Should Sunnyvale voters approve Measure G? (November 3, 2026 ballot)

What's this about?

People disagree about whether Sunnyvale voters should approve Measure G.

The measure would let the city choose more ways to build city projects.

What supporters say

• State laws would still set safety rules for how the city awards and runs work.
• The measure would remove a city rule that limits which building plans officials may use.
• Some new plans could help teams work sooner, avoid mix-ups, and finish on time.

What critics say

• New building plans would not promise lower costs for city projects.
• The city would need strong checks and clear reports to track work and results.
• More choice for city staff could make bids harder to compare and reduce fair contest.

How to read this

The number of points on each side does not show who is right; check how strong each fact is.

Measure G would amend Sunnyvale’s City Charter to let the city use more ways to award and manage public-works projects. Voters are deciding whether that added flexibility is worth the uncertainty and administrative demands that would come with it.

The case for

The strongest argument for Measure G is that it would remove a charter-level restriction. The amendment would allow the city to consider methods such as design-build, progressive design-build and construction manager at risk, rather than relying only on the model now authorized. It would not require Sunnyvale to abandon traditional design-bid-build contracts, but would give officials more choice when matching a delivery method to a particular project. 1

That flexibility could help with scheduling and coordination. Under the traditional approach, design and construction are handled separately, which can create delays or coordination problems. Bringing a contractor into the design process earlier can provide practical construction advice and allow some work to overlap. Research offers some support for possible schedule and coordination gains, although the size of any benefit depends on the project and the method chosen (see Figure 1). 2

Measure G also would not create an unrestricted exemption from procurement rules. The ballot language limits the city to methods allowed under California law, and state statutes already set procedures for at least some alternatives, including design-build. The City Council could also establish rules for how methods are awarded, used, evaluated and approved. State-law safeguards would remain in place, even though the measure itself would not guarantee savings, competition or successful oversight. 3

The case against

The main concern is that Measure G expands the city’s authority without proving that Sunnyvale projects will become cheaper, faster or better managed. Reviews comparing design-build, construction manager at risk and design-bid-build have found that results vary by project and study. Comparisons can also be distorted by which projects are selected and how performance is measured. Alternative contracting methods therefore offer possibilities, not assured results. 5

Greater discretion could also make projects harder to compare and administer. Different delivery methods can require different contract structures, staff skills and outside expertise. They may make it more difficult to compare bids or judge whether a project performed as promised. The official analysis gives the city authority to write rules, but does not itself guarantee strong competition or lower prices. 4

Oversight would matter particularly because public infrastructure projects often experience change orders. A California audit examined whether design-build contracts followed required change-order procedures, while a federal audit found weaknesses in reporting construction costs and schedules, including practices that can change the baseline used to judge performance. These findings do not show that design-build performs worse, but they indicate that alternative methods require clear controls, public reporting and reliable performance measures. 6