49ers/city to settle on park repairs

[colo49ergyrl]

From: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/08/BAGTEPMJ4O16.DTL



The 49ers football team is on the verge of winning more than $10 million from San Francisco to pay for upkeep at Monster Park as part of a settlement of the team's legal claim alleging the city has been a negligent landlord.

Under the proposed agreement, which has been approved by the Recreation and Parks Commission and recommended for approval by the Board of Supervisors' Rules Committee, a portion of rents from 2007 through 2011 will go toward repairs.

The team pays about $6.5 million in rent to use Monster Park 10 to 12 days a year, and roughly $2.5 million in taxes and other revenue.

[co2112]

The city rejected the 49ers' legal claim in March, insisting it had satisfied the terms of the team's lease, which was signed in 1969 and amended numerous times in the intervening years.

The city earlier agreed, however, to defer payment of some of the 49ers' 2007 rent pending negotiations. Over the last three years, the city has given the team rent credits totaling $4.2 million to pay the 49ers back for maintenance and repairs.


Now do people see why the 49ers are considering finding a new home. If the city doesn't want them Santa Clara will take the necessary steps to bring this type of tax and income to the economy.

[TheWiz]

Two things to add...

1) Expect most of the money to be unused until next offseason. The goal is to repair some of the more unseemly problems with the park for the '08-'011 seasons. These include the terrible elevators, parking lots and drainage issues on them, and also maintenance on a lot of the lighting and sound equipment that has in recent years been a dangerous risk. Much of the work though like the elevators and parking lot I'm told are too expansive to hire, plan, and finish work on before the '07 season so it will get planned and contracted this summer and fall and fixed. Hopefully the stadium will be a little more inhabitable when the team gets into its "say goodbye to candlestick" push before leaving the city.

2) The new deal also extends the teams lease through the '12 season. Under the current 5-year lease the team renewed last year, our last season in the stadium would be the '11 season. So if we do leave and play in Santa Clara or elsewhere in '12 and beyond the city still gets a nice 6.5M+ rent check from us for not using the facility. It also at least gives us a fall back home for the year if construction elsewhere goes too long.

[ethanh]

Thanks for the info,
As with any renter, you got a problem are you going to wait for the landlord or take care of it yourself? Do it yourself and get reimbursed, it sucks and the 49ers have every right to be upset that the city balked. But if your the only one there, and wanting it done, it is your problem. Glad to see the city paying up for it though. They have been lucky lately with no storms, only the Houston (with 1/3 attendance) game was flooded in recent years.

Did York pay for the new field or was that reimbursed as part of the stadium upkeep?

[TheWiz]

Thanks for the info,
As with any renter, you got a problem are you going to wait for the landlord or take care of it yourself? Do it yourself and get reimbursed, it sucks and the 49ers have every right to be upset that the city balked. But if your the only one there, and wanting it done, it is your problem. Glad to see the city paying up for it though. They have been lucky lately with no storms, only the Houston (with 1/3 attendance) game was flooded in recent years.

Did York pay for the new field or was that reimbursed as part of the stadium upkeep?

The only catch being that the lease the team has with the city specifically outlines how much the city is expected to pay per year. The idea is the team pays a rent but retains no rights to hold other events at the stadium. Since the city is free to lease it to whomever for any event within reason, the city is on the hook for maintenance costs. It seems rather unfair that perhaps the team must pay for wear and tear not due to its usage alone. But around '99-'02 the city abused the new ownership by moving those guaranteed funds into other city funding locations. As a result problems have built up.

I think it would be a problem had York fixed it himself and asked for money later. This could mean hundreds of thousands in parking lot repairs and God knows how much elevator repairs will cost. Legally showing up asking a city to reimburse millions is a lot harder. It's not like a fridge with a dead compressor and you bought a new fridge and ask for a rent credit from your realtor. The city could subpeona your spending for the repairs and blame overspending and dredge up exports who say the repairs were extravagent. Not to mention the city would bring up details as to why it should reimburse costs to what will likely be an empty nest in 5 years. On the other hand, you wave a lease in their face and pictures of what needs to be fixed and they settle out of court in a heartbeat.