City Council and Authorities Concurrent
July 7, 2026

1 City of
Santa Clara
City Council Meeting
Presentation on the Charter Review Committee Charter
Project 2026 Final Report to Council, including the Charter Review Committee’s Recommendation for Placement of a
Comprehensive Charter Update Measure on the November
2026 Ballot and Possible Direction by the City Council on Next Steps
July 7, 2026 (continued from June 9th and 15th)
Agenda
• (Brief) Recap of How We Got Here
• CRC Charter Project Recommendation and Council
Direction
• Supplemental Information Memorandum
• CRC Recommendation for Public Works Procurement
Update
• Council questions, public comment, deliberations and
direction(s) to staff on what to bring back for final action on July 14th
2 1
2 Item 6
2 How We Got Here•Charter Project Origins [May 1, 2025]•Creation of the CRC by Appointment and Adoption of Charter Project Bylaws [September 16, 2025]•CRC Project Implementation [October 1, 2025 – June 9, 2026]--Initial Training--Ad Hoc Subcommittee Working Groups (28 mtgs, Nov 2025 – May 2026)--Stakeholder Input--Benchmarking--Levels of Proposed Changes--Proposed Substantial Reorganization Check in with City Council (April 26)--10 Public Meetings of the CRC for Report Outs, Public Input and Direction--Final CRC Recommendation (June 3) and Report (June 9)3 CRC Recommendation•Procced with the Comprehensive Update for Consideration by Voters at the November 2026 Election.•Include all Level One and Level Two Changes, and such Level Three Changes Council feels comfortable will be supported by the community.•Provide for a public information program to include (1) annotated “clean” and underline/strikeout versions of the updated Charter, and FAQs on the City’s website; (2) information mailers to be distributed to voters (similar to Measure I); and (3) public forums (with CRC support) to share information and respond to questions/concerns.4 3 4
3 City Council Direction on June 15th•Comprehensive Update. Finalize and bring back for Council action a Charter update ballot measure to include all proposed “Level One” and “Level Two” changes•Public Works Update. Bring back for further Council discussion and action the CRC’s recommendation for updating the Charter’s provisions regarding the procurement of Public Works5 Supplemental Information Memorandum•Came out of CRC Meeting on June 17th•Further Explains Use of Levels in Developing CRC recommendation•Summarizes updated provisions requiring new City Council ordinances/policies•Presents updated changes to the Charter based upon further CRC/staff review, completion of meet and confer process and input from bond counsel6 5 6
4 Charter Updates Requiring Implementing Council Actions•Redistricting Ordinance (Section 304) •Policy for Appointment, Renewal, Removal of Boards and Commission Members (Section 602.1)•Policy for Excused Absences (Sections 205.1(7) and 602.3)•Public Works Update Ordinance (Section 802.2)•Enhanced Legal Noticing (Section 904.2)7 Updated Charter Documents (7.1.26)•Annotations updated to provided section by section categorization of proposed changes by level•Annotations now showLevel One changes in green, Level Two changes in blueand Level Three changes in yellow•Annotations also expanded to further explain changes being proposed and rationales.•Additional changes to Charter text since last draft (dated 6.5.26) also highlighted in yellow.8 7 8
5 Changes of Note•Added reference to a policy for recusal for City Council members (Section 205.1(7))•Updated reference to most recent redistricting map as “baseline” for District elections (Section 303.1)•Reinsertion of reference to 72/24-hour notice requirements for Regular/Special Meetings (Section 401.4)•Reversion to language for City Engineer to be appointed by the City Manager, but now in consultation with the Public Works Director (Section 502.2)•Reversion to minor (but useful) “clean up” changes to Civil Service Sections in light of inability to reach agreement on more substantive changes with labor groups (new Sections 604.3 and Article Seven)9 Special Rules for Revenue Bonds (805.6)•Proposed by outside bond counsel to update City utility infrastructure finance mechanisms to align with best practices.•Existing Charter (Section 1321) requires a vote of the people to issue revenue bonds to finance utility infrastructure; although electric utility infrastructure is exempted.•Proposed language would allow financing by City Council resolution for all City utility enterprises provided that debt was secured only by utility enterprise revenues (i.e., not the City’s general fund).•This is a common finance mechanism among many Charter cities, including Sunnyvale, Los Angeles, Oakland, Anaheim, Pasadena, Redwood City, Sacramento, San Francisco and San Diego. •Other available mechanisms or more cumbersome/costly (COPs)10 9 10
6 Public Works Procurement Update(Option A Recommended)[Old Section 1310, New Section 802.2.3 and 602.4]•Proposal to replace outdated rules containing very low ($1,000) thresholds for formal bidding and City Council approval of contracts/use of City forces, with currently no provision for “alternative” (best value/design build) procurement processes.•Option A (recommended) proposes public works procurement to be implemented by ordinance within certain prescribed “best practice” guidelines.•Procurement “Alternatives” allowed, including sole source/limited bid, “best value” contracts (e.g., design build), and other alternatives adopted as part of a City-wide program determined to be in best interests of the City.•Maintenance/repair exclusions from “Public Works” description clarified and expanded to apply to minor interior improvements and equipment purchases/installations to be procured through an alternative competitive process.11 Implementing Ordinance1.Definition of “major” versus “minor” contracts with major contracts approved by Council2.Competitive bid processes for all contracts, with formal advertisement for bids and sealed bids required for all “major” contracts3.Contracts awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder unless exception4.Ability to reject, re-advertise or waive minor defects if determined necessary or appropriate for the benefit of the public5.Emergency authority to waive the applicable competitive bid process requirements6.Provision to implement Public Works using City employees upon determination that the work can be performed better or more economically by City employees;7.Exceptions for maintenance, repair, restoration, minor improvements, equipment installation/acquisition but still subject to other competitive procurement standards8.Alternative mechanisms including “sole source” and “best value” if appropriate findings are made, with standards for selection, and as part of City-wide program12 11 12
7 Design/Build as an Example of a “Best Value” Procurement Mechanism •Used throughout the State by General Law and Charter cities•Different from conventional “Design-Bid-Build”--single contract between the owner (City) and the design-build team--team chosen based on “best value” (qualifications and experience typically the initial focus, with costs and terms negotiated); if no agreement reached can move on to the next firm•Potential Benefits--selection process allows City to prioritize quality and performance, not just price--design and construction phases overlap with potential reduction in project timeline--progressive design process involving contractor can lead to innovative solutions, value engineering and more efficient construction methods improving project speed and quality--responsibility for design errors, omissions and coordination shifted to design/build entity, resulting in fewer disputes (finger pointing) and change orders--coordinated design/construction process can generate cost certainty through Guaranteed Maximum Price contracts•Useful tool, not for all projects (e.g., street construction), but ideal for complex/design intensive projects (like Fire Stations and Electric Utility projects).13 Potential Drawbacks/Mitigations•Project not fully designed when project team chosen, so some loss of control--can be mitigated with “bridging” documents or progressive design/build•Potential administrative cost increased while staff comes up to speed with process--this is temporary and will be addressed when standard documents and procedures are developed•Increased costs due to awards to other than low bidder?--cost can still be a factor in the award or negotiated, with off ramps--reports suggests cost savings generated by expedited project implementation with fewer disputes/change orders•“Best value” procurements subjective and invite favoritism--award is still competitive and implementing ordinance would include conflict of interest safeguards•Small/local contractors can’t compete--Design/bid/build would still be used for most contracts14 13 14
8 Public Works Benchmarking With Identified “Comparable” Charter Cities15 Allowance for Alternative Project Delivery Methods (e.g. Design-Build)16Authority in Ordinance Authority in CharterAlternative Delivery Methods PermittedCityYes — design-build authorized by ordinance for projects estimated over $1 million, or when design-build is determined to reduce cost, expedite the project, or achieve a design not achievable through design-bid-buildNoYesAlamedaYes – implemented by ordinanceYes (Charter §1212 — design-build)YesAnaheimNoNoYes – under general lawBerkeley Yes – implemented by ordinanceYesYesChula VistaNoYesYesGilroy15 16 9
17Authority in Ordinance? Authority in Charter?Alternative Delivery Methods Permitted?CityNoNoNo — ordinance requires low bid for new construction over $35,000 (Muni. Code §2-8.01)HaywardYesYes – broad authority in charter for establishment of procurement proceduresYes – under general lawInglewoodNoYesYes — but award limited to lowest responsible and responsive bidder; best-value award not availableLos Angeles Yes – implemented by ordinance Yes — tied to general law (Charter §1107(b); Pub. Cont. Code §22034)YesMountain ViewYes – implemented by ordinance Yes – broad authority in charter for establishment of procurement procedures YesOakland 18Authority in Ordinance? Authority in Charter?Alternative Delivery Methods Permitted?CityNoYes – under General LawPalo AltoYesYesPasadenaYes – broad authority in charter for establishment of procurement proceduresYesRedwood CityYes – broad authority in charter for establishment of procurement proceduresYesRosevilleYes – broad authority in charter for establishment of procurement proceduresYesSacramento17 18 10
19Authority in Ordinance? Authority in Charter?Alternative Delivery Methods Permitted?CityYes – implemented in administrative codeNoYesSan FranciscoYes – implemented by ordinance Yes – procurement alternatives authorized for contracts over $1,000,000YesSan JoseYes – implemented by ordinance Yes – reserves all options available under general lawYesSan MateoNoNoNo — charter amendment on the Nov. 3, 2026, ballot (Charter §1309) would authorize delivery methods permitted under state lawSunnyvale Summary--17 of 19 currently allow for alternative forms of procurement in most cases, generally implemented by ordinance/policy--Sunnyvale proposing to allow with a measure on their 2026 ballot.20 19 20
11 Charter Treatment of Key Procurement Thresholds 21Approval of Use of City Forces Formal Bidding ThresholdCouncil Approval AuthorityCityAddressed in charter; same as general law threshold Addressed in charter; same as general law thresholdNot addressed in charterAlamedaAddressed in charter; city forces allowed when contract is under $50,000, all bids rejected, or no bids received (Charter §1211) Addressed in charter; same as general law threshold (Charter §1211; Pub. Cont. Code)Not addressed in charterAnaheim Addressed in charter; no threshold Addressed in charter; threshold set by ordinance Not addressed in charterBerkeley Addressed in ordinance Addressed in charter; threshold set by ordinance Addressed in charter; threshold set by ordinance Chula Vista 22Approval of Use of City ForcesFormal Bidding ThresholdCouncil Approval AuthorityCityAddressed in charter; no threshold Addressed in charter; same as general lawNot addressed in charterGilroyAddressed in ordinance; no threshold Addressed in charter; threshold set by ordinance ($35,000 for new construction; Muni. Code §2-8.01)Not addressed in charterHaywardNot addressed in charter or ordinance Addressed in charter; threshold set by ordinance Addressed in charter; threshold set by ordinanceInglewoodNot addressed directly through charter or ordinance Addressed in charter; threshold set by ordinance Addressed in charter; threshold set by ordinanceLos Angeles Addressed in charter; no threshold Addressed in charter; $15,000 indexed to 1978 dollars (Charter §1107) Not addressed in charterMountain ViewAddressed in ordinanceAddressed in charter; threshold set by ordinance Not addressed in charter Oakland21 22 12
23Approval of Use of City ForcesFormal Bidding ThresholdCouncil Approval AuthorityCityAddressed in charter; no threshold Addressed in charter; only if source of funds is bond or assessment Not addressed in charter Palo AltoAddressed in charter; no threshold Addressed in charter; mainly implemented by ordinance Addressed in charter; council approval required for contracts over $75,000 or such other limit established by ordinance PasadenaAddressed in charter; no threshold Addressed in charter; implemented by ordinance Not addressed in charter Redwood CityNot addressed in charterAddressed in charter; sealed bids required over the charter bid threshold — $10,000 base, adjusted annually by council for inflation (currently approx. $75,000) Addressed in charter; authority for public works expenditures under the charter bid threshold RosevilleAddressed in charter; no threshold Addressed in charter; implemented by ordinance Not addressed in charter Sacramento 24Approval of Use of City ForcesFormal Bidding ThresholdCouncil Approval AuthorityCityNot addressed in charter; implemented in administrative code Not addressed in charter; implemented in administrative code Not addressed in charter San FranciscoAddressed in charter; no thresholdAddressed in charter; implemented by ordinance Not addressed in charterSan JoseAddressed in charter; addressed in ordinanceAddressed in charter; threshold set by ordinance Addressed in charter; threshold set by ordinanceSan MateoAddressed in charter; no thresholdAddressed in charter; implemented by ordinance Not addressed in charterSunnyvale23 24 13
Summary--Council Approval:Only Pasadena provides a dollar figure ($75K). The remainder are silent or call for setting by ordinance.--Formal Bidding: Four defer to General Law standard, Thirteen call for setting by ordinance, Two (Roseville and Mountain View) set in Charter (indexed).--Use of City Forces: Seventeen set no threshold in Charter and/or address by ordinance; One (Alameda) defers to general law standard; One (Anaheim) allows in certain circumstances 25 City Professional Staff Experience/Objectives/Target Projects•Chris Karwick, Chief Operating Officer, Silicon Vally Power•Craig Mobeck, Public Works Director26 25 26
14 Next Steps•Council questions•Public testimony•Council deliberation and direction27 Direction Sought•Comprehensive Charter Update. Clarification/supplemental direction regarding Comprehensive Charter update:--Was deletion of requirement for publication/last chance bidding opportunity for disposition of City real estate intended to be part of the comprehensive ballot measure (old Charter Section 714)?--Does Council support including latest proposed updates (Slides 9 and 10), in particular the updated Revenue Bond proposal?•Does Council support the Proposed Public Works update (Option A), either as part of the comprehensive update or as a stand-alone measure?•Any other direction?28 27 28
15 Questions?29
City of Santa ClaraCity Council Study SessionJune 15, 2026 MeetingENDING SLIDE 29 30
16 Public Works Update (Option B)•Increase $1,000 threshold to some higher number (or numbers) for requirement for formal bidding and/or Council approval•Public works suggests $250K (at the lowest)•Retain language for an implementing ordinance to allow for exceptions and alternative procurement mechanisms•Why not preferred:--Proposal back in 2000 to increase the threshold to $50K was defeated--Both City staff and the CRC prefer Option A for that reason and for flexibility of implementation over time.31 Other Considerations•Election Costs--$250K to $300K per ballot measure•What Goes on the Ballot--Ballot question (75 words)--City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis (500 words)--Ballot Arguments (CC can designate who writes the “pro” argument)--Can, but not legally required to, include the full text of proposed update--Link to City website for access to documents and FAQs preferred•The Need for Public Education--Can’t “campaign” but information mailers, public forums allowed•Additional Work Required if the Measure Passes--Conform existing city documents and create ordinances and policies32 31 32
17 Ballot Question DRAFTS•Comprehensive UpdateShall the measure proposing a comprehensive update to the City Charter to conform with State laws, eliminate outdated provisions, clarify ambiguous terms, reorganize and reformat to improve usability, update provisions to align with current/best practices, including new and updated provisions defining vacancies in elected/appointed positions, City Council and Boards and Commissions powers and duties, ordinance adoption procedures, legal notice requirements, budget implementation procedures, revenue bond financing, [and public works procurement] be adopted?33 Ballot Question DRAFTS•Public Works Procedures UpdateShall the measure proposing to modify the City Charter to update the rules for the bidding, design and construction of public works, maintaining the general rule of awarding contracts to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, but also allowing alternative means of public works project implementation, including design-build, with the City Council retaining authority to approve all major contracts and to require competitive bidding, on specific terms set forth in a City ordinance to be approved by City Council at a public meeting, be adopted?34 33 34