City Council - meeting_joint_special

Thank you.

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'd 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 in an online speaker card, they were due 24 hours before the start of this meeting. This meeting was called to order at 1037, so you will have until 1237 to submit your speaker card, or until when the item is called, whichever comes first.

Where's my gavel?

On roll for this item, Councilmember, I'm sorry, on roll, Councilmember Brown. Present. Councilmember Fife is excused. Excused. Councilmember Gallo.

Present.

Councilmember Houston. Present. Councilmember Ramachandran. Present. Sorry, Councilmember Ramachandran. Present. Councilmember Unger.

Here.

Councilmember Wong. Present. And President Kev.

President Kev here.

Showing seven members present, one excused. Do you have any announcements?

No announcements. How many speakers do we have? As customary, I'm giving two minutes for each speaker.

Noting the arrival of council member 5 at 1038. I take it there are no modifications to this agenda.

Seeing none.

Going to the item. This is your last chance to turn to 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. 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 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 6% of the annual gross ticket sales for any event at the arena parcel and the stadium parcel less applicable taxes. Amending Ordinance Number 13801, conditioning the sale to require development on site, 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 $16,438.36, limited to the period between the stadium parcel closing December 31st and adopting appropriate CEQA findings. You have 21 speakers on this item?

Thank you. City Administrator Lake.

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 wanna thank the negotiating teams from our finance department and economic workforce and development department. I also really wanna 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 will help advance that vision while working closely with the city's consolidated fiscal policy and upholding the hard work that this city council has done to advance this organization toward fiscal health. 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, 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 Kahn, the Assistant Director for Economic and Workforce Development, and Deborah Edgerly, former City Administrator and annuitant in the City Administrator's Office, and then also Joanne Dunnick from the City Attorney's Office. She's on Zoom and available to answer legal questions. Okay, we can go ahead with the presentation here. The Coliseum complex, the subject of the transaction, is the area in blue here. This is a 112-acre property that includes the Oakland Coliseum and 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 stadium parcel, as we refer to it, is everything else. So that's the 103 acres Oakland Coliseum plus parking areas. You can just see the two separate parcels here. So arena parcel in blue, stadium parcel in 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 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. And this cost 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 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 AASCG's investment partner, is a full-service investment bank brokerage and advisory firm based in Chicago. AASCG 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 subject of this legislation is with OAC. But behind that is AASCG and Loop Capital. so that 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 sale 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 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 to $110 million. It also added $15 million 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, again, up from 105 million. In the intervening couple of years, OAC has been underway negotiating with Alameda County to acquire the other 50% interest, which, because this is 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 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 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. 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 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 cost the city's general fund approximately six million dollars every year. This OAC would make their existing five million deposit that the city has on hand 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 5% 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. There would still be the $15 million 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 in the order of $3 million. 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. The city would complete its responsibility or subsidy of the operations on the ground through the calendar year. 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 roots and for the cricket matches that happen there to 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 um 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 six 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. Parcels really is just one property, so we did not distinguish 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 we would transfer title very quickly in the coming months. There would be outstanding payments. How are those secured? In 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 OAC and guarantee the city recourse in the event that the city is not paid in full and on time. um this guarantee needs to be delivered by january 1 2027 or four months after closing if there's any delay there penalties will apply um two two penalties in particular one is that the city's uh contribution or continuing responsibility for the losses at the end of the calendar year that would be suspended a portion 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 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.

Okay, we'd love to have the presentation still up, thank you. Thank you, Brad Johnson, Director of Finance. So 50 million of the city's arena sales will be 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 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 to the city of Oakland in the form of 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 particular arrangement does maintain your existing purchase price. It provides multiple mechanisms to ensure that the city 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 $3 million annually. 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 $6 million on an annual basis. It is a responsible use of one-time resources, and staff does recommend this body approve the deal. Thank you.

Thank you so much for that thorough, thorough, thorough, thorough presentation, and I just wanna state what I stated publicly, which I stated in the press conference. I thank the team of four that led negotiations with city administration and OAC, that being Council Member Five, Council Member Brown, Council Member Ramachandra, and Council Member Houston. I wanna thank all, the rest of the council members, Council Member Gallo, 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, the Warriors, oh, we won the Warriors' deal. they're paying us, but it's important that we are fiscal stewards with the taxpayer money, 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, 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, that $6 million a year will be valuable towards fixing those issues, helping us solve the homelessness issue. I also wanna 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, which have ballooned, and we wanna make sure that we are not, that we're getting ahead of that. I also wanna thank Councilmember Houston for ensuring that we got every last cent that we could out of ASEG and Oakland Acquisition Group, because he cares so deeply about the community. As I've stated before, I'll state again, Councilmember Brown, with my help, is going to lead the community benefits agreements, and we will be steadfast that East Oakland organizations will be at the helm of that table. Black-led organizations will be fighting to be at the head of that table. This is our community. We have been disenfranchised for years, absolutely years, decades. And so we wanna make sure that the proceeds, that the jobs, that the opportunities go back to the East Oaklanders and Oaklanders in general in that neighborhood. And I just wanna thank council. I wanna thank Ray Bobbitt 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. Similar remarks, I just really wanna thank the entire negotiation team. As mentioned, Bradley Johnson from finance, also Deborah Edgerly, the entire team at EWD. and also my council colleagues that were in the administration as well, and also my council colleagues that were on those calls that we would get a moment's notice to attend, Council Member Houston, Council Member Fife, and Council Member Ramachandran. And what I really found was that the process was very transparent and very collaborative. We were engaged at every point of the negotiations. We were able to provide our feedback, raise questions, and offer our perspectives. And I was also really glad to lead out on a part of the deal around the 6%. annual gross for ticket sales from events at the arena, the stadium, and any future entertainment venues developed on the property. And we know that this is really important because this is gonna help to ensure the long-term investment actually pours back into the community, into East Oakland. And I just wanna take a moment, because in the presentation it wasn't mentioned, but in the packet, it details 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 already established benefit that is very clear is around the affordable housing commitment where it states at least 25 percent of any residential unit developed on the site must be affordable housing right so i think that in all the ways we were really looking out for our east oakland community and just oaklanders in general and so I'm really grateful for, and I look forward to partnering alongside Council President Jenkins and Council Member Houston as we really work to ensure that East Oakland residents are really front and center in the community benefit agreements, and I look forward to voting in favor of this agreement today. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member. Who's mic is that? Oh, Council Member Houston.

Thank you, Chair. I wanna thank my colleagues, I wanna thank Council Member Brown, and I wanna 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 wanna be clear that what Council Member Brown just said, these community benefits is huge for me, for me and my community, but that's on the stadium side. That's not on the arena side because the arena was going to be sold to a private owner. And they don't have to do what the stadium side has to do. They don't. 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, 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, safety, mentoring. And it was a handshake. It wasn't an MOU. An 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 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 we spoke, and I said, since 2012, 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, in District Six and Seven. And he said, I'm gonna do the same thing. He didn't have to say that, right? And I passed this book out to all my colleagues to show that you guys can look at to show what has been happening. This was before predated me being an elected official, right? I'm just a community advocate, born and raised on the one way in East Oakland, right? 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 wanna do a real brief, President, if you don't mind, it's just real, some pictures, so I can show the audience, because being elected, We gotta be transparent 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. Chantel 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 gotta 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. Mr. Irving said he was gonna take it and do the same thing. so um okay top can you just slide a couple so this one right here was the backpack um 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 to show what they were doing in school next one please And this was a scholarship. You'll see my brother over there to the left, Len Turner. It was 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 the 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 was 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 stagehand. They actually shadowed. It was huge. 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 councilmember fife we came to your district and did it we came to noel's district did it a 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 kata okay that's it so uh... 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 to look him up he did his handshakes back in hollywood back in the day so i've got a question for the city attorney city attorney can you come up to or somebody can speak or or the city attorney uh... my ordinance In April 2025, I wanted the county to do the deal first. I wanted them to sign the paperwork so we could follow behind them. 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.

Senior Deputy City Attorney Joanne Dunnock is online to answer 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 Donick. I'm a senior deputy city attorney for the city. And in terms of your question, our purview only involves the city's interest. We don't control the county's interest.

Okay. Hold on.

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 INDEPENDENT WE OWN FIFTY PERCENT THEY OWN FIFTY PERCENT MY QUESTION IS IS THAT IN MY ORDINANCE THAT I PUT IN PLACE WAS ONE THREE EIGHT FOUR TWO FOUR TWO WITH REBECCA KAPLAN WAS THAT THAT DEAL HAD TO BE STRUCK WITH THE COUNTY FIRST 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 notice, or do they have to go back to the county to get this as binding, and do they have to do a couple more readings?

The county will have to take its own action on its own term sheet, and 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. The next thing is, how many more readings do we have to do through the chair?

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

I just want to first commend really my colleagues the negotiation team for all of your work leading to this point as well as the city staff Brendan for this for this work I really see this as an opportunity and acting on a vision that came from the community to ensure that Oakland becomes it already is a 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. When we compare Austin, Texas, no, we got to get this right here in Oakland, so this is incredibly exciting. That said, I think we have just some questions that have come from the public that I think deserve to be answered. one of the things that came up this morning and some reporting is just that the interest rate being offered is 5% by the city compared to a commercial lending Bradley do you mind responding to why why that there is that difference from the city

Thank you, and through the Chair, Council Member Wong. The 5% 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 on a financial transaction as a bank might. However, a 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? Okay

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 of the other city funds to 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 later years.

Right, and as noted, transfer of the title ensures that the city is no longer responsible for the ongoing subsidy, the $6 million a year.

That's correct. It removes us from the ongoing operations subsidy liability of the facility.

Okay, great. Final question is just in case there are issues, right, with actually getting the funding that is outlined in this deal in terms of our tools, foreclosure, as well as the penalty, the $100,000 per month, when does that become effective? Is that January 1st, 2027 or some other date?

As Brenda mentioned, we have three forms of guarantee on this property. One is the most notable is a deed of foreclosure, which the city will retain for the entire lifetime until all payments are made on the property. The city also 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 a agreement to have 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 items that apply So the idea is the city is built in suspenders, allowed multiple forms of security for its future payment cycle, and as you mentioned in your first question, preserved the current value of the parcel into future years.

Okay, great, thank you.

Okay, Council Member Ungerth and Council Member Gaya.

So yeah, I just want to make that clear. This is not a loan like when you're buying a house and the bank actually has to write a check to the seller and 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, as I said, have three forms of a guarantee. We will be able to go after the capitalized value in a 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 they don't pay 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 paid in the meantime for the operating costs 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 exercise the same remedy of retaking the property in the same context. The value would be the outstanding amount.

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

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, correct.

Thank you

And to clarify with Mr. Johnson, that's about $6 million a year. So six times seven is $42 million that we would have saved in case that doesn't happen. That's correct. Okay, thank you. Council Member Gallo, then Council Member Houston.

It's on?

Yes? Okay. Yes. Because it keeps going on and off. But anyways, 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. So the question that I have for you at this point to 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 Passed their own term sheet And then our staff has been coordinating with staff at the county as we pass their term sheet But have they supported what we have before us today?

This is public land. It is a business transaction Oakland is in 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 Oakland A's and we didn't even know about it. And we've been talking, negotiating, and making all kinds of comments on how great we are, but we didn't even find that out till after the fact. But anyway, so Alameda County has not given approval to what's before us. Secondly, has the JPA, the Joint Powers Authority that we created, have they approved what is being presented today?

Thank you. To go back to the county, the county term sheet and the city term sheet are consistent in large measure, so that is one item. The second, in terms of the JPA, the JPA between the city and county was formed solely to manage the property. They have no jurisdiction over the sale.

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 about the history of the arena and the Coliseum and how we got here. And so 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, returned 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 purse these amendments forward, but 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 we do include the representation that we had voted for to play a lead role in that 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 be functional for the public. And the other question that I, so we don't have, So the other questions that I have for you really deal with it in terms of the city administration. So the $50 million that we're looking at, if we generate it, is used to cover the COLA, the COLA of our city employees.

The $50 million is proposed to pay down our pension liability.

Which is the COLA.

Which is not the COLA.

So we're not including the COLA in this coverage. Correct. Okay, and 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 6%. 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 let Brendan Moriarty respond to that.

Through the chair, this was a negotiation. We started, I won't reveal the details of it in a public setting, I really can't, but we started higher. They started lower. We negotiated, we met in the middle, and the city's position was informed by our own third-party validation. The economic and workforce development department that I'm part of, we have On-call real estate consultants that we engaged to do market survey of these kinds of arrangements in other cities, some comparable to us, some larger, some smaller. And we concluded ultimately that where we arrived is consistent with the market.

So administratively, you recommended 6% and not 10%.

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

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've been asking for that and no one has provided that from the beginning. Is there a formal appraisal that the city and the county conducted to establish a value of what is the arena and the stadium and the other property surrounding it? What is the value? What is, you know, from the business perspective?

Through the chair, we have in the past conducted appraisal work and valuation work. And at the moment, the most relevant indicator of value are the transactions that have been negotiated and even entered into at the site. The county entered into an agreement to sell their 50% interest to the A's, Coliseum Way Partners, but to the A's in 2019 for $85 million. We entered into an agreement originally to sell our 50% interest for $105 million two years ago. We are now up to $110 million with the $15 million additional payments post-closing. So that's $125 million plus the ticket surcharge. 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 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's out of the picture, or are they still in the picture of negotiations since they own the stadium or that the county offer him 117 million to get out of it or what for the public to know?

So through the chair, your questions pertain to the county's 50% interest, which is not the subject of the ordinance before you today. And I can't speak for the county, but what I can represent based on publicly available information 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 the agreed upon purchase price that's an installment sale structure meaning the 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 and 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 county OAC term sheet, the non-binding term sheet that was approved about a month and a half ago by the Board of Supervisors, that that would resolve all of this. My understanding is that the county and OAC 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 make any contribution to the city of Oak?

Through the chair, yeah. 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.

Through the Chair, on April the 10th, 2025, this is exactly why I did this ordinance, was to actually get the county to do their deal first, right? So we'll know how to follow behind that. And that's the ordinance, you can look at that. So the county made their non-binding deal just basically, and you can talk to the city administrator, is basically the same of 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 out well. And also, I sit on the Joint Powers Authority, the JPA, with leadership of Henry Gardner directing us the right way what to do and what not to do, and we make our own decisions. And JPA is in unison with this also. 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 THIS IS THROUGH THE CHAIR TO COUNCIL MEMBER 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 GONNA GET OUR 50 MILLION THE COUNTY GONNA GET UP THERE 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 UH 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

Through the Chair to Councilmember Houston, yes. The nature of the two parcel sale means that the conversation that, 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 there would be no ongoing space. We are receiving $50 million 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 pass.

Thank you, Council Member, Council Member Fife.

I will keep my comments brief because I really want to hear from the originators of this work that have been tirelessly working on this project from day one. I wanted to say thank you to AASCG um 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 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 the team with council member houston council member ramachandran and council member brown to ensure that we continue this process because i believed in the process. And 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. I will say that, you know, it was a tough negotiation and we couldn't be here without people like Brendan Moriarty, 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. Kelly Kahn, Joanne Dunick, under the leadership of Ashley Cannon in Economic and Workforce Development. 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. 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 the Rotunda. I encourage people to look at the history of the Rotunda sale, the uptown, there were several parcels in this district. What else do we have? The East 12th remainder parcel, which I was also a part of helping organize 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 on uh ticket sales uh it originated under the leadership of council president nikki fortunato bass And I supported 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. And people often blame the city council or city leadership for... 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 having somebody to root for is the problem. When the A's left, they met with me three times to ask me to help the city get $300 million to build their stadium. And I said, if I have $300 million, I'm going to solve homelessness in my city. I'm not gonna give a billionaire sports team $300 million 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 the work that they provide. I understand that 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, you know, this will come back to the full council 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 festivals and events in East Oakland at Arroyo Viejo, but also at Mosswood and also at Some of the parks in in West Oakland who are also underserved But that is just one of the things that I argued for we can't get into the details of closed session But I think it's it needed to be stated for the record That said I said I wasn't going to talk too long. I apologize I'm just really really excited to be here on this day, and I know We all are as well.

Thank you Thank you come Thank You councilmember Wong

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

Yes, through the chair to Councilmember Wong. One of the slides talked about who is behind OAC, and that's the teaming up of ASEG and Loop Capital. Loop Capital is a major investment bank based in Chicago. Amongst the partnership, there's from staff, There's no question that there's access to capital there. The question is simply a question of when are the conditions such that the entity formed 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. So our assessment is that the the money is there amongst the partnership and that this 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 Use the funds and purchase the property Thank you before I move to public comment just want to express my strong support for this proposed deal

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 at 125, there's a lot of additional revenue streams that are hopefully going to be flowing to the city that weren't there before. Like Council President Jenkins mentioned, we're putting this money, upfront money, into 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 I'm excited that this is not just one-time money that there is the real potential of ongoing money through ticket revenue sharing through taxes that generate over the years and and perhaps most importantly, the savings to our general fund for a property that's currently operating out of the 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 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, Damian Rainey, Damian Scott, Kathy Eberhardt, Paul Cobb, John Jones III, Lynn Turner, David Peters, Doug Blackshear, Vanessa Riles, Delilah Aviles, Gay Cobb, and Ray Bobbitt, 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 I want to thank the Oakland City Council for ensuring that there is affordable housing, jobs, environmental protections, and other community benefits from the sale and development of the . I would like to urge the City of Council to further ensure that the community benefits process includes robust community involvement and engagement. We need a community benefit agreement that is between the community and the developer and the Oakland Aquacity Company. Thank you.

Yes, hello City Council. My name is Kathy Eberhard 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 the sale and development of the Coliseum. I am insupportive of what you have to offer and what your plans are, but it is imperative, let me say imperative, that you do include, ensure 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, THE THIRD, FOR THE RECORD. THROUGH THE CHAIR, I WANT TO URGE YOU ALL TO VOTE YES. I JUST WANT TO MAKE A FEW POINTS. AS THE PRESENTATION INDICATED, THE ENA THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AGREED WITH AISCG TOOK PLACE NOVEMBER OF 2021. SO THOSE OF YOU WHO RECALL, THE MAYOR WAS ACTUALLY LIBBY SHAFF. 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 wanna 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 of 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. Jeffrey Peet 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 there. What is she talking about? There is no there there at the Coliseum. There is no A's, there's no Raiders, there's no Warriors. We wanna 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 there. At the end of the day, I'm gonna say this one last thing. East Oakland, 1960, still dealt with redlining. My father was born in 1954, and we still couldn't get a place to live until 1971. So think about that history, because it ain't that far away.

Hello, council and community. My name is Delilah Aviles. I'm with Youth 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 currently, housing organizations like YSA and Unhoused Youth of East Oakland are being displaced right now and are on the margins of this development, 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. Damian Scott in District 3 with East Bay Housing Organizations, which is a member of the Oakland United Coalition. EPHO organizes and mobilizes residents and developers of affordable housing in Oakland and across the East Bay, including those living in affordable housing in the Coliseum area, which includes Lyons, Creeks, Cross, and 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 AACG 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 is a robust community involvement and engagement in the official community benefits process. When Oakland United actually surveyed hundreds of Oakland residents when this deal was first announced, including those living in the Coliseum area, they reiterated the needs for affordable housing, jobs, environmental protections, youth development, public green spaces in the community benefits agreement. So we're actually really happy to see this development that is moving forward and reiterate the need for community to have a seat at the table in the official CBA process. Thank you.

Good morning, council. Thank you, and president and 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. This, what you guys, and we hope that you pass, we support it, is huge, it's historical. We can try to wait until everything is perfect, and we'll lose out again. Every time we get, in a sense, 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 all everything that's been said in a positive way towards this project. We finally get a seat at the table. where decisions are gonna be made about our city. 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 a part of it and we really appreciate it because this is historic. I don't know, in Oakland, when a deal has been done like this with black people leading it. Yes, 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, presidents, you're not here. My name is Doug Blackshear. 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 blackusa.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, and 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 AIDES, DAVE KAVAL, THE PRESIDENT, CAME TO MY OFFICE AND ASKED ME IF THE POSTS 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, and I'm glad that you understand that. Now, what is before you is an opportunity to follow the model of AASEG, They didn't get it just because they had a very large billionaire 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 unanimously. for the project, and they have community support, and they are committed to jobs, economic development, and business opportunity. If AASCG had been at the table, we would not have lost some of the teams, because we now find out who the true warriors are.

Thank you, Mr. Cobb. Your time is up. 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. My question for everyone is, are those losses due to 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. We know how long it goes, it goes continually. 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 sale, 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 came out in May. 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 preferable to retaining ownership over the long term. This isn't just a... So...

We'll do it first this way. Off-topic MOSFET, the Genius Act, August 16th, September 26th, CORN is the week. GLDM 8475-8625 is your mid-range. Play URA for the rest of the year is a questionable application. The famous reactor in England based on the heliotron in a two-year treasury note time frame went from 8.6 to 12.83 billion to 34.86, and some appraisers have it at 53.86. At developmental site efficiencies based on what is also known as the Chicago development with the Office of the Administrator, The other site is the Kansas City Stadium compared to the Facebook building. We are seeking review for that based on TVA Authority v. the United States, Doe v. Rubenstein, Barr v. the United States, New York Pistol and Rifle v. the U.S., Michigan v. the EPA, Colorado River Basin v. the U.S., Trump, the Water Resource Board and Voices of the Wetland via the Water Resource Board. If Special Recommendation District 934.28 via the U.S. is wondered and Hensley via the NRDC. Project builds would be development based on capital efficiency standards. Chicago Title is a title company that I do own and operate. Thank you.

I'm back again. Matter of fact, Mr. Ray Bobbitt, he just wanted me to take part of his time to speak about his grandmother, which was Teddy Radford, 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 right 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 on 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 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 gonna have to support him because this has made history for Oakland, California.

Thank you, Ms. Cunningham. I just wanted to say that, first of all, we just wanted to thank the city, the city negotiating team, the city council members, the mayor's office, everybody. So often, you guys do work that's so underappreciated, and it's thankless. And the city administrator's 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 Ms. 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. From the beginning in their original purchase and sale agreement, we always had that as a vehicle because it's really- Mr. Bobbitt, do you have anything else you'd like to say? Yes, please. Thank you. Okay. I just wanted to just talk about that briefly because in order for this to be a viable development, we realized that Chase Center is new and we believe that an entity, maybe Google or somebody, is going to be investing quite a bit of money in the south bay 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, Betsy. 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 sticking with us and allowing us to move forward. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you.

If your name was calling your chambers and you wish to speak, please come to the mic. Vanessa Riles, Gay Player Cobb. Otherwise, we will 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 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, et cetera. So taking all of the community benefits only to the Coliseum, only to the stadium parcel is concerning, although 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, Blair Beekman. Thank you for this item today. It's been a long time. You guys have been working on it. Thanks for the slide presentation by Councilperson Houston. It showed what is going on at the Coliseum now and what AASCG is really capable of doing for the future of the Coliseum Stadium area. It was nice. I'm really hopeful in the work of AASEG and what they can be doing. And Councilperson Gallo brought in questions also. 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, you know, turn their ownership over to the A's team, to the group, to the AASEG group. and what they could be developing as a community process for the future of the area. That hasn't happened, but hopefully from the words of Councilperson Gallo, the other part of this deal 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 with the work you want to do. And getting those agreements together, really good luck with that. I heard the words continuing the community participation process. Good luck on those efforts. It can really make something clear and understandable what a good future is possible, what we could be doing. And so it's always nice to hear Oakland's side of talking about these things. Good luck. how we learn better negotiation skills with Oakland, I mean, with the county.

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Beekman. Going to the next speaker, David Peters. Please unmute yourself and begin your comments.

Thank you. This is Bleacher Dave, Dave Peters, third generation resident. 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, founders of AASCG for their vision. I think like me, they grew up in the cauldron of the city, of the Cathedral of Champions on 66th Avenue. Watching those teams bring us together in a way and community build and develop a pride in Oakland that nothing but sports can do. Give us a global brand. If you spin your youth cheer and let's go Oakland, Raiders! And remember when Jamal Wilkes' 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. ASEG, Loop Capital, the negotiators, everybody involved in this for, as has once been said, making lemonade out of linens. This deal preserves the value of the property at a time when commercial real estate has cratered, and it allows and has a vision for growth for Oakland in an area that hasn't had it. But yet, while I've heard people say East Oakland has been 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, more equitable justice as we move to the future. Most of all, thanks to all. Wave them high, baby.

Thank you everyone for your comments. That was the last speaker. Thank you very much.

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

Thank you. There's one procedural technical amendment, and that is to move Section 3, delete it from the ordinance, and move it to a resolution that will come on the 21st, that will come together. Section 3 is the provision that appropriates and directs the proceeds of the initial lump sum payment. to the California Public Employees Retirement System. 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. Council Member Houston, as the maker of the motion, do you accept this amendment?

Yes, I do. I accept it.

Okay, thank you. Council Member Fife.

I just wanted to state, I don't think I made it clearly, 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. in 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 ground on which you fight and I will continue to advocate for those community benefits because I understand the struggle 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. Secondly, I will second this motion because I think it is a historic moment for Oakland and I'm proud to be a part of this process. Thank you.

Okay, Council Member Houston. That's right.

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 WERE ELECTED. AND THAT'S WHY WHEN I SAW THE DEAL, YOU KNOW, WE GOT TO MAKE THE BEST DEAL FOR THE CITY AND THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY. AND THAT'S WHY I FLEW OUT TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, TALKED TO, 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 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 GOING TO WORK SO I YIELD THE FLOOR

Okay, great, thank you. Madam Clerk, we can call the vote.

We have a motion by Councilmember Houston, seconded by Councilmember Five to introduce this ordinance as amended. Councilmember Brown? Oops, sorry. Aye. Councilmember Five? Aye. Councilmember Gallo?

No.

Councilmember Houston?

Aye, for sure.

Council Member Unger?

Aye.

Council Member Wong?

Aye.

And Chair Ramachandran? Aye. Motion passes with a vote of six ayes, one no, one excuse. Council President Jenkins, final passage for this item will be July 21st.

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 thank everyone for moving this deal forward. I want to thank all of the partners. Irvin 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. and I was proud to help push it over the finish line, but I want to thank especially Councilmember Houston Guyo, yes, for your voice, Fife, Rowena Brown, Janani Ramachandran, Charlene Wong, Zach Unger, all of you, where is President Jenkins, for making sure this happened, and our 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, Madam Chair, if I ask Irvin to come up and say a few words, or is that out of order? No, if it's out of order, just say so.

I will defer to the parliamentarian. I just... Okay, it's my discretion. Yes, please do come up. I have discretion, I guess, so please come up.

I would just like to second everything 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. Ms. Cecilia 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.

Hi, Blair Beekman. I'm not fully sure, but just if the question needs to be clarified, were there health issues involved with why the Oakland A Stadium downtown wasn't feasible in the end? I think it's an important question that we should be clear on 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 such reporting. So if that can help clarify the situation, good luck how it can. And overall, you know, good luck that it seems like Oakland is taking important strides to understand the concepts of what community participation is about and how much it really adds to the process. City administration is trying to really create a sense of order again. They want a certain sense of control. Their understanding community participation's important.

Mr. Peters, you are next. Please begin your comments.

Thank you, ma'am. Three quick points. First one, I am sickened by some of the things that people have said about the principles in this transaction. I saw an article yesterday 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 that happens. I also want to say, you know, I heard a lot of people being thanked, but I didn't hear the most important people being thanked, the people. Generations of my family have poured their tax money into that facility before it opened. And we are the forgotten ones. Nobody has mentioned us. We all didn't pay for that. We're the ones that did that. Finally, you know, I've done a lot of work around with 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 California.

Thank you, Mr. Peters, Mr. Rainey. Go ahead.

Yeah, so I think the main question I've had is when should cities sell irreplaceable civic assets instead of retaining the ownership? We understand when the whole budget fiasco was going on and it was like, hey, we're gonna get this 100 million and throw it here, which you can argue about that, 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 about we got the Oakland Army base. What fell apart there? That was public ownership. We have Oak Knoll. 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 going to 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 Clerk. The meeting is adjourned.