City Council and Authorities Concurrent
August 25, 2026

1 City CouncilItem #: 26-908Response to Civil Grand Jury Report on Pothole Damage: Improving Claims ProcessesSujata ReuterChief Assistant City AttorneyAugust 25, 2026 Background•Civil Grand Jury report published June 12, 20261. Response required within 90 days (Penal Code 933 (c))•Due September 10, 20262. Report addresses claims filing processes of all the cities in the County, particularly as they relate to property damage arising from potholes 3. The Report contains 4 sets of findings/recommendations; City response required to Findings 1, 2 and 3, and Recommendations 2a, 2b, and 3b2 1 2
2 Legally Required Responses to Findings•Penal Code Section 933.05(a) requires the responding entity to report one of the following for eachௗCivilௗGrandௗJuryௗfinding:1. The respondent agrees with the finding.2. The respondent disagrees in whole or in part with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.3 Legally Required Responses to Recommendations•Penal Code Section 933.05(a) requires the responding entity to report one of the following actions for eachௗCivilௗGrand Jury recommendation:1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.3. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe cannot exceed six months from the date of publication of theௗgrandௗjuryௗreport. 4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.4 3 4
3 Finding 1 (no Recommendation)•Finding 1Jurisdictions within Santa Clara County rejected 92% of pothole claims from 2020 to 2025 due to reasons including missed deadlines, incorrect jurisdiction, and lack of prior notice. •Draft Response: Agree–Note in the response that this figure is based upon County-wide data that the City of Santa Clara has not independently verified, and is relying upon the Grand Jury’s report for this response. Also clarify that, for the City of Santa Clara, the percentage of rejected claims over this time period is lower, at 85%5 Finding 2, Recommendations 2a-2b•Finding 2Claims are often rejected because the claimant filed with the incorrect jurisdiction, which can happen because jurisdictional lines are often unclear or poorly communicated. The claims websites of all jurisdictions within Santa Clara County lack information about how to determine if a road is in its jurisdiction.•Draft Response: Partially agree. –11 out of 40 pothole claims over the 2020-2025 period were rejected because they were incorrectly directed to the City of Santa Clara–Other factors may contribute to claims being incorrectly submitted to us including the fact that we share a name with the County and other public agencies, which has historically led to confusion in claims submissions6 5 6
4 •Recommendation 2a All jurisdictions within Santa Clara County should include a link to a map or list of roads they maintain on their claims website.•Draft Response: Agree to implement in part. –The City agrees that there is a benefit to be derived from providing the public with additional information regarding roadways in our jurisdiction–The IT Dept is looking into updating our GIS mapping system to include this information, similar to the functionality San Jose includes in its mapping portal–If this is not possible, the City will include a list of roadways in our jurisdiction that are maintained by the State or by the County–In either event, we will provide a link to this information on our claims instructions7 •Recommendation 2b All jurisdictions within Santa Clara County should update their claims websites to identify roads that are commonly mistaken as being in their jurisdictions.•Draft Response: Agree to implement. –Commonly mistaken roadways is a subset of roadways owned/maintained by other entities, so this Recommendation can be implemented in conjunction with the implementation of Recommendation 2a–This list will be based on data collected as of July 1, 20268 7 8
5 Finding 3, Recommendation 3b•Finding 3Fifteen jurisdictions (incl. Santa Clara) have websites with deficiencies that make it difficult to file a claim.•Draft Response: Respectfully disagree. –As noted in the Report and our response to the associated Recommendation 3b, our website provides instructions on filing a claim as well as a link to the claim form; ADA accessible; translated into multiple languages•Recommendation 3bFourteen jurisdictions (incl. Santa Clara) should incorporate useable software on their websites that can translate claim forms into multiple languages.•Draft response: Already implemented.9 Recommendation1.Approve the draft responses to the Civil Grand Jury report2.Authorize the City Manager to submit the City’s response by September 10, 202610 9 10
6 1111