Sunnyvale City Council
February 3, 2026

City of Sunnyvale
2025 Charter Review Committee
Final Report and Recommendations
December 4, 2025
Attachment 1

The members ofth e Sunnyvale Charter Review Committee respectfully submit this report to the Sunnyvale City Council.

Gdï ~ . Chair (District 2)
.. á.

Ken Olevson(District 3)

7.± 1 ..

Martin Pyne (District 5)
2 #t l
illa)
Kristel Wickham, Vice Chair (District 2)

60.'/ @e.z
David Newswanger (sue«íj
2 2.

Galen Davis(District 3)
G I2 >-
Gail Rubino (District 6)
Attachment 1

2025 Cha
rter Review Committee
Final Re
port and Recommendations
Table of Contents
I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 6 Background ............................................................................................................................... 6 Charter Review Committee
(“CRC”) Members and Staffing ...................................................... 6 Meetings ................................................................................................................................... 7 Public Outreach ......................................................................................................................... 7 CRC Review Process ................................................................................................................... 8 II. Summary of CRC Recommenda
tions ..................................................................................... 8 III. CRC Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 9

1. City Council and Mayor Compensatio
n (Charter Section 605) ........................................... 9 A. Introduction................................................................................................................... 9 B. Background ................................................................................................................. 10 C. Current Charter Language ........................................................................................... 10 D. CRC Considerations and Analysis ................................................................................. 10 E. Recommendation ........................................................................................................ 12 F. CRC Vote and Conclusion Regarding City Council and Mayor Compensation .............. 14

2. City Council Vacancies (Charter S
ection 606) .................................................................. 14 Issue 1: If a vacanc
y is filled by appointment, at what election must a successor for the position be elected? .............................................................................................................................. 14 A. Introduction................................................................................................................. 14 B. Background ................................................................................................................. 14 C. Current Charter Language ........................................................................................... 15 D. CRC Considerations and Analysis ................................................................................. 15 Issue 2: How many councilmembers may serve
by appointment at any one time? ................ 18
A. Introduction................................................................................................................. 18 B. Background ................................................................................................................. 18 C. Current Charter Language ........................................................................................... 19 Attachment 1

D. CRC Considerations and Analysis ................................................................................. 19 Issue 3: Whether the duration o
f appointments should be limited? ....................................... 20 A. Introduction................................................................................................................. 20 B. Background ................................................................................................................. 20 C. Current Charter Language ........................................................................................... 20 D. CRC Considerations and Analysis ................................................................................. 20 Recommendation Regarding Amendm
ents to Section 606 ..................................................... 20 CRC Vote and Conclusion Regar
ding City Council Vacancies .................................................... 22

3. City Council Meeting Schedule (Chart
er Section 611) ..................................................... 23 A. Introduction................................................................................................................. 23 B. Background ................................................................................................................. 23 C. Current Charter Language ........................................................................................... 23 D. CRC Considerations and Analysis ................................................................................. 23 E. Recommendation ........................................................................................................ 24 F. CRC Vote and Conclusion Regar
ding City Council Meeting Schedule ........................... 24

4. City Manager Authority to Settle Claims (C
harter Section 1314) ..................................... 24 A. Introduction................................................................................................................. 24 B. Background ................................................................................................................. 24 C. Current Charter Language ........................................................................................... 25 D. CRC Considerations and Analysis ................................................................................. 25 E. Recommendation ........................................................................................................ 27 F. CRC Vote and Conclusion Regar
ding Settlement Authority.......................................... 27

5. Public Works Contracting (Charter Sec
tion 1309) ............................................................ 28 A. Introduction................................................................................................................. 28 B. Background ................................................................................................................. 28 C. Current Charter Language ........................................................................................... 29 D. CRC Considerations and Analysis ................................................................................. 29 E. Recommendation ........................................................................................................ 31 F. CRC Vote and Conclusion Regar
ding Public Works Contracting ................................... 32 Attachment 1

IV. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 32 V. Attachments ........................................................................................................................ 33 Attachment 1

I. Introduction
Background
On November 28, 2023, the City Council discussed a Colleagues Memorandum (RTC 23-1070; Attachment 1) proposing several changes t
o the City’s charter. The Council placed three of the
proposed changes on the November
5, 2024, ballot (Measure F):

1. Replacing gendered referenc
es throughout the charter with gender-neutral language.

2. Requiring twenty-four regular Council meetings per
year versus two per month for greater
scheduling flexibility.

3. Eliminating the voter regis tr
ation and citizenship requirements for all boards and
commissions.

Voters disapproved the proposed amendments by a vote of 62.22% against and 37.78% in favor.

One item addressed in the Collea
gues Memorandum was implemented by
amending City Council
Policy 7.3.4 , Roles and Responsibilities of
Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers , to add
language communicati ng that Sunnyvale
Councilmembers represent the entire City and
encouraging Councilmembers to make dec
isions that are in the interests of the entire community.

On June 4, 2024, (Resolution 1239-24; RTC 24 -0030) the City Council voted to form a Charter Review Committee to review the en tir
e charter for potential updates , including the remaining issues identified in the Colleagues Memorandum:
• Allowing Councilmembers appoin t
ed to fill vacancies to serve until the next feasible
November general electio
n, as opposed to the next feasible election
• Examining City Council salary and c ompensation (including compensation for the mayor and family, medical, and military lea
ve for councilmembers)
• Evaluating whether
to adopt an alternative voting system, such as ranked -choice or approval voting, or
retain the existing first-past-the-post system f
or districts and mayoral
elections
• Establishing rules for empaneling R
edistricting Commissions
Charter Review Committee
(“CRC”) Members and Staffing
The Council established a CRC composed of eleven mem ber s. The Council appointed mem
bers
on December 3, 2024, f
ollowing a public application and inter
view process. A minimum of one
member was required from each Council Dis tric
t, all members were required t o
be Sunnyvale
residents, and a minimum of six members were required to be registered voters in Sunnyvale.

The CRC members were:

Attachment 1

Kathryn Filley (District 1)
David Newswanger (District 1)
Timothy Oey (District 1)
Gustav Larsson (District 2)
Kristel Wickham (District 2
)
Galen Davis (District 3)
Ken Olevson (District 3
)
Barry Vickrey (District 3)
Martin Pyne (District 5)
Gail Rubino (District 6)
Paulette Saldanha (resigned effective Feb. 20, 2025, seat remained vacan t)
Gustav Larsson served as chair and K
ristel Wickham served as vice chair.

Deputy City Manager Co
nnie Verceles, Senior Assistant City Attorney Melissa Tronquet, Deputy City Clerk Sandra Barajas, and City Clerk David Carnahan staffed the CRC.

Meetings
The CRC held sixteen public mee ting
s between February
and December 2025 , with the g oal
of
providing a final report to the City Council in early 2026, in time for the Council to consider the

recommendations, pursue
polling, and make decisions about issues
to place on the November
2026 ballot. Changes to the charter must be submitted to Ci ty voters for approval and require a
majority vote to pass.

Public Outreach
The sixteen public meeting s were agendized a nd
held in accordance with the Brown Act and
included ample opportunity for pub
lic comment. Two members of the
public attended every
meeting and provided de
tailed comments and analysis. Staff maintained a CRC webpage on the City’s website tha
t was regularly updated with information about
the CRC’s work. In addition, the
CRC developed a c
ommunity survey on three issues: how City Council vacancies are filled, how
much the City Council a nd
the Mayor are paid, and the City Manager's authority to settle legal claims. The survey w
as posted on Sunnyvale
Open City Hall between October 6 and 20, 2025, and
received 302 responses. The CRC discussed the survey results on October 23, 2025 (Attachment 2; RTC 25-2018).

Attachment 1

CRC Review Process
The CRC held its first mee
ting on February 6, 2025, and completed a secti
on-by-section review of
the charter at its F
ebruary 27, March 6, and April 3 meetings. The review resulted in a list of 23 potential Charter amendments (Attachment 3).

Recognizing that the list of poten ti
al amendments r equired narrowing in order to c
omplete
review and analysis within
the Council’s timeframe for the CRC, and because the number of measures the City c
ould reasonably place on the ballot is limited, the Committee dropped certain items (Attachment 4), and prioritized the remaining potential amendments (Attachment 5) at its May 1 meeting:

On June 3, 2025, City Council held a joint mee
ting with the CRC (RTC No. 25-0212), reviewed the
CRC’s list of potential amendments, and directed the CRC to study the following issues:

1. Charter Section 60 5
(Compensation): Increase City Council salaries and c
ompensation,
including for the Mayor, without modifying the role of the Ma yor.

2. Charter Section 606
(Vacancies): Modify the current rule
that councilmembers appointed
to fill a vacanc
y serve until the next general municipal or consolidated statewide election to the next feasible Nov
ember general election.

3. Charter Section 611
(Regular Meetings): Change the Charter provisio
n that requires two
Council meetings per month to
instead require at least twenty-four meetings per year.

4. Charter Article 8 (City Manag
er): Add a provision to allow the City Manag er
to settle
claims against the City in an amoun
t greater than $50,000.

5. Charter Section 13 09
(Contracts on Public Works) : Amend the Charter to
allow other
project delivery methods
besides design-bid-build (lowest responsible
bidder after notice
of publications for bids).

The CRC’s subsequent work focused on resear ch
and analysis of options for charter rev
isions
related to th
ese five topics, recommendations t
o the Council on whether t
o amend the charter in
these areas, and the content of proposed charter amendments.

II. Summary of CRC Recomm
endations
The CRC discussed eac h of the five poten tial charter amendments during its October and November 2025
meetings. After review
and analysis of each issue, the CRC reached the following recommendations, which are discussed in de
tail in Section III below:

Attachment 1

1. City Council and Mayor Compensation ( Charter Section 605): Increase salari es to $6,000.00 per month for City councilmembers and $9,000.00 per month for the mayor, and retain the exis
ting annual increase based on CPI. The CRC further
recommended that
the Council conduct and analyze pol
ling prior to placing a m
easure on the ballot and if
warranted by polling r
esults, decrease the proposed salary amounts.

2. City Council V acan
cies ( Charter Section 60
6): Modify the curr en
t rule that
councilmembers appointed t
o fill a vacancy serve until the next general municipal or consolidated st
atewide election, to require appointments
to fill vacancies until the next
general municipal election only (November of even-numbered years).

3. City Council Meeting Sc
hedule (Charter Section 61
1): Do not amend
the Charter related
to City Council meetings.

4. City Manager Authority
to Settle Claims ( Charter Section 1314): Amend the Charter to allow the City Manager to
settle claims against the City in an amount greater than $50,000 and provide that the
specific limit be set by ordinance adopt ed
by the Council .

Concurrently with placing this measure on the ballot, adopt an ordinance setting the City
Manager’s settlemen
t authority at $150,000, to be effective
if voters adopt this measure.

5. Public Works
Contracting ( Charter Section 1309
): Amend the Charter
to allow other
public works project delivery me thods
permitted by s t
ate law, such as design -build, in
addition to the exis
ting method of design-bid-build (lowest responsible bidder after notice
of publications for bids).

Attachment 6 contains a summary of the CRC’s recomm
ended changes to Charter Sections 605,
606, 1314, and 1309.

III. CRC Analysis

1. City Council and Mayor Compensation (Charter Sectio
n 605)
A. Introduction
The compensation of ele
cted officials has long been a subject of civic debate, balancing the need to attract qualifie
d candidates with concerns about appropriate use of public funds. In Sunnyvale, this discussion takes on
particular significance given the City's unique position as a charter city
operating independent
ly across a comprehensive range of services that many neighboring communities contract out or rely
on county government to provide.

The City's current c ompensa
tion structure for the mayor and city councilmembers was established through Measur
e B in 2011, which tied salary increases to inflation with a 5% annual cap. While this sy
stem provided predictability and transparency, it did not account for the broader economic changes tha
t have transformed Sunnyvale sinc e then. The gap be tw een council
Attachment 1

compensation and the
economic reality faced by Sunnyvale residents has widened considerably, raising questions about
whether the current structure adequately serves the community's interests.

This analysis ex amine
s the evolution of council compensation, the scope of responsibilities required of elected offi
cials in a full -service city, and the pr
actical implications of compensation
levels on governanc
e. The workload of Sunnyvale's elected officials extends far beyond attending
public meetings, encom passing
extensive preparation, intergovernmental responsibilities, and community engagement tha
t together constitute a substantial time commitment.

Drawing on data
from the American Community Survey and community input gathered through public surveys, this
document presents the CRC’s recommendations to
ensure that compensation
remains appropriate
and aligned with the economic conditions in Sunnyvale while maintaining public trust and fiscal responsibility.

B. Background
The last time compensatio
n language in Section 605 of the Sunnyvale City charter was modified
was 2011 with
Measure B. This measure tied the rate of council salary increase to official inflation measures and cappe
d increases at 5%. The actual ballot measure states that salaries were set in 1992 and incr ea
sed 5% annually. State requirements for g
eneral law city salaries were used in
1992.

Perhaps in 1992,
the scope of Sunnyvale government was similar to a general law city. That is not the case in 2025. The
neighboring general law city to the south is dependent on the county or private companies f
or garbage services, library services, law en forcement, fire protection, and
wastewater
services. Meanwhile, the City of Sunnyvale
is independent in all these areas and its
transfer st
ation also serves Mountain View and its wastewater treatment plant also covers part
of Cupertino.

C. Current Charter Languag
e
Charter Section 605 currently sets mon
thly city council and mayoral salaries at $2 ,088.64 and $2,784.86, effective in 2012. Annual
increases tied to inflation are automatically applied with a cap of 5%. In
2025, after automatic increases, city council and mayoral monthly salaries are $3,113.88 and $4,151.84. The imput
ed rate of increase from these figures is 2.2%. Meanwhile, average full-time wages in Sunny
vale during the same time period have increased roughly 4.4% annually, or twice the rate tha
t council salaries have increase
d.

D. CRC Considerations and Analysis
This topic genera
ted considerable discussion and public comment during CRC meetings. The CRC believes that service on
city council should not be an act of charity. The city council and mayoral
Attachment 1

service is worthy of
more than token compensation and the CRC is unanimous in pref er ring a
data-driven determinatio
n of appropriate compensation.

Table S2001 of b
oth the 1 - and 5-year American
Community Surveys, published by the Census
Bureau, include st
atistics for both mean and median earnings for full time workers in Sunnyvale.

The CRC prefers the media
n to the mean. The mean can be skewed by a few very large or very small figures, especia lly
very large figures. For example, the average of one person earning $400,000 p er
year, a not unusual number in Sunnyvale, and four $30,000 earners would be $104,000 while the median
would be $30,000.

The following table
shows ACS figures for both mean and median earnings for full-time workers over age 16:
2024 1-Year ACS 2023 1-Year ACS 2023 5-Year ACS
Median
(S2001_C01_013E)
$136,857 $151,093 $142,721
Median Standard Error
(S2001_C01_013M)
$14,434 $11,863 $4,259
Mean
(S2001_C01_14E)
$181,522 $181,568 $175,793
Mean Standard Err
or
(S2001_C01_14M)
$10,762 $9,986 $4,706

The 1-Year ACS figur
es, largely due to smaller sample sizes, will always have relatively large standard errors.

The 5 -Year ACS is g
enerally a more stable dataset and preferable for decision making. Nonetheless, it mus t
be acknowledged that the federal government has been
inconsistent on
ACS publication dates. This is especially true with federal government shutdowns.

When considering the
workload of a city councilmember, Chair Larsson’s e
xperience as a city
councilmember has been highly instruc tiv
e. He looked at his calendars from the past and
estimated that
an average week entailed eight to ten meetings related to his council duties. This meeting volume is
similar to a slightly heavy day for a manager in tech. However, g overnment meetings, even unofficial ones,
typically last at least three times as long as business meetings.

Consequently, just the mee
ting time in a week for a city councilmember is similar to half of a work
week for a tech manager
.

Attachment 1

Preparation and
review time for a city councilmember is similarly heavy. The amount of material
a city councilmember must review oft
en runs over 1000 pages per council meeting. Most city
councilmembers also have int
ergovernmental appointments. The meetings of these organizations are less frequen t,
but have similar document loads to city council meetings. The CRC did not attempt to quantif
y this time. It is clear that to do a minimally competent job on city council, a member will a v
erage at least twenty hour s per week. The CRC is compelled to poin t out that
Sunnyvale has g
enerally not had the problem of our councilmembers showing up to mee tings
unprepared.

All that has been writt
en about city councilmembers also applies to t
he mayor, but more so.

Meeting and ev en
t volume is higher. There are more intergovernmental obligations. The ceremonial and publicity
requirements are much higher. These are minimal requirements. It is almost certainly true
that most Sunnyvale vot
ers want the mayor to do more than the minimum.

It is the CRC’s view that mos
t Sunnyvale voters want an active mayor who is energetic in advocating for and
publicizing the City. For these r
easons, the CRC has concluded that the salar
y
premium for the mayor o
ver city councilmembers should increase from 33
% to 50%.

The online survey
conducted by the City asked a number of
questions related to this issue. The
CRC understands fully tha
t online surveys are best used only for directional purposes. As another CRC member described, it’
s best considered as a large collection of public comment. The sampling skew for such a surve
y is just too large for it to be used as a prescriptive tool.

Considering the limitations of
the survey, there are still interesting data points to consider. First, there is broad suppo
rt for increasing council and mayoral salaries. Next, most respondents were more comfort able
with tying increases to inflation rather than another statis tic al figure.

Furthermore, many r es
ponses specifically called out that city councilmembers should be compensated at
a level that would allow them time to do the job well. Finally, 50% and 75% of median full-time wages in Sunn
yvale are within the wage bands
that garnered significant support
on the survey. These results sig
naled to the CRC that its work and conclusio
ns are neither radical
nor extreme.

E. Recommendation
The CRC recommendation is to explor
e a ballot measure that would effect the following changes in the City charter:
• Set councilmember and mayoral m
onthly wages at $6,000 ($72,000 annually)
and $9,000
($108,000 annually.) Th
ese amounts are slightly higher tha n
50 and 75% of the median
wages as published in
the 2023 5-Year American
Community Survey. However, that data
is now two years o
ld and median wages are very likely higher.
• The effective date of the w
age change would be January 1, 2027.

Attachment 1

• Leave the language tying annual increa
ses to inflation (CPI-U) unchanged.

The proposed revisions to Cha
rter Section 605 to implement this rec
ommendation are as follows:
§ 605 Compensation.

In addition to reimbur
sement for necessary traveling and other expenses
actually incurred when
on official duty in or out of the City on order of
the City Council, commencing January 1, 20122027, each member of the City Council shall r ec
eive as salary $2,088.64 $6,000.00 per month, and
the Mayor shall receive as salary $2,784.86 $9,000.00 per month.

In order to pr
ovide a cost of living adjustment, commencing on January 1, 20132028, and annually on January
1 thereafter, the compensation of
the Council and May or
shall increase by a percentage equal to the
percentage incr
ease in the preceding October's twelve -month rolling
average of the
Consumer Price Index-Urban (CPI-U), or successor index,

for San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, as det
ermined by the United States
Department of Labor,
Bureau of Consumers. In no event shall the CPI -U
compensation adjustmen t
exceed five percent per year, or result in a
compensation decrea
se. The CPI-U base index yea
r shall be calendar year
20122027.

If a member of the City
Council does not attend all meetings of the City
Council called on or der
of the City Council and held during the month,
his/her salary for such mon
th shall be reduced by the sum equivalent to
twenty percen t
of the month's salary for each meeting not a
ttended
unless he/she is absen
t on official duty with the consent of or on order of
the City Council or is
granted an excused absence by the City Council, or
unless he/she is on per
sonal leave. A member of the City Council shall be
permitted four personal leave da
ys per calendar year.

The CRC further recommends that the City Council consider councilmember compensation changes prior to placing a measure
on the ballot with the following process:
• Commission professional polling t
o gauge public opinion on the proposed charter
amendment.
• Accept the polling report and deliber
ate on the meanings of the data.

Attachment 1

• Consider changing the propo
sed ballot measure only if the changes lower the suggested wages. The CRC expects that it
would be unseemly for council to debat e an increase in compensation above the amounts recommended by the CRC.
• Determine whether t
o place the salary measure on the ballot.

F. CRC Vote and Conclusion Regarding City Council and May or Compensation
The CRC approved the rec
ommendation on this issue by a vote of
10-0. The CRC concluded that
the proposed changes fairly c
onsider public opinion, the economic realities of Sunnyvale, and the workload associated with ser
ving as mayor or councilmember.

2. City Council Vacancie
s (Charter Section 606)
The CRC considered three issues r
elated to Charter Section 606 (City Council Vacanci
es):

1. If a v ac
ancy is filled by appointment, at what election should a successor for the position be elected?

2. How many Councilmembers may serv
e by appointment at any one time?

3. Whether the duratio
n of appointments should be limited?
Issue 1: If a v
acancy is filled by appointment, at what election must a successor for the position be elected?
A. Introduction
The City Charter cur
rently requires that appointees to vacant City Council positions be replaced at the time of the ne
xt statewide election. The next s
tatewide election could be a primar
y election
taking place shortly befor
e the end of the vacant city council term, and might be followed in five
to eight months
by a general election during which the position would be filled again for the next
full term. This c ould
cause an awkward transition with a loss of efficiency as well as increased cost. The City Council directed the CRC to study this issue and recomme nd a possible remedy.

The CRC recommends that when vacancies are filled by appointment, successors should be

elected at the City’s next general municipal election, which occur s in November of ev en-
numbered years pursua
nt to Sunnyvale Charter Section 1400.

B. Background
In 2018, a previous Chart
er Review Committee fully studied the process of filling vacancies on the City Council. A resulting new Section 606 of the City Chart er was approved by 71% of the voters.

Attachment 1

C. Current Charter Languag
e
Currently the cha
rter requires that an appointee be replaced by election at the next general or special municipal election c
onsolidated with the next statewide election. The 2018 CRC chose this option because it w
as a balance between democratic principles and reasonable c ost when
compared to stand-alone special elections.

There are some disadv
antages of the current Charter language. An election for a council position might be held twice
in rapid succession – either March and Novembe
r or June and November of
the same year. Tha
t would occur if an appointee was replaced during a primary election, then the same district held a r
egular election for the next full term of the same position in the November general election. As a result:

1. The City would incur the cost of tw
o elections, which are expensive.

2. A candidate might hav
e to run two expensive campaigns.

3. The winner of the firs t
election would serve a very short term: eight or five months depending on whether the primary election
was in March or June.

4. The first election during the primar
y would likely have lower voter turnout, in which case
the winner of the firs
t election might not represent the consensus of the district’s entire voting population and yet that
first winner would have an incumbency advantage in the next elec tion.

D. CRC Considerations and Analysis
The CRC used the following table to
assist in evaluating these variables:

Attachment 1

Special Election
Option
Cost for City Cost for
Candidates
Voter
Turnout
Appointment
Required
Appointment
Duration
Consolidated with
a November even-
year election
(general municipal
election)
Lowest Cost

Lowest cost Highest
voter
turnout
(~60%)
Most likely Longest
(5-8 months
longer than a
March or
June
election)
Consolidated with
a March or June
even-year election
(primary election)
Intermediate,
highly variable
cost depending
on whether two
elections are
required in one
year
Depends on
whether two
elections are
required in
one year
Higher
voter
turnout
(~40%)
More Likely Longer
Standalone special
election
Highest Cost

Depends on
whether the
candidate
completes a
partial or
whole term
Lowest
voter
turnout
(~25%)
Least Likely Shortest

The CRC used informatio n
from staff to estimate the cost of various types of elections. (Attachment 7). Predicting e x
act costs of elections is not possible because there are many variables. Even so
, it is likely that costs of holding a special munici pal election that is not
consolidated with another election , and even a special municipal ele ction that is consolidated
with a primary election, can be much highe
r than holding an election during a general municipal
election in November.

There are sev er
al advantages to using only a general
municipal election in November of even-
numbered years to replace appointees:

1. This eliminates the possibility of holding two ele
ctions for the same position in rapid
succession, with these benefits:
a. Much less cost for the City
i. Only one election
ii. A general election is less
expensive than a primary election
b. Much less cost for candidat
es
c. Much higher voter turnout at the gene
ral election results in the winner better
representing the will of the en
tire voting population
Attachment 1

2. This eliminates the inefficiency caused b
y turnover if there is a short-tenured elected
councilmember.

There are some disadv
antages of using only general municipal elections for the rep lacement of
appointees:

1. Appointments would be more lik
ely because of the longer time of the vacancy before
the November general municipal election

2. Appointments would be longer
a. 8 months longer if the next prima
ry is in March
b. 5 months longer if the next prima
ry is in June

3. Appointed and thus unelected councilmembers may reflect the vie ws of the other
councilmembers more than the views o
f the constituents.

The CRC considered a h ybr
id option in which the primary election would be used to replace appointees if the
next primary election would not require two elections for the same position in the same year (i.e. if
it is more than two years before the position’s term ends). The advantages
of replacing an appoi n
tee during a primary election are: (1) a reduced chance of needing an appointment, and (2) a
reduction in the time of the appointment by five or eight months depending on the time of the
primary election. The disadvantages are:
(1) the higher cost of
holding the election during a prima
ry, and (2) the lower voter turnout in that election. The CRC noted that requiring diff
erent types of election in different years would require more complicated wording in a chart
er amendment but would be the least change in policy compared to the existing charter.

The CRC considered the results
of the public survey, which included this question: “How should Sunnyvale City
Council vacancies be filled?” A majority of the survey respondents (65%) preferred filling the position at t
he next feasible November election, while a m inority (23%) favored a
special election.

The survey did
not include an option to select a hybrid option, so the results do not provide much guidance on respondent s’
opinions on this option. It should be noted that 7% of respondents selected “other”
and wrote in a hybrid option and another 5% of r espondents checked “other”
and wrote in a different c
omment.

Even without the c
oncern for two elections in one year, the potentially much lower cost and much higher voter turnout of a general municipal election compared t o a primary election outweighs
the disadvantages of
a longer appointment duration or increased chance of requiring an appointment. Using only
the November general municipal election is a better
option than using
primary elections to
fill vacant positions even when the use of
a primary election would not result
in two elections in the same year
.

Attachment 1

The estimates of the
cost of stand -alone special elections prov ided
by staff ( Attachment 7)
indicate that a
stand-alone election may cost
the City ten times more than a
November general
municipal election. This cost v
aries because of many factors, including whether the special election can be c
onsolidated with a state or county election. The CRC considered an opti on that
would eliminate fr
ee-standing special elections by r equiring
that all vacancies be filled at a
November election whe ther
there is an appointee or not. As indicated in the table above, the advantages include
lower cost and higher voter turnout, but disadvantages include the higher likelihood of requiring an appointment tha
t is of longer duration.

The CRC used a graph ( Attachment 8) to assist in
evaluating the duration of vacancies and
appointments depending on
when a vacancy is declared. The graph shows that the duration of an appointment may vary dramatically dep
ending on when the vacancy begins in the election
cycle.

City Council flexibility when choosing to fill a
vacancy by election was a key f
actor in the
deliberations of
the 2018 CRC. As an example, we cannot know now if a future special election can be consolidated
with another State or County election, what the City’s financial situation will be at the time, or how
the future poli tical climate might
affect the decision. At the time of the
vacancy, the
Council may know some of these variables. If the Council has flexibility, it could still choose to avoid
a free-standing special election, but it could
also choose to hold a special election
consolidated with an
other municipal election if that better serves the City’s needs at that time.

However, the CRC concluded that the adv
antages of replacing appointees only at the next general municipal election outweigh the disadvant
ages. The CRC does not recommend the
hybrid option
(using primary elections when they w
ould not result in two elections in the same year).

Issue 2: How many councilmembers may
serve by appointment at any one time?
A. Introduction
Filling vacancies with appoin
tees eliminates the cost of a special election but degrades the democratic process as
described in the “CRC Considerations” section below.

The 2018 CRC limited
the number of appoint
ees to two at any one time to strike a balance be
tween the financial cost
versus the democratic c
ost of the two methods.

The CRC recommends no change in the curren
t Charter language on this topic.

B. Background
In 1975 the Chart er
was amended in part specifically to limit the number of appointees to the City Council. In the w
ords of the 2018 CRC report: “Prior to 1975, with no term limits, an incumbent councilmember could resign shortly b
efore retiring, allowing the remaining Council to
appoint a replacem
ent. The appointee would have a significant advantage of incumbency in the next election and, ther e
fore, it was extremely rare for an appointee incumbent to be defea ted Attachment 1

prior to 1975. In
April 1975, this practice resulted in four of the seven councilmembers originally joining the Council as appointees.”
The 1975 Charter
revision was approved by 51% of voters. Opponents of the 1975 charter revision were concerned about the
considerable costs of special elections that were required in order to limit appointments.

The 2018 Charter
revision allowed for more appointments and reduced the likelihood of special elections, along with
many other changes. The 2018 Charter revision was approved by 71% of voters.

Currently, the Cha
rter does not allow the City Council to “make an appointment to fill a vacancy if the appointment would result in more than tw
o Council members or one Council member and
the Mayor currently serving o
n the Council as appointees.”
Members of the public commented
at this year’s CRC meetings that:

1. Two simultaneous v
acancies are too many

2. If there are already tw
o appointees and an additional councilmember is called to military duty, then the Council i s
obligated to appoint a temporary replacement that would result in a third appointee
C. Current Charter Languag
e
Charter Section
606(g) provides, “Notwithstanding any ot
her provision of this section, the City
Council shall not make a
n appointment to fill a vacancy if the appointment would result in more than two Council members or
one Councilmember and the Mayor currently serving on the Council as appointees, and shall
call a Special Municipal Election to be held within one hundred and eighty days from the date the
Council declares the vacancy.”
D. CRC Considerations and Analysis
The major argument ag
ainst reducing the limit to one appointee is that this would i ncrease the
likelihood of having t
o hold special elections, which are costly and have low voter turnout. The major argument for
a limit of one appointee is that this reduces the likelihood that four councilmembers (the requir
ed number for approval of an appointee) could capture the Council through appointments
and also bestow the advantages of incumbency on appointees who then run for election.

The CRC asked for and r ec
eived information from staff about the cost of elections ( Attachment 7). The cost informa
tion that is available is not conclusive, because Sunnyvale has not conducted a special election for a single Council
district.

Attachment 1

The majority of respon den
ts to the public survey (51%) indicated they would rather k eep the
number of appointed councilmembers at two.

The CRC recommends no change to the Chart
er on this topic.

Issue 3: Whether the dur
ation of appointments should be limited?
A. Introduction
Term limits for appoin
tees might increase the democratic fairness of the City Council. The CRC does not recommend a limit to the dur
ation of appointments.

B. Background
To the knowledge of
the CRC, term limits f or
appointed city councilmembers hav
e not been
previously discussed.

A member of the public
recommended limiting appointments to ten months or less to decrease the potential c os
t of increased benefits if the appointee also completed one term as a councilmember and decrease the incumbency advan
tage of the appointee.

C. Current Charter Languag
e
Section 604 of the City
Charter contains this language: "Any Mayor or member of the Council elected or appointed t
o a term of two years or more shall constitute a four-year elective ter m for
the purposes of this section." Acc
ordingly, in the rare situation in which Section 606 would r esult
in an appointive t
erm of two years or more, that Council member would be limited by Section 604 to the appointi
ve term plus two successive four -year elective ter
ms. Section 606 does not
contain any language limiting the duration of an appointment to fill a v acancy.

D. CRC Considerations and Analysis
The CRC considered that a
short appointment might decrease both the likelihood that the appointee would be controlled by
the other Councilmembers and the incumbency advantage in a future election but might r
esult in inefficiency because of turnover.

The CRC concluded that cha
nging appointees in the middle of a term would be disruptive and inefficient and tha
t this disadvantage outweighs the possible advantages. The CRC does not recommend a limit to the dur
ation of appointments.

Recommendation Regarding Amendments to Section 606
The CRC recommends a ballot mea s
ure amending Section 606 of the Sunnyvale
City Charter to
address the following issues:
(1) Amend Section 606(d) to provide that
appointed councilmembers serve until the next
General
Municipal Election (defined in Charter
Section 1400 as election in Novembe
r of even-numbered
Attachment 1

years) rather than the ne
xt General Municipal Electio
n or Special Municipal Ele
ction consolidated
with the next statewid
e election; and
(2) Include a n on-substantive
revision to Section 606(c) to av oid
ambiguity about whether the
Mayor may vot
e on filling vacancies. The current language
of Section 606(c) is: “(c) Within sixty
days of the dat
e the office is officially declared vacant, the City Council shall, by affirmative vote of at least
four of the remaining Councilmembers, elect to fill the vacancy by appointment or by calling an election.” Charter Section 600(b)
defines “City Council” and “Council” to include the
Mayor and six City
councilmembers. Section 606(b)
provides that “the Council shall officially
declare the office v
acant” when a vacancy occurs “in the office of Mayor or Councilmember.” Based on the definitions
in Section 600(b), the Mayor and the six City councilmembers would v ote
to declare the
vacancy. Section 606(c) provide
s that “the City Council shall … elect to fill the
vacancy by appoin
tment or by calling an election.” But the supermajority provision of this sentence (“by affirmative v
ote of at least four of the remaining Councilmembers”), when used in the context of
the earlier reference to “City Council,” arguably creates a negative implication that only votes of “rema
ining Councilmembers” and not the Mayor may constitute the supermajority.

While this interpre
tation is nonsensical, the poten
tial ambiguity can be corrected with a simple
amendment.

The proposed revisions t
o Charter Section 606 to implement these recommendations are:
§ 606. Vacancies.
(a) In addition to any
other cause from which vacancies in the City Council
may occur, the offic
e of the Mayor or Councilmember shall become
vacant when that official:
(1) Resigns or dies;
(2) Is absent from
all regular meetings of the Council for a period of sixty days consec utiv
ely from and after the last regular Council meeting
attended by such
member, unless by permission of the Council expressed
in its official minutes;
(3) Is convicted of a crime inv
olving moral turpitude;
(4) Ceases to be an elector o
f the City of Sunnyvale;
(5) Ceases to maintain
his/her principal place of residence within the City
limits, and/or within the applic
able District boundaries for a member
elected by District, during such o
fficial's term of office; or
Attachment 1

(6) Is involuntarily
removed pursuant to Article II of the Constitution of
the State of California, a
s may be amended from time to time.
(b) In the event of a
vacancy in the office of Mayor or Councilmember, the
Council shall officially declare
the office vacant within thirty days of the
commencement of any vac
ancy.
(c) Within sixty days of
the date the office is officially declared vacant, the
City Council shall, b y affirmative vot
e of at least four of the remaining
Councilmembersaffirmative v ot
es, elect to
fill the vacancy by
appointment or by calling an electio
n.
(d) If the vacancy is
filled by appointment, the appointee shall hold office
until the next Gene
ral Municipal Election or Special Municipal Ele ction

consolidated with the
next statewide election, whichev
er occurs sooner,
and a successor is elect ed
and qualified. The Councilmember then
elected shall serve
for the remainder of any unexpired term, and until a
successor is elected and qualified.
(e) The City Council shall ad
opt an ordinance establishing a public process
for appointment.
(f) If the City Council elects
to fill the vacancy by election or fails to fill the
vacancy by appoin
tment, it shall call an election to be held within two
hundred and forty days of the dat
e the vacancy is declared.
(g) Notwithstanding any ot
her provision of this section, the City Council
shall not make an appointmen
t to fill a vacancy if the appointment would
result in more than
two Council members or one Councilmember and the
Mayor currently
serving on the Council as a ppointees, and shall c
all a
Special Municipal El
ection to be held within one hundred and eighty days
from the date the Council declar
es the vacancy.

CRC Vote and Conclusi
on Regarding City Council Vacancies
The CRC approved the recommendatio
n on this issue by a vote of 10-0.

Attachment 1

3. City Council Meeting Schedule (C
harter Section 611)
A. Introduction
Charter Section 611 requires
the City Council to hold regular meetings at least twice each month.

The CRC recommends that the current languag
e of Section 611 not be revised.

B. Background
At the first mee
ting of the CRC on February 6, 2025, the staff provided a report entitled “Review of Scope for Cha
rter Review Committee and Discussion of Work Plan” ( RTC #25-0035), which included the follo wing statement r
egarding a proposal to amend the charter regarding City Council meeting schedules: “Consider changing
the Charter provision that requires two council
meetings per month
to instead require at least 24 meetings per year. The City Council placed this issue on the ballot in No v
ember 2024 in a combined question that included removing the citizenship requirement f
or board and commission members and implementing gender neutral language throughout the Chart
er. . .The measure did not pass.”
C. Current Charter Languag
e
Charter Section 611 curr
ently reads:

The City Council shall hold r
egular meetings at least twice each month, at such times as it shall fix by ordinance
or resolution and may adjourn or readjourn any regular meeting to a date certain, which shall
be specified in the order of adjournment and wh en so adjourned, each adjourned meeting shall be a regular mee
ting for all purposes.
(Amended effective Decembe
r 21, 1976 and May 7, 2020: previously Section 707)
D. CRC Considerations and Analysis
At the its meeting on June
30, 2025, the CRC discussed a concern that any r
evision might be
mistakenly per c
eived by some citizens as an effort by councilmembers to wor k less. This
misconception could un
dermine public trust and be detrimental to a potential Charter revision to improve compensatio
n for councilmembers and the mayor.

If the Council wants
to create a break to accommodate vacations or holidays, this could be done through the schedule tha
t is set, in the language of Section 611, “by ordinance or resolution.” Within this language, a br
eak of four or five weeks could be cre ated by scheduling mee tings on
the first and second
Tuesdays of a month and then the second and fourth Tuesdays of the next month. A break of
five or six weeks could be created by meeting on the first and second Tuesdays of a month and then
the third and f ourth Tuesdays of t
he next month. Months that have five
Tuesdays offer
the most flexibility. It should be noted that meetings in consecutive weeks may create meeting
preparation difficulties for the staff, especially in June, when the next fiscal year’s budget is being considered. Holida
ys may also make it difficult to meet in consecutive weeks.

Attachment 1

The Council is currently
meeting approximately 40 times a year. With that number of meetings, it seems that a brea
k of more than six weeks is not feasible even if it were permitted by revised Charter language. If
the Charter were revised to require a minimum of 24 meetings per year, with
at least one per
month, meetings could be scheduled to permit an eight -week break. But the
current workload
that results in 40 meetings per year makes an eight-week break seem in feasible.

The Council’s workload,
not the Charter language, is the major impediment to scheduling breaks.

A Charter re
vision that provides the appearance but not the reality of a remedy is not worth the potential political cost of
undermining public trust and jeopardizing other needed revisio ns.

During the review of this
issue, a subcommittee member surveyed city council meeting schedules of nearby localities (Attachment 9).

E. Recommendation
The CRC recommends that no rev
isions be made to the current language of Section 611.

F. CRC Vote and Conclusion Regarding City Council Meeting Schedule
The CRC approved this recommenda
tion by a vote of 8 y
es, 0 no, and 2 absent at the August 7,
2025, meeting
, and confirmed the recommendation on Decembe
r 4, 2025, by a unanimous vote
(10-0).

4. City Manager Authority
to Settle Claims (Charter Section 1314)
A. Introduction
The CRC studied whether the
City Charter should be amended to allow the City Council to establish by or dinance
the City Manager's authority to settle legal claims against the City.

Currently, Calif
ornia state law limits this authority to $50,000, and any increase requires a chart er
provision. The CRC recommends amending the Cha
rter to authorize the City Council to set the
settlement limit b
y ordinance, providing greater flexibility and administrative efficiency while maintaining appropriate
oversight and accountability.

B. Background
California Gover nme
nt Code Section 935.4 es t
ablishes that settlement authority for claims
against a local public
entity is limited to $50,000 unless a charter provision authorizes a higher amount. The st a
tute specifically provides that "only a charter provision may authorize that employee to allow
, compromise, or settle a claim against the local public entity if the amount to be paid pursuant t o
the allowance, compromise or settlement exceeds fifty thousand dollars ($50,000)."
Attachment 1

The $50,000 threshold has
been in effect since at least 1989 and has not been adjusted for inflation over
the intervening decades. In today's economic environment, this limit means that relatively r outi
ne claims and settlements must come before the City Co uncil for approv al, consuming staff time for preparation and Council time in closed session d eliberations.

Sunnyvale Municipal C
ode Section 2.04.030 (Claims Against City) currently reflects the $50,000 limit. This code section c
annot be changed to authorize a higher settlement amount unless the City Charter first pr
ovides the authority to do so.

Several Calif ornia
charter cities have already adopted similar provisions allowing their city councils to est
ablish settlement limits by ordinance. These cities include Pasadena, Santa Monica, and Los Angeles, with settlement limits
up to $100,000. This approach provides cities with the
flexibility to adjust
settlement thresholds through the normal ordinance process, which includes public input, rather than requiring rep
eated charter amendments.

C. Current Charter Languag
e
The City Charter
does not currently contain specific language addressing the City Manager's settlement authority. Th
e City Manager's powers and duties are outlined in Charter Article 802, but settlement authority abov
e $50,000 is not explicitly addressed, resulting in the default application of st
ate law limits.

Under the current fr
amework, the City Manager may settle claims up to $50,000. Any claim or settlement exce
eding this amount must be brought to City Council for approval, typically in closed session. This requires:
● Staff preparation
of materials for Council review
● Scheduling of closed session items
● Council deliberation and action
● Processing of additional administrati
ve documentation
D. CRC Considerations and Analysis
Settlement Authority b
y Ordinance - Administrative Efficiency, Fle
xibility and Responsiveness
A primary benefit of incr
easing the City Manager’s settlement authority is increased administrative e
fficiency, which aligns with City Council’s strategic goal of a responsive, transparent, and e
fficient City government. Routine claims that currently requi re Council action could be resolved more quickly
by the City Manager. This would:
● Reduce the frequenc
y of closed session items related to modest settlements ● Allow faster resolution of c
laims, potentially reducing costs
Attachment 1

● Free up staff time curr
ently spent preparing lower-value matters for Counci
l review
● Enable the City Man
ager to respond more nimbly to time -sensitive settlement opportunities
Establishing settle men
t authority by ordinance, rather than in the Charter itself, provides important flexibility.

Economic conditions, litigation costs, and the nature of claims against cities evolve over time.

An ordinance-based approach allows the
City Council to adjust the thr
eshold as
needed without requiring a charter
amendment and ballot measure.

This is particularl y
important given that the current $50,000 limit has remained unchanged for over three dec
ades. The Consumer Price Index calculator provided by the State of California’s Department of Industrial
Relations indicates that $50,000 in 1989 is equivalent t o approximately
$140,000 toda
y based on San Francisco Bay Area CPI. Medical and legal costs –two significant components of many c
laims against the City–have likely risen even mor
e.

Based on the CRC’
s review of other California charter cities that have settlement authority limits up to $100,000
and considering inflation since the State established the default $50,000 limit over three decades ago, a ne
w limit in the range of $100,000 to $150,000 would be appropriat e.

As a comparison, Sunnyv
ale Municipal Code Section 2.08.040 designates contract approval and spending authority to the City
Manager up to $250,000. This amount is five times higher than the current settlement auth
ority limit.

Maintaining Accou
ntability and Oversight
The proposed charter amendm
ent maintains robust accountability measures:
● The City Council ret
ains complete authority to set the limit through the public ordinance process
● The Council can adjust the limit up or down as circumst ances warrant
● All settlements would
continue to be subject to existing requirements for multiple levels of internal review
● The City Council would r
etain authority over all settlements exceeding the limit established by ordinance
Comparison with Other Jurisdictions
Several Calif ornia
charter cities have adopted approaches similar to the CRC ’ s proposal . Of
particular note is the
City of Pasadena, which recently passed a Charter Amendment, Measure S, with similar provisions.

Pasadena City Charter Section 1014 , which passed in 2024 with 86.44%

of the vote, now reads:

Attachment 1

"The City Council shall
prescribe by ordinance, exclusive of court costs, the monetary limits for an employee
or employees to: (i) commence any action on behalf of the City, or (ii) settle any claim or action
against the City, or any officer, employee, board or department thereof in
his or her or its official c
apacity. No claim or action for more than the amount set forth in the ordinance shall be commenced or settled without the prior appr oval of the City Council."
This language pr ov
ides a proven model that emphasizes Council control while enabling administrative effic
iency.

E. Recommendation
The CRC recommends a ballot measur
e amending Section 1314 of the
Sunnyvale City Charter to
authorize the City Manager to settle
claims in amounts higher than $50,000.

The proposed r ev
isions to Charter Section 13 14 to implement this r
ecommendation are as
follows:
§ 1314 Claims Against City.
(1) Except as otherwise
required by the provisions of State law applicable
to chartered
cities, claims and demands against the City shall be
presented and audited as pr
escribed by ordinance.
(2) The City Council shall p
rescribe by ordinance the monetary limits for
an employee to se
ttle any claim or action against the City, or any City
officer, employee,
board, or department acting in an official capacity.

No
claim or action against
the City may be settled for
more than the amount
set forth in the ordinance witho
ut the prior approval of the City Council.

The CRC also recomme
nds that, in conjunction with placing this Charter amendment measure on the ballot, that Council adop t
an ordinance setting a specific settlement authority limit and procedures that would
take effect only upon passage of the ballot meas ure. Such an or dinance

would give the voter
s more clarity on the settlement authority limit.

The CRC recommends a settlement authority limi
t of $150,000.

This recommendatio n
aligns with Council’s strategic goal of a responsive, transparent, and efficient city governm en
t. Legal costs have risen significantly since the State established the current $50,000
authority limit over three decades ago. A higher limit also enables the City Manager to respond more nimbly
to time-sensitive settlement opportunities.

F. CRC Vote and Conclusion Regarding Settlement
Authority
The CRC approved the recommendatio
n on this issue by a vote of 10-0.

Attachment 1

5. Public Works Contracti
ng (Charter Section 1309)
A. Introduction
The CRC studied whe
ther to amend the City Charter to authorize alternative project delivery methods, spec ific
ally design -build (DB), for pu
blic works projects. After reviewing the current
Charter provisions
, researching how other California jurisdictions h andle capital im pr ovement
projects, and analyzing poten
tial benefits and impacts, the CRC recommends amending Sectio n
1309 of the Sunn y
vale City Charter to grant the City Council authority to authorize use of any public works procurement process perm
itted by California sta
te law.

This amendment w
ould update Sunnyvale's approach to delivering large, complex capital improvement projects
while maintaining appropriate oversight, transparency, and accountability.

The change would pr
ovide City Council with flexibility to select the most appropriate projec t
delivery method based on
the specific characteristics and requirements of each major capital project.

B. Background
Section 1309 of the Sunn
yvale City Charter currently requires competitive bidding for public works contr act
s, with award to the lowest responsible bidder following public notice and competitive bidding procedur
es. This traditional "Design-Bid-Build" (DBB) approach has been the standard method for mu
nicipal construction projects for decades.

Under the current DBB process, the City firs
t contracts with architects and engineers to complete
design work, then adv er
tises the completed design for construction bids, and finally awards a construction c
ontract to the lowest responsible bidder. While this method provides a w ell- established framew ork,
it separates the design and construction phases, which can lead to communication gap
s, change orders, cost overruns, and extended project timelines.

Under a DB process, design and
construction phases are bundled into a single contract. A single entity is responsible for
both design and construction, creating a unified project team from the beginning. The City woul
d select a DB team through a qualificati ons-based competitive process,
known as “best value”, ra
ther than solely on lowest price.

The lowest bid requir
ement in Section 1309 of the Sunnyvale City Charter prevents using a best value approach like DB for a bundled design-and-construction contr act.

Federal and s
tate laws have evolved significantly since Section 1309 was adopted. California legislation passed in the
1990s and expanded in subsequent years now authorizes local agencies, including cities, to use alt
ernative project delivery methods for appropriate projects . In 2014, SB
785 specifically authoriz
ed California cities to use DB delivery. These alternative methods have Attachment 1

been codified in the Public Con
tract Code and are widely used by state agencies, school districts, and other municipalities.

California school dis
tricts are authorized to use DB for projects exceeding $1 million. Charters of several California cities allow DB, in
cluding Pasadena, San Jose, Los Angeles, Glendale, and Santa Cruz. Pasadena vot
ers approved a Charter Amendment, Measure T, in 2024
with strong support,
authorizing alternative project de
livery methods like DB for significant capital projects.

C. Current Charter Languag
e
Section 1309 of the Sun
nyvale City Charter establishes the competitive bidding requirement for public works con
tracts. The section requires that contracts be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder after public noti ce
and competitive bidding, except for s pecific enumerated exceptions
such as emergency work, contr
acts with other governmental entities, and professional services.

Sunnyvale Municipal C
ode Chapter 2.09 provides additional detailed requirements for public works contracting
that implement the Charter's competitive bidding mandate. The City Council has established dollar thr
esholds by ordinance that determine when contr acts require Council approval.

The current Cha rt
er language reflects traditional DBB methodology and does not explicitly authorize alternativ
e project delivery methods such as DB, even though these methods are now permitted by California s
tate law and commonly used by other public agencies.

Under existing Cha rt
er provisions, the City must complete all design work before soliciting construction bids
and cannot consider factors beyond price and responsibility when awarding construction c
ontracts. This limits the City's ability to foster collaboration betw een designers and
builders, which can be particularly valuable f
or complex projects.

D. CRC Considerations and Analysis
Evolution of Project Delivery
Methods
The construction indus
try has evolved significantly over the past several decades, with alternative project delivery methods
becoming standard practice for many large and complex projects in both the public and privat
e sectors. These methods recognize that early collaboratio n between design
and construction profes
sionals can lead to better outcomes.

Traditional DBB rema in
s appropriate for many projects, particularly smaller or straightforward construction w
ork. However, for large, complex capital projects, alternative methods offer substantial advant
ages while maintaining appropriate transparency and accountability.

California legislatio n
for DB continues to evolve, such as recent legislation authorizing “progressive design-build” where construc
tion costs are negotiated after completing design with
Attachment 1

off-ramps if agr ee
ment cannot be reached on price. The CRC recommends flexibility in the
proposed Charter am
endment to accommodate additional alternative project delivery methods authorized by future federal and s
tate laws.

Design-Build Delivery Method
DB is the primary alt
ernative method the CRC studied. A DB team typically
includes architects,
engineers, gener al
contractors, and other necessary professionals. This team works collaboratively
with City staff throughout the project, developing designs that are constructible, cost-effective, and meet the City
's requirements.

Key features of DB include
:

Unified Responsibility: A single point of acc
ountability for both design and construction
eliminates the poten
tial for disputes between separate design and construction contractors about responsibility for problems.

Accelerated Deliv er
y: Design and construc tion
phases can overlap, with early construction
activities such as site pr epa
ration or demolition beginning while final design details are completed. This can sig
nificantly reduce overall project duration.

Reduced Change Order
s: Because construc
tability is considered throughout design, and because
the design-builder is responsible
for both design and construction, projects typically experience fewer change orders and dis
putes.

Innovation and
Collaboration: Early involv
ement of construction expertise during design can lead
to innovative solutions,
value engineering, and more efficient construction methods.

Quality and Perform ance: DB teams are sele
cted based on qualifications, experience, and
approach, not just price, allowing the City t
o prioritize quality and performance.

Maintaining Oversight a
nd Accountability
The proposed Cha r
ter amendment would maintain appropriate oversight while providing flexibility:

City Council Authority: The City Council w ould
retain authority to authorize use of alternative
delivery methods f
or specific projects, ensuring elected officials make key decisions about major capital projects.

Future Ordin ance: The City Council w ould
adopt ordinances establishing procedures,
requirements, and
safeguards for alternative delivery methods as it has f or DBB. This approach
provides detailed requiremen
ts regarding transparency, public input, local labor preferences, and other policy priorities.

Attachment 1

Competitive Selectio
n Plus: Alternative
delivery methods still involve competitive processes, but selection is based on qualific
ations, experience, technical approach, and price rather than lowest price alone.

E. Recommendation
The CRC recommends a ballot measure amendi
ng Section 1309 of the Sunnyvale City Charter to:
(1) Authorize the City Council t
o approve alternative public works procurement processes permitted by Ca lif
ornia state law for appropriate projects , as provided in new subsection (c)
below; and
(2) Include non-substantive r
evisions to enhance readability and modernize language rela ted to
contracts necessary f
or the preservation of life, health, or property
The proposed revisions t
o Charter Section 1309 to implemen
t this recommendation are:
1309. Contracts on public wo
rks.
(a) Unless an alternati v
e project delivery method is authorized as
provided in this section, Every a project involving
an expenditure of more
than an amount to be deter
mined from time to time by ordinance of the
City Council, for the
construction or improvement (excluding
maintenance and r
epair) of public buildings, works, streets, drains,
sewers, utilities, parks and playgr
ounds, shall be let to the lowest
responsive and respon sible
bidder after notice of publication in the
official newspaper
by one or more insertions, the first of which shall be
at least ten days be
fore the time for opening bids.

The City Council ma y
reject any and all bids presented and may
readvertise in its discr
etion.

The City Council, without adv
ertising for bids, or after rejecting bids, or if
no bids are receiv
ed, may declare and determine that, in its opinion, the work in question ma
y be performed better or more economically by the
City with its own emplo y
ees, and a fter adoption of a
resolution to this
effect by a
t least four affirmative votes it may proceed to have said work done in the manner st
ated, without further observance of the provisions
of this section. Such contracts
likewise may be let without advertising for
bids, if such work shall
be deemed by the City Council to be of urgent
necessity for the pr
eservation of life, health or property, shall be
authorized by motion
passed by at least four affirmative votes and
Attachment 1

containing a declar
ation of the facts constituting such urgency.- The City Council may make urgency findin
gs and authorize by at
least four
affirmative vot
es the letting without advertising for bids of contracts tha t
are urgently necessary
for the preservation of life, health, or property.
(b) No advertising for
bids or awarding of a contract based thereon shall
be on bids is required when the impr
ovement or work is to be furnished
or performed by
a public utility subject to the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission.
(c) The use of best value alt
ernative project delivery methods including,
but not limited to,
progressive design-build, construction manag
er at risk,
fixed-price design-build, and design-build-operate contr acts is authorized
for all public works
projects. The City Council shall establish, b
y ordinance,
regulations for the
award, use, evaluation, and approval of these
contracts.

F. CRC Vote and Conclusion Regarding Public Works Con
tracting
The CRC approved this recommendation by a vote of 10-0.

This Charter ame nd
ment would update Sunnyvale's approach to delivering major capital improvement projects,
providing the City Council and staff with contemporary tools to deliver high-quality projects effic i
ently and cost -effectively. The
amendment maintai ns appropriate
oversight while ena
bling the City to adapt to evolving industry best practices and utilize methods that other California public agenci
es have successfully implemented.

By authorizing alterna
tive delivery methods permitted by state law, Sunnyvale would join other California cities in utilizing
proven approaches that can save taxpayer money, accelerate project delivery, reduce
disputes and claims, and produce better outcom es for the co mmunity. The
amendment prese r
ves traditional competitive bidding for projects where it remains most appropriate while addi ng
valuable options for complex projects where alternative delivery methods can provide signific
ant advantages.

The CRC believes this amendme n
t serves the public interest and recommends that the City Council place this measure before Sunny
vale voters for their consideration.

IV. Conclusion
The Charter Rev iew
Committee approved this r
eport at its Dec embe
r 4, 2025, meeting and
respectfully submits these recommendations
to the City Council.

Attachment 1

V. Attachments

1. 2023 Colleagues Memo Regarding Poten
tial Charter Changes

2. CRC Community Survey and Results

3. CRC List of 23 Potenti
al Charter Amendments, May 2025

4. List of Dropped Pot
ential Amendments

5. Prioritized List of Amendme
nts

6. Summary of CRC’s Proposed Charter Amendments

7. Estimates of the Cost of
Stand-Alone Special Elections

8. Graph -Varying Durations of
Appointments

9. Survey -City Council Meeting Schedules of Nearby Localities Attachment 1

Honorable Colleagues,
Wewrite to request that a meeting b
e agendized to empane! a Charter Review Commission
(CRC) to conduct afull review of the Sunnyvale City Charter,with the goal of placing proposed amendments onthe November 2024 ballot.

The last major review of the Sunnyvale City Charter was conducted in 2007, with asmaller review in 2012. In 2018, a CRC was empaneled to review provisions for filling vacancies, leading to a successful charter amendment, while in 2020 the Charter was amended to switch to district elections for councilmembers (without a CRC). Given that it has been morethan 15 years since the full charter has been reviewed, and given the substantial changes introduced by the switch to district elections, we believe that empaneling a CRC to conduct a general review of the charter may be in order.

While the proposed CRCwould have scope toreview all provisions in the charter and to freely propose amendments, the following are some specific items we would liketo have the proposed CRC examine if empanelled:
• Allowing Councilmembers appointed to fill vacancies to serve until the next feasible November general election, as opposed to the next feasible election (i.e., appointees could no longer go up for election in a primary)
• Changing the charter provision that requires two council meetings per month to instead require at least 24 meetings per year
• Examining citizenship requirements and member counts for charter-defined commissions
• Examining the role of the mayor, including whether the position of mayor should be considered full-time
• Examining Council salary andcompensation
• Updating language to be gender neutral, e.g. using "they" instead of "he/she" • Evaluating whether to adopt an alternative voting system, such as ranked-choice or approval voting, or retain the existing first-past-the-post system for districts and mayoral elections
• Evaluating whether to include a statement on the role of district councilmembers, and to explicitly bar the concept of "district prerogative" and emphasize representing "all of Sunnyvale"
• Establishing rules for empanelling Redistricting Commissions • Other items proposed by Council or raised by the Charter Review Commission Respectfully submitted,
Alysa Cisneros
-
.
-
/L
Larry Klein
.e
Richard Mehlinger
,
/E-
Attachment 1
2023 Colleagues Memo Regarding Potential Charter Changes Attachment 1

1 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14667 Created with OpenGov | October 20, 2025, 11:37 AM Charter Review Community Survey
October 20, 2025, 11:37 AM
Contents
i. Summary of responses 2
Attachment 2
Survey Results
Attachment 1

Summary Of Responses
As of October 20, 2025, 11:37 AM, this forum had: Topic Start Topic End Attendees: 425 September 30, 2025, 9:05 AM October 20, 2025, 8:00 AM Responses: 302
Hours of Public Comment: 15.1
QUESTION 1
How should Sunnyvale City Council vacancies be filled?
% Count
Hold a special election so voters decide, even if it
costs much more and turnout is much lower

22.8% 68
Fill by appointment until the next feasible
November general election, even if the
appointment is for a long time

65.1% 194
Other

12.1% 36
QUESTION 2
Right now, no more than two appointed Councilmembers can serve at the same time. What limit do you prefer? % Count
No limit—appointments allowed as needed
(appointments only last until the next feasible
November general election)

16.6% 50
Limit of two appointed members (keep the current
rule)

50.8% 153
Limit of one appointed member (reduce the
current rule)

16.3% 49
Zero appointed members (all vacancies should be
filled only by elections)

12.6% 38
Not sure

3.7% 11
2 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14667 Created with OpenGov | October 20, 2025, 11:37 AM Charter Review Community Survey
Sunnyvale is looking at potential changes to the City Charter and wants to hear your feedback.

Attachment 1

QUESTION 3
How well do you think the current pay matches the responsibilities and time required? % Count
Pay is about right

33.0% 99
Pay is too low and should be increased

58.7% 176
Pay it too high and should be reduced

1.7% 5
Not sure

6.7% 20
QUESTION 4
Which way of setting Councilmembers and Mayor pay do you prefer? % Count
Keep salaries fixed at the flat amount until changed
by voters

26.8% 81
Annually adjust salaries to a percentage of
Sunnyvale’s median income

22.2% 67
Annually adjust salaries based on inflation

45.4% 137
Not sure

5.6% 17
QUESTION 5
Which salary ranges for Councilmembers feel most reasonable for Sunnyvale? % Count
$20,000–$40,000

23.2% 70
$40,001–$60,000

27.8% 84
$60,001–$80,000

22.8% 69
$80,001–$100,000

9.6% 29
3 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14667 Created with OpenGov | October 20, 2025, 11:37 AM Charter Review Community Survey
Sunnyvale is looking at potential changes to the City Charter and wants to hear your feedback.

Attachment 1

% Count
$100,001—$120,000

4.3% 13
$120,001—$140,000

2.3% 7
Over $140,000

1.7% 5
Not sure

8.3% 25
QUESTION 6
Which salary ranges for the Mayor feel most reasonable for Sunnyvale? % Count
$40,000–$60,000

22.7% 68
$60,001–$80,000

17.0% 51
$80,001–$100,000

19.7% 59
$100,001—$120,000

15.3% 46
$120,001—$140,000

7.3% 22
$140,001—$160,000

5.7% 17
Over $160,000

4.0% 12
Not sure

8.3% 25
QUESTION 7
When setting pay for Councilmembers and the Mayor, what factors should matter the most? (Select up to 3) % Count
Attracting a more diverse group of candidates

27.2% 82
4 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14667 Created with OpenGov | October 20, 2025, 11:37 AM Charter Review Community Survey
Sunnyvale is looking at potential changes to the City Charter and wants to hear your feedback.

Attachment 1

% Count
Ensuring officials have time to do the job well

67.4% 203
Keeping costs low

24.3% 73
Making pay fair compared to similar public roles

44.9% 135
Linking pay to local wages, inflation, or cost of
living

24.6% 74
Allowing Councilmembers and the Mayor to afford
to live in Sunnyvale

42.9% 129
Other

12.6% 38
QUESTION 8
If pay is adjusted automatically each year, what should it be based on? % Count
Same percentage as the Sunnyvale’s minimum
wage

15.8% 47
Changes in Sunnyvale’s median income, inflation
or cost of living

48.1% 143
No automatic increases—only by voter approval

27.9% 83
Not sure

8.1% 24
QUESTION 9
Besides pay, what other reasons might discourage people from running for Mayor or City Council? (Optional) Answered 85
Skipped 217
QUESTION 10
5 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14667 Created with OpenGov | October 20, 2025, 11:37 AM Charter Review Community Survey
Sunnyvale is looking at potential changes to the City Charter and wants to hear your feedback.

Attachment 1

How should Sunnyvale handle the City Manager’s settlement authority? % Count
Keep the current limit of $50,000 (no change to
the Charter)

50.2% 148
Increase the limit and keep a specific amount in the
Charter

18.6% 55
Allow the City Council to set and update the limit
by ordinance

21.4% 63
Not sure

9.8% 29
QUESTION 11
If the limit were increased, what amount would be reasonable? % Count
Keep the current limit of $50,000

46.0% 134
$100,000

25.8% 75
$250,000

9.3% 27
Over $250,000

0.7% 2
Not sure

18.9% 55
QUESTION 12
Are you registered to vote?
% Count
Yes

97.7% 294
No

0.3% 1
Prefer not to say

2.0% 6
6 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14667 Created with OpenGov | October 20, 2025, 11:37 AM Charter Review Community Survey
Sunnyvale is looking at potential changes to the City Charter and wants to hear your feedback.

Attachment 1

QUESTION 13
Did you vote in the last election?
% Count
Yes

95.7% 288
No

1.3% 4
Prefer not to say

3.0% 9
7 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14667 Created with OpenGov | October 20, 2025, 11:37 AM Charter Review Community Survey
Sunnyvale is looking at potential changes to the City Charter and wants to hear your feedback.

Attachment 1

Besides pay, what other reasons might discourage people from running for Mayor or City Council? (Optional)
Answered
85 Skipped
217
Meetings too long. Consider also for survey: SV Council / Mayor roles are part-time and not considered livelihood or career roles. Compensation also include significant city sponsored benefits, including medical/dental for self / family, maternity & family leave, life insurance, CalPERS Pension etc.

Time commitments; hard work; politics
Long hours attending Council Meetings, City events, School events, and other events, County and State events.

Frankly unless you already have a home in Sunnyvale or something else that can help keep your costs manageable (e.g., a spouse who can support you/your family), it just doesn't make sense to take on these jobs. Especially if you can get more money taking a city job or another job.

Lack of knowledge on job.

Political violence now prevalent in the country
Corruption, time required.

The city council should know the answer to this.

The time committment if they are working in a full time job.

Excellence of City services and city finances
Lack of familiarity with job needs.

Time commitment, lack of true authority to effect meaningful changes, overly bureaucratic study process for changes
Having to deal with the public. The meetings that go on forever. Listening to the mis- guided public who whine.

Hostile work environment, council members who slack off and don’t pull their weight.

Pay should be based on accomplishments.

Conflict of interest.

Attachment 1

It is a time-consuming job and sometimes it is difficult to see/measure the impact you have, especially when state/national conditions trump local influence.

Lack of knowledge about detailed job description.

Experience and time needed to do the job. Lack of REAL outreach to minority groups. Bad experience of council NEVER getting back to them ESPECIALLY in District 2.

It’s probably a pain in the neck
Cost of running a campaign, abuse over social media
Pay should match actual performance and ability to deliver for Sunnyvale and NOT be based on some estimated number of hours of showing up.

Safety
Social media - negative reactions or harassment
Experience
cost of campaigning
Political atmosphere today—fear
Work climate
No interest in the city and its issues
The time commitment and becoming a public figure.

Late hours, political pressure, frustration of beauracracy.

People don't run for office because of the toxic comments from the residents.

Lack of information on what the council directly does and how people can practically affect change
Threats from the public.

Balancing resident needs and commercial growth is a really difficult job. There is a lot of research time looking at the current future plans already in place and new Council members being pressured to be ready to make long term decisions quickly will need confident, detailed oriented people.

Council members not listening to the public's voices.

Invasion of privacy
Dealing with cranky members of the public
Other council members.

Attachment 1

People running for council should be interested in helping the city. Salaries should not be part of t.

Sunnyvale Mayor is the 2nd higest paid mayor in Santa Clara county. There is more to compensation than pay. There is the CalPERS pension and generous amount the city pays for medical. If someone running for mayor wants to get paid the median salary for Sunnyvale they need to get a job in high tech. the tasks at hand to prepare effectively to voice their constituents and not only their own
Contentious or extraordinarily long meetings, lack of clarity of what is expected once in the role, lack of progress
Politics are a mess.

Not knowing exactly what is involved in the role
Whether they can keep their regular job and hence career moving forward Political pressure from special interest groups and/or ethnic groups Time and money needed to campaign; not understanding job requirements; long, boring meetings
Not sure
Politics is a nasty business
Not knowing what to expect in terms of their duties and responsibilities We all saw how the council and mayor bullied council member Melton. Districting has given us career politicians more concerned with getting paid than with what is good for the city.

Non-essential, feel-good "obligations" not related to actual policy work (glad- handing, schmoozing, social events). Further, Councilmebers' compensation should not take ANY of that into account since it's not substantively related to their work outlined by the Charter.

Districting brought problems. Career politicians, whose only agenda is get reelected and increase their own pay. The mayor works behind scenes to promote his agenda.

They are bullies and they serve special interests. Sad day for long term residents. social media
People should not be running BASED ON PAY but in best for community. "Sweet gig where a make a big paycheck creating up hare-brain policies for others to implement" is a bad bad Councilmember. What discourages good people from running - having to put up with uncivil gadflies and colleagues.

It's hard to hold down a regular job *and* put in enough time to be a councilmember.

Attachment 1

Safety reasons. There probably isn’t a lot of security available for the mayor of Sunnyvale. Unfortunately, political assassinations seem to be getting more common.

The time it takes to fulfill these roles is daunting for most people, unless they're retired. But we don't want only old people in office.

Politics within politics ,meetings in late evening
Current political climate
It is a very time consuming job. You can't please everyone, so some people will be very unhappy with you. Council meetings run too late at night.

Commitment of time. Lack of interest. Hostile council.

Political hostility, financial & personal burdens, time commitment, public scrutiny Right now running for public office isn't open to people on SSDI, so people with disabilities are grossly underrepresented. Changing appointments to 1yr may open it up to this demographic.

This is for the above question. Please add Other or none of the above in selection.

The survey is very badly designed to favor the increase. Corrupted.

Too many scheduled / overly long / too late meetings. Staff should help reduce number of meetings council are needed at. Council members should limit their own comment and question times to help shorten meetings. City business time should be Councilmember 15-20 hrs /wk and Mayor 20-25 hrs /wk Max. mayor and council member must be a resident of sunnyvale Time commitment necessary
This survey is a poorly done without context. This role is not meant to be a full time role, we already have a highly paid city manager. How will we fund this? How are similar cities structured? What additional improvements will the citizens get? To do this without that context is unethical..

Most meetings are in the evenings, which are hard for families Meetings that run too long into the night // Already working two jobs, so no time to serve on council // Belief that they really can't change anything, e.g., because of a sense that there are entrenched interests or disagreeable internal politics in city government
Cost of getting on the ballot and informing voters of candidate's platform and qualifications
Feeling disenfranchised
Rent and housing costs; property taxes
A
Attachment 1

The time commitment of the role
Not knowing how to "get started" in politics. Animosity from public and family safety.

The fact that council meetings run very late into the night sometimes would discourage certain people from running for council.
public support
political advertising costs. I feel that the amount of money spent advertising is obscene and should be limited to create a fair election.

With Districts now it should not be a problem for anyone to run.

Time required. Assume council members have full-time jobs Campaigning and the cost of running a campaign.

Lack of interest in serving is probably the main one. Also, there are benefits to serving in city government beyond salary, and these should be considered in deciding if/how much higher salaries should be.

High cost of running for office
Attachment 1

Number Title
A-1
Section 601(City Council Term and Election):

Study whether to adopt an alternative voting system, such as ranked-choice or approval voting, or retain the existing first-past-the-post system for districts and mayoral elections A-2 Section 605 (Compensation):

Study City Council salaries and compensation.

A-3
Section 606 (Vacancies): Study whether the current rule providing that councilmembers appointed to fill a vacancy serve until the next general municipal or consolidated statewide election should be changed to the next feasible November general election.

A-4 Section 607 (Presiding Officer. Mayor):

Study the role of Mayor, including whether the position should be full time.

A-5 Section 609 (Redistricting):

Study establishing rules for empaneling redistricting commissions.

A-6
Section 611 (Regular Meetings):

Consider changing the Charter provision that requires two council meetings per month to instead require at least 24 meetings per year.

A-7 Article X (Appointive Boards and Commissions):

Study removing citizenship/voter eligibility requirements for Charter board and commission members.

A-8 General Issue (throughout Charter):

Update language to be gender neutral, e.g. using "they" instead of "he/she." B-1
Section 1309 (Contracts on Public Works):

Study amending the Charter to allow other project delivery methods besides design-bid-build (lowest responsible bidder after notice of publications for bids).

B-2
Section 802 (City Manager Powers and Duties):

Study adding a provision to City Manager’s powers and duties to permit settlement of claims against the city in an amount greater than $50,000.

C-1
New Issues:

CRC discussed studying potential new provisions including (a) a diversity statement, (b) native land acknowledgment, and (c) emergency provisions.

C-2 Section 603 (City Council Qualifications):

Study whether the thirty-day residency requirement for city council candidates is appropriate.

C-3 Section 708 (Publishing of Legal Notices):

Study whether existing Charter provisions provide effective public noticing.

C-4
Article X (Appointive Boards and Commissions):

Study potential changes to Charter boards and commission structure, including:
(a) What commissions should/should not be in the Charter (currently 5 of 10 are listed in the Charter)? (b) Add alternate or advisory members?
(c) Revise term limits for board and commission members? (d) Change the number of members on each Charter board/commission (e) Address process for sitting board/ commission members to apply for another board/commission when they are currently on one or term is expiring.

C-5
Section 1100 (Merit Principle):

Consider modernizing competitive examination language to better reflect current considerations for examining applicants for employment.

C-6 Section 1104 (Pay Plan):

Consider language cleanup to reflect that City publishes a pay schedule for all positions, not just classified.

C-7
Article XII (Retirement):

Correct outdated reference to “State Employees Retirement Act” without “as amended” language.

C-8 Section 1302 (Budget. Submission to City Council.):

Study Sunnyvale’s unique 20-year budget and whether it continues to be a useful tool.

C-9 Sections 1313 and 1315 (Petty Cash Funds; Registering Warrants):

Study whether these provisions are needed in the charter.

C-10 Section 1318 (Independent Audit):

Study whether more detailed audit requirements should be added.

C-11 Section 1320 (Revenue Bonds):

Study whether language could be clearer and more detailed.

C-12
Section 1405 (Campaign Disclosure):

Study whether this section should be updated, relevant law included, and whether having it in the Charter adds value or should simply reference general laws related to campaign disclosure.

C-13 Article XVI (Franchises):

Study potential revisions to franchise authority.

Charter Review Committee
Potential Charter Amendments
Attachment 3
Attachment 1

Number Title
A-7 Article X (Appointive Boards and Commissions):

S
tudy removi
ng citizenship/voter eligibility requirements for Charter board and commission members.

C-1
New Issues:

CRC discussed studying potential new provisions including (a) a diversity statement, (b) native land acknowledgment, and (c) emergency provisions.

C-2 Section 603 (City Council Qualifications):

Study whether the thirty-day residency requirement for city council candidates is appropriate.

C-4
Article X (Appointive Boards and Commissions):

Study potential changes to Charter boards and commission structure, including:
(a) What commissions should/should not be in the Charter (currently 5 of 10 are listed in the Charter)? (b) Add alternate or advisory members?
(c) Revise term limits for board and commission members? (d) Change the number of members on each Charter board/commission (e) Address process for sitting board/ commission members to apply for another board/commission when they are currently on one or term is expiring.

C-6 Section 1104 (Pay Plan):

Consider language cleanup to reflect that City publishes a pay schedule for all positions, not just classified.

C-7 Article XII (Retirement):

Correct outdated reference to “State Employees Retirement Act” without “as amended” language.

C-8 Section 1302 (Budget. Submission to City Council.):

Study Sunnyvale’s unique 20-year budget and whether it continues to be a useful tool.

C-10 Section 1318 (Independent Audit):

Study whether more detailed audit requirements should be added.

C-11 Section 1320 (Revenue Bonds):

Study whether language could be clearer and more detailed.

C-12
Section 1405 (Campaign Disclosure):

Study whether this section should be updated, relevant law included, and whether having it in the Charter adds value or should simply reference general laws related to campaign disclosure.

C-13 Article XVI (Franchises):

Study potential revisions to franchise authority.

Charter Review Committee
Dropped Charter Amendments
Attachment 4
Attachment 1

Meeting Date 5/1/2025 12
Number Title Vickrey Rubino Davis Wickham Larsson Olevson Pyne Newswanger Oey Filley Average Ranking
B-1
Section 1309 (Contracts on Public Works):

Study amending the Charter to allow other project
delivery methods besides design-bid-build (lowest
responsible bidder after notice of publications for
bids).
1 1 2 1 1 2 6 2 2 2
A-2 Section 605 (Compensation):

Study City Council salaries and compensation. 4 2 4 2 2 1 3 1 4 2.56 A-5
Section 609 (Redistricting):

Study establishing rules for empaneling redistricting
commissions.
2 5 3 4 8 3 2 4 5 4
A-8 General Issue (throughout Charter):

Remove gender specific language. 3 8 1 5 6 4 9 3 3 4.67 A-4
Section 607 (Presiding Officer. Mayor):

Study the role of Mayor, including whether the
position should be full time.
5 4 6 8 3 6 4 9 9 6
A-3
Section 606 (Vacancies): Study whether the current
rule providing that councilmembers appointed to fill
a vacancy serve until the next general municipal or
consolidated statewide election should be changed
to the next feasible November general election.
10 3 10 3 5 7 5 7 7 6.33
A-6
Section 611 (Regular Meetings):

Consider changing the Charter provision that
requires two council meetings per month to instead
require at least 24 meetings per year.
11 9 5 6 4 5 7 12 6 7.22
B-2
Section 802 (City Manager Powers and Duties):

Study adding a provision to City Manager’s powers
and duties to permit settlement of claims against
the city in an amount greater than $50,000.
7 6 11 7 7 9 8 10 1 7.33
Count of Items to Prioritize
Attachment 5
Charter Review Committee
Priorization of Potential Charter Amendments
Attachment 1

Meeting Date 5/1/2025 12
Number Title Vickrey Rubino Davis Wickham Larsson Olevson Pyne Newswanger Oey Filley Average Ranking
Count of Items to Prioritize
Charter Review Committee
Priorization of Potential Charter Amendments
C-3
Section 708 (Publishing of Legal Notices):

Study whether existing Charter provisions provide
effective public noticing.
6 7 7 10 11 10 10 5 10 8.44
A-1
Section 601(City Council Term and Election):

Study whether to adopt an alternative voting
system, such as ranked-choice or approval voting, or
retain the existing first-past-the-post system for
districts and mayoral elections
8 12 12 9 9 8 1 8 11 8.67
C-9
Sections 1313 and 1315 (Petty Cash Funds;
Registering Warrants):

Study whether these provisions are needed in the
charter.
12 11 9 12 10 11 12 6 8 10.11
C-5
Section 1100 (Merit Principle):

Consider modernizing competitive examination
language to better reflect current considerations for
examining applicants for employment.
9 10 8 11 12 12 11 11 12 10.67
Attachment 1

Attachment 6
Summary of CRC’s Recommended Charter Amendments

(proposed changes t
o existing language shown in underline and strikeout)

§ 605 Compensation.

In addition to reimburseme
nt for necessary traveling and other expenses actually incurred when on official duty in or out of
the City on order of the City Council, commencing January 1, 20122027, each member of the City Council shall rec
eive as salary $2,088.646,000.00 per
month, and the Mayor shall receiv
e as salary $2,784.869,000.00 per month.

In order to pr
ovide a cost of living adjustment, commencing on January 1, 20132028, and annually on January 1 thereafter, th
e compensation of the Council and Mayor shall increase by a percentage equa
l to the percentage increase in the preceding October's twelve-month rolling average of the Cons
umer Price Index-Urban (CPI-U), or successor index, for San Francisco- Oakland-San Jose, as determined by the Unit
ed States Department of Labor, Bureau of
Consumers. In no even
t shall the CPI-U compensation adjustmen
t exceed five per
cent per year,
or result in a compensation decr
ease. The CPI-U base index year shall be calendar year 2012 2027.-
If a member of the City Council does no
t attend all meetings of the City Council called on order of the City Council and held during the month, his/her salary f or such month shall be reduced
by the sum equivalent to
twenty percent of the month's salary for each meeting not attende d
unless he/she is absent on official duty with the cons
ent of or on order of the City Council or is
granted an excused absen
ce by the City Council, or unless he/she is on personal leave. A member of the City Council shall be permitted four personal leave da ys per calendar year.

§ 606. Vacancies.
(a) In addition to any other cause fr
om which vacancies in the City Council may occur, the
office of the Mayor or Councilmem
ber shall become vacant when that official:
(1) Resigns or dies;
(2) Is absent from all regular
meetings of the Council for a period of sixty days consecutively from and after the last regular C
ouncil meeting attended by such member, unless by permission of the Council expressed in its o
fficial minutes;
(3) Is convicted of a crime inv
olving moral turpitude;
Attachment 1

(4) Ceases to be an elector o
f the City of Sunnyvale;
(5) Ceases to maintain his/her principa
l place of residence within the City limits, and/or
within the applicable District boundaries f
or a member elected by District, during such official's term of office; or
(6) Is involuntarily r
emoved pursuant to Article II of the Constitution of the State of California, as may be amended from time t
o time.
(b) In the event of a vacanc
y in the office of Mayor or Councilmember, the Council shall officially declare the office vac
ant within thirty days of the commencement of any vacancy. (c) Within sixty days of the date the
office is officially declared vacant, the City Council shall, by affirmative vote of at least four of the remaining Councilmembersaffirmative vote s, elect to
fill the vacancy by appointment o
r by calling an election.
(d) If the vacancy is filled by appointmen
t, the appointee shall hold office until the next
General Municipal Electi
on or Special Municipal Election consolida
ted with the next statewide
election, whichever occur
s sooner, and a successor is elected and qualified. T
he Councilmember
then elected shall serve f
or the remainder of any unexpired term, and until a successor is elected and qualified.
(e) The City Council shall adopt an ordinance e
stablishing a public process for appointment.
(f) If the City Council elects to
fill the vacancy by election or fails to fill the vacancy by appointment, it shall call an election t
o be held within two hundred and forty days of the date the vacancy is declared.
(g) Notwithstanding any other pr
ovision of this section, the City Council shall not make an appointment to fill a vacancy if the appoin
tment would result in more than two Council
members or one Councilmember and the May
or currently serving on the Council as appointees,
and shall call a Special Municipal Electio
n to be held within one hundred and eighty days from
the date the Council declares the vacanc
y.

Attachment 1

§ 1314. Claims Against City.
(1) Except as otherwise r
equired by the provisions of State law applicable to chartered cities, claims and demands against the City shall be prese
nted and audited as prescribed by ordinance.
(2) The City Council shall prescribe by ordinance
the monetary limits for an employee to
settle any claim or action ag
ainst the City, or any City officer, employee, boar
d or department
thereof in an official capacity. No
claim or action against the City shall be settled for more than the amount set forth in the or
dinance without the prior approval of the City Council.

§ 1309. Contracts on public wo
rks.
(a) Unless an alternative project d
elivery method is authorized as provided in this section, Every projects involving an expenditur
e of more than an amount to be determined from time to time by ordinance of the City Council, for the cons
truction or improvement (excluding maintenance
and repair) of public buildings,
works, streets, drains, sewers, utilities, parks and playgrounds, shall be let to the lowest responsiv
e and responsible bidder after notice of publication in the official newspaper by one or mor
e insertions, the first of which shall be at least ten days before the time for opening bids.

The City Council may reject any and all bids prese
nted and may readvertise in its discretion.

The City Council, without advertising f
or bids, or after rejecting bids, or if no bids are received, may declare and det
ermine that, in its opinion, the work in question may be performed better or more economically b
y the City with its own employees, and after adoption of a r esolution to
this effect by at least f
our affirmative votes it may proceed to have said work done in the manner stated, without further obser
vance of the provisions of this section. Such contracts likewise may be let without adver
tising for bids, if such work shall be deemed by the
City
Council to be of urgent
necessity for the preservation of life, health or property, shall be authorized by motion passed by at leas
t four affirmative votes and containing a declaration of the facts constituting such urgency
. The City Council may make urgency findings and authorize by at least four affirma
tive votes the letting without advertising for bids of contracts that are urgently necessary f
or the preservation of life, health, or property.
(b) No advertising for bids o
r awarding of a contract based thereon shall beon bids is required when the improvement or w
ork is to be furnished or performed by a public utility subject to the jurisdiction of the California Public Utiliti
es Commission.
(c) The use of best value alterna
tive project delivery methods including, but not limited to, progressive design-build, construction manager at risk, fix ed-price design-build, and design-
build-operate contract
s is authorized for all public works projects. The City Council shall Attachment 1

establish, by ordinance, regula
tions for the award, use, evaluation, and approval of these contracts.

Attachment 1

Attachment 7
Summary of Cost of St
and-Alone Special Election

Attachment 1

Attachment 8
Varying Durations of
Appointments

Attachment 1

Attachment 9

Sunnyvale Charter
Review Committee Survey on Meeting Schedules
(Charter Section 61
1)

The goal of this surve
y was to determine if cities that are similarly situated with Sunnyvale arrange their meeting schedule
s to accommodate the personal vacation schedules of the council members or make other arr
angements to provide more time off from the frequently
scheduled meetings.

This preliminary surve
y looked at the current published schedules of city councils, city published budgets and population
size.

This survey of city
council meeting schedules focused upon SF Bay Area cities because all or nearly all are members o
f various regional wide administrations such as Bay Area Air Distric t,
Valley Transportatio
n Authority, Bay Area Rapid Tr
ansit, etc.[see fuller list a
t end of this memo],
and those cities’ council members hav
e assignments to participate in several of these regional organizations.

Thus, besides the size and scope of each council member’s city duties, the council member is also participating in these regional organiza tions. This may not be as true for
more rural California council members or those in other r egions of California.

This survey is still c
ollecting data for the expenditures of each city. Financial management is considered a fiduciary responsibility of
each council member, so the weight of this responsibility may factor into
the need for accommodating personal time-off schedules.

Collecting financial data is challengi
ng because the published reports for each city are not
uniform. Most of the data herein ha
s been validated by two sources, but further study, if
warranted, should be done to v
alidate all entries.

For example, some finance
departments use a “Letter of Transmittal” from the finance department to the city c
ouncil to provide a ‘broad brush’ overview of income and expenses.

Other jurisdictions only post the budget d
ocuments which reflect the methodology used by the
jurisdiction – some break income and expense in city-wide categories, while others, lik e
Sunnyvale, match inc
ome with the expense – so grant money expenditur
es are separately
accounted from gener
al fund expenditures.

Therefore, some cities only publish to the public
expenditures from their general fund, with
expenditures from grants somewha
t hidden from view. Also, the annually required ACFR – Annual Consolidated Financial Report” is very detailed and very complete but made for the accounting profession, not the g
eneral public.

In summary, it appears that meeting sche
dules are customized for the convenience of the
public, rather than for the conv
enience of the council members. Several of the councils schedule time off for specific da
tes at the time the annual meeting schedule is published, while others seem to skip meetings ad
hoc.

In short, this survey does not pr
ovide clear direction to the committee to guide
recommendations that
would conform to theoretical best practices.

Attachment 1

Attachment 9

Sunnyvale Charter
Review Committee Survey on Meeting Schedules
(Charter Section 61
1)

Summary information
• 27 Bay area cities were sur
veyed to determine their city council meeting schedules. • 21 of the surve
yed cities regularly meet two times a month, typically
two weeks apart
and on the same day of the week e
ach month.
o 21 cities that meet 2X/month had sm
aller populations than Sunnyvale.
• 6 cities meet either 3 times a month or weekly.
o Except for Palo Alto
, these 6 cities had a larger population
than Sunnyvale.
o Population size does not
correlate with the number of meetings/month
• We recorded the number of c
ouncil members each city elected and the population of
each city. Population size does not s
trictly relate to meeting frequency
o Population size r
anged from 9,947 to 969,655.
o The number of elected city council membe
rs ranges from 5 to 11.
o The number of elected city council member
s did not correlate with city
population
Attachment 1

Attachment 9

Sunnyvale Charter
Review Committee Survey on Meeting Schedules
(Charter Section 61
1)

City Scheduled
Regular Meetings
Special
Meetings
Comment # of
Council
Members
Population Annual
Budget
Alameda 2X/month on 1st & 3rd
Tuesday @ 1900 hrs
Schedule published o
n city website
Charter specifies regular mee
tings to
be set by City Council
5 75,353 $260M
Belmont 2X/month on 2nd & 4th
Tuesdays @ 1900
hrs
Schedule published o
n city website
Belmont is a General Law c
ity.
5 27,174 $94M
Berkeley 2X/month on 1st & 3rd
Tuesdays @ 1800
hrs
Schedule published o
n city website.

Special & closed ses
sions outnumber
regular open sess
ions
Charter specifies meetings t
o be set by
City Council
9 118,962 $793M
Burlingame 2X/month on 1st & 3rd
Mondays @ 1900 hrs
Schedule published o
n legistar
Burlingame is a General La
w city
5 30,317 $160M
Corte Madera 2x/month on 1st & 3rd
Tuesdays @ 1830
hrs
Corte Madera is a General Law city 5 9,947 $24M
Cupertino 2X/month on 2nd & 4th
Tuesday @ 1845 hrs
Ad Hoc 22 meetings schedu
led for calendar
2025
Cupertino is a General La
w city
5 57,285 $147M
Fremont 3X/month on first 3
Tuesdays each mon
th.

Ad Hoc No meetings in Augus
t.

Fremont is a General Law
city.
7 226,208 $423M

Gilroy 2X/month on 1st & 3rd
Monday.

Only 1 meeting in J
uly
Charter specifies Council will sch
edule
at least one meeting/
month
7 58,250 $207M
Hayward 3X/month on 1st, 3rd &
4th Tuesdays @ 19
00 hrs
May add or cancel mee
tings on 1st and
5th Tuesday of each month.

Charter specifies meetings s
chedule
set by Council
7 162,954 $417M
Attachment 1

Attachment 9

Sunnyvale Charter
Review Committee Survey on Meeting Schedules
(Charter Section 61
1)

City Scheduled
Regular Meetings
Special
Meetings
Comment # of
Council
Members
Population Annual
Budget
Los Altos 2X/month on Tuesdays
@ 1900 hrs
Scheduled 1 sp
ecial
meeting each i
n
November &
December
Schedule published o
n city website
Los Altos is a General Law
City
5 29,990 $65M
Menlo Park 2X/month on 2nd & 4th
Tuesdays @ 1800
hrs
Ad Hoc Schedule published o
n city website
Menlo Park is a General La
w City.
5 35,790 $78M
Milpitas 2X/month on 1st & 3rd
Tuesdays @ 1900
hrs
Tuesdays @ 1730
hrs
Schedule published o
n city website
Milpitas is a General La
w City.
5 77,321 $250M
Morgan Hill 2X/month on 1st & 3rd
Wednesdays @ 1800 h
rs.

Ad Hoc on 4th
Wednesday
Schedule published o
n city website
Morgan Hill is a General La
w city
5 44,478 $109M
Mountain
View
2X/month on 2nd & 4th
Tuesday @ 1700 hrs
Ad Hoc,
with 24 hr noti
ce
Schedule published o
n legistar
No Meetings in July & Augu
st
Charter not found
7 81,785 $649M
Oakland 2X/month on Tuesday @
1730 hrs
Ad Hoc Schedule published o
n city website
Charter specifies meetings s
chedule to
be set by “local bodies” and be held i
n
the evening..
8 440,686 $2.2B
Palo Alto 3X/month on 1st 3
Mondays of each
month
@ 1730 hrs
Ad Hoc Adopted a 5-week summer break in
2024 & 3-week winter break
in 2023-
2024
Charter specifies meetings schedule t
o
be set by Council

7 65,882 $1B
Redwood City 2X/month on 2 nd & 4th
Mondays @ 1800 hrs
Ad Hoc on 1st
Monday
Schedule published o
n city website
Charter specifies meetings s
chedule to
be 2x/month and
set by Council
7 80,996 $201M
Richmond 2X/month on 1 st & 3rd
Tuesdays @ 1530
hrs
Ad Hoc special
meetings on other
Tuesdays
No meetings in Augus
t
Charter specifies meetings s
chedule to
be set by Council.
7 114,106 $644M
Attachment 1

Attachment 9

Sunnyvale Charter
Review Committee Survey on Meeting Schedules
(Charter Section 61
1)

City Scheduled
Regular Meetings
Special
Meetings
Comment # of
Council
Members
Population Annual
Budget
San Francisco 3X/month @ 1400 hrs City & County Board of Supe rvisors
Charter specifies one meeting
on the
January 8th each year and t
hereafter
regular meetings t
o be scheduled by
resolution
11 808,988 $16B
San Jose Weekly on Tuesday at
1330 hrs, unless
cancelled
Scheduled ev
ening
meetings 2X per
month
2025-2026 Calendar has 36 p
lanned
regular Tuesday me
etings
Charter specifies meetings schedule to
be set by Council
11 969,655 $6B
San Carlos 2X/month on 2nd & 4th
Mondays @ 1900 hrs
Ad Hoc San Carlos is a General La
w City. 5 29,864 $129M
San Mateo 2X/month @ 1900 hrs Ad Hoc

3 meetings in 2025
cancelled for
holiday observanc
e. Schedule on city
website
Charter specifies Council shall mee
t on
1st & 3rd Monday of each mo
nth.
5 101,327 $80M
San Rafael 2X/month on 1st & 3rd
Mondays
Ad Hoc study
sessions
Schedule published o
n city website
Charter not found
5 59,555 $112M
Santa Clara 2X/month on Tuesdays
@ 1900 hrs.

Schedule published o
n legistar
Charter specifies meetings schedule is
2X/month set by Council
7 131,062 $2B
Santa Rosa Usually weekly, at least
2X/month, typic
ally on
Tuesday @ 1600 hrs.

Schedule published o
n legistar
Charter specifies meetings schedule is
2X/month on Tuesday
s.
7 175,845 $554M
Saratoga 2X/month on 1st & 3rd
Wednesdays @ 1900 h
rs
Schedule published o
n city website
Saratoga is a Gener
al Law city
5 26,607 $30M
Sunnyvale 2X/month on 1st & 3rd
Tuesdays @ 1900
hrs.

Schedule published o
n legistar
Charter specifies 2X/month as se
t by
Council
5 151,967 $780M

Attachment 1

Attachment 9
Sunnyvale Charter R
eview Committee Survey on Meeting Schedules
(Charter Section 611)
Major San Francisco Regional Go
vernmental Organizations
• Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG): Serves as the region's council of governments, focusing on regional planning, collaboration, and providing services
to local governments.
• Bay Area Air Quality Managem
ent District : Works to protect air quality in the region. • Bay Conservation and Developm
ent Commission (BCDC): Regulates and plans for the San Francisco Bay an d its shoreline.
• Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BA
RT): Operates the BART regional rapid transit system.
• Bay Area Regional Collaborative (BARC): A collaboration of ABAG, MTC, BABAY AREA AIR DISTRICT, and BCDC, working together on regional issues.
• Bay Area Water Sup
ply & Conservation Agency: Provides regional water r
esource planning
• Caltrans (California Department of Transportation): Oversees transportation infrastruc ture and services across the state,
including the Bay Area.
• Community Choice Energy Agencies: SVCE and PCE provide electricity distribution • Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District: Manages the Golden Gate Bridge and related transportatio n
services.
• Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC): Responsible for planning, financing, and coordinating transpor tation in the
Bay Area
• Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrai
n): Operates the Caltrain commuter rail service.
• San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportat
ion Authority (WETA):Provides ferry service in the Bay Area. • Transbay Joint Powers Authority: Manages the Salesforce Transit Center. • Valley Transportation Au
thority (VTA): Provides regional public transportation Attachment 1