Half of the Holy Holm Good morning, everybody.

And welcome to the special city council meeting of Monday, July 13th.

Before I call roll, I will give speaker card instructions.

If you would like to fill out a speaker's card on any item, please fill out a speaker's card before the item is called for discussion, or two hours after the start of this meeting, whichever comes first.

The speaker cards are on the table in front of me.

If you were looking to turn an online speaker card, they were due 24 hours before the start of this meeting.

This meeting was called to order at ten thirty-seven.

So you will have until twelve thirty-seven to submit your speaker card, or until when the item is called, whichever comes first.

Council Member Guilla.

Councilmember Houston.

Sorry, Council Member Ramachandran.

Council Member Unger.

Council Member Wong.

Showing seven members present, one excused.

Last chance to turn into speaker cards before I call it if you haven't done so.

Adopt an ordinance authorizing the city administrator to amend the purchase and sale agreement of the City of Oakland's undivided 50% interest in the Coliseum Complex located at 7,000 Coliseum Way, Oakland, California, to allow the simultaneous sale of the arena parcel for the lump sum payment of 50 million dollars and the stadium parcel for 60 million with seller financing from the city, crediting the 5 million deposit held by the city prior to the sale, authorizing the administrator to negotiate and execute an agreement pursuant which the buyers agree to pay to the city six percent of the annual gross ticket sales for any event at the arena parcel and the stadium parcel less applicable taxes.

Affordable housing and other benefits to solely the sale of the city's interest in the stadium parcel.

Authorizing the city administrator to facilitate closing prior to December 31st, 2026, and redirecting the buyer of the stadium parcel, a portion of the pro rata share of the city's annual subsidy of the stadium parcel based on a per day amount of sixteen thousand four hundred and thirty eight dollars and thirty-six cents.

Limited to the period between the stadium parcel closing December 31st and adopting appropriate SQL findings.

You have 21 speakers on this item.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

So the administration is pleased to submit for council's consideration a term sheet between the City of Oakland and Oakland Acquisition Company for a second amendment to the sale of the city's 50% undivided interest in the Coliseum Complex.

The proposal adds improved financial terms for the city and mitigates potential risk.

It's been a long journey to this point, and I really want to thank the negotiating teams from our finance department and economic workforce and development department.

I also really want to thank the mayor and the city council for their leadership through this amendment process.

A few of the major highlights that we're pleased to share.

One, the second amendment preserves the originally negotiated price for the Coliseum Complex, and that's $125 million in total.

The improved deal structure protects the city's coffers and eliminates ongoing subsidies that have cost the general fund every year.

And finally, the deal for the Coliseum parcel aligns the payment structure with redevelopment of the site.

I know we all want to see community-centered redevelopment happen at this incredibly important parcel in East Oakland.

And our team has worked to hone a proposal that we believe will help.

So with that, I am going to ask our staff, Brendan Moriarty, to come and present.

Thank you.

Good morning, City Council, members of the public.

My name is Brendan Moriari, I'm director of real estate and special projects within the Economic and Workforce Development Department.

I'm speaking for staff on behalf of the negotiating team, which includes Bradley Johnson, our director of finance, Ashley Cannett, our Director of Economic and Workforce Development, Kelly Con, the Assistant Director for Economic Workforce Development, and Deborah Edgerly, former city administrator and a new in the city administrator's office.

And then also Joanne Donick from the city attorney's office.

She's on Zoom and available.

Okay, we can go ahead with the presentation here.

Um the Coliseum Complex, the subject of the transaction is the area in blue here.

This is a hundred and twelve acre property that includes the Oakland Coliseum in the Oakland arena, as well as all the surface parking around it.

It does not include a variety of city owned properties and one city county jointly owned property in the surrounding neighborhood.

Those are those purple parcels, so not inclusive of that.

But the dark shaded blue area, 112 acres.

The arena parcel is about a nine-acre parcel that includes the arena, of course, and not much else.

The uh stadium parcel, as we refer to it as everything else.

So that's the 103 acres Oakland Coliseum plus parking areas.

Um you can just see the two separate parcels here.

So arena parcel in blue, stadium parcel and red.

So the city and county jointly own the Coliseum complex, each of us with a 50% undivided interest, which is to say that the city and county jointly own every square inch of the property.

It's not that the city owns one half and the city owns and the county owns the other half.

It's all intermixed.

The property is and has always been cash flow negative.

It loses money.

That's not a new condition, it just persists today.

This costs the city's general fund about $6 million annually.

The city is under contract to sell the Coliseum Complex, both these parcels to the Oakland acquisition company, and that we've been under contract since the summer of 24 for that.

Now, some background on the buyers, the um the city started to negotiate with the African American Sports and Entertainment Group in 2021, pursuant to council direction at the time that we enter into exclusive negotiations with AASEG for the purchase of the property.

AASEG, in their own words on their website, based in Oakland, founded in 2020 with the primary purpose of using the vehicle of sports and entertainment to create a path for enhanced economic equity for the black community.

And Loop Capital has come in as a partner with them.

Loop Capital is an A is uh is AASEG's investment partner, is a full service investment bank brokerage and advisory firm based in Chicago.

ASEG and Loop Capital together formed OAC, Oakland Acquisition Company, as the single purpose entity for the purposes of acquiring the site and developing it.

So our contract and the title, the subject of this legislation is with OAC, but behind that is AASEG and loop capital.

So that we we entered into original purchase and sale agreement pursuant to city council authorization in June of 2024.

This provided for the sale of the Coliseum Complex, the city's 50% interest to OAC for $105 million.

It provided for an installment sales structure, meaning OAC would take title after completing a schedule of payments for the entirety of the purchase price.

And that schedule called for a down payment of $5 million, which they have made and the city holds, with the remainder of the payments in the subsequent uh two years.

It also provided a set of deed restrictions, required a set of deed restrictions that would require any housing developed on the site to be affordable housing up to a certain amount, and then also required a good faith negotiation period for community benefits in the first five years after closing.

So that was the original deal from 2024.

In late 2024, we entered into a first amendment of that deal, which modified the payment schedule and increased the purchase price from 105 million dollars to 110 million dollars.

It also added 15 million dollars in post-closing payments that would be tied to certain development milestones, such that the total consideration that OAC would pay the city for its 50% interest would be 125 million dollars, again, up from 105 million.

In the intervening couple of years, OAC has been underway negotiating with Alameda County to acquire the other 50% entrance, which because this is a undivided 50% interest, in order to really control the site, you do need to have both the city and county portions.

In May of 2025, the city council passed an ordinance that granted additional time to OAC for closing on the city's interest so that they could go out and negotiate to purchase the county interest.

And that provided until this summer to reach agreement with the county.

And that's what happened on May 28th, 2026.

The County Board of Supervisors approved a term sheet with OAC for the sale of the county's interest in the Coliseum Complex.

So now in front of you today is a proposed second amendment, which would provide, which would be according to the following terms.

So this would be a simultaneous sale of the arena and the stadium parcels.

Again, we're just talking about the city's 50% interest today, but a simultaneous sale of the city's interest in the arena and the stadium with closing to happen no later than January 30th of 2027.

But acknowledging that the parties are going to move as quickly as possible with a with a target closing date in September.

So somewhere between September and late January 2027, we would close.

This would involve a $50 million all-cash sale of the arena parcel to the city at closing.

And as was announced this morning, just prior to this meeting, we understand that OAC would then be transferring title on that portion to the Oakview group.

The remainder of the property, the stadium parcel, would sell for $60 million in what's called a seller, what we've called a seller financed transaction.

I'm putting that in quotes because that's a term that you see in real estate practice.

But while this let me explain what it is.

While the structure of the stadium parcel transaction is commonly known as seller financing, the city would not actually be lending any funds to OAC.

The transaction would continue to resemble an installment sale with a prescribed set of payments from OAC to the city, similar to the sort to the original sales agreement we are under now.

The key difference is the timing on when ownership transfers.

Under this second amendment, the title on the property would transfer earlier in the process before all of the payments are completed.

This is good for the city because it's going to take us out of the ownership position on the property as quickly as possible.

And I mentioned earlier that that costs the city's general fund approximately six million dollars every year.

Would be essentially a down payment on the stadium parcel purchase price.

There would be three equal payments for the balance of the purchase price that would be tied to development approvals no later than five, six, and seven years after closing.

And interest would apply on all of these outstanding payments in the amount of five percent until they are paid in full.

So the actual purchase price at the end of the day with the interest would probably end up being more than what's stated here at 60 million dollars.

There would still be the 15 million dollars in post-closing payments as well.

So no change to the total amount of purchase price, except that it might be incrementally higher due to the interest.

There's an additional source of revenue here that's not part of the original existing deal, and that is a profit sharing mechanism.

The city would receive 6% of annual gross ticket sales moving forward with no deadline or no endpoint, and that would apply to the arena, it would apply to the stadium and any other event venues that may be built on the property in the future.

Out of the gates, we expect that to be somewhere on the order of three million dollars.

That's just looking at arena performance today.

So if arena ticket sales increase, that number is going to start increasing, and that will also increase with inflation.

So what that means is, and then thereafter in January 2027, OAC becomes responsible.

So again, because the property is cash flow negative, the city has historically always had to put money into the property.

We would continue to do so through the end of the calendar year, which allows for the current users of the Coliseum, so the Oakland routes and for the cricket matches that happen there to play at the end of their schedule, rather than pay that to the to the joint powers agency, which is the which is the city county entity that actually runs operations, that those operating losses would be paid to the to OAC provided they take title before the end of the year.

This is a moot point if the the transaction closes in January.

In any event, the city would be relieved of all responsibility for operations after January of 2027.

The city has currently budgeted subsidizing operations through June of 2027.

So under this arrangement, the city would save half of its budgeted expenses on operations.

So we would of the $6 million that's been budgeted, half of that would just return or return to the general fund.

The requirements for affordable housing and community benefits would continue to apply.

They would apply to the stadium parcel.

The original deal involved the sale of both properties, real parcels really is just one property, so we did not distinguish where the intention for where those restrictions would apply.

The arena parcel really just contains the arena structure itself.

There's no room there for development.

It's not the development site.

And so these restrictions would, we were just clarifying would apply to the stadium parcel rather than the arena parcel.

So with so we would transfer title very quickly in the coming months.

There would be outstanding payments.

How are those secured?

And new in a multiple ways.

First of all, OAC would be required to maintain a minimum corporate value or enterprise value.

Again, this is the single purpose entity that would acquire the property, and it would need to be funded sufficient to fulfill its obligations under the purchase and sale agreement.

OAC would also be responsible for bringing in a third party to back them up.

This would be in the form of either a contractual guarantee from that third party or a payment bond, whichever the flavor, this is a third party coming into the deal to back up OEC and guarantee the city recourse in the event that the city is not paid in full and on time.

This guarantee needs to be delivered by January 1, 2027 or four months after closing.

If there's any delay there, penalties will apply.

Two penalties in particular.

One is that the city's uh contribution or continuing responsibility for the losses to the end of the calendar year, that would be suspended.

A portion of that would be suspended if if the guarantee is not provided on time.

And in addition, for every month of delay in getting that third party into the deal, uh the purchase price would increase by 100,000.

And then ultimately, and this is key, the city would hold a deed of trust, which would be recorded against the stadium parcel.

This means that the city could foreclose and either take the property back or cause it to be sold to some other buyer if the obligations under the contract are not satisfied.

And with that, I'm going to hand it over to Bradley Johnson, the director of finance, to speak to the financial components of this.

Oh, okay top, we'd love to have the presentation still up.

Thank you.

Thank you, Brad Johnson, Director of Finance.

Uh so $50 million of the city's arena sales will be uh used to pay down the city's unfunded accrued liability for retirement benefits under CalPers, which will reduce the city's ongoing retirement obligations and is consistent with your best practices under your consolidated fiscal policy.

Your remaining payments will from the proceeds of the sale will go to your general purpose funds for future council appropriation.

And we've mentioned that there will be many other tax benefits of the city of Oakland in the form of uh additional tax revenues received by enhanced economic activity along with the revenue sharing agreement.

Based on our overall analysis and our recommendation to staff, this deal this particular arrangement does maintain your existing purchase price.

It provides multiple mechanisms to ensure that the city uh receives presently and in the future its full payment for the value of both parcels.

It adds a new revenue from ticket sale profit sharing at roughly three million dollars annually.

Um it removes the city's costs and the complexity and risks for maintaining ownership of its 50% undivided share in the Coliseum and Arena parcels, which are roughly six million dollars on an annual basis.

It is a responsible use of one-time resources, and staff does recommend recommend that this body approve the deal.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for that thorough uh thorough, thorough, thorough presentation.

Uh and I just want to state what I say stated publicly, um, which I stated in the press conference.

I thank the team of four that led negotiations with uh city of the administration and OIC, that being council member five, council member Brown, Council Member Ramachantra, and Council Member Houston.

I want to thank all the rest of the council members, Councilmember Gaio, Um Wong, and Unger for ensuring that the city could get as good of a deal as possible.

I know we've lost every single deal that the city has ever entered into with any sports negotiating team around the Coliseum.

We're still personal seat licenses, uh, the Warriors leave.

Oh, we want the Warriors deal.

They're paying us.

But it's important that we are physical stewards with the taxpayer money, right?

And it's a shame that we are sending a $6 million subsidy per year.

And it's not us sending it, it's the taxpayers sending it, right?

And it's time for that subsidy to end as we're talking about how we can do more for our seniors, how we can open our senior centers as we're talking about how we do more for our children in Oakland.

That's six million dollars a year will be valuable towards fixing those issues, helping us solve the homelessness issue.

I also want to highlight that in this deal, we are doing the responsible thing with this one-time money and putting it to pay down our long-term obligations, right, which uh have ballooned, and we want to make sure that we are not that we're getting ahead of that.

Uh I also want to thank council member Houston for ensuring that we got every last cent that we could out of a ASEG and Oakland acquisition group, right?

Because he cares so deeply about the community.

As I've stated before, I'll state again, um, Councilmember Brown with my help is going to lead the community benefits agreements, and we will be steadfast that East Oakland organizations would will be at the helm of that table.

Black-led organizations will be fighting to be at the head of that table.

Right.

This is our community.

We have been disenfranchised for years, absolutely years, um, decades, right?

And so we want to make sure that the proceeds, that the jobs, that the opportunities go back to the East Oakland, East Oaklanders and Oakland and Oaklanders in general in that neighborhood.

And I just want to thank council.

I want to thank um Ray Bobbitt uh for leading this back in 2021.

It's Herculean task, absolutely a Herculean task, and with that I'll pass it to my next colleague.

Excellent.

Thank you so much, Council President Jenkins.

Um, similar remarks.

Um, just really want to thank the entire negotiation team, as mentioned, um, you know, Bradley Johnson from Finance, also Deborah Edgerly, the entire team at EWD, um, and also my council colleagues that were on in the administration as well, um, and also my council colleagues that were, you know, on those calls that we you know would get a moment's notice to attend, um, council member Houston, Councilmember Fife, and Council Member Ramashandran.

And what I really found that was that the process was very transparent and very collaborative.

Um, we were engaged at every point of the negotiations.

We were able to provide our feedback, raise questions, and offer our perspectives.

Um, and I was also really um glad to lead out um on a part of the the tra the deal around the six percent um annual gross for ticket sales from events from at the arena, the stadium, and any future entertainment venues develop on the property.

And we know that this is really important because this is gonna help to ensure uh the long-term investment actually pours back into the community, right?

Into into East Oakland.

And I just want to take a moment, um, could because in the presentation it wasn't mentioned, uh, but in the packet, there it details uh some very clear kind of negotiating terms, right?

So it says here that the agreement requires the city and OAC to negotiate broader community benefits, including local hiring, workforce training, labor standards, small business contracting, living wages, public Oakland spaces, sustainable development, transportation access, anti-displacement protections, housing protections as well.

And I think that the most um already established benefit that is very clear is around the affordable housing commitment, where it states at least 25% of any residential unit developed on the site must be affordable housing, right?

So I think that um in all the ways we are really uh um looking out for our East Oakland community and just Oaklanders in general, and so um I'm really um grateful for um and I look forward to partnering alongside Council President Jenkins and Council Member Houston as we really work to ensure that East Oakland, East Oakland residents are really front and center in the benefit uh community benefit agreements, and I look forward to uh voting um in favor of this uh agreement today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Councilmember Houston.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I want to thank my colleagues.

I want to thank Councilmember Brown and I want to thank you, President.

This is in your district, and this is in my district, district six and district seven, been underserved for years and years and years, and I want to be um clear that what Councilmember Brown just said, these community benefits is huge for me, for me and my community.

Um, but that's on the stadium side.

That's not on the arena side because arena was selled it's gonna be sold to a private owner, and they don't have to do what um the stadium side has to do.

They don't.

So since 2012, it was a young man that I met, me and my brother Lynn met him, his name was Chris Wright.

He came to the Coliseum and he ran the Coliseum, and it was a handshake deal.

I said, Man, what you gonna do for my community for my kids?

K-Top, can you put that up?

I said, Um, what you gonna do for my kids?

What you gonna do for my people?

He said, What I'm gonna do is I'm gonna create a community advisory board.

And I said, Really?

I said, What does that consist of?

He says giving your children scholarships, $30,000 scholarships, shoe drive, backpack, um, safety, um, mentoring.

And it was a handshake, it wasn't an MOU.

A MOA was a handshake.

Normally we ain't supposed to do that in this world, right?

But I'm old school, and he did it.

The reason why I said this is because the arena does not have to do this.

So what I did was I flew out to Beverly Hills, sat down with a um Irving, Mr.

Irving, had some soup.

He wouldn't talk to me until I ate with him.

That's old school.

You paid for that soup, right?

I did.

Yeah, you did.

I did, I did, I did, President.

So, so we spoke and I said, since 2012, you know, you the AEG community advisory board been looking out, and I'm gonna show you on this PowerPoint real quick PowerPoint for my children, for my community in Deep East Oakland and in District 6 and 7.

And he said, I'm gonna do the same thing.

He didn't have to say that, right?

And um I passed this book out to all my colleagues to show that you guys can look at to show what was been happening.

This was before pre-dated me being elected official, right?

This was I'm just a community advocate, born and raised on the one way in East Oakland, right?

And they looked out for my children.

I can show you kids that are now in college because of scholarships.

So Mr.

Irving said that he was gonna do that, right?

So I just want to do a real brief president if you don't mind.

It's just real some pictures that so I can show the audience because being elected, we got to be transparent to to the people that put us in place because they depend on us to tell them, give them the information.

You know, they're too busy working, trying to take care of their kids, trying to do what they have to do.

They put us in office to actually analyze, look at it, and give them the best advice.

And I'm gonna say this, and I'm talking to the public.

Before I was elected, this deal was a lemon.

You know why it was done.

Shane Tow was trying to stop her recall.

That's it.

But we turned that lemon into lemonade, sweet lemonade, and got the best deal that we could get, and knowing that both sides are gonna do what they need to do.

And we put pieces in place that if they don't, we're gonna handle business.

Because this is business, right?

So I wanted to show just real quick, President, on some of the things that AEG, the community advisory board ran by Chris Wright, did for my community 14 years ago up to today, and Mr.

Irving said he was gonna take it and do the same thing.

So um K-Top, can you just slide a couple?

So this one right here was the backback um uh back to school shoe giveaway, gave away hundreds and hundreds of kids, um, school um shoes for kids, and they had to write a little essay.

They had to, they just didn't get the stuff, right?

They had to write something and show what they were doing in school.

Next one, please.

And this was a cut scholarship.

You'll see my brother over there to the left, Lynn Turner.

It's 10,000, 10,000, 10,000.

That's $30,000 we gave to our kids, right?

To go to college.

It was huge.

And they're graduating right now, right?

Thanking us.

So that's the changes that he said he would do.

Go to next one, K-Top.

Look at this one.

Financial workshop.

They did it.

Go next one.

Halloween trick-or-treat.

I had fun with that one.

That one's really fun.

It was going all through all the offices getting the candy and stuff.

So it was fun and educational.

Let's go to the next one, please.

K-Top.

Job shadow.

This was huge because they could go and work in the office with Chris Wright, Nicole.

They can actually go out in the field if they just wanted to take care of the lawn or wanted to be a stage hand.

They actually shadowed.

It was huge.

It was, I mean, you just see their faces, because they never thought they could be at the Coliseum, right?

It was big.

So go to the next one, please.

Read across America.

This is my favorite one.

You get to go speak to the kids, you need to read to them.

Intellectual, you know, they was we gave away 300 books to certain schools, and this just wasn't in D7.

Council Member Fife, we came to your district and did it.

We came in Noel's district, did it?

And matter of fact, this is Alameda County.

So we couldn't just do Oakland, even though you know that's what I was trying to do.

But we had to go to other places in Alameda County.

Let's go to the next one.

See, look at that.

See, who knew about that?

This was happening for 14 years, and they were doing it diligently.

Next one.

Fourth of July, the essay.

They had to show writing essays.

Go to the next one.

Is that it, K-Top?

Okay, that's it.

So I just wanted to share that I actually went out there to speak to this gentleman that actually did not have to do this, and he said he would do it with a handshake.

He's old school too.

You look him up.

He did his handshakes back in Hollywood back in the day.

So I got a question for the city attorney.

City attorney, can you come up to the or somebody can speak or or the city attorney?

My ordinance, in April 2025, I wanted the county to do the deal first, right?

I wanted them to sign the paperwork so we could follow behind now.

And they did, but it was a non-binding term sheet.

So does this have to go back to Alameda County to do another reading to make it binding?

And this is to the city attorney.

Substantive questions, Madam Clerk, if you can.

Through the chair to Ms.

Joanne, you are a panelist, so you can unmute yourself and speak as needed.

Okay.

Can you hear me?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

My name is Joanne Dunneck.

I'm a senior deputy city attorney for the city.

And in terms of your question, our uh purview is only involves the city's interest.

We don't control the county's interests.

Okay, we'll act independently of what we're doing.

I got it, but that's not my question.

My question was, so so I understand we're independent.

We own 50%, they own 50%.

My question is is that my ordinance that I put in place was 1384242 with Rebecca Kaplan.

Was that that deal had to be struck with the county first?

Um, and they did strike that deal, and it was a non-binding.

So I want to know this.

This is my question, and you should know this.

Or do they have to go back to the county to get this as binding?

And do they have to do a couple of more readings?

The county will have to take its own action on its own term sheet.

And it w what they have made public is their non-binding term sheet.

They will have to take their appropriate actions in order to implement their deal.

Okay, thank you.

I like the work that you do, but we need to keep up on that because that's a part of the deal.

We need to know what they're doing.

Um the next thing is.

How many more readings do we have to do to the chair?

To the city attorney.

Through the chair to Councilmember Houston, this is an ordinance, so it requires two readings.

If passed by the council today on a first reading, it would presumably be scheduled to the July 21st meeting for a second reading.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, Councilmember.

We have okay.

Apologies, Councilmember Long.

Okay.

Um I just want to first commend really my colleagues, the negotiation team, for um all of your work uh leading to this point as well as uh the city staff uh Brendan for this for this work.

Um I really see this as an opportunity and acting on a vision that uh came from the community to ensure that Oakland becomes it already is uh the soul of the Bay Area as well as a music city, but this is how we make sure that we put Oakland on the map.

You know, when we compare Austin, Texas, no, we we got to get this here and right here in Oakland.

So I this is incredibly exciting.

Uh that said, I think we have just some uh questions that have come from the public that I think deserve to be uh answered.

So one of the things that uh came up this morning in some reporting is just uh that the interest rate being uh offered uh is five percent by the city compared to a commercial uh lending.

Uh Radley, do you mind responding to why why that there is that difference from the city?

Thank you.

And through the chair to Councilmember Wong.

The 5% uh interest rate charge preserves the inflationary value of the initial property.

The city is not a lending institution.

We are not intending to make profit in a f on a financial on a uh financial transaction as a bank might.

However, 5% rate of return in the interest rate would preserve the full value of the city's interest in the property in future years vis-a-vis the inflation rate.

So the inflation adjusted value of the property will not decline, and as we mentioned, a key element of this deal is to preserve the original purchase price again in this case against inflation.

Great, thank you.

And I think Brendan had touched upon this, but can you just confirm again in terms of seller financing?

This is not the city literally issuing a loan, or can you explain what we mean by seller financing?

There will be no outflows from the city in order to finance this deal.

We are not providing an outflow of the general purpose fund or any other city funds to uh the buyers in order to allow them to sort of buy a property as a loan structuring.

This is a legal vehicle by which the city can transfer title of the property in order to spur development immediately while receiving payments as development comes in in the later years.

Right, and as noted, transfer of the title ensures that the city is no longer responsible for the ongoing subsidy, the six million dollars a year.

That's correct.

It removes us from the ongoing operations subsidy liability of the facility.

Okay, great.

Uh final question is just uh in case there are issues right with actually getting uh the funding that um are outlined that is outlined in this deal in terms of our tools uh foreclosure as well as the the penalty, the 100,000 dollars per month.

When does that become effective?

Is that January 1st, 2027 or some other date?

Yes, Brenda mentioned.

We have three forms of guarantee in this pro on this property.

One is the most notable added foreclosure, which the city will retain for the entire uh lifetime until all payments are made on the property.

The city also uh requires OAC to have a capitalized value equal to its outstanding balance, which means that should we have a uh adverse future uh circumstance, the city would be able to use that as uh as leverage in a legal proceeding, and we have the ability to uh we've secured uh an agreement to have a s a surety, which is either a third-party guarantor or a payment uh bond, and those would be delivered as of January.

And if they're not delivered in January, there are penalties and other uh items that apply.

So the idea is the city is built in suspenders, allowed multiple forms of surety for its future payment cycle, and as you mentioned in your first question, preserve the current value of that uh of the parcel into future years.

Okay, great, thank you.

Okay, councilmember Angerth and Councilmember Guile.

So, yeah, I just want to make make that clear.

This is this is not a loan like when you're uh when you're buying a house and the bank actually has to write a check to the seller and they uh the bank's balance sheet reduces.

So we are not outflowing any money to them.

That is correct.

If they don't pay for that, what happens?

Where are we left?

If the entity does not pay, the city will again, I said, have three forms of a guarantee.

We will have we'll be able to go after the capital wise value in the legal proceeding, we will have a surety in the form of a payment bond or third party guarantor that is also subject to security, and ultimately we'll have a deed on the property.

I guess what I'm saying is if if they don't pay in the in that installment plan, we end up right where we are now owning the property.

We would in the very worst case scenario, yes, the city would take back the property, having not uh paid in the meantime for the operating cost of that property between now and whenever that hypothetical future event would occur.

And if they pay half and then flame out, what happens?

We would be able to go after we would be able to exercise the same remedy of retake retaking the property in the same context.

The simple value would be the outstanding amount.

So the biggest risk on the uh stadium parcel is that we end up right back where we are now.

Uh the I would say the in the worst case some scenario, the city would end back in the same circumstance, same circumstances it does right now, having not carried the operating cost for however long between now and then.

So right where we are now, but without having paid some expenses for however long correct.

Thank you.

And to clarify with Mr.

Johnson, that's about six million dollars a year.

So six times seven is forty-two million dollars that we would have saved in case that doesn't happen.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Um Councilmember Guyot, then Council Member Houston.

What's on, yes?

Okay.

Yes.

Uh, because it keeps going on and off.

Um but anyway, so I have several questions, and haven't been through this process now for a number of years, and heard many of the positive comments, but yet look where we are today.

And I don't want to keep repeating the same experience we lived through for many years, celebrating many press conferences.

Everybody, oh yeah, we got this, we got that, we have this in the bank and all that other stuff.

And so the question that I have for you at this point uh to city, the city administrator, at this point we do not have approval or support from Alameda County supervisors on the recommendations we're making today.

Thank you through the chair, the board of supervisors at Alameda County has um passed their own term sheet.

Uh and then our staff has been coordinating with staff at the county as well.

We passed their term sheet, but have they supported what we have before us today?

This is public land, it is a business transaction.

Oakland is an Alameda County, and so they play a great role in terms of what we do, and certainly they got in the way of what happened in the past.

They went out and sold their part to the Oaklands, and we didn't even know about it.

And we've been talking, negotiating, making all kinds of comments on how great we are, but we don't even find that out till after the fact.

And but anyway, so the Alameda County has not given approval to what we what's before us.

Secondly, has the JPA, the joint powers authority that we created, have they approved what is being presented today?

Uh thank you to go back to the um county, the county term sheet and the city term sheet are consistent in large measure, so that is um uh one item.

The second, in terms of the JPA, the JPA between the city and county was formed solely to manage the property.

They were not, they have no jurisdiction over the sale.

But we, I mean, they do this on a daily basis, review what takes place at the Coliseum and Arena, and and certainly the gentleman Henry Gardner was the city manager here that has more knowledge and information what the about the history of the arena and the Coliseum and how we got here.

And so this the other question that I have for you is originally when we came together to move forward with the Coliseum to move forward with the arena, we formed the African American sports and entertainment group to take a lead role to play a lead role.

And my conversation with some of the members last night and today, they have not been consulted, and yet they're being included with the AOC, but the individual that helped build the Coliseum, return the Raiders back to Oakland, did submit a number of amendments, but was never consulted, and he is part of the group, and also you have another woman that's a business leader, Shonda Scott, that was not consulted and included, and so Robert Bob did these amendments forward, but we didn't include we did not include him in the debate or discussion, as well as Alan Dones that has built many properties here in the city of Oakland, and he was not included, but yet he's a member of the African American Sports and Entertainment Group, and so I would advise that you know we do include all you know the representation that we had voted for to play a lead role in the development and have history, not just talk.

We're here from the very beginning making sure that the Coliseum and the Arena were developed and continue to to be functional for the public.

So the other questions that I have for you really deal with it in terms of for the city administration.

So the 50 million dollars that we're looking at, if we generate it, is used to cover the cola, to the cola of our city employees.

Uh, the $50 million is proposed to pay down our pension liability, which is the cola, which is not the colour.

So we're not including the cola in this coverage, correct.

Okay, and um, then so the other question that I have for you how did we arrive at 6%?

Whatever takes place at the arena, entertainment, whatever, Oakland generates six percent.

Why didn't we generate 10%?

Why don't we go to 15%?

How do we arrive at 6%?

Thank you for that.

I will I will let Brendan uh Moriarty respond to that.

Through through the chair, uh this was a negotiation.

Uh we started, I won't reveal the details of it.

We um in a public setting, I really can't, but we started we started higher.

Uh they started lower.

We negotiated, we met in the middle, and the city's position was informed by our own third party validation, um, the economic and workforce development department that that I'm part of.

We have on-call real estate consultants uh that we engaged to do market survey of these kinds of arrangements in other cities, some comparable to us, some larger, some smaller.

Um, and we concluded ultimately that where we arrived is consistent with the market.

So administratively it was we you recommended six percent and not 10%.

I mean, if we could get 50%, I think we would have gone for that, right?

But we this was as much as we were able to get, and we do recommend it because we think it is consistent with the market based on that.

But the reason I ask you that it is public land, it doesn't belong to you, it doesn't belong to Kevin or me, it belongs to the public, and certainly there's an opportunity to generate resources that Oakland lacks today.

I know it's a business deal, but okay.

So the other one, do we have a formal appraisal that was done on the land, the properties that we have?

Because I have I've been asking for that, no one has provided that from the beginning.

Is there a formal appraisal that the city and the county conducted to establish a value?

What is the arena and the stadium and the other properties surrounding it?

What is the value?

What is you know from the business perspective?

Yeah, through the chair, we have um we have in the past conducted appraisal work and valuation work, um, and at the moment, the the most um relevant indicator of value are the transactions that have been negotiated and even entered into at the site.

Uh the county entered into an agreement to sell their 50% interest to the to the A's, policy and way partners, but to the A's in 2019 for $85 million.

Uh we entered into an agreement originally to sell our 50% interest for 105 million dollars two years ago.

We are now up to 10 million dollars with the 15 million additional payments post-closing up to so that's 125 plus the tickets are charged.

So I think looking at the comparable transactions, which there's none more comparable than what's been happening on the site, we are at the moment at the upper end.

Okay, so then my last question for members of the public that I get asked, what is the current arrangement between Alameda County and the A's?

My understanding is all right.

So the A's provided 85 million dollars to the county.

They didn't provide 25 cents to the city of Oakland, and they're still not in the best relationship with the city of Oakland.

And because I did make call to those in Vegas.

But secondly, what is okay?

So the county sold their part to the A's for 85 million, but now the county to get the A side of the picture, or are they still in the picture of negotiations since they own the stadium or that the county offer them 117 million to get out of it, or what for the public to know?

So through the chair, uh the your questions pertain to the county's 50% interest, which is not the subject of the ordinance before you today.

Um, and I can't speak for the county, but what I can represent based on publicly available information um is that the county and the A's through their entity Coliseum Way partners remain in a contractual relationship for the sale of the county's interest to the A's for um the agreed on upon purchase price.

Uh, that's an installment sales structure, meaning the uh the A's have paid, made payments to the county, and at this point have made, I believe, all of the payments under that deal, but have not taken title yet.

So they're close to being able to take title.

They've made all the payments to take title, they've not yet taken title, they remain in a contractual relationship.

My understanding is based on the the county OAC term sheet, uh the nonbinding term sheet that was approved about a month and a half ago by the Board of Supervisors, that would resolve all of this.

My understanding is that the county and OAC uh and OAC and the A's are in conversation, and that through their term sheet, it would provide for a resolution of the A's contractual interest, and that the county portion would be made available without the A's to OAC.

Okay.

So at this point, the A's did not contribute make any contribution to the city of Oak.

Uh through the chair, yeah, this the city and the A's have not been in a contractual relationship, they've not made any payments to the city.

That's right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Houston.

Do the chair and in April the 10th, 2025.

This is exactly why I did this um ordinance was to actually get the county to do their deal first, right?

So we'll know how to follow behind that.

Um, and that's the ordinance you could you can look at that.

Um, so the county made their um non-binding deal that's basically, you can talk to the city administrator, is basically the same as what we've done.

So that's why I did this ordinance to see what they were gonna do first, so we could follow behind them and make sure it works, you know, works out um well.

Um, and also I sit on the joint of powers authority, the JPA, uh, with leadership of Henry Gardner, um, directing us the right way what to do and what not to do, and we make our own decisions and JPA is is um is going is is in unison with this also.

So, but I did want to say one thing, and I want to move this item.

I did want to say one thing to sort of the audience can be clear that if uh this is through the chair to Councilmember Unger, so the audience, because it could be a little confusing that if we do have to foreclose, the public has to remember that the stadium is gone, right?

So we're gonna get our 50 million, the county gonna get up their 50 million, and that's done.

That's by Mr.

Irving.

That's gone.

So if we do foreclose through the chair, it'll just be the stadium and the parking lot right for that.

Um and I can ask um Mr.

Johnson to clarify that so because I don't want to take your job.

I'm just you know, I just want to you to clarify that.

Go ahead.

To the chair to Councilmember Houston.

Yes, the nature of the two parcel sale means that the conversation that uh the discussion I had with Councilmember Unger regarding the worst case possibility applies only to the stadium parcel.

The arena parcel is being paid for up front entirely, and so it there would be no law ongoing space.

We're receiving 50 million dollars for the arena at closing.

Right.

So and through the chair.

It's one thing that I know.

I might not know how to spell, I might not know how to fix on a car, but I know business, and that's why I'm getting that money.

So I'll pass.

Thank you, council member.

Councilmember Fife.

I will keep my uh comments brief because I really want to hear from the originators of this work that have been tirelessly um working on this project from day one.

I wanted to say thank you to AESEG and the all of the supporters, all of the people that you've brought tirelessly back and forth to council despite all of the criticism, despite all of the naysayers.

Um I'm proud to be here with you all today because I believed in this project from day one and have been a part of the team with Councilmember Houston, Councilmember Ramachandran, and Council Member Brown to ensure that we continue this process because I believed in the process and we we did hit some snags, we did have some complications, but we are here today despite those challenges.

So I'm proud to stand with you from day one and proud to stand with you today.

Um I will say that you know it was a tough negotiation, and we couldn't be here without people like Brendan Moriarty.

Um Bradley has been amazing throughout this entire process, making sure that the financial outlook and the plans that we were working on were in the best interest of the city.

Um Kelly Kahn, Joanne Dunnock, under the leadership of Ashley Cannett in economic and workforce development.

Um even today I'm listening to you, Brendan, just respond to some of the questions, and you are a class act.

So I just wanted to appreciate you on the record for that.

Um I also want to tell folks who have been negative about this project just to look at some of the other projects that the city has done on city owned property, like um the rotunda.

I I encourage people to look at the history of the rotunda sale, the uptown.

There were several parcels in this district.

Um what else do we have?

Uh the East 12th remainder parcel, which I was also a part of helping organize that that public uh land deal that eventually went to affordable housing, and the Wood Street parcel in in my um in my district as well.

One of the things I wanted to point out was that I did advocate or continue to advocate for uh the surcharge on uh ticket sales.

Uh it originated under the leadership of Council President Um Nikki Fortunato Bass.

And and I supported uh a surcharge that would support arts and culture in the city of Oakland, and not necessarily just be relegated to one part of the city, but to support artists across the entire city of Oakland because we do not have a funding source for arts and culture in the city of Oakland, and right now, what we have literally holding us up for the world to see is our arts and culture, our food.

Um people often blame the city council or city leadership for uh uh not having sports teams and all of the sports teams leaving the city, but I would argue that it's billionaire sports teams that don't contribute to the city outside of uh having some somebody to root for uh is the problem.

When the A's left, they met with me three times to ask me to help the city get 300 million dollars to build their stadium.

And I said, if I have 300 million dollars, I'm going to solve homelessness in my city.

I'm not gonna give a billionaire sports team 300 million dollars when you all don't pour anything back into the city.

One of the ways we can is to support arts and culture so that we can continue to have our artists who cannot afford to live here, who are consistently being pushed out, but doing everything that they can to remain housed in a city that is becoming more and more unaffordable to support uh the work that they provide.

I understand that my my colleagues want all of the revenues to stay in East Oakland, and I understand that East Oakland has been under-resourced for decades.

And I know that the people who are leading this work through OAC are going to work to change that.

But I would argue that um, you know, this will come back to the full council uh because these funds will go to the general purpose fund to put on the record again that I think it's important that we do more to have an ongoing funding source source for uh festivals and events in East Oakland at Arroyo Viejo, but also at Mosswood and also at um uh some of the parks in in West Oakland who are also underserved.

But that is just uh one of the things that I argued for.

We can't get into the details of closed session, but I think it's it's it needed to be stated for the record.

Um that said, I said I wasn't gonna talk too long.

I apologize.

I'm just really really excited to be here on this day, and I know um we all are as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ken.

Thank you, Councilmember Wong.

Oh, just uh one uh final thing that I think is important to discuss publicly is um I think some of the naysayers have also stated that you know this buyer uh doesn't have the capacity um to deliver on this deal, and um I would like someone from the staff to just speak on your assessment of uh whether uh your assessment of this OAC group can in fact deliver on the payment plan.

Yes, uh through the chair to Councilmember Wong.

Um, the one of the slides talked about um who is behind OAC, and that's the uh teaming up of ASEG and Luke Capital.

Loop Capital is a major investment bank based in Chicago amongst the partnership.

There's um from staff uh assessment.

There's no question that there's access to capital there.

Um, the question is simply a question of when are the conditions such that the that the entity forms to purchase the property can be in a position to perform, and I think bringing the two interests together, the county side, the city side really goes a long way to creating those conditions.

Um so our our assessment is that the the money is there amongst the partnership, um, and that this um ordinance in front of you will kind of reinforce and help create the conditions in which the single purpose entity can actually go ahead and um use the funds and purchase the property.

Thank you.

Um before we move to public comment, just want to express my strong support for this proposed deal.

Um, a lot of thanks to our city's negotiating team.

I always call it the new and improved deal because while our purchase price still remains that 125, there's a lot of additional revenue streams that are hopefully gonna be flowing to the city that weren't there before.

Um, like council president Jenkins mentioned, we're putting this money, upfront money, into um fiscally responsible things, not recurring costs in our city budget.

Our budget already passed on June 12th, into paying down some of our pension liabilities, of which we have almost two billion dollars of unfunded liabilities for.

Um, I'm excited that this is not just one-time money, that there is the real potential of ongoing money through um ticket revenue sharing, through taxes that generate over the years, and perhaps most importantly, the savings to our general fund for a property that's currently operating out of lost.

I know the leaders in this room and those who have been with this deal from the start have a deep commitment to making sure that East Oakland finally gets a piece of the pie and gets long overdue investment into economic development jobs and so much more, with the possibility of hundreds of new shows and events per year.

There's a real prospect of economic revitalization in Oakland.

So I'm grateful for everyone that's made us this happen and got us to this point.

And with that, I will pass it on to Madam Clerk to read out the public speakers.

Thank you so much.

As I call your name, please approach the podium in any order.

Please state your name for the record before beginning.

If you are on Zoom, you wish to speak on this item, and you submitted a card.

Please raise your hand so I can easily identify you.

Miss C.

Cunningham, Blair Beekman, Damien Rainey, Damien Scott, Kathy Eberhart, Paul Cobb, John Jones the Third, Lynn Turner, David Peters, Doug Blackshear, Vanessa Riles, Delilah Aviles, Gay Cobb, and Ray Bobbit, and Zach T.

In any order, please approach the podium or raise your hand on Zoom so I can easily identify you if you wish to speak on this item.

Don't all come at once.

And there's a mic on the table if you prefer to use that.

Good morning to each and everyone.

My name is Mrs.

Cecilia Cunningham.

I am from District 7.

And Ken Houston, he is my council member.

And I want to say also that I've been living here in Oakland over 65 years or better.

And I definitely want to see.

Thank you.

Yes, hello, City Council.

My name is Kathy Eberhardt, and I live in District 2 of Oakland.

I have lived here over 10 years.

I want to thank the City Council for ensuring there is affordable housing, jobs, environmental protections, and other community benefits from this from the sale and development of the Coliseum.

I am in supportive of what you have to offer and what your plans are.

But it is imperative.

Let me say imperative that you do include and sure that the community benefits process includes robust community involvement and engagement.

That is an imperative.

We need a community benefits agreement that is between the community and the developer OAC.

So please ensure that that happens.

Thank you.

John Jones III for the record.

Through the chair, I want to urge you all to vote yes.

I just want to make a few points.

As this as the presentation indicated, the ENA that's a city council agreed with A S C took place in November of 2021.

So those of you who recall, the mayor was actually Liberty Chef.

I want to start there for a reason.

The whole point is this was not Shang's deal.

Respectfully.

The work started in 2020, and this has been a long process.

And I want to say this.

I respect all of you.

I love the questions you all ask.

I want people to understand something.

Prior to me being a member of AACG, I'm an Oakland native, just like my teammates are.

And I'm also an activist.

The same questions you asked would be the same questions I would have asked of anybody.

And if you notice, we never once got a rebuttal.

We didn't get offended.

But I want the public to understand something.

Where was those public meetings when it related to the county's half undivided interest sold to the A's?

Was anybody there to speak?

Nope, because you didn't know it happened.

So I just want you to know that we have to endure this, right?

And that some of you have experience.

I'm looking at Council Member Fife in particular.

Members of our team also had to endure personal attacks.

And we came here for one key reason.

I wish Mr.

Mr.

Jeffrey Pete was here.

Because he loved when I say this.

Gertrude Stein once made this comment about Oakland, the place we love.

There is no there.

What is she talking about?

There is no there at the Coliseum.

There's no A's, there's no Raiders, there's no Warriors.

We want to put a there back there.

For those of us who grew up, there was the Malibu and Grand Prix, right?

There was a movie theater.

I'm raising kids here.

I should not have to leave the city of Oakland just to have a good time with my children.

So we're here to put that there.

At the end of the day, I'm just one last thing.

East Oakland, 1960.

Still dealt with Red Lion.

My father was born in 1954.

And we still couldn't get a place to leave until 1971.

So think about that history because it ain't that far away.

Hello, Council and Community.

My name is Delaila Villes.

I'm with U Spirit Artworks, a transitional housing shelter right in the East.

And I'm also with Oakley United Coalition here.

Also, I'm just a person from District 7, grew up in District 7.

And I'm here to make some recommendations to the council to amend some of the term sheet to make public land safe for public good, and that any public land sold should have a community benefits agreement to it.

And to be clear that the arena parcel is public land and that that should have benefits forever.

And then I also want to mention that the community benefits should be negotiated and driven by community and OAC, not just the city and OAC.

It should be clear that communities should have their autonomy to self-determine on behalf of ourselves, city developers, and community is not always synonymous, and the interests are conflicting.

And that having a CBO or community based organization doing the work facilitating equitable development could alleviate some of the pressure on the city or the developer and provide more transparency and representation in the benefits.

And that this Oakland is our main partner as a transitional housing shelter for youth.

And this is an example of how when land, business, and sales conflict, sometimes community interest is not always at the center.

And so communities like YSA and me as a formerly unhoused youth want to see us to continue to be in existence.

And how do we do that through advocating for ourselves?

And why it should be negotiated.

And I also wanted to lastly encourage and uplift the work of Oakland United as collecting a lot of visions and community input for the Coliseum redevelopment and how we have access on the grassroots.

Good morning, Damien Scott in District 3 with East Bay Housing Organizations, which is a member of the Oakland United Coalition.

EPPO organizes and mobilizes residents and developers of affordable housing in Oakland across the East Bay, including those living in affordable housing in the Coliseum area, which includes Lines Creek's Crossing Coliseum Place, and hopefully eventually at the Coliseum.

I want to echo what my colleagues have shared.

Our thanks for the City of Oakland and ASEG for its commitment to developing a strong CBA for the Coliseum redevelopment that includes, among other things, requirements for affordable housing.

I also want to reiterate the need to ensure that there's a robust community involvement and engagement in the official community benefits process.

Thank you.

Good morning, Council.

Thank you and Council President Council Jenkins.

I don't see him.

But we really really appreciate what you guys have done.

Lynn Turner, business owner and born and raised in Oakland.

What you guys, and we hope that you pass, we we support it is huge.

It's historical.

We can try to wait until everything is perfect, you know, and we'll lose out again.

Every time we get in a sense of a possible seat at the table, then other negotiations have to take place.

I've been through this so many times.

And then at the end of the day, we lose out.

So if we try to wait until everything and everybody's happy and everything is perfect, it's not gonna happen.

So what you guys have done, you guys being the council and others have done a lot of great work already.

You understand what's going on, and I did I diddle everything that's been said in a positive way towards this project.

We finally get a seat at the table, where decisions are going to be made about our city, the city of Oakland, City of East or East Oakland as well, and it is a huge deal for workforce for contractors.

Now we can start to decide how things are developed.

And if you guys move this forward, we'll be uh we'll be a part of it, and we really appreciate it because this is historic.

I don't know in Oakland uh when a deal has been done like this with uh black people leading it.

Yes, if we're gonna be inclusive, but leadership where we're a boss in a sense at the table, it's historic.

Thank you guys.

Hello, City Council, Chair, uh, President is not here.

My name is Doug Blackshire, community advocate, business advocate, specifically Oakland, specifically black businesses, and political person who puts people in office or help to get them out of office when they're not doing their jobs.

Oakland has an opportunity to be the vision, not just here in Oakland and the county and the state, but across this nation globally.

I host the Black Business Roundtable on Black USA.news, which goes coast to coast, border to border, even received a call from China.

I'm proud to sit up here and say that I've worked with Ray Bobbitt, Shonda Scott, John Jones, or the rest of the African American Sports and Entertainment Group to push this deal through.

When the former A's owner paid people to dissolve this deal, prior to Ray Bobbitt and his group taking on this great opportunity.

No one was even interested in the Coliseum.

And if you drive down there, it looks like a third-world country.

That's what the A's owner thought of this deal and of the Coliseum.

I look forward to you making the right decision.

So that the next time I air, I can say that we in Oakland, California, we care about all people, specifically black people who have been denied 400 years of equal opportunity and economic development in this country.

Thank you.

I want to thank the city council for convening a public forum on this.

And I want to briefly remind each of you that when this deal first started, the Oakland A's, Dave Caval, the president, came to my office and asked me if the Post would consider being a consultant or advisor to the A's on how they could effectively acquire and move out.

I told them then if you're serious about affordable housing, why don't you build the affordable housing first, and the community would come to you?

That did not happen.

I wrote a front page editorial asking AASEG and Ray Bobbitt to buy the Coliseum and not try to be a joint venture minority subcontractor.

And they did.

They didn't get it just because they had a very large billionaire uh financial capital firm out of Chicago as a partner.

They did it because they had hundreds of thousands of residents of East Oakland that came and testified before the council to get you to vote uh unanimously for the project.

And they have community support and they're committed to jobs, economic development, and business opportunity.

If AASEG had been at the table, we would not have lost some of the teams because we now find out who the true warrior is.

Thank you, Mr.

Cobb.

Your time is up.

I was about to say.

Thank you, Mr.

Cobb.

Hello, Damian Rainey.

I'm a resident, experienced researcher, policy analyst, and a sports futurist.

So I appreciate hearing about all the community benefits, the scholarships, the job shouting, the local hiring, all those remind us that the Coliseum is more than just a real estate asset, it's also a civic asset.

During the presentation, we heard about how the Coliseum costs money, how there's operating losses.

That deal that was made in 95 that brought all the bonds.

Will these operating losses still exist going forward?

So those are two different financial stories.

If much of the burden came from financing decisions rather than operations, that changes how the public should evaluate the future operations for the site.

There's some new questions that popped up also.

Why is the city redirecting the operating subsidy to the buyer after closing?

Is there a public benefit that justifies that?

In normal real estate deals, you don't normally sell the house and then continue to make payments.

So just curious about that.

We've talked about the 6% gross ticket sales.

How, you know, you know how long it goes, it goes continually.

Um is it intended to replace some of the value the city gives up by selling its ownership stake and going back to selling the arena cell is this seems to be a significant evolution in this entire deal.

Was it always part of the long-term strategy, or is this more of a recent thing, the first publicly available information uh came out in uh so just going forward?

I'm just hoping the public can better understand why not only this particular transaction works, but also why selling this irreplaceable public asset is prefer preferable to retaining ownership over the long term.

This isn't just a little first this way, off-type topic.

Most uh the genius at August 16th, September 26, uh C-O-R-N is the week.

Um, GLDM 8475-8625 is your mid-range.

Play URA for the rest of the year.

Um is a uh questionable application.

The famous um reactor in England, based on the Heliotron, and a two-year treasury, no time frame uh went from 8.6 to 12.83 billion to 34.86, and some appraises have it at 53.86 at developmental site efficiencies based on the what is also known as the Chicago development with the office of the administrator.

Um the other site is the Kansas City of Stadium compared to the Facebook um building.

Um we are seeking review for that based on um TVA Authority v the United States, Dove V Rubinstein, Barby the United States, New York Pistol and Rifle V the US, Michigan v the EPA, Colorado River Basin v the um uh U.S.

Um Trump um the Water Resource Board and Voices of the Wetland via the water resource board.

If um special recommendation district 934 uh.28 um v the U.S.

is wondered in Hensley v.

the NRDC.

Uh project builds would be development based on capital efficiency standards.

Um Chicago Title is a title company that I do own and operate.

Thank you.

Matter of fact, um, Mr.

Ray Bobbitt, he just wanted me to take part of his time to speak about his grandmother, which was Teddy Ratford, a beautiful person.

Matter of fact, she lived here for many, many, many years.

She worked with Gladys Green, they were very close friends.

They lived at working across the street, diagonal across the street from one another.

And a matter of fact, they were forerunners for Oakland, California.

They always was at any meeting we had for District 7.

They were here at City Hall speaking, and behalf of whatever we needed to be done here in Oakland, they did it.

And I wanted to say to you all, we appreciate you guys, and we would really want you guys to really vote yes on this project.

I'm gonna hand it over to Mr.

Ray Bobbitt, because he is doing a great job, and we're gonna have to support him because this has made history for Oakland, California.

Uh thank you, Ms.

Cunningham.

Um I just wanted to say that uh first of all, we just wanted to thank the city, the city negotiating team, the city council members, the mayor's office, everybody.

Um so often you guys do work that's so underappreciated and is thankless, and uh the city administrators' office, everybody working together.

That has been the case from the beginning of this process.

And I think that from a historical perspective, one of the things that Miss Cunningham represents is a lot of the elders in our community who have wanted to see something like this as an opportunity for us.

So I just wanted to say that and thank everybody.

Secondly, I just wanted to shed some light on the arena uh from the beginning in their original purchase and sell agreement.

We always had that as a vehicle because it's really Bobbitt, do you have anything else you'd like to say?

Uh yes, please.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um I just wanted to just talk about that briefly, because in order for this to be a viable uh development, we realized that Chase Center is new, and we believe that an entity, maybe Google or somebody is gonna be investing quite a bit of money in the South Bay uh arena, and so for this arena to have the capacity to be competitive was very critical, and for this site to be competitive was very critical.

So I just wanted to kind of clear that up because I know that that's been a question, and equally as important, we started this process in a competitive bidding process, and we're on our fifth mayor and our third city administrator, uh Betsy.

Um, and but and a city council that's changed, but the spirit of this council has been always supportive of this process, and the spirit of this city has been supportive of this process, and we just wanted to thank you for believing in us and for uh sticking with us and allowing us to move forward.

So thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

If your name was Connie in your chambers and you wish to speak, please um address comes to the mic.

Vanessa Riles, Gay Player Cobb.

Otherwise, we'll move to the Zoom speakers.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Vanessa Riles, and I'm an Oakland resident.

I'm a member of the Oakland United coalition, which has been working very hard to make sure that there's a comprehensive community benefits agreement at the Coliseum redevelopment, and I'm just here to support this deal today and appreciate everything that has gone into making it happen.

We did have some concerns about switching the community benefits so that they're only applicable to the stadium, um, and not to the arena because there are jobs at the arena, and part of the community benefits agreement is about jobs, making sure that there's collective bargaining agreements, living wage jobs, etc.

So taking all of the community benefits only to the Coliseum, only to the stadium parcel is concerning.

Although we did we were able to have a conversation with Ray Bobbitt and were assured that all of the collective bargaining agreements and other worker agreements would be upheld by the arena buyer, but it is concerning to us that the city didn't do that and didn't put that into the term sheet to begin with.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Moving to the Zoom speakers, Blair Beekman, please unmute yourself and begin your comments.

Hi, uh Blair Beekman.

Um thank you for this item today.

It's been a long time.

Uh you guys have been working on it.

Uh thanks for the slide presentation by uh council person Houston.

Uh it showed what is going on at the Coliseum now and what AASEG is really capable of doing for the future of the Coliseum Stadium area.

And um it was nice.

I'm really hopeful in in the work of AASEG and what they can be doing.

And um Councilperson Gaillo brought in um questions also.

Um, you know, it's been my feeling that you know, we're all really hoping that the A's could have been making agreements with the AASEG to um, you know, turn their ownership over to the A's team to to the group, to the AASCG group, and what they could be developing as a community process for the future of the area.

Um, that hasn't happened, but hopefully, um, from the words of council person gallop um the other part of this deal uh and the A's current ownership, they will want to be very friendly and negotiable in what I mean.

You guys have a really good idea what to build for the future of the area, and it's really exciting, and I hope the A's can be fully on board with that and the county and the A's move forward um with the work you want to do, and um getting those agreements together, uh, really good luck with that.

It uh I heard you know the words uh continuing the community participation process.

Good luck on those efforts.

It can really make something clear and understandable what a good future is possible.

Uh what we could be doing.

And so um, you know, it's it's always nice to hear uh Oakland's side of talking about these things.

Good luck how we learn better negotiation skills with Oakland, I mean with the county, and uh.

Thank you for your comments, Mr.

Beekman.

Going to the next speaker, David Peters.

Please unmute yourself and begin your comments.

Uh thank you.

This is Bleacher Dave, Dave Peters.

Uh, very generational resident.

Uh, you know, it's once been said where there is no vision, the people shall perish.

And I want to congratulate the original four founding, four, four founding uh founders of AASEG for their vision.

Uh I think like me, they grew up in the collider of the city of this cathedral of champions on 66th Avenue.

Watching those teams bring us together in a way in a community build and develop a pride in Oakland that nothing but sports can do.

Give us a global brand.

If you spend your youth here and let's go, Oakland, readers, and remember when Jamal Wilp's nickname was Keith, you know what a special place that Coliseum was.

No sports and venues like that are one of our last remaining democratic public spaces where you may be able to meet anybody in any wake of life and not know anything about them, but they share the same passion as you.

It is a true, true detriment to our community that we don't have a space where everybody loves Oakland like that, and didn't learn to love Oakland in their youth and share that with their grandparents and their grandkids.

But that's no longer before us.

Now we have to look forward.

And I really really just want to congratulate everybody involved.

Uh AASEG, loop capital, the negotiators, everybody involved in this for as it's once been said, is making lemonade out of lemons.

Uh this deal preserves the value of the property at the time of commercial real estate is cratered and it allows and has a vision uh for for growth for Oakland in the area that hasn't had it.

But yet, while I've heard people say East Oakland has been just neglected for years and decades, West Oakland has for generations.

And so extracting my tax wealth from West Oakland in support of East Oakland only is not a just outcome.

We do demand more justice, a more equitable justice as we move to the few words most of all thanks to all.

Web my baby.

Thank you everyone for your comments.

That was the last speaker.

Thank you very much.

I will uh call on administrator Lake to read in a friendly amendment.

Thank you.

There's one procedural technical amendment um, and that is to move section three, delete it from the ordinance, uh, and move it to a resolution that will come on the 21st.

So we'll come together.

Section three is the provision that appropriates and directs the proceeds of the initial lump sum payment uh to the California public employees retirement system.

Uh so that provision will just be removed from this ordinance and will be put into a resolution that will come on the 21st.

Thank you.

Um Councilmember Houston, as the maker of the motion, do you accept this amendment?

Yes, I do.

I accept it.

Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Fife.

I just wanted to state, I don't I don't think I made it clearly um, I I didn't state clearly that to the public speakers that came around the community benefits agreement.

I wanted to just tell you all directly that I hear you.

It made me remember that I was a part of Oakland United back in 2015 when we were pushing back against Floyd Kephart and Coliseum City when the property values just on the talk of redeveloping that site shot up property values in East Oakland and people started getting eviction notices like back to back to back.

So I wanted to acknowledge that I'm not new to this, I'm true to this.

So I understand the the ground on which you fight, and I will continue to advocate for those um community benefits because I understand um the struggle and and everything that's been a part of it going forward.

So I wanted to say that I wanted to let you all know that I hear you.

Um secondly, I will second this motion because I think it is a historic moment for Oakland and I'm I'm proud to be a part of this process.

Thank you.

Okay, Councilmember Houston.

I I'd like to just share this to the public because Councilmember Fife mentioned something that's very important.

Councilmember Fife go way back as community advocates, community activists go way back before we was elected.

And that's why when I saw the deal, you know, we gotta make the best deal for the city in the best interest of the city.

And that's why I flew out to Southern California, talked to uh spoke to Mr.

Irving personally over some some soup.

And he said that he would um he said he would uh do the community benefit piece, um, and I believe him.

He's old school and he and he but by the handshake and I believe him, even though that it is private person buying it.

But like I said, we just this new council here has made this deal work, and I believe in it, and I believe it's gonna work, so I'll yield the floor.

Okay, great.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

We can call the vote.

We have a motion by Councilmember Houston, second seconded by councilmember five to introduce this ordinance as amended.

Councilmember Brown.

Oops, sorry.

Aye.

Councilmember Five.

Aye.

Councilmember Gu.

Councilmember Houston.

Aye, for sure.

Councilmember Councilmember Unger.

Aye.

Councilmember Wong.

Aye.

And Chair Ramachandran.

Aye.

Motion passes with a vote of six ayes, one no Gaia, one excuse.

Council President Jenkins.

Final passage for this item will be July 21st.

Open forum.

Okay.

Sure.

Um, we are on open forum, but if Mayor Lee would like to say anything on open forum, so nothing agendized, please feel free to come up to the podium.

No, I just want to um thank everyone for uh moving this deal forward.

I want to uh thank uh all of the partners.

Urban is here, all of the partners who have helped make this happen, as I said earlier at our press conference.

You all have put in a heck of a lot of time and work.

This started before I became mayor.

Uh and I was proud to help push it over the finish line, but I want to thank uh especially councilmember Houston, Guyo, yes, for your voice.

Five, Rowena Brown, Johnny Ramachandran, Charlene Wang, Zach Unger, all of you.

Whereas President Jenkins for making sure this happened and our uh negotiating team led by our interim city administrator Betsy Lake and our finance director Bradley Johnson.

I mean, they put in a heck of a lot of time.

Irvin, you wanna come up during is it okay?

Um Madam Chair, if if I ask Irvin to come up and say a few words, or is that out of order?

Okay.

No, if it's out of order, just say, I will defer to the parliamentary.

I just thank you.

Okay, it's my discretion, yes.

Yes, please please do come up.

I have discretion, I guess.

So, thank you.

I would just like to second everything that we that we talked about in the press conference and had a lovely meeting with the mayor, and we remain committed and ready to go, and we will not disappoint you.

And thank you very, very much for your trust and your patience.

Thank you so much.

It's a good news day.

Thank you again.

Moving to open forum, thank you everyone for your patience.

Um, Miss Cecilia Culling, excuse me, Cunningham, Blair Beekman, Damian Rainey, and David Peters, in any order on open forum if you would like to speak.

If not, we will go to the Zoom speakers.

Does anyone in chambers wish to speak on open forum?

Moving to our Zoom speakers, Blair Beekman, you are first.

Please unmute yourself and begin your comments.

All right, Blair Beekman.

I'm not fully sure, but just uh if the if the question needs to be clarified, were there um health issues involved with why uh the Oakland Ace Stadium downtown wasn't feasible in the end?

Um I think it's an important question that we should be clear on uh at this time for this type of issue.

And you mentioned with the Costco issue coming up that I don't want to hurt, but I feel I have to be honest in in such reporting.

So if that can help clarify the situation, um, good luck how it can.

And overall, you know, um good luck that it seems like Oakland's taking important strides to understand the concept of what community participation is about and how much it really adds to the process.

Um, you know, city administration is trying to really create a sense of you know order again.

Uh they they want a certain sense of control.

They're understanding community participation is important.

Mr.

Peters, you're on next.

Please begin your comments.

Thank you, ma'am.

Uh three quick points.

First one, I am sickened by some of the things that people have said about the principles in this transaction.

Uh I saw an article yesterday uh talking about the installment payment plan, and made no reference to the fact that the Oakland Athletics got the same deal from the county.

Why are we treating black folks one way and other folks a different way when we talk about their capability and competence?

I think we understand well why uh that happens.

Uh I also want to say, you know, I heard a lot of people being thanked, but I forgot I didn't hear the most important people being thanked.

The people generations of my family have poured their tax money into that facility for instance before it opened.

We are the forgotten ones.

Nobody has mentioned us.

We we all didn't pay for that.

We the ones that did that.

Finally, uh, you know, I've done a lot of work around with with uh trying to make sure that culture and history are included as a community benefit.

That site is sacred with all its sports memories, build up how.

Thank you, Mr.

Peters, Mr.

Rainey, go ahead.

Yeah, so um.

I think the main question I've had is when should cities sell irreplaceable civic assets instead of retaining the ownership.

We understand when you know the whole budget fiasco was going on and it was like, hey, we're gonna get this hundred million and throw it here, which you know you can argue about that, uh whether that was going to be correct or not, but that's kind of the main thing I'm thinking about.

We give this up, it's not coming back.

We sell the arena, and then it defaults on the Coliseum.

We can't get the arena back.

So I think that's really my core question.

And then if we're going to go forward on this, what can the city do to make this happen?

Because think think about we got the Oakland Army base.

What fell apart there?

That was public ownership.

We have Oaknall.

That's well, you know, that was private ownership.

And it even kind of it hasn't worked out the way it's supposed to.

So if we're gonna push this forward and maximize this five, six billion dollar property, what changes.

Thank you, sir.

Your time is up.

Okay.

Thank you, Madam City Clark.

The meeting is adjourned.