Santa Clara committee seeks earlier, more scientific priority‑setting with broadened public input

The Governance & Ethics Committee on March 30 heard staff proposals and member recommendations to change how the City of Santa Clara sets council priorities, with a focus on earlier timing, more representative surveys and clearer ranking methods.

City Manager staff outlined the current approach and options used by peer cities, saying the city typically "has hired a facilitator" and that prior processes produced a four‑pillar framework and a list of strategic initiatives. Staff emphasized the need for a budgetary analysis between identification and adoption so council can make informed choices about implementation and resourcing.

Committee members pushed for an earlier start to the process — as soon as late January — so new council members can participate and staff have time to analyze requests. "I would like this to start in early January," said Baruch Chahal, urging regular, predictable scheduling and a six‑month review cadence for adopted priorities.

On public input, members debated survey options. Several members recommended a "scientific" consultant‑run survey to produce demographically representative results, while also allowing an open public response channel. The city manager acknowledged the tradeoffs and proposed either running two surveys or a single consultant survey with a split report distinguishing statistically valid results from general responses.

Members also discussed format. Some favored a retreat‑style, multi‑day workshop with breakout groups to develop initiatives; others wanted the session timed so evening attendance is possible for residents. The committee broadly agreed staff should return with options that include a scientifically‑based survey, a public input stream, clear ranking rules (options discussed included majority plus a guarantee of at least one item per council member), and a dashboard to report initiative status.

Staff said they are targeting a May 2026 priority‑setting event but will provide a detailed plan for committee review, including proposed survey method, timeline and budgetary implications. The committee directed staff to publish prior year priorities in advance and to propose a calendar placeholder for the priority‑setting process.

Next steps: staff will bring a specific implementation plan (survey approach, facilitator options, scheduling and draft agenda) back to the committee for final direction and will include options that preserve transparency about how items are distilled into the final prioritized list.