Oilers Unveil Details Of New Arena District Notre Dame Renovations Begin In November UNLV Delays Stadium Funding Request Until '17 Braves Dispute Mayor's Charge Facility Notes Dan Snyder: Redskins Planning New Stadium CommScope On As Daytona Rising Partner Dolphins Add New Food Vendors Consultants Narrow List Of Sites For Bills Stadium ISC Tracks Could Face Further Seating Reductions
Upcoming Conferences and Events
SBD/July 2, 2014/Facilities
Oakland City Council Rejects Proposed A's Lease Extension; Revised Proposal Expected
Published July 2, 2014
NEW RULES: In S.F., Carolyn Jones in a front-page piece writes “months of bickering” over the lease is expected to end tomorrow when the board votes on the “revised proposal with incentives to keep the team from leaving the city.” The proposal would “require the A’s to give the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority two years’ notice of the team’s intent to move to another city and would require the team to continue to make lease payments for the remainder of the 10-year term of the lease even if the team is no longer playing” at O.co Coliseum. However, the A’s would be “let off the hook from making those lease payments if they left" the ballpark early and "moved to another" within Oakland. If approved, the lease would then “need approvals from the Oakland City Council and Alameda County Board of Supervisors.” Under the proposal, the franchise’s annual lease payments “would start” at $1.75M -- about $250,000 more than the team is currently paying --and drop to $1.25M “over the course of the 10-year term.” Sources said that the decreasing rent amount is “intended as an incentive for the team to stay through the full term of the lease.” Sewage overflows and blackouts are also “addressed in the new lease.” The Coliseum Authority would pay $1M a year, with 5% annual increases, "into a maintenance fund to fix the stadium problems.” The lease "would also settle" a $5M dispute between the team and the authority over back rent. Sources said that the A’s have “already agreed to the revised lease” (S.F. CHRONICLE, 7/2).