656

San Francisco-OaklandFremont, CA Metro Area

4,123,740

4,335,391

4,391,037

308,745,538

309,349,689

311,591,919

333,896,000

0.77%

Area
Oakland City

USA

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 and 2010 Decennial Censuses, 2011 American Community Survey 1-Yer Estimates,
ABAG, and Department of Finance

Age
Oaklands population profile is similar to the MSA, with relatively higher numbers of working-age
population and relatively few children, young adults, and people over 65 years of age. The RMA has
more people under age 20, which is a reflection of its higher share of families with children compared
to other regions analyzed.
The figure below shows the age distribution of the population in 2011. Oakland has fewer young
residents than surrounding geographies and a much higher population share in the 25-34 age cohort.
The 25-34 age cohort generally has higher levels of discretionary spending as a percentage of total
income and spends more on entertainment than the population overall.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 17

Figure 2: Age Distribution, 2011

35.0%
30.0%

Oakland City
25.0%

Alameda County

Title

20.0%
15.0%

Regional Market
Area

10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Under 20 Age 20- Age 25- Age 35- Age 55- Age 65+
24
34
54
64

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates

Oaklands population has a median age of 36.8, which is younger than the median age of the MSA
and United States, but slightly older than the RMA. The population of Oakland holds the same
median age as Alameda County. From 2000 to 2011, Oakland has aged from a median age of 33.5 to
36.8, as shown in Error! Reference source not found..
Table 6: Median Age
Area

2000

2010

2011

Oakland City

33.5

36.6

36.8

Alameda County

34.5

36.6

36.8

RMA

34.6

36.4

36.2

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont MSA

36.2

38.3

38.5

USA

35.3

37.1

37.3

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Decennial Census; 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates

Household Composition
The average household size in Oakland mirrors MSA and national averages in 2011 (Error!
Reference source not found.). Household size has remained relatively constant in Oakland since
2000, ranging from 2.5 to 2.6 persons per household. The RMAs average household size is

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 18

considerably higher at 2.9 persons per household in 2011, which is likely a reflection of its higher
proportion of families with children compared to MSA and national percentages.
Table 7: Average Household Size
Area

2000

2010

2011

Oakland City

2.5

2.6

2.5

Alameda County

2.7

2.8

2.7

RMA

2.8

2.9

2.9

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metro Area

2.5

2.7

2.6

USA

2.5

2.6

2.6

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 and 2010 Decennial Census; 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates

In Oakland, just over half of all households are family households. Only 14 percent of Oakland
households are family households with children, significantly lower than other areas analyzed. The
RMA has a higher share family households and families with children (23 percent of households) than
the United States. Family households as a share of total households has been trending downward for
over 30 years and is projected to continue to represent a smaller share of all households.
Table 8: Family Households and Families with Children, 2011
Oakland
City
Total Households
Family Households
% Family Households
% of Households with
Children under 18

Alameda
County

RMA

SF-OaklandFremont MSA

USA

157,374

545,559

1,275,626

1,622,840

114,991,725

81,535

350,206

872,158

997,345

76,089,045

52%

64%

68%

61%

66%

14%

22%

23%

21%

20%

Source: 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates

As of 2010, the number of households in Oakland was about 158,000. ABAG projects that the
average annual growth rate will be 1.25% over the 2010-2020 time period, which places Oaklands
2020 population at about 179,000, a 21,000 household growth over 10 years. The city is projected to
grow at a slower rate than the County, which is projected to grow at an average annual rate of only
1.00%.
Table 9: Households Projection, 2010-2020
Area
Oakland City
Alameda County

2010

2011

2020

CAGR

157,840
557,270

157,374
545,559

178,730
615,470

1.25%
1.00%

Source: ABAG 2009 Projections

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 19

Household Income Trends

Household Income
The estimated median household income in Oakland in 2011 was essentially equal to the U.S.
median household income at $50,500. Alameda County, the RMA, and MSA all have higher median
household incomes than the U.S. median, with the MSA exceeding $70,000.
From 2010 to 2011, nominal income grew by approximately 2.6 percent which was slightly below the
rate of inflation during the same year of 3.2 percent. While Oaklands median household income grew
below overall inflation, it outpaced Alameda County, RMA, MSA, and U.S. income growth which all
experienced slower growth or actual declines from 2010 to 2011. Considering the recent decline in
unemployment rates as well as the rapid escalation in rental rates in the Bay Area, it is likely that
median household incomes have increased. This data is not yet available from the American
Community Survey.
Table 10: Median Household Income, 2011 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars
Area

2000

2010

2011

Oakland City
Alameda County

$52,329

$50,744

$50,500

$73,311

$69,291

$67,558

RMA
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont MSA

$72,344
$79,888

$65,579
$75,334

$63,799
$71,975

USA

$55,079

$51,627

$50,502

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Decennial Census; 2010 and 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates

While Oaklands median household income is equal to national levels, average per capita income is
actually higher estimated at approximately $32,000 per person in 2011 compared to $27,000 per
person nationwide. This is a product of smaller, non-family households in Oakland compared to
nationwide averages. Mean, or average, household income for Oakland, Alameda County, and the
MSA are all substantially higher than nationwide averages with the MSA averaging approximately
$103,000 per year compared to $70,000 nationwide. The figure below compares various income
metrics across Oakland, Alameda County, the MSA, and the U.S.

Some income characteristics cannot be calculated for the Regional Market Area. The median household
income is between $50,000 and $75,000, and without detailed demographic data and assumptions, it is not
feasible to ascertain the true median income.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 20

Figure 3: Household Income Characteristics (2011)

Source: 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates

Table 11 shows the distribution of household income distribution throughout each study area, while
Figure 4: Household Distribution by Household Income, 2011 visually represents these shares.
Oakland contains a higher proportion of households with incomes below $50,000 per year than
Alameda County, the RMA, and the MSA. Still, the City is reflective of national averages (49.5%).
Oakland, Alameda County, the RMA, and the MSA all have a higher proportion of households with
incomes over $150,000 per year than national averages. Approximately 12 percent of Oakland
households have incomes over $150,000 compared to nine percent nationwide. The MSA is the most
affluent with approximately 20 percent of households with incomes over $150,000.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 21

Table 11: Distribution of Households by Household Income Detail, 2011

RMA

SF Oakland Fremont
MSA

USA

37.5%

38.9%

35.6%

49.5%

15.6%

16.9%

17.1%

15.8%

18.0%

$75,000 - $99,999

10.3%

11.7%

11.8%

11.4%

11.7%

$100,000 - $149,999

12.5%

16.6%

16.4%

17.1%

12.1%

$150,0000-$199,999

5.7%

8.2%

7.8%

8.6%

4.4%

$200,000 or more

6.4%

9.1%

8.0%

11.4%

4.3%

Income Category

Oakland
City

Alameda
County

Less than $50,000

49.6%

$50,000 - $74,999

Source: 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates

Figure 4: Household Distribution by Household Income, 2011

Distribution of Households by Income

Category

60.0%
Oakland City

50.0%

Alameda
County
Regional
Market Area
SF - Oakland Fremont MSA
USA

40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Less than $50,000
$50,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,0000 or more

Source: 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates

Accordingly to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, in 2011 the San Francisco and San Jose MSAs
ranked third and fourth in the nation in per capita personal income, respectively, ahead of Washington
D.C.s MSA. Bridgeport, Connecticut and Midland, Texas ranked first and second in per capita
personal income but have much smaller population bases.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 22

Table 12: Per Capita Income by MSA, 2011

NFL
Metropolitan Statistical Area
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT

Per Capita MSA Rank in

Income
U.S.
$
78,504
1

Midland, TX

65,173

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA

61,395

3 49ers + Raiders

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA

61,028

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV

59,345

Naples-Marco Island, FL

59,264

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH

57,893

Patriots

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA

56,770

Giants + Jets

Barnstable Town, MA

55,465

Trenton-Ewing, NJ

54,445

10

Baltimore-Towson, MD

51,126

15

Ravens

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA

50,944

17

Seahawks

Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO

48,980

19

Broncos

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD

48,723

22

Eagles

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI

48,657

24

Vikings

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX

47,612

27

Texans
Chargers

NFL Teams

Redskins

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA

46,800

30

Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI

45,977

33

Bears

Pittsburgh, PA

44,982

40

Steelers

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA

44,423

46

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX

43,708

52

New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA

43,603

54

Saints

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL

43,072

62

Dolphins

Kansas City, MO-KS

43,062

63

Chiefs

Cowboys

Source: Buerau of Economic Analysis, Per Capita Income by Metropolitan Area, Advance 2011, February 2013, AECOM, 2013.

Employment
Oakland accounts for approximately 30 percent of Alameda County employment with approximately
194,000 jobs. Health care and social assistance, education, and public administration represent the
largest sectors in Oakland for more than 35 percent of total citywide employment. Table 13
summarizes 2010 employment. In all subareas analyzed, professional, scientific, and technical
services exceeded the national average with 11 percent of San Francisco MSA represented within
the professional services sector. Under represented in the region compared to national averages,
include retail services and transportation and warehousing. Notably, retail employment in Oakland
accounted for 5.6 percent of total employment compared to a national average of 11.3 percent. This
is likely an unfortunate outcome of the large estimated retail leakage in Oakland.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 23

Table 13: 2010 Employment by Major Industry

Oakland
City

Alameda
County

RMA

SF-OakFre MSA

United
States

194,144

650,526

1,297,327

1,953,826

123,344,995

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting

0.2%

0.1%

1.2%

0.2%

0.9%

Mining, Quarrying, and Oil/Gas Extraction

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

0.1%

0.5%

Utilities

1.3%

0.7%

0.7%

1.0%

0.7%

Construction

3.3%

4.6%

4.9%

4.1%

4.3%

Manufacturing

3.8%

10.2%

8.8%

6.2%

9.3%

Wholesale Trade

3.3%

6.0%

4.8%

3.9%

4.4%

Retail Trade

5.6%

9.4%

10.7%

9.6%

11.3%

Transportation and Warehousing

8.5%

4.2%

3.9%

3.8%

3.4%

Information

1.6%

2.5%

2.2%

3.1%

2.3%

Finance and Insurance

2.2%

2.3%

3.4%

4.9%

4.4%

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing

1.3%

1.5%

1.5%

1.8%

1.6%

Professional, Scientific, and Technical Svc

6.3%

9.9%

7.4%

11.0%

6.0%

Mgt of Companies and Enterprises

2.2%

2.3%

1.9%

2.2%

1.6%

Admin & Support, Waste Mgt

5.2%

5.0%

5.2%

5.5%

5.7%

Educational Services

14.6%

9.7%

10.0%

9.1%

10.2%

Health Care and Social Assistance

15.4%

13.0%

13.7%

12.0%

14.3%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation

2.4%

1.9%

1.8%

2.1%

1.7%

Accommodation and Food Services

5.7%

6.9%

7.3%

8.9%

8.7%

Other Services (excluding Public Admin)

8.0%

5.7%

5.4%

6.1%

3.5%

Public Administration

8.9%

3.9%

5.0%

4.6%

5.4%

Industry
Total All Jobs

Source: LEHD OnTheMap 2010 Data

Unemployment
Unemployment in Oakland has been consistently higher than County, PMA, MSA, or United States.
All areas experienced recovery from the high unemployment driven by the 2008 recession with
Oakland decreasing from a high of 17.5 percent in August 2012 to 12.2 percent by February 2013.
The San Francisco MSA reached national unemployment levels at eight percent, below statewide
unemployment rates. The following figure displays the historic unemployment rate trends from 2000
to 2012.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 24

Figure 5: Unemployment Rate

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Employment Projections
Oakland and Alameda Countys employment are predicted to outpace growth in population from 2010
to 2020. While ABAG predicts the annual growth rate of population will be approximately 1.1 percent
for Oakland, that growth rate is 2.0 percent in terms of employment. Similarly, Alameda Countys
population growth rate is predicted to be approximately 1.0 percent, but employment is predicted to
grow 1.5 percent annually (Table 14). This trend leads to optimistic future predictions in terms of
lower unemployment rates for Oaklands future.
Table 14: Employment Projection, Oakland and Alameda County

Oakland
Alameda County

2010
188,590
712,850

2020
229,720
825,070

CAGR,
2010-2020
1.99%
1.47%

Source: ABAG

Business Trends
Fortune 500 Companies
Fortune 500 companies are critical towards local sports sponsorships and advertising revenue.
California attracts many large firms in terms of both revenue and employment, including 53 of the
Fortune 500 companies. Five of these companies are have their headquarters in Alameda County,
while 33 are in the larger Bay Area, as evident below.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 25

Figure 6: Map of Fortune 500 Companies in the Bay Area

Notably, Chevron in San Ramon is ranked third in revenue among publicly traded companies in the
U.S. with estimated 2012 revenues of $245 billion. Other Fortune 500 companies in Alameda County
are Safeway, Synnex, Ross Stores, and Clorox, highlighted in Table 15.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 26

Table 15: Fortune 500 companies in the Bay Area

Company
Chevron
Hewlett-Packard
McKesson
Apple
Wells Fargo
Intel
Safeway
Cisco Systems
Google
Oracle
PG&E Corp.
Gap
Edison International
eBay
Applied Materials
Synnex
URS
Visa
Ross Stores
Gilead Sciences
Franklin Resources
Agilent Technologies
Sanmina-SCI
Advanced Micro Devices
Symantec
Core-Mark Holding
SanDisk
Clorox
NetApp
Yahoo
Charles Schwab

State
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
12
17
18
19
21
22
23
26
28
29
30
36
38
39
40
42
43
46
49
50
51
52

Fortune 500
rank
3
10
14
17
26
51
63
64
73
82
179
185
211
228
251
253
275
281
299
306
353
375
376
378
391
393
430
456
474
483
485

City
San Ramon
Palo Alto
San Francisco
Cupertino
San Francisco
Santa Clara
Pleasanton
San Jose
Mountain View
Redwood City
San Francisco
San Francisco
Rosemead
San Jose
Santa Clara
Fremont
San Francisco
San Francisco
Pleasanton
Foster City
San Mateo
Santa Clara
San Jose
Sunnyvale
Mountain View
South San Francisco
Milpitas
Oakland
Sunnyvale
Sunnyvale
San Francisco

Revenues
($ millions)
245,621
127,245
112,084
108,249
87,597
53,999
43,630
43,218
37,905
35,622
14,956
14,549
12,760
11,652
10,517
10,410
9,545
9,188
8,608
8,385
7,140
6,615
6,602
6,568
6,190
6,163
5,662
5,326
5,123
4,984
4,884

Top Employers in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties

University of California, Berkeley represents the largest employer in Alameda County, employing over
13,000 persons followed by Lawrence Livermore National Lab and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab.
The largest employer in the City of Oakland is World Savings and Loan Association, followed by the
City of Oakland. In Contra Costa County, AT&T is the largest employer, employing 8,570 persons.
Table 16 displays the top employers in Alameda County, while Table 17 shows top employers in
Contra Costa County.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 27

Table 16: Largest Employers in Alameda County by Employment, 2010

Company

Industry

Employment

University of California, Berkeley

Lawrence Livermore National Lab
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
World Savings & Loan Assn.
City of Oakland
Cooper Co's Inc.
Fremont Unified School Dist.
Internal Revenue Service
Fabco Automotive Corp.
International Paper Co.

Educational and Health Services

Professional and Business Services
Professional and Business Services
Financial Activities
Government
Manufacturing
Educational and Health Services
Government
Manufacturing
Manufacturing

13,567
7,000
5,000
4,389
4,073
4,000
2,563
2,500
2,500
2,482

City
Berkeley
Livermore
Berkeley
Oakland
Oakland
Pleasanton
Fremont
Oakland
Livermore
San Leandro

Source: East Bay Development Association, Harris InfoSource 2010

Table 17: Largest Employers in Contra Costa County by Employment, 2010

Company
AT&T Corp
Summerville Management LLC
Pacpizza LLC
AT&T Services Inc
John Muir Health
Safeway Inc
West Contra Costa Unified Sch
Convenience Retailers LLC
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals
Diablo Valley College Fndtn

Industry
Telecommunications Resellers
Nursing Care Facilities
Limited-Service Restaurants
Telecommunications Resellers
General Medical & Surgical Hospitals
Supermarkets & Other Grocery Stores
Elementary & Secondary Schools
Convenience Stores
General Medical & Surgical Hospitals
All Other Support Services

Employment
8,570
4,000
3,620
3,500
3,100
2,529
2,452
2,000
2,000
2,000

City
San Ramon
San Ramon
San Ramon
Walnut Creek
Concord
Walnut Creek
Richmond
San Ramon
Walnut Creek
Pleasant Hill

Source: East Bay Development Association, Harris InfoSource 2010

Gross Domestic Product

Oakland is part of the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont MSA, which is the eighth largest in the nation
in gross domestic product (GDP). The annual growth rate in GDP in the MSA was approximately 1.3
percent per year from 2008 to 2011. Overall GDP growth for U.S. Metropolitan Areas average 1.8
percent per year. If one divided the football market by two to account for both teams, the MSA would
rank as roughly the same size as the San Diego MSA.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 28

Table 18: GDP by MSA and NFL Team Affiliation

Metropolitan Statistical Area
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJLos Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA
Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA
Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO
Baltimore-Towson, MD
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA
St. Louis, MO-IL
Pittsburgh, PA
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL
Kansas City, MO-KS
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH
Indianapolis-Carmel, IN
Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN
Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA
Jacksonville, FL
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY
Green Bay, WI

2011 GDP
(Millions)
$ 1,277,200
$ 747,300
$ 547,600
$ 433,100
$ 419,700
$ 391,400
$ 353,300
$ 347,100
$ 325,600
$ 283,300
$ 263,400
$ 239,700
$ 207,800
$ 199,400
$ 194,800
$ 176,700
$ 172,600
$ 162,000
$ 148,300
$ 143,700
$ 132,000
$ 117,800
$ 117,800
$ 116,200
$ 108,100
$ 106,800
$ 103,800
$ 102,500
$ 85,800
$ 80,200
$ 60,700
$ 45,900
$ 15,500

2011
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
37
41
47
56
132

2008-2011
CAGR
NFL Teams
1.7% Giants + Jets
-0.1%
1.7%
Bears
2.9%
Redskins
2.0%
Texans
1.9%
Cowboys
1.7%
Eagles
1.3% 49ers + Raiders
3.0%
Patriots
1.2%
Falcons
0.1%
Dolphins
1.8%
Seahawks
2.4%
Vikings
1.0%
Lions
-0.3%
Cardinals
5.7%
1.0%
Chargers
1.6%
Broncos
2.7%
Ravens
5.1%
0.7%
Rams
2.4%
Steelers
1.9%
Panthers
1.1%
Bucaneers
1.3%
Chiefs
0.9%
Browns
1.8%
Colts
1.6%
Bengals
3.0%
Titans
4.9%
Saints
1.0%
Jaguars
3.1%
Bills
3.4%
Packers

Source: Buerau of Economic Analysis, GDP by Metropolitan Area, Advance 2011, February 2013, AECOM, 2013.

Importantly, this does not include the San Jose-Sunnyvale -Santa Clara MSA, which is clearly part of
the Bay Area metropolitan area. When adding the San Jose MSA to the MSA, the combined area
ranks fourth in the nation at approximately $524 billion in its contribution to domestic product, slightly
below Chicagos GDP. Also, its combined growth rate from 2008 to 2011 would be approximately 2.7
percent per year, which would be the highest growth rate among the top four MSAs. Dividing by two
to account for two NFL franchises, the Bay Area would still rank 12th in GDP at $262 billion, ahead of
Seattle, Minneapolis, Detroit, Phoenix, and a number of other MSAs with NFL franchises.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 29

Table 19: GDP by MSA with Combined Oakland-San Jose MSA, 2011 (Top 20)
Metropolitan Statistical Area
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA
Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI
San Jose - San Francisco - Oakland Combined MSAs

$
$
$
$

2011 GDP
(Millions)
1,277,200
747,300
547,600
523,800

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA
Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO
Baltimore-Towson, MD
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA
St. Louis, MO-IL

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

433,100
419,700
391,400
353,300
325,600
283,300
263,400
239,700
207,800
199,400
194,800
172,600
162,000
148,300
143,700
132,000

2011
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

2008-2011
CAGR
Franchises
1.7% Giants + Jets
-0.1%
1.7%
Bears
2.7% 49ers + Raiders
2.9%
2.0%
1.9%
1.7%
3.0%
1.2%
0.1%
1.8%
2.4%
1.0%
-0.3%
1.0%
1.6%
2.7%
5.1%
0.7%

Redskins
Texans
Cowboys
Eagles
Patriots
Falcons
Dolphins
Seahawks
Vikings
Lions
Cardinals
Chargers
Broncos
Ravens
Rams

Source: Buerau of Economic Analysis, GDP by Metropolitan Area, Advance 2011, February 2013, AECOM, 2013.

Note that the combined MSAs do not include Santa Rosa, Napa, Vallejo, Sacramento, or San
Joaquin County MSAs. For comparison purposes, it is difficult to compare across multiple NFL
markets due to each of their individual market reaches. Nevertheless, when comparing the combined
Oakland-San Jose GDP to other areas economies, the Oakland-San Jose combined GDP would
rank seventh in the nation in 2011, behind the state of Pennsylvania but ahead of New Jersey, Ohio,
North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, and 39 other states.

Personal Income
The combined Oakland-San Jose MSA ranks fourth in the nation in gross personal income at $383
billion in 2011. The combined Oakland-San Jose MSA ranks behind Chicagos MSA but ahead of
Washington D.C.s MSA. Divided by two, again to account for the two NFL teams in the MSA, it would
remain ahead of the Seattle MSA but behind the Atlanta MSA in personal income.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 30

Table 20: Gross Personal Income by MSA, 2011 (Top 20)

Metropolitan Statistical Area
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA
Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI
San Francisco - San Jose CMSA
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA
Baltimore-Towson, MD
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA
Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO
St. Louis, MO-IL

Personal Income
(Millions)
$
1,079,532
$
575,045
$
436,998
$
383,432
$
338,498
$
291,970
$
289,790
$
285,260
$
265,794
$
244,224
$
212,830
$
178,307
$
171,473
$
161,468
$
157,026
$
146,956
$
139,528
$
128,982
$
127,324
$
120,763

2011
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

2008-2011
CAGR
NFL Teams
1.1% Giants + Jets
0.1%
0.2%
Bears
1.1% 49ers + Raiders
2.7%
Redskins
1.3%
Eagles
1.4%
Texans
1.7%
Cowboys
1.6%
Patriots
0.2%
Dolphins
0.9%
Falcons
1.1%
Seahawks
-0.1%
Lions
1.2%
Vikings
0.1%
Cardinals
1.0%
Chargers
2.2%
Ravens
0.9%
1.6%
Broncos
0.1%
Rams

Source: Buerau of Economic Analysis, GDP by Metropolitan Area, Advance 2011, February 2013, AECOM, 2013.

Comparisons to Other NFL Markets

AECOM compared the market size and characteristics of the Oakland area to those of other NFL
teams. We examined population size, median age, per capita income and number of firms with more
than 500 employees for the city, county, metropolitan statistical area (MSA) and consolidated
statistical area (CSA) for each team. For Oakland, we use the regional metropolitan area (RMA)
rather than the MSA. The RMA includes Alameda, Contra Costa, San Joaquin and Solano counties.
We also account for markets that have more than one NFL franchise, although the presence of other
major professional sports franchises are not included in this analysis. The purpose of this analysis is
to better understand the target markets residents and potential corporate sponsors and how they
compare to other teams markets.

Population
Some of the home cities of NFL teams are quite small, most notably Green Bay, home of the
Packers, with approximately 106,000 residents. However, they are often part of much larger
metropolitan areas from which the teams draw the majority of their fans and attendees. The average
city with an NFL team has more than 990,000 residents, which is considerably more than the nearly
396,000 residents in the City of Oakland. Among the 32 NFL teams, Oakland is in the 13th largest
metro area (which we have identified as Alameda, Contra Costa, San Joaquin and Solano counties).

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 31

The adjacent metro area, home to the San Francisco 49ers, is the tenth largest. These two teams are
in the same combined statistical area, San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland. There are also two teams in
the New York metro area the New York Giants and Jets and two teams in the Washington D.C.
CSA the Baltimore Ravens and the Washington Redskins.
The following table shows the 2011 population of the teams various geographies.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 32

Table 21: Population by Market

Team
Arizona Cardinals
Atlanta Falcons
Buffalo Bills
Carolina Panthers
Chicago Bears
Cincinnati Bengals
Cleveland Browns
Dallas Cowboys
Denver Broncos
Detroit Lions
Green Bay Packers
Houston Texans
Indianapolis Colts
Jacksonville Jaguars
Kansas City Chiefs
Miami Dolphins
Minnesota Vikings
New England Patriots
New Orleans Saints
Philadelphia Eagles
Pittsburgh Steelers
San Diego Chargers
Seattle Seahawks
St. Louis Rams
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Tennessee Titans

Home Market
Phoenix, AZ
Atlanta, GA
Buffalo, NY
Charlotte, NC
Chicago, IL
Cincinnati, OH
Cleveland, OH
Dallas, TX
Denver, CO
Detroit, MI
Green Bay, WI
Houston, TX
Indianapolis, IN
Jacksonville, FL
Kansas City, MO
Miami, FL
Minneapolis, MN
Boston, MA
New Orleans, LA
Philadelphia, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
San Diego, CA
Seattle, WA
St. Louis, MO
Tampa, FL
Nashville, TN

City
1,469,471
432,427
261,025
751,087
2,707,120
296,223
393,806
1,223,229
619,968
706,585
105,809
2,145,146
827,609
827,908
463,202
408,750
387,753
625,087
360,740
1,536,471
307,484
1,326,179
620,778
318,069
346,037
609,644

County
3,868,525
1,646,995
919,627
945,251
5,214,098
800,688
1,269,983
2,408,016
619,968
1,801,789
250,547
4,173,695
911,005
871,497
**
2,565,440
1,169,361
734,756
360,740
1,538,567
1,227,442
3,138,183
1,971,602
318,069
1,269,354
635,592

MSA*
4,252,078
5,374,678
1,135,494
2,257,134
9,495,719
2,122,330
2,068,397
6,569,112
2,598,496
4,287,966
308,761
6,051,850
1,910,053
1,360,998
2,024,937
5,687,908
3,389,049
4,603,344
1,213,488
5,997,474
2,360,114
3,138,183
3,497,819
2,793,375
2,826,438
1,698,348

CSA
NA
6,004,271
1,215,360
2,415,143
9,874,615
2,181,841
3,504,035
6,962,096
3,157,253
5,309,605
354,890
6,246,570
2,290,351
1,485,368
2,361,042
6,294,787
3,726,567
7,949,899
1,438,828
7,103,927
2,662,395
NA
4,342,275
2,897,990
NA
1,816,619

Teams in the same market

Baltimore Ravens
Baltimore, MD
Washington Redskins
Washington D.C.

619,493
617,996

619,493
617,996

2,733,678
5,771,213

9,218,646

8,244,910

1,606,099

19,729,930

23,254,418

New York Giants

New York Jets

New York, NY
New York, NY

Oakland Raiders
San Francisco 49ers

Oakland, CA
San Francisco, CA

395,811
812,826

1,531,626
814,233

3,708,656
4,396,918

8,268,480

Oakland rank
Average

22
992,537

12
1,527,341

13
4,043,998

4
5,089,895

* For the Oakland Raiders, we used the Regional Market Area which includes Alameda, Contra Costa, San Joaquin
and Solano counties
** Falls into multiple counties
NA = Not applicable, NP = Not provided
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Median Age
The city of Oakland is the third oldest NFL market with residents slightly older than the average age
of residents in all NFL markets (36.8 versus 34.2 years). The team with the youngest residential base

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 33

is the New England Patriots, where the median age of Boston residents is more than three years
younger than the average among NFL markets. Teams with an older fan base tend to be located in
the former industrial belt the Pittsburgh Steelers, Buffalo Bills and Cleveland Browns. The following
table shows the median age of the various markets.
Table 22: Age by Market
Home Market
Phoenix, AZ
Atlanta, GA
Buffalo, NY
Charlotte, NC
Chicago, IL
Cincinnati, OH
Cleveland, OH
Dallas, TX
Denver, CO
Detroit, MI
Green Bay, WI
Houston, TX
Indianapolis, IN
Jacksonville, FL
Kansas City, MO
Miami, FL
Minneapolis, MN
Boston, MA
New Orleans, LA
Philadelphia, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
San Diego, CA
Seattle, WA
St. Louis, MO
Tampa, FL
Nashville, TN

City
31.8
33.0
33.5
33.4
33.0
32.9
36.2
31.5
33.7
34.4
34.3
32.2
33.8
35.2
34.9
39.1
32.0
30.8
35.2
33.5
33.9
33.5
36.1
33.9
34.8
33.7

County
34.4
34.1
40.2
33.9
35.2
37.0
39.9
32.4
33.7
36.9
36.1
32.1
33.9
35.5
**
38.0
35.9
31.6
35.2
33.5
41.2
34.6
37.0
33.9
36.0
33.9

MSA*
34.5
34.7
40.4
35.3
35.6
37.0
40.3
33.4
35.6
38.7
37.5
33.1
35.5
37.2
36.5
39.6
35.9
38.4
37.3
37.9
42.4
34.6
36.7
38.0
41.2
35.7

CSA
NA
34.8
40.4
36.4
35.7
37.0
40.1
33.7
35.4
38.3
NP
33.1
36.0
NP
36.3
NP
35.8
38.7
37.3
37.9
42.4
NA
37.2
38.0
NA
35.8

Teams in the same market

Baltimore Ravens
Baltimore, MD
Washington Redskins
Washington D.C.

34.4
34.1

34.4
34.1

37.9
36.0

36.7

Team
Arizona Cardinals
Atlanta Falcons
Buffalo Bills
Carolina Panthers
Chicago Bears
Cincinnati Bengals
Cleveland Browns
Dallas Cowboys
Denver Broncos
Detroit Lions
Green Bay Packers
Houston Texans
Indianapolis Colts
Jacksonville Jaguars
Kansas City Chiefs
Miami Dolphins
Minnesota Vikings
New England Patriots
New Orleans Saints
Philadelphia Eagles
Pittsburgh Steelers
San Diego Chargers
Seattle Seahawks
St. Louis Rams
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Tennessee Titans

New York Giants

New York Jets

New York, NY
New York, NY

35.4

36.4

37.5

37.8

Oakland Raiders
San Francisco 49ers

Oakland, CA
San Francisco, CA

36.8
38.4

36.8
38.4

36.2
38.2

37.6

Oakland rank
Average

3
34.2

9
35.5

19
37.1

9
37.1

* For the Oakland Raiders, we used the Regional Market Area which includes Alameda,
Contra Costa, San Joaquin and Solano counties
** Falls into multiple counties
NA = Not applicable, NP = Not provided
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 34

Per Capita Income

The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates per capita personal income for counties,
metropolitan areas and combined statistical areas. As shown below, the per capita income of
residents in the regional metro area for Oakland was $46,958 in 2011, the 11th highest among metro
areas with an NFL team. Residents of the neighboring San Francisco 49ers MSA, have the highest
per capita income among NFL markets at $61,395. The average per capita income is $48,061 in NFL
metro markets.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 35

Table 23: Income by Market

Home Market
Phoenix, AZ
Atlanta, GA
Buffalo, NY
Charlotte, NC
Chicago, IL
Cincinnati, OH
Cleveland, OH
Dallas, TX
Denver, CO
Detroit, MI
Green Bay, WI
Houston, TX
Indianapolis, IN
Jacksonville, FL
Kansas City, MO
Miami, FL
Minneapolis, MN
Boston, MA
New Orleans, LA
Philadelphia, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
San Diego, CA
Seattle, WA
St. Louis, MO
Tampa, FL
Nashville, TN

County
$38,071
$50,172
$41,245
$45,610
$46,937
$46,881
$43,735
$45,402
$54,537
$34,012
$39,493
$48,935
$38,309
$39,858
**
$37,834
$57,476
$55,472
$42,542
$39,041
$48,812
$46,800
$57,837
$37,232
$39,180
$47,318

MSA*
$36,833
$39,713
$40,121
$40,223
$45,977
$40,918
$42,365
$43,708
$48,980
$40,009
$39,046
$47,612
$40,572
$40,709
$43,062
$43,072
$48,657
$57,893
$43,603
$48,723
$44,982
$46,800
$50,944
$42,864
$39,261
$42,129

CSA
NA
$39,161
$39,764
$37,782
$45,663
$40,747
$41,401
$43,261
$47,701
$39,211
NP
$47,283
$39,379
NP
$42,632
NP
$47,476
$52,570
$42,991
$47,706
$44,557
NA
$48,991
$42,523
NA
$41,619

Teams in the same market

Baltimore Ravens
Baltimore, MD
Washington Redskins
Washington D.C.

$42,036
$73,783

$51,126
$59,345

$56,103

$121,301

$56,770

$56,750

Team
Arizona Cardinals
Atlanta Falcons
Buffalo Bills
Carolina Panthers
Chicago Bears
Cincinnati Bengals
Cleveland Browns
Dallas Cowboys
Denver Broncos
Detroit Lions
Green Bay Packers
Houston Texans
Indianapolis Colts
Jacksonville Jaguars
Kansas City Chiefs
Miami Dolphins
Minnesota Vikings
New England Patriots
New Orleans Saints
Philadelphia Eagles
Pittsburgh Steelers
San Diego Chargers
Seattle Seahawks
St. Louis Rams
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Tennessee Titans

New York Giants

New York Jets

New York, NY
New York, NY

Oakland Raiders
San Francisco 49ers

Oakland, CA
San Francisco, CA

$49,617
$74,349

$46,958
$61,395

$58,361

Oakland rank
Average

9
$48,731

11
$48,061

1
$45,724

* For the Oakland Raiders, we used the Regional Market Area which includes Alameda,
Contra Costa, San Joaquin and Solano counties
** Falls into multiple counties
NA = Not applicable, NP = Not provided
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Corporate Base
Using 2010 data from County Business Patterns, we examined the number of firms in each county
and metro area that is home to an NFL team. We also looked the share of firms that had more than
500 employees, since larger companies represent potential sponsors. Alameda County ranks 11

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

th

Page 36

th

among NFL markets for the number of firms but falls to 27 when examining what share have more
than 500 employees. Of the 36,000 firms in the county, only 82 (0.23%) are very large employers.
The NFL average is 0.34 percent. Cook County, home of the Chicago Bears, has the largest number
of firms with 127,875 and the second largest number of firms with more than 500 employees, since
many global firms have their headquarters there (391 firms of 0.31% of all companies). Suffolk
County, home of the New England Patriots, has the highest share of firms with 500 or more
employees, 0.60 percent.
When looking at the larger metro areas, while the New York MSA has a significantly higher number of
larger firms (1,271), they make up only 0.24 percent of all companies. The Green Bay, Wisconsin
metro area has the lowest overall number of large firms (27), but they have the highest share of total
firms at 0.35 percent. In the immediate vicinity, it does appear that the Raiders have fewer large
companies from which to draw for potential sponsorships, particularly since the CSA is shared with
the 49ers.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 37

Table 24: Corporate Base by Market

Team
Arizona Cardinals
Atlanta Falcons
Buffalo Bills
Carolina Panthers
Chicago Bears
Cincinnati Bengals
Cleveland Browns
Dallas Cowboys
Denver Broncos
Detroit Lions
Green Bay Packers
Houston Texans
Indianapolis Colts
Jacksonville Jaguars
Kansas City Chiefs
Miami Dolphins
Minnesota Vikings
New England Patriots
New Orleans Saints
Philadelphia Eagles
Pittsburgh Steelers
San Diego Chargers
Seattle Seahawks
St. Louis Rams
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Tennessee Titans

Home Market
Phoenix, AZ
Atlanta, GA
Buffalo, NY
Charlotte, NC
Chicago, IL
Cincinnati, OH
Cleveland, OH
Dallas, TX
Denver, CO
Detroit, MI
Green Bay, WI
Houston, TX
Indianapolis, IN
Jacksonville, FL
Kansas City, MO
Miami, FL
Minneapolis, MN
Boston, MA
New Orleans, LA
Philadelphia, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
San Diego, CA
Seattle, WA
St. Louis, MO
Tampa, FL
Nashville, TN

Teams in the same market

Baltimore Ravens
Baltimore, MD
Washington Redskins
Washington D.C.

Total firms
County
MSA*
84,520
87,723
49,056 129,166
22,393
26,899
27,886
44,513
127,875 236,704
21,382
46,143
33,667
52,149
61,295 140,481
22,055
73,663
32,556
97,211
6,375
7,621
91,528 122,517
23,255
42,317
34,085
23,681
**
50,129
73,410 170,661
38,946
89,831
19,525 122,191
8,436
29,095
26,933 144,728
33,347
59,240
75,794
75,794
63,149
96,771
9,235
70,361
31,840
69,363
18,124
37,619

Share of companies
with 500+ employees
County
MSA*
0.28%
0.28%
0.39%
0.25%
0.33%
0.30%
0.27%
0.34%
0.31%
0.27%
0.38%
0.31%
0.31%
0.25%
0.38%
0.31%
0.26%
0.21%
0.31%
0.22%
0.41%
0.35%
0.34%
0.29%
0.33%
0.27%
0.29%
0.23%
**
0.28%
0.15%
0.13%
0.41%
0.31%
0.60%
0.31%
0.23%
0.31%
0.28%
0.43%
0.35%
0.28%
0.21%
0.21%
0.22%
0.19%
0.53%
0.26%
0.27%
0.22%
0.26%
0.33%

12,319
21,502

65,169
141,020

0.40%
0.38%

0.24%
0.28%

103,667

533,395

0.43%

0.24%

New York Giants

New York Jets

New York, NY
New York, NY

Oakland Raiders
San Francisco 49ers

Oakland, CA
San Francisco, CA

36,036
30,589

75,506
117,723

0.23%
0.32%

0.21%
0.25%

Oakland rank
Average

11
41,013

16
99,671

27
0.34%

27
0.26%

* For the Oakland Raiders, we used the Regional Market Area which includes Alameda,
Contra Costa, San Joaquin and Solano counties
** Falls into multiple counties
NA = Not applicable, NP = Not provided
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns

Another way to look at this data is to estimate the number of residents in each market that support a
large company. The table below shows that for every firm with more than 500 employees in an NFL
MSA market, there are an average of 16,600 residents. For the Oakland metro area, the figure is

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 38

23,035 residents, the second highest among NFL markets meaning that larger firms are
underrepresented in the RMA in comparison. This is true at the county level as well. On average,
counties with NFL teams have one large employer (more than 500 employees) per 12,044 residents.
In Alameda County, this is nearly 18,700 residents.
Table 25: Population per Company by Market

Team
Arizona Cardinals
Atlanta Falcons
Buffalo Bills
Carolina Panthers
Chicago Bears
Cincinnati Bengals
Cleveland Browns
Dallas Cowboys
Denver Broncos
Detroit Lions
Green Bay Packers
Houston Texans
Indianapolis Colts
Jacksonville Jaguars
Kansas City Chiefs
Miami Dolphins
Minnesota Vikings
New England Patriots
New Orleans Saints
Philadelphia Eagles
Pittsburgh Steelers
San Diego Chargers
Seattle Seahawks
St. Louis Rams
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Tennessee Titans

Home Market
Phoenix, AZ
Atlanta, GA
Buffalo, NY
Charlotte, NC
Chicago, IL
Cincinnati, OH
Cleveland, OH
Dallas, TX
Denver, CO
Detroit, MI
Green Bay, WI
Houston, TX
Indianapolis, IN
Jacksonville, FL
Kansas City, MO
Miami, FL
Minneapolis, MN
Boston, MA
New Orleans, LA
Philadelphia, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
San Diego, CA
Seattle, WA
St. Louis, MO
Tampa, FL
Nashville, TN

Teams in the same market

Baltimore Ravens
Baltimore, MD
Washington Redskins
Washington D.C.

Population per company

with 500+ employees
County
MSA*
16,186
17,285
8,578
16,537
12,427
14,194
10,056
18,809
13,335
14,654
9,885
14,946
12,330
16,159
10,335
15,136
10,877
17,095
18,018
19,944
9,636
11,436
13,464
16,952
11,831
16,609
12,630
17,228
**
14,361
23,536
25,854
7,309
12,061
6,227
12,210
13,875
18,386
13,379
14,628
10,491
14,048
19,862
19,862
14,287
19,325
6,491
15,099
14,760
18,473
10,773
17,691

12,643
7,537

17,637
14,760

3,569

15,523

New York Giants

New York Jets

New York, NY
New York, NY

Oakland Raiders
San Francisco 49ers

Oakland, CA
San Francisco, CA

18,678
8,309

23,035
14,656

Oakland rank
Average

3
12,044

2
16,600

* For the Oakland Raiders, we used the Regional Market Area which includes Alameda,
Contra Costa, San Joaquin and Solano counties
** Falls into multiple counties
NA = Not applicable, NP = Not provided
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 39

III. NFL and Stadium Conditions

In this section, we analyze the demand for the Raiders and their operations, the operations and
characteristics of O.co Coliseum, and comparisons to other teams and facilities throughout the NFL
on multiple metrics (based on available data). In general, most actual financial and operating data for
NFL teams and facilities is privately held; as a result, we rely largely on information that is publicly
available through sources such as the Authority, other public bodies, and media reports, as well as
other data that has been collected by the consulting team.

Raiders Demand and Operations

Originally founded in 1960 as part of the American Football League, the
Oakland Raiders joined the NFL in 1970. Aside from playing in Los Angeles
from 1982 through 1994, the Raiders have been based in the Bay Area and
played in a number of local facilities until the Oakland-Alameda County
Coliseum (now O.co Coliseum) opened in 1966. In its history, the franchise
has won three Super Bowls and an AFL championship, and 13 people
affiliated with the Raiders are in the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

Attendance
The figure below shows the Raiders average annual attendance for each completed season since
moving back to Oakland in 1996, compared to the stadiums capacity. We also compare changes in
attendance to the Raiders annual number of wins.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 40

Figure 7: Raiders Wins, Average Attendance, and Stadium Capacity

70,000

16

60,000

14
12

50,000

10

# of Wins

40,000

Average Attendance

Stadium Capacity

30,000

6
20,000

10,000

0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Since 1996, the teams average attendance has consistently been less than capacity, with attendance
decreasing to approximately 45,000 per game as recently as 2009 and 2010. Since then, attendance
has increased to approximately 55,000 to 60,000 per game in the last two seasons.
For the current 2013 season, O.co Coliseums capacity had been reduced to approximately 53,000
from approximately 63,000 for Raiders games, by tarping off a number of upper-deck sections on the
stadiums east side. (Historical average attendance since returning to Oakland is approximately
54,000.) Per NFL rules, the tarps will remain in place all season, despite any potential increase in
ticket demand. At 53,000 seats, O.co Coliseum is the NFLs smallest by a wide margin, which will
help the Raiders to avoid local TV blackouts that are forced by non-sellouts.
As of the date of this report, the Raiders have played five regular-season home games in 2013;
reported average attendance was approximately 51,300, with a range from 48,800 to 53,500. (Two
preseason home games had reported attendance of approximately 42,000 and 43,000.)
Historically, there has not necessarily been a strong correlation between wins and attendance. For
example, since 2000, the Raiders have had two separate three-year stretches with an average
attendance of nearly 60,000. From 2000 to 2002 (three playoff years that included one Super Bowl
appearance), the team won 10 or more regular-season games; however, from 2006 through 2008,
the team won an average of fewer than four games per year with similarly high attendance.
In the following subsection, we compare these attendance levels to those of other NFL teams over
time.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 41

Ticket Prices
Below is a stadium map of available seating sections and corresponding ticket prices for the Raiders
2013 season, according to the team.
Figure 8: Stadium Seating Map

Actual ticket sales by type are not available through the Raiders. However, according to other
industry research, for the last three seasons, the teams average ticket price has been approximately
$62, and the average premium ticket has been approximately $140. Later in this section, these
averages are compared to those of other NFL teams.
According to Forbes, the Raiders earned $40 million from ticket sales in 2011 (premium and nonpremium seats)

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 42

Premium Seating
As with most other data related to the Raiders internal operations, actual and detailed information
regarding premium seat sales is proprietary and not available to the consulting team. However, the
following is known through conversations with the team and available stadium information:

Luxury Suites O.co Coliseum has a total of 143 suites; 90 on the east side and 53 on the
west side. For Raiders games, most occupied suites are sold on a year-to-year basis rather
than for a multiple-year contract, as is typically the norm. Annual rates generally range from
$30,000 to $150,000; however, according to the team, the most expensive suites are
unoccupied.
The team has acknowledged that the supply for suites is too high, and it has had to try other
options to fill otherwise unoccupied suites, such as selling as party suites for individual
games and offering individual ticket sales for suites. (These shorter-term rentals/tickets are
sold at a premium of 10 to 15 percent over annual prices.) For more popular Raiders games,
most suites will be occupied due to these various forms of sales.

Club Seats the stadium offers 5,600 club seats for Raiders games; these are located on
the second deck of the east side and part of the second deck on the west side. All are sold on
a year-to-year basis, for $126 to $151 per game.

The Raiders are completing a survey of the teams ticket and premium-seat holders in order to
identify the potential demand for offerings in a new stadium. We have reviewed the preliminary results
of this effort and have considered them in our later forecasts and recommendations.

Sponsorships and Advertising (including Naming Rights)

In general, the Raiders control very little advertising space within the Coliseum; the As contractually
have these rights.
Naming Rights
As described later in this section, the Authority receives approximately $1.2 million per year from
Overstock.com for Coliseum naming rights, and this is shared equally between the Authority and the
Raiders.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 43

Food and Beverage

The food and beverage operation at the Coliseum is unique and it impacts the Raiders ability to
generate revenues: the As control the rights to F&B management, and have created Bay Area Sports
Catering as the F&B provider, which then subcontracted these rights to Aramark. BASC pays a
commission of 40 percent of its gross revenues to the Authority from sales at Raiders games, and the
Authority pays 50 percent of these commissions to the Raiders, to a maximum of approximately $1.1
million per year. While BASCs contract with the Authority expired at the end of 2010, the Authority
has taken the position that its original contract with the As is now in place, although the As are
paying less than the 40 percent commission.
According to a recent audit of the Coliseums F&B operations, the total overall per-capita F&B
spending at Raiders games was approximately $14 to $15 from 2008 through 2010. For concessions
only, the per cap was approximately $10.50 to $11.50, and the premium per cap was approximately
$3.50 to $4.00.
Later in this section, we discuss the overall F&B operations related to all Coliseum events in more
detail, based on available information.

Other Revenue Sources and NFL Revenue-Sharing

The NFLs collective bargaining agreement governs what revenues that are generated by its
franchises are retained by a franchise and which are shared with other franchises, as well as sharing
of revenues that are generated by the league itself. This agreement has a clear impact on a teams
net revenues; however, actual financial data is not available from the Raiders. Based on the leagues
current collective bargaining agreement (CBA), a summary of the revenue-sharing agreement among
franchises is as follows:

National TV/Radio Revenue revenue from the leagues national media contracts, with
outlets such as NBC, CBS, Fox, ESPN, and DirecTV, is shared equally among all 32 teams.

NFL Properties Revenue is generated from leaguewide licensing contract for items such
as jerseys and other branded merchandise and is also shared equally among all teams.

Ticket Revenue
o

Non-Premium 60 percent is retained by the home team and 40 percent are shared
with the visiting team.

AECOM | FRMS

Premium is fully retained by a franchise.

Project No. 60289461

Page 44

Other Local Revenue this includes items such as merchandise, marketing revenues,
parking, concessions, and local media contracts. These are generally fully retained by the
franchise that generates them.
However, in the new CBA, some of this locally-generated revenue is shared leaguewide.
First, a percentage of revenues will be placed into a stadium fund by the league, to match
teams investments in facility projects. Also, a ten-percent luxury tax will be placed on highrevenue teams and shared with lower-revenue teams.

While actual financial data is not available from the Raiders, it is clear that a number of revenue
streams that would ordinarily be captured by a team are not fully available to them. As is shown in
this section, the Raiders only receive a share of F&B revenues from their games, and limited
sponsorship revenues from the stadium. (The sharing of revenues among multiple tenants in a facility
is one of the driving forces that have led to the development of single-sport football and baseball
stadiums in recent years.)
The CBA and revenue sharing also impact league revenues that are retained by NFL players, in the
form of salaries and the resulting salary cap and floor. However, the terms that govern salary
expenses are less relevant to this analysis.

O.co Coliseum Characteristics, Demand, and Operations

O.co Coliseum, which has previously had
other corporate and non-corporate names,
originally opened in 1966 as the home of the
Raiders (the As began playing at the stadium
in 1968). The Coliseum is the only remaining
stadium from the 1960s and 70s-era facilities
that still hosts both an NFL and MLB team.
Over the years, the stadium has also hosted
soccer and other football tenants.
The stadium is owned by the Oakland Alameda County Coliseum Authority, which also owns the
adjacent Oracle Arena, the current home of the NBAs Golden State Warriors. On behalf of the
Authority, the facilities are operated by AEG.
In 1982, the Raiders moved to Los Angeles but returned to Oakland and the Coliseum in 1996. As a
result, the stadium underwent a $120-million renovation/expansion that included 22,000 new seats,
90 luxury suites, club levels, new locker rooms and scoreboards, and other amenities that were
intended to make the facility more football-friendly. However, when the Raiders returned to Oakland,

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 45

the As lease allowed the baseball team to capture many of the stadium-related revenues from other
events, as previously described, and this remains the case.
For many years, the As have been planning to develop a new stadium in Oakland or elsewhere in the
region. Both the As and Raiders lease at the Coliseum expires after their 2013 seasons.

O.co Coliseum Usage

The Raiders annual usage of the Coliseum was previously summarized. The following table expands
that usage summary and details all stadium usage of the Coliseum, including the Raiders, for 2008
through 2012. Ticket sales data are also are not available for Raiders or As games, but is displayed
for certain other events.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 46

Table 26: Event Attendance and Sales Characteristics, 2008-2012

# of Events

Average
Total
Gross Ticket
Average
Attendance Attendance
Sales
Ticket Price

2008
Raiders

57,850

462,800

n/a

n/a

A's

81

20,558

1,665,198

n/a

n/a

Other Events
Soccer

19,178

19,178

n/a

n/a

90

--

2,147,176

--

--

Raiders

44,284

354,272

n/a

n/a

A's

81

17,392

1,408,752

n/a

n/a

3
1
2

24,784
31,223
6,480

74,351
31,223
12,959

n/a
$443,604
n/a

n/a
$14.21
n/a

95

--

1,881,557

--

--

Raiders

46,431

371,448

n/a

n/a

A's

81

17,511

1,418,391

n/a

n/a

1
1
1

41,426
200
8,296

41,426
200
8,296

$734,857
n/a
$74,442

$17.74
n/a
$8.97

92

--

1,839,761

--

--

Raiders

59,242

473,936

n/a

n/a

A's

81

18,232

1,476,792

n/a

n/a

3
1
1
1
1
1

20,166
47,009
44,774
68,278
8,238
12,166

60,499
47,009
44,774
68,278
8,238
12,166

$2,139,975
$706,394
$1,252,922
$6,480,690
$73,169
$308,176

$35.37
$15.03
$27.98
$94.92
$8.88
$25.33

97

--

2,191,692

--

--

Raiders

54,216

433,728

n/a

n/a

A's

81

20,728

1,678,968

n/a

n/a

1
1
1
1
1

42,193
42,087
41,449
3,844
19,873

42,193
42,087
41,449
3,844
19,873

$822,147
$1,291,389
$2,400,521
$32,740
$1,428,488

$19.49
$30.68
$57.92
$8.52
$71.88

94

--

2,262,142

--

--

Total
2009

Other Events
Soccer
Monster Truck
HS Baseball
Total
2010

Other Events
Monster Truck
HS Baseball
HS Football
Total
2011

Other Events
Soccer
Monster Truck
Supercross
Concert
HS Football
Parking Lot Event
Total
2012

Other Events
Monster Truck
Supercross
Concert
HS Baseball
Parking Lot Event
Total

Source: O.co Coliseum, NFL, MLB, AECOM

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 47

The Coliseum has annually hosted one to eight non-Raiders and As games per year, although some
of these have been smaller events such as high school sports. Two concerts (U2 and Kenny
Chesney/Tim McGraw) have been held at the Coliseum in the last five years.

Sponsorships and Advertising (including Naming Rights)

As previously described, the As control virtually all sponsorship and advertising opportunities within
the Coliseum. However, the Authority generates signage revenues outside of the stadium through an
agreement with Viacom and a sponsorship with the Insurance Office of America.
Naming Rights
The Authoritys current naming rights contract for the Coliseum is with Overstock.com and dates to
2011. Major terms of the contract are as follows:

The Authority receives $1.2 million per year to be inflated by three percent annually over the
term of the six-year contract,

If either the Raiders or the As leave the Coliseum during the term, the contract ends or can
be reduced by 35 percent. The contract is reduced 70 percent if both teams leave,

Other benefits received by Overstock.com include use of a suite for 15 As games, five days
of free Coliseum use, and one day of East Club rental.

As previously described, the Authority shares 50 percent of naming rights revenue with the Raiders.

Food and Beverage

As previously described, the As control F&B operations at the Coliseum. Through an associated
company, the As have subcontracted F&B operations to Aramark. This is unique, in that the Authority
has no power over selection or approval of an F&B provider at the Coliseum. While the contract with
Bay Area Sports Catering (the company created by the As) expired at the end of 2010, the Authority
now recognizes its original contract with the As. Major components and results of the contract are as
follows:

The contract is a commission agreement, under which BASC pays commissions to the
Authority from sales at Raiders games and other Coliseum events (40 percent of gross
sales). The Authority then pays 50 percent of Raiders-related commissions to the team, to a
maximum of approximately $1.1 million per year. The Authority does not receive any
commissions from sales at As games.

According to a recent audit of the Coliseums F&B operations, the Authoritys effective
commission received was 33.3 percent of gross sales.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 48

The audit estimated that As games generated 75 percent of total Coliseum sales, followed by
Raiders games (22 percent) and other events (three percent).

The audit found a number of areas that should be improved, including service, staffing,
training, points of sale, offerings, and others.

Food and beverage revenues captured by the Authority are shown later in this section, in the
discussion of the Authoritys financial operations.

O.co Coliseums Competitive Position

Later in this section, we compare various characteristics of the Coliseum to those of other NFL
stadiums. However, below is a summary of feedback from various stakeholders and observations
from the consulting team regarding the overall competitive position of the stadium (in relation to other
NFL stadiums, the local market, and other factors that influence its use and operations).

The stadiums lower-level seats are too close to the field, and as a result, fans have to stand
up throughout the game to see the entire field.

The Coliseum is centrally located within the Bay Area and is in a better location than AT&T
Park, Candlestick Park, and the new Levis Stadium.

The Coliseums current IATSE contract is very disadvantageous. The cost of using
stagehands at the stadium is now 20 to 30 percent greater than it should be. The next
contract is expected to improve, but could still have rates that are 10 to 15 percent greater
than the norm.

According to a recent audit of the Coliseums food and beverage operations, there are many
issues with service and other areas of F&B service.

Tours of the stadium indicate that the Coliseum has a wide range of physical deficiencies,
including outdated facilities, narrow concourses, and others.

O.co Coliseums Financial Operations

The following table summarizes the Authoritys Coliseum budget for the 2012-13 fiscal year. The
specific line items included in the budget will vary from the items projected for a future stadium; this is
described in more detail later in this report.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 49

Table 27: Authority Coliseum Budget

Budget
2012-13
Revenues
Club Dues
Parking
Parking Tax
Concessions
Naming Allowance
Interest
A's Rent
Raiders Rent
Viacom
Insurance Office of America
AT&T
Facility Fees
Signing Bonus
AEG Capital Contribution
Fund Balances
City/County
Total Revenues

$600
1,820
(300)
1,300
604
50
800
2,025
500
71
31
500
500
875
4,288
19,541
$33,205

Operating Expenses
Administration
Legal
Audit
Coliseum Operations
Commerical Property Insurance
Management Fee
Total Operating Expenses

$315
400
19
14,000
208
250
$15,192

Capital Outlay
Capital - Contractually Required
Capital Contingency
Total Capital Outlay
Contingency

$1,203
3,500
$4,703
$500

Debt Service - Stadium

$12,810

Total - All Expenses

$33,205

Source: Oakland Alameda County Coliseum Authority

These revenues and expenses are generally associated with stadium operations related to the
Raiders and As. In addition, some of the items are specific to the As lease and are independent from
the Raiders; for example, the $3.5-million capital contingency is required to be in place for the As.
Other revenues and expenses associated with non-tenant events are captured in the financial
statements of the Oakland Coliseum Joint Venture. In the 2011-12 fiscal year, this included less than
$1 million in net event revenues and other expenses not captured in the budget statement.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 50

Other NFL Teams and Stadiums Characteristics, Demand, and Operations

In this section, we analyze various characteristics and operations of other NFL teams and stadiums,
to provide more context to the Raiders and O.co Coliseum.
In general, comparisons include the 49ers new stadium in Santa Clara, which is currently under
construction and is the one future NFL stadium that is a definite replacement of an existing stadium,
with defined characteristics. While new stadiums in Atlanta and Minneapolis have recently been
approved, they are not included in this section (however, their relevant cost and funding
characteristics are considered later in this report.)

NFL Stadiums
The following table summarizes various characteristics of NFL stadiums.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 51

Table 28: NFL Stadium Characteristics

Team

Stadium

Arizona Cardinals
Atlanta Falcons
Baltimore Ravens
Buffalo Bills
Carolina Panthers
Chicago Bears
Cincinnati Bengals
Cleveland Browns
Dallas Cowboys
Denver Broncos
Detroit Lions
Green Bay Packers
Houston Texans
Indianapolis Colts
Jacksonville Jaguars
Kansas City Chiefs
Miami Dolphins
Minnesota Vikings
New England Patriots
New Orleans Saints
New York Giants/Jets
Oakland Raiders
Philadelphia Eagles
Pittsburgh Steelers
San Diego Chargers
San Francisco 49ers
Seattle Seahawks
St. Louis Rams
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Tennessee Titans
Washington Redskins

University of Phoenix Stadium

Georgia Dome
M&T Bank Stadium
Ralph Wilson Stadium
Bank of America Stadium
Soldier Field
Paul Brown Stadium
FirstEnergy Stadium
AT&T Stadium
Sports Authority Field at Mile High
Ford Field
Lambeau Field
Reliant Stadium
Lucas Oil Stadium
EverBank Field
Arrowhead Stadium
Sun Life Stadium
Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome
Gillette Stadium
Mercedes-Benz Superdome
MetLife Stadium
O.co Coliseum
Lincoln Financial Field
Heinz Field
Qualcomm Stadium
Candlestick Park
CenturyLink Field
Edward Jones Dome
Raymond James Stadium
LP Field
FedEx Field

Naming
Permanent Rights (Avg.
Year
Annual
Seating
Opened
Amount,
Capacity
millions)

Premium Seating
# of
Suites

# of Club
Seats

2006
1992
1998
1973
1996
2002 *
2000
1999
2009
2001
2002
2003 *
2002
2008
1995
2010 *
1987
1982
2002
1975
2010
1966
2003
2001
1967
1960
2002
1995
1998
1999
1997

63,400
71,228
71,008
73,079
73,778
61,500
65,535
73,200
80,000
76,125
65,000
79,594
71,054
62,421
67,246
76,416
75,540
64,121
68,756
73,208
82,566
64,200
68,532
65,050
70,561
69,732
67,000
66,965
65,908
69,143
85,000

$5.9
$0.0
$15.0
$0.0
$7.0
$0.0
$0.0
$6.0
$18.0
$6.0
$2.0
$0.0
$10.0
$6.1
$3.3
$0.0
$7.5
$2.0
$7.0
$5.0
$16.0
$1.2
$6.6
$2.9
$0.9
$0.0
$5.0
$2.7
$2.5
$3.0
$7.6

88
164
108
164
158
133
114
147
200
106
125
166
185
142
90
80
183
115
80
137
200
143
172
129
112
94
82
124
195
175
244

7,400
4,600
7,900
6,878
11,358
8,600
7,620
8,600
15,000
8,500
8,500
6,000
8,000
7,100
10,500
2,400
10,209
0
6,000
15,000
9,300
9,000
8,000
6,600
8,500
0
7,000
6,425
12,000
9,600
15,000

2014

68,500

$11.0

165

9,000

AVERAGE - ALL CURRENT STADIUMS

1995

70,544

$4.8

140

8,116

AVERAGE - WITH SANTA CLARA

1997

70,504

$5.2

143

8,406

San Francisco 49ers - Future

Levi's Stadium

* Significant renovation rather than new construction.

Source: Revenue from Sports Venues, AECOM, media reports

Considering the three older stadiums that have recently been significantly renovated in
Chicago, Green Bay, and Kansas City as new stadiums, the average NFL facility is
approximately 20 years old. O.co Coliseum is the leagues second-oldest stadium, and the
oldest, San Franciscos Candlestick Park, will be replaced in 2014.

Current stadiums range in size from 61,500 to 85,000 seats, although the Cowboys AT&T
Stadium is expandable to more than 100,000 seats. O.co Coliseum has approximately
64,000 permanent seats, but as previously described, its seating capacity will be reduced to

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 52

approximately 53,000 this season, which will make it the leagues smallest stadium by a wide
margin.

The majority of NFL stadiums have naming rights contracts; annual payments range from
less than $1 million to $16 million (for a two-team stadium in the New York market), and a
reported $18 million for the former Cowboys Stadium. The average annual value across all
NFL stadiums is approximately $4.8 million. The most recent NFL naming rights contract, in
Santa Clara, is valued at $11 million per year over 20 years.
However, many facilities have not sold naming rights for various reasons (such as Solider
Fields dedication to veterans, Lambeau Fields name in honor of a historical team-related
figure, and the Georgia Domes name in honor of the state, which provided funding). The
average annual value not including these facilities increases to $5.7 million. As previously
described, O.co Coliseums contract is for $1.2 million per year.

All NFL stadiums have luxury suites and virtually all have club seats. The two stadiums
without club seats Candlestick Park and the Metrodome are both planning replacements.
The average inventory is 140 suites and approximately 8,100 club seats. (Next years
opening of the Santa Clara stadium will slightly increase these averages.)

Stadiums Events and Attendance

NFL Games
The Raiders historical attendance since their return to Oakland was shown earlier in this section.
Below, we summarize all NFL teams average annual attendance over the last five seasons and their
attendance as a percent of stadium capacity.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 53

Table 29: Five-year Average NFL Attendance and % Capacity by Team, 2008-2012
90,000

120%

80,000
100%
70,000
60,000

80%

50,000
60%
40,000
30,000

40%

20,000
20%
10,000
0

0%

Average Attendance
% of Capacity

As shown above, the Raiders average attendance from 2008 through 2012 (approximately 53,700) is
the leagues lowest; the leaguewide average had been approximately 67,500. For the five individual
years analyzed, the Raiders have ranked in the NFLs bottom five in average attendance (and were
either last or second to last in four of the five years).
In terms of attendance as a percent of capacity, the Raiders are also last at 85 percent over the five
most recent seasons, and have been outside of the bottom five just once. The leaguewide average is
95 percent.
Other Events
Data that is reported from other events held at NFL stadiums is not as consistently available as is
information from NFL games. However, in general, the typical NFL stadium is a multipurpose facility
that can host a wide range of events. Actual usage will be affected by variables such as climate,
facility offerings and characteristics such as a dome or retractable roof, the local competitive
environment, management/ownership structure and willingness to host other events, and many
others.
Many facilities host private, non-ticketed events throughout the year that have a smaller impact on a
stadiums operations. These events can be held in club areas, suites, locker rooms, concourses, the
playing field, parking lots, and others.
The table below summarizes US and Canadian stadiums that ranked among Pollstars top 100
outdoor stadium and festival sites for reported ticket sales worldwide in 2012. The figures indicate the

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 54

level of demand seen at the most-used stadiums for ticketed entertainment events such as concerts
with NFL stadiums highlighted. This data does not include sporting events, such as soccer matches.
Table 30: Ticket Sales at Top Outdoor Stadium and Festival Sites
Rank Facility

City

Primary
Sports Tenant

# of
Tickets
Sold

MetLife Stadium

E. Rutherford, NJ

NFL

351,271

15

Gillette Stadium

Foxborough, MA

NFL

160,830

16

Wrigley Field

Chicago, IL

MLB

158,988

17

Reliant Park*

Houston, TX

NFL

155,839

19

Yankee Stadium

Bronx, NY

MLB

141,963

25

Rogers Centre*

Toronto, ON, CA

MLB

123,131

28

Crew Stadium

30

Citizens Bank Park

39
60
61

Dick's Sporting Goods Park

70
72
72

Lincoln Financial Field

84

Soldier Field

87

LP Field

88
89
90

Columbus, OH

MLS

111,045

Philadelphia, PA

MLB

110,069

Fenway Park

Boston, MA

MLB

87,491

Sports Authority Field at Mile High

Denver, CO

NFL

62,491

Commerce City, CO

MLS

60,124

AT&T Park

San Francisco, CA

MLB

54,193

Heinz Field

Pittsburgh, PA

NFL

53,325

Philadelphia, PA

NFL

53,111

Chicago, IL

NFL

51,100

Nashville, TN

NFL

49,869

Ford Field

Detroit, MI

NFL

48,943

Raymond James Stadium

Tampa, FL

NFL

48,443

University of Phoenix Stadium*

Glendale, AZ

NFL

48,188

94

AT&T Stadium*

Arlington, TX

NFL

47,269

96

FedEx Field

Landover, MD

NFL

46,389

97

Arrowhead Stadium

Kansas City, MO

NFL

46,346

98

LA Memorial Coliseum

Los Angeles, CA

NCAA

45,751

* Facility has a retractable roof.

Source: Pollstar

The Giants and Jets MetLife Stadium outside of New York sold the most entertainment (non-football)
tickets in 2012, due primarily to three Bruce Springsteen concerts. The other stadiums on the top 100
list hosted as little as one and no more than three major events that generated the ticket sales
indicated in the table. While a major concert at an NFL stadium can generate significant ticket sales,
there are very few of these events that are available to the largest stadiums in any year. As previously
shown, O.co Coliseum has hosted two concerts in the last five years.
For NFL stadiums for which data is available, the following table summarizes their historical reported
concert attendance, average ticket sales, and average ticket price (unadjusted for inflation for past
shows).

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 55

Table 31: Average Attendance and Ticket Sales at Select NFL Stadiums
Stadium
Arrowhead Stadium
Bank of America Stadium
CenturyLink Field
AT&T Stadium
FirstEnergy Stadium
Ford Field
Georgia Dome
Gillette Stadium
Heinz Field
Lincoln Financial Field
LP Field
Lucas Oil Stadium
M&T Bank Stadium
Mercedes-Benz Superdome
MetLife Stadium
O.co Coliseum
Paul Brown Stadium
Raymond James Stadium
Reliant Stadium
Soldier Field
Sports Authority Field at Mile High

Market

Year
Stadium
Opened

Type of
Stadium

Average
Atten.

Avg. Gross
Ticket Sales

Avg. Ticket
Price

Kansas City
Charlotte
Seattle
Dallas
Cleveland
Detroit
Atlanta
Boston
Pittsburgh
Philadelphia
Nashville
Indianapolis
Baltimore
New Orleans
New York
Oakland
Cincinnati
Tampa
Houston
Chicago
Denver

2010*
1996
2002
2009
1999
2002
1992
2002
2001
2003
1999
2008
1998
1975
2010
1966
2000
1998
2002
2003*
2001

Open Air
Open Air
Open Air
Retractable
Open Air
Dome
Dome
Open Air
Open Air
Open Air
Open Air
Retractable
Open Air
Dome
Open Air
Open Air
Open Air
Open Air
Retractable
Open Air
Open Air

49,143
44,482
69,439
49,757
45,321
48,386
52,870
51,266
53,727
57,765
20,435
41,671
74,557
37,916
49,459
39,203
42,716
48,827
61,934
48,117
33,056

$3,781,863
$3,404,454
$6,118,784
$4,310,722
$3,511,454
$4,061,069
$5,096,261
$4,197,617
$4,626,438
$5,357,843
$1,335,117
$3,509,150
$6,832,509
$3,385,854
$4,311,459
$3,350,143
$3,495,145
$4,330,275
$3,318,501
$4,537,621
$2,449,834

$76.96
$76.54
$88.12
$86.64
$77.48
$83.93
$96.39
$81.88
$86.11
$92.75
$65.33
$84.21
$91.64
$89.30
$87.17
$85.46
$81.82
$88.69
$53.58
$94.30
$74.11

* Renovation.
Source: Pollstar, AECOM

Other large-scale, ticketed events that are typically available to the countrys largest stadiums include:

College football games in recent years, colleges and universities have increasingly been
scheduling games at neutral-site NFL stadiums for various reasons, including the ability to
potentially sell more tickets and generate additional revenue, reach a broader base of
supporters, and play in marquee facilities. Some of these games are annually held at the
same stadium (such as Florida and Georgia in Jacksonville), although others are one-time
events. Also, a number of NFL stadiums are also the full-time home of college football
programs.
In addition to regular-season games, there are many classics that are played between
historically black colleges and universities at neutral sites, many of which are NFL stadiums
such as Soldier Field, Lucas Oil Stadium, and MetLife Stadium. These games often include
weekend- or week-long festivities such as battles of the bands, parades, reunions, and other
events.
Conference championship games and season-ending bowl games are also held at many NFL
stadiums. The Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl, which had been played at San Franciscos AT&T
Park since 2002, will move to Santa Claras new NFL stadium when it opens in 2014.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 56

High school football games while these games generally do not attract the same levels of
attendance as a concert or college football game, high school games (both regular season
games and state playoffs/championships) are also often held at NFL stadiums.

Other sports NFL stadiums also host sports such as soccer, hockey, boxing, motocross,
lacrosse, rugby, and others, although these events can depend on factors such as climate,
the size of a playing surface, regional popularity of a sport, and whether a facility is indoors or
outdoors.

Aside from these events, many stadiums also host a wide range of smaller, private events such as
social events (meetings, conferences, banquets, and weddings), and others. The following table
summarizes one additional data set of actual facility usage from various NFL stadiums.
Table 32: NFL Stadiums Events and Attendance

Type

Stadium 1

Stadium 2

Stadium 3

Stadium 4

Stadium 5

Open Air

Domed/
Retractable
Roof

Domed/
Retractable
Roof

Open Air

Domed/
Retractable
Roof

Size Range

60,000 - 70,000 60,000 - 70,000 70,000 - 80,000 70,000 - 80,000 60,000 - 70,000

Other Major Tenants/Uses?

College Tenant

Events/Attendance (not incl. NFL)

College Football

Total

--

--

6 / 45,348

6 / 146,784

--

385 / n/a

--

2 / 97,212

n/a

4 / 190,387

--

17 / 566,265

--

n/a

Public/Community Events
Other Events

College Tenant College Tenant

7 / 227,044

HS, College, Other Amateur Sports

Other Ticketed Events

--

n/a

--

75 / n/a

--

--

n/a

11 / 47,519

23/ n/a

57 / 196,720

287 / 300,027

n/a

22 / 464,950

483 / n/a

80 / 808,833

295 / 544,023

121 / 419,011

Source: AECOM research, individual facilities/cities

NFL Stadium Ownership and Management

The following table summarizes the ownership and management structure of all current NFL stadiums
and the future 49ers stadium.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 57

Table 33: NFL Stadium Ownership and Management

Operator
Team

Arizona Cardinals
Atlanta Falcons
Baltimore Ravens
Buffalo Bills
Carolina Panthers
Chicago Bears
Cincinnati Bengals
Cleveland Browns
Dallas Cowboys
Denver Broncos
Detroit Lions
Green Bay Packers
Houston Texans
Indianapolis Colts
Jacksonville Jaguars
Kansas City Chiefs
Miami Dolphins
Minnesota Vikings
New England Patriots
New Orleans Saints
New York Giants/Jets
Oakland Raiders
Philadelphia Eagles
Pittsburgh Steelers
San Diego Chargers
San Francisco 49ers
Seattle Seahawks
St. Louis Rams
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Tennessee Titans
Washington Redskins
San Francisco 49ers - Future

Stadium

Owner

University of Phoenix Stadium

Georgia Dome
M&T Bank Stadium
Ralph Wilson Stadium
Bank of America Stadium
Soldier Field
Paul Brown Stadium
FirstEnergy Stadium
AT&T Stadium
Sports Authority Field at Mile High
Ford Field
Lambeau Field
Reliant Stadium
Lucas Oil Stadium
EverBank Field
Arrowhead Stadium
Sun Life Stadium
Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome
Gillette Stadium
Mercedes-Benz Superdome
MetLife Stadium
O.co Coliseum
Lincoln Financial Field
Heinz Field
Qualcomm Stadium
Candlestick Park
CenturyLink Field
Edward Jones Dome
Raymond James Stadium
LP Field
FedEx Field

Public
Public
Public
Public
Private
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Private
Public
Private
Public
Private
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Private

Levi's Stadium

Pub lic

Public
Owner

Private
Manager
for Public
Owner

Team or
TeamRelated
Entity

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

Source: AECOM

The vast majority of NFL stadiums are owned by public entities (such as a city, county, or authority).
Of these 26 facilities, ten are also operated by the public-sector owner, ten are managed by the team
on behalf of the owner, and six (including O.co Coliseum) are privately managed for the public owner.

NFL Ticket Prices

The following table summarizes the range of ticket prices (single-game and season tickets) for NFL
teams. Raiders premium and non-premium seats have among the lowest prices in the NFL.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 58

Table 34: NFL Stadium Single Game and Season Ticket Price Ranges
Team

Single Game

Stadium

Season Tickets

Low

High

Low

High

University of Phoenix Stadium

Georgia Dome
M&T Bank Stadium
Ralph Wilson Stadium
Bank of America Stadium
Soldier Field
Paul Brown Stadium
FirstEnergy Stadium
AT&T Stadium
Sports Authority Field at Mile High
Ford Field
Lambeau Field
Reliant Stadium
Lucas Oil Stadium
EverBank Field
Arrowhead Stadium
Sun Life Stadium
Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome
Gillette Stadium
Mercedes-Benz Superdome
MetLife Stadium
O.co Coliseum
Lincoln Financial Field
Heinz Field
Qualcomm Stadium
Candlestick Park
CenturyLink Field
Edward Jones Dome
Raymond James Stadium
LP Field
FedEx Field

$50
$45
$36
$36
$51
$68
$64
$32
$60
$45
$50
$67
$35
$34
$50
$41
$41
$30
$35
$24
$50
$36
$73
$50
$54
$59
$47
$40
$30
$36
n/a

$400
$114
$480
$480
$610
$350
$82
$272
$139
$125
$320
$83
$305
$270
$250
$94
$115
$135
$169
$185
$700
$161
$138
$58
$98
$113
$375
$125
$395
$80
n/a

$150
$250
$450
$350
$450
$680
$300
$370
$590
$420
$400
$670
$300
$190
$135
$390
$310
$250
$650
$112
$675
$260
$550
$500
$480
$250
$370
$350
$444
$560
$440

$3,500
$990
$1,100
$600
$1,000
$1,080
$900
$730
$1,200
$1,100
$2,800
$830
$990
$990
$495
$890
$1,050
$1,230
$1,690
$1,400
$850
$1,510
$700
$580
$900
$980
$3,400
$1,000
$902
$800
$790

Levi's Stadium

n/a

n/a

$850

$2,000

AVERAGE - ALL CURRENT STADIUMS

$46

$241

$397

$1,193

AVERAGE - WITH SANTA CLARA

$45

$245

$416

$1,226

Arizona Cardinals
Atlanta Falcons
Baltimore Ravens
Buffalo Bills
Carolina Panthers
Chicago Bears
Cincinnati Bengals
Cleveland Browns
Dallas Cowboys
Denver Broncos
Detroit Lions
Green Bay Packers
Houston Texans
Indianapolis Colts
Jacksonville Jaguars
Kansas City Chiefs
Miami Dolphins
Minnesota Vikings
New England Patriots
New Orleans Saints
New York Giants/Jets
Oakland Raiders
Philadelphia Eagles
Pittsburgh Steelers
San Diego Chargers
San Francisco 49ers
Seattle Seahawks
St. Louis Rams
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Tennessee Titans
Washington Redskins
San Francisco 49ers - Future

Source: Revenue from Sports Venues, AECOM

In addition, the following graphs show teams average ticket prices for the last three years, for
premium and non-premium tickets.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 59

Table 35: Average Regular NFL Ticket Price by Team, 2010-2012

Table 36: Average Premium NFL Ticket Price by Team, 2010-2012

NFL Premium Seat Prices

The following table summarizes the range of premium seat prices at NFL stadiums.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 60

Table 37: NFL Club Seat and Suite Ticket Price Ranges
Team

Club Seats

Stadium

Suites

Low

High

University of Phoenix Stadium

Georgia Dome
M&T Bank Stadium
Ralph Wilson Stadium
Bank of America Stadium
Soldier Field
Paul Brown Stadium
FirstEnergy Stadium
AT&T Stadium
Sports Authority Field at Mile High
Ford Field
Lambeau Field
Reliant Stadium
Lucas Oil Stadium
EverBank Field
Arrowhead Stadium
Sun Life Stadium
Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome
Gillette Stadium
Mercedes-Benz Superdome
MetLife Stadium
O.co Coliseum
Lincoln Financial Field
Heinz Field
Qualcomm Stadium
Candlestick Park
CenturyLink Field
Edward Jones Dome
Raymond James Stadium
LP Field
FedEx Field

$1,000
$1,800
$1,550
$890
$1,900
$2,450
$1,250
$1,000
$3,400
$2,130
$1,100
$2,010
$1,750
$2,200
$1,200
$5,500
$1,250
-$3,750
$630
$2,500
$1,260
$1,700
$1,530
$1,030
-$1,600
$1,275
$1,799
$800
$2,800

$3,250
$2,800
$3,335
$2,300
$4,150
$3,500
$2,600
$2,490
$3,400
$3,695
$2,950
$2,980
$3,010
$2,600
$1,925
$5,500
$3,250
-$6,000
$700
$7,500
$1,510
$3,500
$2,006
$2,330
-$2,800
$2,750
$3,668
$2,550
$4,650

$65,000
$125,000
$52,000
$175,000
$60,000
$250,000
$21,000
$88,000
$87,000
$325,000
$75,000
$200,000
$76,000
$165,000
$35,000
$125,000
$100,000 $1,000,000
$86,000
$130,000
$110,000 $225,000
$57,000
$133,000
$50,000
$250,000
$40,000
$235,000
$75,000
$135,000
$42,000
$128,000
$50,000
$300,000
$50,000
$130,000
$85,000
$305,000
$90,000
$150,000
$150,000 $500,000
$50,000
$100,000
$125,000 $250,000
$46,000
$125,000
$45,000
$135,000
$50,000
$150,000
$50,000
$150,000
$58,000
$135,000
$45,000
$150,000
$52,000
$125,000
$90,000
$250,000

Levi's Stadium

$3,250

$3,750

$150,000

$500,000

AVERAGE - ALL CURRENT STADIUMS

$1,829

$3,231

$66,677

$214,323

AVERAGE - WITH SANTA CLARA

$1,877

$3,248

$69,903

$225,613

Arizona Cardinals
Atlanta Falcons
Baltimore Ravens
Buffalo Bills
Carolina Panthers
Chicago Bears
Cincinnati Bengals
Cleveland Browns
Dallas Cowboys
Denver Broncos
Detroit Lions
Green Bay Packers
Houston Texans
Indianapolis Colts
Jacksonville Jaguars
Kansas City Chiefs
Miami Dolphins
Minnesota Vikings
New England Patriots
New Orleans Saints
New York Giants/Jets
Oakland Raiders
Philadelphia Eagles
Pittsburgh Steelers
San Diego Chargers
San Francisco 49ers
Seattle Seahawks
St. Louis Rams
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Tennessee Titans
Washington Redskins
San Francisco 49ers - Future

Low

High

Source: Revenue from Sports Venues, AECOM

Based on this data and a previous analysis prepared for the Authority, the Raiders potential premium
seating revenue is among the lowest in the NFL.

NFL Team Operations

Forbes annually ranks the value of NFL franchises, as well as other team-related financial metrics.
While these estimates are generally not based on actual comprehensive and proprietary team data,
they can be useful, particularly on a leaguewide basis, to compare the relative position and financial
strength of franchises. The following chart shows the most recent Forbes data from August 2013, with
teams ranked by their estimated value. Forbes measures the current value as the value of a team

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 61

based on its current stadium deal, unless a new stadium is pending, without deduction for debt (other
than stadium debt).
Table 38: NFL Teams by Value
Rank Team
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

Dallas Cowboys
New England Patriots
Washington Redskins
New York Giants
Houston Texans
New York Jets
Philadelphia Eagles
Chicago Bears
Baltimore Ravens
San Francisco 49ers
Indianapolis Colts
Green Bay Packers
Denver Broncos
Pittsburgh Steelers
Seattle Seahawks
Miami Dolphins
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Carolina Panthers
Tennessee Titans
Kansas City Chiefs
Minnesota Vikings
Cleveland Browns
New Orleans Saints
Arizona Cardinals
San Diego Chargers
Atlanta Falcons
Cincinnati Bengals
Detroit Lions
St Louis Rams
Buffalo Bills
Jacksonville Jaguars
Oakland Raiders

Current
Value
(millions)

1-Yr Value
Change (%)

Revenue
(millions)

Operating
Income
(millions)

$2,300

10

$539

$251

$1,800
$1,700
$1,550
$1,450
$1,380
$1,314
$1,252
$1,227
$1,224
$1,200
$1,183
$1,161
$1,118
$1,081
$1,074
$1,067
$1,057
$1,055
$1,009
$1,007
$1,005
$1,004
$961
$949
$933
$924
$900
$875
$870
$840
$825

10
6
6
11
7
4
5
6
4
4
2
3
2
4
1
3
1
4
0
3
2
3
4
1
11
6
5
12
8
9
5

$408
$381
$338
$320
$321
$306
$298
$292
$255
$276
$282
$283
$266
$270
$268
$267
$271
$270
$245
$234
$264
$276
$253
$250
$252
$250
$248
$239
$256
$260
$229

$139
$104
$64
$82
$53
$48
$63
$48
$10
$65
$54
$32
$28
$28
$25
$2
$29
$40
$15
$28
$17
$22
$10
$30
$19
$37
($4)
$21
$13
$16
$19

Source: Forbes

By a wide margin, the Dallas Cowboys are the leagues most valuable franchise (with the highest
revenues and operating income), according to Forbes, due to factors such as their overall popularity,
new stadium, and their unique agreement that excludes the team from sharing revenues from
merchandise sales.
The Raiders, however, are ranked last in the NFL in terms of value and revenue (and have the tenthlowest income). In 2012, the team had the third-lowest value and was one of three teams with an

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 62

operating loss. From 2012 to 2013, the Raiders operating income increased from a loss of $15
million to a net income of $19 million.
Although revenue has generally increased for the Raiders from $144 to $229 million from 2003 to
2013, player expenses have risen more quickly from $95 to $168 million, contributing to an overall
decline in operating income. It is generally acknowledged by team and other sources that the Raiders
are at the bottom of the league in revenue generation. The following figure shows historical changes
in the Raiders player expenses, operating income, revenue, and team value, according to Forbes.
Figure 9: Raiders Financial Metrics, 2003-2013
$1,000
$900
$800

Millions

$700
$600

Player Expenses

$500

Operating Income

$400

Revenue

$300

Value

$200
$100
$0
($100)

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Source: Forbes

Potential Impact of a New Stadium

Analysis of historical changes in estimated franchise value can provide insight regarding the impact
that a new stadium can have. For this analysis, we look at five franchises that have opened four new
stadiums since 2006:

Arizona Cardinals University of Phoenix Stadium (2006),

Indianapolis Colts Lucas Oil Field (2008),

Dallas Cowboys AT&T Stadium (2009), and

New York Giants and Jets MetLife Stadium (2010).

The figure below represents the average annual percentage change in team value before and after
the opening of these four new stadiums. It is important to note that this is not a comprehensive
analysis of the effect of a new stadium, in that the Forbes estimates are not necessarily a true
measure of a franchises actual value, and there are many other factors that can influence a teams
value.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 63

Figure 10: Average Annual Percentage Change in Franchise Value from New Stadium
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
4 Yrs.
Before
New
Stadium

3 Yrs.
Before
New
Stadium

2 Yrs.
Yr. Before
New
New
New
New
Before
New
Stadium - Stadium - Stadium - Stadium New
Stadium
Yr. 1
Yr. 2
Yr. 3
Yr. 4
Stadium

Source: Forbes, AECOM

Franchise value increased significantly prior to the opening of the new stadiums, presumably due to
the anticipation of increased revenues following a completed agreement for the new facilities.
Following the opening of the facilities, values stabilized but continued to increase.
In addition, other teams that are currently planning new facilities have already seen increases in their
estimated value:

The 49ers, who will start playing in a new stadium in Santa Clara in 2014, saw a 19-percent
increase in 2012, following six years of increases ranging from one to nine percent.
According to a recent report, the team is anticipating an operating profit of $100 million next
season, after moving into the new stadium, compared to recent years of approximately
breakeven results.

The Vikings, who are in the late stages of planning for a new stadium to replace the
Metrodome, increased in value by 22 percent in 2012 after six years of changes ranging from
a seven-percent decrease to a nine-percent increase.

The Falcons, who like the Vikings are also nearing a deal for a new stadium, saw an 11percent increase in 2013 after a three-percent increase in 2012 preceded by three years of
two- and three-percent decreases.

Franchise value consistently increased in the years immediately preceding a new stadium and
continued to increase following a new stadiums opening. While a new football-only stadium with

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 64

more favorable deal terms to the Raiders would presumably increase the teams value, the exact
implications are difficult to measure.

NFL Stadiums Financial Operations

AECOM has also researched the financial operations of a number of existing NFL stadiums across
the country, based on publicly-available data and proprietary data that we have obtained. Below, we
summarize stadiums operating revenues and expenses, and other major characteristics. The
amounts shown are those that are the responsibility of the stadiums public-sector owner.
Because each facility has its own set of line-item accounts, only revenue and expense totals are
shown below. The results for each facility will also be dependent on revenue- and expense-sharing
agreements with tenants and other users, which can vary significantly from facility to facility. (This is a
major factor in the wide discrepancies between facilities revenue and expense levels.) However, in
general, the totals begin to show the range of results that can be expected in these types of stadiums,
after accounting for sharing agreements. Later in this report, we analyze various revenue and
expense items of NFL facilities in more detail.
Table 39: NFL Stadiums Financial Results
Stadium 1

Stadium 2

Stadium 3

Stadium 4

Stadium 5

Stadium 6

Stadium 7

Stadium 8

Type

Open Air

Domed/
Retractable
Roof

Domed/
Retractable
Roof

Open Air

Open Air

Open Air

Open Air

Domed/
Retractable
Roof

Size Range

60,000 70,000

60,000 70,000

70,000 80,000

70,000 80,000

60,000 70,000

70,000 80,000

60,000 70,000

60,000 70,000

Other Major Tenants/Uses?

College
Tenant

--

College
Tenant

--

--

College
Tenant

--

--

2011

2010

2012

2008

2012

2012

2011

2013B

Gross Operating Revenues (000s)

$15,920

$9,783

$41,906

n/a

$25,267

$6,547

n/a

$14,862

Gross Operating Expenses (000s)

$14,031

$12,183

$39,160

$9,911

$12,522

$11,420

$11,091

$10,349

Net Operating Revenue (000s)

$1,889

($2,400)

$2,746

n/a

$12,745

($4,873)

n/a

$4,513

Financial
Year

Source: AECOM research, individual facilities/cities

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 65

IV. New Stadium Market Demand and Operations

This section summarizes the anticipated demand for and revenues from various components of a
new, football-only stadium in Oakland, as well as overall operating forecasts of the stadiums usage,
revenues, and expenses under multiple scenarios. (All amounts are shown in 2013 price levels.)
As a starting point to our analysis of the potential features of a new football-only stadium in Oakland,
Front Row has reviewed preliminary design concepts prepared by Raiders consultants to begin to
determine the best approach for the stadium with respect to premium seating, advertising / signage,
and naming rights. These findings are described below. In compiling the data from our research, our
intellectual property, a review of the current design concept, and having a fundamental understanding
of corporate needs, Front Row has developed a recommended outline for premium seating and
advertising / signage fit-out for the new stadium, as well as preliminary estimates of other offerings
and revenue sources. We were not provided with direct contacts from the Raiders season ticket base
and sponsors that would allow us to complete surveys related to interest in new stadium offerings, but
were able to review the results of their own internal study and draw some conclusions from those key
preliminary results.

Premium Seating Discoveries and Recommendations

Luxury Suites

In looking at the size of the suites compared to other NFL facilities, we feel that the
recommended number of suites (129) is too many for this market and the number of seats
skewed too large (32 seats). Our belief is that the suites need to be spacious and
comfortable, but limited to 18 seats maximum. They need to provide a lounge-like feel that
is not compacted.

The market has an enormous amount of premium seating and will see expiring inventory
become available at Levis Stadium inventory near the first year of a new stadium in Oakland,
as some of its initial suite contracts will be expiring at approximately the same time.

Recommended Number of Suites and Capacities

Our belief is that the suites need to be spacious and comfortable.

Seating capacity for 10 18 people.

Our recommendation is to have approximately 75 total suites in the new stadium with 10-,
14- and 18-person seating configurations.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 66

Recommended Luxury Suite Pricing

The following chart outlines the recommended pricing for the suites. These prices were determined
based on NFL comparisons, the current premium seating environment in the Bay Area, current
pricing/terms and current demand for O.com Coliseum suites for Raiders games, and the preliminary
results from the internal Raiders survey results.
Table 40: Recommended Luxury Suites
Suite Size

Term

Low

3
6
10
3
6
10
10

$80,000.00
$77,500.00
$75,000.00
$110,000
$105,000
$102,500
$130,000

10-Seat
10-Seat
10-Seat
14-Seat
14-Seat
14-Seat
18-Seat
Avg. per seat
# of Seats
Projected Revenue (100% Sold Out)

High
$124,000
$120,125
$116,250
$170,500
$162,750
$158,875
$201,500

$9,681
975
$9,439,011

Source: FRMS

Club Seats
Upon review of the current stadium plans, we believe that 7,100 club seats are far too many for the
new stadium. Our primary concerns are as follows

Identical to the suites, the Bay Area has an enormous amount of premium seating and will
see expiring inventory become available at Levis Stadium in or near the first year of a new
stadium in Oakland, as some of its initial club seat contracts will be expiring at the same time.

The current 5,600 Raiders club seat agreements are sold on a year-to-year basis. The goal of
the new stadium should be to sell 1-, 3- and 5-year agreements.

The major reason we recommend a reduction in the number of club seats is largely due to current
and anticipated market demand, premium seating inventory in the marketplace, and comparable NFL
stadiums. However, now that the economic climate has adjusted itself and corporate interest in
purchasing club seats has waned in comparison to years past, many of these 7,000+ club seats in
these mature market stadiums are not sold they sit empty or are sold on an annual basis. The
simple reason is that these stadiums overbuilt. They built based upon an inflated economy where
luxury purchases such as club seats and suites were commonplace. Now, since the economic climate
has changed towards a more conservative approach and subsequently luxury spending has

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 67

diminished, these stadiums are saddled with excessive supply that can only be filled in a boom
economy.
In addition, as a general rule, we recommend that approximately 10% or less of a stadiums seats be
allocated to club seats. To warrant having more than 10%, there needs to have a very enthusiastic
fan base and an anchor tenant to drive the demand for not only the first year, but in future years.
Recommended Number of Club Seats

Our recommendation is to have approximately 4,700 total club seats in the new stadium.

Recommended Club Seat Pricing

The following chart outlines the recommended pricing for the club seats. These prices were
determined based on NFL comparisons, the current premium seating environment in the Bay
Area, current pricing/terms and demand for O.com Coliseum club seats, and the preliminary
results from the internal Raiders survey.

Table 41: Recommended Club Seats

Clubs

Term

1-yr
3-yr
5-yr

1
3
5

Avg. per seat

# of Seats
Projected Revenue (100% Sold Out)

Low

High

$2,100
$2,000
$1,900

$2,700
$2,600
$2,500

$2,300
4,700
$10,810,000

Source: FRMS

Loge Seats
Loge boxes are:

A cluster of 4 or 6 upgraded swivel seats

Features a food / drink rail

Includes a table top 20 flat-screen TV.

Loge boxes have become a popular premium seating product in recent years because they represent
a middle-ground product that provides an option that is lower-priced than a full-fledged suite but
more exclusive than a club seat.
Examples of loge seats and boxes are shown below.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 68

Recommended Number of Loge Seats

We recommend the addition of loge seats approximately 40 boxes with seating capacities of 4
to 6 people. Under NFL rules, the Raiders will have to share all non-premium seating revenue with
the opposing team, and if an individual loge box has more than one contract signer, it would fall under
the non-premium seating status. This concept of 4 to 6 seats more easily provides for a single
contract signer.
Recommended Loge Seat Pricing

The following chart outlines the recommended pricing for the loge boxes. These prices were
determined based on NFL comparisons, the current premium seating environment in the Bay
Area, current pricing/terms and demand for O.com Coliseum premium seating, the allotment
of clubs and suites, and the preliminary results from the internal Raiders survey.

Table 42: Recommended Loge Boxes

Loge
4-Seat
4-Seat
6-Seat
6-Seat

Term
2
4
2
4

Avg. per seat

# of Seats
Projected Revenue (100% sold out)

Low

High

$13,500
$12,500
$18,000
$17,000

$16,000
$15,750
$20,000
$19,000

$3,346
200
$669,271

Source: FRMS

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 69

Non-Premium Ticketing
The current average non-premium ticket price for the Raiders is $62.23. We are currently assuming
an average non-premium ticket price for the first year of the stadium to be approximately $69.36,
which currently only includes an inflationary increase.

Advertising & Sponsorships Discoveries and Recommendations

The new Raiders stadium would provide numerous opportunities to advertisers and sponsors. With
the very competitive landscape in the Bay Area, it will be crucial that the stadium offers sponsors key
advertising opportunities with the most up-to-date technology.

Signage
The following signage opportunities are recommended for signage and sponsorship inside the new
stadium. This inventory includes a list of potential opportunities that are in place in other NFL
stadiums or proposed as upgrades.

Facility naming rights

LED fascia advertising

Concourse signs

Scoreboard static signage

Turnstile advertising

Technology partnerships

Video messages on the scoreboard

Exterior marquee signage, if applicable

Sampling and couponing

Public waste/recycling receptacles

Naming rights to parking lot

Sub-naming rights to suite level, club lounge other VIP areas

Public washroom advertising

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 70

Examples of Inner Bowl Signage

The in-stadium signage will be predominately digital signage; this will provide the versatility to
change-out advertisers for different events and provide sponsors with the best technology to
showcase their brand messaging.

Scoreboard static signage (right and left of video screen)

Scoreboard video animation

LED fascia ring around entire stadium lower fascia

Scoreboard- Inner Bowl Signage

Scoreboard
Full-Size Digital Panels

Video Animation/Graphics Pkg

14' x 9'

TBD

TBD

Located in Red in the rendering below.

Duplicate the Video Scbr with the LED Fascia
(same sponsors)

In lieu of static signage, the preferred option, is to increase the size of the digital face of the
scoreboard and allocate the left and right sections of the scoreboard to digital advertising.
LED Fascia Signage Package
The LED fascia will provide exclusivity for an advertiser to broadcast their image throughout the
entire bowl area. There would be time different time slot package sold for the LED fascia.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 71

Fascia LED Display

Dominate Sponsors

Associate Sponsors

Theme Sponsors

Below are the three levels of LED sponsorships; these should be included with the sponsorship
packages outlined below.

Top Package Dominant Sponsor (maximum of 8 sponsors)

o 10 minutes of exposure (from pre-game to end of game)

o Per instance - run time of up to 30 seconds
o Animation is run until it completes, then a still image will appear for the remainder of the
ad interval.

2nd Package Associate Sponsor (maximum of 8 sponsors)

o Maximum of 5 minutes per game (from pre-game end of game)

o Per instance - run time of up to 15 seconds
o Animation is run until it completes, then a still image will appear for the remainder of the
ad interval.

3rd Package Theme Sponsors (i.e., Replays, 1st Downs, Touchdown, Field Goal)
(maximum of 4 sponsors)

o Average of 2 minutes per game (during special themed areas during the game)
o Per instance - run Time of up to 15 seconds
o Animation is run until it completes, then a still image will appear for the remainder of the
ad interval.
There will be an estimated $10 - $15 million in additional revenue from other advertising and
sponsorship packages (not including naming rights). These packages will include interior bowl
signage, LED signage, concourse signs, print materials, radio and pre-season TV spots, in-game
promotions, and additional signage opportunities.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 72

Facility Naming Rights

The naming rights partner will receive exposure from the following areas

Game and editorial radio coverage

Media segments/ news highlights

Television and game broadcast coverage

Social networking sites

Print media buys and editorial exposure

Internet and website exposure

Interior signage

Exterior signage

Print collateral, including pocket schedules, event programs, flyers, printed tickets,
promotional brochures, coupons, letterhead, business cards, envelopes

Employee uniforms

Concession products

Media backdrop/podium

Way-finding DOT signage

A naming rights partner will also receive the following hospitality elements

An 18-seat suite at the 50-yard line

10 club seats

Opportunities for rent-free use of the facility

The annual value for the naming rights to the new Raiders stadium is estimated at
$8,147,318 to $10,767,257 (beginning in 2017), as summarized below. This is based on an
ROI to the naming rights partner of 3 to 1 or 4 to 1, which is the expected return for a naming
rights package.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 73

Table 43: Naming Rights Valuation

Category of Benefit*

Impressions

AFFINITY VALUE**
Fixed Signage

Value
$2,858,115

1,448,410,000

$14,484,100

751,715,492

$7,517,155

Ancillary Exposure

91,740,000

$917,400

Team Media Buys

66,000,000

$660,000

Event Media Buys

98,750,000

$987,500

Way-finding DOT Signage

41,500,000

$415,000

Media Exposure

NFL Broadcast exposure

$3,600,000

HOSPITALITY
TOTAL

$287,500
2,498,115,492

HOSPITALITY

$31,439,270
$287,500

NAMING RIGHTS - 4 to 1 ROI

$8,147,318

NAMING RIGHTS - 3 to 1 ROI

$10,767,257

Source: FRMS

*The categories of benefits encompass all of the exposure from which a naming rights partner would receive
brand exposure.
**The affinity value is the value a sponsor receives by being associated with a particular event/team and the
affinity that coincides with sponsor participation at the teams games. An associated factor for each sponsor is
derived from attributes related to overall value of the Raiders sponsors and associate sponsors, comparable
value with similar caliber NFL teams, location of the games, overall national and international media exposure
(TV, radio, newsprint/magazine, Internet, etc), brand profile, and reach of the sponsor.

Founding Partners
The Raiders will want to start off the sponsorship sales process by developing approximately 6
founding partnerships. These partnerships could include:

Product/service exclusivity (sponsor may include product and services into the construction
or operation of the venue, for example cabling for TVs or pouring rights)

Entrance display and interactive build-out

LED fascia advertising

Concourse signage

Team publications (yearbook, gameday program, pocket schedule panel, etc)

Pre-Season TV spots/features

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 74

Radio broadcasts (Pre & Post game, in-game spots/features)

An 18-seat suite

8 to 10 club seats

These estimated costs for the founding partners will range from $1.5 million - $2.5 million
based on the elements above, or a total of $9 million to $15 million.

Projected Revenue from Founding Partners: $9 million to $15 million

Table 44: Summary of Advertising & Sponsorship Revenue Projection (100% Sold Out)
Naming Rights (Average)
Founding Partners (Average)
Additional Advertising (Average)

$9,000,000
$12,000,000
$12,500,000

Total

$33,500,000

Source: FRMS

Merchandise and Food & Beverage Recommendations

It is Front Rows recommendation that an outside sourced food and beverage company be contracted
for the service of the concessions and premium seating. An outside food service company can
provide a certain amount of investment for the build-out of kitchens and other food and beverage
service areas.
The two types of arrangements with an F&B company are (1) Risk profit & loss structure (P&L) and
(2) management agreement. In the first arrangement, the F&B company sets benchmarks and
receives a fee plus a bonus based on the bottom line of the overall success of the operation. The
second arrangement is a straight management fee with limited upside or downside risk for the food
service provider.
It is not uncommon to have two different F&B companies in an NFL stadium, whereby one is
responsible for the concession stands and the other is focused on premium seating.
Regarding merchandising, in recent years, the food service company has also often run the retail
operation for the stadium in conjunction with its F&B agreement. In some NFL stadiums, the teams
control the merchandising, and this depends upon their structure with outside retail locations, which is
what the Raiders have with the Raider Image retail locations throughout Northern California.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 75

Food and Beverage and Merchandise Projected Per Caps

Based on the research of NFL stadiums and their various per caps for F&B (general concessions and
catering) and merchandise, it is projected that the Raiders can expect to receive the following gross
revenue per caps:

General Concessions $11.12

Club Concessions $16.50

Suites F&B $93.87

Merchandise $1.64

Based on the above per caps, a new Raiders stadium can expect to generate the following gross
revenues from F&B and merchandise:
General Concessions (based on full season general attendance sold out and 75% capacity):

Sold Out projection (471,250)

$5,240,300

75% of capacity

$3,930,225

Clubs & Loges (based on 49,000 in annual attendance sold out and 75% capacity):

Sold Out projection (49,000)

$808,500

75% of capacity

$606,375

Suites (based on 9,750 in annual attendance sold out and 75% capacity):

Sold Out projection (9,750)

$915,233

75% of capacity

$686,424

Merchandise (based on 530,000 in annual attendance - sold out and 75% capacity):

Sold Out projection (530,000)

$869,200

75% of capacity

$651,900

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 76

Table 45: Summary of Revenue Projections

Low Range
(75% of
allotment)

High Range
(100% of
allotment)

Premium Seating
Advertising/Sponsorships
Naming Rights (based on 3 & 4 to 1 ROI)
Food & Beverage
Tickets (excluding PS allocation)
Merchandise

$15,688,712
$18,375,000
$8,147,318
$5,223,025
$24,514,569
$651,900

$20,918,282
$24,500,000
$10,767,257
$6,964,033
$32,686,092
$869,200

Total

$72,602,546

$96,707,461

Source: FRMS

The estimates above will be incorporated into the following section of our report, which will more
comprehensively forecast the future operations and economics of a new stadium, as well as
assumptions regarding revenue-sharing agreements for these and other revenue sources.

Projected Future Operations

Below, we provide projections of the future operations (events/attendance and revenues and
expenses) of a new, football-only stadium in Oakland under two scenarios: an open-air stadium and a
retractable roof stadium. These projections are based on our market analyses, the operations of other
NFL stadiums, past operations of the Coliseum, and other research.
Under both scenarios, major facility elements are assumed to remain constant, with the exception of
the roof. These assumptions include:

A seating capacity of approximately 50,000 seats, with the ability to expand for special
events.

75 luxury suites,

4,700 club seats,

200 loge box seats,

Appropriate levels of premium/club space for premium-seat holders, and

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 77

Typical amounts and quality of spaces and facilities for advertising/sponsorship opportunities,
food and beverage/catering areas, circulation, back-of-house and storage, loading, offices,
and points of sale for a modern NFL stadium of this size.

We also assume that the stadiums operations would be the responsibility of the Raiders, and that the
team hires a private management company to oversee day-to-day operations and marketing of the
facility.
While various projections regarding operating revenues are presented above, this section
comprehensively addresses all components of facility operations. We present gross revenues and
expenses of the facility under both scenarios; this would be the starting point for further discussions
regarding the projects viability and potential sharing of revenues and expenses, as well as facility
funding.

New Open-Air Stadium

Events and Attendance
The following table summarizes the assumed annual number of events and paid attendance of an
open-air stadium for its first ten years.
Table 46: Events and Attendance Open-Air Stadium
# of
Events

Avg.
Atten.

Total
Atten.

Raiders - Preseason
Raiders - Regular Season
Concerts & Other Stadium Events (Major)
Concerts & Other Stadium Events (Minor)
Meetings and Conferences/Social Events
Conventions and Trade/Consumer Shows
Parking Lot/Other Events

2
8
5
3
10
2
3

40,000
50,000
40,000
7,500
100
3,000
1,500

80,000
400,000
200,000
22,500
1,000
6,000
4,500

Total

33

714,000

Source: AECOM

Raiders Games
This category includes both preseason and regular-season games. Per the NFL schedule, the
Raiders would play 10 such home games per year. As many as three additional home games are
possible in the playoffs; however, we do not assume any extra games will be played beyond the 10
preseason and regular-season games. We assume that paid attendance will be 40,000 for preseason
games and 50,000 for regular-season games. Based on historical Raiders data, actual turnstile
attendance is assumed to be 85 percent of paid attendance for preseason games and 90 percent for
regular-season games.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 78

Concerts and Other Stadium Events (Major)

This category includes large sports and entertainment events, such as concerts, Monster truck
shows, college football games, soccer matches, and other similar events. We expect a new stadium
to continue to host Monster Truck and Supercross events, and two other major ticketed events per
year, such as a concert and soccer game. It is also possible that the new stadium could attract a
major college football game (regular season and/or bowl game) or other similar event on an annual or
occasional basis. As previously mentioned in this report, there are a limited number of large stadium
events that could potentially be held in any NFL stadium, and a new stadium in Oakland will have
significant local competition from Levis Stadium and AT&T Park in particular.
Generally, the NFL has awarded a Super Bowl to markets that build new stadiums (Super Bowl L will
be held in Santa Clara in 2016). However, a number of requirements related to seating capacity,
number of hotel rooms, available exhibit space, and other local offerings, need to be met. The
assumed size of Oaklands new stadium is smaller than the Super Bowls minimum capacity of
70,000, although we assume that the facility will have the ability to add temporary seating for this type
of event. While it is possible that a Super Bowl could be awarded to Oakland, we do not specifically
include the event in our projections, as it would have little impact on the stadiums annual operations
(the NFL retains event-related revenues but pays some expenses).
As a result, we assume the stadium will host five such events per year, with an average attendance of
40,000 and turnstile attendance of 38,000.
Concerts and Other Stadium Events (Minor)
This includes smaller, ticketed sports and entertainment events such as small concerts, high school
football games, and other similar events. We assume three such events will be held at a new stadium
each year, with an average attendance of 7,500 and turnstile attendance of 7,125.
Meetings and Conferences/Social Events
This category includes smaller, non-ticketed events that take place in areas such as stadium
restaurants and clubs, suites, and other similar areas (as well as the playing field). These would
generally be held on non-game days by local businesses and other groups. The Coliseum currently
does not generally host these types of events, primarily because of the labor expense of hosting
them. While these costs may decrease in the future, there does not appear to be strong latent
demand for these types of events locally. We assume a new stadium would host 10 such events per
year, with an average attendance of 100 people.
Conventions and Trade/Consumer Shows
Conventions and trade shows are larger events that can be held in areas of the stadium such as its
concourses, parking lots, private areas, and/or the playing field. As with meetings, there does not

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 79

appear to be strong demand for these types of events at the Coliseum or in Oakland in general, and
this is not expected to change significantly through the presence of a new facility. However, we
assume two such events per year, with an average attendance of 3,000.
Parking Lot/Other Events
This category can include a wide range of rent-generating events held in the stadiums parking lot
(such as community events, festivals, and TV/movie/commercial filming), or others that are not
included in the categories above. The Coliseum does not currently host these types of events;
however, we assume an average of three per year in the future.
Aside from the major ticketed events, other stadium events provide opportunities for community
usage but will not have a significant impact on the facilitys operations or revenues. In addition to the
events described above, it is possible that the stadiums management could create other community
and visitor usage opportunities, through stadium tours, access to concourses for walking/exercise,
and others.
Operating Revenues and Expenses
Based on forecasted event and attendee demand, operations of similar facilities, past operations of
the Coliseum, and other aspects of the market analysis, we have prepared a ten-year projection of
operating revenues and expenses for the assumed facility. The following describes the assumptions
and methodology used to estimate the financial performance of the stadium, beginning with a
summary of the projected operating statement, in thousands. (Revenues do not include any amounts
that would be fully captured by the Raiders, such as ticket and merchandise sales. This also does not
include any amounts that are paid to a capital reserve account.) All revenue line items are shown net
of associated expenses but before any sharing between the Raiders and the public sector.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 80

Table 47: Operating Revenues and Expenses Open-Air Stadium (000s)

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

Operating Revenues
Rent - Non-Raiders Events
Concessions and Catering
Merchandise
Parking
Naming Rights
Raiders Premium Seating (Ticket Price and Premium)
Other Events Premium Seating (Ticket Price and Premium)
Advertising/Sponsorships (Interior)
Founding Partnerships
Exterior Billboard Revenue
Wireless - DAS System Rent
Facility Fees
Ticket Fee Charges
Other Revenues
Total Operating Revenues

$693
2,873
142
2,031
9,440
20,723
2,432
13,801
13,249
630
114
567
1,390
125

$704
2,930
145
2,071
9,629
21,138
2,481
14,077
13,514
643
117
578
1,390
138

$716
2,989
148
2,113
9,821
21,560
2,531
14,359
13,784
655
121
590
1,390
141

$727
3,049
150
2,155
10,018
21,991
2,581
14,646
14,060
668
125
602
1,390
144

$739
3,110
153
2,198
10,218
22,431
2,633
14,939
14,341
682
128
614
1,390
146

$752
3,172
157
2,242
10,422
22,880
2,686
15,237
14,628
695
132
626
1,390
149

$764
3,235
160
2,287
10,631
23,338
2,739
15,542
14,920
709
136
638
1,390
152

$777
3,300
163
2,333
10,843
23,804
2,794
15,853
15,219
724
140
651
1,390
155

$790
3,366
166
2,379
11,060
24,280
2,850
16,170
15,523
738
144
664
1,390
159

$803
3,433
169
2,427
11,282
24,766
2,907
16,493
15,834
753
149
677
1,390
162

$68,209

$69,555

$70,917

$72,306

$73,723

$75,169

$76,643

$78,147

$79,681

$81,246

$2,236
3,312
2,208
6,624
1,104
828
276
1,656
166
1,104

$2,280
3,378
2,252
6,757
1,126
845
282
1,689
169
1,126

$2,326
3,446
2,297
6,892
1,149
862
287
1,723
172
1,149

$2,373
3,515
2,343
7,030
1,172
879
293
1,757
176
1,172

$2,420
3,585
2,390
7,171
1,195
896
299
1,793
179
1,195

$2,468
3,657
2,438
7,314
1,219
914
305
1,828
183
1,219

$2,518
3,730
2,487
7,460
1,243
933
311
1,865
187
1,243

$2,568
3,805
2,536
7,609
1,268
951
317
1,902
190
1,268

$2,620
3,881
2,587
7,762
1,294
970
323
1,940
194
1,294

$2,672
3,958
2,639
7,917
1,319
990
330
1,979
198
1,319

$19,515

$19,905

$20,303

$20,709

$21,123

$21,546

$21,977

$22,416

$22,864

$23,322

Operating Expenses
Salaries and Benefits
Part-Time/Contractual Labor
Utilities
Event Expenses - Raiders
Repairs and Maintenance
Management Fee
Insurance
General & Administrative
Marketing/Advertising/Promotion
Other Expenses
Total Operating Expenses
Net Operating Income

$48,695

$49,650

$50,614

$51,597

$52,600

$53,623

$54,666

$55,731

$56,816

$57,924

Source: AECOM

As the table shows, we estimate a total of approximately $68.2 million in revenues in 2018, and $19.5
million in operating expenses. The resulting $48.7 million net operating income increases to $57.9
million in 2027.
The following table summarizes many of the major assumptions related to events and attendees use
of the facility (such as rent, average ticket prices, and per-attendee spending, in 2013 prices), while
others are described in the text below. Unless otherwise noted, amounts are inflated by two percent
per year.
Table 48: Operating Assumptions Open-Air Stadium
Rent
Per
Avg Ticket
Performa % of Tix
Price
nce/ Event
Sales
Day
Raiders - Preseason
Raiders - Regular Season
Concerts & Other Stadium Events (Major)
Concerts & Other Stadium Events (Minor)
Meetings and Conferences/Social Events
Conventions and Trade/Consumer Shows
Parking Lot/Other Events

$69.36
$69.36
$35.00
$15.00

10%
10%
$3,500
$12,500
$3,500

Gross Per Cap Revenues

Days/
Event

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.5

Concess

Club &
Loge
Seats

Suites/
Catering

Merch

$11.12
$11.12
$8.00
$4.00
$0.00
$1.00
$1.00

$16.50
$16.50
$10.00
$5.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$93.87
$93.87
$50.00
$20.00
$30.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$8.00
$4.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

Total
Facility
Fee/
Ticket

10%
10%

Avg.
Gross
Turnstile:
Ticketing
Paid Ratio
Fees/
Ticket

$13.00
$8.00

Source: AECOM

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 81

85%
90%
95%
95%
100%
100%
100%

Revenues

Rent Non-Raiders Events

This category does not include any rent paid by the Raiders. For other events, the facility can charge
for usage of the stadium in many ways, depending on factors such as anticipated ticket sales,
standard terms from specific promoters, and the inclusion of stadium expenses charged to a promoter
(at a premium or discount) as part of an events rent expense.
For the purposes of this projection, we assume that ticketed events pay an overall fee of ten percent
of ticket revenues to the facility as rent. However, in many cases, the facility will take responsibility for
event-related expenses that will lower its effective rental rate (these are considered as general facility
expenses). For non-ticketed events, daily rent is assumed to be $3,500 for meetings, conferences,
and events and other events, and $12,500 per day for conventions and trade/consumer shows.
As a result, rent revenues are estimated to be $693,000 in 2018.

Concessions and Catering

Food and beverage sales from non-premium seat attendees will generate concessions revenue, and
catering revenues will be generated from premium seats and any catered private events. Gross percapita attendee spending for concessions and catering are shown above. Food and beverage
services can be provided internally or can be contracted to a third-party concessionaire. For the
purposes of this projection, we assume that a professional concessionaire is hired by the facility
operator, and the concessionaire pays a commission to the facility of 40 percent on concession sales
and 20 percent on catering sales. As a result, a total of $2.9 million is projected to be available in the
stadiums first year.

Merchandise
All revenue from sales of Raiders merchandise will be captured by the team and is not included in this
projection. However, other ticketed entertainment events such as concerts will also generate
merchandise sales. Depending on the event promoter, the facilitys net share of revenues can vary;
for some events, the facility would retain approximately ten to 12 percent of gross sales after sharing
with the promoter and vendor, based on typical agreements at the Coliseum. For other events, the
promoter would retain 100 percent of merchandise revenues. For the purposes of this projection, we
assume that the facility will capture an average of eight percent of these sales.
Based on per-attendee spending assumptions, a total of approximately $140,000 will be available in
2018.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 82

Parking
Parking revenues are based on a number of factors from our analysis of past parking operations for
all Coliseum events. This includes the typical number of parked cars per attendee, the average
amount paid per car, the 18.5 percent city/county parking tax, and parking-related expenses (which
are assumed to be 15 percent of gross revenues). Based on these factors, net parking revenues
(after parking-related operating expenses but before any sharing between the public and Raiders) are
projected to be approximately $2.0 million in 2018.

Naming Rights
As previously shown, we estimate that stadium naming rights could generate approximately $8 million
to $10 million per year. For the purposes of our projection, we assume that annual naming rights
revenue will be $9 million, less a five-percent annual commission to an outside agency that sells the
naming rights.

Premium Seating Raiders and Other Events

Assumed inventory and rates for the stadiums premium seating (luxury suites, club seats, and loge
boxes) were previously discussed and are summarized below:

Luxury Suites 75 suites with an average of 13 people per suite. The average annual rate is
assumed to be $125,000 in 2018, and this amount is inflated in future years (we assume that
suites will be offered on a three-, six-, or ten-year term).

Club Seats 4,700 seats at an average of $2,300 per seat (offered on a one-, three-, or fiveyear term).

Loge Boxes 40 boxes with a total of 200 seats, at an average of $3,350 per seat (offered on
two- or four-year terms).

We assume that all premium seating will be 90 percent occupied annually.

Also, we assume that these premium seats and rates only include access for Raiders games. For this
premium seating, a total of approximately $20.7 million would be generated in 2018.
For other ticketed events such as concerts, we assume that premium seat holders would have the
first option to purchase their suites or seats, but would have to pay for tickets (this is how premium
sales for non-Raiders and non-As games are currently handled at the Coliseum). For other ticketed
entertainment events at a new stadium, we assume that premium seats are 50 percent sold, at an
average ticket price of $150. Based on the assumptions of inventory, rates, and occupancy, total
premium seating revenue from these events would be approximately $2.4 million in 2018.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 83

Advertising/Sponsorships (Interior)
As previously described, we assume that the total value of interior stadium signage will be $13.8
million in 2018, and this amount is inflated in future years.

Founding Partnerships
As previously described, a total of six founding partners are assumed, at $2 million each. After
inflation, this results in $13.2 million in 2018.

Exterior Billboard Revenues

The Authority currently receives revenue from billboard signage on the Coliseum site, but not within
the facility, from two sources. The first is through advertising sold by CBS Outdoor on the Authoritys
behalf (with the Authority guaranteed a minimum payment, plus additional revenue sharing), and the
second is through a sponsorship with the Insurance Office of America. These revenues are not
currently shared with the Raiders, but are allocated equally to the Coliseum and Oracle Arena.
In the future, the stadiums share of these revenues are kept constant from recent historical levels,
but are inflated (to $630,000 in 2018).

Wireless DAS System Rent

The Authority currently receives a total of approximately $71,000 per year from AT&T and Verizon; as
of the date of this report, a third deal with Sprint, for approximately $32,000 per year, has been
approved. In the future, for the new stadium, these contracted amounts are inflated in our projection
(for a total of approximately $115,000 in 2018). Per the terms of these contracts, revenues are
inflated by three percent per year.

Facility Fees
There is currently a 10-percent fee on non-Raiders tickets that the Authority collects. While it is not
certain that this fee would exist at a new stadium, we assume that the fee continues to apply in the
future. Based on projected ticket prices and sales for non-Raiders events, facility fees would generate
$567,000 in the new stadiums first year.

Ticket Fee Charges

Ticketmaster, the Coliseums current ticketing partner, charges varying levels of convenience fees to
ticket buyers, based on a tickets price. For example, a $35 ticket (the assumed average price for
major ticketed, non-Raiders stadium events at a new stadium) carries $11 in fees; a $15 ticket (the

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 84

assumed average for minor, ticketed non-Raiders events) has $8 in fees. These fees are currently
shared equally between Ticketmaster and the Coliseum.
The Raiders generally sell their own tickets and have a separate ticketing contract; the teams
revenues from these ticket sales are not included here. However, based on the current contracted
ticketing fees and sharing arrangement, and the projected number of ticket sales for qualifying
events, total ticket incentive rebates are estimated to be approximately $1.4 million in 2018.

Other Revenues
The stadium also generates relatively minor amounts of revenue from other sources, such as
recycling, charges to television crews for electrical uses, and others. We assume other revenue will
be $125,000 in 2018, and this amount is inflated in later years.
Expenses

Salaries and Benefits

In general, a new stadium will be more expensive to staff than the current Coliseum, due to its
additional offerings such as points of sale, premium areas, and others. (However, there will also be a
revenue component to the increased costs.) This can affect both full-time staffing as well as part-time
event staff. Based on current staffing at the Coliseum and staffing levels at other similar NFL facilities,
salaries and benefits expenses are estimated to be approximately $2.2 million in 2018, and this
amount is inflated in later years.

Part-Time/Contractual Labor
Part-time, event-based staffing needs (for security, ticket taking, maintenance, and other areas) will
particularly be affected by the new stadium, as described above. Based on current expenses at the
Coliseum and expenses at other similar NFL stadiums, this expense is estimated to be approximately
$3.3 million in 2018, and is inflated in later years.

Utilities
Based on current utilities expense at the Coliseum, and actual utilities expenses at similar NFL
stadiums, this expense at a new stadium is estimated to be $2.2 million in 2018.

Event Expenses Raiders

Similar to other staffing expenses, expenses associated with staging Raiders games are expected to
be more expensive than at the Coliseum. Based on current gameday expenses and the anticipated
increase, these expenses are estimated to be $6.6 million in 2018.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 85

Repairs and Maintenance

Based on the current maintenance expenses at the Coliseum, actual expenses at similar NFL
stadiums, and the anticipated need for increased expenses at a new stadium, this is estimated to be
approximately $1.1 million in 2018.

Management Fee
The Coliseum and Oracle Arena are currently managed by AEG on behalf of the Authority. AEG
replaced SMG as manager in 2012 and signed a five-year contract. Generally, AEG receives 12
percent of Coliseum revenues from events booked by the company (which do not include Raiders or
As games). The terms of SMGs management fee were similar, although it received a base annual
fee of $200,000 and a maximum incentive fee (of ten to 12 percent of revenues) of $550,000. In the
last two years of its contract, SMG received a total of $750,000 for management of both the Coliseum
and Arena.
Management fees at NFL stadiums can vary significantly, based on the structure of incentive fees vs.
base fees, the provision of other services by a management company, and many other factors.
However, for the new stadium, we assume that a private manager is hired by the Raiders and
receives $750,000 per year in 2013 dollars (or approximately $830,000 in 2018).

Insurance
Based on property insurance currently paid for the Coliseum, insurance expense is estimated to be
approximately $275,000 in 2018.

General and Administrative

These expenses are for items such as travel and entertainment, postage, supplies, uniforms, and
others. Total G&A expenses are estimated to be approximately $1.7 million in 2018.

Marketing/Advertising/Promotion
Based on actual expenses for the Coliseum and other NFL stadiums, we estimate that this expense
will be approximately $165,000 in 2018.

Other Expenses
Other expenses are those not considered in the previous line items, and can include professional
services, equipment rental, and other miscellaneous expenses. We assume that other expenses are
$1.1 million in 2018.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 86

Net Operating Income

Based on the assumptions described above, the facilitys net operating income (before any revenue
sharing but including all operating expenses) is estimated to be approximately $48.7 million in 2018,
and increase to $57.9 in 2027.

New Retractable Roof Stadium

Anticipated stadium usage under a retractable-roof scenario is similar to that of the open-air scenario.
In general, the local climate is such that outdoor events are generally not precluded from being held
due to heat in the summer or cold in the winter; this is a major reason for the presence of retractableroof stadiums in markets such as Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, and Indianapolis.
As a result, we do not anticipate significantly higher event demand in Oakland due to a stadiums
ability to be indoors. Some events, such as collegiate and professional basketball games, are almost
exclusively held indoors, and it is possible that certain events such as a trade show or social event
would prefer a facility that can avoid any weather issues compared to one that carries weather-related
risk. We assume that a retractable-roof stadium in Oakland would host a slightly higher level of
conferences/social events and convention and trade/consumer shows than an open-air stadium
would. In this scenario, event demand increases to 36 events, and a total attendance of
approximately 717,000.
Events and Attendance
The following table summarizes the annual number of events and attendees of a retractable-roof
stadium for its first ten years.
Table 49: Events and Attendance Retractable Roof Stadium
# of
Events

Avg.
Atten.

Total
Atten.

Raiders - Preseason
Raiders - Regular Season
Concerts & Other Stadium Events (Major)
Concerts & Other Stadium Events (Minor)
Meetings and Conferences/Social Events
Conventions and Trade/Consumer Shows
Parking Lot/Other Events

2
8
5
3
12
3
3

40,000
50,000
40,000
7,500
100
3,000
1,500

80,000
400,000
200,000
22,500
1,200
9,000
4,500

Total

36

717,200

Source: AECOM

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 87

Revenues and Expenses

In general, the operating assumptions summarized above also apply to the retractable roof scenario.
Expenses, particularly for utilities and maintenance, can vary from an open-air stadium, and the scale
of differences can depend on a number of design and operating variables that are currently unknown
(such as the materials used throughout the stadium, how often the roof would be opened and closed,
and others).
Because most operating assumptions remain constant from the open-air scenario, we do not repeat
their descriptions here. However, the following expenses are increased by 10 percent from the openair scenario:

Part-time/contractual labor,

Utilities,

Repairs and maintenance, and

Insurance.

The resulting operating proforma is shown below.

Table 50: Operating Revenues and Expenses Retractable Roof Stadium (000s)
2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

Operating Revenues
Rent - Non-Raiders Events
Concessions and Catering
Merchandise
Parking
Naming Rights
Raiders Premium Seating (Ticket Price and Premium)
Other Events Premium Seating (Ticket Price and Premium)
Advertising/Sponsorships (Interior)
Founding Partnerships
Exterior Billboard Revenue
Wireless - DAS System Rent
Facility Fees
Ticket Fee Charges
Other Revenues
Total Operating Revenues

$737
2,876
142
2,031
9,440
20,723
2,432
13,801
13,249
630
114
567
1,390
125

$748
2,933
145
2,071
9,629
21,138
2,481
14,077
13,514
643
117
578
1,390
138

$760
2,992
148
2,113
9,821
21,560
2,531
14,359
13,784
655
121
590
1,390
141

$772
3,052
150
2,155
10,018
21,991
2,581
14,646
14,060
668
125
602
1,390
144

$784
3,113
153
2,198
10,218
22,431
2,633
14,939
14,341
682
128
614
1,390
146

$796
3,175
157
2,242
10,422
22,880
2,686
15,237
14,628
695
132
626
1,390
149

$809
3,238
160
2,287
10,631
23,338
2,739
15,542
14,920
709
136
638
1,390
152

$821
3,303
163
2,333
10,843
23,804
2,794
15,853
15,219
724
140
651
1,390
155

$834
3,369
166
2,379
11,060
24,280
2,850
16,170
15,523
738
144
664
1,390
159

$848
3,437
169
2,427
11,282
24,766
2,907
16,493
15,834
753
149
677
1,390
162

$68,257

$69,602

$70,964

$72,353

$73,771

$75,216

$76,690

$78,194

$79,729

$81,293

$2,236
3,643
2,429
6,624
1,214
828
304
1,656
166
1,104

$2,280
3,716
2,478
6,757
1,239
845
310
1,689
169
1,126

$2,326
3,791
2,527
6,892
1,264
862
316
1,723
172
1,149

$2,373
3,866
2,578
7,030
1,289
879
322
1,757
176
1,172

$2,420
3,944
2,629
7,171
1,315
896
329
1,793
179
1,195

$2,468
4,023
2,682
7,314
1,341
914
335
1,828
183
1,219

$2,518
4,103
2,735
7,460
1,368
933
342
1,865
187
1,243

$2,568
4,185
2,790
7,609
1,395
951
349
1,902
190
1,268

$2,620
4,269
2,846
7,762
1,423
970
356
1,940
194
1,294

$2,672
4,354
2,903
7,917
1,451
990
363
1,979
198
1,319

$20,205

$20,609

$21,021

$21,441

$21,870

$22,308

$22,754

$23,209

$23,673

$24,146

Operating Expenses
Salaries and Benefits
Part-Time/Contractual Labor
Utilities
Event Expenses - Raiders
Repairs and Maintenance
Management Fee
Insurance
General & Administrative
Marketing/Advertising/Promotion
Other Expenses
Total Operating Expenses
Net Operating Income

$48,052

$48,993

$49,943

$50,912

$51,900

$52,908

$53,937

$54,986

$56,056

$57,147

Source: AECOM

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 88

Both revenues and expenses are forecasted to increase slightly compared to the open-air stadium
scenario. However, because operating expenses are assumed to increase more than revenues, the
net operating income is slightly lower in this scenario. (This does not yet consider the incremental
capital cost and resulting debt associated with a retractable roof.)
Impacts on Oracle Arena
In general, we do not expect either new stadium scenario with or without a dome to have any
measurable impact on Oracle Arena. While it is possible that small, private events such as meetings
may consider interior event spaces at either facility as a destination (although this is not currently
known to be the case), this is expected to be the extent of any competition for hosting events
between the two facilities. We do not anticipate that any ticketed event, such as a concert, would be
appropriate for both a typical NFL stadium (indoors or outdoors) and a 20,000-seat arena. In addition,
with a domed stadium, it would not be cost-effective to scale the facility down to a much smaller size
in order to host a smaller individual event, particularly with the arena at the same site as an
alternative.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 89

V. Ancillary Development
AECOM has used the information previously provided in Section II (Local Market Conditions) to
measure the fundamental drivers of demand for various land uses in the region. This section of the
report synthesizes these key findings as well as provides additional information relevant to the
potential additional ancillary development that could be supported based on three future stadium
development scenarios, which include:

New NFL Stadium with Existing Oracle Arena (Base Scenario) assumes the loss of the
As and Warriors from the site,

New NFL Stadium with Existing Oracle Arena (Two-Team Scenario) assumes loss of
the As but retention of the Warriors, and

New NFL and MLB Stadium with Existing Oracle Arena (Three-Team Scenario)
assumes retention of the As and Warriors on the Coliseum site.

This analysis includes a competitive review of current and proposed real estate product in the area,
measures market potentials, identifies target markets for these uses, and recommends a
development program and phasing schedule based on the anticipated near-term (10-year) demand.
Before evaluating potential ancillary development, AECOM conducted a general land use screen to
isolate land uses that appear to be most marketable at the site. Based on our preliminary review, as
well as knowledge of other mixed-use stadium-related developments, we have identified
retail/dining/entertainment and hotel uses to be the most marketable land uses based on the vision to
create a mixed-use sports and entertainment district (Coliseum Mixed-Use Sports and Entertainment
District). A number of other potential land uses were identified, including medical, institutional,
conference, and recreational uses. Other land uses, such as industrial or light-industrial flex uses that
might be viable from the market perspective, were eliminated because they are not believed to have
synergies with the on-site proposed sports-related uses. This is not to say adjacent parcels could not
accommodate such development. Rather, AECOM has focused on land uses that could be catalyzed
by future sports-realted facillity development.
Our preliminary screen was conducted before the Client provided guidance that AECOM should also
engage in scenario testing to estimate the relative impact of more than one professional sports
franchise being retained at the site location. With the inclusion of the additional scenarios identified
above, AECOM included office and residential development as additional potential land use
candidates at the site.
It is important to note that this analysis was conducted without evaluating the physical capacity of the
site location. This planning analysis was prepared by JRDV Urban International (JRDV). Based on a

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 90

draft delivered in June 2013, the conceptual plans ranged between approximately 3.0 and 5.5 million
square feet of mixed-use residential and commercial development. The following table summarizes
JRDVs preliminary site planning.
Table 51: Site Capacity Summary
One Team
Retail

Low

High

257,000

178,000

Technology

1,062,000

2,126,000

Residential

1,300,000

2,294,000

Hotel

602,000

1,057,000

Total

3,221,000

5,655,000

Low

High

Two Team
Retail

479,000

479,000

Technology

568,000

1,151,000

Residential

1,311,000

2,142,000

Hotel

1,090,000

1,725,000

Total

3,448,000

5,497,000

Source: JRDV

This information will be used to limit development potential based on the uses under consideration. A
general market overview is conducted to estimate current on-site potentials. While the market
analysis will inform current conditions, the case study analysis provides additional insights on
redevelopment potentials in areas where market conditions were not favorable prior to the
development of a sports stadium or arena. Finally, based on the market and case study analysis,
AECOM will provide demand estimates based on the various scenarios analyzed herein.

Site Overview
The Coliseum is located in East Oakland and is part of the larger sporting complex that includes both
the stadium and neighboring Oracle Arena (Project Site). The Project Site consists of approximately
150 acres and is located to the east of Interstate 880 (I-880) between 66th Avenue and Hegenberger
Road. I-880 connects San Jose and Oakland, running parallel to the San Francisco Bay. 2011 traffic
counts from the California Department of Transportation suggest that the annual average daily traffic
is 200,000 vehicles passing by the Project Site (both Northbound and Southbound). The Project Site
is currently zoned CR-1 and is designated as a regional commercial land use in the Oakland General
Plan. The area in and around the Project Site can be characterized as industrial. The Project Site not
only benefits from freeway adjacency, it also has transit connections via the nearby BART station.
The Project Site is also located within proximity to Oakland International Airport (OAK). AirBART

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 91

operates between OAK and the Coliseum/Oakland Airport BART station daily, approximately every
10 minutes until midnight.
Figure 11: Site Location and Regional Context

Source: ESRI Business Analyst

Market Study Overview

The candidate land uses that appear to have the best synergies with a future Coliseum Mixed-Use
Sports and Entertainment District at the Project Site include the following:

Retail/Dining/Entertainment

Hotel

Residential

Office

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 92

Retail/Dining/Entertainment Market
The focus of this section is to evaluate the market context for a potential new restaurant and
entertainment retail-anchored destination as one of the primary uses and activators of future mixeduse development at the Project Site. Much of the analysis within this section is based on a
combination of general shopping center trends, retail dining entertainment (RDE) trends,
observations, and information collected on the local market.

Shopping Centers Background

Before evaluating the supply and demand characteristics of the local market, it is useful to review
characteristics generally associated with retail shopping centers. The most widely used shopping
center classification system is from the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), which
divides shopping centers into two major categories: Malls and Open-Air. These two categories are
divided further into subcategories based on the following characteristics:

Concept: This descriptor refers to the underlying business strategy or model that
distinguishes the shopping center or helps characterize its overall operations. The defined
concept captures the theme or market positioning offered by centers within the broader
categories, including such characteristics as convenience, customer-orientation,
entertainment, merchandise lines, and price points.

Size: This attribute provides an indication of the massing of the center, including both anchor
tenants and other tenants.

Acreage: This refers to the typical land assemblage required to house the retail space, along
with parking and ancillary services necessary to the operation of the respective types of
centers.

Typical Anchors: This attribute provides a profile of the type, size, and business orientation
of the major anchor tenants that are typically housed in the particular type of centers.

Anchor Ratios: This measure provides an indication of the mix of anchor and non-anchor
tenants, including in-line retail tenants.

Primary Trade Areas: This element indicates the typical size of the Primary Trade Area from
which the respective centers draw the bulk (i.e., 60%80%) of their customer sales.

Using these subcategories, the ICSC has developed eight categories of shopping centers, as shown
in Table 52. While these categories provide a useful framework to identify and distinguish shopping
centers, it is not an unambiguous system, necessitating the simultaneous consideration of multiple
characteristics rather than looking at them individually or sequentially. In particular, many shopping

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 93

centers have added entertainment and lifestyle-type attributes in an effort to create more attractive
shopping experiences for customers and increasing their drawing power or market penetration. As a
result, the proper classification of a center may be subjective/qualitative in nature and based in a
lesser or greater degree on the image that the center conveys.
Table 52: ICSC Shopping Center Categories
Size

Type
Malls
Super Regional Center

Concept

Site (Acres) Square Feet

Anchors

Number

Types

Similar to Regional Center

but has more variety

60 - 120

General merchandise;
fashion (mall, typically
enclosed)

40 - 100

General merchandise;
convenience

10 - 40

100K - 350K 2 or more Discount department

40 - 60%
store; supermarket;
drug; home improvement

Neighborhood Center

Convince

3 - 15

30K - 150K

Lifestyle Center

Upscale national chain

specialty; dining and
entertainment in outdoor
setting

10 - 40

Typically
0-2
150K - 500K,
but can be
larger

Power Center

Category dominant anchors; 25 - 80

few small tenants

Theme/Festival

Leisure; tourist oriented;

5 - 20
retail and services
Manufacturers' outlet stores 10 - 50

Regional Center

Open Air Centers

Community Center

Outlet Center

800K +

3 or more Full-line/Jr. department

store; mass merchant;
fashion
400K - 800K 2 or more Full-line/Jr. department
store; mass merchant;
fashion

Anchor to
In-Line
Ratio

1 or more Supermarket

Not usually anchored in

traditional sense but
may include specialty
retailers, cinema, small
department store
250K - 600K 3 or more Category killer; home
improvement; warehouse
club
80K - 250K NA
Restaurants;
entertainment
50 - 400K
NA
Manufacturers' outlet
stores

Trade
Area (1)

50 - 70%

5 - 25

50 - 70%

5 - 15

3-6

30 - 50%

0-3

0 - 50%

8 - 12

75 - 95%

5 - 10

NA

NA

NA

25 - 75

Notes: (1) Primary trade are typically accounts for 60 to 80 percent of the visitors to a shopping center; NA = Not Applicable
Source: International Council of Shopping Centers

RDE Background
AECOM believes future RDE development needs to differentiate the envisioned Coliseum Mixed-Use
Sports and Entertainment District retail environment from the standard shopping centers found in the
local/regional market by increasing the emphasis on the dining and entertainment components. While
the initial phase of development may not include all the components of RDE, it is useful to review the
characteristics of such projects to better understand their key attributes.
Similar to the previously discussed shopping center classifications, defining retail entertainment or
RDE has proven to be a challenging task, with a wide range in the size and characteristics of projects
that may be identified as such. As discussed, these projects consist of retail, dining, and
entertainment within a pedestrian-friendly and multi-use environment. The uses are intended to

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 94

complement each other, creating a multi-faceted leisure experience, thereby increasing the projects
overall attractiveness to visitors. In contrast to more traditional shopping environments, RDE leads to
an increase in the frequency of visitation, the distance that visitors travel, and the amount of time and
spending at the development.
Retail entertainment projects generally fall into two categories: cultural/entertainment districts and
destination development complexes. Cultural/entertainment districts are typically urban areas, such
as downtowns, that have been repositioned through the redevelopment of existing properties,
addition of leisure-oriented tenants, and provision of improved pedestrian environments. Frequently
this involves the provision of a major regional destination anchor, such as a stadium/arena in this
instance, or a convention center, and/or cultural centers such as museums, performance venues, and
public space. These are typically the effort of a public-private partnership, with numerous parties
involved in their development, including land owners, developers, and operators, as well as
community agencies, leaders, and groups. Cultural and entertainment districts result in numerous
benefits to both sectors, including an improved image, greater resident and tourist visitation,
increased sales, greater employment, increased property values, and associated taxes.
Destination development complexes are similar, but are generally developed, owned, and operated
by one or a limited number of parties, resulting in a cohesive property with unified
operation/management, similar to a traditional shopping center. From an operating perspective, the
landlord-tenant relationship is similar to those at typical retail centers, with tenants paying rents and
common area charges, and management responsible for operations (e.g., utilities, maintenance,
common areas maintenance, design codes, programming, mediation, and recruitment).
That said, destination complexes are different from traditional shopping centers in the following ways:

Rents tend to be higher due to a greater level of design quality, larger common areas, higher
levels of programming, and sometimes more desirable locations.

The tenant mix has a greater emphasis on entertainment-oriented retail, dining, and
entertainment.

Amenity levels and reinvestment rates are higher.

The retail, dining, and entertainment components are frequently mixed with other uses, such
as hotels, offices, and residential.

Anchors tend to be more varied (e.g., not department stores) with intention of:
o

Creating activity on-site via entertainment (multiplexes, game centers, sports bars,
live-performance venues)

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 95

Extending activity on-site via unique dining (signature restaurants, themed

bars/restaurants, entertainment bars/clubs)

Inducing visitation via iconic retail/restaurant operators (e.g., ESPN Zone)

While entertainment destination projects are generally smaller than the more standard regional/super
regional mall, they typically outperform malls on nearly every other measure if well located,
developed, and operated.
Table 53: General Performance Comparison of Regional Mall versus Destination Development
Measure

Regional Mall

Destination Development

Average Sales Range

$300 - $500 PSF

$500 - $800 PSF

Repeat Visitation

Average three
times per month;
penetration rate of
80 to 200 percent

Average two to four times per month;

penetration rate of 100 to 400
percent

Regional Dominance

Achieved through
department store
anchors, scale, and
tenant mix

Achieved through unique-to-region

offerings

Multi-segment Appeal

Limited; visits tend

to focus on
shopping trips

Broadened via entertainment and

dining offerings

Length of Stay

1.5 hours

3.0 hours

Demand-Period Productivity

Distributed across
various times of day
and week

Concentrated during specific evening

and daytime periods; tourist and
leisure activities improve productivity
during low demand periods

Tourist Draw

Limited

Potentially 20-40 percent of base

Notes: PSF = Per Square Foot. Penetration rate refers to the ability of the retailer to attract residents, which will visit multiple
times and as a result will create a total penetration rate higher than 100 percent or the total household/population in a
marketplace.
Source: Urban Land Institute; MRA International; AECOM

Retail Market
The following is a review of major shopping centers identified within the Oakland market area. Six
existing major shopping centers were identified (the Power Center in Emeryville has been listed as

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 96

one shopping center). These centers are primarily located in areas along I-880 and provide regionalserving retail to the larger East Bay communities. Based on size, two of the centers are super
regional centers (Southland Mall, Bayfield Center), two are lifestyle centers (South Shore Center, also
known as Alameda Towne Center, and Bay Street), three are power centers (East Bay Bridge,
Emeryville Marketplace, Powell Street), and one is a community/neighborhood center (Eastmont
Town Center). There is also one planned lifestyle center/community center (Alameda Landing). Four
of the centers are owned/operated by two operators (Rouse Properties and Madison Marquette).
Most of the malls were originally constructed some time ago and most have also had significant
additions/redevelopment since opening. Most of the centers also have a traditional-style enclosed
shopping mall format, with significant surrounding surface parking and some structured parking, direct
access into the anchors and selected large stores with passageways connecting these that are lined
by numerous in-line/satellite tenants, and one or more food courts. This format is less applicable to
lifestyle-oriented centers, such as Bay Steer and South Shore Center, which are developed in a much
different configuration.
Figure 12: presents the location of these shopping centers as well as an illustrative 10-mile trade area
around each location. As shown below, the Project Site is located in the middle of the regional
shopping locations. As such, there will be significant competition from existing regional-serving retail
locations in proximity to the Project Site. Based on the number of existing centers, tenanted anchors,
and relatively weak purchasing power nearby, a more traditional shopping center would be
challenging to develop in the near term. Furthermore, future on-site development should create
synergies with the proposed stadium, which may not be fully achieved from a traditional shopping
environment. The following section presents a summary overview of these competitive developments.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 97

Figure 12: Competitive Regional Shopping Centers

Source: AECOM

Southland Mall
The Southland Mall is an approximately 1.3-million-square foot regional shopping mall in Hayward.
The property is owned and managed by Rouse Properties. The mall is primarily a single-level
structure with a smaller lower-level food court and some restaurant pads in the outlying parking
areas. There are an estimated 100 stores with four anchor tenants. The mall, which opened in the
early 1960s, was last renovated in 1985. Southland Mall is located approximately 10 miles south from
the Project Site.
Bayfair Center
The Bayfair Center (previously known as the Bayfair Mall) is an approximately 825,000-square foot
regional shopping center in San Leandro. The property is owned and managed by Madison
Marquette. The mall is a two-level structure with an estimated 90 stores with six anchor tenants. The

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 98

mall opened in the late 1950s and has been renovated a number of times. Bayfair Center is located
approximately six miles south from the Project Site.
Alameda South Shore Center
The Alameda South Shore Center (South Shore Center) is an approximately 600,000-square foot
open-air shopping destination located in Alameda. The lifestyle center features a variety of nationally
known retailers and restaurants. South Shore Center is owned and managed by Jamestown. The
center includes approximately 75 tenants with eight anchor tenants. The South Shore Center is
located approximately six miles west from the Project Site.
Bay Street Emeryville
Bay Street is an approximately 400,000-square foot regional shopping center located in Emeryville.
The development also includes a hotel and residential component. The property is owned and
managed by Madison Marquette. There are an estimated 65 shores and six anchor tenants. The
center is located near other regional power centers (East Bay Bridge Shopping Center, Emeryville
Marketplace, and Powell Street Plaza) in Emeryville. Bay Street is located approximately 12 miles
north from the Project Site. The other power centers have a significant amount of big-box regional
shopping.
Eastmont Town Center
The Eastmont Town Center (formally Eastmont Mall) was originally an approximately 600,000-square
foot shopping mall in Oakland. The property was purchased by Scanlan Bard in 2007. The mall
consists of a two-story mall, single-store in-line retail, a building solely dedicated to housing the
Oakland Police department, and nine separate pad sites. Constructed in phases in 1965 and 1973 as
a retail center, it has now evolved into a location for municipal and other small business and social
services operations. While not truly a competitive center, the Eastmont Town Center is the closest
location to the Project Site location (three miles east).
Alameda Landing (Proposed)
Alameda Landing, developed by Catellus, is a 300,000-square foot, Target-anchored shopping center
located at the base of the Webster Tube entrance to Alameda. The development is positioned in the
geographic center of the island, making it accessible from both the eastern and western locations of
the city. The master plan includes an additional 300 residential units, 400,000 square feet of office
space, and nine acres of open space. The first phase of development includes 50 acres of
development, which includes a residential component, developed by Tri-Point Homes, located across
the street from the shopping center. The Target store is set to open in October 2013 and the retail
component of the development is leasing shops and pads for opening in the summer of 2014.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 99

Select Market Fundamentals

To bring some historic perspective regarding the health of retail in the Oakland-Airport Submarket
area (please see above for a map of the market area), we utilized data provided by CoStar, a leading
provider of commercial real estate information and property trends. As presented below in Figure 14:,
the submarket area generally followed macro trends, whereby reported vacancy rates increased and
rental rates decreased during the recessionary period. Since the end of the recession, the vacancy
rates have generally declined in the Oakland-Airport submarket. However, this decrease in vacancy
has not put enough pressure to increase the total average triple net (NNN) over the last year. This
may be because, since 2006, the total rentable building area (RBA) has declined by approximately
14,000 square feet, which may have artificially decreased vacancy.
Figure 13: Oakland Office Market and Submarkets Map

Source: CoStar

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 100

Figure 14: Total Retail and Vacancy Trends in Oakland Airport Submarket

Note: Rents are presented in constant 2013 dollars.

Source: AECOM

Over the last year, the submarket has developed and delivered 80,000 square feet of new groceryanchored retail space approximately five miles east of the Project Site at the Foothill Square shopping
center. This represents the first significant retail delivery, as tracked by CoStar, in the area over the
last three years.
A general review of various market area statistics provides additional insights. First, OAK represents
approximately eight percent of the total retail in the East Bay/Oakland retail market area. Second,
approximately 85 percent of the current retail development is classified as general retail, which
suggests standalone retail developments typically smaller in size. Finally, while vacancy rates are
extremely low, the current quoted rates (NNN) are approximately 42 percent below the Oakland
submarket cluster (defined as the Oakland-Airport, Downtown, North, Port/Jack London, South, and
West areas) and the larger East Bay/Oakland market area. These market fundamentals suggest a
challenging retail environment.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 101

Table 54: Retail Markets Comparison (1Q 2013)

Market Area

Under
Vacant Space Percent Construction
(SF)
Vacant
(SF)

RBA (SF)

Quoted
Rates
(NNN)

Oakland - Airport
General Retail

1,547,077

21,375

1.4%

Mall

0.0%

0 $

Power Center

0.0%

0 $

Shopping Center

263,339

5,040

1.9%

0 $

Specialty Center

0.0%

0 $

1,810,416

26,415

1.5%

0 $ 12.11

19,502,841

689,560

3.5%

0 $ 19.98

0.0%

0 $

Total

0 $ 12.11

Oakland
General Retail
Mall
Power Center

376,093

0.0%

0 $ 42.00

Shopping Center

2,286,687

94,129

4.1%

80,000 $ 22.48

Specialty Center

0.0%

22,165,621

783,689

3.5%

80,000 $ 20.36

General Retail

71,177,401

2,766,737

3.9%

53,440 $ 21.03

Mall

13,377,244

712,428

5.3%

0 $ 18.28

5,980,561

314,045

5.3%

0 $ 29.23

Shopping Center

41,308,389

2,518,203

6.1%

88,400 $ 20.93

Specialty Center

346,437

0.0%

0 $

132,190,032

6,311,413

4.8%

141,840 $ 20.76

Total

0 $

Eastbay/Oakland

Power Center

Total

Source: AECOM

Sales Tax Comparison

To illustrate the relative retail sales volume in competitive cities, AECOM examined inflation-adjusted
per capita spending between 2007 and 2011. Figure 15: demonstrates that Oakland, relative to
Alameda County, has low taxable sales. This suggests that a lot of retail spending is leaking out of
Oakland into nearby shopping destinations. As noted above, there is a large concentration of
shopping centers located in Emeryville and its relative drawing power is more than five times the
average per capita spending in Alameda County. Other locations where there are super regional retail
offerings, such as Hayward and San Leandro, also have higher per-capita spending numbers than
other nearby municipalities. Oakland is at a disadvantage in collecting sales tax, as it does not have a
competitive supply of regional-serving retail, and the area appears to lose a significant share of its
residents retail sales to nearby cities. This is a well-analyzed condition in Oakland and there have
been continued efforts to capture more of Oaklands purchasing power within its city limits.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 102

Figure 15: Taxable Retail Transactions Per Capita (2011 dollars)

Source: California State Board of Equalization; BLS; AECOM

Hotel Market
The purpose of this section is to assess the competitive hotel market in the context of the Project Site.
This information will be used to determine the potential on-site capture based on historic and project
future trends. To evaluate the general health of the larger tourist market, AECOM evaluated a number
of historic data points that provide insight on recent trends that will affect the marketability of the
Project Site for hotel uses. As a starting point, AECOM utilized the Oakland/Berkeley/Hayward
submarket area within the larger Oakland hotel market. The following figure presents an overview of
the market and submarket geographies under consideration.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 103

Figure 16: Oakland Hotel Market and Submarkets Map

Source: PKF; Smith Travel Research

The Oakland/Berkeley/Hayward hotel submarket includes approximately 9,400 rooms and represents
close to 40 percent of the Oakland hotel market. As presented in Table 55, there is relative balance
between the number of upper-priced and lower-priced hotel rooms in the Oakland hotel market.
Similar to the larger Oakland hotel market, there is also relative balance between upper-priced and
lower-priced hotel rooms in the Oakland/Berkeley/Hayward hotel submarket.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 104

Table 55: Submarket Composition

Upper-Priced

Lower-Priced

Properties Rooms % of Market Properties

Totals

Rooms % of Market Properties

Rooms % of Market

Pleasanton/Livermore

17

2,682

11.2%

25

2,208

9.2%

42

4,890

20.3%

Northeast/Concord

11

2,135

8.9%

45

2,906

12.1%

56

5,041

21.0%

Freemont/Newark

10

2,028

8.4%

22

2,663

11.1%

32

4,691

19.5%

Oakland/Berkeley/Hayward

24

4,078

17.0%

81

5,340

22.2%

105

9,418

39.2%

Total

62 10,923

45.4%

173 13,117

54.6%

235 24,040

100.0%

Source: PKF; Smith Travel Research

STR Survey
To analyze the local hotel market, in comparison to the larger Oakland/Berkeley/Hayward hotel
submarket and regional Oakland hotel market, AECOM analyzed hotel data from 2008 to 2012 from
Smith Travel Research (STR). STR is a hotel market research firm that gathers monthly revenue,
occupancy, and rate data from hotels in the local area. Table 56 includes the list of hotel properties
surveyed in our analysis. These properties were selected because they are located in and around the
area with most of the properties oriented towards OAK. Market support for any future on-site hotel
would have to compete with these existing hotel properties for business. Figure 17: presents a map of
these properties relative the Project Site.
Table 56: Select Market Area Properties
Name of Establishment

City & State Zip Code

Class

Open Date

Rooms

Extended Stay America Oakland Alameda Airport

Alameda, CA 94502

Economy Class

Jul 1999

88

Hampton Inn Suites Oakland Airport Alameda

Alameda, CA 94502

Upper Midscale Class

Jul 2008

105

Bay Breeze Inn

Oakland, CA

94601

Economy Class

Jan 1987

95

Rodeway Inn & Suites Near The Coliseum & Arena

Oakland, CA

94601

Economy Class

NA

36

Holiday Inn Express & Suites Oakland Airport

Oakland, CA

94603

Upper Midscale Class

Apr 1999

95

Days Inn Hotel San Francisco Oak Airport Coliseum

Oakland, CA

94621

Economy Class

Oct 1983

139

Comfort Inn & Suites Oakland

Oakland, CA

94621

Upper Midscale Class

Oct 1999

104

La Quinta Inns & Suites Oakland Airport Coliseum

Oakland, CA

94621

Midscale Class

Nov 1986

148

Holiday Inn & Suites Oakland Airport

Oakland, CA

94621

Upper Midscale Class

Jun 2008

145

Courtyard Oakland Airport

Oakland, CA

94621

Upscale Class

Feb 2001

156

Quality Inn Oakland

Oakland, CA

94621

Midscale Class

Sep 1986

99

Econo Lodge Inn & Suites Oakland Airport

Oakland, CA

94621

Economy Class

Jun 1964

72

Motel 6 Oakland Airport

Oakland, CA

94621

Economy Class

Jun 1981

285

Best Western Plus Airport Inn & Suites

Oakland, CA

94621

Upper Midscale Class

Apr 2001

76

Red Lion Hotel Oakland International Airport

Oakland, CA

94621

Midscale Class

Jun 1970

189

Hilton Oakland Airport

Oakland, CA

94621

Upper Upscale Class

Jan 1970

Total Properties: 16

363
2,195

Source: Smith Travel Research

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 105

Figure 17: Select Market Map

Source: ESRI Business Analyst

Of the selected properties, approximately one-third of the room supply is considered economy class
quality. The largest hotel product, representing 44 percent of the local supply, is midscale quality. The
remaining 24 percent is considered to be upscale quality rooms. Figure 18: presents additional detail
regarding breakdown of the selected hotels by market orientation.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 106

Figure 18: Composition of Hotel Rooms in OAK Airport Market

Note: Luxury = Top 15% ADR; Upscale = Next 15% ADR; Midscale = Middle 30% ADR; Economy = Next 20% ADR; Budget =
Lowest 20% ADR. STR defines hotels by level of service (e.g. full service).
Source: PKF; Smith Travel Research

As presented in Table 57, annual available room nights in the local market increased by 40,900 (or
112 rooms) over five years, which represents an annual growth rate of 1.1 percent. Meanwhile,
occupied room nights in the local market increased by approximately 105,500 (annual growth rate of
4.3 percent). This led to an increase in occupancy from 59.5 percent in 2008 to 69.6 percent in 2012.
As demand for rooms grained ground on supply (as the overall national and regional hotel market
rebounded from the recession), the average daily rate (ADR) increased between 2009 and 2012.
These increases in demand and ADR created a significant increase in revenue per available room
(RevPAR). Between 2009 and 2012, the RevPAR increased by approximately $18, which represents
an annual growth rate of 12 percent.
Based on information collected and regional trends evaluated within the first quarter of 2013, rates in
the local market appear poised to push upward while excess supply weakens. These positive
fundamentals should increase the attractiveness for additional hotel development in the submarket
area.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 107

Table 57: Select Hotels in the Market Area Performance Indicators (2008 2012)

2008

2009

2010

2011

CAGR
2012 (2008 - 2012)

Available Room Nights

760,275

801,175

801,175

801,175

801,175

1.1%

Occupied Room Nights

452,118

427,557

467,171

492,330

557,602

4.3%

Annual Occupancy

59.5%

53.4%

58.3%

61.5%

69.6%

3.2%

RevPAR

$55.72

$42.85

$45.62

$50.63

$60.73

1.7%

-3.0%

-10.3%

9.3%

5.4%

13.3%

-14.8%

-23.1%

6.5%

11.0%

19.9%

Year-To-Year Growth
Annual Occupancy
RevPAR

Note: CAGR = Compound annual growth rate.

Source: Smith Travel Research

Hotel Performance Comparison

The following three figures present historic trends on occupancy, ADR, and RevPAR. As presented
below in Figure 19:, the selected properties in the local market experienced comparable trends in
occupancy, although these trends have been lower than both the larger Oakland/Berkeley/Hayward
hotel submarket and Oakland hotel market. As of the end of 2012, the local market was 2.5 and 4.5
percent below the Oakland hotel market and Oakland/Berkeley/Hayward submarket, respectively.
Between 2009 and 2012, the local markets occupancy grew at a slightly faster rate than the other
market areas.
Figure 19: Occupancy Comparison (2008 2012)

Source: PKF; Smith Travel Research

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 108

During the last five years, the ADR for hotels in the Oakland/Berkeley/Hayward hotel submarket area
have been approximately 1014 percent higher than the local hotel market. The local market has had
the lowest ADR, roughly 510 percent less than the Oakland hotel market over the same time period.
While still below pre-recession levels, between yearend 2010 and 2012 a constant increase has
occurred in the ADR for the various markets, ranging from 8.0 percent (the Oakland hotel market) to
5.6 percent (Select Properties) on an annual basis. This suggests that the ADR in the respective
market areas could reach pre-recession levels by the end of this year.
Figure 20: Average Daily Rate (ADR) Comparison (2008 2012)

Source: PKF; Smith Travel Research

Given the relative consistency between the relationship between occupancy and reported ADR, an
examination of the RevPAR for the various market areas provides little additional insight. Figure 21:
presents each markets RevPAR. As presented in the figure, RevPAR began increasing in 2009 as
occupancies bottomed out and began to rise in subsequent years. In general, these market
fundamentals are positive indicators that there is future demand for hotel development in the market
area. Macro industry trends suggest that, as many cities have returned to their pre-recession levels,
more investors have become bullish on hotel investment. In fact, in a recent report by Jones Lange
LaSalle, 55 percent of investors are focusing on buying hotel properties, while only 28 percent are
interested in selling their hotel assets. However, the Project Site and competitive market area (as
defined by the select properties) are challenged due to the current lower ADR price point. This will be
a challenge in attracting investment and may impact the financial feasibility of future development.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 109

Figure 21: RevPAR Comparison (2008 2012)

Source: PKF; Smith Travel Research

Residential Market
The purpose of this section is to assess the competitive residential market area in the context of the
Subject Site. This information will be used to determine baseline capture based on historic and
projected future trends. This information should be considered in addition to previously-described
information in Section II of this report.
AECOM analyzed building permit trends by unit type based on data obtained from the U.S. Census.
Our analysis indicates that, for the 10-year period between 2002 and 2012, Oakland issued:

Approximately 2,300 permits for single-family detached housing, comprising 22 percent of

total new residential permits. Oaklands single-family permit activity has varied significantly
over recent years, but has averaged approximately 200 permits per year over the 10-year
period that included the run up and subsequent crash of the macro housing market.

Approximately 8,000 multi-family permits, reflecting an annual average of 730 permits, or

about 78 percent of all new residential permits. Since a spike in 2006, in response to the real
estate housing bubble, an average of 375 permits per year have been issued.

This building permit data do not distinguish between properties that are for sale or for rent. However,
it is the assumption that virtually all of the single-family detached product could be considered new
for-sale residential properties.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 110

Figure 22: Oakland Residential Building Permits (2002 2012)

Source: US Census

For-Sale Residential
AECOM examined recent residential sales trends in the marketplace based on an analysis of multiple
listing service data provided by DQNews and Redfin.com, providers of for-sale residential market
intelligence. AECOM focused on the macro sales statistics that will impact potential sales of for-sale
residential product at the Project Site. To help better understand the market context surrounding the
Subject Site, AECOM compared the 94621 ZIP code with the Oakland and larger Alameda County
areas. In 2012, the 94621 ZIP code represented approximately six percent of Oaklands total home
transactions (both new and resale). The 94621 ZIP codes total sales are down from 2010, when the
area represented 10 percent of Oaklands total for-sale residential sales transactions. Oakland has
consistently represented approximately a quarter of all home transactions within the County.
The lack of demand for homes in the 94621 ZIP code is also reflected in the median single-family
sales price (not adjusted for inflation), which in 2012 was 62 percent lower than Oaklands and 73
percent lower than Alameda Countys. Based on data from Redfin.com, over the last three years, 220
multi-family homes have sold for an average of $77 per square foot. The average sales price was
$177,200 for these transactions, suggesting multi-family product is more marketable than singlefamily for-sale product in the area. These statistics demonstrate that future for-sale residential product
will be challenged based on the current perception of the area. However, it is positive that multi-family
for-sale product appears to be more marketable given that multifamily product is the most appropriate
for development associated with the Coliseum area.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 111

Figure 23: Home Sales Comparison (2010 2012)

Source: DQNews; AECOM

Figure 24: Median Single-Family Homes Sale Price (2010 2012)

Source: DQNews; AECOM

For-Rent Residential
For-rent residential data provided by REIS, a real estate data provider, provides market insights
regarding for-rent residential product in the North Alameda area (please see map below in Figure 25:
for geographic area of analysis). The market area is larger and likely does not reflect actual
conditions at the Subject Site. However, the data are informative to better understand submarket
trends that will impact future development potential.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 112

Figure 25: Oakland-East Bay Market and Submarkets Map

Notes: (1) North Alameda; (2) Freemont/Newark/Union City; (3) East Alameda; (4) West Contra Costa; (5) Concord/Martinez;
(6) San Ramon/Walnut Creek; (7) East Contra Costa; (8) San Leandro/Hayward
Source: ReisReports

Since 2009, vacancy rates in the North Alameda and larger Oakland-East Bay for-rent residential
market have generally declined. Vacancy rates have been consistently higher in the North Alameda
market area than the larger Oakland-East Bay market. However, at the same time, the current asking
rates are generally higher on a per-square foot and total monthly rate basis in North Alameda than
the larger Oakland-East Bay market. Figure 26: and Figure 27: present this information in greater
detail. Examining comparable development in closer proximity to the Project Site (within three miles),
the average asking rate for all units was $1,250 per month, with current vacancies around three
percent. These properties are older three-story properties built mostly in the 1960s. This is
approximately 18 percent lower than the North Alameda submarket area, which has an average
asking monthly rate of $1,550. The comps examined are approximately 13 percent lower than the
average monthly asking rate in the larger Oakland-East Bay market area ($1,450). Similar to the forsale product previously analyzed, the character or quality of the existing properties are not achieving
asking rates comparable to other areas in the submarket or larger market area.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 113

Figure 26: For-Rent Residential Vacancy (2008 2012)

Source: ReisReports

Figure 27: Average For-Rent Asking Prices (2013)

Source: ReisReports

The key findings of the analysis of the residential market include that although certain larger market
factors are favorable, for-rent and for-sale residential may be challenged by the current perception of
the area as traditionally not being desirable for residential uses. Development at the Project Site will
have to be high quality and create an environment that will be able to attract additional residential
development that may not have located their based on current conditions.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 114

Office Market
The purpose of this section is to assess the competitive office market in the context of the Subject
Site. This information will be used to determine the potential on-site capture based on historic and
projected future trends. As a starting point, AECOM utilized the Oakland-Airport submarket area
within the larger East Bay/Oakland office market. , previously presented in connection with the retail
analysis, provides an overview of the market and submarket geographies under consideration.
Figure 28: Oakland Office Supply Map

Source: CoStar

Select Market Fundamentals

Figure 29: tracks data for vacancy rates and average monthly full-service (FS) rental rates (which
include operating expenses such as utilities, electricity, taxes, and insurance) for all classes of office
space at the Oakland-Airport submarket level. There are three classes of office buildings that are
designated A, B, and C. The vast majority of newly-completed office space is Class A, although many
new low-rise suburban offices are Class B. Class C properties are almost entirely comprised of older
buildings that were initially Class B. The data do not include functionally obsolete, vacated buildings.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 115

The Oakland-Airport submarkets vacancy rate has generally increased since it reached a 10-year
low in 2003. During the time period analyzed, as vacancy rates have increased, direct average rental
rates have fallen. As shown in Table 58, current office rates in the submarket are lower than the
larger Oakland Submarket Cluster and East Bay/Oakland office market area. In all market areas,
office vacancies are above 10 percent, which is often considered a threshold for new development
(i.e., vacancies need to be below 10 percent before new development is considered potentially
viable). However, since the submarket does not have any Class A office space, it might be a matter of
filling newer Class B office product that has not fully absorbed since its delivery. Figure 30: presents
an overview of historic deliveries, presented in RBA, since 2000. Since 2000, the submarket has
increased its office supply by approximately 700,000 square feet. This represents approximately 6.5
percent of all new office product delivered to Alameda County over the same time period. However,
all of the deliveries occurred between 2000 and 2005 in the Oakland-Airport submarket. Since that
time, no deliveries have been reported by CoStar (Figure 30: ).
Figure 29: Total Office Rent and Vacancy Trends in Oakland Airport Submarket

Source: AECOM

Following a similar trend as other land uses under consideration, the achievable price point or rent is
20 percent lower than in both the Oakland Submarket cluster and the larger Oakland/East Bay office
market area. A number of other studies focusing around Downtown Oakland and the Chinatown
neighborhoods have found that office development in the current market is extraordinarily difficult and
infeasible. With lease rates well below that of the Downtown Oakland area, it is likely that attracting
investment and developing a viable office project will be a challenge unless future on-site
development helps rebrand this area.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 116

Table 58: Office Markets Comparison (1Q 2013)

Market Area

Vacant
Space (SF)

RBA (SF)

Percent
Vacant

Under
Construction
(SF)

Quoted
Rates (FS)

Oakland - Airport
Class A

0.0%

0 $

Class B

1,758,160

492,186

28.0%

0 $

17.29

Class C

1,086,092

85,448

7.9%

0 $

15.41

Total

2,844,252

577,634

20.3%

0 $

16.88

Oakland
Class A

8,563,921

910,922

10.6%

68,640 $

30.95

Class B

12,262,977

1,825,984

14.9%

0 $

20.00

Class C

7,062,295

509,986

7.2%

0 $

18.26

27,889,193

3,246,892

11.6%

68,640 $

21.31

Class A

26,286,876

2,386,881

9.1%

68,640 $

27.82

Class B

58,017,787

7,888,112

13.6%

0 $

21.92

29,456,927

2,163,813

7.3%

0 $

18.79

113,761,590 12,438,806

10.9%

68,640 $

22.49

Total
Eastbay/Oakland

Class C
Total
Source: AECOM

Figure 30: Rentable Building Area Delivered (Square Feet)

Source: AECOM

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 117

Case Studies
This section provides a review of development projects where a stadium or arena has served as a
key project anchor. The key insight from this section is that stadiums and arenas have successfully
served as anchoring uses for urban redevelopment projects in many areas. AECOM reviewed sports
centers that host major professional sports teams and have anchored additional development in
nearby areas. Each of these is briefly reviewed in terms of the following:

Major characteristics,

History/status, and

Impact on ancillary development.

Major professional sports facilities can be categorized into two major categories: stadiums and
arenas. Stadiums include NFL stadiums and MLB ballparks, both of which tend to be used primarily
for those purposes. Arenas tend to be multi-purpose facilities that are used for a combination of major
league sports such as the NBA, NHL, minor league sports, and miscellaneous events (e.g., nonsports events such as concerts, other entertainment shows, etc.). Stadiums are the primary focus of
the research below, with arenas included when they are adjacent to the stadium development.
The selected case studies were chosen because they had some similarities with the context of the
Project Site, either in terms of location, team composition (e.g., football only), local area attributes,
access to transit, etc. In many instances, these developments occurred within the downtown area.
While near Oaklands downtown, the Project Site is challenged as it is located within a somewhat
suburban context in the East Bay area. It is also important to note that ancillary development that
occurred in and around these sports and entertainment districts were not solely a result of the sports
operations. While different in market context, the following case studies provide some guidance
regarding the order of magnitude limits of historic ancillary development and are used to calibrate our
demand analysis.

Coors Field and Pepsi Center, Denver, Colorado

Coors Field is home to MLBs Colorado Rockies and is located in downtown Denver at 20th and
Blake Streets. When it opened in 1995, the seating capacity was 43,800, but this expanded several
times to the current 50,445 capacity with 63 luxury suites. The 76-acre Pepsi Center site is a multiuse arena located approximately one mile southwest of Coors Field and is home to the NBA Denver
Nuggets, NHL Colorado Avalanche, and National Lacrosse League (NLL) Colorado Mammoth. The
Center opened in 1999 and has up to 21,000 seats depending on stage configuration. Basketball
events seat 19,155, while hockey seats 18,007 attendees.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 118

Coors Field is located on the street, not surrounded by parking (visitors use parking lots scattered
mainly northeast of the stadium and/or shuttle buses), although there are 3,800 spaces on-site at
Coors Field. Denvers Regional Transportation Districts Denver Union Station is a multi-modal station
(under construction) located across the street from the stadium and arena. Denver Union Station will
feature a 12,000-square foot public common area, 40,000 square feet of outdoor plaza space, and a
110-room hotel. The nearest freeway (north/south I-25) is approximately one-half mile away.
The ballpark won an Urban Land Institute award for Excellence in 1999 and is considered the key
element in the redevelopment of the Lower downtown (LoDo) district. While the LoDo district was
already on the rise when the stadium was completed, the ballpark created a critical mass that
enabled the district to become self-sustaining. The ballparks site, once a Union Pacific Railroad rail
yard, was selected due to its proximity to major highway interchanges (north/south I-25 and east/west
I-70) and to the adjacent LoDo district. Historically, the LoDo district was used for railroad
warehousing and light industrial uses, with economic prosperity rising and falling with those of the
railroad industry and the adjacent downtown. In 1988, the LoDo district was designated a historic
district, which led to the restoration of historic structures and sparked the influx of new retail and
entertainment businesses.
More than 20 buildings in LoDo have been renovated since 1991 and there are approximately 1,600
residential units in the ballpark district area. Notable retail/entertainment complexes in LoDo include
Larimer Square (LoDos largest retail/entertainment center, with 177,000 square feet gross leasable
area in approximately 25 stores over four levels) and Writer Square, a small (52,000 square feet of
GLA) retail center with approximately 10 specialty shops and galleries.
Several retail centers are located within a mile of Coors Field. Denver Pavilions, located at Glenarm
and 16th Streets, is a festival/entertainment center that first opened in 1998, with development costs
of $101.5 million. It is located in the general area between Coors Field and the Pepsi Center. The
center has 350,000 square feet of GLA on one level, is open-air, and has approximately 50 tenants.
Anchors include Barnes & Noble, Nike Town, a 15-screen United Artists Theater, and Hard Rock
Caf, and approximately 40 other national and local retailers. The Tabor Center, a specialty center
that first opened in 1984 with 136,000 square feet of leasable area over three levels with 1,694
parking spaces, houses the Cheesecake Factory, The Palm, and approximately 50 smaller tenants,
including some national retailers (such as ESPN-The Store). Other major nearby activity centers
(within approximately one mile) include the University of Colorado-Denver and the Colorado
Convention Center. The 16th Street Mall, a one-mile pedestrian mall, is also located in the district.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 119

Reliant Stadium (Reliant Park), Houston, Texas

Home of the NFL Houston Texans, Reliant Stadium was the first of its kind in the NFL, with a
retractable roof, when it opened in September 2002. A retractable roof was chosen for the stadium
because of the late summer heat and because the stadium hosts rodeos that attract two million
people annually. Reliant Stadium has a capacity of 71,500 and over 7,700 club seats, 196 luxury
suites, club lounges and bars, and a Texans team store. The facility also has 400 concession and
novelty stands.
Prior to 1997, Houston had an NFL franchise (the Houston Oilers). After numerous failed attempts to
get a new stadium built, the Oilers moved to Nashville after the 1996 season. Following the departure
of the Oilers, a local investment group was awarded an expansion franchise, the Houston Texans, to
begin playing in 2002. The Texans partnered with the Livestock Show and Rodeo in building the
stadium. Reliant Stadium was host to Super Bowl XXXVIII in 2004 and will host 2017s Super Bowl LI.
In October 2000, Reliant Energy purchased the naming rights for the entire complex for $300 million.
Reliant Park is a multi-venue complex that also hosts Carruth Plaza, Reliant Arena, the Reliant
Astrodome, and the JagFlo speedway. Reliant Park is accessible by light rail at Reliant Park station
as well as one of the worlds largest parking lots with 26,000 spaces. Current master planning is in
process to determine the marketability of RDE, but no development has occurred to date.

Petco Park, San Diego, California

Petco Park is home to MLBs San Diego Padres and covers a site area of 12.5 acres (total project
size is 18 acres). Petco Park is located in downtown San Diego, adjacent to the San Diego
Convention Center on a site bordered by 7th Avenue, K Street, 10th Avenue, Harbor Drive, railroad
tracks, and Imperial Avenue. Padres ownership guaranteed an additional $300 million investment in
the surrounding mixed-use district.
The stadium has several unique architectural characteristics. At street level, there are several design
features in the style of the early Spanish missions, distinguished with a palm court, jacaranda trees,
and waterfalls leading spectators into the ballpark. Distinctive and strategically placed 200-foot towers
provide unique functions, ranging from supporting lights for the playing field to housing luxury suites
and lounges. A unique fractured design of the seating bowl separates seating sections and creates
a collection of seating neighborhoods. The ballpark has standing room and lawn seating that allows
a total capacity of nearly 46,000. The lawn seating area is called the Park at the Park and is open to
the public when the ballpark is not in use. The stadium is accessible by the I-5 freeway; State Route
163; and the Red, Blue, and Green trolley lines.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 120

The Ballpark District is adjacent to the East Village planning district. The East Village District is an
expansive neighborhood east of Sixth Avenue and south of the Core, stretching all the way to I-5.
Prior to 1998, the East Village neighborhood was a blighted warehouse district with a number of light
industrial uses. The construction cost was partially funded by the Center City Development
Corporation and the San Diego Redevelopment Agency as part of a comprehensive plan to revitalize
downtown San Diego, especially the East Village neighborhood.
The public financing and development of Petco Park helped catalyze neighborhood revitalization and
transformation into a vibrant mixed-use area. Since the ballpark was approved, over 110 projects
have either been approved or are in the planning stages in downtown San Diego with a combined
project cost of $3 billion. Nearly 40 of these projects are located in the East Village District. In total,
the East Village ballpark area development is planned to include close to 4,000 residential units,
604,700 square feet of commercial space, nearly 750 hotel rooms, and close to 3,000 public parking
spaces. The estimated value of these projects is over $1.4 billion. There was originally a larger
amount of retail planned for the Ballpark District and East Village, but the amount was subsequently
scaled back. A large proportion of retail being developed is part of mixed-use residential projects,
versus stand-alone retail developments, which is consistent with the emerging urban fabric of the
area.

Ford Field, Detroit, Michigan

Ford Field is home to the NFLs Detroit Lions. It is located in downtown Detroit, just south of I-75
(Fisher Freeway), and directly across Brush Street and from Comerica Park, the home of MLBs
Tigers. Opened in September 2002, it is composed of approximately 1.9 million square feet of
building space, with four levels of suites, a level of club seating, and a ground level housing
restaurants, concessions, and other retail. There are 65,000 seats, including 8,600 club seats that
feature padded seats, private lounges, upscale food service, and preferred parking. There are 132
suites, with a capacity range of eight to 30 people.
The total project site is approximately 25 acres. Sources of funding include the City of Detroit, the
Detroit Downtown Development Authority, Wayne County, the Lions, the Ford Motor Company,
Comerica Bank, and corporate founding investors. Ford purchased naming rights for 20 years (the
Ford family owns the Lions).
The facility hosts up to 120 events annually, including Lions football games, sporting events,
concerts, banquets, tradeshows, business meetings, and conventions. The combined attendance of
all events in the stadiums first year was approximately 1.5 million. The complex also incorporates
350,000 square feet of leasable space at the adjoining old Hudsons Warehouse (established in the
1920s). The Hudsons warehouse was turned into 230,000 square feet of Class A commercial office

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 121

space that rented (as of late 2012) for $21 to $23 per square foot. The warehouse side of the stadium
is home to most of the suite, club seats, press box, and broadcast facilities. Ford Fields tenants in the
adjoining warehouse redevelopment include retail, dining, entertainment, office, hotel, and parking.
The Lions and a private developer recently announced an agreement to build a $40-million office
building and parking deck adjacent to Ford Field. The five-story, 115,000-square foot office building,
which will house 400 workers from PricewaterhouseCoopers and other tenants, will be developed by
Etkin Equities Inc. It will be located in what is currently a surface parking lot at I-375 and Madison and
will be adjacent to a new 1,000-space parking deck.
The City of Detroit invested in both Ford Field and Comerica Park as economic development projects
for the city. However, there has not been a boom of new business or construction around the
stadiums.

MetLife Stadium (Meadowland Sports Complex), East Rutherford, New Jersey

MetLife Stadium in the Meadowland Sports Complex is home to the NFLs New York Giants and Jets.
The building is adjacent to the site of the former Giants Stadium, which was also shared by the two
teams until the end of 2009. The stadium is owned by the New Jersey Sports and Exposition
Authority, although the Giants and Jets built the stadium with private funds and operate it through a
joint venture called the MetLife Stadium Company. The stadium will host Super Bowl XLVIII in 2014.
MetLife Stadium hosts approximately 40 major events per year, including Jets and Giants games,
international soccer, college football, concerts, and regional expositions and trade shows. Smaller
events include high school football championships, national drum line competitions, and motocross
racing. New Jersey Transit-Meadowlands Station provides rail access at the terminus of the
Meadowlands Rail Line. Studies have also been conducted to extend the HudsonBergen Light Rail
to the Meadowlands Sports Complex.
The American Dream Meadowlands is a partially-built retail and entertainment complex in the
Complex. The project began in 2003 as Meadowlands Xanadu to be developed by Colony Capital.
The sports component was to include a 250,000-square foot indoor ski resort (Snowdome),
SkyVenture, an 8,000-seat minor league ballpark, and a 175,000-square foot Cabelas. A 3,400-seat
AEG Live! Theater, an 18-screen Muvicos Theaters, a Lucky Strike bowling alley, and a LEGOLAND
Discovery Center had also been proposed. In addition to entertainment and retail, Xanadu was also
slated to have four 440,000-square foot office buildings, a six-story parking lot, and a 520-room hotel
and conference facility.
In May 2009, construction on the project halted as the project lost $500 million worth of construction
funding. In May 2010, mall management was turned over to Related Companies. According to the

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 122

Wall Street Journal, Triple Five (T5) signed a letter of intent to invest in and complete the project.
Triple Five renamed the project to American Dream Meadowlands and plans to open by 2014.

Glorypark Town Center, Arlington, Texas

Glorypark Town Center was a $479-million town-center project planned near Rangers Ballpark in
Arlington, Texas. The plans were for a 75-acre shopping and restaurant district envisioned as a
destination both for game days and non-game days. Plans were for the Town Center to open in 2010
and included more than 2.1 million square feet in a first phase of development. Entertainment, dining,
and retail stores would occupy 815,000 square feet of the project. Other proposed elements would
include 200,000 square feet of office space, 330 luxury apartments, two hotels with more than 400
rooms, and a number of condominiums. With respect to hotels and residences, the project was to
include a 300-room, 36-story Westin hotel with 85 branded luxury residences. The second hotel,
ALOFTSM, was planned to be an 18-story hotel with 140 rooms and 70 loft-type residences.
Former Texas Rangers owner Tom Hickss Hicks Holdings was the developer of Glorypark, while
Steiner + Associates served as the developer of the retail, apartment, and office segments. However,
in 2008, Hicks delayed the project due to problems with financing.

University of Phoenix Stadium (Glendale Sports and Entertainment District), Glendale,

Arizona
The University of Phoenix Stadium is a multi-purpose stadium located in Glendale, Arizona (10 miles
northwest of downtown Phoenix) and is home of the NFL Arizona Cardinals and the Tostitos Fiesta
Bowl. The facility also hosts major basketball and soccer games, consumer shows, motorsports,
rodeos, and corporate events. The building features sections of metal panels that reflect desert light,
and the exterior resembles a barrel cactus. The stadium also features the first fully-retractable natural
grass playing field in North America, as well as a retractable roof.
The stadium is located directly south of the Westgate City Center and is part of the greater Glendale
Sports and Entertainment District (SED). The Westgate City Center is a super-regional multi-use
shopping, entertainment, commercial, office, and luxury residential development. The development
was initially funded by New York architect Ron Elsensohn and anchored by the nearly 18,000-seat
Jobing.com Arena, which is the home of the Phoenix Coyotes. The complex was planned to feature
eight million square feet of retail space and become one of the premier entertainment destinations in
the region, attracting a projected 22 million visitors annually upon completion. In 2011, the property
went into foreclosure due to uncertainty concerning the Phoenix Coyotes since the team filed
bankruptcy in 2009, though the shopping center remains open today. On average, the Jobing.com
arena hosts 125 to 150 events per year.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 123

The Glendale SED encompasses six square miles and is also home to the Glendale Media Center (a
TV production facility), a Renaissance Hotel, Camelback Ranch Glendale, the Glendale Corporate
Center, the 91 Glendale office development, and Zanjero. The Renaissance Hotel is a four-star, 320room hotel that features over 95,000 square feet of conference and convention space. The Los
Angeles Dodgers and Chicago White Sox train at the 125-acre Camelback Ranch Glendale complex.
The Glendale Corporate Center and 91 Glendale are both Class A office developments with 189,000
square feet and 203,000 square feet, respectively. Finally, Zanjero is a partially developed 158-acre
mixed-use Planned Area Development (PAD) comprising retail, hospitality, and residential uses.
Several other projects are also planned for the Glendale SED. Main Street, Bella Villagio, Centrada,
Desert River, Sportsman Park East and West, and Urban 95 are mixed-use PADs entitled for
housing, office, retail, hotel, and entertainment. Among these planned developments, Sportsmans
Park East and West will immediately surround the stadium. Sportsmans Park East is a 58-acre PAD
focused primarily on office use with opportunities to develop retail, residential, and hotel. Over three
million square feet of employment space is planned in Sportsmans Park West. There are currently
265,000 square feet of retail space and 135,000 square feet of office space.

XFINITY Live! (South Philadelphia Sports Complex), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

The South Philadelphia Sports complex is the home of Philadelphias professional sports teams and
comprises Citizens Bank Park to the northeast, Lincoln Financial Field to the southeast, the Wells
Fargo Center to the southwest, and parking in the northeast. XFINITY Live! is located at the center of
the complex. The complex is located in South Philadelphia, south of the Schuylkill Expressway toll
road (I-76), northwest of the Delaware Expressway (I-95), and east of Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Park. In addition to freeway access, the complex can be accessed by the Broad Street subway lines
AT&T station as well as several bus lines.
Citizens Bank Park, home of the MLB Phillies, opened in April 2004. The park has a 43,651-seat
capacity. The park replaced Veterans Stadium, which was a football and baseball multi-purpose
stadium. Lincoln Financial Field is home to the NFL Philadelphia Eagles and has a seating capacity of
68,532. The Wells Fargo Center is a multi-purpose indoor arena and home to four Philadelphia sports
teams: the NBA 76ers, NHL Flyers, the NLL Wings, and the Arena Football League Soul. The arenas
capacity is a maximum of approximately 21,300.
At the center of the three stadiums on the southwest corner of Pattison Avenue and South 11th Street
is XFINITY Live!, a dining and entertainment district. XFINITY Live! is centered around the XFINITY
On Demand Theater, a 24-foot-wide LED video board featuring both sports games and family-friendly
movies. Next to the theater is the NBC Sports Field, an outdoor miniature artificial turf field, which
hosts numerous activities and free concerts. The complex features Spectrum Grill, Victory Beer Hall,

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 124

NBC Sports Arena, XBAR, PBR Bar and Grill, and Broad Street Bullies Pub: drinking and dining
venues that also host events throughout the year. An outdoor plaza, the Road to Victory, features a
full-service bar and patio area and includes historical statues of Philadelphia sports figures. Because
of a partnership with Sony, the complex features state-of-the-art Sony audio and visual systems. In
total, the development is approximately 80,000 square feet. The RDE is also popular on game and
non-game days, as there is programming to attract people for both ticketed and non-ticketed fans
looking to be part of the game day experience. Additional non-game day programming includes free
concerts, movies, and sports simulcasts.

Gillette Stadium, Foxborough, Massachusetts

Gillette Stadium is located in Foxborough, Massachusetts, approximately 22 miles southwest of
downtown Boston, and 22 miles northeast of downtown Providence, Rhode Island. The stadium is
home to the NFL New England Patriots, the Major League Soccer New England Revolution, and
University of Massachusetts football. Construction of the stadium began in 2000 and the stadium
opened in 2002. Gillette Stadium has a seating capacity of 68,756, with 6,000 club seats with 89
luxury suites and 2,000 suite seats. Its two identical 60,000-square-foot club spaces host trade shows
and expositions. Gillette Stadium features a stylized lighthouse and bridge styled after Bostons
Longfellow Bridge that create the stadiums signature entrance. Visitors can access the station via the
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authoritys Providence/Stoughton or Franklin commuter rail lines
at the Foxborough station.
The stadium is owned and operated by the Kraft Sports Group, associated with Robert Kraft who
owns the Patriots and Revolution. Originally CMGI Field, Gillette Stadium was renamed after the
company bought naming rights for an undisclosed amount of money. Proctor & Gamble has since
purchased Gillette and has extended naming rights from 2017 to 2031 for $105 million.
Adjacent to the stadium is Patriot Place, a 1.3-million-square foot shopping, dining, and entertainment
space with a wide variety of shops and dining options. Major retailers include Bed, Bath and Beyond,
Old Navy, Staples, and Trader Joes. The Showcase Cinema de Lux movie theater in Patriot Place
offers dining options at Lux Level and Studio 3 Restaurant and Bar. Patriot Place Showcase Live is a
16,000-square foot live entertainment venue located adjacent to the Showcase Cinema De Lux. The
Plaza at Patriot Place is an outdoor performance venue that features free, live, local music. On-site is
Brigham and Womens/Mass General Health Center, which provides primary care, urgent care, and
specialized services. Additionally, the Renaissance Hotel and Spa is located on the east end of
Patriot Place. This full-service property has 150 rooms and nine meeting rooms with a total of 6,900
square feet of meeting space. In total, and including the places listed above, Patriot Places directory
lists 63 businesses and services.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 125

Case Studies Summary

The following table presents a summary of the maximum ancillary development from the selected
case studies. While this development can help guide achievable boundaries for ancillary development
potential, in some cases the context in which they were developed is very different than the local
market area in Oakland. For example, Gillette Stadiums retail is developed more as a regional
shopping center for several states in the larger New England region. The hotel and residential units
developed in San Diego came during the real estate boom leading up to the residential real estate
bubble. Similarly, hotel properties that were developed in the Petco Park district area succeeded
largely due to their proximity to the convention center and location within downtown San Diego rather
than being an amenity driven by the stadiums usage. Perhaps more realistic development can be
seen when examining other case studies where the ancillary development is lower. In almost all
cases, the planned level of development has not been achieved but the new stadium and associated
sports district have acted as a catalyst for new development. As such, we have not included
information regarding Levis Stadium or others, as it is less helpful to determine potentials at the
Subject Site.
Table 59: Selected Case Studies Ancillary Development by Use
Location

Sport Anchors

Location

MSA
Population

Per Capita
Personal
Income

Estimated
Attendance

Retail
(SF)

Hotel
(Rooms)

Residential
(Units)

Unknown

Unknown

1,600

Coors Field (Ball Park District)

MLB

Downtown

2,598,496

48,980

2,630,000

Reliant Stadium

NFL

Suburban

6,051,850

47,612

570,000

Petco Park (Ball Park District)

MLB

Downtown

3,138,183

46,800

2,120,000

280,000

957

100,000

325,000
345,000

NFL

Downtown

4,287,966

40,009

1,010,000

NFL

Suburban

19,729,930

56,770

1,280,000

Glorypark Town Center

MLB, NFL

Suburban

6,569,112

43,708

4,168,529

University of Phoenix

NFL, NHL

Suburban

4,252,078

36,833

1,060,000

320

XFINITY Live!

MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL Downtown

5,997,474

48,723

6,000,000

80,000

NFL

Suburban

4,603,344

57,893

550,000

1,300,000

Oakland Coliseum

MLB, NFL, NBA

Suburban

3,708,656

46,958

3,410,000

3,585

Ford Field

Gillette Stadium

Unknown

MetLife Stadium

265,000

Office
(SF)

130,000

150

Note: Residential refers to market-rate units

Source: AECOM

Ancillary Development Potential Overview

As noted in our case-study analysis, stadiums and arenas have often successfully served as
anchoring uses for urban redevelopment projects in some areas. However, the expected or planned
level of ancillary development has not always been reached. The following demand estimates are
based on our market analysis and case study analysis to estimate near-term growth and capture at
the Subject Site.
Previous planning envisioned synergies between the broader Coliseum development area and an
Oakland Airport Business Park located near the Subject Site. The Oakland Airport Business Park is
thought to be developed to attract science and technology companies to Oakland. A mixed-use

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 126

development program that could include additional housing is also being considered. Other
development that could be attracted to the area, along with the Coliseum Mixed-Use Sports and
Entertainment District, could significantly help create additional synergies and revitalize the Subject
Site and surrounding area, but is not considered here.
AECOM evaluated development potential for each land use under consideration using a low,
medium, and high capture estimate. For the purposes of this analysis, the low capture represents the
base scenario, the mid-capture represents the two-team scenario, and the high capture represents
the three-team scenario associated with development potentials for hotel, residential, and office uses.
As shown below, for some land uses the change in assumed capture will be marginal, as some uses
will not significantly benefit from additional activity at the Project Site (e.g., office development). In
other instances, the change in estimated capture will be greater based on the assumption that new
sports and entertainment facilitates will help with placemaking and the ability to attract quality
development to the area. RDE uses are largely driven by attendance estimates for the alternative
scenarios.
It is important to note that we have not tested the financial viability of the development discussed
below. As such, even though sufficient market demand may exist, site-specific costs associated with
development, achievable market rents or values, etc. have not been fully considered. As noted in the
market analysis, one of the Project Sites biggest challenges is creating a place that will be viewed as
high quality and justify price premiums over the current market rates. As provided in the case study
analysis, success of such sports-anchored mixed-use developments in areas previously thought of as
unmarketable is not unprecedented.
The following tables present an order-of-magnitude, 10-year demand forecast for the various land
uses under consideration. In each instance, we have estimated the Project Sites capture based on
our understanding of its locational attributes as well as competitive properties in Oakland and any
other predetermined submarket area. In all cases, these demand estimates are not prescriptive for
either the City or subsequent capture within the Project Site. The estimates are provided to help guide
thinking regarding potential land uses marketability within the Study Area over what would be
considered the first phase of development and are generally aggressive considering the historic level
of development.
AECOM believes that RDE and hotel land uses present the highest near-term market demand and
could be leveraged in connection with the Base Scenario. AECOM believes the current configuration
of the Project Site and associated lack of any RDE outside the stadium is a missed opportunity.
Depending on the other hypothetical scenarios, the likelihood of attracting additional development
increases significantly. The number of event days associated with the use of the arena as well as a

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 127

new MLB stadium along with residential development will help placemaking efforts and rebranding of
the area. The analysis should be considered illustrative given the uncertainty associated with the
alternative scenarios as well as the timing of the new sports-anchored development. The range of
development (other than the Base Scenario) in this analysis assumes that all new sports
development is approved and operating at a stabilized level. Actual demand estimates will extend
beyond the 10-year time frame given the actual timing of any approved sports stadium development.

RDE Development Potential

AECOM has focused the RDE to be oriented towards food and beverage with some limited support
retail (i.e., a team-themed store) for estimating the demand stemming from the on-site programming
and additional capture in the larger market area. AECOM has also assumed the development would
be of high design and would be attractive to both daytime and nighttime activities. This analysis does
not consider additional tourism-drawing spaces developed on-site, such as a Hall of Fame attraction
that is common with many new stadium developments. The addition of such attractions or public
space (with programming) may add to the level of capture that can be reasonably assumed from the
market segments evaluated herein. Market-wide demand for RDE is estimated as a function of
spending within the resident, tourist, and office market both on and off the Project Site. Additional
RDE support is expected from the capture of sales from those individuals frequenting a ticketed
event.
Market-wide demand for RDE is estimated based on the resident market within a 20-minute drive of
the Project Site. The resident market is divided based on distance to the Project Site, assuming that
households in proximity (0- to 10-minute drive time) may visit the RDE more frequently than those
households traveling a longer distance (10- to 20-minute drive time). RDE spending for each market
area is based on the total number of projected households, their average household income, and
their spending patterns by retail category as provided by ESRI Business Analyst. AECOM has also
provided estimates on RDE and non-RDE retail that would likely be generated by the new household
units developed at the Project Site. Different spending assumptions and capture estimates were used
to calculate the demand.
The tourist market is divided into tourists who are visiting the larger Oakland area as well as those
individuals that would be staying at the hotel development on-site. We anticipated that the Project
Site will have limited capture of the larger tourist market and a higher capture of spending from onsite hotel guests. AECOM anticipates that future ancillary development will also be able to capture
demand from the nearby office market employees. In this instance, a 0- to 1.5-mile market radius and
a 1.5-to 3.0-mile market radius was used to estimate potential sales capture given employees

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 128

propensity to spend money on food and beverage at lunch time and after work. AECOM utilized
assumptions provided in the ICSCs latest report on office-worker retail spending.
The final demand segmentation is individuals going to an event at the Project Site. In this analysis,
AECOM used assumptions previously provided for events and attendance in a new open-air facility
as well as estimates regarding recent visitor attendance at existing sports and entertainment facilities.
The following Table 60 provides an overview of on-site demand factors and assumptions, while Table
61 provides the same information for off-site markets. The following three figures include an estimate
of total supportable RDE space given these assumptions in a low, mid, and high development
scenario, respectively. In total, AECOM estimates the ancillary development potential ranges from
approximately 50,000, 70,000, or 100,000 square feet of supportable retail space using the base
scenario, two-team scenario, and three-team scenario, respectively.
Table 60: Summary On-Site Retail Inputs and Assumptions

Market Segments
Stadium Attendance

Low
Scenario
1,064,000

Office Employees

Annual
Spend
Per
Capita

Mid
Scenario

High
Scenario

1,864,000

3,364,000

$12.50

75.0%

Capture

230

360

480

$1,554

25.0%

Residential Population (RDE)

1,436

2,741

3,915

$1,216

10.0%

Residential Population (General Retail)

1,436

2,741

3,915

$3,000

30.0%

36,196

42,583

48,971

$162

10.0%

Visitors

Notes: Sales per square foot for RDE = $500; Sales per square foot for Neighborhood retail is $350 per square foot; Annual
on-site attendance is assumed as follows: NFL = 480,000; Stadium Other = 234,000; NBA = 800,000; Arena Other = 350,000,
MLB = 1,500,000; Base Scenario includes NFL, Stadium Other, and Arena Other; Two Team Scenario includes Base Scenario
plus NBA; Three Team Scenario = One and Two Team Scenarios plus MLB; Visitor, Office, Residential spending based on
F&B and entertainment average spend only; Residential (General Retail) is based on convenience shopping goods.
Source: BLS, Visit California; ESRI Business Analyst; AECOM

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 129

Table 61: Summary Off-Site RDE Inputs and Assumptions

Market Segments

Population

Annual
Spend Per
Capita

Capture

Office
0.0 - 1.5 miles

11,472

$1,554

10.0%

1.5 - 3.0 miles

19,943

$1,554

2.5%

0 -10 Minutes

109,181

$1,237

1.50%

10 -20 Minutes

848,652

$1,216

0.50%

464,682

$162

0.50%

4,323,825

$162

0.25%

Residential

Visitors
Submarket
Oakland Market

Notes: Office population estimate based on OnTheMap (US Census) and spending based on ICSC office spending survey
(2012); Residential population estimate and spending estimate based on ESRI Business Analyst; Visitor population based on
PFK room count and current vacancy estimate and information provided by Visit California regarding average length of stay
(3.0); persons per party (2.5)
Source: AECOM

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 130

Table 62: Low RDE Demand Estimate (Stable Year of Operations)

Retail Category

Total Sales ($)

% of $

Supportable SF

RDE
On-Site Demand
Stadium
Office

$9,975,000

43.9%

19,950

$89,326

0.4%

179

Residential

$174,607

0.8%

349

Visitor

$586,373

2.6%

1,173

$10,825,306

47.7%

21,651

0.0 - 1.5 miles

$1,782,136

7.9%

3,564

1.5 - 3.0 miles

$774,525

3.4%

1,549

Off-Site Demand
Office

Residential
0 -10 Minutes

$2,025,664

8.9%

4,051

10 -20 Minutes

$5,161,287

22.7%

10,323

Visitor
Submarket
Oakland Market

Total RDE Demand (Rounded)

$376,392

1.7%

753

$1,751,149

7.7%

3,502

$11,871,153

52.3%

23,742

$22,696,458

45,000

General Retail (On-Site Demand)

Residential
Total Retail (Rounded)

$4,306,500

100%

$27,002,958

4,000
49,000

Source: AECOM

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 131

Table 63: Mid RDE Demand Estimate (Stable Year of Operations)

Retail Category

Total Sales ($)

% of $

Supportable SF

RDE
On-Site Demand
Stadium

$17,475,000

57.3%

34,950

Office

$139,815

0.5%

280

Residential

$333,340

1.1%

667

Visitor

$689,850

2.3%

1,380

$18,638,005

61.1%

37,276

0.0 - 1.5 miles

$1,782,136

5.8%

3,564

1.5 - 3.0 miles

$774,525

2.5%

1,549

Off-Site Demand
Office

Residential
0 -10 Minutes

$2,025,664

6.6%

4,051

10 -20 Minutes

$5,161,287

16.9%

10,323

Visitor
Submarket
Oakland Market

Total RDE Demand (Rounded)

$376,392

1.2%

753

$1,751,149

5.7%

3,502

$11,871,153

38.9%

23,742

$30,509,158

61,000

General Retail (On-Site Demand)

Residential
Total Retail (Rounded)

$8,221,500

100%

$38,730,658

7,000
68,000

Source: AECOM

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 132

Table 64: High RDE Demand Estimate (Stable Year of Operations)

Retail Category

Total Sales ($)

% of $

Supportable SF

RDE
On-Site Demand
Stadium

$31,537,500

70.3%

63,075

Office

$186,420

0.4%

373

Residential

$476,201

1.1%

952

Visitor

$793,328

1.8%

1,587

$32,993,448

73.5%

65,987

0.0 - 1.5 miles

$1,782,136

4.0%

3,564

1.5 - 3.0 miles

$774,525

1.7%

1,549

Off-Site Demand
Office

Residential
0 -10 Minutes

$2,025,664

4.5%

4,051

10 -20 Minutes

$5,161,287

11.5%

10,323

$376,392

0.8%

753

Visitor
Submarket
Oakland Market

Total RDE Demand (Rounded)

$1,751,149

3.9%

3,502

$11,871,153

26.5%

23,742

$44,864,601

90,000

General Retail (On-Site Demand)

Residential
Total Retail (Rounded)

$11,745,000

100%

$56,609,601

Total Retail (Rounded)

10,000
100,000
100,000

Source: AECOM

Hotel Development Potential

The Oakland/Berkeley/Hayward hotel submarket is performing in line with the larger Oakland hotel
market. To estimate demand, a two-percent growth rate was utilized to project 10-year room night
demand. This represents the rate in which the larger Oakland room night supply and demand has
generally grown over the last five years and is projected to grow over the next five years. Based on
projected employment and population growth, AECOM anticipates that demand will be consistent with
past growth. This demand analysis does not take into account other available sites or other potential
restrictions. Rather, we have estimated total new supportable rooms given the expansion of the

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 133

existing hotel cluster near OAK and the additional support that could be attracted based on a new
Coliseum Mixed-Use Sports and Entertainment District.
The following summarize our demand estimates:

After total room night demand was established in 2023, AECOM applied a 70 percent
assumed occupancy rate to establish the total supportable room nights. This level of
occupancy is generally considered the threshold for a stabilized hotel occupancy.

The delta between existing room night demand and projected room night demand was
established and divided by 365 to estimate new hotel room demand over the next 10-year
period.

Pipeline supply was deducted to estimate demand in the Oakland/Berkeley/Hayward hotel

submarket, given its existing fair share capture of the larger regional hotel market.

AECOM evaluated the potential impact of the Project Site capturing between 27 to 37
percent of future room night demand within the Oakland/Berkeley/Hayward hotel submarket.
The anticipated demand would relate to the development of approximately 170 to 230 rooms
at the Project Site over the 10-year period.

Typically, national hotel chains will not operate under 120 rooms. As such, AECOMs high
capture of 10-year demand would suggest one or two hotel properties. This is assumed to
be below the Project Sites development potential. JRDV has estimated a range of 600,000
to 1.7 million square feet of hotel development. Assuming each unit was 450 square feet
(gross) the associated range of hotel rooms could be 1,300 to 3,800 units.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 134

Table 65: Hotel Demand Estimate (2012 2022)

Oakland Hotel Market Area
Room Night Supply (2012)

8,792,485

Occupancy (2012)

72%

Room Night Demand (2012)

6,339,382

Room Night Demand (2022) (1)

6,636,532

Assumed Occupancy

70%

Supportable Total Room Nights (2022)

9,480,760

New Room Night Demand (2012 - 2022)

688,275

New Supportable Rooms

1,886

Pipeline (2)

287

Net New Supportable Rooms in Oakland Hotel Market

1,600

Demand for New Rooms in Submarket

Oakland / Berkeley / Hayward Capture (3)

40%

Oakland / Berkeley / Hayward Rooms

640

Project Site Capture

100%

Low @ 27% (4)

170

Mid @ 32%

200

High @ 37%

230

(1) CAGR growth rate 2017 - 2022 based on PKF projection and historic growth
(2) PKF estimate
(3) Fair share based on current supply
(4) Based on New Stadium, current supply, and historic capture in Airport Submarket Area
Source: PKF; STR; and AECOM

Residential Development Potential

The Subject Sites proximity to the Coliseum BART Station and its location identified as a Priority
Development Area (PDA) are viewed as significant advantages for residential uses. PDAs, identified
by regional governments, are infill development opportunity areas that are generally at least 100
acres and at locations where there is local commitment to developing more housing along with
amenities and services to meet the day-to-day needs of residents in a pedestrian-friendly
environment served by transit. Collectively, these areas comprise about 115,000 acres of urban and
suburban land, less than five percent of the Bay Area's total land area. However, even though this is
a small proportion of the region's land area, the proposed PDAs could accommodate over half of the
Bay Area's projected housing growth to 2035, mostly at relatively moderate densities. As such, placemaking efforts to establish the Subject Site as a more desirable development location would enhance
the capture of future residential growth to the area.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 135

The following summarize our demand estimates:

AECOM relied on the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) household population
growth estimates between 2012 and 2022 to establish baseline incremental household
growth in Alameda County and Oakland.

AECOM examined historic capture of new household demand regardless of residential

product type (e.g., for-sale or for-rent and single-family or multi-family). The 94621 ZIP code
areas ability to attract future housing was increased by five percent above the historic fairshare capture in the high development scenario. While a new football stadium does not
have significant synergies with residential housing, AECOM believes the Project Site area
near transit is well-positioned for attracting transit-oriented development (TOD). Surprisingly,
even with the areas designation as a PDA, ABAG did not forecast significant housing in and
around the Project Site (determined by examination of growth forecasts at the Census Track
level).

AECOM has estimated that, depending on the sports development scenario, the Project Site
could attract between 550 and 1,500 residential units. This is assumed to be below the
Project Sites development potential. JRDV has estimated a range of one to two million
square feet of residential development. Assuming each unit was 1,100 square feet (gross),
the associated range of units could be 1,000 to 2,000 units.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 136

Table 66: Residential Housing Demand Estimate (2012 2022)

Incremental Household Growth in Alameda County
2012 - 2017

27,800

2017 - 2022

28,500

2012 - 2022

56,300

Incremental Household Growth in Oakland

2012 - 2017

10,100

2017 - 2022

9,700

2012 - 2022

19,800

ZIP Code Capture (94621)

Low @ 5.5% (1)

1,100

Mid @ 7.5%

2,100

High @ 10.5%

3,000

Project Site Capture

50%

Low

550

Mid

1,050

High

1,500

(1) Based on New Stadium, current supply, and historic delivery

Source: ABAG; AECOM

Office Development Potential

Demand for office space will be driven by jobs. The Project Site benefits from proximity to OAK.
However, AECOM anticipates that the existing vacant office space will provide a near-term barrier to
new development. Vacancy rates will likely need to decline below 10 percent before development is
considered within the Project Site area. Furthermore, among all the evaluated land uses, AECOM
believes that office-related uses will benefit the least from proximity to the new sports development.
Future demand at the Project Site will be mainly driven by the larger market demand. As such, there
is little variability between the various development scenarios.
Overall, AECOM anticipates that office space demand will be tepid over the next 5 years with limited
new construction, while demand erodes existing vacant space both in the larger county area and
locally. There is also some concern regarding office sizing in the future, as advances in technology
and workforce preferences may drive down the need for office space on a per-employee basis. As
such, we have estimated office job demand at 200 square feet per employee. This demand analysis
does not distinguish between Class A and Class B office space, although we would anticipate that
new development at the Project Site would be most marketable as Class B office space consistent

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 137

with existing office product in the area. Attracting Class A development and the associated office
users would be desired but likely challenging in the submarket area.
The following general methodology was followed to develop these estimates:

Examination of anticipated incremental job growth in Alameda County, as projected by

ABAG, with an adjustment made to estimate the employment that is anticipated to take place
in an office environment. This estimate was established by examining historic job growth and
the delivery of office space in the county.

AECOM has assumed that each new employee will generate demand for 200 square feet of
office space. This estimate was divided by 95 percent occupancy to establish the total gross
built office space at assumed market equilibrium.

Existing vacant space, as well as surplus demand, was discounted to establish total market
demand in the next 10 years in 5-year increments.

The Oakland-Airport submarket capture was estimated using its historic share of total new
office development in the county over the last 10 years.

Projected demand less under-construction development was considered.

Total Study Area capture was estimated at less than 5 percent of Alameda County demand.

AECOM has estimated that, depending on the sports development scenario, the Project Site
could attract between approximately 50,000 and 100,000 square feet of office development.
This is assumed to be below the Project Sites development potential. JRDV has estimated a
range of one to two million square feet of residential development, but it is not clear if this
included a larger area than the Project Site.

This analysis does not include potential synergies or creating a new market based on vision
for adjacent technology office development.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 138

Table 67: Office Demand Estimate (2012 2022)

Alameda County
Incremental Employment Growth
2012 - 2017

47,400

2017 - 2022

50,900

Percent of New Office Using Jobs (1)

30%

2012 - 2017

14,200

2017 - 2022

15,300

SF per New Employee (2)

200

2012 - 2017

2,840,000

2017 - 2022

3,060,000

Built Space Demanded in Equilibrium

95%

2012 - 2017

2,989,474

2017 - 2022

3,221,053

Existing Office (RBA) in County

Vacant

70,368,269
8,364,052

Occupied SF

62,004,217

95% Occupancy

66,849,856

Surplus Demand

3,518,413

Demand (Rounded)
2012 - 2017

(678,400)

2017 - 2022

5,221,600

2012 - 2022

5,221,600

Oakland - Airport Submarket Capture

Low @ 2% (3)

104,000

Mid @ 3%

157,000

High @ 4% (4)

211,000

Site Capture

50%

Low

52,000

Mid

79,000

High

106,000

(1) AECOM estimate based on historic office and job growth

(2) AECOM estimate based on projected office employment density
(3) Based on historic capture
(4) Fair share based on current supply
Source: CoStar; AECOM

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 139

Table 68 presents a summary of the ancillary development by scenario. Based on our analysis,
AECOM believes the RDE and hotel development provide the most near-term development potential.
The general retail estimates would depend on the level of on-site residential development. While
residential land uses are in demand, the financial feasibility of this development has not been tested.
Finally, while office space will be marketable in the future, there is currently a sufficient supply of
available office space and the area has not been historically attractive for significant new
development. A more realistic strategy might be limiting office space and integrating office uses with
the general retail or perhaps RDE retail development (e.g., second floor of commercial mixed use).
Similarly, the general retail could be located within mixed-use residential development.
Table 68: Summary Ancillary Development Estimates by Scenario
RDE (SF) General Retail (SF)
Base (Low)

45,000

4,000

Hotel (Rooms)

Residential (Units)

170

Office (SF)

550

52,000

Two Team (Mid)

61,000

7,000

200

1,050

79,000

Three Team (High)

90,000

10,000

230

1,500

106,000

Source: AECOM

Economic and Fiscal Impact of Ancillary Development

Methodology and Key Assumptions
Key assumptions for the economic and fiscal impact analysis for the proposed development
alternatives are outlined below. Impacts are distributed into two categories:

One-time impacts related to the construction of the estimated supportable development and
the new stadium, and

Annual impacts associated with ancillary development only, in a stabilized year of operations.

Methodology
The total economic impact occurs on three levels direct, indirect, and induced. Direct impacts refer
to the initial first-round expenditures associated with the proposed development and related
activities. Indirect and induced impacts, also commonly referred to as the multiplier or ripple effect,
result from the subsequent rounds of respending the first-round expenditures by businesses and
households.
Multipliers used in this analysis are based on IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning), an input/output
(I/O) model developed and maintained by the Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG). The IMPLAN model
draws upon data collected by MIG from multiple federal and state sources, including the Bureau of
Economic Analysis, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Census Bureau. IMPLAN is a widely
accepted I/O model to evaluate economic impacts at the local, regional, and state levels.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 140

IMPLAN is an I/O matrix model that identifies the effects of spending on the economy for various
economic sectors. The inputs for each category of spending were developed by AECOM to
approximate the anticipated economic effect of the development scenarios. I/O analysis has formed
the basis for most credible economic impact analyses for all types of projects and land uses.
All assumptions regarding construction and revenues are provided by AECOM and should be
considered order-of-magnitude estimates. As planning moves forward and additional details related to
future development are refined, further adjustments to the impact analysis would be required. In many
ways, these findings are illustrative for comparison purposes since all projected development is
hypothetical at this point.
Other key assumptions include:

All values are presented in constant 2013 dollars.

The economic geography of study is Alameda County.

Ongoing economic and fiscal impacts are modeled at project build-out and are indicative of
gross spending that has not been adjusted to account for any transfers or cannibalization of
potential retail sales in Alameda County.

One-time impacts associated with construction of the facility are assumed to occur over the
development period.

Construction Assumptions
The first and most immediate economic impact of the proposed development alternatives is the
capital costs associated with construction. AECOM used price-per-square-foot estimates to examine
the development scenarios under consideration. These costs serve as the inputs to the construction
portion of the economic impact model. The following key assumptions include:

Retail (both general and RDE) costs are estimated at $400 per gross square foot (including
tenant improvements and on-site amenities),

Hotel costs are estimated at $200,000 per room,

Residential costs are estimated at $405,000 per unit and assumed to be a mix of for-sale and
for-rent product,

Office costs are estimated at $375 per gross square foot, and

Preliminary costs associated with the new stadium are estimated to be $900 million for the
stadium itself and an additional $78 million for required infrastructure.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 141

All estimates should be considered preliminary and used for planning purposes only.
Table 69: Construction Cost Model Inputs Ancillary Development
Land Use

Development Cost

Retail
Low

$21,780,000

Mid

$30,220,000

High

$44,440,000

Hotel
Low

$34,000,000

Mid

$40,000,000

High

$46,000,000

Residential
Low

$222,750,000

Mid

$425,250,000

High

$607,500,000

Office
Low

$21,670,000

Mid

$32,920,000

High

$44,170,000

Total
Low

$300,200,000

Mid

$528,390,000

High

$742,110,000

Source: AECOM

Operating Assumptions
Distinct from the construction period, the ancillary development will have an ongoing annual impact
associated with its operations. AECOM has highlighted the models key inputs as shown below in
Table 70 (operating impacts are only calculated for the ancillary development and not the stadium).
These assumptions are based on job projections. The IMPLAN model makes basic assumptions on
the typical relation between revenue and jobs given a typical industry in Alameda County. Key job
density assumptions include:

One retail job per 450 square feet of occupied retail space,

0.5 hotel jobs per room, and

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 142

One office job per 200 square feet of occupied office space.

Table 70: Operating Assumption Model Inputs Jobs

Land Use

Low

Mid

High

Hotel

85

100

115

Office

234

356

477

Retail

103

144

211

Total

422

599

803

Source: AECOM

Economic Impact Estimate

The following tables illustrate the potential economic impact of the alternative development scenarios
from the one-time construction and ongoing annual operations. The impact is quantified by output,
labor income, and employment and is presented based on the direct, indirect, induced, and total
impact.

One-Time Construction-Related Economic Impact Stadium and Ancillary

Development
The following represents the one-time economic impact associated with the total costs of the ancillary
development and stadiums construction. All impacts are anticipated to occur during the construction
period only. It is important to note that additional research has not been conducted to get a better
sense regarding the sourcing of materials or labor. AECOM has relied upon the assumptions
embedded in the IMPLAN model for Alameda County by specific development type.
Table 71: One-time Ancillary Construction Economic Impact
Labor Income
(Millions)

Output
(Millions)

1,870
1,290
3,160

$148.4
$65.4
$213.7

$300.2
$167.9
$468.1

Mid
Direct
Indirect + Induced
Total

3,230
2,270
5,500

$256.4
$114.6
$371.0

$528.4
$294.2
$822.6

High
Direct
Indirect + Induced
Total

4,520
3,190
7,710

$358.7
$160.9
$519.5

$742.1
$412.7
$1,154.9

Scenario/Impact Type
Low
Direct
Indirect + Induced
Total

Jobs

Note: Jobs are rounded; totals may not add.

Source: IMPLAN; AECOM

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 143

Table 72: One-Time Stadium Construction Economic Impact

Impact Type
Direct
Indirect + Induced
Total

Jobs
7,040
4,450
11,490

Labor
Income
(Millions)
$569.0
$236.7
$805.7

Output
(Millions)
$978.0
$603.1
$1,581.1

Note: Jobs are rounded; totals may not add.

Source: IMPLAN; AECOM

Annual Operational Economic Impact Ancillary Development

The following represents the level of annual economic impacts based on the estimated spending
generated by the alternative development scenarios (not including the stadium), which are anticipated
to reoccur in the County on an annual basis. In order to attempt to portray a more accurate reflection
of office development impacts, AECOM used a mix of four tenant types to mix the impact of the to-be
determined office users. It is also important to note that, per standard I/O analytical methodology,
retail margins were applied to retail spending. Furthermore, this estimate represents gross impacts
and does not account for transfers or cannibalization of existing retail in Alameda County. We have
not estimated any impacts associated with new housing.
Table 73: Annual Ancillary Development Economic Impact
Scenario/Impact Type
Low
Direct
Indirect + Induced
Total

Jobs

Labor Income

Output

420
240
660

$23.2
$12.6
$35.7

$54.3
$33.0
$87.3

Mid
Direct
Indirect + Induced
Total

600
330
930

$30.6
$17.4
$48.0

$82.5
$46.4
$128.9

High
Direct
Indirect + Induced
Total

800
460
1,260

$45.1
$23.9
$69.0

$103.6
$63.0
$166.6

Note: Jobs are rounded; totals may not add.

Source: IMPLAN; AECOM

Fiscal Impact Estimate

AECOM has conducted a preliminary fiscal impact analysis that accounts for likely levels of tax
revenue to Oakland and Alameda County from the development scenarios. This fiscal revenue

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 144

analysis addresses the impacts of the construction and ongoing operations of the ancillary
development; various tax revenues that can be generated by the stadiums operations are shown
later in this report. This analysis is based on the same general assumptions that were included in the
economic impact analysis. This analysis assumes existing fiscal relationships between all levels of
government remain in place. These policies and the distribution of revenues could change over time
as the project moves forward towards implementation. New residences and their anticipated spending
are not included in this fiscal analysis in order not to overstate the potential project benefits.

Sales Tax
For taxable sales associated with the construction period and ongoing operations, the current sales
tax rate is 9.0 percent in Alameda County. Based on the current allocation of the sales tax, Oakland
receives 0.95 percent of taxable sales, while Alameda County receives 0.05 percent. However, for
the purchase of construction materials, the City retains the entire one percent without splitting any
portion with Alameda County.
For construction, AECOM has assumed that 45 percent of the stadiums costs are for materials and
35 percent of the non-stadium ancillary development costs are for materials. This estimate is based
on comparable stadium developments and an estimate for other non-stadium development that 60
percent of the total costs will be hard costs and 50 to 75 percent of those costs will be taxable
materials.
Taxable sales assume retail sales per square foot of $485 (blended from RDE and general retail
sales) and the associated hotel sales, as noted below.
Table 74: Stadium Development Sales Tax Estimate (Construction)
Land Use

Development
Cost

Taxable
Materials

City

Stadium

$978,000,000

$440,100,000

$4,401,000

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 145

Source: AECOM

Table 75: Ancillary Development Sales Tax Estimate (Construction)

Land Use

Development
Cost

Taxable
Materials

City

Retail
Low

$21,780,000

$7,623,000

$76,200

Mid

$30,220,000

$10,577,000

$105,800

High

$44,440,000

$15,554,000

$155,500

Low

$34,000,000

$11,900,000

$119,000

Mid

$40,000,000

$14,000,000

$140,000

High

$46,000,000

$16,100,000

$161,000

Low

$222,750,000

$77,962,500

$779,600

Mid

$425,250,000

$148,837,500

$1,488,400

High

$607,500,000

$212,625,000

$2,126,300

Low

$21,670,000

$7,584,500

$75,800

Mid

$32,920,000

$11,522,000

$115,200

High

$44,170,000

$15,459,500

$154,600

Low

$300,200,000

$105,070,000

$1,050,600

Mid

$528,390,000

$184,936,500

$1,849,400

High

$742,110,000

$259,738,500

$2,597,400

Hotel

Residential

Office

Total

Source: AECOM

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 146

Table 76: Ancillary Development Sales Tax Estimate (Operations)

City

County

Hotel
Low

$14,000

$700

Mid

$17,000

$900

High

$19,000

$1,000

Low

$214,000

$11,000

Mid

$298,000

$16,000

High

$438,000

$23,000

Low

$228,000

$11,700

Mid

$315,000

$16,900

High

$457,000

$24,000

Retail

Total

Source: AECOM

Hotel Tax
Oakland currently levies an additional 14 percent tax on overnight hotel room sales of 30 days or
less, with three percent supporting Measure C. The balance of the tax (11 percent) that supports the
citys general fund has been calculated, based on an assumed ADR of $160 and 75 percent
occupancy. This tax flows only to Oakland, while Alameda County receives a portion of the taxable
sales generated from food and beverage and other taxable sales.
Table 77: Ancillary Development Hotel Tax Estimate
City
Low

$819,000

Mid

$964,000

High

$1,108,000

Source: AECOM

Parking Tax
Oakland currently levies an 18.5 percent tax on parking sales, with 8.5 percent supporting Measure
Y. The balance of the tax (10 percent) that supports the citys general fund has been applied based
on an illustrative parking analysis by scenario, which includes a number of assumptions provided
below.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 147

Table 78: Parking Tax Assumptions

Office
Monthly (Reserved)

20%

Monthly (Unreserved)

70%

Unreserved (Oversell)

30%

Visitor
Visitor Occupancy
Reserved Rate
Unreserved Rate
Daily Visitor Rate
Days per Year
Parking Ratio

10%
40%
$70.00
$70.00
$5.00
250
2.25 Spaces per 1,000
SF

Residential
Free Parking
Paid Parking
Parking Rate
Parking Ratio

100%
0%
$50.00
1.25 Spaces per Unit

Retail
1
Paying for Parking
Parking Rate
Turns per day

100%
$5.00
1.5

Days Per Year

RDE - Parking Ratio
Retail - Parking Ratio
Hotel
Parking Occupancy
Parking Rate/Day
Days Per Year
Parking Ratio
1
Includes validation from retail operators.

360
4 Spaces per 1,000 SF
2.5 Spaces per 1,000 SF

90%
$10.00
365
1 Space per Room

Source: AECOM

Table 79: Ancillary Development Parking Tax Estimate

Scenario

City

Low

$119,000

Mid

$154,000

High

$203,000

Source: AECOM

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 148

Property Tax
The development will be subject to a one-percent property tax given its assessed value. For the
purposes of our analysis, we have assumed the improvements represent the net new property tax to
Alameda County and Oakland. We have used the one-percent property tax rate and have assumed
that Oakland will retain 28 percent of the one percent, while the Alameda County will retain 16
percent of the one-percent assessment, given the current tax rate area information. (We also assume
that the stadium will not pay property taxes.)
Table 80: Ancillary Development Property Tax Estimate
City

County

Hotel
Low

$95,200

$54,400

Mid

$112,000

$64,000

High

$128,800

$73,600

Low

$61,000

$35,000

Mid

$92,000

$53,000

High

$124,000

$71,000

Low

$61,000

$35,000

Mid

$85,000

$48,000

High

$124,000

$71,000

Low

$624,000

$356,000

Mid

$1,191,000

$680,000

High

$1,701,000

$972,000

Low

$841,200

$480,400

Mid

$1,480,000

$845,000

High

$2,077,800

$1,187,600

Office

Retail

Residential

Total

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 149

Source: AECOM

Fiscal Impacts Summary

The various development scenarios could have a range of annual fiscal benefits as indicated below. It
is important to note that the project will have other fiscal benefits that occur in relation to the ancillary
development operations (e.g. business license tax). However, due to the preliminary stage of
planning, those impacts have not been estimated here.
Table 81: One-Time Construction Fiscal Revenue Impact Summary (Millions)
Scenario

City

Stadium

$4.4

Ancillary Development
Low

$1.1

Mid

$1.8

High

$2.6

Total
Low

$5.5

Mid

$6.3

High

$7.0

Source: AECOM

Table 82: Ancillary Developments Operations Fiscal Revenue Impact Summary (Millions)
Scenario

City

County

Low

$2.0

$0.5

Mid

$2.9

$0.9

High

$3.8

$1.2

Source: AECOM

Potential Structure of Public-Private Partnership for Land Usage

The following is an overview of public-private ground lease agreements, based on our experience
with and review of selected terms and approaches used by different public agencies as it might relate
to future ancillary development of the Coliseum site. Ground lease terms vary depending on the
lessors objectives. Some agencies want to recover full market value of their land through annual land
lease rents that become a source of operating funds or a source for servicing capital costs, either on
a pay-as-you-go basis or to service revenue bond debt.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 150

Other agencies lease their land at below market or at favorable terms to attract investment and
induce economic activity, especially during the earlier years of the leasehold period while the end-use
or development is establishing itself, a market, and stabilized operations. Some agencies lease their
land at nominal rates to achieve some other public benefit. Finally, some agencies lease their land to
obtain private financing and development of capital improvements, such as leasing land at a lower
rate in exchange for the lessee to build a public facility, or sometimes in exchange for operating
responsibilities, such as maintenance of the public asset and improvements. Conversely, some
agencies may provide public facilities to the lessee that would normally be a cost obligation of a
typical development, such as parking or reduced parking ratios because of transit investment, which
would result in a higher residual land value.
Therefore, ground lease terms vary and are negotiated based on the lessors objectives, the market
context, the lessees responsibilities under the lease, and the value versus the risk of the lessees
use. Lease terms may be constant under the life of the lease term, or they may vary over the lease
term, such as increasing annual rent payments over time as the development becomes established,
resetting lease terms through periodic appraisals, or discounting lease terms at certain points to
replace, renovate, or recapitalize improvements.
While there is a wide variety of ground lease structures, most contain a base rent that is based on the
appraised value of the land versus a variable rent that is charged as a percentage of gross revenue
or sales, whichever is greater. The percentage used to determine the base rent varies from location
to location and is negotiable depending on the underlying value of the land, risk, and the public
agencys desire to see the project go forward. If the lessee has tenants, subject to sub-leases, which
the prime lessor often approves per the contract, the land lease may be a percentage of the master
lessees rental income from tenants. If the lessee is an operating business, such as a hotel, the land
lease may be a percentage of gross operating revenue. Some leases also include a participation
rent where the public agency receives a share of any proceeds from the sale or refinancing of the
improvements, sometimes years into the future. The base versus percentage ground lease structure
allows the lessor to count on a specific annual payment as a minimum, but with the ability to
participate in the propertys upside potential if it performs better than expected.
Because different land uses will often have different revenue potentials and market risk, a separate
variable ground rent could be used for each phase and each use within the project. In some cases,
these percentage-of-revenue rents may vary by transaction type, where the public agency takes a
lower percentage of higher-revenue items and a higher percentage of low-revenue items.
Sometimes a public agency will issue an RFP and allow bidders to propose terms and ground rents at
a site, which becomes a criterion for selection. In this approach, the market is establishing the value

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 151

of the land. In other cases, a public agency will establish the value of the land through an appraisal,
and then set terms based on that appraisal, issue an RFP, and select based on the quality of the
proposed concept and development/investor team as the primary criterion. Since appraisals are
based on comparable sales, or estimates of residual land value, the latter approach is better for
standard land uses, such as rental housing, which are common in the market. If the use is relatively
unique in the marketplace and good comparables do not exist, the former approach may be more
appropriate.
Finally, an agency may combine approaches by establishing minimum terms in an RFP based on
estimated value, but allow bidders to propose different terms if they result in a value that exceeds the
minimum. After selection to enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement, the ground lease is
negotiated based on a mutual understanding of what the fair market rents would be for the particular
site based on its future use, including an analysis of the lessees capital and operating cost
obligations, the length of the lease term, the uses projected revenue and net operating income, the
lessees cash flow over the lease term and net present value at an appropriate discount rate given the
use and risk.
While there are some examples of ground leases for for-sale development in high-demand locations
under very long terms, most ground leases are for income properties that generate annual rental
income because of peoples reluctance to buy property (for example, condominiums) where they do
not own the land, but lease it. As such, ground leases are more common with commercial income
properties, such as hotels, retail centers, commercial-recreation, and rental apartments. In most
cases, the rent structure would include adjustments based on CPI and other negotiated clauses,
including capital investment, replacement reserves, operations and maintenance, property and design
standards, and public service or relations. Some takeaways from the terms used by the public
agencies reviewed include:

In the leases analyzed that include term adjustments, the minimum rent is typically adjusted
every three to five years to between 65 and 80 percent of the average rents paid for the
preceding term.

Ground lease terms for hotels include percentage rents of 7.5 percent of room revenue, 3.5
percent for food and beverage, and 6.5 percent on alcohol.

Retail uses have a wide range of percentage rents depending on the specific use. Food and
beverage service can range between three and eight percent, while general retail ranges
between approximately five and nine percent of gross sales. Alcohol sales often have higher
percentages than other food or retail sales.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 152

Participation rents for rental residential properties varied from 7.25 to 10.5 percent of
revenues, less certain allowable reductions (e.g. taxes).

In general, the longer the term of the land lease, the more that the land transaction will be deemed
equivalent to fee. The typical minimum land lease term could be between 25 and 65 years. With this
term, the capitalized land-lease value is often discounted from the in-fee purchase value since there
is no upside potential for the lessee from real appreciation in land values, which they would have if
they owned the property. Also, the term should be tied to the useful life and amortization period for
financing the improvements in order to attract debt and equity financing, and conversely, not to
unduly encumber public land. For example, a shorter land lease term is more appropriate for a simple
commercial-recreation use (i.e. go-kart track), while a longer term is more appropriate for a hotel or
rental apartments. If the term is extended to 99 years, then the proceeds from sale of the fee versus a
land lease would be minimal. The public agency lessor retains the improvements at the end of the
lease period, or the lessee is obligated to remove the improvements to return the property to its
original state, at the discretion of the lessor.
Also, terms typically have one or two extension clauses (subject to approval by both parties), for
example three to five years, toward the end of the term, to allow time for renewal negotiations and to
ensure that the lessee has incentive to maintain the property as the end of the lease term approaches
in order to obtain their lease extension.
For planning purposes, the annual ground lease revenues can be estimated at eight to 10 percent of
the land value, which could be generated by a variety of lease structures. This range helps to account
for the range of income that could be returned to the public based on various rent structures and is
utilized as a threshold for which all land uses can be compared. The specific terms should be
determined by the final development program, development and operating obligations, and market
response through negotiations.
At this time, neither a residual land value analysis nor property appraisal has been conducted by
AECOM. However, the Client has estimated that the current land value is $30 per square foot, or $1.3
million per acre. While the actual value would vary by land use, the ground lease value given this
appraisal would range from $105,000 to $131,000 per year, per developed acre. Given uncertainty
regarding the density of development and required land, an estimate for the total ground leases given
the development program has not be done.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 153

VI. Stadium Financing Analysis

This section addresses funding strategies and operating agreements that have been successfully
completed, or are planned, for similar facilities throughout the NFL, in California, and across the
country for new construction and renovation projects. We also identify, and when possible, quantify
potential funding sources that can be used for a new football stadium in Oakland.

Funding of Other Similar Facilities

In this section, we analyze the funding sources for other recent and upcoming NFL stadium projects
(both new construction and renovations). We also address similar characteristics for facilities in
California that are not NFL stadiums.

NFL
The following information summarizes the planning and characteristics of the funding of recent NFL
stadium developments (new construction and major renovations).
Summary of NFL Stadium Funding
The following information summarizes the distribution of public and private funding sources of all
current and planned future NFL stadiums, as well as other basic characteristics. For older stadiums
that have been significantly renovated recently (Arrowhead Stadium, the Mercedes-Benz Superdome,
Lambeau Field, and Soldier Field), information in the table describes the renovation project rather
than their original construction. Planned stadiums that have not yet opened are highlighted in yellow
at the top of the table.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 154

Table 83: Costs and Funding of New and Renovated NFL Stadiums
Location

Year
Opened

Total
Project
Cost
(millions)

65,000

Atlanta, GA

2017

65,000

Minneapolis, MN

2016

Levi's Stadium
MetLife Stadium
Arrowhead Stadium

68,500
82,566
76,416

Santa Clara, CA
E. Rutherford, NJ
Kansas City, MO

AT&T Stadium
Lucas Oil Stadium
Mercedes-Benz Superdome
University of Phoenix Stadium
Lambeau Field
Lincoln Financial Field
Soldier Field
Ford Field
Reliant Stadium
Gillette Stadium
CenturyLink Field
Sports Authority Field at Mile High
Heinz Field
Paul Brown Stadium

80,000
62,421
73,208
63,400
79,594
68,532
61,500
65,000
71,054
68,756
67,000
76,125
65,050
65,535

FirstEnergy Stadium
LP Field
M&T Bank Stadium
Raymond James Stadium
FedEx Field
Bank of America Stadium
EverBank Field
Edward Jones Dome
Georgia Dome

Stadium

Permanent
Seating
Capacity

Altanta Falcons

New Falcons Stadium

Minnesota Vikings

New Vikings Stadium

San Francisco 49ers

New York Giants/Jets
Kansas City Chiefs
Dallas Cowboys
Indianapolis Colts
New Orleans Saints
Arizona Cardinals
Green Bay Packers
Philadelphia Eagles
Chicago Bears
Detroit Lions
Houston Texans
New England Patriots
Seattle Seahawks
Denver Broncos
Pittsburgh Steelers
Cincinnati Bengals

Team

Cleveland Browns
Tennessee Titans
Baltimore Ravens
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Washington Redskins
Carolina Panthers
Jacksonville Jaguars
St. Louis Rams
Atlanta Falcons**
Miami Dolphins
Minnesota Vikings**
Buffalo Bills
San Diego Chargers
Oakland Raiders
San Francisco 49ers**

Funding
Public

Private

$1,200

17%

83%

$975

51%

49%

2014
2010
2010*

$1,300
$1,600
$400

9%
12%
31%

91%
88%
69%

Arlington, TX
Indianapolis, IN
New Orleans, LA
Glendale, AZ
Green Bay, WI
Philadelphia, PA
Chicago, IL
Detroit, MI
Houston, TX
Foxborough, MA
Seattle, WA
Denver, CO
Pittsburgh, PA
Cincinnati, OH

2009
2008
2006-11*
2006*
2003*
2003
2002*
2002
2002
2002
2002
2001
2001
2000

$1,200
$720
$336
$455
$295
$518
$587
$440
$474
$412
$430
$401
$281
$450

37%
86%
100%
68%
57%
36%
66%
25%
61%
83%
65%
72%
61%
94%

63%
14%
0%
32%
43%
64%
34%
75%
39%
17%
35%
28%
39%
6%

73,200
69,143
71,008
65,908
85,000
73,778
67,246
66,965
71,228

Cleveland, OH
Nashville, TN
Baltimore, MD
Tampa, FL
Landover, MD
Charlotte, NC
Jacksonville, FL
St. Louis, MO
Atlanta, GA

1999
1999
1998
1998
1997
1996
1995
1995
1992

$280
$292
$223
$194
$250
$248
$121
$300
$214

74%
71%
90%
100%
28%
20%
90%
95%
100%

26%
29%
10%
0%
72%
80%
10%
5%
0%

Sun Life Stadium

Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome

75,540
64,121

Miami Gardens, FL
Minneapolis, MN

1987
1982

$115
$75

0%
90%

100%
10%

Ralph Wilson Stadium

73,079

Orchard Park, NY

1973

$22

100%

0%

Qualcomm Stadium
O.co Coliseum
Candlestick Park

70,561
64,200
69,732

San Diego, CA
Oakland, CA
San Francisco, CA

1967
1966
1960

$27
$25
$25

100%
100%
100%

0%
0%
0%

Source: AECOM research

*For a significant renovation, not original construction.
**To be replaced by a new facility.

The following table summarizes the cost of new stadium construction in the NFL (not including the
four recent, major renovations) and the percent funded by the public and private sectors, by decade.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 155

Figure 31: Costs and Share of Funding for NFL Stadium Construction
100%

$1,400

90%

$1,200

80%
$1,000

60%

$800

50%
$600

40%
30%

$400

% Public

Cost

Funding

70%

% Private

Total Cost
(millions)

20%
$200

10%
0%

$0
1960s

1970s

1980s

1990s

2000s

2010s

As the figure shows, construction costs for new NFL stadiums have increased significantly in the last
50 years (past costs are adjusted for inflation to current price levels). Before 1990, the average new
NFL stadium cost $200 million in todays dollars. In the 1990s, the average increased to
approximately $350 million and then to more than $600 million in the first decade of the 2000s. For
the four built and planned facilities since 2010, the average cost has risen to nearly$1.3 billion.
In terms of funding, despite increased costs, new revenues have led to greater private (team)
investment. Stadiums built in the 1960s and 1970s (including O.co Coliseum) were all built with only
public money; in the next four decades, the percent of private funding ranged from approximately 25
percent to 75 percent.
The following table lists common examples of public funding sources (at the local, regional, and state
levels) that have been used for recent and future NFL stadium construction and renovation.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 156

Table 84: Public Funding Sources in Other NFL Stadiums

Hotel taxes
Tax-increment financing
Gaming/lottery funds
Sales taxes
Car rental taxes
Admissions taxes
Parking taxes
F&B taxes
Other tourism taxes
Cash contributions/grants
NFL-related income taxes
Land donation
Ticket surcharge
On-site taxes generated
Infrastructure investment
Public's share of stadium revenues
Source: AECOM

Case Studies of New Construction and Major Renovation Funding

Below, we summarize various characteristics of new stadium planning throughout the NFL. This
includes funding sources, facility characteristics and uses, and others. We focus on recent and
planned construction projects (for both new and renovated stadiums) that are particularly relevant to
Oakland, Alameda County, and the Raiders.
As a result, this does not include facilities such as MetLife Stadium (which was largely privately
financed by two teams), Lambeau Fields renovation (which was funded with a significant contribution
from the teams public shareholders), and the Mercedes-Benz Superdomes renovation (which
received $115 million in FEMA funding after Hurricane Katrina).
Levis Stadium (Santa Clara)
The Santa Clara Stadium is currently under construction and is expected to open for the 2014 NFL
season as the new home of the San Francisco 49ers (replacing San Franciscos Candlestick Park,
which is currently the leagues oldest stadium) and the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl. It was also recently
announced that the stadium will host the 50th Super Bowl in 2016.
The 1.8-million square foot, nearly $1.3-billion stadium will have approximately 68,500 seats
(expandable to approximately 75,000 for special events), 165 luxury suites, and 9,000 club seats.
According to recent reports, nearly 46,000 stadium builder licenses, or personal seat licenses, have
been sold, ranging from $2,000 to $80,000. These licenses have raised more than $400 million. The
original approved cost was less than $1 billion, but recent changes and additions (paid for by the
49ers) have increased the price by more than $300 million.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 157

In 2010, Santa Clara voters approved Measure J, which allows the city to lease land to an authority to
construct the facility. Main points of the term sheet that governs that project include:
The stadium will be owned by a joint powers authority, formed by the City and the stadium authority.

The citys redevelopment agency will

Levi's Stadium Funding Sources (Millions)

invest a maximum of $40 million.

Funding Sources
Public:
City - hotel taxes

Other funding sources include stadium

builders licenses, naming rights, and a

Subtotal - Public Sources

ticket surcharge.

$114

Private:

The team will lease the stadium for 40

49ers
Stadium Authority (through 49ers)

years.

$114

Subtotal - Private Sources

Eight area hotels will have the ability

to form a taxing district (Mello-Ross

Total Costs

$836
$330
$1,166
$1,280

Communities Facilities District) that

could provide up to $35 million of funding.

The fixed portion of ground rent from the authority to the city will start at $180,000 per year, to
th

increase by $35,000 per year for the first ten years. In the 11 year, this will increase to $1
million and will increase by $100,000 per year.
In addition, a performance-based rent will be 50 percent of net income from non-NFL events,
less certain amounts.

The 49ers will pay the authority an annual rent of $5 million plus the stadiums net operating
expenses.

The authority will fund a capital reserve account, beginning at $1.5 million per year, to be
inflated by three percent annually. Pending the availability of net operating revenues, up to an
additional $1 million would be deposited to this account.

The term sheet also allows the 49ers to enter into a sublease with a second NFL team.
This April, Santa Claras city council agreed to enter into exclusive negotiations with Related
California for development of a 230-acre mixed-use project.
Much of the stadiums cost is being funded by facility revenues that have already exceeded $1 billion.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 158

Lucas Oil Stadium (Indianapolis)

Lucas Oil Stadium opened in downtown Indianapolis in 2008 as a replacement of the RCA Dome.
The facility is owned by the State of Indianas Stadium and Convention Building Authority and
operated by the Marion County Capital Improvement Board of Managers.
The $720-million stadium has a permanent seating

Lucas Oil Stadium Funding Sources (Millions)

capacity of approximately 62,000 seats and a

Public:

retractable roof. The stadium was planned as a

3% County hotel tax

2% County car rental tax
1% County restaurant tax
1% County admissions tax
1% restaurant tax - 6 counties
Colts license plate sales
Subtotal - Public Sources

multipurpose venue, with design consideration for

the Super Bowl (expansion capabilities to 70,000
seats) and NCAA Final Fours.
$620

amateur sports, as well as the stadiums use in

Private:
Colts
Subtotal - Private Sources

Partially due to Indianapolis status as a capital for

$100

conjunction with the adjacent Indiana Convention

$100

Center, the facility received funding on a regional

basis, with the majority of public dollars coming

Total Costs

$720

from Marion County. However, six surrounding

counties also contributed restaurant tax dollars. The Colts also contributed $100 million, or
approximately 14 percent of the total.
In general, the Colts control all revenues associated with their games and pay the CIB $250,000 per
year as rent, and the CIB pays for the stadiums operating expenses. Also, the CIB pays the Colts
$3.5 million per year as an estimated 50 percent of revenues from other events.
Renovated Arrowhead Stadium (Kansas City)
The Kansas City Chiefs Arrowhead Stadium
originally opened in 1972 but underwent a significant

Arrowhead Stadium Renovation Funding

Sources (Millions)

renovation ($400 million) from 2007 through 2010.

The project was part of a larger, $850-million project
that included a renovation of the adjacent Kaufmann
Stadium.

Funding Sources
Public:
0.375% County sales tax
State tax credit

$213
$63

Subtotal - Public Sources

$275

The renovation included a wide range of

improvements to the stadium, including a new faade
and plazas, improved concourses, restrooms, and

Private:
Chiefs
Subtotal - Private Sources

$125
$125

concession areas, new premium areas, new

scoreboards and sound systems, and others.

AECOM | FRMS

Total Costs

Project No. 60289461

$400

Page 159

Funding for the project was provided by the Chiefs ($125 million, or approximately 30 percent),
Jackson County, and the state. In 2006, the countys voters approved a 3/8-cent sales tax increase
that provided much of the public funding.
New Falcons Stadium (Atlanta)
Earlier this year, a new retractable-roof stadium for the Atlanta Falcons and other events was
approved by the City of Atlanta. The facility is expected to open in 2017.
The current estimated cost for the facility is $1.2 billion, an increase of $200 million from the original
estimate of $1 billion. The publics contribution has been capped at $200 million from hotel-motel
taxes in Atlanta and unincorporated Fulton County. The Falcons will fund the remaining $1 billion,
from the NFL G4 program, stadium revenues, and other sources. Of the total cost, approximately
$950 million is estimated for construction (in addition to approximately $100 million for predevelopment costs, $75 million for design and other services, and $75 million for systems and
equipment).
New Atlanta Stadium Funding Sources (Millions)

Similar to Indianapolis, Atlanta hosts a wide

range of major events and the stadium is

Funding Sources
Public:
Hotel-motel taxes
Subtotal - Public Sources

planned to accommodate college football,

$200
$200

basketball, conventions, and other events

within its convention center complex. The
Falcons current stadium, the Georgia Dome,

Private:
Falcons
Subtotal - Private Sources

will be demolished.
$1,000
$1,000

The stadium will be operated by the Falcons

(or a private management firm that they hire).

Total Costs

$1,200

The Georgia World Congress Center (owner

and operator of the complex, including ownership of the new stadium) will be the event manager for
other events such as college basketball conference and national tournaments, college football
regular-season and bowl games, high school football championships, and others. The Falcons will
pay an annual rent of $2.5 million, and will be responsible for all operating expenses and facility
revenues.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 160

New Vikings Stadium (Minneapolis)

For many years, the Minnesota Vikings have pursed new stadium development in Minneapolis; the
current Metrodome is one of the NFLs oldest facilities and its lease is particularly unfavorable to the
team. Until recently, the Vikings had also shared the Metrodome with baseballs Twins.
The stadium will be owned and operated by the
Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority, which was

New Minneapolis Stadium Funding Sources

(Millions)

formed in 2012.
Funding Sources

Preliminary designs for the fixed-roof, 1.6-million

square foot facility include as many as 125 suites
and 7,500 club seats, and 65,000 permanent

Public:
City convention center taxes
State gaming revenue

$150
$348

Subtotal - Public Sources

$498

seats (expandable to 73,000 for a Super Bowl).

Private:

The stadium is also being designed to host

Vikings

soccer, basketball, and other sports and

$477

Subtotal - Private Sources

$477

entertainment events. The facility will be located

on the current Metrodome site, and the Vikings will

Total Costs

$975

play at the University of Minnesotas TCF Bank

Stadium in 2014 and 2105 while the new stadium is under construction.
Stadium funding is being split approximately evenly between the team and the city and state. Public
funding is being contributed via convention center sales and hospitality taxes (city) and electronic
pulltab gaming (state). In addition, the state implemented a one-time tobacco stocking fee to
supplement gaming revenues; this generated $26.5 million for the stadium (which will cover the
stadiums first years debt payment) and approximately $4 million for the general fund.
According to recent reports, the Vikings will market $100 million in personal seat licenses that will
help fund the teams share. Licenses will apply to 75 percent of seats and range from $1,000 to
$10,000, with an expected average cost of $2,500. The remainder of the teams contribution will
come from $200 million in league loans and grants, and an additional $177 million.
The stadium is expected to require $20.5 million in operating costs per year; this amount will be
shared by the team ($13 million) and the city ($7.5 million).

Other Case Studies California

The following section summarizes the planning and funding of other relevant professional stadium
projects in California.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 161

Petco Park (San Diego)

Petco Park opened in San Diegos Gaslamp District in 2004 as the new home of MLBs Padres. The
42,000-seat stadium was intended as part of a larger redevelopment project to revitalize the
surrounding area of the city. Total project costs for the stadium itself were approximately $475 million;
the Padres contributed $173 million (or 36
Petco Park Funding Sources (Millions)

percent), the city contributed $206 million, and the

Public:
City
City Redevelopment Authority
Subtotal - Public Sources

citys redevelopment authority contributed $95

$206
$95

million. The stadiums ownership is shared by the

$301

city (70 percent) and the Padres (30 percent). The

two also share revenues from non-baseball events

Private:
Padres
Subtotal - Private Sources

$173
$173

the original split was 70/30 in favor of the city,

but this was recently reversed, with the city
receiving a minimum of $300,000 per year.

Total Costs

$474

Padres ownership guaranteed an additional $300

million in investment in the surrounding mixed-use district.

New Sacramento Arena
For many years, the City of Sacramento and ownership of the NBAs Sacramento Kings have
attempted to develop a new arena to replace the current Sleep Train Arena, which is physically and
functionally obsolete.
Earlier this year, once the Kings were sold and
agreed to remain in Sacramento, the teams new

New Sacramento Arena Funding Sources

(Millions)

ownership and the city agreed on the

Public:

development terms for a new downtown arena.

According to the term sheet that has been
approved by Sacramentos City Council, project
funding for the $447-million facility will be shared

Subtotal - Public Sources

as follows:

Parking garage leases

Parking infrastructure fund
Construction sales tax rebate
Sheraton MOPA funds
Land sales

$212.5
$1.5
$1.0
$5
$38
$258

Private:

City: $258 million, primarily from the

Kings/AEG

lease of city parking garages ($212.5

Subtotal - Private Sources

$189
$189

million), with other funds from land sales,

a parking infrastructure fund, and others.

Total Costs

$447

The Kings and AEG: $189 million. Part of the teams facility investment will be raised by a
five-percent ticket fee. This fee will be assessed on all arena event tickets, with the exception

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 162

of Kings season tickets. This agreement has been approved by the city, and the proceeds will
be transferred to a city account and will first be used to repay a loan issued to the team in
1997 that refinanced arena debt.
The city will own the arena and the team will be responsible for all predevelopment expenses, cost
overruns, and operating expenses and capital repairs. The team will share annual profits with the city
as follows:

15 percent of the first $10 million (with a minimum guarantee of $1 million),

30 percent of the next $5 million, and

50 percent of amounts over $15 million.

Other development surrounding the arena, as planned by the team, includes up to 1.5 million square
feet of office, retail, residential, and hotel uses, with an estimated cost of approximately $500 million.
Arena construction is planned to begin later in 2013, with completion in 2016.

Operational Agreements for NFL Stadiums

In this section, we summarize agreements between various NFL teams and their public-sector
partners (including the facilities described above) in regards to facility management, lease
arrangements, and sharing of revenues and expenses.

Levis Stadium (Santa Clara)

Funding: as previously described, the stadium was primarily publicly funded (91 percent).

Management: the stadium is publicly managed by the Stadium Authority, although the
Authority has the right to select a private management company (in consultation with the
49ers).

Lease/Rent:
o

The Authority will lease the facility from the City of Santa Clara for $180,000 (to be
increased annually) for the first ten years, and $1 million (to be increased annually)
for the next five years. The Authority will also pay additional rent based on the
stadiums performance and the availability of excess revenues.

AECOM | FRMS

The 49ers will pay $5 million per year to the Authority for facility rent.

Project No. 60289461

Page 163

Other Revenues and Expenses: the Authority will generally retain the stadiums operating
revenue but will share 50 percent of non-NFL event revenue with the city. The 49ers will
receive premium seating and sponsorship revenues.

New Vikings Stadium (Minneapolis)

Funding: as previously described, the stadium will be approximately 50-percent funded by

the Vikings.

Management: the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority has responsibility for stadium
management, although it has the right (in conjunction with the Vikings) to hire a private
manager.

Lease/Rent: the Vikings will pay $8.5 million per year as rent, plus $1.5 million per year for
capital improvements.

Other Revenues and Expenses: the Vikings will retain revenues from premium seating,
parking, advertising and sponsorships (including naming rights), and concessions from the
teams games, and will pay gameday expenses. The authority will keep revenues from other
event days.

New Falcons Stadium (Atlanta)

Funding: as previously described, the stadium will be 80-percent funded by the Falcons.

Management: the Falcons will have the right to operate the stadium, or select a third-party
manager. The facility owner, the Georgia World Congress Center, will manage the facility for
other events.

Lease/Rent: the Falcons will pay $2.5 million per year in rent.

Other Revenues and Expenses: the Falcons will be responsible for all stadium revenues
and expenses.

Lucas Oil Field (Indianapolis)

Funding: as previously described, the stadium was primarily publicly funded (86 percent).

Management: the stadium is publicly managed by the Capital Improvement Board of

Managers of Marion County.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 164

Lease/Rent: the Colts pay $250,000 per year in rent to the CIB, but receive $3.5 million per
year as an estimated 50 percent of stadium revenue from non-Colts events in return for the
teams $100-million investment in the stadium.

Other Revenues and Expenses: the Colts generally receive all revenues associated with
their games and the CIB pays operating expenses. Aside from the $3.5-million payment to
the Colts for other events, the CIB generally retains revenues from non-Colts events.

University of Phoenix Stadium (Glendale)

Funding: as previously described, the stadium was paid for with 68 public funds and 32
percent private.

Management: the stadiums public owner, the Arizona Sports & Tourism Authority, has
contracted with Global Spectrum for management.

Lease/Rent: the Cardinals pay $250,000 per year in rent to the Authority (this has been
inflated annually since 2007).

Other Revenues and Expenses: the team generally retains revenues from its games, and
the Authority pays stadium expenses, including Cardinals game-day expenses.

Qualcomm Stadium (San Diego)

Funding: the stadium was fully publicly financed.

Management: the stadium is managed by the City of San Diego.

Lease/Rent: the Chargers pay approximately $2.5 million per year in rent.

Other Revenues and Expenses: the Chargers receive revenues from their games, and the
city receives other stadium revenues and pays the stadiums expenses.

Raymond James Stadium (Tampa)

Funding: the stadium was fully publicly financed.

Management: the stadium is managed by the public Tampa Sports Authority.

Lease/Rent: the Buccaneers pay $3.5 million per year in rent.

Other Revenues and Expenses: the Buccaneers receive the first $2 million of stadium
revenues from rents, concessions, and parking, and 50 percent of additional revenues. The

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 165

team also retains all of its parking, sponsorship, and premium seat revenues, and the
Authority pays stadium expenses.

Potential Funding Opportunities in Oakland and Alameda County

In this section, we explore potential sources of public funding for a new stadium in Oakland and those
that have been used in other markets, and as possible, quantify amounts that could be generated
locally.

Ticket Tax or Fee

Use at Other NFL Stadiums
In our operating projection, we assume the continuation of the current 10 percent ticket fee on nonRaiders tickets that helps to fund the stadiums operations. This type of fee is common, particularly at
new facilities. Other examples throughout the NFL include:

Santa Clara will have a 10 percent tax for 49ers tickets and $4 for other tickets,

Indianapolis was originally six percent but will increase to 10 percent this season,

Arlington 10 percent,

Houston $1 per ticket,

Glendale beginning in 2006, this fee was $4.25 for major events (to be increased by $0.25
every year) and $1 for minor events with anticipated attendance of less than 18,000 (to be
increased by $1 every seven years). These fees are used to pay stadium debt, and additional
amounts collected are retained by the Cardinals,

Tampa an eight-percent surcharge to a maximum of $2.50 per ticket.

Seattle 10 percent, and

Pittsburgh was originally five percent of a tickets price, to be capped at $3 for Steelers
games and $2 for other events, but was recently increased to $4 for Steelers games to fund
an expansion. The first $1.4 million of Steelers-generated revenues pay stadium debt.

Also, as previously described, the Sacramento Kings recently decided to impose a five-percent ticket
fee for all events in their new facility. Proceeds will first go towards repaying debt associated with the
existing Sleep Train Arena.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 166

Potential Implementation in Oakland

These all appear to be taxes imposed by the public sector, rather than fees that are added to a
tickets price and would presumably be subject to the NFLs revenue-sharing formula. Should a public
body continue to have jurisdiction over a new stadium, as is the case with the Coliseum, a two-thirds
majority vote would be required to enact or expand this type of special tax that would be dedicated
to a specific use. Should it be considered a general tax, a majority vote would be required, although
this would not preclude a local government from pledging the estimated revenues to be collected
towards repayment of stadium debt.
Potential Rates/Charges and Revenues
As shown above, there is no set amount or rate for a ticket tax in other markets, although ten percent
is common, and is the current rate for non-Raiders ticketed events at the Coliseum. This revenue
included as operating revenue in our forecast, and is projected to generate approximately $550,000
to $675,000 per year.
However, expanding this tax to apply to Raiders tickets would generate significantly greater revenues.
Assuming 480,000 Raiders tickets sold and approximately $43 million in ticket sales in 2018 (from
preseason and regular season games), this could generate the following amounts in 2018, based on
various rates:

Five percent of Raiders ticket sales: $2.2 million,

Ten percent of Raiders ticket sales: $4.3 million, or

$4 per Raiders ticket: $1.9 million.

Parking Tax
Use at Other NFL Stadiums
A number of other NFL stadiums have enacted or increased parking taxes to help fund construction,
including:

Arlington 3.5 percent towards AT&T Stadium, and

Houston 10 percent towards Reliant Stadium.

In addition, Santa Clara has imposed a $4.54-per space fee at parking lots that are near Levis
Stadium but not on-site; this fee is aimed at funding police and traffic management surrounding the
stadium.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 167

Potential Implementation in Oakland

The City of Oakland currently has an 18.5-percent parking tax, and 8.5 percent is dedicated to
Measure Y. As a result, 10 percent is potentially available for other uses.
Potential Rates/Charges and Revenues
As with other taxes, a two-thirds majority vote is required to enact a special tax that would be
dedicated to a specific use, such as repayment of stadium debt. Parking revenues from stadium
events are currently included as operating revenues in our forecast; however, any ancillary real estate
developed on-site could also generate parking revenues, and therefore, parking tax revenues.

Stadium Events based on the projected parking revenues generated from stadium events,
ten percent of the parking tax would be approximately $300,000 in 2018.

Ancillary Real Estate as previously described, parking taxes from by use of the ancillary
development could generate approximately $120,000 to $200,000 per year, depending on the
development scenario.

Sales Tax
Use at Other NFL Stadiums
A number of other NFL stadiums have increased local sales taxes to help fund construction,
including:

Arlington a citywide increase of 0.5 percent,

Green Bay a countywide 0.5-percent increase to help fund its 2003 renovation/expansion,

Denver a regional 0.1-percent increase,

Cincinnati a 0.5-percent countywide increase, and

Tampa a 0.5-percent countywide increase.

Potential Implementation in Oakland

In Oakland, the sales tax rate is currently nine percent. Of this amount, 0.95 percent is city revenue
and 0.05 percent is captured by the county; the remaining eight percent goes to other, non-local
entities such as the state and BART. (In California, sales tax does not apply to event tickets.)
th

By state law, cities can increase their tax rate by 1/8 of a cent, subject to a vote. Similar to other tax
increases, a majority vote would allow for an increased sales tax (for all applicable transactions) for
the general fund, and a two-thirds majority would be required for a special tax to a specific use.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 168

Potential Rates/Charges and Revenues

In the last ten years (including estimated collections of $48.7 million for 2013), the share of the citys
general-purpose sales tax revenues has increased by an average of more than three percent per
year, which includes two years of significant negative growth due to the recession (decreases of 13
and 22 percent in 2009 and 2010). In the last three years, increases have rebounded to nine to 15
percent per year.
Assuming five-percent annual increases in the future (from 2013 to 2018), one-eighth of one percent
of TOT revenues in 2018 would equal approximately $8.2 million.
On-site sales taxes specifically are considered below.

On-Site Taxes
Use at Other NFL Stadiums
Multiple facilities in the NFL are able to capture sales tax revenues generated by the facility.
Examples include:

Glendale retains city and state sales taxes on tickets, concessions, merchandise, and some
stadium advertising. In fiscal year 2012, this generated $4.4 million from Cardinals games
and approximately $850,000 from other events.

Houston retains county sales taxes generated on site. From 2007 through 2011, this
generated $1.6 million to $3.1 million from Texans games, and $565,000 to $1.3 million from
other events.

Seattle captures county sales taxes.

Potential Implementation in Oakland

As previously described, the city currently receives 0.95 percent from transactions that generate sales
tax, and the county receives 0.05 percent. Redirecting sales tax revenues, without a tax increase, can
be achieved through city council action. Also, as described above, event tickets are not subject to
sales tax.
Potential Rates/Charges and Revenues

Stadium Events in the stadium, sales taxes would be generated by the sales of food and
beverage and merchandise (but not tickets). Based on estimates of gross sales for these
items, the citys share of sales tax revenues would be approximately $110,000 in 2018. The
countys share would be approximately $6,000.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 169

Ancillary Real Estate in the previous section of this report, we estimated the approximate
sales, TOT, and property taxes that could be generated by the ancillary development.
Depending on the scenario tested, the total city taxes generated on-site could range from
$2.0 million to $3.8 million.

Transient Occupancy Tax

Use at Other NFL Stadiums
Multiple facilities in the NFL have enacted local and regional increases to hotel/motel taxes to help
fund stadium construction. Examples include:

Arlington two-percent citywide increase,

Indianapolis three-percent countywide increase,

Glendale one-percent citywide increase,

Chicago capture of existing citywide hotel/motel taxes for Soldier Fields 2003 renovation,

Houston two-percent countywide increase, and

Seattle capture of existing countywide hotel/motel taxes.

Potential Implementation in Oakland

In Oakland, the current TOT rate is 14 percent; of this, three percent is dedicated to Measure C and
the remaining 11 percent goes to the general fund. Similar to other taxes, the passage of a special
tax requires a two-thirds majority approval.
In California, Oakland currently has one of the states highest TOT rates. Anaheim has the highest
(15 percent), while Oakland, Beverly Hills, Inglewood, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Santa
Monica are all at 14 percent.
Potential Rates/Charges and Revenues
In the last ten years including estimated collections of $12.3 million for 2013 the share of generalpurpose TOT revenues has increased by an average of approximately 1.6 percent per year, which
includes two years of 14- and 19-percent decreases in 2009 and 2010 due to the recession.
Assuming two-percent annual increases in the future (through 2018), an additional one percent of
TOT revenues would equal $1.2 million in 2018.
TOT taxes that could be generated by an on-site hotel only are described above.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 170

Other Potential Sources

Car Rental Tax
A number of other cities have raised car rental taxes to help fund NFL facilities. Examples include
Arlington (five-percent citywide), Indianapolis (two-percent countywide), Glendale (3.25-percent
citywide), and Houston (five-percent countywide).
There is currently no car rental tax per se in Oakland, although other taxes, fees, and charges apply
to rentals: at the airport, the nine-percent sales tax, a 2.6-percent tourism assessment fee, a $10 per
rental facility charge, and a 11.11-percent concession recovery fee are all charged. Rentals that take
place near the airport are assessed the sales tax and a $6 per rental charge; other rentals in the city
only pay sales tax.
As with other potential taxes, approval of two-thirds of voters would be required to dedicate car rental
taxes to a specific purpose. The tax revenue that could potentially be generated by various levels of
car rental taxes has not been estimated, as the annual sales from local car rentals have not been
identified.
Mello-Ross/Community Facilities District
The Mello-Ross Community Facilities Act of 1982 helps to finance community facilities and services
through special taxes within a Community Facilities District that are approved by local voters. These
taxes can finance improvements such as schools, roads, and other public infrastructure, services,
and facilities.
The major processes of planning and enacting a Mello-Ross District is generally as follows:

Specifying the use of taxes to be collected,

Creation of a Joint Powers Agreement between multiple public agencies (if necessary),

Determining the geographic boundaries of the district,

Receiving two-thirds voter approval of qualified electors (registered voters or land owners)
within the district, and

The sale of municipal bonds, collection of proceeds, payment of expenses for facilities or
services, and collection of tax revenues.

Statewide examples that have been implemented for similar projects include the following:

Santa Clara a Mello-Roos district was created to provide funding for Levis Stadium. Eight
hotels that are approximately two miles or less from the stadium agreed to increase their TOT

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 171

rates from 9.5 percent to 11.5 percent. This revenue will fund improvements surrounding the
stadium, such as streets, sewage, and utilities.

San Jose a Convention Center Facilities District tax was approved by nearly 80 percent of
local voters and began in July 2009. Revenues generated by the CCFD are earmarked to
fund expansion and renovation of the citys McEnery Convention Center. Depending on their
proximity to the convention center, hotels in the district will charge up to an additional four
percent in TOT. All hotels within 2.25 miles will charge the full four percent, and others began
with an increase of one percent in 2009, with one-percent increases each year until four
percent was reached in 2011.

Player- and Team-Related Income Taxes

Most states with major league franchises have passed laws that taxes the pay of visiting athletes (and
other team employees) for the time spent in that state. In some cases, jurisdictions have also allowed
for corporate and/or individual income taxes generated from team-related sources to fund stadium
construction and/or operations.

In California, the sports program of the states Franchise Tax Board taxes nonresident
professional athletes based on the share of their income that is earned in California
(determined by their ratio of duty days in the state to total duty days of their job). This tax
revenue is captured by the general fund.
Many other states and cities have similar programs. Examples include the following:
o

In Pittsburgh, athletes who are not full-time residents of the city pay three percent of
all income earned while performing in any venue built or maintained with public
money. This charge is set up as a usage fee and not a tax. This generates
approximately $3.7 million annually.

In Louisiana, non-residents are taxed at 4.2 percent of their income earned in the
state, and this revenue is captured by the Sports Facility Assistance Fund. The fund
then appropriates revenues to the specific facility owners and events that generated
the revenues. For example, the Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District (owner of
the Superdome) receives the revenues generated by NFL players. In the 2010-11
fiscal year, this totaled approximately $3.6 million.

University of Phoenix Stadium captures the teams corporate income tax and the personal
income tax of all team employees and their spouses. Since 2006, this has generated
approximately $4 million to $6.5 million per year.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 172

Sin Taxes
Multiple NFL facilities have been partially funded by taxes charged on items such as cigarettes and
alcohol.

Indianapolis Lucas Oil Field receives $350,000 per year in revenues from a statewide
cigarette tax program.

Minneapolis planned new NFL stadium will receive revenue from a one-time tobacco
stocking fee that generated $26.5 million to pay the stadiums first debt payment and an
additional $4 million to the states general fund. The stadium is also being funded by
statewide gaming revenues.

Clevelands FirstEnergy Stadium (as well as its Progressive Field and Quicken Loans Arena)
was partially funded with taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. This tax is set to expire in 2015 but
can now be extended to fund facility renovations, pending voter approval.

EB5 Program
The EB-5 program provides a method for foreign investors to obtain a green card in exchange for a
US investment. Individuals must invest a minimum of $500,000 towards projects that create a certain
number of jobs for US workers. The repayment of any foreign loan can be in the form of the green
card and/or actual cash, to be determined through negotiations on an individual project basis. In
addition, investments can be for any amount that meet or exceed the minimum requirement. As a
result, it is difficult to accurately quantify the potential savings to the public sector through this
program.

Summary of Potential Tax Sources and Supportable Debt

As previously described, the stadium is preliminarily assumed to cost approximately $900 million.
Other costs directly associated with new stadium development are required infrastructure (currently
estimated to be $78 million) and the retirement of outstanding debt on the Coliseum (approximately
$114 million). As a result, total project costs can be preliminarily estimated to be approximately $1.1
billion. This section analyzes the ability of various revenue sources to support these costs.
Public Sector (Tax) Revenues
The following table summarizes the various taxes and amounts that are described above, as well as
the methods that would be required to capture the tax revenues for payment of stadium debt. It does
not include revenues from any of the other potential sources that have not been quantified. In the
table, we also estimate the amount of debt that each tax stream could potentially support. These
calculations assume an annual interest rate of 5.5 percent and a term of 30 years for tax-exempt

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 173

borrowing, and a required coverage ratio of 2.0 (tax revenues are based on estimated 2018
collections, which do not account for future revenue growth).
Table 86: Summary of Potential Tax Sources/Amounts and Supportable Debt (000s)
Tax Type
Ticket Tax/Fee

Geography and Facility

Transaction Type

Rate

Implementation

Recipient

Estimated Tax
Generated (2018)

Estimated Debt
Supported**

On-Site; Stadium

Raiders tickets

10%

Vote - 2/3 or Majority (if tax)

JPA

$4,328

$31,500

No public action (if fee)

Parking Tax

Sales Tax

On-Site; Stadium

Parking

10%

City Council decision

City

$293

$2,125

On-Site; Other RE

Parking

10%

City Council decision

City

$119 - $203*

$860 - $1,475*

On-Site; All Development Construction Purchases

Citywide

Property Tax

TOT

1%

City Council decision

City

$5,500 - $7,000*

n/a

Qualifying Sales

0.125%

Vote - 2/3

City

$8,184

$59,500

On-Site; Stadium

F&B, Merch

0.95%

City Council decision

City

$108

$785

On-Site; Other RE

Qualifying Sales

0.95%

City Council decision

City

$240 - $481*

$1,750 - $3,500*

On-Site; Other RE

Assessed Value

0.28%

City Council decision

City

$841 - $2,078*

$6,100 - $15,000*

0.16%

Board of Supervisors decision

County

$480 - $1,188*

$3,500 - $8,600*

Citywide

Hotel Room Sales

1%

Vote - 2/3

City

$1,239

$9,000

On-Site; Other RE

Hotel Room Sales

11%

City Council decision

City

$820 - $1,100*

$6,000 - $8,000*

*Range is dependent on development scenario.

**Assuming a term of 30 years, an interest rate of 5.5%, and a 2.0 coverage ratio.
Source: AECOM

For the tax sources that have been quantified (which do not include the other potential sources
described above), approximately $16 million to $19 million in recurring tax revenues could be
generated in 2018. In the case of property taxes, this includes both city and county revenues. Based
on this level of collections, and assumptions regarding bond repayment and coverage characteristics,
these estimated 2018 tax revenues that would recur in future years could collectively support
approximately $120 million to $140 million in project debt (which could include the stadium itself,
associated infrastructure, and/or the outstanding Coliseum debt). In addition, the one-time collection
of sales taxes from construction spending would generate an additional $5.5 million to $7 million that
could potentially be part of the publics investment in the project. This assumes that all tax sources
listed in the table are approved and become available to the project.
The following two tables show the amount of tax revenue that can be captured, as well as the debt
that it could support, by implementation method.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 174

Table 87: Taxes Captured by Implementation Method (000s)

Method of Implementation
Tax Type

Geography and Facility

Ticket Tax/Fee

On-Site; Stadium

Parking Tax

On-Site; Stadium
On-Site; Other RE

Sales Tax

On-Site; All Development**

Citywide
On-Site; Stadium
On-Site; Other RE

Property Tax

On-Site; Other RE

TOT

Citywide
On-Site; Other RE

TOTAL

2/3 Majority Vote

City Council
Decision

Board of
Supervisors
Decision

Other
$4,328

$4,328

$293
$119 - $203*

$293
$119 - $203*

$5,500 - $7,000*

$5,500 - $7,000*
$8,184
$108
$240 - $481*

$8,184
$108
$240 - $481*
$841 - $2,078*

$480 - $1,188*

$1,321 - $3,266*

$1,239

$1,239
$820 - $1,100*

$820 - $1,100*
$9,423

Total

$7,921 - $11,263*

$480 - $1,188*

$4,328

$22,152 - $26,202*

*Range is dependent on development scenario.

**From construction only; not an annually recurring source.
Source: AECOM

Table 88: Debt Supported by Implementation Method (000s)

Method of Implementation
Tax Type

Geography and Facility

Ticket Tax/Fee

On-Site; Stadium

Parking Tax

On-Site; Stadium
On-Site; Other RE

Sales Tax

On-Site; All Development**

Citywide
On-Site; Stadium
On-Site; Other RE

Property Tax

On-Site; Other RE

TOT

Citywide
On-Site; Other RE

TOTAL

2/3 Majority Vote

City Council
Decision

Board of
Supervisors
Decision

Other
$31,500

$31,500

$2,125
$860 - $1,475*

$2,125
$860 - $1,475*

n/a

n/a
$59,500
$785
$1,750 - $3,500*

$59,500
$785
$1,750 - $3,500*
$6,100 - $15,000* $3,500 - $8,600*

$9,600 - $23,600*

$9,000

$9,000
$6,000 - $8,000*

$6,000 - $8,000*
$68,500

Total

$17,620 - $30,885* $3,500 - $8,600*

$31,500

$121,120 - $139,485*

*Range is dependent on development scenario.

**From construction only; not an annually recurring source.
Source: AECOM

Stadium Revenues and Other Team/League Sources

In addition, a similar estimate can be prepared for the stadium, based on its forecasted operating
income. For all revenues and expenses included in our pro forma statement, the projected net
operating income is approximately $49 million in 2018. Because any borrowing would be repaid with
private sources (assuming that the Raiders have control over stadium operations and there would be

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 175

no backstop of public funds), we assume an associated interest rate of seven percent and a coverage
ratio of 2.0, with a 30-year term. As a result, we estimate that the stadiums operations could support
approximately $300 million in debt. This results in annual debt payments of approximately $24 million,
based on net stadium revenues of approximately $49 million.
It is possible that for a new stadium, the Raiders could also contribute additional sources through a
Personal Seat License program and/or the NFLs G4 program.
Combined Revenues
Should total project costs be approximately $1.1 billion (which is the range that could likely be
expected, given preliminary planning, the characteristics of the assumed stadium, and the costs of
other similar stadiums), all tax revenues and operating revenues could finance approximately $420
million to $440 million, under the assumptions outlined above, leaving a gap of $660 million to $680
million.
As previously described, these estimates do not include revenues from any tax sources that have not
been quantified, or through a PSL and the leagues G4 program. In addition, it does not include any
revenues associated with the lease of surrounding land that is used for ancillary development, as
these amounts have not been fully quantified. Collectively, these sources could significantly lower the
identified funding gap.

AECOM | FRMS

Project No. 60289461

Page 176