|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Tens of thousands of seats for concerts, interchangeable arenas for different sports and abundant space for business meetings and conferences.
These are just some of the things Visit Tri-Valley hopes to bring to the far East Bay with an estimated $364.5 million multi-use event center.
“Our region continues to grow in economic activity and vibrancy, and a multiuse event center could potentially contribute to that growth,” Pleasanton Mayor Jack Balch told the Weekly.
But as plans to get the project off the ground continue to move forward, Tri-Valley city leaders like Balch are a bit skeptical on the logistics of how such a facility would be funded, even with the projected revenue benefits.
One main concern shared by many is the proposed use of taxes for what is planned to be a private-use facility.
“As I understand the concept today, it would require a substantial investment,” Balch said. “Therefore, a clear understanding of the proposal, its financing, and its anticipated regional benefits is essential before proceeding.”
Meanwhile, Visit Tri-Valley CEO Tracy Farhad told the Pleasanton Weekly she remains optimistic about getting the support they need and that they’ll continue analyzing all funding options as they move forward.
“This is a combination of working with the communities and with the public and with the residents and with developers so that we can really deliver on something that’s going to deliver for all of us for decades to come,” Farhad said.
Why an event center?
After identifying the need for a regional event center roughly three years ago, Visit Tri-Valley – the tourism improvement and marketing district covering the cities of Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore and the town of Danville – committed to building the multi-use facility in the fall of 2024 and announced the proposed location in Dublin just a few months later.
As the Tri-Valley continues to grow, so does the need for a mid-sized, multi-use center that could host sports tournaments, entertainment shows and corporate meetings or conferences year-round, according to Farhad – whose nonprofit agency is funded primarily by an assessment on hotel stays in the four communities.
The event center is proposed for an approximately 12-acre lot at the intersection of Martinelli Way and Arnold Road. Selected from two dozen potential locations, Farhad said the site was chosen for its proximity to airports, retail, hotels and transportation.
According to the project concept, the facility would have flexible seating for 3,000 to 5,000 attendees and at least 100,000 square feet of floor space to allow tournaments with 12 basketball courts or 24 volleyball courts.
Farhad said the marketing agency already interviewed more than 100 people and sports rights holders who expressed to her, “Build it and we will come.”
“The minute we put shovels to the ground, we’ll be able to start selling the opening dates for those groups because they booked 18 months, two years in advance,” Farhad said.
She said the facility is anticipated to generate over $120 million within the local economy each year and create about 500 new jobs.
But amid the venue’s net operating income estimated at just under $2.3 million by year three, Visit Tri-Valley is currently evaluating 17 different funding options, including scenarios that seek the support of local jurisdictions in the Tri-Valley as well as Alameda County.
“I know it sounds like a lot of money and that’s because we’re very ambitious and because we want this to last and be really worthwhile,” she said.
Prior to completing a funding plan for construction, Farhad said Visit Tri-Valley first needs to obtain the plot of land that is being proposed as the future project site, a process that has seen significant headway in the last month.
Acquiring the land
On Aug. 3, Visit Tri-Valley and JLL, a commercial real estate and property investment company, pitched the project to Alameda County supervisors David Haubert and Nate Miley during the supervisors’ Transportation and Planning Committee meeting.
JLL Managing Director Dan Fenton went over the project details, logistics and benefits it would provide for the region during the meeting with county leaders and the public.
“We believe this will always be a very positive financial performing venue for the region,” Fenton said.
However, construction of the facility relies on the marketing agency gaining access to the site, which is currently owned by Surplus Property Authority of Alameda County, a group separate from the supervisors that is responsible for managing and disposing of excess county-owned lands.
Notably, the southern portion of the site remains zoned as planned development for affordable housing and a hotel.
Shy of outright approval, Haubert responded with support for the proposed project during the committee meeting.
“I can only be one board member, but I am cautiously optimistic, as I have been all along,” said Haubert, a former mayor of Dublin. “This can be a good thing for the Tri-Valley. It can be a good thing for the region and it can be a good thing for Alameda County.”
According to Farhad, the outcome of the committee meeting was that Visit Tri-Valley was told to continue talks with county staff and work on getting on to the next Surplus Property Authority meeting so the authority could “designate the land hopefully in our favor”.
“I was very excited to get in front of the committee,” she said. “It was a real step forward.”
However, the marketing agency is still working out how to fund the project – and for many Tri-Valley city leaders and officials, that plan needs fleshing out before they voice their support behind the project.
“Budget issues or not, when you’re talking about those kinds of significant future dollars … that’s something that would have to be looked at in the context of all the city’s needs and priorities,” Pleasanton Interim City Manager Joe Calabrigo told the Weekly.
Funding the center
As presented during the Aug. 3 meeting, JLL proposed a funding plan to the county – which includes seeking a 99-year lease on the project site for $1 annually – estimated as worth $20 million-plus overall.
The plan also includes $350,000 from the county in reimbursable seed money for pre-development; support for tax increment financing; establishment of a business tourism improvement district and formal communication to jurisdictions conveying county support as well as its participation in a joint powers authority overseeing the project.
According to Farhad, the pre-development money would go toward land assessment work, while the JPA would consist of jurisdictions jointly funding and overseeing the project. As a JPA, obligations do not directly fall on member jurisdictions or the county’s general fund.
“The primary security for the development bonds will be the dedicated, project-generated revenue streams, shielding participating jurisdictions from direct financial exposure,” according to a report submitted to the supervisors by Visit Tri-Valley.
The JPA is proposed to take on debt for the project, likely through the issuance of revenue bonds, the report states. As a result, the JPA is estimated to owe $18,155,452 annually, given a 30-year amortization schedule at a 4.0% interest rate. Bond monies would be used to immediately pay back the county’s seed funding, according to the report.
The project would not be viable with revenue solely generated by the venue operations — hence the funding mechanisms, including tax-based financing.
Under the proposed tax increment financing plan, half of the increase in property tax over a 30-year period for sites in “a two-by-one mile radius of the venue” would go toward the project. Property taxpayers in Dublin would contribute an estimated average of $6,433,575 annually with Pleasanton at $6,655,346.
According to the Aug. 3 report, a baseline of city and county’s base property tax revenues are protected to fund public services.
A new business tourism improvement district would also impose a 0.5% sales tax increase on the gross revenues of “visitor-serving businesses” in Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore and Danville such as casual dining, apparel and entertainment outlets, according to the report. The sales tax increase is estimated to yield about $15 million annually.
“Actual implementation would require formal district establishment, stakeholder approval, and detailed feasibility studies,” the report states. “Crucially, (tax increment financing) utilizes only ‘new money’ generated by the rising property values within the development zone.”
Although the venue is proposed for Dublin, associated demand for lodging and dining is expected in Pleasanton, Livermore and Danville, the report explains.
Also, an additional $0.75 fee per occupied room night at 41 participating regional hotels is proposed to increase the overall fee to $4.75. The increase is expected to yield a total of $637,735 annually for the project.
Event centers have spill-over effects, according to Craig Maher, co-editor-in-chief of the Public Finance Journal, a peer-reviewed research journal on modern budgeting and finance. He is also a professor at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, School of Public Administration.
“People are going to spend money on food, perhaps on lodging, shopping, things of that sort,” Maher said of event centers in general, without taking a stance on the project proposed for Dublin.
Farhad emphasized that Visit Tri-Valley does not have any major developers behind the project and that it will largely need the help from both the private and public sectors to get off the ground.
“We are still at a relatively early stage,” Fenton said. “We have some important things that have been developed in terms of how to ultimately finance the project and continue its movement, but we still have a lot to do in terms of gaining collaborative support and making sure we have a strong coalition.”
But some in the public sector are not quite convinced they want to commit any future dollars to the project.
Observing before supporting
Among the critics are Pleasanton city officials who are worried about possibly spending future dollars while the city struggles to address its structural budget deficit.
“At this point, financing for a $365 million event center that would be operated by a private entity is not something that is a priority for the city,” Calabrigo said during the Aug. 3 meeting. “Our City Council has never had an opportunity to discuss or support or endorse this plan.”
In particular, Calabrigo pointed to concerns about the “need to demonstrate the measurable benefits of the event center” and the “long-term financial sustainability concerns regarding the use of tax or assessment revenues to build a private venue”.
“There are a lot of different capital and other needs that are present here in the city that could benefit from the use of those future dollars,” Calabrigo told the Weekly after the meeting.
Pleasanton City Councilmember Jeff Nibert echoed those sentiments and requested more analysis on the project’s viability and revenue projections before lending his full support.
“That’s future revenue from Pleasanton that Pleasanton would be giving up to support the event center,” he said. “It comes down — as far as finances go — to a cost-benefit analysis in the long run.”
Nibert did, however, note some potential benefits to the city including higher property taxes due to the new event center being considered an amenity and revenue it could generate for businesses in the area.
“It’s a really worthwhile goal, I think, but asking the city to share or put up some or forgo future revenue in times of structural budget is something that’s very concerning right now,” Nibert said.
Nibert and Balch expressed a desire for Visit Tri-Valley to bring this project before the City Council so the city and its residents could learn more and discuss some of their and others’ concerns.
“I do not have enough information to determine whether Pleasanton’s participation would be a viable and appropriate investment for our community,” Balch said.
As for other jurisdictions in the Tri-Valley, the city of Dublin thinks the proposed project may potentially benefit the region.
“Before Dublin can weigh in on any financial participation, we need a clearer picture of the costs, revenue projections, and long-term fiscal impacts to the city,” a city spokesperson told the Weekly. “That analysis is still underway.”
San Ramon, on the other hand, wants nothing to do with the venue.
“The City of San Ramon has no plans to participate in this project or its funding structure,” San Ramon City Manager Steven Spedowfski told the Weekly. San Ramon has its own tourism marketing district, after divorcing from Visit Tri-Valley more than a decade ago.
The city of Livermore also stated that it does not intend to participate directly in the project, City Manager Marianna Burch told Farhad in an email last May.
“At this time, Livermore would like to continue learning more about the proposed development while limiting its involvement in the project to an observational role,” Burch wrote.
Livermore officials did not elaborate whether the city’s position on the proposed project has changed since spring.
The Danville Town Council did not make a formal decision regarding the event center at a meeting in May, but the majority expressed concerns about its proposed financing methods.
Looking ahead
According to Farhad, if the county designates the project site as surplus land, a notification would go out to see if any other developers want the site. That will be a roughly 90 day process, she said.
If Visit Tri-Valley ends up acquiring and leasing the land, that’s when Farhad said the organization will work on finalizing the funding plans, with the goal of breaking ground on the project in 2028.
Farhad also said Visit Tri-Valley will remain in close contact with all the cities and reminded folks that they are still early on in the overall planning process, and that they will continue assessing all funding options as they continue moving forward.
Calabrigo said Pleasanton officials met with Visit Tri-Valley staff last week and discussed possible financial alternatives and options that don’t necessarily require financial commitment from cities.
“We’re working closely with the counties and all the cities as we refine this whole process, and especially the funding models,” Farhad said. “We are leaving no stone unturned.”
The Tri‑Valley event‑center proposal is an attempt to create a new regional economic engine using surplus Alameda County land, financed partly through tax‑linked revenue streams. But the political, fiscal, and historical context — especially the Tri‑Valley’s loss of all three major professional sports franchises — makes the project both symbolically charged and structurally risky. The region’s past inability to sustain major sports teams does not directly predict failure here, but it does highlight long‑standing issues: fragmented regional governance, inconsistent public‑funding support, and uneven economic priorities among Tri‑Valley cities.
Pleasanton is currently not supportive, citing a structural deficit and concern about subsidizing a privately owned facility. Dublin is cautiously optimistic. Alameda County has asked staff to conduct due diligence.
Although the Oakland Coliseum complex is not physically in the Tri‑Valley, the Tri‑Valley has historically been part of the fan‑base and tax‑base for the A’s, Raiders, and Warriors. All three left between 2019–2024. The reasons were multi‑factor:
Fragmented regional political support — Oakland, Alameda County, and surrounding cities rarely aligned on stadium financing.
Insufficient public funding commitments — Bay Area voters and councils have historically resisted subsidizing private sports owners.
Aging facilities — The Coliseum and Arena were outdated and required hundreds of millions in upgrades.
Competition from other markets — Las Vegas and San Francisco offered stronger financial packages.
This history matters because the new event‑center proposal is again asking for public participation in a privately owned venue, and Tri‑Valley cities have historically been reluctant to do so.