Due to the quick turnaround of press time, The Weekly focused on one key item from last night’s Santa Clara City Council meeting. We offer more in-depth coverage of other items discussed at the city council meeting in the coming days. 

The Santa Clara City Council continued its public flogging of the proposed changes to the city’s charter.

At its most recent meeting July 7, the council heard more updates to the city’s proposed charter language. After more than nine months, the council-formed charter review committee settled on numerous changes to the city’s governing document, but several council members still had concerns about various aspects of what is to be put before voters in November.

In the wake of criticism from a previous meeting, City Attorney Glen Googins presented tweaks to the charter amendments. He said the charter is in such a “state of clumsy organization” that an overhaul is necessary to bring the document into the 21st century.

“The city has changed. How we conduct business has changed. The laws have changed,” he said.

The changes were broken down into three levels. Level one changes are those considered cleanup or administrative. Level two changes are substantive but uncontroversial. Level three changes are those likely to be contentious.

Changing the portion of the charter that details how the city deals with public works procurement will likely see its own ballot measure. New state law allows cities to skip bidding for certain construction projects, instead having the same contractor design and build the project. The change is supposed to streamline construction for larger projects such as construction of fire stations or repairs at the George Haines International Swim Center (ISC).

Other major changes included a redistricting ordinance, removal and appointment for the city’s boards and commissions, an excused absence policy, a recusal policy, eliminating the city manager’s outdated spending threshold, as well as special rules for issuing revenue bonds for infrastructure projects — excluding Silicon Valley Power (SVP).

Googins told the council that the city conducted benchmarking of similar cities, looking at those that own a stadium, have a similar population and a public utility. Some cities included in the benchmarking were Alameda, Anaheim, Berkeley, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Hayward and Redwood City.

“The benchmarking kind of affirms this notion that what is being proposed to you is a best practice, at least as it aligns with the comparable charters that were identified,” Googins said.

Although the recommendation was that the council accept the level one and two changes, as well as any level three changes it was comfortable with, the council still managed to take issue with several aspects. 

The main concern, shared by typically political opponents Mayor Lisa Gillmor and Council Member Kevin Park, was that the process seemed hurried. 

“The fact that we are doing this seems irresponsible to me,” Park said. “Why are we doing this? Why are we rushing this? … Are you trying to catch lightning in a bottle?”

Park called the charter review committee’s subcommittees being closed to the public “disingenuous,” something Googins said would have “probably been impossible.”

Council Member Kelly Cox said too many of the terms bandied about in the charter are subjective. In the absence of an independent ethics commission, Cox said she worried subjectivity would allow for “creating a system where a political majority … can determine professionalism or misconduct of a political minority.”

What they saw as ill-defined parameters in the proposed changes didn’t sit well with Gillmor and Cox. Instead of detailing many parameters in the charter, the proposed changes leave them to be determined by ordinance. 

But Googins said the charter is not supposed to be a detailed document.

Gillmor called it a “trust us” approach.

“Why even have a charter, because most of it will be empty?” Gillmor said. “Most of it will be lacking specific items because it would all be subject to an ordinance and whatever council is sitting here at the time.”

In addition to the council, several public members spoke against the changes.

“It looks like they are shifting the authority away from the city council and mayor and really pushing that more power to the city manager and city attorney,” said David Kertes, mayoral candidate.

In a 4-2 vote, the council directed city employees to return with ironed out options. Park and Gillmor dissented. 

The city must submit the final draft of the proposed charter changes to the Registrar of Voters (RoV) by Aug. 7. It will make the final decision on the changes at its next meeting. 

Council Member Raj Chahal was absent.

Santa Clara City Council Consent Calendar Spending

The council approved the following spending in one motion via the consent calendar:

• A one-year, $250,000 extension to an agreement with Raftelis Financial Consultants for organizational assessment services. The total contract is now $500,000.
• A one-year, $97,000 extension to an agreement with Baker Tilly Advisory Group for organization assessment services. The total contract is now $347,000.
•  A $200,000 increase to an agreement with Movable, Inc. for event planning. The total contract is now $550,000.
• A $100,000 increase to an agreement with TRAFFIK for event planning. The total contract is now $350,000.
• A $1.64 million contract with O’Grady Paving for the Bowers Park parking lot rehab.

The next regularly scheduled meeting is 7 p.m. Tuesday, July 14, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1500 Warburton Ave. in Santa Clara.

Members of the public can participate in the city council meetings on Zoom at https://santaclaraca.zoom.us/j/99706759306; Meeting ID: 997-0675-9306 or call 1 (669) 900-6833, via the City’s eComment (available during the meeting) or by email to PublicComment@santaclaraca.gov

Contact David Alexander at d.todd.alexander@gmail.com 

Previous Santa Clara City Council Meetings:
Santa Clara Sets its Sights on Relocating City Hall
Levi’s Stadium Capital Projects Approved Despite Division
Charter Changes Move Forward Despite Division
Council Approves Maintenance Costs, Utility Rates