Santa Clara Stadium Authority staff present FY2025–26 budget with $18.6M in capital projects, board schedules adoption in March

The Santa Clara Stadium Authority held a study session on its proposed fiscal year 2025–26 operating, debt service and capital budgets, with staff and the treasurer outlining a plan that includes $18.6 million in capital projects, a $61.2 million operating budget and $20.6 million in debt service. Staff said members are scheduled to act on the budget at the Authority’s March meeting and that several follow-up items will be resolved before adoption.

Why it matters: The budget carries the stadium into a year that includes major events in 2026 and incorporates provisions of the December 2024 settlement agreements the city reached with the stadium manager and related parties. The document also includes a 10‑year forecast, reflecting a recommendation from last year’s grand jury calling for long-range fiscal planning.

Treasurer Ken Lee and Assistant City Manager and Assistant Executive Director Chuck Baker walked the Authority through the document. Lee told the board that non‑NFL event revenue has been unusually strong over the last two years (actuals cited at about $8.3M and $9.3M), and staff budgeted $5.3M of net non‑NFL event revenue for 2025–26 while noting the stadium manager’s historical practice of conservative budgeting followed by higher actual receipts. The proposed budget includes an $18.6M capital program made up of roughly $5.2M in new projects and carryover projects of about $11.9M, and a $1.5M warranty reserve for outstanding claims.

Staff emphasized that the budget reflects commitments from the settlement agreements, including payments toward an outstanding public safety cost balance. Lee said the public safety balance was roughly $14.8M at the time of the agreement and is projected to fall to about $2.8M at the end of FY25‑26 after scheduled reimbursements and transfers. The draft also projects $6.2M in direct payments to the general fund next year, $2.2M in performance rent on an accrual basis, $1.0M in ground rent and $270,000 in senior and youth fees.

On capital reserves, staff said the authority’s capital reserve will drop to about $2.6M under the current plan and recommended an additional $1.0M contribution to capital next year. Chuck Baker said a facility condition assessment is underway and could change the priorities and amounts; staff will return to the board as that analysis is completed. New carryover projects include lighting system work and naming‑rights signage replacement associated with the Levi’s agreement; staff noted a $1.6M budgeted payment related to fulfilling naming‑rights ticket obligations for World Cup matches, while the surcharge revenue tied to those events is expected in later fiscal years.

Board members pressed staff on several items, including the low capital reserve, the timing of ticket‑purchase expenses for events occurring in later fiscal years, and whether positions charged to stadium activities remain appropriate as SBL (suite and seat license) revenues decline. Lee and Baker told the board they would provide detailed follow‑up on SPL/SBL staffing allocations, the office‑space line item that the stadium manager has included, and to clarify timing differences between expenses (for example, ticket purchases required now) and the related revenues, which may flow in later years. Several board members asked for a firmer reconciliation of the $20M in general‑fund revenue cited in earlier public materials with the numbers currently in the draft budget.

Next steps: Staff said this was one of two planned study sessions and that any line‑item changes requested by the board can be incorporated before the March adoption hearing. The board held the matter for further discussion on March 4 and expects to act on the budget at its March 11 meeting, after which the budget will be transmitted to the trust that oversees cash flow planning.

Details to watch: staff will return with the final facility condition assessment, updated projections for non‑NFL event revenues as bookings firm, a breakdown of shared‑services positions and costs charged to the authority, and clarifications about the stadium manager lease items (including the stadium manager’s proposed office space and sheriff office allocation).