You might know that Santa Clara’s city charter requires council approval for public works projects over $1,000.
But did you know the charter says the mayor must specify the source of money for budget or policy changes — but not council members? Or that there’s an absolute prohibition on the city manager’s relatives working for the city? Or that the charter lacks a precise definition of city boundaries?
These are just a few items uncovered by the current charter review committee as it proceeds with an active overhaul of Santa Clara’s 1952 charter. At the committee’s Apr. 15 meeting, some concrete recommendations came into view.
Subcommittee 1 proposed consolidating Articles 1–5 — city name, boundaries, rights and powers, form of government — into an “Essential Terms” section; updating outdated language; clarifying city boundaries with a reference to the California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions; and adding explicit statements on the city’s charter authority and its relationship to other laws.
Subcommittee 2 recommended a clear statement that lifetime council term limits don’t include pre-2016 terms,* and eliminating or modifying the mayor’s budget requirement since city staff now handles feasibility analysis. The subcommittee also drafted language on redistricting, election administration, and vacancy reporting.
Subcommittee 4, based on discussions with the Library Board of Trustees, recommended revising the board’s powers, as it no longer performs some charter-specified functions — such as hiring the city librarian — though trustees want to retain some approval authority. The subcommittee is also considering relaxing eligibility for Library Trustees to include non-citizen residents.
Subcommittee 5 continues to discuss replacements for the term “qualified elector” and to clarify civil service rules with city unions.
Subcommittee 6 proposed updating public works procurement to allow design-build contracts, updating budgeting to allow biannual cycles, revising obsolete public debt provisions and establishing statutory reserve levels.
“We just passed a $400 million bond issue because of all the things we needed to do and hadn’t done,” said subcommittee member and Planning Commission Chair Eric Crutchlow. “I know I’m going to replace the swim center. It’s going to have a life of 30 years. I should be saving money every year, knowing it will need maintenance and replacement.”
The subcommittee also discussed reducing the supermajority requirement to approve budget changes and new appropriations, and removing the outdated $1,000 threshold requiring council approval for using city forces on public works projects. A 2000 charter amendment to raise this to $50,000 was rejected by voters, noted City Attorney Glen Googins.
Squaring the Circle: Who Runs the Police Department?
Subcommittee 3 continues to wrestle with who has ultimate authority over the police department — the elected police chief, who has no direct line of control to anyone in the department, or the city manager, who has a direct line to the assistant police chiefs and the rest of the department. Current practice gives the city manager final authority on disciplinary decisions, while the police chief argues that authority should rest with the chief.
Beyond agreeing that the police chief’s powers as “director” of the department need to be stated in the charter, and that the city manager and police chief should “consult,” little else has been settled.
“The likely recommendation the group is headed towards,” said Googins, “is that whoever ends up having ultimate authority should consult with the other, because there are overlapping responsibilities.”
The next question, of course, is what “consult” actually means.
These discussions included presentations by Police Chief Cory Morgan, City Manager Jovan Grogan, and police union president Jeremy Schmidt.**
It’s possible the final authority question won’t be resolved by this committee at all.
“Given the sensitivity of this area with an elected chief of police, any modifications might be politically sensitive,” said Googins, and the issue “may end up being a level three” — meaning the council might want to consider it separately from the rest of the charter revisions.
The subcommittee also proposed raising the qualifications for the city attorney to seven years with relevant public agency experience, and adding more clarity around hiring relatives of city officials.
*This allowed former council member Teresa O’Neill to run for a third term, and allows Mayor Lisa Gillmor to run for two more council terms despite serving three terms before 2016.
**Former police chief and longtime police union president Pat Nikolai is on this subcommittee. In 2024, the police union PAC ran a negative campaign against a charter change to appoint, rather than elect, the police chief.
Previous Charter Review Committee Meetings:
Charter Review Committee: Clear Direction on Library Board Changes, At Sea on Elected Police Chief Authority
Charter Review Committee: Biggest Recommendation is Charter Reorganization
Charter Review Committee Digs Into Charter Details
Charter Review Subcommittees Raise Transparency Concerns
Santa Clara 2025 Charter Review Committee Gets to Work
