The Council is currently mee
ting approximately 40 times a year. With that number of meetings, it seems that a break
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 th e
current workload tha
t results in 40 meetings per year makes an eight-week break seem inf easible.
The Council’s workload, not
the Charter language, is the major impediment to scheduling breaks.
A Charter revis
ion 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 revisions.
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 revisi
ons be made to the current language of Section 611.
F. CRC Vote and Conclusion Regarding City Council Meeting Sche dule
The CRC approved this recommendatio
n by a vote of 8 yes,
0 no, and 2 absent at the August 7,
2025, meeting, and confirmed the recommendation on December 4, 2025, by a unanimous vote
(10-0).
4. City Manager Authority to S
ettle Claims (Charter Section 1314)
A. Introduction
The CRC studied whether the Cit
y Charter should be amended to allow the City Council to establish by ordinance
the City Manager's authority to settle legal claims against the City.
Currently, California
state law limits this authority to $50,000, and any increase requires a charter provision. The CRC recommends amending the Cha rt
er to authorize the City Council to set the
settlement limit b y
ordinance, providing greater flexibility and administrative efficiency while maintaining appropriate ov
ersight and accountability.
B. Background
California Governme n
t Code Section 935.4 est ablishes
that settlement authority for claims
against a local public en
tity is limited to $50,000 unless a charter provision authorizes a higher amount. The sta tut
e 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 to th
e allowance, compromise or settlement exceeds fifty thousand dollars ($50,000)."
Attachment 2
The $50,000 threshold has bee
n 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 routi ne
claims and settlements must come before the City Co uncil for approval, consuming staff time for preparation and Council time in closed session delibe rations.
Sunnyvale Municipal Code
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 prov
ides the authority to do so.
Several California cha
rter cities have already adopted similar provisions allowing their city councils to establish
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 se
ttlement thresholds through the normal ordinance process, which includes public input, rather than requiring repea
ted charter amendments.
C. Current Charter Language
The City Charter does
not currently contain specific language addressing the City Manager's settlement authority. The
City Manager's powers and duties are outlined in Charter Article 802, but settlement authority above
$50,000 is not explicitly addressed, resulting in the default application of sta
te law limits.
Under the current fram
ework, the City Manager may settle claims up to $50,000. Any claim or settlement exceeding
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 administrativ
e documentation
D. CRC Considerations and Analysis
Settlement Authority by
Ordinance - Administrative Efficiency, Flexibility and R esponsiveness
A primary benefit of increa
sing the City Manager’s settlement authority is increased administrative e fficiency
, which aligns with City Council’s strategic goal of a responsive, transparent, and effic
ient City government. Routine claims that currently requi re Council action could be resolved more quickly b
y the City Manager. This would:
● Reduce the frequency of clos
ed session items related to modest settlements
● Allow faster resolution of claims, pot
entially reducing costs
Attachment 2
● Free up staff time curren
tly spent preparing lower-value matters for Council r
eview
● Enable the City Man ag
er to respond more nimbly to time -sensitive settlement opportunities
Establishing settlemen t
authority by ordinance, rather than in the Charter itself, provides important flexibility. E
conomic conditions, litigation costs, and the nature of claims against cities evolve over time. An
ordinance-based approach allows the Ci
ty Council to adjust the threshold
as
needed without requiring a charter a
mendment and ballot measure.
This is particularly import
ant given that the current $50,000 limit has remained unchanged for over three dec ade
s. The Consumer Price Index calculator provided by the State of California’s Department of Industrial R
elations indicates that $50,000 in 1989 is equivalent to a pproximately
$140,000 today
based on San Francisco Bay Area CPI. Medical and legal costs –two significant components of many claims ag
ainst the City–have likely risen even more.
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 new limit in the r
ange of $100,000 to $150,000 would be appropriate.
As a comparison, Sunnyvale
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 authority limit.
Maintaining Accoun
tability and Oversight
The proposed charter amendmen
t maintains robust accountability measures:
● The City Council retains
complete authority to set the limit through the public ordinanc e process
● The Council can adjust the limit up or down as circumstan ces warrant
● All settlements would c
ontinue to be subject to existing requirements for multiple lev els of internal review
● The City Council would r e
tain authority over all settlements exceeding the limit established by ordinance
Comparison with Other Jurisdictions
Several California cha
rter cities have adopted approaches similar to the CRC’ s proposal. Of
particular note is the Cit
y of Pasadena, which recently passed a Charter Amendment, Measure S, with similar provisions. P
asadena City Charter Section 1014 , which passed in 2024 with 86.44% of the vote, now reads:
Attachment 2
"The City Council shall p
rescribe 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 ag
ainst the City, or any officer, employee, board or department th ereof in
his or her or its official capac
ity. No claim or action for more than the amount set forth in the ordinance shall be commenced or settled without the prior approv al of the City Council."
This language prov ides
a proven model that emphasizes Council control while enabling administrative effici
ency.
E. Recommendation
The CRC recommends a ballot measure
amending Section 1314 of the Sunn
yvale City Charter to
authorize the City Manager to settle
claims in amounts higher than $50,000.
The proposed rev isio
ns to Charter Section 13 14 to implement this r ec
ommendation are as
follows:
§ 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
presented and audited as prescr
ibed by ordinance.
(2) The City Council shall p r
escribe by ordinance the monetary limits f or
an employee to se ttle
any claim or action against the City, or any City
officer, employee, boar
d, or department acting in an official capacity. No
claim or action against
the City may be settled for mor
e than the amount
set forth in the ordinance without the prior appr
oval of the City Council.
The CRC also recommends
that, in conjunction with placing this Charter amendment measure on the ballot, that Council adopt an
ordinance setting a specific settlement authority limit and procedures that would t
ake effect only upon passage of the ballot meas ure. Such an ordinance would give the voters m
ore clarity on the settlement authority limit.
The CRC recommends a settlement authority limit of $150,000.
This recommendation aligns
with Council’s strategic goal of a responsive, transparent, and efficient city governmen t.
Legal costs have risen significantly since the State established the current $50,000 auth
ority limit over three decades ago. A higher limit also enables the City Manager to respond more nimbly t
o time-sensitive settlement opportunities.
F. CRC Vote and Conclusion Regarding Settlement Authority The CRC approved the recommendation o
n this issue by a vote of 10-0.
Attachment 2