Coliseum Complex Talks Take Center Stage at Special Board Meeting

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors convened a special meeting May 26 devoted almost entirely to closed-session business, with the future of the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Complex at the top of the agenda. The Board scheduled an evening open-session update on competing bids for the 120-acre site, but the available record captures only the brief pre-closed-session proceedings.

• Board enters closed-door negotiations over Coliseum Complex with three separate parties

• Countywide labor contracts on the table across all unions, unrepresented staff, and Teamsters Local 856

• CIO recruitment and four litigation matters also addressed behind closed doors

Coliseum Negotiations Move Behind Closed Doors

The basics: The jointly owned Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Complex — one of the largest undeveloped public land parcels in the East Bay — is at the center of an intensifying disposition process. The Board took up three separate real property negotiation items involving Oakland Acquisition Company LLC, led by James Reynolds Jr.; Coliseum Way Partners LLC, led by Alexander "Sandy" Dean Jr.; and the City of Oakland, represented by Acting City Administrator Betsy Lake. County negotiators Kimberly Gasaway and Patrick O'Connell represented the county's interests.

Why it matters: Whoever ultimately secures the Coliseum site will shape a generation of development in East Oakland — jobs, housing, transit, and public amenities all hang in the balance. The intergovernmental nature of the deal, with both the county and the City of Oakland holding ownership stakes, adds a layer of complexity that has stretched negotiations across multiple meetings.

Where things stand: The Board added a 5:00 p.m. open-session item by addendum — an oral update and request for Board direction on the status of negotiations. That discussion, the most substantive item on the agenda, is not captured in the available transcript. Three members of the public — Ray Bobbitt, Jonathan Jones, and Blair Beekman — were called to comment on the closed-session items before supervisors recessed, however, Bobbitt and Jones were not present and Beekman spoke online and the substance of the remarks was not recorded.

What's next: The Board's direction from the evening session could determine whether the county moves forward with one of the two competing firms or charts a different path. Residents and stakeholders should watch for any public report-out from closed session and future agendized updates.

Note: The transcript available for this meeting covers only the first few minutes — the call to order, roll call, and the opening of public comment. The closed-session deliberations and the 5:00 p.m. open-session Coliseum update are not captured. Coverage below reflects only what is documented in the record.

Minor Items

• Roll call and quorum: Four of five supervisors were present — Board President David Haubert, Vice Chair Lena Tam, Supervisor Elisa Marquez, and Supervisor Nikki Fortunato Bas. Supervisor Nate Miley was excused.

• Labor negotiations: The Board entered closed session on contracts covering all county labor organizations, unrepresented management and non-management employees, and Teamsters Local 856. Agency negotiators included Margarita Zamora, Michi Yoshii, Stacey Cue, and Jeff Bailey. Outcomes of these talks will set wages and working conditions for thousands of county employees.

• CIO recruitment: A closed-session item addressed the recruitment or appointment of the county's Chief Information Officer, the position overseeing technology infrastructure and digital services.

• Litigation: The Board discussed four legal matters in closed session — two involving potential initiation of litigation, two involving significant litigation exposure — as well as the ongoing case Goolsby v. County of Alameda (Case No. 21cv002126).