Council sets district-based lottery, alternates and staggered terms for Measure I oversight committee

The Santa Clara City Council directed staff April 8 to select Measure I bond compliance oversight committee members by district using a public lottery, add an alternate for each seat, and adopt staggered terms, with the council vote passing 6–1.

Assistant City Manager Liz Klotz said the committee will include nine members — seven residents plus one large-business and one small-business representative — and will monitor project alignment with the voter-approved Measure I expenditure plan, review annual audits and provide public reporting. Klotz told the council: "In November, the Santa Clara voters approved Measure I, which is a $400,000,000 bond to support capital infrastructure improvements throughout the city."

Why it matters: The committee is meant to provide transparency and public oversight for how Measure I bond proceeds are spent across parks, libraries, fire stations, roads, storm drains and other projects listed in the voter-approved expenditure plan. The ordinance requires the committee be selected by lottery; council direction on district representation, alternates and term lengths sets operational details for an appointment process staff expects to complete in May.

Selection method and duties: Staff recommended a public lottery that would first select one resident from each district and an alternate, then select a citywide at-large resident from the remaining applicants, plus one large-business and one small-business appointee. Members are to receive Brown Act, conflict-of-interest and bond/fiscal training; staff is evaluating whether members must file Form 700. Klotz said staff will recruit across business-license lists and other channels, and that the recruitment period remains open for additional applicants.

Council debate: Several council members urged more outreach and raised concerns about recruiting sufficient small-business applicants, robust training and the committee’s role on priorities versus staff recommendations. Vice Mayor Cox and others suggested some minimum screening or training to ensure members can review audits and financial materials; Councilmember Park said she preferred more public engagement before staff finalized project-phase recommendations. Councilmember Park voted no on the motion; the remaining six members supported the district-lottery approach with alternates.

Scheduling and next steps: Staff proposed a timeline in which the lottery and council confirmation occur in May, the oversight committee reviews the phase-1 expenditure plan in May–June, the council approves phase-1 projects and the city adopts a tax-levy resolution in June. Staff expects the first bond issuance in Q4 2025 and will return with more detailed project lists and a community-engagement plan. Klotz said a capital-projects program manager will be hired to coordinate multi-year delivery and ensure compliance with bond rules.

Public records and audits: The city ordinance requires annual audits of bond proceeds; audit results and project status reports will be presented to the committee and council. Klotz highlighted prohibitions in the ordinance that bar bond proceeds for projects that directly or indirectly benefit Levi’s Stadium or a professional sports team and require that bond proceeds be tracked on a project-by-project basis.

Implementation note: The council added direction that each district seat have an alternate and that term lengths be staggered (recommended: a mix of two- and four-year initial terms) to preserve continuity. Staff will return with the confirmed committee roster after the lottery and will present training materials and meeting schedules.