Council Discusses Report About Relationship With 49ers

A grand jury report detailing the Santa Clara Stadium Authority’s relationship to the 49ers stirred well-trodden finger-pointing about who supported the stadium and who opposed it.

At its Tuesday night meeting, the Santa Clara City Council discussed a civil grand jury report titled “Outplayed: Measure J, the City of Santa Clara, and the San Francisco 49ers.” Just as with the other civil grand jury report, the city has three months to respond to the findings and recommendations.

The gist of the report is that the stadium authority’s relationship with the agency that manages the stadium for it — the Forty Niners Management Company (ManCo) — is asymmetrical. That uneven footing, the jury argues, has let the team fleece the Stadium Authority out of money it should have gotten for non-NFL events.

Opinions on the report were mixed.

Council Member Kathy Watanabe, speaking for Mayor Lisa Gillmor, who was absent from the discussion, supported the report’s findings unequivocally.

Council Member Suds Jain said the report was rife with “inconsistencies, biases and oversights.” Jain said he has “serious concerns about how grand juries are recruited,” especially since many members of this grand jury, he said, were also on the grand jury for the 2022 report “Unsportsmanlike Conduct.”

“I wonder how much money this grand jury report cost the taxpayers, including all the subpoenas and hired consultants,” Jain said.

Further, Jain continued, the jury made many oversights, ignoring the money the stadium generated as well as litigation costs. While jurors implicate the council/board, only Mayor Gillmor was involved in negotiating the contracts that empower the 49ers.

“It seems to me that it was Lisa Gillmor that was outplayed, and the rest of the current council members now have to pick up the pieces,” Jain said

Additionally, he pointed to Gillmor and Watanabe refusing to sign non-disclosure agreements for the FIFA World Cup discussions.

Watanabe fired back, saying signing the NDA would prevent her and Gillmor from sharing “critical concerns” about the cost and community impact with residents.

“Signing the document would prohibit us from talking about many critical issues for two years before World Cup and four years after the last game,” she said.

Most of the discussion devolved into finger-pointing about who supported the stadium’s construction, a frequent political tactic among the council.

However, as Council Member Kevin Park said, supporting or opposing Measure J was the only decision anyone on the board could have made that was relevant to the report. He called the civil grand jury “out of control.”

Council Member Raj Chahal said the report was a useful road map for how the Stadium Authority has gotten to this point. He said it was “more objective” and “not as biased” as previous grand jury reports. The stadium is an asset for Santa Clara, he said, and should not be a “political hot button.”

A special meeting to discuss how to respond to the report will likely be necessary, said City Attorney Glen Googins. The city has until Sept. 11 to respond to the findings and recommendations in the report.

Bond Measure to Go on November Ballot

A bond measure that changed in the eleventh hour last week also saw approval. In the wake of opposition from Gillmor and Watanabe last week, the council opted to move forward with a $400 million bond as opposed to the $598 million as originally planned.

This week, it codified the ballot language, adopted the work plan and oversight process, cementing that the measure will appear on the November ballot. Gillmor and Watanabe criticized the previous measure, calling it a “blank check” in an editorial the duo penned ahead of last week’s meeting.

They both said they wanted more transparency and specificity in the projects the money will fund.

The most recent estimates put the city’s infrastructure needs at $624 million.

“A bond at $400 million is part of the solution, but not the whole solution,” said City Manager Jovan Grogan. “Our needs far outstrip our resources.”

The work plan presented addressed each of the categories Gillmor and Watanabe previously called out. It earmarks $43.9 million to the police department, with $30 million going toward a training facility. Fire station replacement and other emergency response infrastructure saw $142.2 million allocated.

Streets and transportation saw $41.1 million, half of which will go toward resurfacing or rehabilitation. Parks, library, senior and aquatics got $115.2 million with $45 million going toward the George Haines International Swim Center (ISC).

Finally, the stormwater system got $46 million, while historic buildings rounded out the plan with $9.2 million.

“This is a good way, again, of focusing on the community and a good way to build community trust and at the same time holding the city accountable to these projects,” Watanabe said.

Establishment of a citizen oversight committee and unanimous council approval prior to “substantive changes” to the work plan were also part of the motion. Further, assurance that none of the money would fund anything at Levi’s Stadium was also included.

John Haggerty, a frequent council commenter, said he found it curious that police and fire were not mentioned in the ballot language despite them accounting for nearly half the money to be levied.

“Ideally, there should be no bond. As the Bible and Shakespeare both say: ‘neither a borrower nor a lender be.’” Haggerty said. “Police and fire facilities money should come from reducing police and fire salaries.”

While several council members said they wanted to see the higher bond total, they still felt the lower bond total was a step in the right direction. Hardy and Becker both said they supported it “in the spirit of unity.”

Park, who was the lone vote against the original change, chaffed at what he saw as a willingness to capitulate in the interest of agreement. He said he was “not happy about how [the council] got here.”

“Democracy is people have their views, and they differ and they work through them … There [was] no compromise, and compromise is one of the keys to agreement,” Park said. “I don’t like the expenditure list as is. I don’t like the fact that we hadn’t had discussion on it. I don’t like the fact that we voted to fast forward to this point in time.”

The council unanimously approved the new bond measure.

City Council Consent Calendar Spending

• A two-year, $500,000 contract with Advanced Lighting Services Inc. and American Power Solutions Inc. for LED lighting retrofit and replacement.
• A three-year, $212,730 extension to a contract with CLEAResult for EV charging outreach and technical assistance.
• A 10-year, $4 million contract with Oracle America, Inc. for software licenses, updates, and support.

The next regularly scheduled meeting is Tuesday, Aug. 20 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1500 Warburton Ave. in Santa Clara.

Members of the public can participate in the City Council meetings on Zoom at https://santaclaraca.zoom.us/j/99706759306; Meeting ID: 997-0675-9306 or call 1 (669) 900-6833, via the City’s eComment (available during the meeting) or by email to PublicComment@santaclaraca.gov.