Santa Clara Stadium Authority holds study session on FY 2025–26 budget, public safety and marketing plan

The Santa Clara Stadium Authority Board met in a study session to review the proposed fiscal year 2025–26 stadium operating, debt service and capital budgets and to answer questions about the authority’s compliance, management and marketing plans. Executive Director Jovan Grogan opened the discussion by describing the review timeline and the board’s role: “action on this proposed budget is scheduled for your very next meeting on March 11… tonight, there is not a recommendation to take any action.”

Why it matters: the stadium operates on an April-to-March fiscal year and accounts for tens of millions of dollars in operating, debt and capital activity that affect transfers to the city’s general fund. The board’s decisions determine how revenue surpluses are allocated under a multi-step “waterfall” established in the 2024 settlement agreement and influence funding for public-safety reimbursements, capital preservation and event marketing.

Treasurer Ken Lee and Assistant City Manager Chuck Baker led a Q&A reviewing the budget’s structure and assumptions. Lee said the operations budget is about $61.2 million and, after transfers, the budget represents roughly $80 million in financial activity. He emphasized the compressed timeline the city faces: the stadium manager must supply a budget 45 days before the fiscal year’s start, the stadium must deliver to the trustee 10 days before the start, and the authority has about 35 days for analysis and study sessions.

On public-safety costs and the 2024 settlement: Lee recapped provisions from last year’s agreement that changed how excess revenues are distributed. The budget includes $2.1 million budgeted from a public-safety cost reserve and projects payments of about $13 million against that outstanding balance across the current and next fiscal year, leaving a projected remaining balance of about $2.8 million by the end of the next fiscal year. Lee said that surplus revenues are distributed through a stepped waterfall and that adjustments in the settlement altered earlier formulas.

On capital reserves: staff said the capital reserve is projected to drop to about $2.8 million in the coming year. Staff recommended adding $1.0 million annually as a placeholder to better maintain the facility while the city finishes the facility-condition assessment. “Frankly, professionally, more than a million dollars to put away a year is professionally appropriate,” Assistant City Manager Baker told the board; staff described the $1.0 million as a placeholder pending closer review of the condition assessment.

On non‑NFL events, naming rights and the ticket surcharge: Lee explained that non‑NFL ticket surcharge revenue was projected to increase after a change that raised a portion of the non‑NFL ticket surcharge from 4 to 8 for certain events. The budget anticipates an additional $2.0 million in surcharge revenue and allocates roughly $1.0 million toward the capital expenditure fund. The budget also shows a Levi’s obligation related to 2026 World Cup tickets of about $1.6 million and a timing mismatch because purchases are required in the current fiscal year while the associated surcharge revenues will be realized next fiscal year.

On stadium manager office space and shared-service charges: staff said the proposed budget includes about $620,000 for office space that consolidates stadium manager staff off Great America Parkway. Alex Zakkian, director of finance for the San Francisco 49ers (registered lobbyist), explained that the team consolidated about 160 employees into roughly 52,000 square feet of leased space and said the authority’s allocation is an annual share of that cost. City staff said they are still evaluating the lease details and the contractual basis for passing that cost through to the authority.

On SBL (stadium builder/licensing) sales and service and related staffing: the budget includes approximately $5.0 million in SBL-related revenue assumptions and roughly $3.3 million in SBL service costs. Stadium manager representatives said the 19-person SBL team’s work includes sales, invoicing, account servicing and remarketing defaulted licenses; some new sales are financed over 10 years and thus generate multi-year revenue streams. Staff said they would provide additional line-item detail before the March 11 action item.

Marketing plan and SOP confidentiality: Assistant City Manager Baker said the stadium authority hired an independent marketing consultant to review ticketed and non‑ticketed event strategies; the consultant’s work is budgeted at under $50,000 and will benchmark industry best practices. Baker explained that components of the stadium operations and management plan (SOMP) related to security and other safety‑sensitive procedures remain confidential because they include staffing, security and equipment specifics.

Public comment and next steps: the session included public questions about ticket surcharges, stadium events and staffing. Multiple board members asked for additional detail on line items, parking, the Exhibit J 10‑year forecast comparison and the stadium manager office lease. Staff said they would return with additional documentation and that formal action on the proposed FY 2025–26 budget is scheduled for the board’s March 11 meeting.

Ending note: no formal action was taken at the study session; staff sought board feedback and pledged additional detail ahead of the March 11 adoption meeting.