Oakland Coliseum: Alameda County set to buy back half, then sell to developer with history of missing payments
Also: Oakland Unified School District’s ten-year enrollment trend report shows steep decline — Oakland Agenda Watch
Oakland Agenda Watch provides short summaries of key items on upcoming public meeting agendas that catch our attention.
Alameda County appears set to buy back 50% of the Oakland Coliseum from the A’s, then sell it to a developer with a history of missing payments
Alameda County Board of Supervisors, Jan. 13, 2026, closed session
The Alameda County board of supervisors is set to hold a “closed session conference with real property negotiators” about the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Complex (Coliseum) on January 13.
The negotiators listed on the closed session agenda are:
Oakland Acquisition Company (OAC), an entity affiliated with the African American Sports and Entertainment Group (AASEG) led by developer Ray Bobbitt, who has been moving to acquire the Coliseum complex for a massive redevelopment project.
Alameda County Administrator’s Office and General Services Agency, which along with the County Counsel Department are the agencies responsible for executing real estate agreements on behalf of the county.
Alameda County sold its 50% ownership share in the Coliseum to the A’s baseball team via an entity called Coliseum Way Partners (CWP) back in December 2019. The sale price at that time was $85 million.1
Five years later, on July 22, 2025, the county board of supervisors approved a “conditional consent disposition agreement” that appears to be designed for Alameda County to eventually buy back its 50% ownership share from the A’s and then sell it to OAC for $125 million.2
CWP (the entity the A’s formed for the Coliseum deal) has made all the required payments for the $85 million purchase to date, and is on track to take 50% ownership of the Coliseum by the spring of this year.3
It is unclear what price the Alameda County Board of Supervisors now intends to pay to the A’s for its 50% ownership stake in order to then sell it to OAC. The county appears not to have produced any public documents indicating a potential buy-back price nor what funding sources the county would use.
Developer has missed multiple payments on its purchase of the city’s share
The other 50% of the Coliseum property is owned by the city of Oakland, but is in the process of being sold also to OAC (the entity developer Ray Bobbitt’s group, AASEG formed for the Coliseum deal).
On June 26, 2024, Oakland city council approved the sale of the city’s 50% ownership stake to OAC for $105 million.4
A few months later on Sept. 23, 2024, the city amended the sale agreement to change the payment schedule and increase the total sale price to $110 million.5
The amended sale agreement included a new payment schedule that required OAC to make three installment payments for a grand total of $110 million, “within the City’s fiscal year 2024-25.”
According to the amended agreement, the total $110 million was due to be paid in full, “in immediately available funds,” to the city by May 30, 2025.
But so far as of today’s date, the developer has only paid the initial $5 million deposit.6
Oakland Unified School District enrollment report shows substantial 10-year decline
Oakland Unified School District Board of Education, Jan. 14, 2026, agenda item #T-1.
On December 10, the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) board of education approved a $102.5 million budget reduction scenario that included $10 million in hoped-for new revenue by projecting a 2% attendance increase — despite staff’s warning that attendance data did not support the projected increase.7
On January 14, the OUSD board will receive a presentation of the district’s official enrollment numbers for the 2025-26 school year. The presentation shows that the district added 79 students, for a total of 33,995 enrolled students.8
According to the presentation, OUSD now has 3,504 fewer students than it did ten years ago, an enrollment decrease of 9.3 percent since the 2015-16 school year.
The presentation also says that the actual enrollment of 33,995 students for the 2025-26 school year exceeds the district’s enrollment projections by 533 students.
In citing this slightly-better-than-projected enrollment, the presentation says that “each student over projection generates additional, unbudgeted revenue.”
According to a callout box in the presentation, the enrollment of an additional 533 students above the projected enrollment number, “resulted in roughly $7,200,000 after factoring in ADA.”
(“ADA” in this context stands for Average Daily Attendance, the formula used by the state to disburse funding to local school districts based on the number of students in attendance at school per day.)
Using that same calculation, without factoring in any adjustments for inflation or changes to the ADA formula over time, one can generate a rough-order-of-magnitude estimate of the revenue reductions OUSD has experienced due to declining enrollment over the past ten years:
If 533 students equates to roughly $7.2 million in ADA revenue per year;
then,1 student equates to roughly $13,508 in ADA revenue per year;
therefore,A cumulative decline in enrollment of 3,504 students equates to roughly $47.3 million in reduced revenue over ten years.
The presentation also notes that the ten-year enrollment reduction of 3,504 students is “equivalent to all the elementary schools in District 6 combined,” presumably meaning the current combined total enrollment in those schools.
Depending on how one counts the number of elementary schools in District 6 (the presentation does not list or enumerate them), there are up to seven elementary schools and two elementary/middle schools located in that district.9
In a separate presentation also scheduled for the January 14 board meeting (agenda item #N-1), the interim superintendent’s report claims:
“We are on track to increase our Attendance Rate by at least 1%, currently at 1.7%. In addition, we have less unverified absences this year, and could mean an increase to our District Average Daily Attendance (ADA) if this trend continues.”
– from Interim Superintendent Denise Saddler’s Jan. 14, 2026 report to the OUSD board of education.10
According to news reports, shortly after the OUSD board approved the $102.5 budget reduction scenario on December 10 — including the $10 million in hoped-for attendance revenue against staff’s recommendations — interim superintendent Denise Saddler fired her chief of staff, and chief business officer Lisa Grant-Dawson abruptly resigned.11
See this related article:
Other notable agenda items
The city council public safety committee will review a resolution authorizing the Oakland Police Department to “provide tactical support and security” for Super Bowl LX on February 8 and the FIFA World Cup event from June 11 to July 19. Both events are to be held in Santa Clara. The proposed mutual aid agreement would reimburse the city for the financial costs of paying Oakland police personnel to support the sporting events, but it does not estimate how many Oakland police personnel nor how long they would be located in Santa Clara fo the events. January 13, agenda item #3.
The city council public works and transportation committee will review a proposed total $1.47 million contract award to the Montclair Village Association to continue to operate the La Salle parking garage at 6235 La Salle Avenue and the Scout Lot at 2250 Mountain Boulevard for five additional years. The staff report includes financial data and information about parking fees. January 13, agenda item #3.
EDITOR’S NOTE:
Oakland Report is by no means comprehensive in our coverage of public meetings in Oakland. The scope and frequency of public meetings are far more than we can presently cover. You can view the full agendas of these public meetings on the following websites:
Alameda County board of supervisors. View the agenda and all 100+ items on deck for the January 13 meeting on the board of supervisors website.
OUSD board of education. The full agenda and all 129 items on deck for the January 14 meeting is available on OUSD’s meeting calendar.
City council standing committee meeting agendas for the week of January 12-16 are posted to the city’s meeting calendar:
Public works and transportation committee, January 13 at 11:30 a.m.
Special public safety committee, January 13 at 1:30 p.m.
Life enrichment committee, January 13 at 4:00 p.m.
Rules and legislation committee, January 15 at 10:30 a.m.
If you like our work, please consider donating.
We are a 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit organization based in beautiful Oakland, California. Our mission is to make truth more accessible to all Oakland residents through deep investigative reporting and evidence-based analysis of local issues.
Your donation of any amount helps us continue our work to produce articles like this one.
Thank you.
Alameda County Board of Supervisors. “Minutes of the Board of Supervisors meeting, Dec. 23, 2019.” Approve the disposition agreement between the County of Alameda and Coliseum Way Partners LLC (CWP) to sell the County’s undivided half interest in the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Complex. Oakland, California, Dec. 23, 2019. https://www.acgov.org/board/bos_calendar/documents/DocsAgendaReg_12_23_19%20spmtg/GENERAL%20ADMINISTRATION/Regular%20Calendar/CAO%20Board%20Letter%20Disposition%20Agreement%20Coliseum%20Way%20Partners.pdf
Alameda County Board of Supervisors. “Minutes of the Board of Supervisors meeting, July 22, 2025.” Approve a Conditional Consent to Assignment of the Disposition Agreement, as amended, between the County of Alameda and Coliseum Way Partners, LLC to the Oakland Acquisition Company, LLC (OAC) (Principal: James Reynolds, Jr.; Location: Chicago, Illinois) for the sale of the County’s half undivided interest in the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Complex (7000 Coliseum Way, Oakland, CA; Assessor Parcel Numbers 41-3901-8 and 41-3901-9); and Approve the Second Amendment to the Disposition Agreement between the County and OAC. Attachment 113.1, Oakland, California, July 22, 2025. https://www.acgov.org/board/bos_calendar/documents/DocsAgendaReg_07_22_25/GENERAL%20ADMINISTRATION/Set%20Matter%20Calendar/CAO_390568.pdf
City of Oakland. “Oakland Coliseum Redevelopment Project webpage.” Accessed Jan. 12, 2026. https://www.oaklandca.gov/Government/Departments/City-Administrator/Oakland-Coliseum-Redevelopment-Project
City of Oakland. “Ordinance No. 13801 C.M.S.” An ordinance authorizing the city administrator to negotiate and execute a purchase and sale agreement with AASEG Land LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, or its affiliate, for the sale of the City of Oakland’s undivided 50 percent interest in property located at 7000 Coliseum Way, Oakland, California, for one hundred five million dollars ($105,000,000) to be paid in installments and conditioned on development of on-site affordable housing and other benefits; and California Environmental Quality Act findings. Oakland, California, June 26, 2024, Attachment 5. https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6707243&GUID=7298C5D3-3FEA-4F67-A759-D702B1566CAC&Options=&Search=
City of Oakland. “First (administrative) amendment to real property sale agreement (Coliseum Complex - City’s Interest) by and between the City of Oakland and Oakland Acquisition Company, LLC.” Oakland, California, Sept. 23, 2024. https://www.oaklandca.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/city-administrator/documents/coliseum/first-amendment-to-psa-city-coliseum-sale-signed.pdf
Mukherjee, Shomik. “Key deadlines in 2026 may bring complicated Oakland Coliseum sale to a head.” The Mercury News, Dec. 31, 2025. https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/12/31/oakland-coliseum-sale-2026-deadlines/
Borek, Bob. “Oakland school board (OUSD) approves $102.5 million in budget cuts in 5-2 vote.” Oakland Report, Dec. 13, 2025. https://www.oaklandreport.org/p/oakland-school-board-ousd-approves
Oakland Unified School District. “Board of Education meeting agenda.” Presentation by the Superintendent of Schools or designee, on the District’s Official Pupil Enrollment for the 2025-2026 School Year including updates on ongoing enrollment work. Oakland, California, Jan. 14, 2026, agenda item #T-1. https://ousd.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7798975&GUID=687B74D9-CB40-458A-B498-5AED24665C0A&Options=&Search=
Oakland Unified School District. “Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) Public Schools 2025-2026 interactive map.” Accessed Jan. 12, 2026. https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/bca35687082d4b3f960f07568bd5881d
Oakland Unified School District. “Board of Education meeting agenda.” Superintendent’s Report. Oakland, California, Jan. 14, 2026, agenda item #N-1. https://ousd.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7786795&GUID=C3598A89-F742-48D3-986F-166273A0E4C5&Options=&Search=
DeBenedetti, Katie. “Oakland Schools in Turmoil After 2 Key Officials Depart Over Budget Crisis.” KQED, Dec. 18, 2025. https://www.kqed.org/news/12067547/oakland-schools-in-turmoil-after-two-key-officials-depart-over-budget-crisis
 |
|
Further to my previous comment:
As you write, "...Five years later, on July 22, 2025, the county board of supervisors approved a “conditional consent disposition agreement” that appears to be designed for Alameda County to eventually buy back its 50% ownership share from the A’s and then sell it to OAC for $125 million.².."
This agreement was the result of a lengthy public process that got a lot of attention at the time. Why are you intimating that this is a new deal, or a secret deal? Relying on someone else's blog post to shape the perspective of OR on an issue, doesn't seem in keeping with OR"s stated journalistic standards.
Y'all know I appreciate OR's commitment to fact-based objectivity, but you seem to have missed that standard in this piece.
I'm disappointed in this piece. This seems to be a slippage in OR's stated standards.
1) Per your footnote #2:
On May 6, 2025 the City Council adopted an Ordinance authorizing a delay in the City’s sale to OAC to allow a simultaneous conveyance of title by the City and County to OAC by no later than June 30, 2026.
THE CLOSING IS DELAYED. THESE PAYMENTS ARE NOT DUE TO CLOSING.
Are there other payments the developer has missed? Please enumerate them.
If not, please RETRACT, APOLOGIZE, AND CORRECT!