The Santa Clara City Council has blocked the appointment of its former city attorney from serving on a task force to determine options for relocating city hall.
At its most recent meeting on June 23, the council formed the seven-member community advisory committee, but a majority of the council yanked Mayor Lisa Gillmor’s at-large pick. That pick was Brian Doyle, who the council fired in 2021.
Council Member Suds Jain proposed removing Doyle from the committee, noting how the council fired Doyle without cause.
“Fundamentally, it was a lack of confidence in his advice and judgment,” Jain said.
Gillmor said she chose Doyle because his “expertise” relocating San Jose’s city hall would prove a “useful tool” to Santa Clara, calling him “very knowledgeable.” She said the council blocking Doyle’s nomination was “more than petty.”
Council Member Kelly Cox, who supported Gillmor’s choice, said pulling a nominee undermined council members, adding that council members are “supposed to have a modicum of trust.” She called the move “disappointing.”
Doyle’s removal passed 4-3, with Cox, Gillmor and Vice Mayor Albert Gonzalez dissenting.
Elizabeth Klotz, assistant city manager, presented the item, which came back to the council after it opted against city employees’ plans to secure the former Oracle campus, located near the former Agnews Hospital at 4220 Network Circle.
“As we look ahead, the city must determine whether the existing facility can continue to effectively support our municipal operations and city services, future growth and actually our community expectations,” Klotz said.
The city will evaluate all reasonable options using technical analysis, financial review and community input, employing consultants to do a space needs assessment, fit plan, facilities assessments, architectural site feasibility studies and financial analysis to determine which alternatives best fit the city’s needs based on lifecycle costs, sustainability and community impacts.
The committee will consist of Steve Lee (District 1), Kimberly Williams (District 2), Christine Koltermann (District 3), Saskia Feian (District 4), Michelle Ryan (District 5) and John Rhabar (District 6). Because her pick was denied, Gillmor will need to return with an alternate.
City Attorney, City Manager Get Raises
The council also codified raises for the city attorney and city manager.
City Manager Jovan Grogan and City Attorney Glen Googins both got 2% raises.
Grogan’s base salary jumped from $430,767 to $439,382. His total compensation is now $627,000. Googins’ base salary went from $370,461 to $377,870, with $567,000 in total compensation.
The item proved divisive since the increases are baked into the contracts and required by the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), but they occurred without performance evaluations.
The raises come on top of a cost of living adjustment (COLA) and are retroactive to May 1 for Grogan and March 1 for Googins.
Gillmor said the action “really stinks,” adding that it is “completely wrong.”
“A performance appraisal is supposed to be the mechanism that we use to evaluate whether these are the appropriate levels of compensation for both the city manager or the city attorney, that they’re actually performing,” she said. “At what point do we stop calling this an exception and call it what it actually is — guaranteed annual raises that bypass our performance review entirely.”
Jain said the council has failed to do performance reviews in a timely manner and that he believes there have been deliberate efforts to confound those reviews, adding that city employees should not be punished for the council dragging its heels.
Although Gillmor dissented, the raises still passed with the rest of the council approving them.
Council Renews TID
The council also renewed Discover Santa Clara’s management of the tourism improvement district (TID). That agreement allows the 11 hotels in the district and Discover Santa Clara, the city’s destination marketing organization (DMO), to raise the 2% assessment to 3% in 0.5% increments.
Jain said he worried that the increase would hamper Santa Clara’s ability to attract hotel guests, given that its hotel tax is already higher than the average at roughly 17%.
Christine Lawson, Discover Santa Clara’s CEO, said the increase will allow the DMO to “respond to what is happening in the market instead of locking into one rate.”
She called the group “hardworking, passionate and committed” that “have not let the city down.”
“Our challenge is other destinations that want to eat our lunch,” Lawson said. “We feel that we have, for lack of better terminology, kind of earned our stripes and the right to be able to manage the funds that come from the DMO 100%.”
A deluge of public commenters, many from local hotel representatives, lauded the DMO’s efforts.
Council Member Kevin Park said while he appreciated the comments, he was skeptical they amounted to much.
“The bottom line of Santa Clara is not bolstered by comments,” he said. “It is bolstered by business.”
The item passed in a 6-1 vote, with Park dissenting.
EV Charging
Finally, the council also approved a $1.37 million contract with Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers for design services for a citywide electric vehicle charging stations installation.
The item was originally on the consent calendar, but Jain pulled the item at a previous meeting. He challenged whether the city’s metrics for EV charging are out of date.
He said the city should charge more for public EV charging and install load-bearing software.
Grogan said the city will pause on the 21 public charging stations and better contextualize their placement based on the city’s overall strategy.
Contact David Alexander at d.todd.alexander@gmail.com
Previous Santa Clara City Council Posts:
Levi’s Stadium Capital Projects Approved Despite Division
Charter Changes Move Forward Despite Division
Council Approves Maintenance Costs, Utility Rates
Santa Clara Tackles Employment Gaps, Overhauls Performance Reviews
Why Spend the Money to Relocate Santa Clara City Hall?
Santa Clara has many important priorities that deserve attention before considering the costly relocation of City Hall.
For years, residents have watched redevelopment projects along El Camino Real remain behind construction fencing with little visible progress. Many longtime small businesses have closed, some permanently, while promised revitalization has yet to materialize. At the same time, the City’s vision of creating a vibrant downtown has not been fully realized.
Santa Clara has a rich history and many historic buildings that contribute to the City’s identity. Rather than relocating City Hall, the City should focus on preserving and strengthening the existing Civic Center and investing in the community that already exists.
If the current City Hall property were sold for redevelopment, additional high-density development could increase housing costs and place greater financial pressure on residents who already struggle with the rising cost of living. Many longtime Santa Clara residents could find it increasingly difficult to remain in the community they have called home for years.
The City Council, Mayor, and City staff should focus on completing projects already identified as community priorities, including those supported by the bond measure approved by voters last year. These investments would provide more direct benefits to residents.
Examples of priorities that could strengthen Santa Clara include:
• Restoring the Olympic Swim Center so it can once again host high-level competitions and become a source of community pride.
• Revitalizing the historic downtown by preserving its character while attracting new businesses that serve residents.
• Recruiting neighborhood-serving retailers, such as grocery stores and other everyday services, to better meet the needs of Santa Clara residents.
FYI – The International Swim Center is currently under construction and being modernized. You should drive by and take a look (if you have not already). It’s going to be very nice when completed. Should it have been done sooner? In my opinion yes. I will say as someone who works at a Santa Clara business that the obstacles to get stuff done in this city are difficult. Response is slow, you get one thing approved and they come at you with more stuff that needs to be done. From the outside it appears to be disjointed and not business friendly. I understand that things need to be done to city code for safety and other reasons but the obstacles and lack of enthusiasm from the city makes people just want to give up.
Why oh why would you move City Hall except for “here’s some money let’s spend it” ???
Appointments to community advisory committees should be above controversy and inspire public confidence. Whether it’s a committee studying the relocation of City Hall or one reviewing changes to the City Charter, members should be selected for their ability to provide objective, unbiased input.
For the Charter Review Committee, selecting the former Police Chief to serve on a committee considering changes affecting the Police Department created an appearance of a conflict of interest. Likewise, appointing a former City Attorney to a committee evaluating the possible relocation of City Hall raises similar concerns, particularly given the significant legal costs incurred during that tenure.
Even if these individuals are acting in good faith, public perception matters. Santa Clara has many qualified residents with no direct ties or past involvement in these issues who would be eager to serve. Choosing independent community members would strengthen public trust, encourage broader participation, and help ensure the committees are viewed as fair, transparent, and focused solely on the best interests of the community.
Don’t Move City Hall. Build the Downtown We Were Promised.
The recent article, “Santa Clara Sets its Sights on Relocating City Hall,” asks us to believe that moving City Hall is the next logical step for Santa Clara. It isn’t.
For over 60 years, residents have heard promises about rebuilding Downtown Santa Clara. Yet instead of making that long-overdue investment our top priority, we’re now discussing spending what could be hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to relocate City Hall.
That’s putting the cart before the horse.
The question isn’t whether the current City Hall can be improved. The real question is why City Hall has become the priority while our downtown continues to sit unfinished.
A vibrant downtown creates jobs, attracts businesses, generates tax revenue, provides housing, builds community identity, and becomes the heart of a city. City Hall alone does none of those things.
The article also fails to ask the questions taxpayers deserve answered:
* What is the total cost of building a new City Hall?
* What would it cost to modernize the existing one?
* How much debt would taxpayers assume?
* Why move City Hall to the edge of Santa Clara instead of keeping it in the city’s historic center?
* What guarantees exist that proceeds from redeveloping the current City Hall site would actually be invested in Downtown?
These aren’t minor details—they’re the entire debate.
The Agnews site may be a beautiful historic property, but it is not the civic heart of Santa Clara. City Hall belongs where residents naturally gather—near Downtown, Santa Clara University, the Mission, the Library, Town Plaza, and our historic neighborhoods.
Most successful cities don’t move their civic center farther from downtown. They build around it.
Santa Clara already has adopted plans to create thousands of new homes through the Downtown Precise Plan and the Station Area Plan. We have an opportunity to finally create the walkable downtown residents have envisioned for generations. That opportunity should not be overshadowed by an expensive government relocation.
Before City Hall moves one inch, the City Council should answer one simple question:
How does relocating City Hall help build Downtown Santa Clara?
If it doesn’t, then our priorities are backwards.
Let’s stop chasing shiny new buildings and start delivering the downtown Santa Clara has been promised for generations.
Build the downtown first. Everything else can follow.
Public Trust Starts with Independent Appointments
Appointments to community advisory committees should be above controversy and inspire public confidence. Whether it’s a committee studying the relocation of City Hall or one reviewing changes to the City Charter, members should be selected for their ability to provide objective, unbiased input.
For the Charter Review Committee, selecting the former Police Chief to serve on a committee considering changes affecting the Police Department created an appearance of a conflict of interest. Likewise, appointing a former City Attorney to a committee evaluating the possible relocation of City Hall raises similar concerns, particularly given the significant legal costs incurred during that tenure.
Even if these individuals are acting in good faith, public perception matters. Santa Clara has many qualified residents with no direct ties or past involvement in these issues who would be eager to serve. Choosing independent community members would strengthen public trust, encourage broader participation, and help ensure the committees are viewed as fair, transparent, and focused solely on the best interests of the community.
Lisa Gilmore is taking issue that performance reviews have not been completed for the city manager and city attorney. She is the head of this city and she has not put this on her own calendar to make sure it gets done? Is this a case of “someone else will do it” so that she does not have to take responsibility? Her complete lack of involvement in making sure the performance reviews get done speaks volumes. Why is she not setting the timeframe for completion of performance reviews for top level city employees? In a corporate environment, the timeframe ALWAYS comes from the top! Lisa Gilmore needs to remember that her lack of action is the problem.
I have to wonder what the head of Discover Santa Clara, Christine Lawson, defines as “not letting the city down”. Where was Discover Santa Clara during the Super Bowl when other cities had public events for fans to enjoy? Why wasn’t there interactive sporting events at the Convention Center to bring families to Santa Clara to enjoy the lead-up to the Super Bowl? Besides San Jose even Mountain View had activities. The Convention Center is right across the street from the Stadium!!! This was a huge opportunity that was missed to get fans and families to enjoy interactive events and then be able to go across the street to see the 49er’s museum, or over to Great America, or go to local restaurants. Oh wait. I did see one commercial promoting Discover Santa Clara at 1:00AM back in January. The same goes true for the FIFA World Cup. Nothing was promoted, nothing was provided, no fans to enjoy Santa Clara, nothing! So how does Discover Santa Clara justify that they are giving the city everything possible and not “letting the city down”? If the hotel tax is being increased, what will that money be used for? Maybe just salaries because whatever the funds are currently being used for it is certainly not promoting Santa Clara!