RESPONSES TO COUNCIL QUESTIONS RE: MARCH 25, 2025 AGENDA
Agenda Item 3F. 25-1233: Action on Award of Agreements to Arini Geographics, LLC and Lynx Technologies for Enterprise Geographic Information System (GIS) Professional Services
Council Questions:
Q1. How is the City ensuring proper scope control and cost justification over time in the Arini agreement, particularly when task orders can be issued without Council review?
R: Work authorized through task orders is scoped with key deliverables identified and associated acceptance and payment milestones. Issuance of task orders is a standard operating procedure for nearly all contracts. Scope control is ensured through a fixed price-based task order with regular status/project oversight.
Q2. What oversight mechanisms are in place to protect public funds as Arini performs "as-needed" services under this multi-year agreement?
R: All work performed by Arini will be documented and tracked via various Task orders for new projects and through ongoing oversight and contract management by staff with status review and tracking of agreed upon workplan.
Q3. With two GIS vendors under contract — one for operations and one for special projects — what process is in place to prevent duplication of services or billing?
R: All operational work is to be assigned to Arini. This prevents any duplication related to operational work. Any other work would be managed through task orders with clearly delineated scope and payment milestones/billing.
Q4. How is vendor selection for task orders being managed to ensure transparency, fiscal discipline, and fair distribution of work?
R: For special projects approved via task order, vendor distribution of work would be based on their area of expertise, availability, timeline, and cost.
Q5. Arini is required to submit a Termination Assistance Plan, while Lynx is not. If either vendor exits after becoming embedded in essential systems, what continuity measures are in place to ensure City access, documentation, and operational knowledge are preserved?
R: Each task order includes an operationalization phase that includes documentation and knowledge transfer.
Operational work is to be performed per the City’s change control process that is documented and reviewed.
Significant change in vendors or handoff to identified staff would draw upon a transition plan and overlap, which is the intent of the termination assistance plan. On the other hand, Lynx will be working on a special project basis and will finish the scope of work assigned to them that includes operationalization of that effort as part of project closure activities.
Q6. Are any of Arini’s services supporting public safety systems at Levi’s Stadium eligible for Stadium Authority reimbursement under Measure J, and if so, how are those costs being tracked and billed?
R: Arini supports events at the stadium, specifically the City’s Common Operational Picture or C.O.P. The C.O.P. integrates various data feeds to provide a single pane of glass for real-time situational awareness for Public Safety and emergency response. Any time spent on Stadium activities is tracked and charged to an authorized and specific stadium-related budget. They are being tracked in the same way as all other stadium event-related 2 3rd party invoices are tracked. There is coding specific to stadium events that is input into the City’s financial system, and these costs are then included on the bills that are sent to the Stadium Manager for reimbursement (related to NFL and Non-NFL events).
Agenda Item 4B. 25-101: Action on the Santa Clara Stadium Authority Financial Status Report for Quarter Ending December 31, 2024 and Approve Related Budget Amendments
Council Questions:
Q1. What is the status of the $9.8 million in performance rent currently shown as unpaid? What measures are in place to enforce timely payment of these funds?
R: The Stadium Authority paid $7.3 million to the City in January 2025 for FY 2022/23 and 2023/24 Performance Based Rent. Because of the timing of this report (April 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024) they are not reflected and will be reflected in the next quarter’s report. The Performance Rent for FY 2024/25 is projected at $4.1 million.
This will be accrued at year-end and expected to be transferred to the City by August 2025. This totals $11.4 million, which is $1.6 million higher than the budget of $9.8 million, hence the recommended budget amendment for Performance Based Rent in the amount of $1.6 million is included in the report.
Q2. Has any portion of the $1.7 million in unreimbursed NFL public safety costs been temporarily covered by the City’s General Fund, and how does that align with Measure J restrictions?
R: Public Safety costs for all events are charged in the General Fund and invoiced to the Stadium Manager. It is expected that these costs will be fully reimbursed. We consider the timing of when charges occur to when they are reimbursed as a normal business operations practice and not outside of what is restricted by Measure J. Since the report was drafted, it should be noted that the City received a $900k payment and the remaining outstanding due should be paid shortly. It should also be noted that it may take up to 90 days for the City to invoice event costs as the City is dependent on receiving invoices from multiple third-party agencies for each event.
Q3. Given that Stadium Manager data has not been audited or independently validated this quarter, what steps are being taken to ensure reported costs and reimbursements are accurate and transparent?
R: The quarterly reports are unaudited and provided to the Council based on the best data at the time the report is presented. On a regular basis, Finance staff reviews the data and backup documentation within the Stadium Manager Financial Management System (FMS) to ensure accuracy for the financial reports provided to Council.
At the end of the year, the Stadium Authority Financial Report, which includes data for the full fiscal year, is based on data that is reviewed and audited by KPMG, the Stadium Authority’s external auditor. Year-end audits are the customary approach for government finances, as it is not practical to conduct an independent audit on quarterly reports and still provide timely information to the public and legislative bodies.
Q4. What is the City's process for fulfilling its Measure J oversight responsibilities when unaudited data is relied upon for financial reporting?
R: The quarterly financial reports are intended to provide the Council with a status update based on specific time periods. All of the financial reports provided by Finance to the City Council during the year (City Monthly Financial Report, Convention Center Quarterly, Stadium Authority Quarterly) are based on unaudited data until the close of the fiscal year when the external auditor for the Stadium Authority and/or City has access to and reviews all information for activity throughout the year. Operationally, staff is cognizant of Measure J restrictions, and all charges are based on policies and procedures directed by the City Manager.
Agenda Item 5. 25-166: Public Hearing: Actions to Allow the Development of 1,792 Residential Units and Associated On- and Off-Site Improvements on Property Located at 2518 Mission College Boulevard, including an Addendum to the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation 3 Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
Council Question:
What is the current timeline or procedural mandate to complete a full Specific Plan for the remainder of the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area?
Note: the response to this question will be provided by either a re-dissemination of this Q&A document or staff will be prepared to respond at the meeting tonight.
Agenda Item 6. 25-334: Informational Report on Super Bowl LX – Spring 2025
Council Questions:
Q1. Is the $150,000 interim reimbursement cap sufficient to cover all staffing and public safety costs through May 2025, and if not, what process is in place to increase the cap quickly without disruption?
R: As with the FIFA World Cup 2026 (FWC26) Interim Funding Agreement (IFA), the Super Bowl LX (SBLX) IFA is an agreement that memorializes the BAHC commitment to reimburse costs during the negotiation process with the more substantive agreements, the Assignment and Assumption Agreement for FWC26 and the League Agreement for SBLX. Both parties have developed a process to align on estimated costs and reimbursement cap levels, which are directed and originated by City staff. The methodology to develop the cost estimates and $150,000 cap is based on current and anticipated run rates, and there’s a provision to meet and confer once costs reach $120,000, which allows sufficient time to increase the cap quickly without disruption (See Super Bowl IFA Section 5.2).
Q2. Given the termination clause allows either party to end the agreement with five business days’ notice, what protections are in place to prevent the City from being left with unreimbursed expenses?
R: Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of the Super Bowl IFA address this. These Sections provide that BAHC shall have no obligation to reimburse otherwise “Eligible Expenses” incurred after the “Termination Date” but will remain liable for Eligible Expenses incurred prior to the Termination Date upon submittal and processing of an invoice for such costs in accordance with the standard reimbursement procedures set forth in Section 3 of the Agreement.
City can assure that no unreimbursed expenses will be incurred by terminating Super Bowl preparation activities within the five-business day “Notice of Termination” period.
Q3. How is the City ensuring that training, travel, or capital expenses deemed "unreasonable" by BAHC are not denied without cause or recourse and what safeguards or escalation procedures exist to contest a denial of Super Bowl-related reimbursement under the current agreement structure?
R: Section 2.4 of the Super Bowl IFA provides a process for BAHC to provide input on proposed training, travel, or capital expenses prior to such expenses being incurred. City agrees to consider this input in good faith but reserves the right to incur the expenses it deems necessary to assure public safety at Super Bowl LX and to seek reimbursement for such expenses from BAHC. BAHC reserves the right to dispute submitted expenses it deems unreasonable. If the parties are unable to resolve any dispute regarding the reasonableness of expenses incurred, under the terms of Section 6 of the IFA such dispute will be resolved through binding arbitration, with costs shared 50/50.
Q4. How is the City tracking and distinguishing Super Bowl-related expenses from those tied to FIFA World Cup preparation to prevent duplication or funding disputes?
R: There are separate payroll codes by activity and department for each major event – SBLX and FWC26. Each month, City staff submit detailed activity staff reports for each major event. This report summarizes the staff hours and fully loaded costs (benefits, overhead, etc.) per payroll code, and any vendor expenses (the 4 quantitative summary), and a detailed description (a bulleted list) for each major event (the qualitative summary) that delineates work into three categories: Combined Work (FWC26 and SBLX), FWC26-Specific Work, and SBLX- Specific Work.
For combined work, each item - planning (staff time), equipment, training, and event deployment (pending) - allocates costs proportionally to the events. In some cases, e.g., equipment rental, costs are allocated by the number of days that the equipment is rented, e.g., 7 (6 days for FWC and 1 day for SBLX). In other cases that are less specific such as training costs, the splits can vary from 75%/25%, 67%/33% or 50%/50%, depending on the sponsor/host, scope, agenda, and content of the training.
Q5. Why was the VPSO agreement only finalized after the Super Bowl occurred, and what steps are being taken to prevent this pattern in future agreements?
R: The Reimbursement Agreement for VPSO expenses was signed by the BAHC on January 31, 2025, prior to the VPSO/Super Bowl 50 event itself, which commenced on February 5, 2025. The City Manager’s signature was inadvertently delayed through the final processing of formal “DocuSign” signatures.
Q6. What documentation exists to account for VPSO-related expenses, and why is no cost breakdown included in the final agreement?
R: The parties exchanged and agreed on the VPSO cost estimates weeks prior to the Super Bowl, which included a detailed summary of staff and travel costs. Staff did not want to publish the specific cost breakdown in the final agreement due to security concerns.
Q7. Can the City request or negotiate an amendment to clarify that administrative time is a reimbursable expense, including examples, rate structures, and acceptable documentation?
R: There is a provision in the agreement for amendments, subject to approval by both parties. However, in negotiations regarding "administrative" versus "direct" costs, both for the World Cup and now Super Bowl, BAHC has been unwilling to reimburse the SCSA for "administrative" staff costs. Their position has been that such reimbursements are not typical or customary in the marketplace for large events, and the City does not seek or receive third party/promoter reimbursement for such costs for any other NFL or non-NFL events at Levi’s Stadium.
As a result, for the World Cup, administrative staff time has not been recovered as part of the IFA or, now, under the terms of the Assignment and Assumption Agreement. Instead, per existing policies, such costs have been billed to the SCSA. Staff weighed the non-reimbursement of administrative time against the other benefits of the negotiated agreement prior to making a recommendation of approval and noted this when the Assignment & Assumption Agreement was brought before the Board for review and approval. A similar approach is being taken for the Super Bowl events.
Q8. What is the City's working definition of “reasonable” and “unreasonable” expenses in this context, and how is that definition aligned with BAHC's expectations?
R: Over the past eleven months, City staff and BAHC staff have developed a working process to align on cost estimates, which includes discussions on justifying the cost reimbursement prior to submitting cost reimbursement requests. This allows us to align on what constitutes “reasonable” and “unreasonable” costs prior to incurring costs. Furthermore, the definition of reasonable costs is built into the detailed summary in the agreement, which helps to align expectations between the two parties. Importantly, as described in the response to Question 1, event planning, training, equipment, and deployment costs are directed and originated by City staff.
5 Q9. Santa Clara continues to see little name recognition or public-facing benefit tied to the Super Bowl, despite shouldering the planning and cost burden. How is staff working to ensure the City is actually benefiting from this event — both reputationally and financially?
R: As the lead law enforcement agency and the locale where the host stadium is located, the City of Santa Clara, the SCSA, and our public safety departments have the duty and the responsibility of being the lead agencies to plan for public safety and ensure the protection of our local community and the visiting public. As noted by the various agreements as well as the structure that was in place for Super Bowl 50, the City is reimbursed for its event-related expenses and the Stadium Authority bears the general management and administrative costs, similar to other Super Bowl venues. Further, it is worth noting that other Bay Area municipalities and prior Super Bowl host cities contribute financially and provide free in-kind support for the Super Bowl. (See article, "City of New Orleans promises $800,000 in local tax rebates to host 2024 Super Bowl" and “City of Las Vegas, through the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, committed $40M to host Super Bowl LVIII”). This is not the case in Santa Clara, and no money has been requested or committed by Discover Santa Clara to offset SB60 hosting costs.
Additionally, staff recognizes that the City “continues to see little name recognition or public-facing benefit related to the Super Bowl.” We have and will continue to articulate for greater public recognition for the City of Santa Clara and encourage elected officials to do the same. Representatives from the Bay Area Host Committee are planning to attend tonight’s meeting remotely, and a similar question can be posed to them. In regard to public engagement, is/will work with the DMO, the Economic Development Committee, and community stakeholders on a variety of locally led community events and activations.
Agenda Item 7. 25-1135: Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution Ordering the Abatement of a Nuisance Consisting of Growing Weeds in Association with the County Weed Abatement Program for 2025
Council Questions:
Q1. What process is in place to assess whether the Weed Abatement Program is being applied equitably across residential, commercial, and publicly owned properties?
R: The Weed Abatement Program does not selectively target certain types of properties (residential, commercial, smaller, larger, etc.). Any type of property, as long as it is a privately owned parcel, falls under the purview of the Weed Abatement Program.
Q2. How is the City ensuring that small property owners are not disproportionately impacted while larger, higher- risk parcels receive limited scrutiny?
R: Below is a response from the County Weed Abatement Manager…
“The Weed Abatement Program inspects properties only under one of the following three conditions:
1) A complaint is received from a member of the public or from a public agency. 2) The property has been observed to be out of compliance by an inspector while conducting routine inspections in the City.
3) The property is already on the Weed Abatement Program’s list due to one of the reasons listed above.
Properties typically remain on the list until the Weed Abatement Program has observed the property to be in voluntary compliance for three consecutive years during routine annual inspections.
If the Weed Abatement Program does not receive a complaint about the property, or if an inspector does not drive by a non-compliant property which is not already on the Program’s list, then it will not be inspected. We unfortunately do not have the resources or capacity to survey the entire City each year to observe the compliance status of every single property.
6 As noted in the response to Question 1, the Weed Abatement Program does not selectively target certain types of properties (residential, commercial, smaller, larger, etc.). Any type of property, as long as it is a privately owned parcel, falls under the purview of the Weed Abatement Program. The Weed Abatement Program does not inspect publicly owned properties. Our funding mechanism relies solely on assessing fees to the property owner’s property tax bill. Most publicly owned properties do not pay property taxes, therefore we are not able to assess fees on publicly owned parcels.”
Agenda Item 9. 25-97: Adoption of a General Plan Amendment to Incorporate the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Program into the Safety Element of the City's General Plan
Council Questions:
Note: the responses to the questions below will be provided by either a re-dissemination of this Q&A document or staff will be prepared to respond at the meeting tonight.
Q1. What specific funding opportunities become available to the City through adoption of the MJHMP in compliance with AB 2140?
Q2. Has the City missed any funding opportunities in the past due to non-compliance with AB 2140?
Q3. Which hazard mitigation actions identified in the MJHMP or Local Annex are currently being prioritized by the City?
Q4. How are those priorities being integrated into capital improvement plans or infrastructure investments?
Q5. What strategies are in place to educate residents and businesses about the hazard risks identified in the MJHMP and the mitigation efforts under way?
Q6. What coordination is occurring with the County and other jurisdictions to ensure regional hazards like wildfire smoke and flooding are being addressed collaboratively?