McFarland & Orange: The Blank Charter

Both cities ask voters to adopt a charter—a local constitution—that grants sweeping contracting power with no bidding thresholds, no advertising requirements, no lowest-responsible-bidder standard, and no bid-protest procedures written in.

Orange’s Section 600 is the most explicit of any document reviewed:
The City shall have full authority over municipal contracting procedures… including authority to establish exemptions from state public contracting statutes… Such procedures may be established, modified, or waived by ordinance or resolution.

McFarland’s own staff report concedes charter status may let the City avoid certain state mandates, including prevailing wage requirements.

The rules would be written later, by the same council receiving the authority. In Orange, a citizens’ coalition filed a separate opposition argument focused on term-limit extension—CIFAC is not a party to that argument. We oppose on contracting grounds, which are squarely within our mission.

The ask: Vote no on Measure N in McFarland and Measure K in Orange.

Santa Clara: The 24,900% Increase

Santa Clara is already a charter city. Now it asks voters to remove a safeguard it currently has: the formal bidding threshold for public works.

The number tells the story: $1,000 → $250,000. A 24,900% increase, or 250× the current threshold.

CIFAC’s 2025 investigation found the City had already assigned major projects to City forces without the Council resolution the Charter appears to require—a ~$1.06 million water main on Pruneridge Avenue and a $715,142 project on Hillsdale Avenue. Meanwhile, the City had followed the process for a $30,684 project in December 2024—proving the safeguard is workable, not burdensome.

The Council placed this measure on the ballot alone, after dropping a broader charter overhaul that members called rushed and under-scrutinized.

The ask: Vote no on Santa Clara’s public works amendment.

Porterville: Déjà Vu

Porterville voters have seen this before. In 2014, a Charter Review Committee proposed letting the City perform public projects with its own employees regardless of cost, and raising the competitive-bidding threshold from $5,000 to $50,000.

CIFAC filed the official argument against it. Porterville voters rejected Measure S. The Charter kept its competitive-bidding protections—the very ones Measure U now removes.

Twelve years later, the same policy returns, going further by stripping the detailed bidding framework out of the Charter entirely. The exact language:
The City shall have the power to perform any work of improvement, replacement, repair or maintenance by use of its own forces and is not required to contract for such work.

What’s rarely mentioned: the existing charter already allows force-account work after a 4/5 Council vote once bids are rejected, and permits emergency action. If the City genuinely thinks $5,000 is outdated, it can adopt the California Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Act and raise its threshold to $75,000 at no cost—no charter amendment required.

The ask: Vote no on Measure U.

Los Angeles: Government as Competitor

Measure LA is a broader charter amendment covering capital planning, a two-year budget cycle, and Public Works governance. Its relevance here: it repeals Charter §104(g), the voter-approval requirement for the City to run a purely commercial or industrial enterprise.

That clears the way for the City to sell City-produced asphalt and mulch commercially—and potentially require others to buy it. The Council voted 15–0 to advance this toward the November ballot.

The City could become the manufacturer, seller, purchaser, specification writer, regulator—and the entity directing contractors to use the City’s product.

Supporting fact CIFAC obtained via Public Records Act: asphalt plant #2 has been non-operational since 2020, undercutting the claim of spare capacity.

The official voter guide includes an opposing argument from Councilwoman Monica Rodriguez, focused on Board of Public Works oversight. This page presents CIFAC’s distinct concerns: competitive bidding and government enterprise.

The ask: Vote no on Measure LA.

CIFAC’s Position, Stated Plainly

CIFAC does not oppose local control, and does not oppose charter cities. We oppose granting broad contracting authority before the safeguards governing that authority are written down.

Or, from the McFarland argument:
Voters should not approve a broadly written local constitution first and learn the actual rules later.