D2|Wednesday,January 11, 2017|SFChronicle.com WB
BAY AREA
The SanFrancisco 49ers,
embroiled in an angry dispute
with the city of Santa Clara
over the team’s financial man-
agement recordsat Levi’s Sta-
dium, have gone to court seek-
ing aruling confirming their
claim that they’ve turnedover
all thedocuments they’re le-
gally required to disclose.
City officials have accused
the 49ers of withholdingdocu-
ments on their maintenance,
operation and long-term
spending plans for the$1.2
billionstadium, information
that could reveal whether the
city is improperly spending
taxpayer money on the project.
In October,Mayor LisaGill-
mor said Santa Clarawould
take over management of the
stadium — depriving the team
of re venue from allevents
exceptits own football games
— unlessit received all the
documents.
In a suit filed Fridayin San-
ta Clara County Superior
Court, the 49ers’Stadium
Management Co.said it had
provided all the records re-
quired by its contract with
Santa Clara, andaccused the
city ofacting in badfaith.
The city-runStadium Au-
thority “has embarked on a
scheme to concoct andfab-
ricatefalse accusations of
breach or nonperformanceby
Management Company in
order to create a pretext for
terminating thestadium man-
agementagreement,” the
49ers’ lawyers wrote.
They as ked for aruling
decl aring that the management
company “has performed all of
the obligations” in the con-
tract, and requiring the city to
pay attorneys’ fees and court
costs.
In a letter to CityManager
Rajeev Batra, also datedFri-
day, a la wyer for the 49ers said
the KPMGaccounting firm has
given theStadium Authority’s
financialstatements a“clean
audit opinion” for each year of
operations.
Gillmorwas not immedi-
ately available for comment.
But a cityaudit reportMonday
indicated the differences be-
tween the two sides may be
narrowing because the 49ers
had agreed to provideaccess to
some previously withheld
documents.
This is not the only legal
dispute between the 49ers and
Santa Clara. An arbitrator is
reviewing the team’s claim of a
one-time $4.25 million reduc-
tion ofits $24.5 million rental
payment to the city, based on
revenue from the firstyear of
operations.
The 49ers moved south from
CandlestickPoint in 2014 and
signed a 40-year lease for the
stadium with Santa Clara, with
an option to renewit for an
additional 20years. Financing
arrangements, including a tax
on nearby hotel rooms and a
loan taken outby the Stadium
Authority,were designed toprotect the city’sgeneral fund
fromstadium costs.
Gillmor told the City Coun-
cil inNovember that the 49ers
had refused to provide the
Stadium Authority withde-
tailed budget reports, an oper-
ation and maintenance plan,
and a five-year capital expendi-
ture plan.
The audit reportMonday,
howeve r, said budgetdocu-
ments providedby the 49ers’
Management Co. for 2016-17
include d a fi ve-year capitalplan.
But the audit said the 49ers
have provided only anoverall
cost figure forstadium opera-
tions in 2016 —$7.56 million —
withoutdetailing the costs or
the amount spent on football
and non-footballevents.
The team hasdecl ined to
disclose the revenues it took in
from concerts and other non-
footballevents unless the city
agrees tokeep the information
confidential, theaudit said.It
said the team has also refusedto turnover its detailed main-
tenance plan for thestadium
because “it contains sensitive
security information.”
The auditors said the City
Council could consider the
confidential matters in aclosed
session anddelete any sensi-
tive information fromdocu-
ments made public.Bob Egelko is a SanFrancisco
Chronicle staff writer. Email:
begel [email protected] Twitter:
@egelko49ers sue Santa Clara in documents dispute
Jeff Chiu /Associated Press 2016
Fans enter Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clarafor a 49ers game in October. The city says the team
hasn’t provided allrequ ired documents onstadium operations;the team contends it has.By Bob Eg elko
The Alameda County
Board of Supervisors on
Tuesday unanimously
approved $5.5 million in
federal emergency pre-
paredness funding for
the Sheriff’s Office,
most ofwhich willgo
toward a controversial
program that trains law
enforcement for large-
scale disasters, mass
shootings and terrorist
attacks.
The supervisors also
created a civilian task
force to monitor the
Urban Shield program
for oneyear, ensuring
that it does not bring a
“military” mentality to
local policedepartmentsor use counterterrorism
rhetoric that targets
Muslims, immigrants or
African Americans.
Started in 2007by
Alameda CountySheriff
Gregory Ahern,Urban
Shield has been crit-
icized foryears, prompt-
ing raucousdebate at
public meetings and
inspiring dramatic pro-
tests from opponents
who believe it promotes
a military-style culture
and use of violence
against civilians.
In September, protest-
ers chained themselves
to the gates of the Ala-
meda CountyFair-
grounds,where aweek-
end-long Urban Shield
training took place.More than 100 people
packed the boardcham-
bers on Tuesday as the
five supervisorsweighed
the U.S. Departmentof
Homeland Security
grant — $4.9 million of
which would fundUr-
ban Shield trainings this
year, with the rest pay-
ing for new equipment.
Representatives from
various Bay Area law
enforcement and rescue
agencies arrived in their
uniforms,voicingsup-
port for trainings that
they say helped gird for
suchcatastrophes as the
2012 massshootingat
OikosUniversity and
the Ghost Shipfire in
December.
“We live in an areawith a lot of daunting
disaster risks,” said a
speaker named Doug
Sandy, who hasworked
in emergency manage-
ment for 30years.
“We’re a prime target
for terrorism because of
the international visibil-
ity of the Bay Area and
SiliconValley. We can-
not afford to have our
localagencies meet each
other on thestreet for
the first timewhen we
have a major disaster.”
Opponents ofUrban
Shield saidit’s an over-
zealousapproach to law
enforcement and brings
weaponryto local police
departments.
Past trainings have
combined an intense
focus on disaster relief
with trade expos that
showcase high-tech
armor, drones and other
gear.
“No one in this room
would object to the
need for emergency
training, butwe need to
separate that from‘mili-
tarization’ training,” said
SusanHarmon of the
antiwar group Code-
Pink.
She and others fear
that counterterrorism
efforts taught by Urban
Shield could be twisted
for useduring a Donald
Trumpadministration
to target immigrants,
Muslims andBlack
Lives Matter activists as
terrorist threats.
Ahern and thesu-
pervisorsstoutlyde-
fended the program
during the public hear-
ing, saying they are
capable of balancing the
need for public safety
with the importance of
protecting civil liberties.
“The notion of 21st
century policing is to
have policework as
guardians, not aswar-
riors, and I know I
support that,” said Su-
pervisorNate Miley,
who ba cked theUrban
Shield program.
“But sometimes,
when li ves are endan-
gered, you need people
who are brave enough
to address those life-
threatening situations.
Sometimes, like with
the Ghost Ship , you
need to have adequate
training soeveryone is
on the same page.”Rachel Swan is a San
Francisco Chronicle staff
writer. Email rswan@
sfchronicle.comAlamedasupes accept
grant for disaster training
By RachelSwan