Sunnyvale voters decide two City Charter changes on Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2026: Measure H would let the City Council raise the city manager’s authority to settle legal claims from $50,000 to $250,000, and Measure I would make people appointed to fill council vacancies serve until the next November election in an even-numbered year. Each needs a simple majority.

Why it matters: Neither measure raises taxes. Both change who decides things at City Hall and when voters get a say. They are on the ballot alongside Measure G on public works contracting. Compare every local contest on our Bay Area Election 2026 hub.

Measure H: the $50,000 settlement cap

State law (Government Code Section 935.4) requires the City Council to approve any settlement of a lawsuit or claim over $50,000 unless a city charter says otherwise. The Legislature set that figure in 1989 and has never adjusted it for inflation, a city staff report says.

  • Yes: Amends Charter Section 1314 so the council can set the city manager’s settlement limit by ordinance and change it later without another charter vote.
  • No: Keeps the $50,000 state limit.

The council has already introduced an ordinance that takes effect only if Measure H passes. It sets the limit at $250,000, the same amount the city manager can already approve for contracts. Settlements above that would still go to the council in closed session.

The resident Charter Review Committee had suggested a range of $100,000 to $150,000 based on inflation and other charter cities, according to the July 28 staff report. Staff and council members preferred $250,000 to match purchasing authority. The city says the change would cut down on closed sessions for routine claims, and notes that a third-party claims administrator and annual audits by its excess insurer remain in place.

No argument against Measure H was filed, the county registrar’s measure list shows.

Measure I: when appointed council members face voters

When a council seat opens, Charter Section 606 lets the council either call a special election or appoint someone. Today an appointee serves only until the next election that can be consolidated with a statewide election, such as a March or June primary, or the next general municipal election, whichever is sooner.

  • Yes: An appointee serves until a successor is elected at the next regular November election in an even-numbered year.
  • No: Keeps the earlier election option tied to statewide primaries.

The council could still skip an appointment and call a special election instead. The existing rule that no more than two appointees may sit on the council at once does not change.

Who is for and against

Supporters, in the official argument, say the current rule can force two elections for one seat in the same year, costing taxpayers and candidates, and that November elections draw the most voters.

Opponents argue Measure I would cut the number of chances to fill a vacancy by election at least in half and let appointees serve much longer, building an incumbency advantage that, they say, lets the council effectively pick successors. They say primary voters are well informed.

The City Council voted unanimously on June 23 to place G, H and I on the ballot and has adopted support positions on all three. A fourth proposal, raising council and mayor pay, was dropped after polling showed residents split. The county estimates each added measure costs the city about $158,000, an amount the city says it budgeted.

San Mateo County voters are weighing a similar vacancy question; see our Measure J and AA explainer.