Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stadium And Public Land topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts lease amendment with 49ers including $1 million Rec and Park payment and Super Bowl partnership language
Summary
The Board approved a lease amendment with the San Francisco 49ers covering Candlestick Park that includes a $1 million payment to Recreation and Park and provisions tied to employee transition and a potential Super Bowl partnership; staff clarified that any spending would require a future appropriation ordinance.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday adopted a resolution approving a lease amendment with the San Francisco 49ers related to Candlestick Park.
Supervisor Farrell framed the amendment as a difficult but necessary step to protect the city's financial interests and to preserve a working relationship with the franchise as the team moves forward with a new stadium outside the city. The lease amendment, he said, contains several provisions that would benefit the city if the 49ers terminate the lease early, including a payment of $1,000,000 to the Recreation and Park Department for youth programs and language offering current Candlestick employees opportunities to work at the new stadium.
Farrell told the board the city would "partner with the 49ers to be the lead city in a Super Bowl bid," a provision he described as intended to bring substantial economic activity to San Francisco.
Supervisor Cohen asked Deputy City Attorney Cheryl Adams whether the Rec and Park department would be required to return to the board with an appropriation before spending the funds. Adams replied that "before the department could spend that money, the money would need to be appropriated by ordinance of the board" and that the resolution expressly conditions acceptance of funds on the charter's budget and appropriations authority.
With that clarification, Supervisor Cohen said he would support the amendment and the board adopted the resolution without objection.
The resolution does not itself appropriate the $1,000,000; any expenditure would require subsequent appropriation by ordinance.
