1 Charter Review Committee
CHARTER PROJECT 2026
FINAL REPORT TO
COUNCIL
Pat Nikolai, Chair
Joe Sosinski, Vice Chair
Mark Boeckman
John Brooks
Eric Crutchlow
Lauren Diamond
Burt Field
Steve Kelly
Eric Jensen
Mohammad Naveed
Susan Peters
Holly Rhea Roberts
Bernard Tansey
City Attorney’s Office
Glen Googins, City Attorney
June 9, 2026
2 CHARTER PROJECT
2026
Charter Review Committee
Final Report to Council
BACKGROUND
The idea for a comprehensive review and update of the City Charter (now commonly referred to as the “Charter Project”) was incorporated into the Governance and Ethics Committee Work Plan in early 2025. With support from the Committee, the project concept was presented to the full City Council on July 15, 2025. The Council was supportive and directed staff to form a Charter Review Committee ( “CRC”) comprised of 13 individuals, one recommended by each Council Member, and 6 chosen by lottery, to implement the project. On September 16, 2025, the City Council appointed the CRC members so chosen and formally established the CRC by adoption of the CRC Bylaws (Attachment One).
The CRC’s first meeting was held on October 1, 2025. At their October 22, 2025, meeting, the CRC took action to form six Ad Hoc Subcommittees to serve as the Charter Project working groups. Since then, the Ad Hoc Subcommittees have met, in aggregate, a total of 28 times, with monthly report outs to the full CRC by each Subcommittee on the issues being discussed and progress being made. To date, the CRC itself has held a total of 10 public meetings. After some initial training sessions, full CRC meetings generally focused on work plan development, review and approval of proposed Charter -wide update standards, feedback and direction to both the reporting Subcommittees and professional staff on the issues and language presented , and solicitation of public input.
The CRC held two meetings in May (the 20
th and the 27th) at which they received and provided
preliminary direction on the final recommendations from all six Subcommittees. On June 3rd, the CRC met and took final action on their comprehensive Charter Project recommendation to the City Council. This report now presents that recommendation for Council consideration and direction.
DISCUSSION
The Charter Project has been a significant undertaking, involving hundreds of hours of City staff time, and almost as many volunteer hours contributed by CRC members meeting within their assigned Ad Hoc Subcommittees (each CRC member participated in two of these) , and at the monthly meetings of the full CRC. At these meetings, and in between, CRC members have been highly engaged with: receiving and reacti ng to information presented by City staff and stakeholders describing the workings of City government and proposals for improvements; presenting and discussing their own issues , concerns and suggestions ; reviewing multiple iterations of proposed additions, deletions and modifications to Charter language; and, after balancing competing interests and sensitivities, developing their own ultimate recommendations for each Article and each Section. The overall CRC recommendation that came from this effort is 3 now presented for Council consideration in this report. As a basis for this recommendation, both for the benefit of the public and the Council, this report is organized into the following Sections:
1. Charter Project Origins and Objectives. A description of the origins and objectives of the Charter Project.
2. The Process. A summary of the process and approach used to implement the Charter Project.
3. The Results. A summary of the proposed changes generated by this process, ranging from corrections, wording updates and reorganization (“Level One”) to changes that are recommended but may be so substantive or sensitive they may warrant consideration as a stand-alone ballot measure (“Level Three”).
4. CRC Final Recommendation. The CRC’s final recommendation on what the City Council should consider placing on the November 2026 ballot , including some issues the City Council may wish to consider in deciding how to proceed.
5. What’s Next. Steps required if the Council decides to place a measure on the ballot , including things that could be done to help inform the voters.
1. Charter Project Origins and Objectives
The idea for a comprehensive review and update of the City Charter (now commonly referred to as the “Charter Project”) was incorporated into the Governance and Ethics Committee Work Plan in early 2025. An outline for the project was first formally presented to the Governance and Ethics Committee on May 1, 2025. Senior City staff were supportive of the project based on their own assessment, and feedback from the different departments responsible for implementing its terms, that a number of Charter provisions were ambiguous, out of date, not aligned with current City operations or best practices, and/or not aligned with current laws. With support from the Committee, the project concept was presented to the full City Council on July 15, 2025.
Recognizing the potential benefits of the project, the Council directed staff to take the initial steps to form a Charter Review Committee (“CRC”) for purposes of implementing the Charter Project.
Council direction included terms for the CRC’s composition, selection process and purposes. Staff advertised the availability of CRC positions and, with the City Clerk, implemented the CRC lottery selection and appointment process. On September 16, 2025, the City Council appointed the CRC members and formally established the CRC by adoption of the CRC Bylaws.
Section 2 of the City Council adopted Bylaws for the Charter Project describes its purpose as follows:
“The purpose of the CRC is to work with City staff, with input from the community, to facilitate the implementation of the “Charter Project.” The Charter Project involves a process for comprehensive review of the City Charter to identify provisions in the Charter that should be corrected, clarified or modified for the Charter to be fully consistent with applicable state law, aligned with current best practices for City operations and, in general, easier to understand and apply. At the end of the process, the objective of the Charter 4 Project is to produce a draft comprehensive Charter Amendment for presentation to the City Council and, if the City Council so directs, possibly the voters at the November 2026 Election.”
Section 3 of the Bylaws sets forth a list of the CRC’s duties. Section 3.4 describes the CRC’s ultimate duty as follows:
“Make a Recommendation to the City Council regarding a Comprehensive Amendment of the City Charter. To implement the Charter Project City , staff will be preparing draft revisions to the City Charter for consideration and input by CRC Subcommittees and/or the CRC itself. At the end of the process, the CRC will be expected to make a recommendation to the City Council on one or more proposed am endments to the City Charter. The proposed “top to bottom” review process is intended to be driven by practical and legal considerations, with the prime objective being to bring the Charter up to current “best practices” for City operations. It is not intended to implement any major restructuring of City operations or to change the City’s election process.”
With this, the Charter Project was framed as an endeavor intended to be both comprehensive, in that the entire Charter was put under review, and limited, with the understanding that any major change or addition, no matter how good an idea, should be considered beyond the scope of the project and, at most, referred for possible future consideration. This formalized Charter Project purpose was presented to the CRC as their first order of business at their first substantive meeting on October 1, 2025 Since then, and throughout the project, the CRC has endeavored to keep this defined scope and purpose as a core guiding principle: on the one hand, not shying away from issues that arise and warrant clarification, but at the same time, being pragmatic and focused on improving what’s already in the Charter, and refraining from proposing major changes to the structure of the existing City government.
2. The Process
a. Introduction to the Structure and Workings of City Government The CRC is comprised of individuals with a wide range of knowledge and experience with the workings of local government . For some , this was their first experience; others have been engaged for years in a variety of capacities. But even the most experienced of the group had little exposure to the history and import of the City ’s Charter. Accordingly, for a project dedicated to updating the City’s Charter, City staff thought it important to begin the process with some education on what a City Charter is, and the history of Santa Clara’s own City Charter. Concepts and materials presented included: (1) the idea of the Charter as the equivalent of the City’s constitution; (2) Charter cities local authority over “municipal affairs,” and the limits to that authority on matters of “statewide concern;” (3) a review of the City Charter in its current form ; (4) a summary of the history of City Charter amendments (both successful and failed) compiled by the City Clerk from 1952 to the present (Attachment 3); and (5) a preview of areas that had already by identified by City staff as warranting review and update. 5 Since the CRC was purposely formed as a “legislative body” that would meet in public and be subject to the full range of open government laws, the CAO also presented a training session on the Brown Act, the Public Records Act and applicable State and local ethics rules.
b. Ad Hoc Subcommittee Working Groups
(1) In General. At the heart of the Charter Project’s work plan were the CRC Ad Hoc Subcommittee working groups. With such a large undertaking, it made sense to divide the Charter into segments involving common subject matters, and to create working groups to focus on their assigned segments. Since ad hoc subcommittees of this type are exempt from the Brown Act,1 these working groups would have flexibility to meet when member schedules allowed, coordinate with City staff for presentations, and have candid discussions about any issues or ideas that might arise in an informal setting, allowing for free flowing “back and forth” discussions.
Meetings could also be scheduled to allow for each group’s identified “stakeholders” to present (see Stakeholder discussion, below). As presented to the full CRC at its October 22 nd meeting, with ad hoc subcommittees as the project’s working groups, the overall Charter Project work plan was proposed as follows:
• Subcommittee members communicate to discuss/agree upon mutually agreeable dates/times (can even meet immediately after each CRC meeting) • Ideally meetings occur after normal business hours and at City facilities (convenience, staffing, technology); coordinate with City staff. • Staff to provide each Subcommittee a starting “packet” of information to include word version of assigned sections and other relevant information. • CAO and designated City department representatives will present to and work with Subcommittees to develop proposed modifications.
• Subcommittees and staff will “report out” to the full CRC on progress, with “final” report to be a committee presentation of proposed modifications. • Possible adjustments/phasing to group meeting schedules depending upon progress.
• Ultimately, all subcommittee work will be consolidated into a comprehensive Charter Amendment proposal from the full CRC for presentation to the City Council by no later than early July 2026.
(2) Six Ad Hoc Subcommittees Formed. At the CRC’s October 1 st meeting, six
Ad Hoc Subcommittees work groups were proposed as follows: (1) Group One: Powers and Structure of City Government: Rules/Process for Action; (2) Group Two: City Council: Elections, Powers and Conduct of Meetings; (3) Group Three: Senior Officials: Duties and Qualifications; (4) Group Four: Boards and Commissions: Composition, Powers and Duties; (5) Group Five:
1 Under the Brown Act, subcommittees of a legislative body that are comprised of less than majority of its members, with no outside members, are of limited duration (typically less than 1 year), and are assigned a specific task to complete, are exempt from the Brown Act’s public meeting requirements, and may meet privately. See Govt. Code Section 54952(b).
6 Civil Service: General Rules for Classified and Unclassified Employees; Commission Composition and Duties; and (6) Group Six: Fiscal Administration and Procurement. Immediately thereafter, CRC members were asked to indicate by rank which subcommittees most interested them.
Through an AI assisted selection process proposed rosters were developed so that each CRC member would be a member of two committees, with their ranked preferences maximized. The resulting rosters, with a few on-the-fly adjustments (AI is not perfect), resulted in the following appointments being made at the CRC’s October 22nd meeting:
Group One
Steve Kelly
Bernard Tansey
Patrick Nikolai
Eric Jensen
Joe Sosinski
Group Four
Lauren Diamond
John Brooks
Burt Field
Jose Sosinski
Group Two
Steve Kelly
Mark Boeckman
Eric Crutchlow
Holly Roberts
Susan Peters
Group Five
Mark Boeckman
Holly Roberts
Susan Peters
Mohammad Naveed
Group Three
Bernard Tansey
Patrick Nikolai
Lauren Diamond
Mohammad Naveed
Group Six
Eric Jensen
Eric Crutchlow
John Brooks
Burt Field
Note: The color coding assigned to each group was intentional, serving as a visual tool to identify Charter Sections each Group was responsible for . This color coding has been preserved in the table of contents, and the Article and Section headings of the underline/strikeout version of the Charter highlighting each Group’s proposed revisions.
(3) Robust Meeting Schedules . In the aggregate, the CRC Ad Hoc Subcommittees met a total of 28 times. The following is a list of each Group’s meetings:
Group One:
Power and Structure of City Government: Rules/Process for Action o November 12, 2025
o December 15, 2025
o January 14, 2026
o April 9, 2026
o May 12, 2026
o May 25, 2026
7 Group Two:
City Council: Elections, Powers and Conduct of Meetings o December 8, 2025
o February 9, 2026
o March 9, 2026
o April 13, 2026
o May 7, 2026
Group Three:
Senior Officials: Duties and Qualifications
o January 12, 2026
o March 11, 2026
o April 8, 2026
o May 13, 2026
o May 25, 2026
Group Four:
Boards and Commissions: Composition, Powers and Duties
o November 13, 2025
o December 15, 2025
o February 12, 2026
o March 12, 2026
o May 14, 2026
Group Five:
Civil Service: General Rules for Classified and Unclassified Employees; Commission Composition and Duties
o November 17, 2025
o December 10, 2025
o January 5, 2026
o January 14, 2026
Group Six:
Fiscal Administration and Procurement
o February 4, 2026
o March 17, 2026
o April 6, 2026
o May 11, 2026
Note: All Ad Hoc Subcommittee meetings were held at City Hall, either in the City Council or Sparacino conference rooms, with remote participation available . All meetings were staffed by the City Attorney’s office and, where appropriate, also attended by professional City staff and/or Boards and Commission representative stakeholders. (For more on stakeholders, please see the “Stakeholder Input” section of this report, below.) 8 (4) Monthly and Final Report Outs to Full CRC. The first Ad Hoc Subcommittees report out to the full CRC occurred at its November 19, 2025, meeting. Each subsequent monthly CRC meeting also agendized Group report outs . Report outs included a summary of issues discussed, input (if any) received from Charter Project stakeholders (for example, relevant City Staff, Boards and Commissions), any referenced benchmarking+ information and proposed next steps. CRC questions and input were also solicited. Starting in February, Ad Hoc Subcommittees started moving beyond preliminary discussions of issues and began reviewing and commenting on actual proposed Charter language. As the culmination of these efforts, at the May 20th CRC meeting, the final work products of Groups Two and Six were presented and approved. At the May 27th meeting, the final work products of Groups One, Three, Four and Five were presented and approved, with the caveat that the Group Five work product had not yet been fully signed off in the “meet and confer” process with potentially impacted labor groups. As presented below, at its June 3 rd meeting, the full CRC considered the assembled collection of these recommendations and made its own comprehensive recommendation to the City Council for Council consideration and action.
c. Stakeholder Input
At the time the Ad Hoc Subcommittees were proposed, City staff also included proposed sets of “stakeholders,” meaning individuals or groups thought to have special knowledge or interest in the subject matters assigned. Given the subject matters covered by the Charter, and that one of the primary objectives of the Charter Project was to update its provisions to align its terms with current City/best practices, most of the designated stakeholders were the professional City staff responsible for implementing the various operational Charter sections in accordance with their terms. Accordingly, for Group One, covering the basic Powers and Structure of City Government, the identified stakeholders were the elected City Clerk and the Appointed Assistant City Cler k. For Group Two, covering City Elected Officials, these same parties were identified, plus the Parks and Recreation Commission (regarding possible modifications to Charter Section 714.1, approved by Measure R). Fo r Group Three , covering Senior Officials, each of the Department Heads listed were identified, including the City Manager, the Chief of Police, the City Clerk (and the Assistant City Clerk), the Director of Finance, the Public Works Director/City Engineer, the City Attorney, the City’s (acting) Auditor and the Fire Chief. For Group Four, covering the rules and duties for the City’s Boards and Commissions, the Boards and Commissions that were identified in the Charter were engaged, along with their staff liaisons; this included the Planning Commission, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Board of Library Trustees . F or Group Five, assigned the sections regarding the City’s civil service workforce, the Civil Service Commission; the Human Resources Department, and all City labor groups were identified. Finally, for Group Six, assigned the Finance and Procurement sections, the Finance Department, the City Auditor, the Public Works Department and Silicon Valley Power were identified.
Professional staff stakeholder input was provided to the Ad Hoc Subcommittees directly at one or more of their scheduled meetings. For example, the Chief of Police and the City Manager spoke directly t o Group Three at their March 11, 20 26, meeting regarding their 9 substantially aligned but ultimately competing views on certain aspects of their assigned authority on appointment and discipline of Police Department personnel. (The President of the POA also made an impromptu appearance at this meeting to present the POA’s perspective.) Both the Finance Director and the Public Works Director presented to Group Six regarding changes they were seeking to update the City ’s outdated Budget, Finance and Public Works procurement provisions. Finally, the City Clerk appeared before Group One and Group Three regarding City elections provisions and the powers and duties of the City Clerk, respectively. In other cases, the City Attorney’s office was able to solicit input from impacted departments and relay that information to the subcommittees on their behalf.
Stakeholder input from the Charter-listed Boards and Commissions was especially robust. All of the listed “Chartered” Boards and Commissions received presentations from the City Attorney’s office regarding the Charter Project; and in the case of the Planning Commission and the Board of Library Trustees (BOLT), met again after that (the BOLT multiple times) in order to develop their recommendations. Both the Planning Commission and the BOLT designated representatives from their respective Boards to present their comments directly to Group Four.
These presentations were very comprehensive and well received. Both the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Civil Service Commission also met publicly to develop formal recommendations for possible changes to their respective Charter sections. With these Boards’ approvals, these recommendations were presented on their behalf by the City Attorney’s office.
Stakeholder input, as required by law, was also solicited and received from the City’s labor unions with respect to proposed updates to existing Charter Article X ( Civil Service Commission only), Charter Article XI, Civil Service and XII, Retirement System. In order to solicit this input in a timely manner, Ad Hoc Subcommittee Group Five met multiple times in November, December, and January in order to be in a position to make their recommendation on proposed updates for these sections to the full CRC early on in the process. A t the CRC’s January 21 st,
2026, meeting, Group Five’s recommendation on language updates was presented and approved by the CRC in substantial form. Thereafter, the City’s Human Resources and the City Attorney’s Office distributed the proposed changes to the City’s labor groups and formally commenced a “meet and confer” process on possible impacts to those groups’ working conditions. Although substantial progress was made in addressing labor group concerns, as of the date of this r eport a number of issues remain. City staff will continue to engage with the groups and endeavor to address these concerns. If issues can’t be resolved, the City Council may consider excluding some or all of the unresolved language in these Articles from any comprehensive ballot measure proposal.
While there was an occasional live speaker at the full CRC meetings, and usually four to eight individuals monitoring the meetings on-line, the CRC did not receive substantial input or testimony from the general public. Early on, a few speakers emphasized the importance of ethics and asked that this be a consideration in any proposed update of the Charter, including a potential provision or call for an Ethics Commission. Written testimony was also presented to the CRC at their June 3
rd meeting with some suggestions on ethics and transparency. But beyond that, there was not much direct public testimony to the CRC. It seems likely that the technical nature of the Charter Project made it unlikely to attract a lot of public attention or interest. Further, there was only occasional press coverage of the project.
10 Given that any Charter amendment proposal can only be implemented with the approval of Santa Clara voters, it will be crucial for the public to be informed of what any proposed Charter amendment contains and why it matters. Accordingly, the CRC believes that if a measure is placed on the ballot in November, a plan must be developed to communicate to the voters the overall Charter Project objectives and the details of the proposal. Possible mechanisms for this kind of information and outreach , consistent with applicable legal limitations on using City resources to advocate for or against a ballot measure, will be discussed below. d. Benchmarking
(1) Comparable Cities . How other cities choose to govern themselves obviously shouldn’t dictate how Santa Clara chooses to govern itself . (Santa Clara is proudly unique in many ways .) Nonetheless, for a project interested in alignment with current “best practices” the CRC thought it would be highly appropriate for the Charter Project to build into its process some meaningful consideration of the Charter provisions for similarly situated Charter cities.
Based on input from the CRC criteria were developed and applied in order to guide the assembly of a “library” of Charters that the CRC, City staff, and the public could refer to for examples of comparable city policies and standards for governance. This included Charters from cities that met one or more of the following conditions: (1) populations between 100,000 and 200,000; (2) operates a municipal utility; (3) home to a stadium; or (4) a Santa Clara “neighbor” city. Also added to the list was the Charter from the City of Chula Vista. Chula Vista was added in light of the City Attorney’s recent experience with successfully updating that city’s Charter, which was also originally adopted around the same time as Santa Clara’s Charter, had many similar “old school” provisions, and, until recently, had not gone through a major overhaul. Of the 126 or so Charter cities in California, the resulting list of comparable Charters for benchmarking purposes included the following 19 cities:
Alameda, Anaheim, Berkeley, Chula Vista, Gilroy, Hayward, Inglewood, Los Angeles, Mountain View, Oakland, Palo Alto, Pasadena, Redwood City, Roseville, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, San Mateo, Sunnyvale.
The full text of the 19 “benchmarked” charters was uploaded to the City’s Charter Project web page in late January 2026. Throughout the process, particularly during deliberations at the Ad Hoc Subcommittee level, reference was made to how such benchmarked cities handled various issues under discussion in their charters (if at all), as a way of balancing and refining any language or policy options presented. It should also be noted, however, that the benchmarked charters, while likely representing “common” practices, did not necessarily represent “best practices” as few of them appear to have undergone any recent comprehensive update like the one undertaken by the Charter Project.
(2) City of Sunnyvale. The ongoing Charter review process in Sunnyvale was also considered and presented for benchmarking purposes at the CRC’s February 18th meeting. The Sunnyvale process began with a Council referral back in the summer of 2024 and culminated with 11 a final report and recommendation to Council presented at the February 3rd City Council meeting.
The following is a summary of the Sunnyvale process and status : Culmination of an 18- month process, with 12 months of CRC meetings and analysis.
• Final Report and Recommendations document completed on December 4, 2025, and presented to Sunnyvale City Council at their February 3, 2026, meeting. • Process initiated by a Council referral to consider identified issues for update (extending appointed City Council terms to the next November election, City Council compensation, alternative voting systems, rules for re-districting), along with a general Charter review for possible additional updates.
• Sixteen public meetings held by their Committee from February until December 2025.
Three issues were “surveyed” with the public: City Council appointment process, City Council compensation and City Manager authority to settle claims. • A list of 23 potential amendments was created; these were ultimately narrowed down to five issues: (1) possible increases to City Council and Mayor compensation; (2) modify appointed City Council terms so that the next election to fill that position would be a November election; (3) change the number of City Council meetings from 2 per month to 24 per year; (4) increase City Manager authority to settle claims to an amount above $50K per year ; and (5) expand public works procurement to add “design- build” and other mechanisms.
• Preliminary Takeaways
o Staff level background work and analysis of issues had been going on for many months, if not years.
o The Committee’s ultimate recommendations appear to require only minor language changes.
o Good discussion/analysis of the 2 meeting per month versus 24 meetings per year issue, including benchmarking; ultimate recommendation not to change based on concerns that voters would perceive an attempted Council work reduction while at the same time Council salaries were proposed for increase. o Good discussion/analysis of $50K settlement authority issue with ultimate recommendation to not include a dollar limit in the Charter, but to have the Council adopt a simultaneous ordinance setting the limit at $150K. o Good discussion/analysis of proposed amendment to public works language to allow for “design- build” and other “best value” procurement mechanisms to be implemented by ordinance. Note: Sunnyvale’s existing Charter language had no dollar thresholds for Council approval or formal bid requirements, with those things determined by ordinance.
(3) City of Mountain View . On February 10, 2026, the Mountain View City Council also initiated a process for consideration of possible updates to their Charter. The following is a summary of what’s under consideration:
12 • Proposed amendments intended to be non-controversial and limited to technical changes, including correcting typos, language updates and alignment with state law. • Developed by their City Attorney’s office based on reviews of other area Charter’s (including Santa Clara’s) to identify “best practices.” • Examples include: gender neutrality, increase time period for Council appointments from 30 to 60 days; update qualifications for boards and commission members. • Potentially more substantive changes to follow in 2028.
(4) Santa Clara’s Charter in Historical Context. Santa Clara is one of many cities in California that took action to update their city charters or become charter cities in the first place in the “post war” suburbanization era of the late 1940s and early 1950s. Many of these charters are based on a “Model City Charter” first developed in the early 1900s by the National Municipal League (now the National Civic League) and updated periodically thereafter. As a result, many such charters, including Santa Clara’s , have the same general contents, same overall organizational structure and, for many, virtually identical language for many of their sections. Over time, in a manner unique to each City, these original charters have evolved. Larger cities now tend to have longer, more detailed charters (with the City and County of San Francisco’s being the longest at 593 pages), with mid-size and smaller cities mostly sticking to the original format, with varying levels of updates and enhancements.
Relative to other California Charters, Santa Clara is fairly typical in that, over time, it has substantially maintained its original Model Charter structure, with periodic, mostly issue - specific modifications proposed and enacted over the years. The City’s history of proposed and approved Charter amendments from 1952 through 2024 is captured in a document prepared by the City Clerk’s office . This history was provided to the C RC early on for context and possible lessons learned from the types of changes that had been approved and the types that had been rejected by Santa Clara voters. A copy of this summary is also attached to this report for City Council’s reference (Attachment 3).
In thinking about the changes that made sense as part of Santa Clara’s Charter Project, the consensus of the CRC was that it did not think it appropriate to substantially enlarge or shrink the Charter, and that its relative content and size made sense. Per the project Bylaws, there was a desire to keep the Santa Clara Charter relatively simple, with added provisions and details only for educational purposes, to fill in gaps and to add clarity how things were intended to work. As a balance, it was also ok ay to delete things that were too detailed, or no longer relevant. Unlike the highly detailed City Charters that seemed more like City Codes, throughout the process the individual subcommittees and the full CRC maintained the consistent belief that the Charter should contain the basic sets of rules regarding City governance structure, with more complex details left to policy making by the City Council and professional staff. The City’s Charter is its constitution, not its code of regulations.
At the CRC’s April 15
th meeting, City staff also presented information regarding Santa Clara’s own most recent “comprehensive” Charter update from back in 2000. The CAO’s best record of the “underline/strikeout” of that Charter was provided. In summary, Santa Clara’s Year 2000 update:
13 • Made changes throughout, but a very light touch compared to what the 2026 Charter Project CRC is undertaking.
• Sample changes included:
o Added language regarding required residency and qualified elector status (Section 600)
o Added language preventing a City Council member from running for another City Council seat if they have more than 6 months left on their term (Section 600) o Deleted unnecessary details for holding of local elections o Deleted a 1-year preceding residency requirement
o Changed “he/his” to “he/she/his/her”
o Deleted details for calling a Special Election and instead referred to Brown Act (Section 708)
o Deleted requirements for meetings to be held at City Hall, deferring to Brown Act (Section 709)
o Deleted outdated provisions regarding taxing system and limits (Sections 1306 through 1308)
e. Development of “Levels” of Proposed Changes
Another process tool used to guide Charter Project implementation was a categorization of proposed changes based on the degree or “level” of such change. The idea here was to categorize proposed changes into levels so that when the total package is presented to the City Council, the Council will have a basis to evaluate which of the proposed changes ought to be submitted to the voters (generally, Levels One and Two), which changes might be so significant or politically sensitive that such changes might be considered for presentation to the voters as one or more separate ballot measures (generally, Level Three), and which areas discussed were so significant, complex or sensitive that they were beyond the scope of the Charter Project, but might warrant future study or consideration (Level Four).
With this in mind, t he following standards for “levels” were presented to and accepted by the CRC at the February 18
th meeting.
Level One
Changes in form and appearance that are not substantive. Includes corrections, rewording for clarity, reorganization, elimination of redundancies, consistency of cross -references and numbering, consolidation of sections, elimination of headings for previously deleted sections, rewording of headings to better reflect content, addition of subheadings, defined terms, and other Charter-wide conventions to improve comprehension and usability.
Note: The vast majority of proposed changes fall into the Level One category.
14 Level Two
Rewordings, deletions and additions intended to add clarity, fill gaps, eliminate ambiguities, replace outdated (no longer used) practices with current “best” practices, and provide consistency with state law. Some changes are “substantive” but are not thought to be so significant or sensitive as to warrant consideration as possible separate ballot measures.
Note: Both Level One and Level Two Changes will be recommended to be combined in one ballot measure.
Level Three
Changes to policies or procedures that may be considered “best practices” or are otherwise viewed as desirable, and that the CRC recommends, but either involve political sensitivity, or are of such independent significance, that they may justify consideration as separate ballot measures or be left out entirely.
Note: Ideally, approved Level Three changes would be combined with Level One and Level Two Changes as part of one comprehensive ballot measure, understanding that some Level Three changes may warrant separate or deferred consideration.
Level Four
Possible changes to the Charter that are either too complicated or too significant to have been fully analyzed or appropriate for consideration as part of this Charter update project, but may be worthy of future study and consideration.
Note: An example of a Level Four issue might be consideration of a different voting system like “ranked choice” voting.
f. Role of the City Council
The City Council initiated the Charter Project , defined its scope and purpose and created the CRC as its implementing body . Ultimately, the City Council will determine what elements of the CRC’s proposed Charter changes , if any, will be placed before the voters in November. As is the norm for this type of project, however, by creating an independent CRC, the City Council intentionally removed itself from the day-to-day aspects of Charter Project implementation, so as not to dictate any particular outcome or unduly influence any final recommendation.
Although the CRC understood that the City Council was standing back awaiting its final recommendation, at its February meeting, the CRC determined that it would make sense to check in with the City Council to update the Council on progress, and to solicit any questions or concerns that the Council might have regarding the direction the project was taking. Specifically, the CRC wanted to make sure that its support of a substantial reorganization of the City Charter, with an entirely new numbering system and rewritten language that would make even non- substantive changes look dramat ic, was something the City Council could ultimately be comfortable with. It would not be a good use of CRC and staff resources to implement such an 15 overarching change if in the end the Council was not supportive. Accordingly, the CRC directed staff to provide a report to the City Council with an overall project update, a preview of the proposed reorganization, and the CRC’s thought process in supporting this approach. The report was prepared and presented as a consent item on the City Council’s April 7th agenda. The report included a summary of the proposed reorganization, the CRC’s thought process, the arguments it considered for and against the approach, and statement that i f the Council, or any individual Councilmember had any concerns with the approach, the item could be pulled for further discussion, or any individual Councilmember could contact City Attorney Googins with any questions. The report also indicated that CRC Members Roberts and Tansey, and CRC Chair Nikolai would be available to respond to any questions at the meeting. The item was not pulled, and no concerns were raised by any Councilmembers at that time or since. Nonetheless, since the proposed reorganization remains a significant aspect of the CRC’s overall recommendation, the CRC’s thought process in proceeding down this path is presented again in the “Results; Summary of Proposed Changes” section of this report, below.
g. The Role of the City Attorney’s Office
The City Attorney’s Office (CAO) has taken the lead in providing professional staff support for the Charter Project and the CRC. In this role, CAO staff has (1) coordinated logistics and staffing for all full CRC and Ad Hoc Subcommittee meetings (with substantial early assistance from City Council staff); (2) presented directly to the four Boards and Commissions stakeholder groups, and facilitated the delivery of their input to the Group Four Ad Hoc Subcommittees ; (3) solicited input from other professional City staff “stakeholders” and facilitated delivery of their input to the various Ad Hoc Subcommittees groups; (4) served as primary drafters for proposed and requested Charter language changes ; (5) facilitated discussions, answered questions and followed up on requests for additional information, benchmarking and legal research on the full range of topics taken up by the CRC ; (6) facilitated and led report outs from the six Ad Hoc Subcommittees to the full CRC regarding Group progress, issues discussed, and ultimately, each Group’s section by section recommendations; and (7) assembled the Groups’ recommendations into an overall CRC recommendation for the Project with CRC direction and oversight.
h. Full CRC Meetings
In the end, the various elements of the Charter Project process were developed, decided, applied and brought to fruition at the meetings of the full CRC. All told, as of the date of this report, the CRC has met 10 times. Meetings were held in 2025 on October 1st, October 22nd and November 19th and in 2026 on January 21st, February 18 th, March 18th, April 15th, May 20th,
May 27th and June 3rd. All meetings were in City Council Chambers, except the May 20th meeting which was held in the Redwood Room at Central Library. Early meetings focused on training and work plan development. Thereafter, building upon the monthly report outs from the six Ad Hoc Subcommittees, the CRC proceeded towards the development of its final recommendation. This recommendation is now presented for City Council consideration, below.
16 3. The Results: Summary of Proposed Changes
The result s and recommendations of the CRC for Council action on the Charter Project comprise a number of component s. These are presented below as follows: (a) proposed comprehensive reorganization; (b) Charter -wide conventions; ( c) Section by Section modifications; and (d) considerations in placing any measure on the ballot. a. Proposed Comprehensive Reorganization. As City staff and the various CRC subcommittees started digging into their assigned sections, it became increasingly clear that the current Charter was not always organized in a logical or intuitive manner. In many instances, subjects and sections related to the same topic were not even within the same Article. This led to early proposals to relocate sections, or parts of sections, along with more and more substantial clarifying revisions, both to update outdated language, and to integrate sections into their relocated context. At a certain point, it became increasingly clear that merely revising sections “in place” would not achieve one of the prime Charter Project purposes of making the Charter more accessible and user friendly.
The proposal for a comprehensive reorganization of the Charter was first previewed for the CRC at its January 21st meeting. Responding to general CRC support, City staff refined its proposal and resubmitted it for CRC action at their February 18 th meeting. Key components of the reorganization proposal included: (1) Consolidation of Articles I through V; (2) shifting of certain Sections into more logical arrangements by subject matter; (3) retitling of Articles and Sections with more descriptive language; (4) breaking up longer Sections into titled Subsections; (5) deleting headings and numbering left over from previously deleted Sections; (6) renumbering Articles and Sections with a more modern, intuitive numbering system; and (7) creation of a comprehensive matrix to be attached at the end of the Charter showing the history of changes to each Section, references to previous Section numbers, and references to City Code Sections that are implementing of the Charter.
The CRC considered the proposed comprehensive Charter reorganization concept, along with the pros and cons of such approach presented by staff. The primary arguments in favor included: (1) such a reorganization would be perfectly aligned with the Charter Project’s stated purposes by making the Charter more modern and “user friendly” for the public and for professional staff; (2) the deletion of unused Section headings and internal history references would make the Charter shorter, less cluttered and easier to read; (3) the proposed new “tools” including an expanded definitions section, and a detailed matrix with Section amendment and numbering history, along with references to relevant City Code sections, would also enhance Charter usability. Arguments against a comprehensive Charter reorganization included: (1) if an underline/strikeout of the proposed changes were to be placed on the ballot (e.g., if it was determined to be legally necessary or otherwise appropriate), it could turn off the voting public if it appeared that the changes were not being fully explained or evident; (2) if the full text of all changes needed to be included on the ballot it would increase the cost of the ballot measure; and (3) if a measure with comprehensive renumbering were to be approved by voters, full implementation would require a review and update of the City Code and all other materials referencing the Charter to update the existing Section references. 17 Ultimately, the CRC approved proceeding with the comprehensive reorganization.
Since the CRC was already undertaking a comprehensive update of the Charter, the consensus of the CRC was that now was the right time to also implement the comprehensive reorganization and renumbering system. The CRC also apprised that there was no legal requirement to place an underline/strikeout version of proposed changes on the ballot, so that a very messy and complicated document need not be what the voters acted on. Instead, a link could be provided in the ballot measure and/or the City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis to the City’s website for the full Charter language. This would include an underline strikeout of all proposed changes, a detailed description of all the proposed changes, and an extensive FAQ Section. In light of this, the CRC voted unanimously to support including the comprehensive Charter reorganization concept as part of their work plan.
This comprehensive reorganization proposal, with some relatively minor modifications to the Article and Section references submitted to the Council back on April 7 th,
remains a central component of the CRC’s recommended Charter update. The proposal consolidates the current Charter’s eighteen (18) Articles into nine (9) Articles and relocates a number of Sections and Subsections into more logical alignment. This relocation of Sections occurs most frequently in and among old Articles VI, The Elective Offices, VII, The Council, City and VIII, Manager, Ordinances, Meetings, now new Articles Two, Elected Officials, Three, City Elections, and Four. City Council Meetings/Actions. A number of miscellaneous Sections that were located throughout the old Charter are also now proposed for relocation to new Article Nine, Miscellaneous and Legal Provisions.
The proposed matrix to be attached at the end of the Charter showing the history of changes to each Section, references to previous Section numbers, and references to City Code Sections that related back to or implement Charter requirements has not yet been generated, but will be generated if Council provides preliminary direction of its intent to place the comprehensive update on the November ballot.
b. Charter-wide Conventions
Charter-wide “conventions” refers to minor, but important, changes proposed throughout the document to improve the Charter’s appearance, make it more accessible, more modern, and easier to understand. In addition to those conventions described as part of the reorganization proposal, above, the Charter -wide conventions to be implemented as part of the CRC’s recommendation include:
(1) "he/she him/her” pronoun references converted to using the relevant position title, whenever possible or “they/them” when not possible or too awkward; (2) numbers one through nine presented as words, with numbers 10 and above presented as numerals;
(3) where appropriate, explain/educate on basic concepts and functions of government (e.g., a dded language to explain the concept of a “Council- Manager” form of government (new Section 103); and what an “Ordinance,“ is and does, including an explanation of the two step Ordinance approval process (new Section 403.1); 18 (4) use of capitalized terms to create defined terms throughout as referenced in the new Section 105. Note: The Charter is still under comprehensive review to ensure that all capitalized terms are being used correctly and consistently. The list of “Defined Terms” at the end of the Charter (new Section 908) is also still under construction. c. Section by Section Summary of Proposed Changes
This section presents, in summary form, the proposed changes from each Ad Hoc Subcommittee Group for updates to their assigned Charter sections that were ultimately approved by the full CRC on June 3rd. While each assigned subject matter area had its own unique issues, each Group was also conscious of the importance of viewing their task through the common lens of the express Charter Project purpose stated in the adopted Bylaws. The assigned task was not to restructure the operations of City government, or to propose major changes in the City’s political process. Instead, the Charter Project was about developing a comprehensive update to make the Charter easier to understand for the public, elected officials, and professional staff alike, and, based on stakeholder input, to bring the Charter into alignment with currently applicable law, City practices, and/or current, “best practices,” all of which, along with Santa Clara itself, have evolved substantially since the Charter’s original adoption. In some cases, this meant rewriting whole sections to make the language used more modern and less ambiguous. In other cases, it meant adding new provisions to fill gaps or deleting provisions that were ou tdated or no longer necessary. All of these changes are summarized below, with references to Section numbers in both the existing “Old” Charter and the proposed updated “New” Charter.
Perhaps the best reference tool s to use in conducting a detailed review of the CRC’s proposed recommended changes are the attached underline/strikeout and clean version of the proposed Charter update ( See Attachments 4 and 5 to this report ). These updated Charter documents contain (and in the underline/strikeout version, highlight) every proposed CRC Charter modification. They also contain, throughout, annotations in the margins that provide references to primary source materials and applicable laws considered. For the more substantive proposed changes, or proposed changes in politically s ensitive areas, these annotations also include summaries of the CRC’s thought process in deciding whether to include, or not to include proposed Charter changes that were under consideration. Where any proposed CRC modification rose to Level 3, this was also noted.
With that in mind, the CRC would encourage that any review of the following summary of proposed Charter changes be done with reference to the actual proposed Charter update documents, with the added value of their embedded annotations.
Group One
Powers and Structure of City Government: Rules/Process for Action Addition of a Preamble
[Preamble]
“We, the people of the City of Santa Clara, pursuant to our authority under the laws of the State of California, hereby adopt this Charter to be the rules for the governance and operations of our City in an open, fair and effective manner.”
19 Notes: A preamble is not legally required but, consistent with the purposes of the Charter Project, is thought to be a good presentation and framing of what a Charter is : the local rules that the people choose to govern themselves.
Foundational Terms (Article One)
[Old Articles I through V, New Article One, Sections 100 through 105] • Replacement of formal language with familiar language throughout (e.g., Section 100). • Deletion of Old Article III, Succession, Sections 300 through 305, regarding the effect of Charter adoption on previously existing rules, rights and contracts; replaced with a single summarizing sentence in new Section 104.
• More definitive statement of City’s “Charter Authority” with respect to “municipal affairs” (Section 102.1), and the relationship of its enumerated Charter authority to other laws (Section 102.2).
• Aggregate voter approved limitations on City authority into one Section (102.3), including “Disposal of Public Utilities” (Section 102.3(a)), with clarifying modifications to allow internal transfers and disposition of property no longer needed for utility purposes. • Expanded language to explain “Council-Manager” form of government (Section 103). • New language to make clear the “Effective Date” of this Charter update, and the need for voter approval of any future Charter amendment (Section 104). • Use and Definitions of Capitalized Terms Section added with cross-reference to the list of Definitions to be added in Article Nine, which is still “under construction” (Section 105).
Notes: A definitive statement of the City’s authority with respect to “municipal affairs” is intended to maximize the City’s authority to govern itself at the local level. What’s viewed by City staff and the CRC as a clarification of the provision requiring a vote on any transfer of a public utility to allow the transfer of utility property no longer needed, or internal utility restructuring, could be viewed by some as a substantive change warranting Level 3 consideration. See also discussion of proposed modifications of Measure R language, new Section 102.3(b), below.
Elected Officials (Article Two)
[Old Article VI, Section 600, City elected officers, New Article Two , Elected Officials, Sections 200, 201.1, 203.1 and 203.3]
• Added new Section 200 to clearly state in one place which positions in the City are elected, with a definitional distinction for “District Council Members” and a cross-reference to Article Three regarding the process for elections and interim appointments. • Qualified Elector and Residency requirements retained and clarified, with “Residency” to be determined under State Law , and “ Qualified Elector” status to be determined by the County Registrar of Voters (Section 201.1).
• Clarifying language regarding ability to hold one office and run for another (e.g., Mayor for Council, and Council for Mayor), except that District Councilmembers can’t simultaneously run for another District Council seat) (Section 203.3).
Notes: Existing general qualification requirements for Elected Officials were retained.
There was a discussion of lengthening the 30-days in advance requirement, but beyond 30 days has been challenged as unconstitutional. Better defining “Residency” was also discussed, but current best practice is to defer to state law, with the City Clerk requiring a sworn statement from the candidate.
20 City Elections (Article Three)
[Old Section 600.01, New Section 301]
• Maintains concept of a “regular election” but uses modern language to refer to as “General City Election” held in even numbered years to be consolidated with the corresponding State election. Everything else is a “Special Election.” Provisi on for no primary election retained.
City Council Meetings/Actions (Article Four)
[Old Section 808, Ordinances, New Section 403, Special Rules for Ordinances]
• Added language to explain what an ordinance is and to use modern language to explain the two step process for “introducing” and “adopting” ordinances (Section 403.1). • Retains general rule for ordinance adoption at a “regular meeting” but adds a provision for adoption at a special meeting if the City Council finds an urgent necessity with five affirmative votes (last sentence of 403.1).
• Simplifies and updates language regarding repeal/amendment (403.2), effective date (403.3), emergency (403.4), codification (403.6), and adoption of uniform codes (403.7), with City Clerk only required to maintain one (was three) physical copies of the code, with added requirement for posting on the City’s website.
• Posting/publication of ordinances requirement changed from advance posting/publication in a newspaper ( a general law city practice) to post adoption posting/publication in newspaper, plus website posting (403.5).
Notes: Charter cities can develop their own ordinance adoption standards, but most substantially adhere to the General Law city standard. This update maintains that standard, with a “best practice” modification to allow for ordinance adoption at a special meeting with a five-vote determination of urgency, and replacement of a pre- adoption newspaper publication requirement, with a 15-day post-adoption publication requirement.
Employee Performance Bonds
[Old Section 911, Official Bonds, New Section 503, Employee Performance Bonds]
• Added language to describe what bonds are for, to outline the contents of any City policy to identify covered officials and terms of bonds, with City to pay premiums (503.1), with State law to apply in the absence of City policy (503.4).
Miscellaneous and Legal Provisions (Article Nine)
[Old Article XVIII, New Article Nine]
• Overall updates/clarifications to existing language in new Sections 900 (Mandatory and Permissive), 901 (Legal Actions Against the City ), 903 (Severability) and 907 (Oaths of Office, old Section 912).
• Violations and Enforcement updates allow for prosecution of Charter violations as misdemeanors or infractions, in prosecutor’s discretion based on severity of offense, with reference to state law for applicable range of punishments, and a clear statement that Elected Officials forfeit their position for a misdemeanor conviction (902.1). • The District Attorney to be the prosecuting authority; if DA declines, City Attorney to hire someone from outside the City Attorney’s Office to prosecute (902.2). • Ordinance required as a legal basis for any Local Law criminal prosecution (902.3). 21 • Publication of legal notice updates maintains newspaper publication requirement with updated language to align with State Law (904.1), requires additional “electronic” notice by City policy based on latest technologies to maximize reach to those expressing interest or likely to be impacted (904.2).
• Where Charter requires a City Council ordinance or policy, currently applicable local or state laws to remain in effect pending adoption (905).
• Add City Clerk authority to make minor corrections if approved as to form by City Attorney and ratified by Council (906).
• Definitions, still under construction (907).
Notes: A Charter’s “Miscellaneous” Sections are often overlooked, but they contain important content. For enhanced transparency, this update adds a requirement for the City to create a policy for modernizing its legal public notice requirements. It also makes clear that violations of the Charter could be prosecuted as misdemeanors or infractions depending upon the severity of the offense. The existing Charter identifies the City Attorney as the prosecuting authority for Charter violations, but this is almost always a conflict of interest as this position is appointed by the City Council and has attorney-client relationships with virtually every City official governed by the Charter. The proposed solution is to identify the DA or, if the DA declines, special outside counsel as the prosecuting authority.
Group Two
City Council: Elections, Powers and Conduct of Meetings Voter Approval for Disposal or Change of Use of Certain City Parkland [Old Section 714.1, New Section 102.3(c)]
• Proposal to add language to allow for “secondary uses” that do not “materially impact” underlying Park uses if approved by 2/3rds vote of Council (five votes); any revenues generated must be used to fund parks and recreation purposes.
Notes: This proposed change is supported by both the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission. The added language to allow “secondary uses” could reasonably be viewed more as a clarification than a substantive change, but because it modifies the terms of a recent, voter approved measure to protect City parkland (Measure R, approved by 90% of the voters in 2016), this likely rises to a “Level Three” proposal.
Qualification Requirements for Elected Chief of Police
[Old Section 906, New Section 201.2]
• Proposal to add a requirement for a POST “Management Certificate” (must be a Lieutenant with Two Years Experience)
Notes: Given sensitivity in this area, this proposal is clearly at “Level 3”. That said, current and past Chiefs have all indicated that all of the elected Chiefs that have served in the last 30 plus years have met this standard. The intent of the CRC in proposing this change (along with the proposed additions to the Chief’s powers and duties sections; see Group 22 Three, Section 202.3, below), is to clearly communicate and provide that the elected Chief’s position is a professional management position, not a ceremonial position, or for someone without supervisory experience.
City Council Challenges to Qualifications of Elected Officials [Old Section 711, New Section 201.3]
• Replaces language for City Council to “judge” the qualifications of elected officials with provision for them to challenge qualifications as provided “under State Law.”
Notes: This change replaces the vague concept of the City Council “judging” Elected Official qualifications, which is susceptible to politicization, with reference to provisions under State Law which would allow for challenges to an Elected Official’s qualifications through a judicial process.
Mayor’s Power and Duties
[Old Section 704.3 (and others), New Section 202.1]
• Gathers Mayor’s powers in one place without substantive changes. • Eliminates provision requiring Mayor recommendations affecting the budget to identify funding sources or cuts in support of that recommendation (Section 202.1.a.(5)). • Maintains existing provisions limiting the Mayor’s authority so as not to interfere with the City Manager’s authority over the City’s administrative branch (Section 202.1.b).
City Council Powers and Duties
[Old Sections 706, New Section 202.2]
• Adds substantial new language for Council/Council Member powers and duties. • Puts parameters around the City Council’s powers to investigate or subpoena witnesses (Section 202.2.a.(7))
• Individual Council member duties (including the Mayor) emphasize attendance of official meetings, consideration of public input, and ethics (Section 202.2.b). • An additional “expectation” for “professional and courteous” conduct is also proposed. • “Councilmanic interference” still prohibited, with any prohibited formal action deemed void (Section 202.2.c), but language for automatic removal of office eliminated to be addressed instead in the Charter “Violations” Section at the end (Section 902).
Notes: Added provisions for City Council powers are intended to be informative , not limiting. Added provisions for City Council Member powers and duties are more oriented towards what’s expected, with a desire to emphasize ethical and professional conduct.
Term Limits
[Old Section 600, New Section 203.2.a. and b.]
• Clarifies term limits are “Lifetime” with service in one office not counting as service in another.
• States clearly no term limits apply to offices of Chief of Police and Clerk. 23 Compensation
[Old Section 906, New Sections 204 and 604.5]
• Clarifies current practice to include salary and benefits in “Total Compensation.” • “Salary Setting Commission” terms moved to Article Six (Boards and Commissions) , Section 604.5.
• Per current practice, benefits for Mayor/Council/Clerk (part time positions) limited to Health and Retirement, with no ability to convert Health Benefits to cash.
Notes: Additional language intended to be clarifying. Although no health benefits have been awarded to date, the Salary Setting commission has considered the possibility.
Vacancies
[Old Section 703, New Section 205]
• List added to specify what constitutes a “vacancy” (forfeiture from office) (205.1). • List includes conviction of any felony, or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or misconduct in office.
• Clarifies process for “declaring” and potentially filling a vacancy by appointment, to fill a vacancy increasing time period from 30 to 45 days (205.2). • Replaces language suggesting that if no appointment is made an election to be held “forthwith” to fill the vacancy (which is not clear and is subject to inconsistent interpretations), with a requirement that an election be held at the next scheduled statewide election (205.2.b).
Notes: This is an example of filling a gap in the Charter, as the existing Charter provides no provision for what constitutes a “Vacancy.” The proposed list is fairly standard, with a few refinements regarding criminal convictions (as described above), and determinations of disability.
City Elections (Generally)
[Old Section 700, New Section 300]
• Language added to clarify relationship between local and state law (Elections Code), with Charter governing except as necessary for the ROV to administer the election.
Notes: Both the existing Charter and proposed Charter update specify City’s Elected Officials, their qualifications, their terms, how and when they are elected, etc. But as with virtually every City, general law and charter city alike, Santa Clara consolidates its local election with the County Registrar of Voters (ROV). As a result, most of Santa Clara’s filing and voting requirements are set forth in the State Elections Code and administered by the ROV. The proposed Charter updates in this Section describe and clarify this relationship.
Administration and Determination of Election Outcomes
[Portions of Old Sections 700 and 711, New Section 302] 24 • Added language c larifies ROV primary responsibility working with elected/appointed Clerk’s Office officials to administer City elections.
• Given the potential conflict, the Assistant Clerk is designated to handle election matters related to the elected City Clerk.
• Language that provided for the City Council to “judge” election returns replaced with a clearer and more standard role under the Elections Code for the City Council to “certify” elections (302.3)
Notes: The language providing for the City Council to “judge” elections suggests a broader role for the Council than is traditional or appropriate. It’s the ROV that counts the votes and determines the outcome of elections they administer. The City Council’s role is to “certify” that election outcome. An explanation of this is provided in the City Attorney’s annotation to proposed new Section 302.3
City Council Members Elected by Districts
[Old Section 700.1, New Section 303]
• Mostly language clean up here, with the requirement for “nomination” by District added to the initial paragraph and deleted (where it was confusing) from the provisions describing how elections for the various District Council seats will be staggered. • Additional clean- up language (pending) will be required to reference the redistricting process approved by the voters in June of 2022. This will become the new “base line,” for District boundaries referenced in the Charter, replacing the map referenced in the existing Charter that was adopted by judgement of the Superior Court in 2018.
Redistricting
[Old Section 700.2, New Section 304]
• Adds a redistricting “process” including provision for a Redistricting Commission, with composition, authority and process to be established by ordinance.
Notes: The CRC is aware that the City has gone through a series of recent redistricting efforts, including most recently after the 2020 census. Based on the City’s history and “best practices, ” the CRC recommendation requires the creation of a Redistricting Commission for mandatory redistricting but leaves it to the Council to develop the policy for how such commission will be comprised, and the level of independence it will have.
City Council Meetings/Actions
[Old Sections 707, 708, 709, New Sections 400 and 401]
• An added “In General” Section sets the framework for City Council actions to occur only at meetings properly noticed and held in accordance with the Brown Act (400). • New proposed language adds flexibility for one month each year with only one regular meeting required to accommodate holidays or other scheduling requirements (401.1). • Added language makes clear that any action taken at a regular meeting can also be taken at a special meeting except as required by law or the Charter (e.g. ordinance adoption) (401.2).
25 Notes: Proposed changes are generally Level One, with an added reference to electronic noticing of meetings, beyond Brown Act requirements, as may be developed by the City Council using the “latest available technologies” per the requirements of new Section 904.
Procedures and Requirements for Action
[Old Sections 710, 712 and 713, New Sections 402.1, .2 and .3] • Added language clarifies quorum requirements per existing rules/best practices to require four Council Members present regardless of Council vacancies or abstentions (402.1); to make clear there’s a difference, section includes reference to Council action voting requirements in Section 402.3.
• The Assistant City Clerk designated to assist at meetings and keep records of proceedings (402.2)
• Clarifies four affirmative votes required for City Council action unless a greater number is required by Charter or other Applicable Law; retains current Council authority to take action through adoption of informal “minutes” resolutions (402.3)
Notes: Charters are not required to include quorum or voting requirements, but most do and this language clearly presents existing City/best practices. An alternative would be to leave this to City Council policy making.
Powers to lease, sell or convey City property
[Old Section 714, Proposed for Deletion]
• Proposal is to delete existing Section 714 requiring public notice and an opportunity to bid at the sale of any property sold by City valued at $500 or more. • Process itself, plus such a low threshold were thought so outdated that it would be better to delete than modify.
Notes: This could be a Level Three issue depending upon City Council’s perspective on how the voting public might perceive this deletion.
Group Three
Senior Officials: Duties and Qualifications
Chief of Police Powers and Duties
[Old Section 906, New Section 202.3]
• Language added to make clear that the Chief of Police is the “head” of the Police Department (as currently provided by ordinance, but not in the Charter). • Added the obligation of the Chief to update and advise the City Council and the City Manager on matters relating to public safety and law enforcement (202.3(d)) • Not able to develop language mutually agreeable to City Manager and Chief to clarify their relationship regarding department appointments and discipline.
26 Notes: The proposed changes to this Section , like those proposed in the Chief qualifications Section, a bove, are intended to confirm the professional nature of t his position, both as the head of the Police Department and as an advisor to the City Council and the City Manager on public safety and law enforcement issues. While the City Manager and the Chief were not able to agree upon additional language specifying their authority over department appointments and discipline, they are both supportive of these changes.
That said, the CRC recognizes that this is a highly sensitive “Level Three” area.
City Clerk Powers and Duties
[Old Section 903, New Section 202.4]
• Proposed changes reflect the current allocation of duties between the City Clerk (elected) and the Assistant City Clerk (ACC) (appointed by the CM) in the City Code (City Code Chapter 2.20).
• The City Clerk’s primary duty is to serve as the City’s “Elections Official” to administer elections and related duties under State and local laws (202.4(a)(1)) • Adds the duty to consult with the ACC, and with ACC concurrence, authorize the ACC to assist with their duties.
• ACC to perform typical City Clerk “day to day” duties to support City Council meetings and maintain City records (202.4(b)).
• Adds provision for ACC to act in the extended absence of the City Clerk to assure continuity of City operations and compliance with laws (202.4(b)(7).
Notes: This language was developed with the direct input and support of the City Clerk and the ACC.
Structure of Government
[Old Articles VIII and IX, New Article Five]
• General sections added/updated to describe City organization by departments, as determined by City Council (500.1), with an “Administrative Code” implementing details, to be updated from time to time (500.2), with the City Manager as the head of operations, and with the City Manager, City Attorney and City Auditor to be appointed by City Council (501).
• City Manager sections consolidated and updated to better reflect duties and to align with other department head duties (501.1), with added provisions for exercising “professional judgement” to make recommendations and take actions to assure high quality performance of services, compliance with contracts and with the City Code (501.1(f) and (g)). Outdated language regarding City Management appointment, and process for removal “for cause” deleted, as this is all now handled by contract (Old Section 806). • City Attorney provisions updated to give authority to initiate legal proceedings subject to City Council approval and in consultation with the City Manager (501.2(c)), act as the appointing authority, in consultation with the City Manager, for professional legal staff (501.2(d)), where conflict exists, refer matters to outside attorneys/agencies (501.2(j)); 27 required years of experience increased from 4 to 7, with such other qualifications City Council may impose commensurate with demands of position (end of 501.2). • City Auditor provisions updated to reflect duties for both financial and performance audits (501.3) per an annual work plan the Auditor develops in their professional discretion with required approval from the City Audit Committee (501.3(b)), to be implemented or overseen by the City Auditor (501.3(c)), with a requirement that they conduct themselves in accordance with all applicable professional and ethical standards (501.3(d)). • Positions Appointed by the City Manager, updated with input from current department heads, to better reflect their duties, including as follows:
• Director of Finance, update outdated terms, expand duties to City “enterprises,” align with other changes to City’s financial reporting and budget process, designate as the City’s “Treasurer” for all purposes, including financings, add oversight of City’s purchasing system, and applicable professional standards (502.1).
• Public Works Director, update to reflect current duties, including oversight of City public works procurement, with the ability to serve as or appoint the City Engineer (502.2). • Fire Chief, update to expand duties to reflect modern “all risk” fire service, to include emergency medical response, and other functions approved/funded by the City Council like hazmat regulation/response, mutual aid and rescue ops (502.3).
Notes: All proposed updates to these Sections are the product of discussions with and input from the Senior Officials themselves and are intended to conform with current City and best practices.
Group Four
Boards and Commissions: Composition, Powers and Duties
General Provisions for Chartered and City Council Created Boards and Commissions [Old Section 1000, New Sections 600.1 and 600.2, 600.4, 600.5 and 600.6] • Added language introduces and lists the five “Chartered” Boards and Commissions (600.1) and provides for “City Council Created” Boards and Commissions with Council flexibility on composition and terms for the latter (600.2). • The existing Salary Setting Commission is added to the list and given its own Section (600.1 and 604.5)
• Old section 1004 regarding application of interest/gift rules per state/local law updated and moved to this Section (600.6)
Qualifications (Qualified Elector/Resident Status)
[Old Section 1000, New Section 600.3]
• Chartered Board members to be both residents and qualified electors. • City Council created Board members need only be residents.
Notes: The need for “qualified elector” status as a qualification was discussed extensively in light of the Board of Library Trustees (BOLT) request that this requirement be removed. 28 The Group/CRC ultimately decided that for the Charter created boards and commissions, qualified elector status and consistency were important. They also note that non-Qualified elector residents still have a lot of opportunities to serve on City Council created boards.
Appointment/Removal
[Old Section 1002, New Section 602.1]
• Retain full City Council discretion to appoint/remove but require City Council to adopt policies for this to occur in “an orderly and transparent manner” (602.1).
Notes: Group Four discussed extensively options for making more transparent any decision not to reappoint or remove a board or commission member “for cause” other than the referenced “ Vacancy” provisions discussed below. Ultimate decision was to require the City Council to make rules that allow for appointment and removal “in an orderly and transparent” manner but not draft such rules into the Charter as it is not the place for that level of detail.
Term Limits
[Old Section 1002, New Section 602.2]
• Codify existing practice allowing two 4- year terms in one’s “lifetime” on any one board/commission, with Council flexibility to change for Council Created Boards and Commissions (602.2).
Vacancies
[Old Section 1004, New Sections 602.3 and 602.4]
• Applies same “Vacancy” rules as for Elected Officials, with the exception of the existing (different) rule for Boards and Commissions for the number of non- excused absences allowed (three) before position declared vacant.
• Per suggestion of Parks and Rec reation Commission (and others) provision now contemplates City Council creating a set of rules governing excused/non- excused absences (602.3).
Conduct of Meetings
[Old Section 1003, New Section 603]
• Added language makes clear Brown Act/City Council rules apply (603.1) • Language that contemplates Boards and Commissions going into closed session in conflict with Brown Act now deleted.
• Added language makes clear that any action requires a majority vote of authorized number of members (603.3).
• Extraordinary powers of investigation/subpoena powers for all Boards and Commissions deleted as this should probably only be available to the Civil Service Commission (603.4).
Notes: The City Council could make different quorum/voting rules of Boards and Commissions, but the Group/CRC thought maintaining consistency with City Council rules was important to retain.
29 Planning Commission
[Old Sections 1006 and 1007, New Section 604.1]
• Updated Powers and Duties based on staff and Commission input , with a particular interest from the Planning Commission in adding references to advanced planning work, analysis of environmental impacts, and solicitation of public input (604.1.b) • Planning Commission proposal for City Council deference , plus a supermajority vote required for the Council to overturn Planning Commission determinations on appeal was considered but not recommended (604.1.c).
Notes: The CRC was sympathetic to the Planning Commission’s desire for deference but determined that the requirement for a super majority vote went too far. This conclusion was helped by confirmation that the commission has an existing right to designate a member to represent their position at the City Council should they elect to do so with respect to any particular item.
Parks and Recreation Commission
[Old Sections 1008 and 1009, New Section 604.2]
• Added language updates Powers and Duties based on staff and Commission input , including adding the review of any Parks and Recreation Master Plan, providing input on City-wide events using parks and rec facilities, and removal of direct involving with planning and supervising recreation programs and solicitation of school authority cooperation, instead acting in an advisory capacity (604.2.b).
Notes: Added language maintains, but now more accurately reflects, the Commissions advisory rule across a broad spectrum of City projects and programs.
Board of Library Trustees (BOLT)
[Old Sections 1012 and 1013, New Section 604.4]
• Proposed increase from 5 to 7 members was supported to allow for more community engagement and support for library programs (604.4.a).
• BOLT’s proposal to eliminate the qualified elector requirement for membership was not recommended per discussion regarding general qualifications for Chartered Boards and Commissions, above (604.4.a).
• Updated language eliminates the authority of the BOLT to “administer” the Library system but retains its authority to approve the City Librarian (in coordination with a City Manager administered recruitment process ), approve certain administrative policies unique to library operations, with some restrictions, and adds the requirement for BOLT input on the library budget and any master plan, along with other major decisions(604.4.b).
Notes: The Charter provisions setting forth the BOLT’s powers and duties were substantially out of line with current /best practices in that they called for the BOLT to administer the City’s library system. The BOLT agreed that this role was outdated but wanted to retain certain approval rights in key areas. The CRC was supportive of most of the BOLT’s proposals and believes that the final language strikes a good balance.
30 Group Five
Civil Service: General Rules for Classified and Unclassified Employees; Commission Composition and Duties
The Group Five Subcommittee recommended modifications to a variety of sections of the Charter pertaining to the Civil Service Commission as well as the terms of classified employment with the City. Through the course of robust meet and confer discussions with the bargaining units, numerous changes to the language were requested by the units and incorporated by staff.
However, due to timing constraints, the bargaining units were not in a position to agree to the proposed modifications by the last CRC meeting of June 3 rd. CRC provided direction to staff at
that meeting to continue meet and confer efforts, and staff will provide a verbal update as to the outcome of those continued efforts as the Council goes through its review and deliberations of the overall Charter update proposal.. Below is a summary of the Charter modifications that were proposed by the CRC and discussed with the units.
Civil Service Commission
[Old Sections 1010, 1011, New Section 604.3]
• Add reference to conflict-of-interest rules
• Reorganize sections and update language for readability • Expand to include all protected characteristics
• Include reference to Salary Setting Commission appointment/removal duty
Civil Service
[Old Section 1100, New Section 700]
• Align general merit principle language with Section 1010 • Add reference to the Civil Service Rules
Classified and Unclassified Service
[Old Section 1101, New Section 701]
• Categories of positions in the unclassified service updated to match those positions listed on the unclassified pay plan
• Language added to protect potential bargaining rights of temporary/as-needed employees (AB 1484)
• Currently undefined terms “professional, scientific, technical, or expert service of an occasional or exceptional character” updated to include definitions of Confidential, Professional, and Management Employees from the Employer -Employee Relations Resolution
• Eliminated the requirement for newly created unclassified positions to be the head of a division established by ordinance
• Concerns raised by bargaining units related to the potential for currently classified positions to become unclassified were addressed by adding in a clause “freezing” classified rights for positions on the classified salary schedule as of the date of the election
31 Appointments from the Classified to Unclassified Service [Old Section 1102, New Section 702]
• Charter currently has an unlimited right of reversion, originally proposed to include a two- year limitation. After the bargaining units raised concerns, staff eliminated the proposed two-year limitation.
• Limited right of reversion in situations where an employee was dismissed for cause or resigned in lieu of termination
• Eliminated “forced retirement” language
Prohibitions
[Old Section 1107, new Section 707]
• Updated cross-references
• Updated penalty provisions to reference state law standard for misdemeanors
Notes: Proceeding with any changes to these sections in the absence of agreement with the bargaining units could place the City in a difficult position and potentially render the City’s decision vulnerable to challenge. Therefore, in the absence of an agreement, these provisions would be placed in the Level Three or Level Four categories.
Group Six
Fiscal Administration and Procurement
Budget Preparation
[Old Section 1301, New Sections 801.1 and 801.2]
• Language added expressly allows for the current “biennial” budget process, with alternating operating and capital budget approvals , with the budget to be prepared and presented by the City Manager in consultation with the Director of Finance and all departments (801.2).
Budget Contents
[Old Sections 1311-1314, New Section 801.3]
• Proposed updates delete multiple sections of outdated budget elements, including no longer used terms for budget reserves.
• Retains requirement for “Reserve Accounts” to cover future operations/capital needs funded to levels per City Council policies “and in consideration of recommendations by the City Manager and Director of Finance regarding best practices and available funds” (801.3).
Notes: Most of the Group Six discussion centered around their shared concerns regarding City budgeting for future capital and other needs through maintenance of adequate reserves. The Group even considered proposing specific reserve standards.
Because this is the Charter, and that exercise would be complicated and changing over time, the ultimate consensus (consistent with the Finance Director’s preference) was to call for Reserves, but continue to have the terms and amounts set by Council policy. 32 Budget Implementation and Amendment
[Old Section 1300, New Section 801]
• Proposed language updates clarify which budget amendments require City Council approval, versus which can be administered by the City Manager (within the various departments and funds approved/appropriated by the Council) (801.5) • At the request of the Finance Director, updated language allows for the “carryforward” of funds ( i.e., no new City Council approval required) for approved Capital Improvement Projects and multi-year contracts (801.5).
• Requirement that Council level amendments be approved by five votes is retained , but new language adds a provision allowing amendments by four votes where funds are no longer need for original appropriate purpose, to realize project savings , or where the amendment appropriates new revenues (801.6).
Notes: Proposed changes were suggested/supported by the Director of Finance to retain Council authority over major amendments, but to simplify the amendment process for certain previously approved items, or where new revenues are involved.
Purchases of Goods and Services
[Old Section 1318, New Section 802.2]
• Adds provision for consultation with the Director of Finance for Council procurement policies (802.1)
Public Works (Option A Recommended)
[Old Section 1310, New Section 802.2.3 and 602.4]
• Proposal to replace outdated rules containing very low ($1,000) thresholds for formal bidding and City Council approval of contracts/use of City forces, and lacking any provision for “alternative” (best value/design build) procurement processes and exceptions except in the case of an emergency.
• Option A (recommended) proposes public works procurement to be implemented by City Council ordinance within certain prescribed “best practice” guidelines including (a) definition of major versus minor contracts to establish formal bidding and approval authority thresholds, (b) except where specific exemptions apply, the general practice of awards to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, (c) emergency authority, and (d) ability to reject bids, rebid, or perform work using City forces (see full lis t at Section 802.2.b).
• Procurement “Alternatives” allowed, including sole source/limited bid, “best value” contracts (e.g., design build), and other alternatives adopted as part of a City -wide program determined to be in best interests of the City. • Maintenance/repair exclusions from “Public Works” description clarified and expanded to apply to minor interior improvements , separate equipment bidding and equipment installation.
33 Notes: The City Manager, Public Works and SVP communicated their strong support for these provisions to update the City’s current highly out-of-date Charter provisions, requiring Council level approvals and formal bidding for even the smallest of projects, and to give the City additional “best value” public works procurement tools. Per the Public Works Director, design build and related mechanisms for certain types of projects can be used to great effect to manage costs, improve quality and shorten bid and constr uction time frames. This could be especially important/valuable to the City as a tool with so many major Measure I projects pending (e.g., Fire Station rebuilds) and for the highly technical electrical system projects required by SVP . If the Charter amendment is approved, an ordinance would need to be developed to set out the best practices for how this would work.
Because this proposal would substantially change the existing Charter rules for public works, it is considered a “Level Three” proposal. Unlike some other Level Three items, however, because of the substantial independent value of the proposed change, City staff believes, and the CRC agrees, that if the Council was not comfortable including this proposal within any proposed comprehensive update, it would warrant presentation to the voters as a stand-alone measure.
Audit Requirements
[Old Section 1319, New Section 803]
• Proposed update eliminates language suggesting that each City employee’s financial activities get audited versus the intended, best practice, comprehensive audit of all City operations (803.1).
• Imposes “generally accepted auditing and accounting principles applied to government agencies” (803.1).
• Provides for reporting through the City’s Audit Committee up to the City Council per existing and best practices (803.2).
Special Rules for Utilities Expenditures and Revenues
[Old Section 1320, New Sections 804]
• Proposed language eliminates outdated details for allowed expenditures and replaces it with a reference to expenditures allowed by law.
• Updates language for the 5% transfer to the general fund from utility revenues to make clear that such monies can be used for general City purposes as approved by City Council.
Finance and Tax Authority
[Old Sections 1309 and 1321, New Section 805]
• Replaces outdated language which inaccurately summarizes state law, with new statement of broad authority to impose taxes, fees and assessments, and issues debt subject to State law requirements (especially regarding Revenue Bonds) • Retains but clarifies existing limit on bonded indebtedness to 15% of the total assessed value of City real and personal property (805.3)
34 • Retains express rights/requirements for voter approval of taxes/fees/debt where required by State Law, and for any proposed City financing of a nuclear plant or any interest in one (805.4).
Notes: Although it could be argued that the prohibition on financing of any interest in a nuclear plant is outdated, because City ownership/use of nuclear power is potentially a highly sensitive area for many people, and SVP has indicated there is no urgent need to finance any such interest, the CRC has recommended to keep this limitation in place and not propose any updates at this time.
4. Final Recommendation
a. Proceed with a Comprehensive Update for Consideration by Voters at the November 2026 election. The CRC recommends that the City Council direct staff to take all steps necessary to prepare a comprehensive Charter update measure to be submitted to the voters on the November 2026 ballot. Consistent with the Charter Project’s stated purpose, the CRC recommends that the City Council include in the measure all proposed Level One and Level Two updates, along with as many Level Three updates as the Council feels c onfident will be supported by the community.
The proposed updates characterized as Level Three include: (1) proposed changes to Measure R to allow for “secondary” uses of park property (new Section 102.3) ; (2) proposed deletion of the published notice and opportunity to bid on proposed transfers of real property valued at over $500 (old Section 714) ; (3) enhancement of Chief of Police qualification requirements to the equivalent of a lieutenant with two years’ of experience (new Section 201.2) (4) additional Chief of Police powers and duties to indicate that the Chief is the head of the Police Department, with responsibilities to advise the City Council regarding law enforcement and public safety matters (new Section 202.3) ; ( 5) a Public Works contracting overhaul to provide for procurement thresholds and details to be implemented by ordinance and to allow for the use of “best value” procurement alternatives, including design- build (new Section 802.2) ; and ( 6) proposed changes to Civil Service provisions which remain under review by labor groups in a meet-and-confer process and could rise to a “Level Four” issue if not resolved prior to the need for Council action (new Section 604.3, and Article Seven).
Of these Level Three proposals, the only one the CRC deems sufficiently valuable enough to consider presenting as a separate ballot measure at this time is the proposed replacement of the existing outdated public works provisions (new Section 802.2). This recommendation is based on the value that City professional staff attach to this proposal in terms of projected project cost savings, expedited performance and quality enhancement.
b. Additional Factors to Consider. In addition to considering the substance of the CRC’s many proposed Charter language updates, the Council may also consider other factors in determining how to proceed.
Cost. One obvious factor is the cost of placing a measure on the ballot. Based on current estimates obtained from the Count y Registrar of Voters by the Assistant City Cler k, the 35 estimated cost of placing a measure on the upcoming November 2026 ballot is between $250,000 and $300,000 per measure. The primary consideration here is whether it is worthwhile to present more than one measure. On the one hand, the City Council might reasonably hesitate to include in any comprehensive update proposal a provision of such sensitivity or controversy that it risks having the entire measure rejected by the voters over concerns about that provision. On the other hand, even if the sensitive measure is desirable, it may not be worth spending the additional funds necessary ($250,000 to $300,000), to have it considered separately. In these cases, a reasonable determination could be made simply not to include a highly sensitive proposed change in any proposed measure for the November 2026 ballot.
The Need for Public Education. As discussed in some detai l above, the CRC believes that it will be crucial for voters to be fully informed during the lead- up to the election regarding the purpose and contents of any proposed comprehensive Charter update measure.
The recommended approach is to include in the ballot measure a conspicuous link to both the underline/strikeout and clean versions of the Charter , including all explanatory annotations .
These would be made available on a dedicated Charter Project page on the City’s website. Also on that dedicated page would be an extensive FAQ Section further explaining the measure.
Although the Council knows that the City cannot use City resources to “campaign” or advocate for any measure, the City can provide information to voters explaining the measure and making known the resources the City has available on its website to explain the measure further.
This could be done thr ough mailers or some other form of electronic communication. The City could also support the holding of public forums regarding the measure, with volunteer members of the CRC and relevant, assigned City staff available to field questions and concerns.
Additional Work Required if Measure Passes. If a comprehensive Charter update measure is proposed and passes, there will be substantial additional work to conform existing City Code provisions, policies and other documents that refer to the existing City Charter section numbers. All ordinances and polices that the Charter requires or contemplates enacting will also need to be developed. At a minimum, this would include: a City Council policy for excused absences; a transparent and fair policy for appointment and removal of Board and Commission members; provisions for a new Chapter in the City Code Charter implementing the Charter ’s outlined Public Works procurement provisions; and an ordinance establishing the terms for the formation of the next Redistricting Commission to respond to the 2030 decennial census.
Additional Issues Can be Taken Up in the Future. The CRC’s recommended Charter update is comprehensive, but of course, within the context of the limited Charter Project purpose, it does not include everything that the CRC, the Council or the public may want considered as a potential change to the City’s Charter at this time. With Council direction, any such issues can certainly be further evaluated and considered for presentation at one or more future elections. For this CRC, while a number of “Level Four” issues were discussed, the CRC took no official action to present these to the Council. The CRC’s focus instead was on getting its current recommendation presented. If the Council so desires, after whatever action it may take on this Charter Project , the CRC could re convene to more formally consider and recommend possible Level Four issues to be taken up by a future CRC. 36 c. Next Steps/ Scheduling. City staff, with assistance from designated representatives of the CRC, will make an initial presentation of the Charter Project process, results and recommendations to the City Council at the Council study session scheduled for the June 9, 2026, Council meeting.
The matter will be taken up again by the City Council at its June 15 special meeting dedicated to the Charter Project. Based upon City Council feedback or direction at that meeting, the CRC could meet further, as needed, to make any requested modifications, conduct additional research. or refine its proposal. Any modified proposal could then be re-presented to the Council later in June or early July.
If the City Council desires to proceed with placing a measure on the ballot, the full ballot package would need to be delivered to the County Registrar no later than August 7, 2026. In order not to intrude on the Council’s scheduled summer recess, that means any final City Council action on a Charter update ballot proposal would need to occur at the Council’s currently scheduled July 14, 2026 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Charter Review Committee Bylaws [Charter Project]
2. City Charter (current)
3. Assembled History of Previously Proposed and Approved Charter Amendments (1952 through 2024)
4. City Charter with Proposed Modifications, Underline/Strikeout with Annotations
5. City Charter with Proposed Modifications, “Clean” Version with Annotations
Updated 2018
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
VOTE HISTORY
Ballot Measures
Regarding
Charter Amendments
1952 to Present
S\City Clerk\BALLOT MEASURES\Ballot Measures History of Charter Amendments.doc
CITY OF SANTA CLARA BALLOT MEASURES
PERTAINING TO CHARTER AMENDMENTS
1952 to Present
November 4, 1952 (General Election)
Measure C: Elect Police Chief and City Clerk
(Passed) Yes - 3,538 No - 2,420
"Shall the Charter of the City be amended by adding
a new section thereto to provide that the Chief of
the Police Department and the City Clerk shall be
elected officials instead of appointed officers?
Said amendment also provides an election shall be
held in 1953 to fill said office, and also in April
1955 and every four years thereafter."
June 5, 1956 (Primary Election)
Measure A: Public School System
(Passed) Yes - 4,938 No 1,292
"Shall Article XVI and Sections 1600 and 1601 of
the Charter of the City of Santa Clara be amended
to provide that the organization, government and
administration of the public school system, the
manner and mode of selection, the powers and duties
of the Board of Education and its members shall be
set forth in the Constitution, Education Code and
applicable general laws of the State of
California?"
November 4, 1958 (General Election) Charter Amendments
Measure A: Change of Fiscal Year
(Passed) Yes - 8,780 No - 2,554
"Shall the Charter of the City of Santa Clara be
amended by amending Sections 1300, 1302, 1304 and
1306 thereof and adding Section 1306.5 thereto to
provide that the fiscal year of said City shall
commence on July 1st of each year and end on June
30th of the following year unless otherwise
provided by ordinance; also providing the annual
budget shall be submitted at least 35 days before
S\City Clerk\BALLOT MEASURES\Ballot Measures History of Charter Amendments.doc the beginning of each fiscal year and as determined
by the Council; and that the annual budget shall be
adopted on or before June 30th of each year and the
tax levy fixed by August 15th of each year and
providing for the adoption of an interim budget
when a change in fiscal years requires the same?"
Measure B: Classified Service
(Passed) Yes - 6,450 No - 4,628
"Shall Section 1101 of the Charter be amended to
provide for the division of the Civil Service of
the City into the Classified and Unclassified
Service and providing how said services shall be
comprised and adding a provision that a department
of the City may by ordinance be divided into
divisions and the heads of such divisions shall be
in the Unclassified Service?"
Measure C: Supervision by City Engineer
(Passed) Yes - 8,936 No - 2,571
"Shall Section 905 of the Charter of the City of
Santa Clara be amended to provide that the City
Engineer shall supervise and be responsible for all
engineering work of the City, and that the head of
the Department of Public Works and Utilities shall
supervise and be responsible for the inspection,
care, maintenance and repair of various public
works and public utilities of said City?"
1965 Section 905.1 position of City Engineer and Section 905.2 Director of Public Works.
February 15, 1967
Prop A Amend Sec. 702 – Each Council Member shall receive $200 p/month and the Mayor an additional $100 p/month (PASSED ELECTION).
Prop A1 Amend Section 702 to keep compensation of Mayor and Council limited according to standards of other general law cities the size of Santa Clara (FAILED ELECTION).
S\City Clerk\BALLOT MEASURES\Ballot Measures History of Charter Amendments.doc Prop B Amend Section 1320 – set aside a separate utilities fund and establish a sinking fund of $2,500,000 in utilities account (PASSED ELECTION).
Prop C Amend Section 1004 to delete restriction against reimbursement of Board and Commission members for
expenses (PASSED ELECTION). (Ordinance 1157, 2-15-67,
Minutes 4-11-67, p. 166).
June 4, 1968 (Primary Election) Charter Amendments
Measure N: Political Activities
(Failed) Yes - 5,743 No - 12,703
"Shall Section 1106 of the Charter of the City of
Santa Clara entitled 'Political Activities
Prohibited' be repealed?"
Measure O: City Councilmen
(Failed) Yes - 7,134 No - 12,060
"Shall Section 701 of the Charter of the City of
Santa Clara be amended to allow the election of a
person to hold office as a member of the City
Council no matter the number of consecutive terms
he has served, and to provide that no person shall
be eligible for appointment to fill a vacancy in
the Council until two years after any prior service
by him as a member of the City Council?"
November 5, 1968 (General Election)
Measure D: Elected Mayor
(Passed) Yes - 13,484 No - 12,047
"Shall the Charter of the City of Santa Clara be
changed to make the City's Mayor elected from the
City at large, to establish the provisions to
nominate and elect such officer, to establish the
compensation of the elective Mayor at $1,000 per
month, to establish at four years the term of such
Mayor and limit to two the number of successive
terms such a Mayor might serve, to set forth the
political position of the elective Mayor listing
his specific duties and powers, to establish
S\City Clerk\BALLOT MEASURES\Ballot Measures History of Charter Amendments.doc qualifications for all elective offices of City and
to establish a uniform procedure for filling
vacancies in all elective offices of City?"
November 7, 1972 (General Election)
Measure B: Eligibility for Candidate for City Offices (Passed) Yes - 17,717 No - 12,054
"Shall the Charter of the City of Santa Clara be
changed as follows: to expressly provide that no
person shall be eligible to be a candidate for or
to take or hold any elective office of the City
unless he has resided in the City for the year next
preceding the date of his election or appointment
to such office; by deleting from the Charter
Section 1106 which purports to prohibit certain
political activities by persons holding positions
in the classified service or on an eligible list;
by changing all references in Section 1200 of the
Charter from 'State Employees' Retirement Act' and
'State Employees' Retirement System' to 'Public
Employees' Retirement Law' and 'Public Employees'
Retirement System,' respectively; and by deleting
Articles XV and XVI of the Charter which articles
contain provisions with reference to Police Court
and School Department, respectively?"
S\City Clerk\BALLOT MEASURES\Ballot Measures History of Charter Amendments.doc Measure C: City Clerk; Powers, Duties
(Failed) Yes - 14,057 No - 14,368
"Shall the Charter of the City of Santa Clara be
changed as follows: by deleting the provision from
Section 903 of the Charter that 'The City Council
may, in its discretion, appoint any other officer
or employee of the City as City Clerk and grant
such person additional compensation for the
performance of such duties.'; by changing the title
of Section 1101 from 'Classified Service' to
'Classified and Unclassified Service', by changing
the numbering and sequence of the offices and
positions listed as comprising the unclassified
service and by deleting the specific reference to
City Clerk and Chief of the Police Department from
such listing."
Measure D: Eligibility of Councilmen and Mayor
(Failed) Yes - 7,525 No - 22,175
"Shall the Charter of the City of Santa Clara be
changed by removing the present restrictions on the
eligibility of Councilmen, including the Mayor, to
serve more than two consecutive elective terms as
such, respectively?"
Measure E: Sale City Owned Property
(Failed) Yes - 8,510 No - 19,948
"Shall the Charter of the City of Santa Clara be
changed as follows: that Section 714 of the
Charter shall provide that City owned property up
to and include $2,500 in value may be sold without
first publishing notice of intention to sell in an
official newspaper once a week for two weeks
preceding the date of such sale; that with respect
to contracts on public works the formal advertised
procurement procedures of Section 1310 of the
Charter would be changed to contracts involving an
expenditure of more than $3,500; that all other
provisions of the Sections 714 and 1310 shall
remain in full force and effect, unchanged?"
S\City Clerk\BALLOT MEASURES\Ballot Measures History of Charter Amendments.doc Measure F: Terms of Elected Candidates
(Passed) Yes - 15,079 No - 12,031
"Shall the Charter of the City of Santa Clara be
changed to provide generally that all candidates
hereafter elected at any general municipal
elections prescribed in the Charter, shall serve
for a term of four years, commencing forthwith on
completion of the canvass of ballots of such
election, and continuing until their respective
successors shall have been elected and qualified,
with the exception that candidates so elected for
other than an unexpired term in such a municipal
election held in 1973 and 1975 shall serve for a
term commencing on the first Monday in May of such
years following each of such elections and ending
in the fourth year thereafter on completion of the
canvass of ballots of the general municipal
election held in such year, and at the time their
respective successors have been elected and
qualified?"
Measure G: Council Seats Numbered
(Passed) Yes - 17,650 No - 9,229
"Shall the Charter of the City of Santa Clara be
changed by providing for the designation of Council
seats, providing a procedure for the election and
filling of the separate seats, prohibiting a person
from being a candidate for more than one such seat
and restricting certain incumbent members of the
City Council from being a candidate for any
numbered Council seat other than the one which he
holds?"
Measure H: Compensation of Council Members
(Failed) Yes - 11,949 No - 16,725
"Shall Section 700 of the Charter of the City of
Santa Clara be changed to provide that each member
of the City Council shall receive as compensation
the sum of three hundred dollars ($300) per month?"
April 5, 1977 Election Primary
Proposition A: Change Election Date
S\City Clerk\BALLOT MEASURES\Ballot Measures History of Charter Amendments.doc (Passed) YES - 4,614 NO - 4,084
“Shall the Charter of the City of Santa Clara be
amended by changing the date of holding the City’s
general municipal elections?”
Proposition B: City Council Compensation
(Failed) YES - 1,084 NO - 7,712
“Shall Section 702 of the Charter of the City of
Santa Clara be amended to provide a $400 per month
compensation for each member of the City Council
other than the Mayor, for a $1,667 per month
compensation for the Mayor?”
Proposition C: City
Council Medical/Dental Benefits
(Failed) YES - 1,395 NO - 7,292
“Shall the Charter of the City of Santa Clara be
changed to provide the same medical and dental
benefits for each member of the City Council
including the Mayor as is provided from time to
time to the holders of the City elective offices of
City Clerk and/or Chief of Police?”
Proposition D: City Property Disposition Under $5,000 Value (Failed) YES - 1,416 NO - 6,983
“Shall Section 714 of the Charter of the City of
Santa Clara be revised as proposed to provide
alternate procedures for the City Council to
exercise the City Council’s power to lease, sell,
or convey City property?”
Proposition 1: Neighborhood Senior Citizen Housing
(Advisory Vote Only)
(Passed) YES - 4,787 NO - 3,660
“Shall it be recommended that the City of Santa
Clara shall comply with the Housing and Development
Act of 1974 and allow to be completed by 1979
within the boundaries of the City of Santa Clara
195 senior citizen housing units where these units
will be developed within any geographical area of
the City of Santa Clara with an attempt to
encourage the distribution of these housing units
throughout the City’s neighborhoods?”
Proposition 2: High Rise Housing
S\City Clerk\BALLOT MEASURES\Ballot Measures History of Charter Amendments.doc (Advisory Vote Only
(Failed) YES - 3,820 NO - 4,816
“Shall it be recommended that the City of Santa
Clara approve the concept of a federally funded
retirement facility with rent supplements in the
University Redevelopment Project, which facility
would be constructed at no cost to the City, would
be a nine- story high- rise of approximately the
height of the existing Bank of America Building in
the Project Area, and which would include
approximately 176 apartment units, a dining room,
leisure time areas, the area of the ground floor
for commercial use and adjacent parking, the
construction of which facility would help satisfy
the commitments of the City of Santa Clara to
provide housing for lower and middle income
elderly?”
November 6, 1979 (Special Statewide Election)
Proposition D: Amend Election Date
(Passed) Yes - 7,500 No - 495
"Shall the City of Santa Clara's general municipal
elections be held on the same dates as the regular
election of the Santa Clara Unified School
District?"
November 4, 1980 (General Election) Charter Amendment
Measure N: Utility Tax Transfer
(Passed) Yes - 16,205 No - 10,047
"Shall Section 1320 of the Charter of the City of
Santa Clara be amended to delete therefrom the
authority of the City to transfer to its General
Fund the balance of any monies remaining in excess
of the Charter prescribed sinking fund for
replacement of utilities property?"
November 3, 1981 (Special Election)
Measure E: Revenue Bonds
S\City Clerk\BALLOT MEASURES\Ballot Measures History of Charter Amendments.doc (Passed) Yes - 4,792 No - 4,070
"Shall the Charter of the City of Santa Clara be
changed to provide that the City may issue revenue
bonds, payable solely from the revenues of the
electrical works without tax liability, to finance
the production, transmission, distribution and non-
nuclear generation of electric energy without
requiring an election?"
Measure F: Council Salaries
(Failed) Yes - 2,459 No - 6,327
"Shall the Charter of the City of Santa Clara be
amended to provide a $400 per month compensation
for each member of the City Council other than the
Mayor, and for a $1500 per month compensation for
the Mayor?"
November 4, 1986 (General Election)
Measure K: Charter Amendment-Council Compensation
(Failed) Yes - 8,239 No - 12,863
"Amends Section 702 of the Santa Clara Charter to
provide $1,000 per month compensation for each
member of the City Council other than Mayor, and
$1,800 per month compensation for the Mayor."
Measure L: Charter Amendment-Council Compensation
(Failed) Yes - 6,122 No - 14,287
"Amends Section 702 of the Santa Clara Charter, as
indicated in the text of the amendment, to provide
each member of the City Council with compensation
comparable to the maximum compensation authorized
by state law for the respective council counterpart
in the general law city."
June 7, 1994 (Special Municipal Election)
S\City Clerk\BALLOT MEASURES\Ballot Measures History of Charter Amendments.doc Measure B: Chief of Police Appointment.
(Failed) Yes - 4,370 No - 10,079
Amends the Charter of the City of Santa Clara to
provide for the appointment of the Chief of Police
by the City Manager rather than selection of the
Chief of Police by the current election process.
March 7, 2000 (Special Municipal Election)
Measure H: Charter Amendment – Obsolete Language
(Passed) Yes - 16,047 No - 2,880
Amends the Charter by eliminating obsolete,
unnecessary and unclear language, making the
Charter gender neutral, making the Charter
consistent with current legal requirements, and
making minor revisions to make the Charter
consistent with modern city charters.
Measure I: Charter Amendment – Chief of Police Requirements (Passed) Yes – 16,558 No – 2,244
Amends the Charter to require that candidates for
the elected office of Chief of Police meet the
minimum eligibility and qualification requirements
imposed by State law upon candidates for the office
of Sheriff.
Measure J: Charter Amendment – Council and Mayor Compensation (Passed) Yes – 10,791 No – 7,924
Amends the Charter to provide for an increase in
City Council Member compensation to $600 per month
with annual increases for the Mayor and City
Council members equal to the consumer price index,
but not to exceed 5% in any year.
Measure K: Charter Amendment – Disposal of City-owned Real Property
(Failed) Yes – 6,819 No – 11,907
Amends the Charter to permit the disposal of City-
owned real property of $50,000 or less in value
without publishing in an official newspaper a
notice of intention to sell real property.
Measure L: Charter Amendment – Award of Public Works Contracts
S\City Clerk\BALLOT MEASURES\Ballot Measures History of Charter Amendments.doc of up to $50,000 in value
(Failed) Yes – 7,332 No – 11,269
Amends the Charter to permit the award of public
works contracts of up to $50,000 in value, with an
annual increase consistent with the consumer price
index, without publishing in an official newspaper
a notice of intent to award a public works
contract, provided that the City Council first
establishes by ordinance a competitive bid
procedure for such contracts.
November 7, 2006 (General Municipal Election)
Measure B: Binding arbitration for certain personnel of the Police and Fire Departments
Shall a section be added to the City Charter which
would require binding arbitration before a three
person arbitration panel of all unresolved disputes
between the City and certain personnel of the
Police and Fire Departments on all matters relating
to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
City employment, including the interpretation and
application of any existing labor agreements?
(Failed) Yes – 9,853 No – 12,612
November 8, 2016 (Special Municipal Election)
Measure O: Setting of Salaries for Mayor and City Council.
Shall Section 702 of the Santa Clara City Charter
be amended to set the salaries of the Mayor at
$2500 per month and City Council at $2000 per
month, and to create a Salary Setting Commission to
review and adjust those salaries every two years?
(Passed) Yes – 25,640 No – 10,393
Measure P: Mayor and City Council Term Limits. Shall Sections 701 and 704.1 of the Santa Clara City Charter be
amended to limit the Mayor and members of the City
Council to no more than two full terms for each
office, and to define a partial term in excess of
two years as a full term?
(Passed) Yes – 29,495 No – 6,908
Measure Q: Filling Vacancies in City Elected Offices. Shall Section 703 of the Santa Clara City Charter be
S\City Clerk\BALLOT MEASURES\Ballot Measures History of Charter Amendments.doc amended to provide that vacancies in any elective
office of the City be filled by a four-fifths (4/5)
vote of the City Council and to require that
persons appointed to fill vacancies occurring in
the first half of a term of office shall hold
office until the next general municipal election?
(Passed) Yes – 28,156 No – 6,855
Measure R: Protection of Parkland and Open Space. Shall Section 714.1 of the Santa Clara City Charter be
added to provide that no City owned land used for
park or recreational purposes, including the
Ulistac Natural Area and the Santa Clara Soccer
Park, shall be sold or disposed of by the City
without being authorized by a two -thirds (2/3)
majority vote and that development upon such
property shall be subject to referendum?
(Passed) Yes – 33,552 No – 3,890
June 5, 2018 (Special Municipal Election)
Measure A: DISTRICT COUNCIL ELECTIONS/VOTING METHOD:
Shall the City Charter be amended to establish two
districts starting in 2020 to be represented by
three Council Members each; and , when available,
use ranked choice voting to allow voters to select
candidates in order of choice to determine the
winners of elections of all city elected officers?
(Failed) Yes – 9,169 No – 10,023
November 6, 2018 (Municipal Election)
Measure N: ADVISORY VOTE: BY DISTRICT COUNCIL ELECTIONS Shall the City of Santa Clara engage the voters in
a public process to draft a Charter Amendment
ballot measure to elect its Council Members, other
than the Mayor, by district?
(Passed) Yes – 21,902 No – 9,208
S\City Clerk\BALLOT MEASURES\Ballot Measures History of Charter Amendments.doc March 3, 2020 (Special Municipal Election)
Measure C: DISTRICT COUNCIL ELECTIONS:
Shall the City Charter be amended to elect City
Council Members by district, excepting the Mayor,
as follows: for the 2020 election to establish six
districts for the election of one Council Member to
represent each district; and, beginning in 2022 to
establish three districts for the election of two
Council members to represent each district; and to
require an independent redistricting committee?
(Failed) Yes – 9,731 No – 15,458
June 7, 2022 (Special Election)
Measure D: DISTRICT COUNCIL ELECTIONS:
Shall the City Charter be amended to elect city
council members by district, excepting the mayor,
to establish six districts for the election of one
council member to represent each district; and to
establish a 30 -day residency requirement for all
elected officials?
(Passed) Yes – 14,172 No – 3,835
November 8, 2022 (Municipal Election)
Measure G: CITY OF SANTA CLARA NO TAX INCREASE/SERVICES PROTECTION MEASURE:
To protect essential services without raising
taxes, such as 9-1-1 response; police patrols, fire
protection; street/storm drain repair, and
maintaining reliable local utility service; shall
Section 1320 of the Charter continuing the annual
budget transfer of funds from City utilities to the
general fund at 5% of gross receipts until ended by
voters, generating approximately $30,000,000
annually, with independent audits, all funds local,
be reaffirmed/adopted?
(Passed) Yes – 24,643 No – 4,629
S\City Clerk\BALLOT MEASURES\Ballot Measures History of Charter Amendments.doc March 5, 2024 (Special Election)
Measure A: PROPOSES TO AMEND THE CITY CHARTER TO CHANGE THE
POSITIOON OF CITY CLERK FROM A POSITION ELECTED
EVERY FOUR YEARS TO A POSITION APPOINTED BY THE
CITY MANAGER, SIMILAR TO OTHER CITY DEPARTMENT
HEADS
Shall an amendment to the City Charter providing
that the City Clerk position be appointed by the
City Manager be adopted?
(Failed) Yes – 6,580 No – 13,735
March 5, 2024 (Special Election)
Measure B: PROPOSES TO AMEND THE CITY CHARTER TO CHANGE THE
POSITIOON OF CHIEF OF POLICE FROM A POSITION
ELECTED EVERY FOUR YEARS TO A POSITION APPOINTED
BY THE CITY MANAGER, SIMILAR TO OTHER CITY
DEPARTMENT HEADS
Shall an amendment to the City Charter providing
that the Chief of Police position be appointed by
the City Manager be adopted?
(Failed) Yes – 5,680 No – 14,887