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 has scrapped the idea of a comprehensive charter amendment for the November election, instead opting to propose one measure that would alter how the city procures contracts.
At its most recent meeting July 14, division caused the council to nix a charter overhaul that took the charter review committee nearly nine months to develop.
City Attorney Glen Googins, who had been working with the charter review committee, called the process a “high-integrity and productive exercise.” He assured the council that the comprehensive review was “not intended to make a significant change to the structure of city government.”
“You are not going to see dramatic changes here,” he said.
Originally, the changes were broken down into three categories: “clean up,” administrative, and more controversial changes — designated levels one, two and three, respectively. However, at its previous meetings, where the council considered the changes, it put the kibosh on including any level three changes.
Even with the hotly charged topics removed, and despite Googins’ assurance, the council still picked apart several of the proposed changes, saying they were more substantive than presented.
Council Member Kelly Cox called several proposed changes “poison pills.”
While Mayor Lisa Gillmor said she understood the desire for some of the changes because they lighten city employees’ workload, she said the public only gains an indirect benefit, “at best.” Further, she called the changes “very clunky,” bemoaning language that codifies a shift in city operations — shifts that, when looked at individually, look “very reasonable.”
“But collectively, the pattern moves the substance of governance out of one document that requires a public vote to change into instruments of a council majority, or, in some cases, the staff alone,” she said. “They can alter it unilaterally, indefinitely, with no voter input. Residents would be ratifying a shell that says, ‘there shall be rules’ without knowing what those rules will actually say and no further say once the framework is approved.”
One public speaker agreed with Gillmor’s assessment.
Yvonne Inciarte urged the council to “not rush an unfinished product,” saying it “undermines the democratic process.”
“If you vote for this, it is basically narrowing the authority of city council, and it is expanding the power of the city manager,” she said.
As he had done previously, Council Member Kevin Park challenged whether the charter review subcommittees needed to be closed-door.
Replicating his previous answer to Park’s concern, Googins said the intent behind the subcommittee meetings being closed-door was not “nefarious” so much as for expedience, scheduling and fostering an environment where committee members could express ideas without scrutiny.
Park countered, saying that was a poor excuse.
“If we are cutting corners, if we are excluding the public from discussions to fit our schedules, I see that as a problem,” he said. “We do not fit the process for the time. We fit the time for the process. We make sure we have the time for a good process.”
Several council members said they feared that the measure would fail if the council didn’t unanimously support it, essentially torpedoing the charter review committee’s effort.
Due to the division, the council instead approved a separate amendment. The amendment would allow for “best value” bidding options for public works projects, most notably one called design-build. Such contracts allow for a single contractor to handle both aspects without a competitive bid, likely speeding up construction and saving the city lots of money.
But even the seemingly mundane amendment saw tinkering from the dais. Gillmor and Cox both took issue with the absence of a monetary threshold for what constitutes a “major” project. They wanted a firm dollar amount specified in the ballot question. Without one, Cox said, it “looks like a cash-grab.”
Just like with the city’s proposed $400 million bond measure last election, Council Member Suds Jain said he felt “pushed into a corner” to approve the proposed $250,000 threshold lest the motion fail.
The motion passed unanimously.
The council designated Jain and Council Member Karen Hardy to draft the argument for the measure. They can designate up to three other signatories to that argument, which is due to the Registrar of Voters by July 28. Rebuttals are due Aug. 7.
Consent Calendar Spending
The council approved the following spending in one motion via the consent calendar:
- A $2.5 million increase to a purchase order with 3M Company, 715 aluminum conductor composite reinforced (ACCR) conductors and related accessories. The total purchase order is now $5 million.
- Three agreements totaling $6.9 million with Westwood Professional Services, Inc., RRM Design Group, and Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey for parks rehabilitation and improvement design.
- A one-year $65,000 extension to an agreement with Carl Warren & Company for general liability claims adjusting and administration. The total compensation is now $635,000.
The next regularly scheduled meeting is 7 p.m. Tuesday, Aug. 13 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 Posts:
Santa Clara’s Electric Utility Connectivity Increases
Charter Changes Still Divisive at Santa Clara City Council Meeting
Santa Clara Sets its Sights on Relocating City Hall
Levi’s Stadium Capital Projects Approved Despite Division
