Should City of Santa Clara voters approve Measure C? (November 3, 2026 ballot)

What's this about?

People disagree about whether Santa Clara voters should approve Measure C on November 3, 2026.

The plan would change who approves city building deals and how the city picks builders.

What supporters say

• The city could still pick the lowest bid when that works best.
• The plan would fix an old rule that needs Council approval for deals over $1,000.
• The city could weigh skill, work plans, past work, time, and risks, not just price.

What critics say

• Judging many factors could make bids harder to compare fairly.
• The plan does not show whether it would save local taxpayers money.
• Bigger deal limits could mean less direct review by the City Council.

How to read this

The number of points on each side does not show who is right; stronger proof matters more.

Measure C would amend Santa Clara’s charter to change how the city approves public-works contracts and to allow a second way to choose contractors. Voters will decide on the proposal on Nov. 3, 2026. The central question is whether greater flexibility is worth less formal Council oversight and more discretion in awarding contracts.

The case for

The strongest argument for Measure C is that it would modernize an unusually low contract-approval threshold. Santa Clara’s public-works rules date to 1952, and the current threshold requiring Council approval is $1,000. Measure C would raise it to $250,000, allowing more routine contracts to move forward without formal Council action. 1

That change could reduce administrative delays while preserving the city’s usual low-bid process. The official ballot description says standard contracts would still go to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. In other words, Measure C would not eliminate price-based competition or require the city to use the new method for every project. 3

The measure would also authorize “best-value” contracting. Instead of looking only at the initial price, the city could consider a contractor’s qualifications, technical plan, past performance, schedule and other factors. This could be useful for complicated construction projects, where delays, poor workmanship or unexpected risks can cost more than a higher initial bid.

Research from the National Academies and the Federal Transit Administration describes best value as a competitive approach that can favor a technically stronger proposal even when it costs more. That supports a possible efficiency argument: the cheapest bid is not always the least expensive project overall. Still, the research shows only that best value can help in suitable situations; it does not guarantee savings in every project. 2

The case against

The strongest concern is that Measure C would reduce the City Council’s explicit approval role for contracts between $1,000 and $250,000. Other administrative and legal requirements could remain, but more contracts would fall outside the charter’s stated Council-approval requirement. That would remove one formal layer of elected scrutiny. 4

Best-value contracting also creates risks that are less obvious when awards are based mainly on sealed low bids. Officials would have to judge nonprice factors and decide how much those factors are worth compared with cost. The Government Accountability Office identified training and oversight needs in a review of 129 Defense Department contracts. A transportation procurement study examined the difficulty of evaluating nonprice factors objectively, including the risk of bid protests. California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office has likewise stressed open competition, clear standards and safeguards against bias or favoritism. 5

The available record does not show what Measure C would mean financially for Santa Clara. It does not estimate whether the city would save money, face higher administrative costs, complete projects faster or receive better-quality work. General research suggests that best value can improve quality, schedules or risk management in some settings, but it cannot show whether those gains would outweigh higher bids or implementation costs in Santa Clara. 6

Much would depend on rules adopted after approval. California examples show that cities can use objective criteria covering qualifications, price and technical factors. But the record does not explain how Santa Clara would set those criteria, weigh price against quality, document decisions, handle protests or audit results. Reports that the California secretary of state and the 49ers oppose the measure show that accountability and discretion are contested, but they are stakeholder positions, not independent forecasts of the measure’s effects.