After years of acrimony and legal battles between the San Francisco 49ers and Santa Clara over the operation of Levi’s Stadium, the city and the team have finally resolved the last lingering pieces of litigation.
At issue in the latest round of legal entanglements were 2019 and 2020 lawsuits stemming from disagreements over public safety costs for NFL games and reimbursements for food buffets. Announcing the settlement last week, Santa Clara City Manager Jovan Grogan — who also serves as the executive director of the Stadium Authority — said the city projects the general fund will receive $20 million in revenue from Levi’s Stadium over the next two years because of the deal.
“We believe the Settlement Agreement addresses key concerns and provides a fair and advantageous resolution for the Stadium Authority and Santa Clara residents,” Grogan said. “By settling this dispute and restructuring terms in the original agreements that helped bring the 49ers to Santa Clara, we were able to achieve both immediate and long-term financial benefits for the City of Santa Clara.”
The Santa Clara City Council voted 5-2 to approve the settlement last Monday night, but the council is expected to discuss several amendments to the Levi’s Stadium lease as part of the settlement talks on Tuesday night. Mayor Lisa Gillmor and Councilmember Kathy Watanabe cast the dissenting votes.
The dispute over public safety costs dates back to the early days of the stadium’s lease. Under the original lease, the 49ers were paying $170,000 per game for police, and anything over that threshold was returned to the team in rent credit. But over the years, the cost of policing ballooned, and the city demanded the team foot the entire bill. The new threshold for the 49ers will be $360,000 per game, according to the settlement.
In the news release, the city boasted the deal’s “many benefits” including the reduction in the amount of money the Stadium Authority owes the NFL team — from $22 million to $14.8 million — and the payment of $7.1 million in performance rent.
The city said the deal reduces the Stadium Authority’s “reimbursement obligations by $108,000 per game and adds an additional $4 per ticket surcharge to non-NFL events to help offset the Stadium Authority’s commitment to fund a portion of NFL public safety.”
The settlement also resolved the dispute on who should pay for the cost of food buffets for Stadium Builder’s License holders — individuals who have paid a one-time fee to obtain exclusive rights to purchase 49ers season tickets. The stadium lease states that while the NFL team is responsible for providing certain amenities, like the buffet, at games, the Stadium Authority is ultimately responsible for reimbursing the 49ers.
The settlement acknowledges that the Stadium Authority bears those costs, dating back to 2014. But amendments to the lease, set to be discussed at Tuesday night’s meeting, will have the Stadium Authority paying a fixed cost of $90,000 per game for the buffets for individuals in certain VIP sections.
The NFL team also praised the deal in a statement.
“The approval of this settlement fast tracks $20 million to the City General Fund, and puts an end to all remaining litigation between the 49ers and the Stadium Authority,” said Jihad Beauchman, executive vice president and general counsel for the 49ers. “We look forward to beginning this new phase of collaboration and partnership with the City.”
But not everyone on the council considered the deal a touchdown for the city.
The mayor could not immediately be reached for comment, but in a social media post, she called it a “loan-shark type deal.”
“Anyone saying this Settlement Agreement is good for Santa Clarans is deceiving the public,” Gillmor said. “The money the team claims the City gets requires repayment.”
Watanabe also voiced her opposition on social media last week, stating that “it gives the 49ers a discount on public safety costs and hurts taxpayers and makes the stadium less safe.”