Santa Clara Challenges
Santa Clara Plays Fair
Raiders - In Santa Clara??

Could the Raiders use Santa Clara's stadium?

 

Yes. The Term Sheet gives the 49ers exclusive right to sublease to the Raiders. 

  • A 'yes' vote for the 49ers in Measure J was a 'yes' vote for the Raiders too-Santa Clara gave up all decision making authority.  Many Santa Clarans didn't realize this.
  • The 49ers and Raider's owners alone get to decide on whether or not the Raiders come here
  • Santa Clarans don't get to vote on whether or not the Raiders (or any second team) can use our stadium
  • The "49ers Stadium Company will have the right to enter into a sublease with a Second NFL Team... to allow the Second Team to play its home games in the Stadium"  (from the Term Sheet, Section 16.1)

 

The Raiders won't have to pay for stadium construction costs!

Thus far, Raiders fans won't have to pay for personal seat licenses (Stadium Builders Licenses) like 49ers fans have to!

 

With the Raiders (or any other second team) here, we'll have:

  • Twice the number of home games (about 20)
  • Twice the number of days with gridlocked traffic and surface streets and freeway impacts
  • Twice the number of days with massive parking problems because the Santa Clara site has very little on-site parking
  • Twice the number of days with cordoned off residential neighborhoods near the stadium
  • Twice the screaming from games
  • Twice the tailgating trash and noise in our neighborhoods (boom boxes) and open grills
  • Twice the number of days when port-a-johns will be needed because of tailgating
  • Twice the number of days with public drinking during tailgating
  • Twice the loss of use of surrounding facilities (Youth Soccer Park, Golf and Tennis Center, Convention Center, Walking/Bike Trail, Great America)

Source: Term Sheet Section 16.1:

 
 
What have we paid the Consultants? PDF Print E-mail

Stadium Spending Update: The legal and consulting bills continue to mount for Santa Clara's stadium.  The total spent on consultants is $1.8 million to the law firm Goldfarb and Lipman LLC's, and $1.6 million to financial adviser Keyster Marston Associates.  These bills are paid for from our redevelopment funds.


Keyser Marsten studies

  • Those studies show that the stadium provides a substantial negative return on investment for the City's General Fund.

  • The 49ers campaign cites their own studies (by CSL) over the city's studies (by KMA) because the 49ers studies have inflated numbers that include regional benefits (the region isn't paying for the stadium) and include the 49ers training facility (which has been in Santa Clara since 1988, so does not bring new benefits to the city).

In addition, city staff have spent countless hours of staff time on the stadium project, without an accounting of those hours to the public, even though they were asked to provide an accounting of hours.


And the Measure J election is costing our city another $390,000 in RDA money.  City staff estimated that a June 2010 election should cost $190,000, but the 49ers-sponsored initiative was longer than what city staff had planned, hence the election cost was about double the original estimate.
 
SB43 Took Away our Right to Vote PDF Print E-mail

The Santa Clara City Charter requires a competitive bid process when public funds are used.

The 49ers don't like this requirement.  They want to keep the contractor they've been working with for a few years, but at the same time, they want public dollars.


So the 49ers went to Sacramento to take away our right to vote on whether or not they could bypass our city charter's requirement for competitive bidding.

 

Here's a July 10, 2010 article by the San Jose Mercury News reporter Karen de Sa about how laws are really made in Sacramento.   The 49ers end run around Santa Clara's charter is described:

"The team was frustrated that the city's charter required them to put the contract to build the stadium out for competitive bid. Alquist's bill exempted the stadium from the bid mandate.

Alquist said she came up with the idea herself. That surprised some local officials: "It's hard for me to believe the 49ers didn't go in and ask for this bill," said Santa Clara Councilman William Kennedy, a stadium opponent. What's more, city staff said the team had mentioned during negotiations that it might turn to the Legislature for help.

"I have no idea what the 49ers said to people at City Hall," Alquist said, explaining that she simply wanted to help expedite the process. "I had nothing to do with that."

Whatever the bill's origin, the 49ers became the driving force. The team spent $73,779 on lobbyists who schmoozed the governor and the Legislature on the bill, according to reports filed with the secretary of state. The bill sailed through both houses, although legislative staffers cautioned of "a bad precedent," noting that 125-year-old "competitive bidding requirements exist to prevent favoritism, corruption and waste of public money."  "

 

http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_15452125

 

The Term Sheet signed on June 2, 2009 between the City of Santa Clara and the 49ers promised us 2 votes (Section 6.3):

  • The first on the funding for the stadium, and
  • The second on whether or not the 49ers could bypass our competitive bid process.

The ink on the Term Sheet wasn't even dry when the 49ers went to State legislators Elaine Alquist and John Torrico to have bill SB43 gutted and re-written just for the 49ers.

 

At the Oct. 27, 2009 city council meeting in which our city council majority voted to approve SB43 and take away our right to vote, the city manager said that, prior to signing the Term Sheet, the 49ers had mentioned several times in the course of meetings to negotiate the Term Sheet that they wanted to look at a state law to avoid the competitive bid process required by our charter.


Here's clips from the Oct. 27th City Council meeting that shows the taking away of our right to vote.


Also at the Oct. 27, 2009 council meeting, Council member Will Kennedy said that he thought the 49ers did some polling and found out that voters were more likely to vote the stadium down if there were two votes.   In fact, in April/May 2009 before the Term Sheet was signed, the 49ers polled Santa Clarans to ask, 'Would you support or oppose allowing the 49ers to bypass Santa Clara's city charter requirement for competitive bidding?' Also at that meeting Council member McLeod noted that we haven't overridden our charter for other businesses before.


Conclusion-the 49ers knew before they signed the Term Sheet on June 2, 2009 that, while they promised in writing to let us vote on a city charter bypass, they intended to take that vote away from us through state legislation.  And they did.  46,000 Santa Clara voters were disenfranchised by the 49ers,our state Senator Elaine Aquist, and our city council majority helped them do it with SB43.


The June 30, 2009 version of SB43 shows the gutted original bill together with the re-write solely for the 49ers benefit.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_43_bill_20090630_amended_asm_v96.pdf

 


Mayor Mahan and Councilmembers Matthews and Moore went to Sacramento to lobby for SB43 even though they too had promised us two votes.   On July 8th and September 9th, 2009, the stadium proponents on our own City Council went to Sacramento and urged State Legislators to pass SB43 - and they gave away our right to vote on our own City Charter.


It was reported that our elected leaders thought two votes would 'confuse' us (San Jose Mercury News).


On July 8, 2009, at the Local Government Assembly Committee meeting in Sacramento,

Those present in support of taking away our right to vote were:

Patricia Mahan, Mayor of the City of Santa Clara
Santa Clara and San Benito Counties Building & Construction Trades Council
San Francisco 49ers
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_43_cfa_20090707_151024_asm_comm.html

On Sept., 9, 2009 at the Local Government Senate Committee meeting,

Those present in support of taking away our right to vote were:

San Francisco 49ers 
Santa Clara & San Benito Counties Building & Construction Trades Council 
Silicon Valley Leadership Group 
State Building and Construction Trades Council of California 
Santa Clara Mayor Patricia M.Mahan 
Santa Clara Vice Mayor Jamie L. Matthews 
Santa Clara City Councilmember Kevin Moore
 
Those present opposed to SB43 (those present who wanted Santa Clarans to have two votes):
Santa Clara City Councilmember Will Kennedy
Santa Clara City Councilmember Jamie McLeod
Members of Santa Clara Plays Fair (in person, and via email/fax and phone calls)

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_43_cfa_20090909_180649_sen_comm.html


So: California's State Government Code now contains a law SB43 which has only a single purpose - To exempt the San Francisco 49ers from Santa Clara's City Charter:


"This bill would authorize the Santa Clara Stadium Authority to let a design-build contract without utilizing a competitive bid process for the stadium construction project,..."

[Emphasis ours.]

 

The state legislative analyst sounded some warnings about SB43:

The following are excerpts from the Legislative Analysis of SB43:


“The City and team officials believe that the team should get to hire the general contractor of its choice."


“The City Charter and the Community Redevelopment Law both require competitive bidding.  SB 43 exempts the Stadium Authority from these competitive bidding requirements.   The Committee may wish to consider whether Santa Clara's situation is unique enough to warrant this special exemption.  If legislators allow a precedent-setting exemption so that Santa Clara can lure an NFL franchise, how can they say "no" when other communities want their own exemptions to attract professional sport franchises, other big businesses, and attractions?  It's a slippery slope.”


“The design-build language in current law is based on a compromise struck in 2000 among local officials, labor groups, and contractors.  Local officials wanted the flexibility and potential cost savings offered by design-build contracts.  Labor unions wanted to ensure that counties pre-qualify employers to protect workers' interests.  Contractors wanted to be sure they had fair access to county contracts.”

“This bill breaches the carefully crafted compromise reached in 2000 between all interested stakeholders by not including any of the language included in every other design-build authorization law.  There is not a single cross-reference to existing design-build laws.  This bill states that all existing design-build laws are legally inapplicable in this situation.  Furthermore, this bill goes another step beyond existing design- build laws and allows the JPA to decide how subcontractors will be hired.   According to the author's office, the City and 49ers have already agreed that 80 percent to 85 percent of all subcontracting work will be required to be done with local union labor.  The Legislature may wish to consider whether it wishes to diverge from the well-established precedent of the 2000 compromise language.”


Sources:

June 30, 2009 version of SB43 (shows cross outs, bill gutted and re-written to favor the 49ers)

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_43_bill_20090630_amended_asm_v96.pdf

Local Government Assembly Committee meeting:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_43_cfa_20090707_151024_asm_comm.html

Local Government Senate Committee meeting:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_43_cfa_20090909_180649_sen_comm.html

Final version of SB43:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_43_bill_20091011_chaptered.html

Term Sheet (see Section 6.3 - promised us 2 votes)

http://santaclaraca.gov/ftp/csc/pdf/49ers-20090601-Exhibit-5.pdf


SB43 authored by state Senator Elaine Alquist, D-Santa Clara allows the 49ers and the City of Santa Clara more than the ability to bypass the City of Santa Clara Charter in their quest to use a design-build approach to construct a stadium in Santa Clara, CA, for the San Francisco 49ers. SB43 took away the right of Santa Clarans to vote on a change in their city charter AND:

In addition, SB43 made the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) responsible for many facets, including construction and operation of State highway improvements related to the construction of the San Francisco 49ers stadium in Santa Clara.

SB43 states that: CalTrans expenses “shall be included in the department's capital outlay support program for workload purposes in the annual Budget Act.”

Is it customary for the California State Department of Transportation to be required to pay for highway improvements deemed necessary for the construction and operation of a project such as this?

The citizens of California have the right to know that their tax dollars, which are in such short supply, are being used to make highway improvements necessitated by the building of the 49ers stadium.  Why aren’t the 49ers paying for the necessary improvements?

The following are excerpts from the Secretary of State’s Chaptered 330, Statutes of 2009 on October 11, 2009:

 

“This bill would provide that for state highway improvement projects deemed necessary by the Department of Transportation based on the construction and maintenance of the stadium, the department is the responsible agency for project development services, as specified.”

“  (i) If the construction and operation or maintenance of a stadium as contemplated by this section is deemed by the Department of Transportation under otherwise applicable law to require improvements on the state highway system, all of the following provisions shall apply:”

“(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, for any project on the state highway system deemed necessary by the department due to the construction, operation, or maintenance of the stadium as contemplated by this section, the department is the responsible agency for the performance of project development services, including performance specifications, preliminary engineering, prebid services, the preparation of project reports and environmental documents, project design, and construction inspection services. The department is also the responsible agency for the preparation of documents that may include, but need not be limited to, the size, type, and desired design character of the project, performance specifications covering quality of materials, equipment, and workmanship, preliminary and final plans and specifications, and any other information deemed necessary to design and construct a project that meets the needs of the department.”

“(2) The department may use department employees or consultants to perform these services, consistent with Article XXII of the California Constitution. Department resources, including personnel requirements necessary for the performance of those services, shall be included in the department's capital outlay support program for workload purposes in the annual Budget Act.”
 
Jobs PDF Print E-mail

"Most stadium jobs will be part-time and low wage, the constructions jobs are temporary and fewer than 7% will go to Santa Clarans." (Council Members Will Kennedy and Jamie McLeod)

 

Even stadium proponents admit the jobs will be low wage and a few days per year (video).

CM Will Kennedy explains why the 'jobs' are Reason Number 4 to Vote No on Measure J (video).

  • Most stadium jobs will only be available a few days per year and will not be highly paid.
  • The game day jobs aren't new jobs. They are jobs currently at Candlestick. The Candlestick job holders will apply for those jobs if the stadium moves to Santa Clara.  They will want to keep their jobs just like the people who worked at Giants games at Candlestick wanted to keep their jobs when the Giants moved to ATT Park in SF.
  • Construction jobs will be available, but will only last 31 months. 
  • The construction jobs are regional. They will occur regardless of whether the stadium is in Santa Clara, San Francisco, or Oakland.
  • According to the economic report, 93% of construction jobs will go to non-Santa Clarans.  That leaves only 90 construction jobs for Santa Clara residents.

Source: New 49ers Stadium Economic Impact Analysis, CSL (49ers’ consultants)

 

The SF Examiner analyzed the economic impact of the 49ers on San Francisco's economy and found a minimal impact:

  • "During game days, the team employs 1,500 part-time workers to maintain its concessions, take tickets, help with parking and undertake various other tasks. But most of those employees are part of a circuit that regularly works at a number of different concessions "
  • "Ian Lewis, research director for Unite Here Local 2, the union that represents concession workers at Candlestick Park, said many of the game-day employees have full-time jobs, or work a string of other concession opportunities, such as openings at AT&T Park. There is a chance that some of the employees would seek work at the 49ers’ stadium in Santa Clara"
  • “Certainly, no one is able to pay the rent and sustain a family by working just at Candlestick Park,” said Lewis. “One of the realities of the service sector is that you have to string together a number of employment opportunities to make ends meet. "
  • “You’re still going to be seeing shots of Telegraph Hill and Fisherman’s Wharf during breaks in the action,” D’Alessandro said. “San Francisco will still be the main focus, even if the team plays in Santa Clara.”

In addition:

 

 

 
 
Schools - Will the schools get $$? PDF Print E-mail

With or without Measure J, SCUSD gets >$107 million

from the redevelopment area, but the 49ers won't tell you that.


The Stadium and the 49ers are not giving money to the schools.

  • The 49ers are trying to deceive Santa Clarans into thinking that either the team or the stadium will give money to the schools. That's not true.
  • Here's Councilmember Will Kennedy telling the truth about schools funding at a debate at Peterson Middle School (video).
  • A presentation made at the SCUSD board meeting by an expert in redevelopment economics on Feb. 11, 2010 showed that the stadium will not provide money to the school district.
  • With or without the stadium, the city's consultant says that SCUSD gets more than $107 Million in property taxes from the area around Great America.
  • Money for the schools from the redevelopment district comes at great expense to our city's budget.

The Stadium requires an extension of the Bayshore North Redevelopment District (RDA) in time to divert property tax dollars away from our city's General Fund towards stadium construction.

  • The RDA extension will rob our General Fund of $67 million by 2016.
  • The RDA extension will rob many other agencies (such as the Water District) of millions of dollars, resulting in higher fees to users to make up for lost funds.
  • An analysis prepared by the city's consultant, KMA, shows that without the stadium, SCUSD would receive $107.1 million in property tax dollars from the Bayshore North RDA over 16 years, but with the stadium, SCUSD will rob some money from our General Fund and other agencies to increase its share of property tax dollars to $133.3 Million ($66.9 Million in today's dollars).
  • Therefore, the RDA extension will give some additional property tax money to the schools ($21.7 million in today's dollars; $26 million in future dollars) - but those dollars are NOT from the stadium or from the 49ers.
  • This is a 'Rob Peter to pay Paul' schools funding scheme, and it will increase the city's General Fund budget deficit, which our city manager says is the worst deficit she's seen in 30 years of working in the city' manager's office.
  • The Bayshore North RDA is set to expire soon.  The RDA extension is from a "SB211 amendment", and the extension will be incurred simply to divert (rob) property tax dollars away from our General Fund and other agencies and give those dollars to stadium construction debt.

The 49ers are trying to create the false impression that the additional school money comes from them or from the stadium.

  • They flat out state this in a graphic on the second to last page of the mailer which says "Stadium Revenues for Schools and Community." The graphic shows the stadium leading to additional money for the schools.
  • In fact, the money doesn’t come from either the 49ers or the stadium. It comes from the Redevelopment Agency.
  • The money for the schools is basically a transfer of money from one governmental entity to another - our General Fund and other agencies will be robbed by much more than the schools will recieve.
  • Most of the RDA property tax dollars will be siphoned off for stadium construction debt ($42 million in RDA bonds plus tens of millions in interest).

There is also an issue of unfairness because the footprints of the City of Santa Clara and SCUSD are not identical.

  • Santa Clara taxpayers located in the Campbell and Cupertino school districts will pay for the stadium, but not receive one penny for their schools.
  • Conversely, residents of Sunnyvale and San Jose who live within SCUSD boundaries will receive money for their schools, but those cities have not offered any money towards the cost of the stadium.
  • Only those taxpayers who live within the City of Santa Clara will be footing the bill.

Shouldn't SCUSD have a fiscal responsibility towards Santa Clarans whose property taxes pay for 75% of SCUSD's budget, $93 million this year?

  • As a basic aid district, SCUSD has an extremely high degree of dependence on local property taxes and therefore should be concerned about preserving our city services and property values.
  • According to the Community Budget presentations by Superintendent Steve Stavis, SCUSD is only $7 million above the threshold to become a Revenue Limit District supported by the State.
  • A drop in property tax revenues to the school district of greater than $7 million will cause SCUSD to switch from being a Basic Aid District to being a Revenue Limit District.
  • If SCUSD becomes a Revenue Limit District, with the RDA money the school district will pay a penalty larger than $21.7 million.
  • The school district will already get $107 Million from the RDA area, shouldn't that be enough?
  • Note that because the city will own the stadium, the 49ers Stadium LLC will not pay property taxes for the stadium, so the schools recieve no property tax dollars from the 49ers.

SCUSD Superintendent Steve Stavis has been campaigning for the stadium.

  • He appeared at the 49ers rally in January.
  • He appears in their t.v. commercial.
  • He appears in their campaign mailers, and with the false campaign graphic that tells voters that 'Stadium Revenues' will go to the schools.
  • He has conducted meetings with teachers and parents all over SCUSD to tell them that the stadium will bring money to the schools.
  • He has not told teachers and parents that the RDA extension will cause a loss to our city's General Fund of $67 million.
  • He does not discuss the stadium costs when telling parents that "with the stadium" the schools get more RDA money.

 

Sources:

(June 2, 2009 Term Sheet Presentation, Slide 48).

 

State of California Education Code:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=edc&codebody=&hits=20

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=07001-08000&file=7050-7058

 

7054.  (a) No school district or community college district funds,
services, supplies, or equipment shall be used for the purpose of
urging the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate,
including, but not limited to, any candidate for election to the
governing board of the district.
   (b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of any of the
public resources described in subdivision (a) to provide information
to the public about the possible effects of any bond issue or other
ballot measure if both of the following conditions are met:
   (1) The informational activities are otherwise authorized by the
Constitution or laws of this state.
   (2) The information provided constitutes a fair and impartial
presentation of relevant facts to aid the electorate in reaching an
informed judgment regarding the bond issue or ballot measure.
   (c) A violation of this section shall be a misdemeanor or felony
punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year
or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both,
or imprisonment in a state prison for 16 months, or two or three
years.

 

 

 

 
 
General Fund $67M Ripoff PDF Print E-mail

Our General Fund is the city's pocketbook, and the stadium will keep $67 million from flowing into our pocketbook, as Councilmember McLeod explains (video).


Urgent-Santa Clara City Manager announces Santa Clara's budget deficit is the worst in 30 years.  See the video from the April 20, 2010 City Council meeting:

 


The Stadium will make our General Fund deficit worse.


The stadium will cause a loss of $67 million to Santa Clara's General Fund:

  • Through the year 2026, our General Fund will lose $67 million because the stadium will divert property tax dollars from the redevelopment area towards stadium construction debt; those funds are supposed to flow to our General Fund.
  • The $67 million loss is in addition to the $114 million direct subsidy, the $330 million from the Stadium Authority, and more than $200 million in bond and loan interest.

In the Frequently Asked Questions on the city's website, city staff state that, "In the Term Sheet Presentation materials from the June 2, 2009 council meeting, staff stated the maximum General Fund potential from no stadium as $98 million (Net Present Value, or NPV) and the General fund return from a stadium project as $31 million NPV."

 

The city staff Term Sheet Presentation of June 2, 2009 (slide 48) shows the $67 million loss.

Slide 48 shows that without the stadium, the General Fund is expected to receive $98 Million in revenues, and with the stadium, the General Fund is expected to receive $31 Million.


A Youtube video from the June 2, 2009 council meeting shows the city's consultant describing the loss to Santa Clara's general fund as money is diverted for stadium construction debt.

The $98 Million in Slide 48 is actually the total of 3 numbers:

  • $67 million in property taxes which the Redevelopment Agency is supposed to pay to the General Fund, but won't, because the stadium will divert those property taxes to stadium construction debt
  • $8M loss as result of an SB211 amendment (this amendment is required to extend the Redevelopment Agency in time to collect property taxes for stadium construction debt)
  • $23M for loss of use of the land under stadium, because we're giving the land for free

Santa Clara's consultant, KMA, estimated that with the stadium, the General Fund is expected to receive $31 Million in revenues. 

The $98 Million the General Fund would receive without a stadium minus the $31 Million the General Fund would receive with a stadium leaves a net loss to our General Fund of $67 Million.


$98 Million - $31 Million = $67 Million


The $67 Million loss was developed by Santa Clara City Staff, comparing 2 scenarios: Without Stadium and With Stadium


Without the stadium, there will be 2 streams of income coming into our General Fund:

  • Rent money from businesses that lease land in the Redevelopment Area (e.g. Irvine, Hyatt, Techmart etc.)
  • Property tax dollars paid by landholders in the Redevelopment Area

With the stadium, there will only be 1 stream of income coming into our General Fund:

  • Rent money from businesses that lease land in the Redevelopment Area

The stadium uses up one of the two sources of money which would otherwise flow to the General Fund.  The Property tax dollars paid by landholders in the Redevelopment Area will be diverted towards stadium construction debt.


This $67 Million loss comes on top of General Fund budget deficits of:

  • $5 million last year, and a projected $13.5 million through FY 2010 (ends June 2010).
  • These budget deficits have been paid for from reserves, which are now exhausted.
  • $55.5 million in projected General Fund deficits  from 2010 to 2015.
  • $3.1 million taken from our General Fund by the state of CA to help balance its own budget.

Our General Fund pays for:

  • police, fire, 9-1-1
  • libraries,
  • Senior Center, Youth Activity Center,
  • Parks and Rec, and
  • city staff salaries and services.

Santa Clara is known for its high quality of city services, which cannot be maintained when multi-million dollar losses to our General Fund occur.

 

On April 20, 2010, at the city council meeting, our city manager said that she is 'shocked' at how far revenues have fallen and how much our budget deficit is this year (almost twice as much as projected = $13.5 million).

 

She also said that in 30 years of working in the city manager's office, this is the 'worst situation I've ever seen.'  The stadium will only make the GF deficits larger, as property tax money in our redevelopment area is diverted towards stadium construction debt and away from our GF.


Losses to our General Fund can only be balanced by increases in taxes/fees and decreases in city services.


What city services are you willing to give up to have a stadium?

How much are you willing to pay in increased taxes and fees to have a stadium?

 


 
 
$1.02 Billion Stadium Construction Costs PDF Print E-mail

Current stadium cost estimates, from the DDA:

$1.02 Billion  Total cost estimate

  • $850 Million in Stadium Authority Construction Loans 
  • $114 Million from Santa Clara's RDA, hotel taxes, parking garage, and moving an electric substation (unchanged from the Term Sheet)
  • $150 Million is the 49ers share


FROM THE TERM SHEET.  Here's what we were told:

The total construction cost of the stadium is $937 Million, divided as follows:

  • $444 Million from Santa Clara and its agencies (47%)
  • $493 Million from the 49ers (53%)
  • $0 from the NFL

The $444 million from Santa Clara and its agencies, divided by 44,000 households in Santa Clara, equals $10,000 per household.

The 49ers are pretending to give $823 million for the stadium, by lumping $330 million of Santa Clara's share into the 49ers share.  Here's Council Member Will Kennedy on video at a debate at Peterson Middle School explaining how the 49ers are pretending to provide most of the stadium funding.

Here's an SCPF board member at the May 16th MCA debate stating the true costs of the stadium, after Mayor Mahan and Council Member Jamie Matthews gave false information about who is paying the stadium construction costs: video.


Santa Clara's portion of the construction costs is $444 million, divided into 2 parts:

  • $114 Million in a direct public subsidy
  • $330 Million from Santa Clara's agency, the Stadium Authority
  • (The $444 million does not include interest on bonds and loans at 8.5% from the 49ers)
  • (The $444 million does not include the land, which the city is giving for free)

The $114 million direct subsidy comes from 4 sources:

  • $42 million in Redevelopment District Agency (RDA) bonds (our property taxes)
  • $20 million from Santa Clara's electric utility money to move a substation to create 380 parking spaces at  $52,000 each (our electric fees)
  • $17 million for a parking garage (previously sold bonds-property taxes)
  • $35 million from increased hotel taxes (Mello-Roos hotel tax district, CFD) (bonds & a loan at 8.5% from the 49ers)

On June 3, 2009, Jed York appeared on Comcast Chronicle Live and displayed a correct pie chart of the costs, showing $114 million from the City of Santa Clara, $330 million from Santa Clara's agency, the Stadium Authority, and $493 million from the 49ers.

But since June 3, 2009, the 49ers campaign has been hiding the $330 million from the Stadium Authority by lumping it in with the 49ers share to presend that the 49ers are giving $823 million.


The $330 Million from the Stadium Authority comes primarily from the selling of Personal Seat Licenses and Naming Rights which are high risk sources (see Stadium Authority $330 Million on the main page).

 

Here is Slide 35 from the Term Sheet Presentation, which is a table of the stadium construction costs the city is responsible for (the numbers come from Term Sheet Exhibit 14):


 

Here is a correct pie chart of the stadium construction costs. Santa Clara and its agencies are responsible for raising 47% of the costs.

 



The 49ers have offered no proof that they have their $493 Million in funding, and according to the city manager's office, there will be no proof before we vote on June 8, 2010.

 

There will be many tens to hundreds of millions in interest on:

  • $42 million in RDA bonds
  • Parking garage RDA bonds
  • $15 million in hotel bonds (A portion of the $35 million from the hotels will be bonds)
  • $20 million in a loan from the 49ers at 8.5% (A portion of the $35 million from the hotels will be a loan)
  • >$200 million in Stadium Authority interest-bearing bonds backed by naming rights and ticket surcharges

The 49ers campaign has sent a misleading pie chart of construction costs into our homes, that shows the Stadium Authority contribution lumped in with the 49ers contribution, to make it falsely look like the 49ers are contributing 88% of the construction costs.  Their share is really 53%.

Here's an example of what their pie chart looks like, lumping the Stadium Authority in with the 49ers share:


 

 


In a December 2008 article in the SF Chronicle, reporter Nancy Gay wrote that the NFL has no plans to fund a stadium in Santa Clara for the 49ers, or anywhere else:


"The once-flush NFL no longer has its stadium financing fund, the G3 Program, which franchises could tap for low-cost construction loans. It's a reality Goodell has been preaching for more than a year. Those loans typically were repaid with visiting teams' share of club-seat revenue once the projects were finished."


"Goodell reiterated there are no plans - especially in light of the current economic downturn and worldwide credit crisis - to replenish or replace the G3 fund. Which means the league no longer is in the money-lending business.

That's a blow for the 49ers' current stadium project, which must receive NFL funding assistance whether it's located in Santa Clara, San Francisco or Fresno."


"First, the G3 fund expired just over a year ago, so that funding is not available right now," Goodell said during a halftime meeting with the media. "Clearly, in this economic environment, it makes building anything more challenging. And we obviously, as you know, have issues on the labor side in which we're trying to look at our labor costs, and the increased risks in building stadiums like this."

http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-12-15/sports/17130277_1_roger-goodell-g3-east-bay

 

The new Cowboys stadium was estimated at $650 million and ended up being $1.3 Billion.

The new Giants/Jets stadium was estimated at $800 million and ended up being $1.4 Billion.

 

The 49ers say they will pay for cost overruns, but if they haven't proven to Santa Clarans that they can get the funding for their share ($493 million), then how can we be sure they will be able to get additional funding to cover the cost overruns?

 

Sources:

The Term Sheet Exhibit 14

The Term Sheet Presentation (see slides 34 and 35)

http://santaclaraca.gov/ftp/csc/pdf/49ers-Term-Sheet-Presentation.pdf


 

 

 

 

 
 
More Articles...
«StartPrev12345NextEnd»

Page 4 of 5
HomeContact UsAbout Us
Copyright © 2013 Santa Clara Plays Fair. All Rights Reserved.
Joomla! is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL License.
  

Take Action!

See Us On

Links