rhaugh2154

Opinion: Santa Clara City Council Must Take Steps to Restore Public Trust

By Mayor Lisa Gillmor and Councilmember Kathy Watanabe

At today’s City Council meeting, two critical items are on the agenda: a discussion of a Civil Grand Jury report and a $598 million infrastructure bond. 

Both of these issues have the opportunity to help restore public trust in Santa Clara City Hall or further erode it. 

Civil Grand Jury Report Deserves Action

Last month, the Civil Grand Jury issued a report that concluded: “Several Councilmembers have turned public meetings into spectacles by displaying abusive and belittling behavior from the dais towards members of the public.”

We compliment the Grand Jury for doing extraordinary work before they issued their report. They conducted over 40 interviews for their investigation and watched over 400 hours of Council, committee, and commission meetings from January 2020 to May 2024. 

The report has numerous findings and recommendations that require the Santa Clara City Council to take responsibility and action. In the past, we have seen our colleagues known as the “49er Five” dismiss a previous Civil Grand Jury report and attack the jurors directly. We hope those actions will not be repeated. We can’t restore public trust in Santa Clara unless the entire City Council seriously considers its recommendations.

Infrastructure Bond is a Blank Check

Santa Clara’s top City management also needs to act transparently and ethically if we are to restore public trust.

First, we are concerned that a $598 million infrastructure bond created by City staff lacks serious accountability. It’s a blank check that will create a big debt for Santa Clara taxpayers. Previous City studies of our infrastructure needs have not come close to $598 million. 

Second, City management has proposed general and vague expenditure categories. A separate project list is meaningless since nothing is guaranteed to be built.  And ultimately, the City Manager can determine what gets built without the approval of the City Council or voters.

Third, City staff has made an uncharacteristically large expenditure to convince voters that we need a $598 million bond through multiple polls and expensive mailers. Those expenditures raise ethical questions for us. 

A More Responsible Plan Should Go to Voters

However, we believe Santa Clara has major infrastructure needs. We prefer to place on the ballot a smaller bond with specific projects that will be legally required to be built, such as:

  • Fire Stations 5, 7, and 9 replacements, Fire Station 1 renovation, Fire Training Tower renovation, and Fire Station Security upgrade;
  • Police Department Drone First Responder infrastructure, Real-Time Crime Center, Training Center to integrate new technology in community policing;
  • Renovation/Expansion of 3 public libraries, Senior Center expansion/renovation, International Swim Center replacement, Park renovations;
  • Street Resurfacing and Rehabilitation, Creek Trail rehabilitation, Bicycle Wayfinding, ADA Improvements, Storm Drain System Improvements;
  • Street Beautification Improvements; and
  • Renovations to Historic Buildings, Triton Museum Improvements, Energy Efficiency Improvements

These projects could be delivered for hundreds of millions of dollars less than the currently proposed $598 million bond.

In addition, we believe the City must ensure no bond money shall be used to fund stadium upgrades that should be paid for by the 49ers, the Bay Area Host Committee, or FIFA. For clarity, we would prohibit projects within half a mile of the stadium unless they were clearly for neighborhood improvements. This prohibition would protect the bond proceeds the same way that the 2010 Measure J protected our general fund from being used for stadium construction and operations. 

We have reviewed previous City staff infrastructure reports, the City’s recent polling, resident’s responses to the City’s mailers, and independent polling. We believe a measure with these specific projects and special prohibitions could pass. It’s transparent. It guarantees projects that will be built are the ones we committed to Santa Clara voters. 

A smaller bond with guaranteed projects could help Santa Clara prepare our infrastructure for the future and restore public trust in City Hall today.

17 comments

  5. Has anyone asked: “Why not save the 75% extra cost in interest, and just do a tax?” Digging the hole deeper with Bonds is a major flaw, everywhere.

    Reply

    • It is my understanding that this bond measure has some chance of passing only if the state proposition 5 passes which will lower the yes vote threshold from two thirds to fifty five percent. Any other way of raising the revenue would require a two thirds majority to pass which is something that everyone knows will never happen.

      Reply

    • I actually did raise this option with the city manager in a 1:1 meeting with him when going over the potential bond. Even a 1/4 cent tax could raise a lot of money. Milpitas did that recently and was successful. Santa Clara may look at that option down the road.

      Reply

    • Has anyone asked the city council and staff if there are alternative ways of obtaining funds? Such as taxing the largest businesses in our city? Just an FYI Nvidia is worth over a trillion dollars these days. Is increasing property taxes on our burdened residents the only way? I know for a fact my fixed income neighbors and friends who were recently laid off will not be voting yes on any measure which raises property taxes.

      Reply

    • Replying to Sara’s post: If voters were to approve a bond, the property tax bill for each of the largest 20 commercial property owners in Santa Clara would increase by an average of $160,000 per year while a typical homeowner would pay on average of $19 per $100k of assessed value. Approximately $190 per year.

      Reply

    • Thanks Kathy, appreciate your response. That estimate $190 increase per year is based on a home assessed at $1 million. Anyone who bought a home recently will be paying a lot more than that. So again, is this the only way to fund our cities infrastructure needs? Our city budget is in the billions. This is not the year to throw it on homeowners and renters who are already struggling. I hope the city has a back up plan.

      Reply

  8. Funny how the 49ers just sent an email stating they were donating over $250,000 to Santa Clara Organizations. ($100,000 to the swim center)
    Yet, a separate report gets released that all NFL teams were getting over $400m in media, sponsorships and other royalties from the 2023 season. (Via Sportico)

    Reply

  9. I believe Mayor Lisa Gillmor and Councilmember Kathy Watanabe have the right notion, but the root of the problem is the lack of creating reserves to cover all the maintenance of existing assets and budget for future capital expenses. When I was living at a condo complex in Santa Clara, we had 24 acres, 477 units in 57 buildings. We had a Finance Committee run by a resident that was an auditor for the county plus a few other people with accounting and finance backgrounds. We had a binder that was about 5 inches thick with all our assets and other expense that we had to plan for. In over 40 years of existence, not one special assessment. Why? Because each month we would allocate part of the HOA dues to reserves. If a roof needed to be replaced in 30 years, we estimated the cost of replacement based on current pricing plus some inflation factor and figure what we would set aside each month. Every few years we would review our estimates based on the current prices and adjust accordingly. Worked great.

    The city needs to recognize the current budget process has failed us and needs to be revamped. Change the Oversight Committee to a Finance Committee. Have the bond issue for a small number of immediate projects as suggested in this article, but then incorporate a new budget system with a Finance Committee and review what our overall needs are and then look at a 2nd bond measure.

    Reply

  10. I am reluctant to vote for any bond measure in general and consider it akin to a second mortgage. Having specific projects that are legally binding and a total that is within our means is the only way that has a chance of getting my vote. Thank you both for standing up for Santa Clara again. If the 49er five put this on the ballot the way the NFL puppet masters want, we will have to kick their ass at the polls again. And tilt the council back into Santa Clara’s favor at the same time.

    Reply

  11. This is exactly what we need. I am so glad Mayor Lisa Gillmor and Council member Kathy Watanabe are standing up to the 49er five and the City Manager. Now we just need to replace the 49er five (at least three of them)

    Reply

Leave a Reply