Good morning, everyone.

I'd like to call our 10 o'clock meeting to order.

I'd like to ask the clerk to call the roll to establish our quorum.

Supervisor Marquez.

Present.

Supervisor TAM excused.

Supervisor Miley excused.

Supervisor Fortunato Boss.

Present.

President Hubert.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Very good.

I note that two of us are still yet to arrive.

That's okay.

They will be here shortly.

I am told.

I will begin the meeting by mentioning the first item before us is public comment on closed session items.

We will then recess into closed session and return as promptly as we can for the open session items.

We will have public comment on the open session item at that time.

That said, is there anybody online or in the room who would like to make comment on closed session items?

We have no one on closed session items.

Nobody online, nobody in the room for closed session items.

With that said, we will recess into closed session again to return as promptly as we can for open session and public comment available at that time.

We're in recess.

Present how we have a quorum.

County council, anything to report out from closed session.

Uh no, Mr.

President.

There was no reportable action taken in closed session.

Very good.

We'll take up our matter before us today.

The discussion of the Coliseum sale.

Is there a brief staff report?

Just to clarify for the community.

We're going to have a report from staff.

Questions and answers from the board.

Public comment and deliberation.

So staff report, please.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

The item item, the only action item on your agenda for today is item one is a request for approval of a non-binding term sheet setting forth terms for renegotiation of the conditional consent to assignment of the disposition agreement among the county of Alameda Coliseum Weight Partners LLC and Oakland Acquisition Company LLC, known as OAC, and the second amendment to the disposition agreement with OAC for the sale of the county's half undivided interest in the Oakland Alameda County Coliseum Complex.

We have a brief uh slide presentation.

The clerk of the board's going to post that up.

There are copies in the back of the room, and you should each have a copy of the presentation at your at your desk at your omedias.

So basically, going to address the terms for the disposal of the interest.

As you well know, December 23rd, 2019, the county entered into the disposition agreement with Coliseum Way Partners to convey your interest in the property.

Title to the your interest would transfer 30 days after the purchase price was paid in full, and all bond debt encumbering the property was satisfied.

The final bond debt for the stadium was paid in February of 25, and the final bond debt for the arena was paid earlier this year, February 1, 26.

Coliseum Way Partners has paid the full purchase price, and they have paid the subsidy through the end of last fiscal year.

They have a continuing obligation to pay on an annual basis.

In July of last year, 2025, your board approved a conditional consent to the assignment of the disposition agreement from Coliseum Way Partners to the Oakland acquisition Company.

Um there's a typo there, my apologies.

Little late night work.

And to OEC, and there, and then we also approved a second amendment to the disposition agreement between the county and OEC would not be effective until the assignment between Coliseum Way partners to OAC occurred.

That agreement required OAC to reimburse CWP for the purchase price that the Coliseum Way partners had paid to the county in exchange for the assignment of the disposition of the agreement.

Because there were revisions to the various agreements, it's not a full stepping into the shoes, but it that is generally what folks identify an assignment as in addition to the payment of CWP for them to step out of the way, there was a requirement that OAC negotiate an agreement with the petitioners or plaintiffs in what's referred to as the Goolsby Action, which is currently pending litigation challenging your board's ability to in fact sell to CWP based on surplus lands act and other requirements.

That continues to be a requirement of the deal, and that is the dismissal with prejudice of the litigation and a full release of the county and CWP for all claims asserted by CBE, the petitioners.

So the second amendment from July of last year also contained a commitments from OAC to do certain things, including maintaining a net worth of 30 million dollars for two years beyond the current conveyance as security for obligations that they have made to your board in those documents.

Again, agreeing to release and discharge the county from claims related to preexisting conditions at the complex and agreeing to delete certain hazardous material representations and warranties and indemnification obligations that are in the current disposition agreement.

Almost immediately after the approval in July of 25 of those two documents, OEC initiated discussions with the county to further modify their terms.

And as a result of the ongoing negotiations since that time, we have before you today a non-binding term sheet that is presented for your consideration and potential approval today based on the direction that your board gave on Tuesday, March the 26th, that has now been posted on the agenda.

These are the key terms included in that document.

That prior to the commercial close, and it does suggest that there would be two closing.

One is a commercial close where various agreements are executed, and then there is a financial close at which the final payments are to be made in title will actually transfer.

The proposal is that the commercial close would be around June 30th of this year.

That is consistent with the conditional consent.

At that time, OEC would provide the various dismissals and releases and waivers related to the SLA litigation.

At that time, however, the county would pay CWP 115 million dollars to extinguish CWP's interest in obtaining the county's interest in the complex.

OAC would agree to pay the county that same 115 million dollars.

However, it would be paid in three installments with compound interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the unpaid balance.

Installment payments would begin the earlier of one year after OEC obtains planned development approvals from the city of Oakland, which they anticipate to occur after a four-year process.

They hope for it to be sooner, but that is the expected time frame, or five years after the commercial closing.

In other words, the payments would begin June of 2031, 2032, and 2033.

The term sheet provides that contemporaneously with the commercial closing between the county and OAC, that OAC, the city and the county would sell the arena parcel to a third-party buyer, referred to as the arena buyer.

Prior to the commercial closing, again anticipated to be June of this year, the city, the county, OAC, and the arena buyer would need to negotiate various amendments to an existing reciprocal easement agreement, so that the arena parcel is not landlocked and other terms are addressed regarding the separation of that parcel from the related stadium parcel and the surrounding parking areas.

At the time of that conveyance, which again, all of this is anticipated to happen at the same time, the county would receive no less than the greater of $50 million or one half of the net proceeds of the arena sale.

Those proceeds would then be used to reduce the purchase price that CWP owed to the county.

That would leave a balance of approximately 65 million dollars.

The arena buyer would assume operations of the arena on the date of the commercial close, again, June 30th of 26.

They would accept an assignment from the JPA of all existing contract events that are scheduled for the arena to make sure that there's no gap in operations.

They would also take on the food and beverage vendor contract for the arena and assume liability for some existing collective bargaining agreements that exists regarding the operations of the facility.

The JPA, the joint powers agreement that is between the city and the county and is currently operating the entire complex would continue to operate the complex less the arena through at least December of this year.

And then the city and the county would be responsible for operating expenses, losses, or profits while the JPA operates the facility.

If the county and the city jointly agree to allow OAC to assume operations of the complex less the arena, then OAC would assume that responsibility, including all expenses and losses incurred in the operations and events of the complex, and the parties would have to execute a management agreement similar to the agreements that are currently in place with the operators.

At that time, OAC would take on responsibility as well for cost expenses related to a currently permitted water discharge matter and the associated remediation requirements related to the water board.

Finally, various provisions of the agreement related to environmental conditions would be amended and some would be deleted, so that I OAC would have greater obligations related to environmental conditions at the complex, at least vis-a-vis the county.

The county would retain the right to approve component sales, and by component sales, we're referring to uh pieces of the remaining parcel, such as the arena sale and other sales, but would agree to do so only upon receipt of no less than one half of the sales proceeds from those parcels, which would then be used to reduce the purchase price owed by OAC to the county.

We'll call out that OAC is not posting a deposit or providing a letter of credit.

They were continuing to maintain the enterprise value of 30 million that was referenced earlier.

That's our brief presentation available if you have any questions.

Any questions?

Can I ask questions and make comments too?

Sure.

Okay.

Well, first of all, let me just thank as I did, as I said on today's Thursday on Tuesday.

Um President Albert has been very helpful, supportive and help in ushering us along to this point.

And I just want to ignore continue to acknowledge his um his unwavering support for what we're attempting to do, bringing both his um his intelligence and his commitment to this endeavor.

And I want to thank the county staff, our negotiators and county council for all their work they've done on this, because it's been a lot of work on this to get us to this point.

And even if we approve this non-binding agreement today, which I think we should do, there's still a hell of a lot of work to be done between now and June 30th, if we're going to meet that June 30th deadline.

A lot of work to be done.

So as I said, you know, and I continue to say, until everything is completed, I will not be uh breaking out any champagne to celebrate.

Now the provision on the last page dealing with section 2.11 and section 7.2, the environmental section.

What exactly what does that mean?

So that is a complex aspect of the current disposition agreement.

Those provisions were negotiated with Coliseum Way partners in the 2019 deal.

They essentially we're seeking for is revisions because what at the current state of the deal terms, the county has taken on responsibility for pre-existing hazardous material and other environmental issues at the site that we would be responsible for defending, indemnifying, releasing, waiving Coliseum Way partners from any issues that were to arise at the site regarding environmental conditions.

This change in the non-binding term sheet, although not relieving us from the commitments to CWP, although they would not be taking title.

So hopefully our commitments in that regard would be diminished, have us removing and revising those commitments in regard to OAC so that we're not doubling down in a sense on those obligations, and so those provisions are important and of value to the county in in pursuing this transaction.

So in layman's terms, who's on the hook for the environmental?

Because that's important because I just want to explain when the county with a former board entered into the deal with OA with uh CWP, we took on all the environmental obligations.

Since then, we've learned a lot more about the environmental conditions of the Coliseum.

So in layman's terms, what does this provision mean for the county?

It means that if we do with the deal with Coliseum Way partners, we remain on the hook.

If we do a deal as we've currently structured with OAC, we have eliminated some or hopefully all as much as we can of that liability and aligned our deal with the terms of the city.

But that's what we have to dig into because as I understand it, the deal that was just described here, we are requiring the buyer or rather OAC to provide additional protections beyond what the deal with CWP includes, and across the entire property.

That's what's posted on today's agenda.

However, I want to be very transparent and clear.

So to be very clear, we're back and forth between we're on the hook if it's a deal concluded with CWP.

We're entirely off the hook if we get what we want, or we're half off the hook if OAC gets what they want, carving out the arena, sort of have protected on part, but not all.

I just want to be make sure in layman's terms, that's how I understand it.

Is that Supervisor Miley?

How you understand it?

Well, just want to make sure county council agrees with what President Albert's kind of outlined and trying to keep it plain and simple.

I try to try not to be an attorney.

I can I can try to know I know it's tough, but new.

No, no.

So I don't um it would be difficult to say that the county will ever not have certain liabilities.

We have owned the site since the 60s.

We have operated the site with jointly with the city since the 60s.

Um the current deal terms with um Coliseum Way partners are not advantageous to the county, but there are other ways to deal with that if your board wanted to do that.

We've had extended conversations about that in closed session.

The proposal that is before you improves your situation, it does not make it perfect, but it improves it.

The ask that we have received as of early yesterday, again, ongoing discussions and again this morning is that there be a carve out to those improvements, and uh just to remind you that the arena buyer is not a party to the term sheet.

We have not been negotiating with the arena buyer.

And so those are extended conversations that are yet to be had.

Okay, so if OHC wants that as a carve out, the arena is a carve-out, that's what they're proposing, but what's before us today doesn't provide for a carve out, right?

The document that is on your board agenda and posted for public review does not have a carve out.

Okay, and everything associated with the environmental relative to the city, the county, OAC and the RENA buyer, that can all be further discussed and negotiated, even if we move forward the non-binding deal today, as we've outlined it, that can still take place with all four parties later, right?

We anticipate substantial ongoing negotiations to close a deal.

Okay, that's I just wanted to be clear on that.

Because the environmental piece is important because had the board, I think former board known about this this environmental piece, the former board might not have agreed to take on all the obligations associated with the environmental.

We didn't know that at the time, but we know that now.

So that's why this environmental piece is extremely important, and I think it's important that we have all parties at the table to negotiate around that.

Before we leave that point, it was mentioned that we have ways to alleviate those liabilities.

We've talked about that.

If we go with the carve-out scenario, we still have those same ways to alleviate liabilities, so I'm going to be very careful here and just say until such time as we likely close on this transaction, those options remain open to you.

Whatever options we might have under the CWP scenario to protect our liabilities, we would still have if in the carve out scenario that has been presented to us, carving out the arena, we could still take those some same actions or not.

That option remains open to you until such time as we close a transaction.

Okay, so I I just feel like um that's very helpful to know.

Thank you.

Okay, um, and I think uh folks understand uh as county supervisors we have a fiduciary duty and we have to negotiate this on the best interest of the county and the taxpayers.

Now, under the non-binding agreement, the Gouldsby litigation would be resolved.

That is a precondition to any closing, regardless of whom you move forward with.

Okay.

Um let's see now.

Let's talk a little bit about this 115 million.

So the CWP, which is the OpenAids, um paid the county 85 million.

Now, in addition to the 85 million, how much have we also received from CWP since that time?

So the subsidy payment that they have made, less the profits that they actually received over time, nets to uh 11 million six hundred and forty thousand three hundred four dollars and sixty-three cents, and that is payment through the last fiscal year of June 30th, 2025 with an ongoing obligation.

So they've actually it's been 96 million, so 115.

We're actually talking about an additional 19 million, and then so in total, if you combine the subsidy payments with the purchase price payments, we have received 96.6 million dollars.

Okay, and then the fact that we've sort of like in layman's terms, we've had this money, but if the ASI had this money, it's kind of a lost opportunity because they couldn't do with the funds that they've had because the county is added in the county and they've received it.

Uh we've received the funds, we've banked it, this and the other.

So I just, you know, this whole 115.

I think uh there needs to be a recognition that there's consideration for us paying 115 as opposed to sticking with the 85.

Um, um, would county council want to speak to the consideration relative to that?

Well, the additional consideration is that the OAC is going to pay you 150 million dollars and uh plus interest uh from an accrual period at 5% compounded over time.

And we're gonna get 50 million up front or the greater thereof uh when the arena sale takes place.

That is correct.

So we're actually maybe talking, you know, $65 million, maybe.

Okay.

So on that point, I just would like to add on the deal with CWP was a zero interest deal.

This is including five percent interest.

Okay, that could be millions of dollars.

That um, five percent of 115 or 65 or 50 millions, yeah.

So we're we're we're getting we're making out better, right?

That's what you're saying.

I'm saying five percent is something that we're gonna get paid on the money that we're owed.

Yeah, whereas the original deal with CWP was a zero.

Zero, yeah.

I just wanted to because you know when people scrutinize this, I want I want it to kind of be clear.

So we're we're doing well there, even though we're paying more, we're still doing we're doing well.

Um, let me see here if there's anything else, and then um the other provision.

So once, you know, if you know, cross my fingers, and I'm not gonna say hope to die because I don't want to do that, but cross my fingers, we get this done on June 30th.

Uh the JPA stays in existence, and we continue to operate that aspect of the property less the arena, but see, but OAC is prepared to take on um, you know, we can enter to a management agreement with OAC and they would take on the operating of the rest of the site, and they would cover all expenses, so correct, but the the thing that you need to uh be were mindful of is that the JPA and the ownership of the property is a joint, and that's our ongoing issue, right?

It's a joint ownership with the city and the county, so we have not negotiated those terms with the city.

They are not a party to this term sheet, and so there are a lot of uh unknown uh uh issues that have to be worked out together with the city.

Yeah, but it's my understanding, council, and uh correct me if I'm wrong, uh once we enter into a binding deal with OAC, does the JPA then go out of existence?

So the JPA continues to exist uh as an entity until either the city or the county no longer owns any property at the complex.

So the JPA may continue to exist as long as the city and the county own the stadium associated parking lot areas unless we agree to terminate the JPA.

Okay, all right.

So I think that's an important point too, and we haven't decided whether or not we want to terminate the JPA or continue it, but the important thing is to recognize there is that ability to terminate the JPA, get out of the sports business, let OAC take over the operating of the stadium uh as well as the rest of the facility, less the arena uh and cover costs, and then in this non-binding agreement, OAC is going to take on the obligations of food vendors, collective bargaining agreements, and the schedule of activities, but they've agreed to all of that.

They agreed to that, and again, it takes both city and county agreement as well as uh participation by the JPA in assigning those various agreements.

All right, yeah.

I know you'll be a broken record on that.

You'll keep saying that, so good.

Um, the only other thing is can you further explain the reciprocal agreement or the reciprocal easement agreements?

Because I don't know if once again uh in layman's terms, if everybody understands that.

So when the long ago in the um probably 60s, 70s, many many decades ago, um the parcels were created at the complex.

The arena sits on about an eight-acre parkour parcel that is basically landlocked.

It is a almost home plate mound shaped parcel in the middle of the complex.

That is a separate legal parcel of land from the surrounding area that is the stadium parcel.

The stadium includes the stadium parcel, the second parcel includes the stadium as well as all of the parking area that can that surrounds the arena.

In order to allow those parcels to be created, you're required by law to make sure that the arena parcel is not landlocked so that you can get to that facility.

And so there are these easement agreements reciprocal between the two parcels for the ability of the owners of those parcels to uh have the ability to come and go to have shared facilities, because there is interoperability below ground.

There they are connected, the stadium and the arena in many ways.

It's a very complex situation, and so the reciprocal easements now are fairly easy because you have unified ownership and unified operations with the JPA.

But if you are selling the arena lot, then you need to address how the operator of the arena can actually get to the arena, and how their um patrons can access the arena, including their ability to use the uh bark facilities across the pedestrian bridge, across the stadium property, and arrive at the arena coming and going as well as parking.

The arena parcel has to my knowledge, zero parking spaces, and so all of those things need to be addressed on negotiation.

And I just want to emphasize the arena has it it could be landmarked, and the arena has zero parking.

So that's why there's a provision here that prior to the commercial closing, OAC, the city, county, and the arena buyer have to work out the reciprocal agreements because otherwise the pro if the arena buyer buys the arena and can't get to the arena and has no parking at the arena, it really devalues the arena.

So all that has to be worked out.

So I think I'm done at the moment.

So thank you, Mr.

President.

Once again, thank you for your continued uh support, knowledge, and help with all this.

I'm here to please me, just you.

Um, I I do have a question regarding the term sheet that has been posted to the agenda, the term sheet that has been sent back from OAC, which has recommended changes.

Can you explain the differences?

And are we allowed?

We can, I believe, agree to accept their changes and provide direction to approve them.

But we don't have to, we could instead approve the terms that we posted originally.

We have the option.

So you have a number of options that are available to you, the the version of the term sheet that is posted on the agenda for Brown Act compliance purposes was posted on yesterday morning and subsequent to that yesterday afternoon, we received another draft version from OEC with proposed changes.

And this morning at 10, 11 a.m., we saved another draft version with proposed changes from OEC that CWP and OEC have in fact signed.

That latest document makes a couple of minor edits that are that are not material in any way and can be incorporated if your board desires to do so, but it also suggests some material changes that your board could consider, but you would need to make amendments to the document that is in fact posted publicly.

And so one of those changes involves or relates to the issues that we've had an extended discussion regarding the environmental issues.

And so there's a proposed change to that.

And then there is uh proposed addition of language related to the scope of CWP's acknowledgement and agreement and limiting and rightfully so limiting their scope to uh acknowledge that they are only agreeing to provisions related to the assignment and the consideration for the assignment because they truly are not a party to any of the remaining provisions.

So that is a change that I think would be more than reasonable if your board wanted to do that.

Um we have had extensive conversations about the environmental issues and what they are asking for.

I think was suggested earlier, which is a carve out from the environmental commitments that OEC is making to the county in the non-binding term sheet, uh, that the arena would not be subject to those environmental issues.

That that is something your board would have to act upon to accept if you were uh in interested in making that change.

And we could do that today.

We'd require a motion and three votes in favor.

We can do that today.

I think that yes, that is yes.

Okay, that's something that I um at this point favor doing, but let's hear public comment unless there are other questions, Supervisor Fortinato Bass.

Uh thank you, President Halbert, and I do want to echo my appreciation for your leadership on this.

Um, and thank you to our staff as well for many many years of work and negotiations.

Um I have two questions in regards to the environmental issues.

I wanted to make sure I heard correctly uh what I thought I heard.

So, in terms of the environmental considerations, what is in the non-binding term sheet aligns with the city of Oakland's agreement?

Is that correct?

In large measure it does, and then it goes a little further.

Thanks for that clarification.

And then I also wanted to say uh on page seven of the PowerPoint, uh, this references that the arena buyer will accept assignment from the JPA of all contracts for events, as well as food and beverage vendor contracts for the arena and existing collective bargaining agreements.

I just wanted to say I think that is important.

I know that uh AESCG had been doing a lot of community outreach, including with our labor partners, and I believe it has some letters of intent or other types of agreements in hand with a number of labor unions, including perhaps some of those that operate the concessions there.

And given how quickly this may be moving, I think it's really important that the workers who work at the arena are not disrupted and continue to maintain their jobs as well as their bargaining agreements in the event of a sale in a transition.

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Marquez.

Thank you.

Echo the same comments, appreciate everyone's engagement on this.

I know many of you have been a part of this discussion for years.

With respect to the payment plan, it notes that the planned development could take up to four years from the city of Oakland.

We do have confirmation on that in terms of their willingness to prioritize and get approvals with a goal of within four years.

So we we've had no conversations with the city regarding any development or other aspects related to the development.

The timing of that information was provided to us by OAC.

Okay.

And so we would have to defer to them regarding any commitments they may have received from the city.

Okay.

And then for if I'm understanding this correctly, um, first payment would be after the plan development is approved, or five years.

One year one year after plan development.

So up to five years, or five years after the commercial closing.

Correct.

And that would be the first payment.

And it's scheduled for three installment payments over time.

Okay.

And then with respect to the environmental uh issues, who has done the due diligence on this property?

Like what is known in terms of the challenges?

So the county has not done any due diligence associated with the property.

We are aware that the original disposition agreement authorized CWP an extended period of due diligence.

And they were given site access, and we are aware that they have done substantial due diligence on the site, including phase one and phase two work, potholing, sampling, and other other activities.

They have shared some of that information with us and put us on notice.

I understand that the agreement between the city and OAC allowed OEC to do certain due diligence as well.

I cannot speak to the scope of what they have or have not done.

Okay.

I appreciate Supervisor Patonabas' question about the environmental agreements being closely aligned with what the city of Oakland has already negotiated.

Do you know what has occurred with the city of Oakland in terms of payment plan from OAC?

Um I'm hesitant to be absolute in any any statements regarding it.

I know what's available publicly that the city's original deal, I believe, was 410 million dollars, and there was either a five or 10 million dollar good faith deposit, non-refundable.

Their deal was subsequently amended to increase the purchase price to, I believe, um 125.

But of that sum, 15 million is tied to development over time.

I'm not aware of there having been any other payments beyond the original uh good faith deposit.

Okay, and then with respect to the Goldsby case, can you define um with prejudice versus without prejudice?

So with prejudice means that the case and all claims that are alleged in the case cannot be brought back in any subsequent time.

They're likely well, arguably potentially time barred in some ways, but that is an important provision that it that the from these plaintiffs with prejudice that they cannot come back and later sue us.

And more important is the settlement and release agreement that would accompany that dismissal that would um relieve both CWP and the county from any and all known unknown and future existing claims by these plaintiffs.

Okay, and then can you kind of rough ball estimate for us to get to this nine non-binding term sheet?

How many hours have we spent in negotiation to get here?

Um I've been working on this transaction since 2017, um, so nine years, and there have been obviously breaks and uh various time frames where we weren't doing no work on the transaction because we had it in play.

Um, I thousands, thousands of hours.

And in addition to outside council, uh GSA, CAO, um, a lot of county staff on other related issues, conversations with the JPA, conversations with the city, thousands and thousands of hours.

Is it the bulk of your work, would you say in the last year?

Um, not necessarily, but a large portion of the effort.

She does a lot of things.

She does, I know.

Okay, and uh also, so I'll just maybe want to jump in on that.

I'm not gonna get a HUD public comment, but just my comments on Tuesday.

I did flag health and safety is really important to me.

I want us to get the best possible deal for all parties, and so um, I'll not make any comments, someone here from public comments, but I do feel that publicizing this non-binding term agreement uh sheet speaks to that.

And so I'm open to hearing from public comment.

But um, if we do uh vote on this today, for me, this just signals we're continuing the conversation, but I do think it's really important that we get the best possible outcome for the county for our workforce for the building trades for the city of Oakland.

And in my opinion, this non-binding term sheet is um, as was said, thousands and hours of negotiation to get here.

So I do feel like we're really close, but open to hear what others have to say.

I appreciate that.

And because we've taken so long, I'd like to get it done today.

The risk, however, that I think I see coming is if we choose to go with what is posted, and not to go with what was most recently proffered to us.

Would OAC then have the ability to just not do it?

They we've said we want one thing, they've said they want another.

If we stick with what's posted on the agenda, then they could walk away, they could counter back, and we could go back and forth.

What would be the process of concluding this?

Like, how do we get this done?

Well, after nine years, I would say uh I would love to have it done, probably more than anyone else here, but um, no, yeah, so so it is a non-binding term sheet, and we have again not had any conversations with the arena buyer.

There are a lot of deal terms yet to be negotiated to even be discussed.

Uh deferring that issue to the conversations with the arena buyer does not mean the action you were taking today concludes it or precludes the OAC folks from again raising the issue at a future point in time.

Um I think action today is if that is what you're what you want to do.

Um that does not uh erase that issue from the table.

Okay, thank you.

Uh let's hear from the public.

How many speaker slips do we have in person and how many online, if any?

We have 21 in person uh so far, no one online.

All right, I know we sometimes give two minutes, but we have a meeting at noon, and um I know that we've had a lot of public testimony already on this item.

I'd like to ask speakers to limit comments to one minute, noting that if any of us would like to extend or expand on a conversation, we can do that.

Um minute for each speaker, please.

And if you could call five at a time, if people could line up at the uh microphone and speak one after another expeditiously, that would be much appreciated.

First five in-person speakers, Lindsay Barins, Renil, Keith Brown, JP Anthony, Harry.

I'll ask the clerk to cease accepting speaker slips.

Whoever's in is in and give everybody a couple minutes, but otherwise that's it.

Thank you.

Good morning, Board of Supervisors.

I'm Lindsay Barons, president of Oakland Roots and Soul.

We have enjoyed playing our games at the Coliseum for the past two years.

We are very excited about this transaction.

We know a tremendous amount of work, hours, labor, energy, and time have gone into it, and we fully support the transaction.

We're very excited about the potential of turning this piece of property over to private ownership, uniting the title, and creating more jobs, sports, and economic opportunity in East Oakland.

Thank you.

My name is Reneel Bukan.

We own the holiday in and the Spring Hill Suites at the Oakland Airport.

We've seen the good, bad, and ugly, and right now it's been ugly in the hotel business with hotel closures, the waterfront, the Hilton, the Redison, many hotels closing due to lack of business.

We fully support this project.

We want to bring more sports events, businesses, and more corporate events and things like that to make sure we don't close.

So this is a great opportunity for Ray and his group to move Oakland forward.

The Hagenberg Corridor has been suffering for many years.

And Ken Houston, thanks to him, he's cleaned up that area.

Now it's time for business.

So thank you guys very much, and we support the project.

Good morning, supervisors.

Keith Brown, Alameda Labor Council, Alameda Labor Council firmly believes that finalizing the terms of the Coliseum Complex to AA SCG and OAC will bring significant benefits to the community, including job creation, expansion of the local tax base, and revitalization of the East Bay region.

We need good union-paying jobs, opportunities for our youth, and support for disinvested communities.

So we see this fostering long-term economic benefits for East Oakland and Alameda County.

Also, the council, we call on the buyer of the arena to retain all workers, honor collective bargaining agreements, and partner with labor, just as AASEG has.

And we really need to keep and expand the union jobs in the Oakland Coliseum and Arena.

Thank you.

Good morning.

I'm JP Anthony.

I'm a business representative of Local Three Painters and Drywall Finishers Union, where I represent over 1100 members in Alameda County.

I was born and raised in Oakland.

I had the opportunity to spend a lot of time at the Coliseum watching A's games.

I was very excited when the Oakland Raiders returned.

Monster Trucks, IceCapades, and also was able to pass that down to my daughter, created memories that lasted a lifetime.

And I want to see this continue on for the future going forward.

I know that this is a great opportunity for people that look like me to feel very proud to be able to give back to our community as creating work and jobs and opportunities for union members to be able to revitalize something that was very beautiful at one time.

Us at District Council 16 and Labor Union, we completely support the sale of the Oakland Coliseum to AASEG and OAC.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Harry Konstantopolis.

I'm the business agent for Local 107.

It's an international lines of theatrical state trans employees.

We're the ones that have been putting on any shows.

We're celebrating 125 years this year.

We'd like to maintain our position at the Coliseum.

We're extremely proud of Oakland.

Everywhere you go, everybody knows about the Raiders, the A's, the Warriors all over the globe.

We are extremely excited that somebody's willing to invest in Oakland.

Next five in-person speakers, Nizel Jones, Lynn Turner, Sean, Paul Guess, Dexter, and Jason Linton.

Hello, and thanks for the deliberation.

It's amazing how much work you guys have put into this and Ray as well.

So the main thing that I want to express is around for the Oakland businesses this density in terms of footwork and people moving around this city.

And that's what this Coliseum brings, and that's what we've lost with all the teams and different entity that's already left the city.

Um I had a conversation with Kevin Johnson, who is the mayor of Sacramento.

He was going to bring his own restaurant here, fixing.

And he didn't because he said you said he'd seen as a loser.

He lost your baseball, football, all the teams.

And he moved that um that restaurant to Detroit instead of here.

This sends a signal that you guys are doing the work, Ray's doing the work, and the community is behind this.

So looks like we're heading there.

So thank you.

And I appreciate the opportunity to speak.

Thank you.

My name is Lynn Turner, born and raised in Oakland.

Again, I was here before the Coliseum.

Me and my brothers used to ride our dirt bikes over there.

And so we really want this to take place.

I think that Supervisor Marquez and Supervisor Make Miley made a good point.

We need this to be fair.

That environmental piece is so so important.

So make that a fair transaction because that's what that could kill the deal.

If you want investors, that environmental piece is key.

And so we love this um what Ray and company is doing, and we need that for the corridor.

We need that for economic development.

We need that for the city of Oakland.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh good uh morning, honorable board chair and um the supervisors.

Uh my name's Sean Paul.

I work with the uh National Association of Minority Contractors, and I'm speaking in strong support of item one and the term sheets for the Oakland Coliseum sale.

And I was not here before the Coliseum was built, but I am a lifelong barrier resident.

I'd like to see this succeed.

And this will be a great opportunity to help small and minority owned businesses grow, and this will be a great long-term economic benefit for East Oakland, the city of Oakland, and the broader Bay Area, and I also agree with the environmental issues and see that those are critical and urge the county to ensure a fair and workable split of environmental responsibility so that the deal can move forward without delay.

And as a lifelong barrier resident, I'd want to see the um Hegenberger corridor thrive again.

Thank you for your leadership and for your consideration.

Take care.

My name is Dexter Visitant.

I'm a local uh businessman and community advocate.

And um I'm just here to express uh my support of the project.

I used to work for this board in the mid-90s.

Uh and uh I was the liaison between the economic development agency, EDA and the board, and many of the board members whenever business opportunities and projects and deals will come to uh the process supervisors and supervisors will send them to me to have me vet them to move forward.

I want to express my thanks uh for this and especially to President Um Halber.

I appealed to you a while ago to do everything that you can and you stay true to that.

I want to send my staff my uh thanks to the staff uh for all the work that they've done, and uh, really glad that uh we're at this point, we're making projects.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Morning, supervisors.

Uh my name's Jason Lindsay.

I'm president and business agent of Iron Workers Local 378, right here, Oakland, California.

Uh, we're in strong support of the county sale uh of the uh Coliseum to the AA SEG.

So thank you.

Next five in person, Ashley, Ashley Brough, Victor Hernandez, David Newton, Fatima, and Gideon Chris.

Um it doesn't need to be an order of names called, just come on up.

Hi, good morning, everyone.

Uh, thank you guys for having me here again today.

Uh my name is Fatima A, founder and CEO of the Women's Premier Basketball Association.

Um, thank you guys for all of the time and energy, uh and consistency you've put into making this come to fruition and get to this point.

I am and our organization are strongly uh in agreement with moving this forward.

We understand the economic value that it can bring to Oakland, and we need it more than ever.

Um, we need all of our businesses to be able to thrive, we need our sporting events to be able to thrive so that we're able to make that impact on the next generation, but also just make this something um worthwhile, worth having people want to continue to support and want to be able to continue to invest in.

So thank you to Ray.

Thank you to the OAASUG and the OAC.

Um I'm really excited.

I know you guys want to get this going.

So I'm wishing nothing but the best moving forward with this.

We are in strong support of the sale.

Just want to say that I'm very impressed with the pride that exists in this town and the energy that it's injected when these projects are approved.

So we are in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is David Newton, uh, elected official with the RLW Long Shoreman Local 10, a commissioner, a commissioner with the JPA, and a local community lifelong uh member season ticket holder at the complex for uh both the basketball and the football team when they were there.

I would like to talk about loss and supervisor Mark Hiz brought up a good point about health and safety from real estate aspect.

When we see dilapidated properties, we see them go down the wayside, and then they become dumping grounds and all of the other things that are unhealthy to our society.

On a building aspect and with the team and with the arena, I feel this is more than important for the Hegenberger Corridor.

Council member Ken Houston has worked really hard, tireless hours, as has President Howard.

I'm happy to see for Miss uh Supervisor Fortunato Bass and Supervisor Miley.

We support this endeavor.

We need this for Oakland.

We need the jobs to be union, uh jobs for locals.

We need local people in here.

There's a local uh entity buying this.

I know I went over time, but I appreciate good morning, supervisors.

Uh my name is Gideon Price.

I was a resident of Oakland.

Uh current services of firefighter.

Just want to thank you guys for the time and effort that you guys have put into this.

I know it's been painstaking.

I actually know Ray, I've known Ray for 30, 40 years.

I am with this project.

I think you guys should move this forward, especially for the Hagenberger uh uh corridor.

There's a gentleman that spoke earlier earlier, I think on Tuesday, who mentioned how it's a bad look just driving through there.

And it really is, and I think that this would be great for the entire city of Oakland.

Uh, I think it's a win-win for everybody.

The city wins with these guys buying the property and then the money that they can get, they can reinvest in not just the social services of Oakland, but also for the protection of Oakland moving forward.

So I'm with this, so I think you thank you guys for your effort.

Good morning, Board of Supervisors.

I'm Kiana Canada representing Youth Uprising.

As I said on Tuesday, I am representing Youth Voice uh from Deep East Oakland.

And we would like to just say we thank you for all of the hard work that you all have put in, and we are in support of this transaction.

It will be amazing for our youth, for our community, and we just want to push this vote through.

So thank you very much for the time.

Next five in persons, Ray Bobbitt, Dr.

Jones, Kyote, John Jones, and Henry Gardage.

My name is Mary Tony Jones.

I'm one of the business owners in downtown Oakland and also representing the migrants that actually moved to Oakland, went to college, came back, and want to impact the community.

And I thank you for all of you guys' time and support, the staff and for you, uh Mr.

Chairman, Supervisor Marquez, Supervisor Bass, Supervisor Miley, and also for the rest of the OAC and also AACG, especially their amazing founder, Ray Bobbitt, for all of their support within our community.

One thing that I would like to ask is that we respectfully request that the Board of Supervisors will move forward in providing clear direction and formal determination regarding which party will assume responsibility for any environmental obligations, remediation requirements, CEQA compliance matter, tribal consultation obligation, and any potential liability associated with the Coliseum property in order for the redevelopment and investment, financing, and long-term planning to proceed with responsibility and transparently.

It is essential.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is John Jones III.

I want to simply say vote yes.

I'm here to represent 11-year-old kid named Josiah Jones.

He just graduated from fifth grade this morning.

Yes, please.

For me, this project is about where can our kids go.

We should not have to leave East Oakland to have quality of life.

So with all the work that went into it, we can respect that by voting yes, right?

We know we have leadership in place.

We have leadership on the county, we have leadership in the city.

This project will give all of you all the ammunition to bring vitality back.

Because right now, East South is it's a lifeline.

We need some help right now.

This project would do it.

At the end of the day, with all the work that went into this, I want us to think about one other thing as well.

Hope we need hope in this moment now more than ever.

This project represents hope for many people in our community, not just a few.

So at the end of that, I want to thank everyone for the work that you put into this, and let's get it done.

Good morning, my name is Keote Atkins.

I work with Youth Uprising, but I'm here representing myself and my family as born and raised in Oakland, California.

Uh generations, been here since the 40s, 50s, and I'd like to definitely recognize the board and appreciate the due diligence that you all have put into this, as well as your recognition of the importance of stewardship and the stewardship that's necessary to make sure that things are in place.

Not just today, people are happy, but as well as when we go into the years that are to come.

But one thing that's important with stewardship is recognizing opportunities.

And so I appreciate you all for breaking that down and explaining to us so that you're not speaking on this level, but making sure that we understand and the importance of understanding that this is the time to make a decision.

So I'm excited about us moving forward as well as uh the future that Oakland is going in with support uh those that are in place here.

Thank you so much.

So, first of all, I want to apologize to this board.

Uh Tuesday when we didn't vote.

I was just really frustrated.

And I was because we've it's so it's it's just it's it's heartfelt that people from this community will react this quickly, like in 48 hours.

We had almost 100 people here, just a 48 hours.

And then today, the same people take time off work.

Come and be here.

So I just didn't.

I just want to tell you, you guys have worked tremendously.

This board has worked tremendously, the staff has worked tremendously.

We appreciate you.

And so I just wanted to first of all, you know, apologize, but secondly, thank you for the work and the time that you've put in.

This is really important to our community.

Um, I've said it all before, but we just want to say how grateful we are to be at this position, and we can change history and change the and move into a new chapter of this uh site.

So thank you very much, Mr.

Bobbit.

Um, thank you for your public comments.

I have to ask you, there could be competing opportunities.

We've discussed them.

One, the term sheet that's on the agenda posted, excludes the carve out.

The request that we received from your team last night and reaffirmed it even this morning, includes the carve out.

If this board takes action on the terms that have been agendized and published, excluding the carve out.

And instead, as I think I heard mentioned, discuss the carve out or discuss the handling of the environmental risks and responsibilities for a later time.

Puts that off to discussions with the arena buyer and our staff.

What does that do to the deal?

Well, the reason why there's a carve out is because we understand how critical the arena is.

Is it like if you bought a strip mall, you would have to want an anchor?

And if you go into the strip mall and you have a safe way there, you're really in a strong position.

Now you could have mailbox, etc., banero bread, but if you have a safe way in a Starbucks, you're in really good position with respect to an anchor.

The arena represents an anchor of the site.

The arena represents the ability to upgrade and be competitive and potentially fight off competition from Chase Center, who's brand new.

It's an opportunity for upgrades, an opportunity to really set the tone with respect to bringing in a situation.

This arena, there was this SFGate article the other day that said it's become a pop culture mecca, and it and it's excellent.

And the opportunity to enhance that and expand that is critical to the overall process.

So obviously, one of the reasons why that was submitted is because we don't want to be in a position where we lose momentum to create an anchor and to make sure our anchor is strengthened.

Is there a risk then to the anchor if we refuse what you requested, the carve out, and instead approve the terms without the carve out?

Is there a risk to the arena?

Well, we we have, as you know, we're communicating with multiple entities, and um, but it does create more complication because as you know, the environmental impact of the site, if it was a carve out for just the arena, I think you said it's eight acres, the entire site is 112 acres, so the 112 acres minus eight, so the under 104 acres would not be subjected to this carve out, would not be subjected.

So the other 104 acres would have the same impact and the same process that we've sort of surrendered through uh where the previous disposition agreement, the county was fully responsible.

So is there risk to the arena deal or not in a uh uh related to that?

Is there a time consideration?

I think it's a time to delay things.

I think it's a time consideration more than anything because we've been doing this as you know for five years, but because we're from here, we're never gonna walk away.

I mean, we're we we are from here, and so this is our soil, and so we've used perseverance, patience, and persistence to be here, but it's been a long time, and as I started with, it was frustrating to know that we weren't voting Tuesday, but every second, every day that clicks off, we have some very tight timelines.

Uh, it would be very helpful if that was happened today because it you know, I can't say with certainty, but I could say it definitely would potentially create timing risks with respect to our project.

That's what I'm trying to ascertain.

Yes, thank you.

Next speaker.

Henry Gardage, Ken Houston, Jeffrey Pete.

Good morning.

Supervisor Marquez, Supervisor Halbert.

Bass in my fearless leader, Supervisor Nate Miley, Ken Houston, son of Oakland.

I'm standing here in a in a real complicated position.

Not only that I am a born and raised third generation, like my brother just said, I played in those fields.

I sit on a JPA.

I'm a community advocate.

I'm a long life resident third generation.

And now I am one of the council members that represent this district and I represent the Hagenberg Corridor, which I want to turn into a world-class destination.

Just like yours is to represent the best interest, and I want to see if I have the privilege here of speaking longer.

Do I have the privilege, President?

I'm sorry, I can't.

The point is, and our county council's already told us if I let one go long, I gotta let all go long.

Do they do the same thing that they do?

I guess, yeah.

I would ask you.

No, no, no, we don't, yeah, we don't do that either.

But I but I I do want to say um since I'm interested to hear what else you have to say, I would invite you to continue.

I'm not granting you extra time.

I'm asking you for what else you have to say.

Yes, thank you.

Um this project is so important to East Oakland and for the Hagenberger corridor.

It's it's unimaginable.

Um my district seven has been underserved for generations, right?

And this will bring vitality.

However, at the same time, it has to make sense for the city and the county.

And for the people of Oakland, and um, like I said on the JPA, and I spoke to Henry Gardner this morning, and I'm the one that put his name on there because he had said something about um that it put the JPA at jeopardy.

I sit on the JPA.

I really didn't understand what he was saying, right?

And he's one of the people I listened to.

Um, I have a lectoral obligation, supervisors, to do the right thing for my constituents to do right thing for my community and do the right thing for this development.

So I want this to move forward.

However, it has to be in the best interest of the city and the county, and it has to be, it's very complicated.

I did not know this was that complicated, right?

So they've been here for five years working it.

It has to make sense, and it has to go together.

That's what I'm saying.

It has because it's coming to us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, that's awesome.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Distinguished uh elected officials, supervisors, I'm honored to be here.

You know, there's a classic line that says scared men can't work, or and jealous men can't gamble.

Uh I watch Ray Bobbitt develop his leadership skills and didn't cut any corners on a plethora of different levels.

And I'm so so so so proud of him.

Uh, when he didn't have a dime, uh, he put together what was necessary, uh, and leaned on very few, but really a community, and we thank him immensely for that.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for your leadership and your role model, uh status, Nate, in this realm.

You were always, always, always there, never with a discouraging word.

Uh, and I appreciate that.

Uh Ray Bobbitt, uh, you're the man.

Um, you worked hard in this realm.

And honorable president and members of the board.

I thought I heard a variation of my name called as a speaker.

For the record, I did not sign up to speak.

I had no intentions of speaking.

But since my name has been mentioned and my comments mischaracterized, I want the record to show that what I said and what I continue to say is this is an enormously complicated transaction.

I have been around as some of you know for more than a few years, and the only thing that comes close in complexity is the sale and lease back of Oakland City Hall.

I have no comments on the term sheet.

I will share those with the staff.

I do have some concerns.

But since I've been asked to make a comment, I do have a recommendation.

Since your time is up, I would respectfully ask for you to make that recommendation.

I recommend that the board make a wise decision.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Gardner.

I just wanted to reinforce that as I was speaking, my phone was going off, and the R board was saying that it would a delay of the carve out would absolutely impact our situation tremendously.

So thank you.

There are no more speakers.

No more speakers.

Okay, so um bring it back for deliberation and discussion.

I'm ready to make a motion.

Yeah.

Well, if you make a motion, we can have a substitute motion also.

So I I go ahead and make the motion, we'll discuss it.

So I move that we adopt the non-binding term sheet as is because this continues the conversation.

My goal is to get the best deal possible for our community.

Quite frankly, I'm offended that we want to be short-sighted on health and safety.

Oakland and the entire region deserves better.

We could do better.

People are gonna make billions of dollars off this transaction.

And the fact that we're gonna know we know that there's a liability, and we're gonna say that's okay, you don't have to even give us a penny for it, is unconscious.

I'd like to second the motion and speak to it when it's appropriate.

Very good.

Um, the motion is to accept the terms as presented, excluding the carve out and as presented, which excludes the excludes the requested carve out, um, noting that um it's a non-binding term sheet, and terms can always be discussed going forward.

It's been pointed out that that could affect the deal.

Timing, which we've been at this for nine years, but what's a little more time, and it uh has been pointed out that that may risk uh the deal.

That said, um, if there's nothing else to say, um from OAC, that you've said what you've said.

Uh I just wanted to make clear we're about to vote on the terms as published without a carb out.

Um, I could make another motion to accept a substitute motion or another motion, rather, to accept the terms that OAC has requested, which includes the carve out.

If we vote for that one, again, it's a non-binding term sheet, and terms can continue to be changed since it's non-binding, but I just don't know that that's going to get us anywhere.

So I think we're gonna end up just voting on the motion that's been made.

Um, but I invite OAC to make more comments on this particular topic, and then supervisor.

I well do that.

I believe that if I have questions of a member of the public that's making comments that I can ask those questions, is that not correct?

You may, but you cannot invite them to speak again because they have already spoken twice.

I'm just gonna ask, well, I've asked him to come and explain the implications of this vote on their deal.

I I'm not sure what you're trying to say to me, Supervisor Marquez.

It's my right to ask him again.

Maybe he's got more.

You're like showing all our cards, and we're at a huge disadvantage by this process, and you're making it worse.

I disagree.

I won't say anything more than was already said.

I do want to just clarify for the record.

This is a community-driven process, and at the end of the day, we have people that I was in middle school with that are living in tents and feces with no running water, with no electricity.

We drive through East Oakland and we should all be ashamed of ourselves.

So there's nothing more urgent than this process for me personally, as a person who was a visionary to come through this, and for a person who was born or raised here and wants to see impact.

So all I'm saying is I won't comment anymore.

I just wanted to make sure that the comments that are made with respect to our process are clear.

Um, and that's I just wanted to just say that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Supervisor Miley, you want to make some comments before we vote?

Oh, yes, on the motion.

Um, first of all, uh, you know, I've I've been very clear.

Uh what the board does has to be legally sound, it has to pass the smell test, it has to pass all scrutiny, and we have to negotiate as fiduciaries of the county.

I don't represent OAC, I don't represent the city, I represent Alameda County, and that's my obligation.

It has to pass the smell test, and if it doesn't, then we will be responsible for carrying um that burden.

I think the motion is a strong motion because it doesn't preclude further negotiation.

It's a non-binding, it's not a binding term.

C it's non-binding, it doesn't preclude negotiation.

We still know there's issues around the environmental, that's the big bugaboo based on I think the terms that's gotta be reconciled.

The county has had no conversations with the city about this, no conversations with the arena buyer about this, and the county is still in the position of being part owner of the facility.

Subject and you know, we've sold our interest, but it's subject to uh all these other uh terms being met uh before we can um uh turn over the deed to um CWP or the Oakland A's.

So I think sticking with the terms that we've come up with puts the county in the best prudent position to continue any negotiations with the city, OAC, and the arena buyer.

Now, let me use this as a teachable moment.

Someone who's been on the city council 1990 to 2000, someone who's been a board of a county supervisor, 2000 to present.

Let me use this as a teachable moment.

We've lost three teams, no one contemplated losing three teams.

We've lost through teams.

Why?

Failure of leadership, and poor decisions.

That's why we've lost three teams.

I was on the city council when we brought back the Oakland A's.

Henry Gardner was the city manager when we negotiated that deal.

We would still have, I mean, excuse me, the Raiders when we brought the Raiders back.

We'd still have the Oakland A's here, but for a former mayor, and I'm not going to use the mayor's name, fired the black city manager, Robert Bob, who wanted to build a downtown stadium for the Oakland A's.

Had that happened, we would have the Oakland A's playing downtown right now.

Had that happened, the Raiders would still probably be playing at the Coliseum right now.

But all that's water under the bridge.

This county, I've dealt with mayors.

This county offered to sell our interest to the city so that it could be under one uniform ownership.

No, the city didn't take our deal.

We've offered to buy the city's interest.

No, the city didn't take our deal to put the property under one ownership.

It didn't happen.

We are here now with a development team, an owner potential ownership team that's primarily African American, that's got the resources to make this happen that would be extremely beneficial for East Oakland, the city of Oakland, in the entire county and region.

That's why I stand behind this uh term sheet.

I tried to point out when I went through various aspects of the term sheet why I thought this was a good um non-binding term sheet for us to have.

I've often said let's not the let's not let perfect be the enemy of the good, and this is not perfect, but it is good.

It's good because we get rid of the lawsuit, it's good because the county ultimately ends up with more money when we you know do 115 and we get a 115 back over the course of time.

It's good because an African American team takes ownership of the property, and they've got a lot of potential in terms of what they want to do with the property in the future that benefits East Oakland and the city of Oakland and everyone else.

It gets the county out of the damn sports business, so we can concentrate on safety net services.

Marquez Supervisor McKay's asked, how many hours have gone into this?

County council went back to 2017.

Trust me, I can go back to 20 um uh 2000 uh 01.

If you want, I can go back to time I was on the city council, talk about hours, talk about frustration.

Oh, don't get me started, don't get me started.

So, I'm using this as a teacher moment for all of you, that this is everyone's mentioned this has been very complicated, and I want to see this happen, but it's gotta happen the right way.

I don't think OAC is gonna walk away from this if we do a non-binding term sheet today.

It still allows us further opportunity to negotiate around the environmental.

So sorry to get a little emotional about this, but hey, I've lived this um since 1990, let's say, but easily since 2000.

And I know I know Ray Bobbitt, I've worked with Ray and his family over the years.

I know many of you.

I've worked with many of you over the years, so um, but I'm not representing OAC, I'm representing the county, and I'm obligated to represent the county.

Supervisor, I thank you for that.

Um, I'm also supportive of this uh motion, knowing that indeed continued discussions will have happened.

What I have a problem with is it will simply delay things.

I don't know what will change, if anything, but I am hopeful that a resolution can be made.

I think a few phone calls back and forth might be able to resolve this.

I hope that it's done expeditiously because, as you've said, we have many more steps to go through, as we've heard the community say, we have a ton of uh this has taken a long time, and people are suffering and need to see this move forward.

So let's get this done.

If we take this action today, there will be still more discussions that have to happen, but we're making progress.

Um I would say I agree with you.

Don't let good be the enemy of perfect or perfect be the enemy of good.

I think that the proposal they've made is also good, but maybe it can get better.

It'll just take more time.

So with that said, I'm supportive.

I think Supervisor Bass, do you want to make a comment?

Supervisor Tam, you can chime in if you want.

I know you came late, but um you can chime in too.

Um, Supervisor Bass.

Thank you, President Howard.

Um, I just want uh to let the community know where I stand.

Um I shared some of this on Tuesday, um, but I think it's important to understand who are the community's best partners, who has our interests at heart.

And I have to say from my experience here and in the city, um, you know, it is it's it's clear who does real community engagement and who builds the relationships and trusts.

Uh back in 2021, the city went through uh process while I was there to award the exclusive negotiating agreement for the Coliseum Complex to AASEG because of its commitment to community engagement, and I think you all have done incredible community engagement, built relationships, and made some commitments as well.

And I can I hope that will continue and that will follow through with I completely agree with what people said about the importance of economically revitalizing East Oakland and by extension Oakland and Alameda County, that the vision that has been put forward creates incredible opportunity and hope.

I think having uh an active competitive partner running the arena could be game-changing for us, and we stand to gain in terms of more jobs, more opportunity, more entertainment, um, and a larger tax base, and all of that will improve community safety.

So there's definitely a lot to be gained.

Um, I do want to um also say uh somewhat in line with my colleagues' comment, Supervisor Miley, that we do have to make uh the best decision possible, safeguarding our assets as county supervisors.

Um we are going to have a budget presentation shortly, and for those of you who don't know, we are working to close a 91 million dollar deficit.

We are also myself and Supervisor Miley are meeting very actively with Alameda Health Systems, our public hospital system to address their projected 100 million dollar deficit.

We are dealing with um residents who are losing their health care, residents who are losing their food assistance, people who have severe mental illnesses who are just as involved, who are running out of resources.

The list really does go on in terms of how we need to ensure that we have the resources and we limit our liability to protect our resources to continue to be a strong safety net.

If we are not that safety net to our residents, what you see in East Oakland is only gonna get worse.

And so for me personally, I am trying to balance the real opportunity that I believe in with safeguarding our resources and knowing that under this current federal administration, so much is under attack, and I want to make sure that people don't lose those basic rights to health care, food, housing, et cetera.

So this is a huge decision.

Um, and we're trying to balance a lot of interests here, and I I'm glad that people are coming to understand that.

Thank you.

Supervisor Tam, anything to add?

I'm gonna ditto what Supervisor Mightley and Supervisor Fortunato Bass just said.

Okay, very good.

With that said, a motion's been made and seconded.

Uh roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye.

President Hauber.

I vote yes.

With that, the motion passes.

We've uh concluded that meeting.

Before we end the meeting, I would just like to say that um we're left now with our negotiating team, Supervisor Miley and I being an observer to that, um, working expeditiously with OAC to um progress.

Is that correct?

Do we have a timeline for that?

Well, the document that you just approved projects a closing by June 30th.

Okay, good good luck.

Good luck, everybody.

Um with that the meeting is over, and I'll let the room clear out for five minutes while we start our next meeting.