Agenda packet — Campbell City Council, March 24, 2026 (part 2 of 3)

WHEREAS, in 1984, the City Council of the City of Campbell adopted Resolution No. 6793 establishing the City’s Historic Resource Inventory (HRI), and since that time properties have been added to and removed from the HRI as appropriate, with the current inventory maintained on file by the City’s Community Development Department.

WHEREAS, SB 79 requires that any local exclusion ordinance be submitted to HCD for review, and provides HCD 90 days to determine whether the exclusions are consistent with statutory requirements.

WHEREAS, the Planning Division has analyzed properties within one-half mile of qualifying transit-oriented development stops and has identified certain sites that qualify for exclusion under SB 79, as set forth in Exhibit A (Walking Path Exclusions) and Exhibit B (Historic Register Exclusions) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

WHEREAS, adoption of this ordinance on an urgency basis is necessary to preserve the City’s ability to timely submit the ordinance to HCD and obtain review and confirmation prior to the July 1, 2026, effective date of SB 79.

WHEREAS, failure to adopt this ordinance prior to the effective date of SB 79 could result in the automatic application of SB 79 development standards to sites that qualify for exclusion under state law, thereby undermining the City’s ability to implement the statutory exclusion provisions authorized by the Legislature.

WHEREAS, the Planning Division is considering and studying General Plan or zoning changes necessary to comply with SB 79 and ensure that it is implemented in a manner that maximizes the production of affordable housing.

WHEREAS, the City is actively studying and considering the development of a local transitoriented development alternative plan as provided by SB 79 to ensure orderly and legally compliant implementation of SB 79, and approval of additional projects under existing regulations that conflict with those pending actions would undermine the City’s ability to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.

WHEREAS, approval of projects at sites that qualify for exclusion under state law, at the development intensities authorized by SB 79, prior to the adoption of locally tailored implementing regulations, could result in the concentration of population in areas where public infrastructure, including water, wastewater, storm drainage, roadway, and emergency response systems, has not been fully evaluated or upgraded to accommodate such intensity, thereby creating risks related to system capacity, emergency access, service delivery, and reliability; and could further result in the displacement of existing residents and the loss or conversion of commercial and employment-generating uses that support the City’s economic stability, fiscal sustainability, and access to essential goods and services, which impacts collectively constitute a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65912.15(c)(2), an Ordinance enacted to make a local zoning code consistent with Chapter 4.1.5 (commencing with Section 65912.155) shall not be considered a “project” under Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.

Item 8.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 134 of 474
City Council Ordinance No.

PLN-2025-170 – SB 79 Site Exclusions

Page 3 of 6 ends

WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance is adopted to make the City’s zoning code consistent with Government Code Chapter 4.1.5 (commencing with Section 65912.155), and therefore, pursuant to Government Code Section 65912.15(c)(2), is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

WHEREAS, in consideration of the adoption of the subject Ordinance, the City Council provided due consideration of all evidence presented and provided in the entire administrative record.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1 (PURPOSE). This Ordinance is adopted as an urgency measure to implement the site exclusion provisions of Senate Bill 79 (SB 79), codified at Government Code Chapter

4.1.5 (commencing with Section 65912.155), prior to its July 1, 2026 effective date, and avoid conflicts with contemplated General Plan or zoning proposal that the Planning Department is considering and studying in order to implement the requirements of SB 79.

The purpose of this Ordinance is to: (1) identify specific sites within one-half mile of qualifying transit-oriented development stops that qualify for exclusion from SB 79 applicability pursuant to state law; (2) amend Section 21.02.020.E. of the Campbell Municipal Code to clarify the applicability of state and federal preemption to the Zoning Code, including as related to SB 79; and (3) authorize submittal of this Ordinance to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for statutory review. This Ordinance is intended to preserve the City’s ability to exercise the exclusion authority expressly granted under SB 79 and to ensure orderly and lawful implementation of state housing law within the City of Campbell.

SECTION 2 (WALKING PATH EXCLUSIONS). Pursuant to SB 79 (Gov. Code § 65912.160(e)(1)), the City Council hereby determines that the properties identified in Exhibit A qualify for exclusion from SB 79 applicability because each such site lacks a walking path of less than one mile to a pedestrian access point of a qualifying transit-oriented development stop. This determination is supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record, including, without limitation, the analysis included in Exhibit A, and staff reports prepared in connection with this ordinance, and shall remain in for the duration of this ordinance and any extension of this ordinance or and successor ordinance.

SECTION 3 (HISTORIC REGISTER EXCLUSIONS). Pursuant to SB 79 (Gov. Code § 65912.161(b)(1)(F), the City Council hereby determines that the properties identified in Exhibit B qualify for exclusion from SB 79 applicability because each such site was designated on the City’s local historic register as of January 1, 2025. This exclusion shall remain in effect for the duration of this ordinance and any extension of this ordinance or and successor ordinance, after which SB 79’s standards will apply unless otherwise addressed by the City.

SECTION 4 (ZONING MAP TEXT AMENDMENT). To implement the exclusions authorized in Section 3, the City Council hereby authorizes a text amendment to the Zoning Item 8.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 135 of 474
City Council Ordinance No.

PLN-2025-170 – SB 79 Site Exclusions

Page 4 of 6 ends

Map to include the following note to the “H” (Historic Preservation) Overlay/Combining District and renumber the existing notes based on their order of occurrence:
“Properties within the Historic Preservation Overlay District, and designated Structures of Merit pursuant to CMC Chapter 21.33 (Historic Preservation) which are included herein by reference, are not covered by Government Code § 65912.157.” SECTION 5 (AMENDING CAMPBELL MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 21.02.020.E. – CONFLICTING REQUIREMENTS). Campbell Municipal Code SECTION 21.02.020.E. (Conflicting requirements.) is hereby amended to read as follows with strikethroughs (strikethroughs) indicating deleted text, and underlining (underlining) indicating added text:

E. Conflicting provisions. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Zoning Code, or between this Zoning Code and other applicable state or federal laws, the conflict, shall be resolved as follows:

1. Zoning Code provisions. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this Zoning Code, the most restrictive requirement shall control;

2. Development agreements, overlay/combining district, area plan, neighborhood plan, or specific plans. In the event of any conflict between the requirements of this Zoning Code and standards adopted as part of any development agreement, overlay/combining district, area plan, neighborhood plan, or specific plan, the requirements of the development agreement, overlay/combining district, area plan, neighborhood plan, or specific plan shall control;

3. Municipal Code provisions. In the event of any conflict between requirements of this Zoning Code and other regulations of the city, the most restrictive shall control; and

4. Private agreements. It is not intended that the requirements of this Zoning Code shall interfere with, repeal, abrogate, or annul any easement, covenant, or other agreement that existed when this Zoning Code became effective. This Zoning Code applies to all land uses and development regardless of whether it imposes a greater or lesser restriction on the development or use of structures or land than an applicable private agreement or restriction, without affecting the applicability of any agreement or restriction. The city shall not enforce any private covenant or agreement unless it is a party to the covenant or agreement.

5. Conflicts with state or federal law. If a conflict exists between this Zoning Code and applicable state or federal law, the applicable state or federal law shall take precedence over any City standard, permit process, or other provision. When such a conflict is identified, the Community Development Director shall issue an interpretation in accordance with Section 21.02.030 (Procedures for interpretations.), specifying the conflicting standard, permit process, or other provision; the nature of the conflict; and how the conflict will be resolved in the immediate term until the Zoning Code is amended to remedy the conflict.

In addition, the Community Development Director may prepare and maintain on file with the Community Development Department a list of specific properties that are determined to be affected by such state or federal law, or that are determined to be excluded from the application of such law pursuant to local ordinance.

Item 8.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 136 of 474
City Council Ordinance No.

PLN-2025-170 – SB 79 Site Exclusions

Page 5 of 6 ends

SECTION 6 (SUBMITTAL TO HCD FOR STATUTORY REVIEW). The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Community Development Director, or designee, to submit this Ordinance, including all exhibits and supporting documentation, to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for statutory review.

The Community Development Director is further authorized to provide additional information, technical studies, mapping, or other supporting materials requested by HCD, and to make minor, non-substantive revisions to the exhibits or supporting documentation as necessary to address HCD comments (which may include including graphically depicting sites that are or are not covered by Section 65912.157 on the Zoning Map), provided such revisions do not materially alter the determinations adopted by the City Council.

SECTION 7 (SEVERABILITY). If any section, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or other provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, words or other provisions of this Ordinance, or the validity of this Ordinance, shall stand notwithstanding the invalidity of any section, sentence, clause, phrase, word or other provision.

SECTION 8 (CEQA DETERMINATION). The proposed Ordinance is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because, pursuant to Government Code Section 65912.15(c)(2), an ordinance adopted to make the City’s zoning code consistent with Government Code Chapter 4.1.5 (commencing with Section 65912.155) is not considered a “project” under Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.

SECTION 9 (EFFECTIVE DATES). This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage and shall remain in effect for 45 days, unless extended or repealed by the City Council in accordance with applicable law.

SECTION 10 (PUBLICATION). The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published and shall be published, or summary thereof, one time within fifteen (15) days upon passage and adoption in a newspaper of general circulation, such as the Metro Silicon Valley, for the City of Campbell, County of Santa Clara.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this _______ day of ________________, 2026, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Item 8.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 137 of 474
City Council Ordinance No.

PLN-2025-170 – SB 79 Site Exclusions

Page 6 of 6 ends

APPROVED:

Daniel E. Furtado, Mayor
ATTEST:

Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
Item 8.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 138 of 474
Exhibit A – Walking Path Exclusions Item 8.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 139 of 474
City Council Ordinance No.

PLN-2025-170 – SB 79 Site Exclusions Page 2 of 9
Walking Path Exclusions (1 of 2)
GIS ID# Address APN
6164 931 RAVENSCOURT AVE 28217004
9775 929 RAVENSCOURT AVE 28217005
5554 927 RAVENSCOURT AVE 28217006
6496 925 RAVENSCOURT AVE 28217007
5539 923 RAVENSCOURT AVE 28217008
Supporting Documentation:

Walking Path:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/kcfhGMjWQm4SUsXu7
Additional Documentation:
https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/27205/Site-Removals---Walking-Path-Exclusions Item 8.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 140 of 474
City Council Ordinance No.

PLN-2025-170 – SB 79 Site Exclusions Page 3 of 9
Walking Path Exclusions (2 of 2)
GIS ID# Address APN
6812 675 CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PKWY 41229011
9114 655 CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PKWY 41229012
1751 635 CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PKWY 41229015
10263 755 WEST VALLEY DR 41230003
7787 745 WEST VALLEY DR 41230004
3171 735 WEST VALLEY DR 41230005
2292 725 WEST VALLEY DR 41230006
2584 715 WEST VALLEY DR 41230007
6133 705 WEST VALLEY DR 41230008
10764 695 WEST VALLEY DR 41230009
1496 675 WEST VALLEY DR 41230010
2839 680 WEST VALLEY DR 41230011
4433 700 WEST VALLEY DR 41230012
8991 710 WEST VALLEY DR 41230013
11075 720 WEST VALLEY DR 41230014
6769 740 WEST VALLEY DR 41230015
6310 2293 HIGHLAND PARK LN 41238001
11378 2285 HIGHLAND PARK LN 41238002
3541 2281 HIGHLAND PARK LN 41238003
1398 2275 HIGHLAND PARK LN 41238004
8203 2271 HIGHLAND PARK LN 41238005
6957 2267 HIGHLAND PARK LN 41238006
1216 2261 HIGHLAND PARK LN 41238007
2880 2585 OAK PARK LN 41238009
9738 2575 OAK PARK LN 41238010
10472 2567 OAK PARK LN 41238011
10348 2555 OAK PARK LN 41238012
8492 2545 OAK PARK LN 41238013
8200 2535 OAK PARK LN 41238014
9811 2264 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238015
6508 2268 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238016
10292 2274 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238017
Item 8.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 141 of 474
City Council Ordinance No.

PLN-2025-170 – SB 79 Site Exclusions Page 4 of 9
5047 2276 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238018
9784 2278 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238019
8246 2280 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238020
5926 2282 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238021
7175 2284 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238022
2646 2286 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238023
2163 2288 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238024
5816 2272 HIGHLAND PARK LN 41238033
3356 2276 HIGHLAND PARK LN 41238034
7153 2282 HIGHLAND PARK LN 41238035
4549 2286 HIGHLAND PARK LN 41238036
8573 2290 HIGHLAND PARK LN 41238037
3016 2294 HIGHLAND PARK LN 41238038
9640 2298 HIGHLAND PARK LN 41238039
7589 2302 HIGHLAND PARK LN 41238040
6849 2303 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238041
10609 2301 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238042
8986 2297 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238043
6832 2293 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238044
2854 2291 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238045
9685 2287 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238046
7575 2285 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238047
2220 2281 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238048
1130 2279 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238049
5027 2275 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238050
5026 2273 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238051
8053 2269 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238052
3149 2265 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238053
9386 2263 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238054
5791 2261 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238055
3985 2257 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238056
10798 2253 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238057
10876 2249 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238058
9100 2245 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238059
10804 2540 OAK PARK LN 41238060
Item 8.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 142 of 474
City Council Ordinance No.

PLN-2025-170 – SB 79 Site Exclusions Page 5 of 9
8083 2550 OAK PARK LN 41238061
7505 680 PARKDALE DR 41238071
8421 681 PARKDALE DR 41238072
7663 691 PARKDALE DR 41238073
2564 701 PARKDALE DR 41238074
7315 2243 CENTRAL PARK DR 41238075
9469 N/A 41238087
5078 415 DALLAS DR 41239012
4605 401 DALLAS DR 41239013
201 385 DALLAS DR 41239014
8054 367 DALLAS DR 41239015
436 351 DALLAS DR 41239016
241 341 DALLAS DR 41239017
3061 329 DALLAS DR 41239018
1922 321 DALLAS DR 41239019
470 311 DALLAS DR 41239020
6441 299 DALLAS DR 41239021
9258 291 DALLAS DR 41239022
9513 281 DALLAS DR 41239023
6539 271 DALLAS DR 41239024
11111 251 CURTNER AVE 41239027
490569 251 CURTNER AVE 41239027
8819 280 DALLAS DR 41239028
2193 300 DALLAS DR 41239029
9050 320 DALLAS DR 41239030
3038 348 DALLAS DR 41239031
6069 933 NORIN CT 41239032
5112 945 NORIN CT 41239033
7465 261 DALLAS DR 41239053
4398 281 CURTNER AVE 41239054
10269 130 CURTNER AVE 41401033
8529 196 CURTNER AVE 41401034
6701 210 CURTNER AVE 41401035
4975 238 CURTNER AVE 41401036
Item 8.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 143 of 474
City Council Ordinance No.

PLN-2025-170 – SB 79 Site Exclusions Page 6 of 9
Supporting Documentation:

Walking Path (1 of 2): https://maps.app.goo.gl/4EpniEhoNLKPW4Un8 Item 8.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 144 of 474
City Council Ordinance No.

PLN-2025-170 – SB 79 Site Exclusions Page 7 of 9
Walking Path (2 of 2):
https://maps.app.goo.gl/3ryoCqfQNWQoWbZ5A
Additional Documentation:
https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/27205/Site-Removals---Walking-Path-Exclusions Item 8.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 145 of 474
City Council Ordinance No.

PLN-2025-170 – SB 79 Site Exclusions Page 8 of 9
Item 8.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 146 of 474
City Council Ordinance No.

PLN-2025-170 – SB 79 Site Exclusions Page 9 of 9
Pedestrian Access Point Mapping
GIS File Download: https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/27203/CampbellPedestrianPointOfAccess Station Location Pedestrian Access Point Description Latitude & Longitude of Connected Points Northwest Pedestrian Access Point 37.29997423998241, -121.92980065079219 (north side)

37.29994728914585, -121.92982484525847 (south side)
Northeast Pedestrian Access Point 37.29987784572278, -121.92966993575085 (north side)

37.29985386007729, -121.92969782305754 (south side)
Southeast Pedestrian Access Point 37.29931958987315, -121.93021997659463 (north side)

37.29929900544358, -121.93024691572265 (south side)
Interior Southwest Pedestrian Access Point 37.29941222779748, -121.93035217475858 (north side)

37.299390963553954, -121.93037552221753 (south side)
Interior Southwest Pedestrian Access Point 37.299436545818565, -121.93038543287427 (north side)

37.29941462913062, -121.9304084642918 (south side)
Bascom Station
Southwest Pedestrian Access Point 37.299463142346795, -121.9304250242943 (north side)

37.299441118051966, -121.93044857428156 (south side)
Elevator 37.29405203962925, -121.93593172041295 (east side)

37.294037640409435, -121.93588931641021 (west side)
North Staircase Access Point 37.29401389896936, -121.93582783620641 (north side)

37.29399324263943, -121.93579539667755 (south side)
Hamilton
Station
South Staircase Access Point 37.29389446599916, -121.9357731706494 (north side)

37.2938676733682 -121.93580017876415 (south side)
Southeast Parking Lot Access Gate 37.285382069929064, -121.94332798322914 (north side)

37.28535339172236, -121.94335154700858 (south side)
Southwest Parking Lot Access Gate 37.285465334157415, -121.94349820576177 (north side)

37.285453510988056, -121.94350766742532 (south side)
Northwest Pedestrian Sidewalk Access Point 37.286054327320606, -121.94298727097723 (north side)

37.28603217113292, -121.94300378751906 (south side)
Downtown
Station
Northeast Pedestrian Sidewalk Access Point 37.28605402047172, -121.94294153466853 (north side)

37.28603546545404, -121.94295420935009 (south side)
Northeast Pedestrian Access Point 37.27976089617514, -121.94795947838104 (north side)

37.27973755824156, -121.94797682469277 (south side)
Winchester
Station
Southeast Pedestrian Access Point 37.279148158958655, -121.94843532540418 (north side)

37.27912467996845, -121.94845352073831 (south side)
Item 8.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 147 of 474
Exhibit B – Historic Register Exclusions Item 8.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 148 of 474
City Council Ordinance No.

PLN-2025-170 – SB 79 Site Exclusions Page 2 of 8
Historic Resource Inventory
Site
Number Street Address APN Historic Name
State Register
Status
Local Historic Register
Designation
20 Alice Ave. 41204052 Mary Fablinger House Unknown
Historic District
Property
30 Alice Ave. 41204053 Florence & Beth Kennedy House Unknown Historic District
Property
38 Alice Ave. 41204054 Esther Palmquist Short House Unknown Historic District
Property
50 Alice Ave. 41204055 Andy Johnson House Unknown
Historic District
Property
58 Alice Ave. 41204056 Lillie & Joseph C. Agostinho House Unknown Historic District
Property
80 Alice Ave. 41204058 Bruce G. and Barbara A. Johnson House Unknown Historic District
Property
86 Alice Ave. 41204059 Mason-Genasci House Unknown
Historic District
Property
116 Alice Ave. 41204060 Ira & Mabel Abbott House Unknown Historic District
Property
136 Alice Ave. 41204061 Ira & Mabel Abbott House Unknown Historic District
Property
146 Alice Ave. 41204062 Anthony Bargas Sr. House Unknown Historic District
Property
150 Alice Ave. 41204063 Richard & Leah Strong House Unknown Historic District
Property
158 Alice Ave. 41204064 Joseph & Alma Leverton House Unknown Historic District
Property
166 Alice Ave. 41204065 Herbert M. & Kathryn Schadle House Unknown Historic District
Property
176 Alice Ave. 41204066 Bill Haley House Unknown
Historic District
Property
186 Alice Ave. 41204067 WJ ""Jack"" and Ruth Burns House Unknown Historic District
Property
Item 8.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 149 of 474
City Council Ordinance No.

PLN-2025-170 – SB 79 Site Exclusions Page 3 of 8
Historic Resource Inventory
Site
Number Street Address APN Historic Name
State Register
Status
Local Historic Register
Designation
198 Alice Ave. 41204068 Dillard and Edna (Leigh) Decker House Unknown Historic District
Property
204 Alice Ave. 41204069 William and Dorothy (Mills) Harrison House Unknown Historic District
Property
214 Alice Ave. 41204070 Earl and Mildred Canrite House Unknown Historic District
Property
226 Alice Ave. 41204071 Alice Hyde House Unknown
Historic District
Property
235 First St., S. 41204072 None Unknown
Historic District
Property
189 Third St., S. 41205059 None Unknown
Historic District
Property
133 Alice Ave. 41205060 Harry Berry--Babb House Unknown Historic District
Property
119 Alice Ave. 41205061 Robert/Holmes House Unknown
Historic District
Property
99 Alice Ave. 41205062 Claude and Jeanette Grizzle House Unknown Historic District
Property
81 Alice Ave. 41205063 Doc and Cora Beal House Unknown
Historic District
Property
59 Alice Ave. 41205065 Clarence & Marion Plumb House Unknown Historic District
Property
51 Alice Ave. 41205066 Walter B. & Annie (Hall) Jones House Unknown Historic District
Property
35 Alice Ave. 41205067 Margeson-Trowbridge House Unknown Historic District
Property
21 Alice Ave. 41205068 Guy & Earnestine (Kennedy) Farley House Unknown Historic District
Property
209 Alice Ave. 41206057 Field House Unknown
Historic District
Property
Item 8.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 150 of 474
City Council Ordinance No.

PLN-2025-170 – SB 79 Site Exclusions Page 4 of 8
Historic Resource Inventory
Site
Number Street Address APN Historic Name
State Register
Status
Local Historic Register
Designation
199 Alice Ave. 41206058 Walker and Ethel (Curry) Vaugh House Unknown Historic District
Property
189 Alice Ave. 41206059 Hancy Naylor House Unknown
Historic District
Property
177 Alice Ave. 41206060 Fred Clark/John Lund House Unknown Historic District
Property
167 Alice Ave. 41206061 Percy and Miriam (Skiff) Dunlap House Unknown Historic District
Property
190 Third St., S. 41206063 None Unknown
Historic District
Property
365 Campbell Ave., E. 27941015
Bank of Campbell Building (1st)/Farley Building -- Est by Ord. 1801 Listed Historic Landmark
1228 Harriet Ave. 40313122
Littleton-Martin House (now 1690 Littleton Place) --
Est. by Ord. 1831 Unknown Historic Landmark
207 Central Ave., N. 27940015
Louis & Edward Genasci House -- Est by Ord. 1370,
1371 Unknown Historic Landmark
112 Second St., N. 27941051 J. C. Ainsley House (No. 2) -- Est. by Ord. 1813 Listed Historic Landmark 599 El Patio Dr. 27945029 F. M. Righter House -- Est. by Ord. 1287 Listed Historic Landmark 140 Peter Dr. 28818029 Galindo-Leigh House -- Est. by Ord. 1816 Listed Historic Landmark 61 Catalpa Ln. 30533095 E. R. Kennedy House -- Est by Ord. 1827 Listed Historic Landmark 76 Alice Ave. 41204057 Saunders-Maxwell House -- est. by Ord. 1809 Unknown Historic Landmark 69 Alice Ave. 41205064
Peter & Ida (Furtado) Yerkovich House -- est. by Ord.
1926 Unknown Historic Landmark
227 Alice Ave. 41206056
Ralph & Maud (Husted) Hyde House -- est. by Ord.
1783 Listed Historic Landmark
155 Alice Ave. 41206062 Ed Arnott House Unknown Historic Landmark 1888 White Oaks Ave. 41444015
Earl & Virginia Young House/Sartorette House -- Est. by Ord. 1355, 1356 Listed Historic Landmark
84 Third St., N. 27939006 J. C. Ainsley House (No. 1) -- Est. by Ord. 1747 Listed Historic Landmark 90 First St., S. 41207043
Campbell Water Company Tower and Pump House /
Hyde Park -- Est. by Ord. 1831 Listed Historic Landmark Item 8.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 151 of 474
City Council Ordinance No.

PLN-2025-170 – SB 79 Site Exclusions Page 5 of 8
Historic Resource Inventory
Site
Number Street Address APN Historic Name
State Register
Status
Local Historic Register
Designation
51 Campbell Ave., E. 27938075 Listed Historic Landmark
151 First St., N. 27939059 Gilman House -- Est. by Ord. 1515 Unknown Historic Landmark 81 First St., N. 27941033 Bull House -- Est. by Ord. 1886 Unknown Historic Landmark 73 First St., S. 41206039 Laura Campbell Swope House -- Est. by Ord. 1790 Listed Historic Landmark 300 Grant St. 27941068
Civic Center / Ainsley House -- Est by Ord. 1763-
previously 116-130 Listed Historic Landmark
43 Harrison Ave., N. 27941074 Ainsley Corp. Headquarters Building Unknown Structure of Merit 0 Campbell Ave., E. 27941008 B. O. Curry Building Listed Structure of Merit 0 Campbell Ave., E. 27941010 Downing Building Unknown Structure of Merit 381 Campbell Ave., E. 27941011 Brick Barber Shop Unknown Structure of Merit 0 Campbell Ave., E. 27941025 The Courtyard Unknown Structure of Merit 287 Campbell Ave., E. 27941026 Ski's Royal Furniture / ISLG Interior Showroom Unknown Structure of Merit 231 Campbell Ave., E. 27941044 George and Lina (Campbell) Rodeck House / Mortuary Unknown Structure of Merit 51 Central Ave., N. 27941060 Historical Museum/Volunteer Fire House/First City Hall Unknown Structure of Merit 46 Second St., N. 27941072 Earl & Ettie Eddleman House Unknown Structure of Merit 106 Campbell Ave., E. 41205002 Serafino Manfre House Unknown Structure of Merit 0 First St., S. 41206036 Grizzle Court Duplex Unknown Structure of Merit 354 Campbell Ave., E. 41207029 Mrs. Putnam’s Dry Goods Store Unknown Structure of Merit 360 Campbell Ave., E. 41207030 Bank of Campbell Building (2nd) / Alie's Unknown Structure of Merit 0 Campbell Ave., E. 41207037 Blaine Grocery Building Unknown Structure of Merit 400 Campbell Ave., E. 41207038 Grower’s Bank Building/Gas Lighter Theater Listed Structure of Merit 0 Campbell Ave., E. 41207039 Rock Shop / First Movie House / Post Office Unknown Structure of Merit 0 Campbell Ave., E. 41207039 Sprouse-Reitz/Dr. Morgan Dentist Office Unknown Structure of Merit 93 Central Ave., S. 41207048
George Hyde Co./Sunsweet Growers (AKA 300 Orchard
City Drive) Listed Structure of Merit
0 Campbell Ave., E. 41207065 Campbell Country Woman’s Club Building Listed Structure of Merit 46 Central Ave., S. 41207067
Farmer's Union Packing House (AKA 307 Civic Center
Drive) Unknown Structure of Merit
209 Railway Ave. 41207005 Cannery Workers Dining Hall Listed Structure of Merit 0 Campbell Ave., E. 41210022 Morton House Unknown Structure of Merit 866 Campbell Ave., E. 41210024 George Robson House / Togos Unknown Structure of Merit Item 8.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 152 of 474
City Council Ordinance No.

PLN-2025-170 – SB 79 Site Exclusions Page 6 of 8
Historic Resource Inventory
Site
Number Street Address APN Historic Name
State Register
Status
Local Historic Register
Designation
1325 Burrows Rd. 40316111 George and Mary Burrows House Unknown Structure of Merit 100 Third St., N. 27939008 None Unknown Structure of Merit 222 Third St., N. 27939021 None--1950's International Moderne Unknown Structure of Merit 113 Second St., N. 27939032 Ralston and Etta Alison House Unknown Structure of Merit 75 Second St., N. 27939036 Copeland Home Unknown Structure of Merit 63 Second St., N. 27939062 Charles E. and Sarah E. De Selle House Unknown Structure of Merit 125 Second St., N. 27939065 Frank Nelson House Listed Structure of Merit 149 Second St., N. 27939068 Hascall House Unknown Structure of Merit 158 First St., N. 27940002 None Unknown Structure of Merit 196 Central Ave., N. 27940026 Dodge House? Unknown Structure of Merit 290 Central Ave., N. 27940033 First Congregational Church Parsonage Unknown Structure of Merit 300 Central Ave., N. 27940034 A. I. Cramer House Unknown Structure of Merit 179 Harrison Ave., N. 27940042 Downs House Unknown Structure of Merit 74 Second St., N. 27941048 Smith House Unknown Structure of Merit 126 Second St., N. 27941052 Nona & Dan Clark House Unknown Structure of Merit 62 Second St., N. 27941057 Smith House Unknown Structure of Merit 86 Second St., N. 27941071 Lantz House Unknown Structure of Merit 616 El Patio Dr. 27944020 Unknown Structure of Merit
649 El Patio Dr. 27945020 Morley House Unknown Structure of Merit 165 Leigh Ave. 28818016 George & Pearl Leigh House Unknown Structure of Merit 266 Campbell Ave., W. 30531020 TBD Unknown Structure of Merit 345 Budd Ave. 30535016 Henry and Bessie (Taylor) Young House Unknown Structure of Merit 1075 Latimer Ave., W. 30742015 Frank Lipari/Joe Taromino House Unknown Structure of Merit 1171 Latimer Ave., W. 30744042 2nd Serafino Manfre House Unknown Structure of Merit 1198 Latimer Ave., W. 30749043 Jessie & Joseph Barbano House Unknown Structure of Merit 271 Central Ave., N. 27935024 Jack Lancaster House Unknown Structure of Merit 251 Central Ave., N. 27935026 Unknown Structure of Merit 120 Sunnyside Ave. 41204023 None Unknown Structure of Merit 211 Sunnyside Ave. 41204036 None Unknown Structure of Merit 132 Sunnyside Ave. 41204083 Tony Bargis House? Unknown Structure of Merit Item 8.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 153 of 474
City Council Ordinance No.

PLN-2025-170 – SB 79 Site Exclusions Page 7 of 8
Historic Resource Inventory
Site
Number Street Address APN Historic Name
State Register
Status
Local Historic Register
Designation
154 Sunnyside Ave. 41204085 None Unknown Structure of Merit 57 Third St., S. 41205006 Walton House Unknown Structure of Merit 105 Third St., S. 41205011 James G. Burns House Unknown Structure of Merit 89 Rincon Ave., E. 41205019 Ed & Tom Clancy House Unknown Structure of Merit 106 Fourth St., S. 41205022 Lincoln Bump House Unknown Structure of Merit 96 Fourth St., S. 41205023 Lincoln Bump House Unknown Structure of Merit 88 Fourth St., S. 41205024 Elmer & Carrie Weeks House Unknown Structure of Merit 68 Fourth St., S. 41205026
Edwin & Marion (Duncan) Parker House (AKA 70 S.

Fourth Street) Unknown Structure of Merit
38 Fourth St., S. 41205029 Morgan House Unknown Structure of Merit 61 Fourth St., S. 41205039 Tony Raffantti House Unknown Structure of Merit 81 Fourth St., S. 41205041 Everett Nelson House Unknown Structure of Merit 91 Fourth St., S. 41205042 Frank Blaine House Unknown Structure of Merit 91 Second St., S. 41206012 James Henry & Jessie Campbell House Listed Structure of Merit 99 Second St., S. 41206013 Ed & Meryle Kennedy House Unknown Structure of Merit 207 Rincon Ave., E. 41206017 A. T. Davie Bungalow Unknown Structure of Merit 58 Third St., S. 41206027 Joe Simas House Unknown Structure of Merit 77 First St., S. 41206040 Joe Gard House Unknown Structure of Merit 80 Second St., S. 41206044 Unknown Structure of Merit
254 Everett Ave. 41206046 Lillian Voge House Unknown Structure of Merit 264 Everett Ave. 41206047 Jim Kelley House Unknown Structure of Merit 110 Second St., S. 41206053 Barron-Hulsman-Hall House Unknown Structure of Merit 186 Rincon Ave., E. 41206067 None -- moved in 1933 from Campbell Ave. Unknown Structure of Merit 212 Rincon Ave., E. 41206070 Nunes House Unknown Structure of Merit 176 Rincon Ave., E. 41206079 None Unknown Structure of Merit 1 Campbell Ave., W. 30522040
Campbell Union High School / Community Center -- Est.
by Ord. 1634 Listed Structure of Merit
200 Campbell Ave., W. 30531025 Charles A. & Georgie (Fraiser) Jones House Unknown Structure of Merit 20 Union Ave. 41210021 Barron House Unknown Structure of Merit 167 Harrison Ave., N. 27940043 Joe & Francis Meckler House Unknown Structure of Merit 149 Harrison Ave., N. 27940045 Abe Johnson House Unknown Structure of Merit Item 8.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 154 of 474
City Council Ordinance No.

PLN-2025-170 – SB 79 Site Exclusions Page 8 of 8
Historic Resource Inventory
Site
Number Street Address APN Historic Name
State Register
Status
Local Historic Register
Designation
142 Central Ave., N. 27940050 Watson/Townsend House Listed Structure of Merit 91 First St., N. 27941032 None Unknown Structure of Merit 63 First St., N. 27941055 Lena Swope Davis House Unknown Structure of Merit 131 First St., N. 27941065 Ethel Swope Davis House Unknown Structure of Merit 0 First St., N. 41206039 M. M. Green/Ben Austin House Unknown Structure of Merit 131 Sunnyside Ave. 41204040 Barbano/Matt & Gose Tusup House Unknown Structure of Merit 157 Rincon Ave., E. 41206021 Mission Church of St. Lucy Unknown Structure of Merit Additional Documentation:

1. Historic Resource Inventory (PDF):
https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5868/Historic-Resource-Inventory-?bidId=

2. Historic Resource Inventory (Excel):
https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/27217/Historic-Resource-Inventory-Excel Item 8.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 155 of 474
Bascom
Station
Hamilton
Station
Campbell
Station
Winchester
Station

FALLBROOK AVE

PARKWEST DR

VIA MONTALVO
S
P
R
U
A
N
C
E
CT

ACAPULCO DR

LEMOYNE WAY

RINCON AVE
VIA
CODOR
N
ZI

VALERIE DR
L
U
J
O
S
O
CT

FRUITDALE AVE

IMPALA DR

CADILLAC DR

PAYNE AVE

FIRESIDE DR

WALGROVE WAY

WILLIAMS RD

GREENTREE WAY

BLACKFORD LN
ARC
RD

LOMA VERDE DR

BENJAMIN CT

WILLIAMSBURG DR

VIA DESTE

ST ANTHONY DR

COMPTON CT

WHITETHORNE DR

STOKES ST

PAMLAR AVE

EISENHOWER DR

MCBAIN AVE

CHERRY GROVE DR

DRIFTWOOD DR

PATIO DR

DRY CREEK RD

HUXLEY CT

CURTNER AVE

SUNNYBROOK DR

APRIL WAY

WILLOWHURST AVE

UNION AVE

DAVID AVE
S
T
O
C
K
B
RI
DG
E
D
R

E LATIMER AVE

MORELAND WAY
DARRYL
D
R

LENN DR

CASTLEMONT AVE

LLEWELLYN AVE
L
ATIM
E
R
AV
E

SOMERSET DR

MERIDIAN AVE

LEIGH AVE

S WINCHESTER BLVD

COLOMBO DR

CAMBRIAN DR
D
ELL
AVE

DOWNING AVE

HURST AVE
NEW
JERSEY
AVE

TURNWOOD CT

ALTA GLEN DR

EL PATIO DR

SAN TOMAS EXPY

WILLOWBRAE AVE

KEESLING AVE

BIRCH ST

MARILYN DR

TANKIT DR

GATON DR

GALE DR

WESTMONT AVE

BECK DR

COMPTON LN
MIC
H
AE
L
D
R

CLOVERDALE LN

BARKWOOD WAY

CARLYN AVE

W HACIENDA AVE

RICKENBACKER ST

BESS CT

CAROLA AVE

BONGATE CT

LAMORE DR

MENDENHALL DR
PA
R
S

ONS AVE

CENTRAL PARK DR

GREENBAY CT

VANDERBILT DR

ALMARIDA DR

MARIA WAY

CREEKSIDE WAY
N
S
A
N
T
O
M
A
S
A
Q
UIN
O
R
D
GAY
AV
E

LOS GATOS CREEK TRAIL

MAUNEY CT
LOS
ALAMOS
DR
D
E
L
O
A
C
H
CT

VALLEJO DR
W
EIB
E
L
WAY

HAZEL AVE

N MIDWAY ST

THORNTON WAY

ARAM AVE

COLONIAL WAY
PINEHU
R
S
T
S
Q

DOGWOOD
CT

LOTTIE LN

CHE R RYW
O
O
DSQ

MCCOY AVE

CAXTON CT

CHALET WOODS PL

BEDAL PARK CT

CONSTITUTION
DR

HAMILTON
P
L

OLIVA LN

BAYLEAF CT

WESTFIELD AVE

WESTON DR

CIRONE WAY

AINSLEY PARK DR

SOUTHWEST EXPY

PHOENIX CT

VIRGINIA AVE

E RINCON AVE

ALEX DR

MOUNT VERNON DR

SAM CAVA LN

VIA CARMEN

CYPRESS LN

SONADOR CM

WENTE WAY
N
L
EIG
H
AV
E

S MIDWAY ST
ION CT
S
P
RU
A
N
C
E
S
T

HARRIS AVE

SUNNYSIDE AVE
PVT CT

L AGE DR

TOLWORTH DR

LANTZ AVE

E CAMPBELL AVE

PLAT FORM WAY
W
E
NTE PL

ARNOLD WAY

SUN GL O RY
L
N
ASH CT

BUCKNALL RD

W CAMPBELL AVE

PHELPS AVE

YORK AVE
S 3RD ST

SUNKIST WAY

CONSTITUTION CT

REDBUD CT

W LATIMER AVE

GINGER LN
KE
E
N
A
N
WAY

SONUCA CT
S
SAN
TOMAS
AQ
U
I
N
O
RD
WALNUT
DR

PENNY LN

VAN SANSUL AVE
S
U
N
B
E
RRY
DR

PEACHTREE CT

HONEYDEW WAY

SHAYNOR CT
M
E
R
RIVA
L
E

WEST SQ
L
O
M
A
V
E
R
D
E
C
N
D
A
C
C
E
S
S

CENTURY DR

CENTURY CT

DONOVAN CT

ORCHARD CITY DR
M
I
L
L
I
C
H
L
N

HARRIET AVE

BRAXTON TER

ANGELA CT

GRACE CT
C
H
A
N
D
ON
CT

CANNERY CIR

GREYLANDS DR

TOMASINA CT

OLYMPIA AVE

ARROYO SECO DR

EL PATIO CT

WYLIE WAY

BOXCAR DR

PILAND DR

YELLOWSTONE DR

DILLARD CT
C
HIVAS
P
L

BELLE TERRE CT

DREAMLAND WAY

TORERO PLAZA

WAINWRIGHT DR
F
E
NIA
N
D
R
N 3RD ST

PYRAMID CT

ALPHA CT

CHARMWOOD SQ

CORLISS WAY
S
B
A
S
C
O
M
AV
E

DILLON AVE

GAMMA CT

JUSTO CT

BETA CT

HARVESTER PL

HILTON AVE
GUNAR
DR

SANFILIPPO CT

RICKY CT

SHEFFIELD CT MOSSBROOK AV E

DARRYL CT

CHIVAS CT

BORELLO DR

CLARITA AVE

MONTEMAR WAY

PHOENIX DR

SOBRATO LN
L
E
XIN
G
T
O
N
D
R

RIO SERENA AVE

ESSEX WAY

CABANA DR

CALADO AVE

VALLEY FORGE WAY

NORTHAMPTON DR
S 2ND ST

MONA WAY

GOLDEN MEADOW SQ

W SAN TOMAS AQUINO RD
S 1ST ST
EC
K
E
R
CT

HAMILTON AVE

UNNAMED ST

CAMPBELL AVE
L
O
N
G
S
H
O
R
E
D
R

GRACE AVE

BOISE DR

CIVIC CENTER DR

ROBWAY AVE

SUNNYSIDE CT

JOSEPHINE AVE

FAWN DR

SHAMROCK DR

CORA CT

MERRIMAC DR
W
O
O
D
L
AW
N
AV
E
O R C
HARD

OAK CIR
N
O
R
M
A
N
AV
E

CUSTER DR

HERITAGE PL

KIRKLYN DR
S
T
F
RA
N
C
I
S
D
R

CLIFTON AVE

VERONICA PL

PORGY PL

BERINGER CT
S
W
E
E
T
B
RIA
R
D
R

MERLONE CT

EDEN AVE

WHITEHALL AV

BRAEBURN CT
S
A
N
G
A
B
RIE
L
WAY

CANELA PL
MASSIH
CT

PHANTOM AVE

LUIKA PL
EVA CT

SANFORD AVE

VIZCAYA CIR

GREENCREEK DR

PETER CT

SONUCA AVE

SOBRATO CT

ROSEMARY LN

SHEFFIELD AVE

SAVERIO CT

SUNLAND CT

JONATHAN CT

FETZER CIR

MONICA LN

MONTE CARLO WAY

LINDBERGH AVE

SMITH AVE

E MCGLINCY LN

THUNDERBIRD WAY

CAROLA CT

HILTON CT

MOSSBR O OK C RI

WESTMORELAND CT

PATIO CT

ARCHER CT
S
PAIC
H
D
R

LAMONT CT

CRESTMONT DR
SH
E
R
E
E
N
P
L

ANTONIO LN

MCKINNON CT

PIMENTON PL
S
A
N
T
O
M
A
S
A
Q
UIN
O
R
D
G
R
E
E
N
B
RIA
R
AV
E

LADYWOOD CT

CAMINO CERRADO
C
H
E
R

RY BLOSSOM LN

GLENN AVE

KEN CIR

SOBRATO WAY

BISMARCK DR

FR IAR WAY
PA
R
K
D
ALE
DR

DELGADO CT

BEDAL LN

BLUEBIRDDR

MIDDLETOWN CT

TIMBER COVE DR

ORESTES WAY

MONTADITO PL
STAN
FIELD
DR

RACHEL CT

MILLICH DR

EVERETT AVE
APPLE
B
L
O
S
S
O
M
L
N

SAN TOMAS CT

PAYMAN PL
VIA
C
O
N
T
E
N
TA

COLLEEN WAY

CHERRY LN

ANTHONY DR

INDUSTRIAL ST

PEGGY CT
D
E
L
L
A
C
T
BUCK
N
A
M
C
T

TWYLA CT

MARY CT

SOBRATO DR
MEM
O
RY
L
N
D
A
RIE
N CT
S
C
E
N
T
RA
L
AV
E

STONEHURST WAY
C
A

B O OSE LN

OAK PARK LN

MILLICH CT

WILSON CT

WESTPARK DR
E

N G LIS H
R
O
S
E
C
RI

QUAIL HOLLOW DR

REX CIR

UNION PL

PINE BRIDGE PL

CASTRO DR

ALLEGADO ALLEY

LANA CT

CAMEO CT

STUDENT LN

HEDEGARD AVE

E SUNNYOAKS AVE

PAULINE DR

S MONROE ST

ERIE WAY

JONES WAY

FAIRLANDS AVE

KAYLA CT

RAILWAY AVE

THERESAAVE

CAMEO DR
M
C
B
AIN
CT

ROSE CT
MAGGIO
CT

CHALET WOODS CIR
S
C
L
O
V
E
R
AV
E

GREENBRIAR CT

RIBBON DR

SHARON CT
B
E

A U LIEU CT

ASHLOCK CT

LOIS WAY

CERVANTES WAY

CASTRO CT
KIM CT

KIM LOUISE DR

S MCGLINCY LN

XAVIER CT
S
G
E
N
E
V
EI V
E
L
N

HACIENDA CT

JEWELL DR

ROJO PL

MEADOWS
CT
D
RY
C
REEK
CT
B
E
N
J
A
MIN
AVE

WOODING CT

GILMAN AVE

ALBERT WAY

VIZCAYA WAY

LOMA PARK DR

W SUNNYOAKS AVE

DRESSER CT

LA MIEL CT

LEIGH ANN PL
G
INDEN
D
R

GLEASON AVE

BRONWEN WAY

CAMDEN AVE

SPRINGFIELD DR
N 2ND ST
K
O
C
H
E
R
D
R

SILACCI DR
VIA
R
O
MA

CAVALIER CT

CHARMAIN DR
S
L
E
GI H
AV
E

LITTLETON PL

INSKIP DR

NAUTILUS CT

RICKY DR

ARCHER WAY

NERO CT

SURREY PL

N PETER DR

INWOOD DR

CAPRI DR

DEL ROYCT

KENNEDY AVE

QUANTICO CT

SOMERSWORTH DR

DEL PRADO DR

PICADILLY PL

ALBERTSTONE DR

MANX AVE
FREDA
CT

BUDD C T
C
U
R
T
N
E
R

GLEN CT
N
O
RIN
C
T

ARDILLA CT

GWEN DR

MONETA WAY

FLAMINGO DR

VIA CRISTOBAL

NORSTAD ST

WELLINGTON PL

SCHRADER DR

SALMAR AVE
R
U
N
N
Y
M
E
D
E
D
R

NEVILLE AVE
L
A
V
O
N
N
E
D
R

KAMSON WAY

HUERTO DR

CARAVELLA DR
PA
R
K
H
U
R
S
T
D
R

FIERROLOOP

MARATHON DR

B ETH WAY

ADRIEN DR

ALLERTON
LOOP

BUCKNAM AVE

WREN WAY

VIA RANCHERO
M
O
N
T
E
Z
U
M
A
D
R
W
HIT
E
H
A
L
L
AVE

THERESA LN

LOMA PARK CT
CU
L
L
E
N
C
T

SAFFLE CT

HERITAGE
DR

ROSALIA AVE

VIA NAPOLI

E HAMILTON AVE

NICHOLAS
DR

TWYLA LN

MILLBROOK CT

KENPARK CT
NELLO
DR

YUKON WAY

LAWNDALE AVE
CA
N
A
RY
L
N

LE BAIN DR

DUNCANVILLE CT

FLORA AVE

ASSUNTA WAY

ENSENADA DR

VILLARITA DR

WALDO RD

GLADYS WAY

DUNSTER DR
KEN
N
ETH
ST

HOCKING WAY

LAURA DR

ABBEY LN
R
E
D
O
A
K
S
D
R

HARTLEY CT

ST LAWRENCE DR

KLAMATH DR

WOODFLOWER WAY

ABINANTE LN

CHRISTOPHER AVE
WI
N
S
L
O
W
C
T

LA MIEL WAY

BUDD AVE

MEMPHIS DR

SADIE CT
LU
A
N
N
E
D
R

HAZELWOOD AVE

CHARLESTON DR

AINSLEY CT

YUBA AVE

PENWITH AVE

SHULMAN AVE

LINDA DR
N
C
E
N
T
RA
L
AV
E

KIRKMONT DR

BOYNTON AVE

ABBEY CT
JAS
MIN
E
C
T
N 1ST ST

MANCHESTER AVE

FRONTIER WAY
SYD
N
O
R
D
R

W HAMILTON AVE
LAU
RANCE

HILL CT

BEN HUR CT

NIDO DR

BENT DR

SUNSWEET WAY

BEVERLY CT

S PETER DR

TRAVIATA PL

PEGGY AVE

PAGE ST
LA
C
ON
CT

DOVER WAY

INWOOD CT

PAULA DR

ST PAUL DR

EVORA DR

REDEN DR
S 4TH ST

TUBBY ST

MAYKIRK RD

SUNNYPARK CT

POPLAR AVE

ADLER AVE

BARBANO AVE

WHITWOOD
L
N

DALLAS DR

SUNNYARBORCT

SHADLE AVE

CALADO CT
H
O
RAC
E
AVE

CRAIG AVE

RADFORD DR

PARKVIEW AVE

HUERTO CT

ONTARIO LN

VIOLET WAY

DE TRACEY ST

JOSEPH AVE

HARRIS CT

MANTON CT
AMAT
O
AV
E

TRAILBLAZER PL

ERIN WAY

GLENBLAIR WAY

DRY CREEK WAY
SA LM
A
R
T
E
R

GRANT ST
L

ORELEI CT

CAPE COD CT

CALIFORNIA ST

QUEBEC WAY

MORRIS LN

PATRICIA CT

LYLE LN

C OUN TRYWOOD CT

WALTERS AVE

MITCHELL CT
VICTO
R
AV
E
GREENW

CI H CT

QUEENS CT

MAYWOOD AVE

FOOTE AVE
M
O
N
TAVO
PL
G
RA
H
A
M
D
R

KINGS CT

JEFFERS WAY

DEL ORO CT
W
O
O
D
G

ROVE SQ

FAWN CT

HERBERT LN

DECORAH LN

BRIARWOOD
WAY

GOMES CT

SUPERIOR DR

WESTMORELAND
DR

ROBINRIDGE WAY

REGALO CT
HI
CKORY
CT

SALICE WAY

DUVALL DR

PARQUET CT

VALERIE CT
MIC
H
E
L
L
E
D
R

EBBETS DR

TIOGA WAY

REGAS DR

ONTARIO DR

FILBERT WAY
S
D
A
N
EI L
WAY

LOUISE CT

HAMILTON PARK DR

SCOTT CT

SHEILA CT

REGINA WAY

ELAM AVE

BUDDLAWN WAY

KEITH DR

RAMITA CT

WELKER CT

PECAN WAY

SUNNYMEAD CT

SUNNYLAKE CT
D

E CARLI CT

ARNOTT WAY

SUNNYGATE CT
H
A
R
RIS
O
N
AVE

KENNETH AVE

JOHN KIRK CT

CONNIE DR

NADINE DR

SCHOOLDALE DR

VIA SALICE
F
O
RMAN
DR

WAGON WAY

ALICE AVE

RUE MONTAGNE

WEKIVA AVE

TEAKWOOD DR

CAMPISI WAY
B
U
E
N
A
L
U
N
A
C
T

MAXIMILIAN DR

SALERNO DR
A
B
B
OTT
AVE
IDA DR

WHITE OAKS RD

VIA CANCION

RIDGELEY DR

OLD ORCHARD RD

JIM ELDER DR

ALEGRIA LOO
P

BRADDOCK CT

WESTCHESTER DR

MIDDLETOWN DR

MALLEY WAY

MAPLE AVE

SHARMON PALMS LN
D
E
L
N
A
M
A
N
O
R
L
N

LOST LAKE LN
M
A
RG
A
R
E
T
L
N

LA PRADERA DR

HIGHLAND PARK LN

HAWTHORNE AVE

BURROWS RD
SAN

TOMAS AQUINO PKWY

MARINA WAY

WILTON DR

NIAGARA DR

FOXHA LL LOO
P

W RINCON AVE
S
B
AYW
O
O
D
AV
E

SCHUBERT AVE
N
M
LI T
O
N
AV
E

BLAND AVE

FINCH DR

MORRENE DR

E ROSEMARY LN

HOLLIS AVE

CRONWELL DR

VERNAL DR

WATSON DR

ELDEN DR

LISA WAY
S
A
N
A
R
D
O
D
R

LOVELL AVE

MCKINNON DR
S
A
N
TA IN
E
Z
D
R

WENDELL DR

DORVAL DR
C
A
S
S
AI R
D
R

HAYFORD DR

SPENO DR

RAVENSCOURT AV

VIA MILANO
PRICE
WAY
BRANBU
RY
D
R
M
A

RIANNA WAY

CROCKETT AVE

S O N D
R
A
WAY
C
O
V

ENTRY DR
S
MILT
O
N
AV
E

TURNER WAY

MUNRO AVE

WARW IC
K
D
R

DENVER DR

NORWICH WAY

WEST VALLEY DR

PALO SANTO DR

MADOC WAY
P
O
M
P
E
Y
D
R

TILBURY DR

DOT AVE

NEET AVE

MERRY LN

GRIMSBY DR

NOTTINGHAM WAY

DOLORES DR

VERWOOD DR

E HACIENDA AVE

EL SOLYO AVE

ECHO AVE

CHAMBERLIN CT
L

A T IMER CIR
POE LN

VL SQUARE LN

HUNT WAY

VALLEY SQUARE DR
J
A
N
E
A
N
N
WAY

EL MORO DR

SUMMERFIELD
DR

LOYALTON DR

KENDRA WAY

ROBIN LN

APRICOT AVE

NORMANDY DR

KUEHNIS DR

RICHLEE DR

EMORY AVE

KOBARA LN

JEFFREY AVE

KIRBY WAY

ESTHER AVE

SHADY DALE AVE

EL CAMINITO AVE

LENOR WAY

HARDY AVE

W ROSEMARY LN

FEWTRELL DR

CATALPA LN

LINDAIRE AVE

CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY
PKWY

EMPEY WAY

WALDEN SQ
D
E
L
M
A
R
AV
E

MARAVIL
LA
C
T
§¨¦17
§¨¦17
´
Miles
0 0.25 0.5

S A N J O S E

L O S G A T O S

S A N J O S E
SB79 STUDY AREA

CITY OF CAMPBELL
Pedestrian Access Point
Parcels Within 200 Foot Buffer
Parcels Within 1/4 Mile Buffer
Parcels Within 1/2 Mile Buffer
Item 8.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 156 of 474
City Council Report
DATE: March 24, 2026
TITLE: West Valley Homeless Services Feasibility Study
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

That the City Council receive the report and provide feedback on the West Valley Homeless Services Feasibility Study and adopt a Resolution of Intent to support participation in a West Valley Homeless Services Implementation Task Force.

BACKGROUND
In July 2024, the City of Campbell allocated $100,000 in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to conduct a homeless needs analysis and feasibility study for the West Valley region, which includes the Cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Saratoga, Monte Sereno and the Town of Los Gatos.

In December 2024, the City contracted with Good City Company to conduct a needs analysis and feasibility study and in Spring 2025, the City of Campbell developed and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the other West Valley jurisdictions, recognizing that homelessness is a regional challenge and best addressed collaboratively.

The project consists of two components:

1. Phase 1 - Needs Analysis (Completed July 2025)

2. Phase 2 - Feasibility Study (Completed; summarized in this report) In August 2025, the City Council held a study session to review the Needs Analysis findings and provided feedback. The completed Feasibility Study builds upon that analysis and evaluates collaborative strategies the five jurisdictions could pursue to more effectively address homelessness across the West Valley.

DISCUSSION
The Feasibility Study evaluates opportunities for shared services, enhanced coordination, and strengthened regional partnerships to better align resources and respond to the Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 157 of 474

specific needs of unhoused residents in the West Valley. In addition, the Feasibility Study evaluates potential programmatic responses informed by the Needs Analysis report.

Needs Analysis Summary
The Needs Analysis, which was the first phase of the project, identified the scale and complexity of homelessness in the West Valley area. In 2024, there were at least 524 individuals experiencing homelessness. The analysis also highlighted that individuals experiencing homelessness are often less visible in the region, including families, unaccompanied youth, and those living in cars.

Key contributing factors include:
 High cost of living
 Limited affordable housing supply
 Wage disparities
 Structural inequities, including poverty and wealth inequality The Needs Analysis noted that homelessness affects every member of the community, not just those who are unhoused. Finally, the report underscored that services and permanent housing are effective and save funds in the long run.

Following publication of the Needs Analysis, new Point in Time Count data revealed that the number of people experiencing homelessness in the West Valley area increased by 13%, compared to an 8% increase countywide between 2023 and 2025. Across much of the Bay Area and Santa Clara County, more people continue to enter homelessness each year than exit. However, other areas in California saw significant decreases in homelessness including in the Counties of Santa Cruz, Sonoma, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Ventura.

West Valley Unhoused Population Characteristics
The Needs Analysis also identified some key findings about the demographic characteristics of the West Valley Unhoused population as summarized below. • Fifty-one percent of individuals in the West Valley have been homeless for two years or more, roughly double the national average, but lower than the rest of Santa Clara County.
• A higher rate of individuals in the West Valley are more recently homeless relative to the remainder of the County.
• Nineteen percent of homeless in the West Valley are youth and nineteen percent are families with children.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 158 of 474

• Hispanic/Latino, Black, and American Indian/Alaska Native/Indigenous individuals are substantially overrepresented relative to their share of the population in the West Valley.
• The West Valley area saw a higher domestic violence survivor rate and lower mental, physical, and alcohol/substance use rate than the remainder of the County. • West Valley individuals were more likely to sleep in their car or couch surf and less likely to utilize a shelter bed than the remainder of the County.

Existing Services and Identified Gaps
A brief overview of existing gaps and services are provided below. Additional information on existing services and needs is provided in the Needs Analysis and summarized in the staff report included in the agenda packet for the August 4, 2025 City Council Meeting.

Housing & Shelter
• Lack of affordable permanent housing, especially ELI (Extremely Low Income) housing units.
• Lack of sufficient shelters. There are no standing temporary or interim shelters in the West Valley of the congregate or non-congregate model. • The two existing safe parking programs located in Saratoga, Cupertino, and Campbell can serve up to approximately one third of the known households living in cars.

Service Delivery
• Lack of geographically centralized services
• Inadequate access to healthcare, mental health, and substance use treatment • Insufficient outreach and case management capacity
• Limited transportation options for accessing services Systemic Gaps
• Lack of shared knowledge and coordination across service providers, jurisdictions, and city departments
• Difficulty in scaling community-based services
Feasibility Study
The West Valley Homeless Services Feasibility Study analyzes potential policy and program responses to address homelessness in the West Valley area. The study notes that while homelessness is a complex problem, investing in proven strategies can have considerable positive impact on people experiencing homelessness and the community at large.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 159 of 474

The Feasibility Study provides an analysis of several homelessness response programs and includes a series of specific recommendations.

Feasibility Analysis
The Feasibility Study provides a detailed analysis of several programs categorized into six categories:
 Homelessness Prevention
 Outreach and Case Management
 Immediate Needs
 Shelter and Parking
 Interim and Transitional Housing
 Permanent Housing
Each potential program is ranked with a feasibility score and an impact score as indicated in Table 2 below. The full Study provides additional detailed information on the methodology and potential program approaches for each program as well as additional ways to visualize the program landscape.

Table 2: Homeless Response Programs and Scores by Program Type Programs by Type Impact Score Feasibility
Score
Prevention (Feasibility Study p. 14)
Homelessness Prevention & Rental
Assistance Highest Highest
Opportunity Fund & Reunification High Highest
Hotlines & Information Moderate Highest
Tenant Protections Moderate High
Outreach & Case Management (p. 17)
Case Management Highest High
Health, Mental Health & Substance Care Highest High
Navigation Center Highest Moderate
Job Training Moderate Highest
Outreach Moderate High
Mobile Navigation Center Moderate High
Law Enforcement Coordination Moderate Moderate
Immediate Needs (p. 22)
Food, Showers & Laundry High Highest
Phone, Internet, & Mail Moderate Highest
Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 160 of 474

Safe Storage Moderate High
Transportation Moderate High
Neighborhood Health & Cleanliness Moderate Moderate
Safe Sleeping & Sanitation Moderate Moderate
Shelter & Parking (p. 26)
Temporary Shelters Highest Moderate
Safe Parking High Moderate
Hotel Vouchers/Rentals Moderate Highest
Interim & Transitional (p. 30)
Rapid Rehousing Highest High
Transitional Housing Highest Moderate
Interim Sites High Moderate
Permanent Housing (p. 32)
Permanent Affordable Housing Highest High
Key Recommendations
The Feasibility Study outlines a comprehensive set of recommendations. An overview of key recommendations is provided below.

1. Adopt a formal implementation plan: Develop and adopt a West Valley Area homelessness response implementation plan that includes an aspirational vision, clear goals and objectives, programs tailored to population segments, plans for near- and long-term outcomes, and leverages existing programs. The study provides an example set of goals and objectives that could be used as a reference by a West Valley homelessness response task force.

2. Sustain and strengthen what works: Use the tools available to local governments to ensure the continuation of existing services with a proven track record, including homelessness prevention and expanding affordable housing.

3. Prioritize additional investments in programs with high feasibility and impact: These include homelessness prevention and rental assistance; case management; rapid rehousing; permanent affordable housing; health and mental health care; food, showers, and laundry; opportunity funds; and reunification programs.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 161 of 474

4. Cultivate partnerships at all levels: Deploy a “whole of society approach” to engage governments, the private sector, civil society, individuals, and communities. Establish a formal West Valley homelessness response task force to set goals and monitor progress.

5. Engage with people who have experienced homelessness: Identify ways for individuals who have experienced homelessness to meaningfully participate in program design, implementation, and evaluation.

6. Align with the Community Plan to End Homelessness: Demonstrate alignment with the plan’s goals to address the root causes of homelessness, improve the quality of life for unsheltered individuals, create healthy neighborhoods for all, and expand homelessness prevention and housing programs.

7. Identify funding: Explore creative funding approaches to support homelessness response programs.

8. Support neighborhood health, safety, and cleanliness: Address quality-of-life issues for the entire community.

The Feasibility Study discusses actions at the local and sub-regional scale that have a high likelihood of making meaningful and measurable positive impact for community members experiencing homelessness and the community overall. These actions are likely to be particularly important in an environment where federal funding is less available.

An update to the Santa Clara County Community Plan to End Homelessness which serves as a roadmap for ending homelessness in Santa Clara County is also underway.

Recommendations from West Valley Feasibility Study will be shared with the County to promote alignment between the plans.

West Valley Homeless Services Implementation Task Force The Feasibility Study identifies the formation of a regional implementation body as a critical next step.

The proposed Task Force to meet this need would include:
• Representatives from the five West Valley jurisdictions • County representatives
• Key institutional stakeholders (e.g., community college district representatives) • Select service providers
The Task Force would be responsible for developing a formal implementation plan for the West Valley Homeless Services Feasibility Study, establishing measurable goals, defining governance structure, a financing strategy, and monitoring progress. Staff Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 162 of 474

recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution of Intent supporting participation in the West Valley Homeless Services Implementation Task Force. The Resolution of Intent is intended to gauge the initial interest among all five west valley jurisdictions to participate in the Task force. Following adoption of the resolution of intent, staff will obtain a scope of services with a consultant to provide technical support to the Task Force and prepare an MOU outlining the role of the Task Force and funding needs. Staff would then return to the five jurisdictions with the MOU for adoption, and subsequently initiate work on the Task Force. Adoption of the Resolution of Intent by itself does not commit each city to adopting the subsequent MOU.

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no direct fiscal impacts associated with this item. Future implementation of recommended programs may require financial commitments from participating jurisdictions. Any funding proposals will return to the City Council for review and approval.

Cost-sharing structures would be developed collaboratively among the West Valley jurisdictions.

NEXT STEPS
Pending Council direction, staff will obtain a scope of services with a consultant to provide technical support to the Task Force and develop an MOU for adoption, and subsequently initiate work on the Task Force. The other four West Valley jurisdictions are planning to share the results of the Feasibility Study with their respective Councils in the coming weeks and months.

PREPARED BY: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, Housing Program Manager Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 163 of 474

Report Approval Details
Document Title: Report for West Valley Homeless Services Feasibility Study.docx
Attachments: Resolution of Intent WV Task Force.docx
West Valley Feasibility Study.pdf
West Valley Needs Analysis Report.pdf
Final Approval
Date:

March 18, 2026
This document and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 164 of 474
RESOLUTION NO. ______________

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL OF INTENT

TO SUPPORT PARTICIPATION IN A WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES

IMPLEMENTATION TASK FORCE
WHEREAS, according to the most recent 2025 Point in Time Count data, the collective West Valley area has an unhoused population of 255 individuals and the number of people experiencing homelessness in the West Valley area increased by 13% between 2023 and 2025;
WHEREAS, The Cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, and the Town of Los Gatos (“West Valley cities”) have partnered together to prepare the West Valley Homeless Services Feasibility Study (“Study”);
WHEREAS, The Study evaluates the state of homelessness in the West Valley area and includes a needs analysis that identifies unmet needs within the overall system for addressing homelessness;
WHEREAS, the Study identifies potential policy and program responses to address homelessness in the West Valley area that the five West Valley cities could collectively implement in partnership with the County of Santa Clara; WHEREAS, the Study evaluates the impact and feasibility of implementing different policies and programs within the categories of Homelessness Prevention, Outreach and Case Management, Immediate Needs, Shelter and Parking, Interim and Transitional Housing, and Permanent Housing;
WHEREAS, A key recommendation from the Study is for the West Valley cities to develop and adopt a West Valley Area homelessness response implementation plan (“Implementation Plan”) that includes an aspirational vision, clear goals and objectives, programs tailored to population segments, plans for near- and long-term outcomes, and leverages existing programs;
WHEREAS, the creation of a West Valley Homeless Services Implementation Task Force (“Task Force”) can act as a means for the West Valley cities to collaborate in developing the Implementation Plan;
Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 165 of 474
WHEREAS, the Task Force is envisioned to be composed of representatives from each of the five West Valley cities and the County, along with stakeholders and service providers, supported by staff and a consultant team, and be time limited in duration; and WHEREAS, by working together on developing and implementing homeless services, the West Valley cities can potentially reduce costs and maximize efficiency and economies of scale in implementing homeless services for the unhoused.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL that it does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:

Section 1: That it is in the best interest of the City to join with other West Valley cities and the County in a West Valley Homeless Services Implementation Task Force to work together on developing an implementation plan for collectively addressing homelessness in the west valley area.

Section 2: That the City Manager or his / her designee is hereby authorized and directed to enter into discussions regarding the formation the Task Force and the development of a workplan and budget, and to bring back a recommendation and Memorandum of Understanding for action identifying the composition, duties and responsibilities of the Task Force to consider for adoption by the City.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of ______, 2026 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

APPROVED:
_____________________________
Daniel E. Furtado, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Andrea Saunders, City Clerk
Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 166 of 474
Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 167 of 474
West Valley Homeless Services
Feasibility Study
Cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Monte Sereno,
and Saratoga, and Town of Los Gatos
January 26, 2026
Prepared by:

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 168 of 474
Acknowledgements
West Valley Jurisdictions
City of Campbell: Rob Eastwood, Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, Chris Miranda City of Cupertino: Nicky Vu, Benjamin Fu
Town of Los Gatos: Joel Paulson, Katy Nomura
City of Monte Sereno: Diana Perkins
City of Saratoga: Bryan Swanson, Cindy McCormick
With Special Thanks to
County of Santa Clara, Office of Supportive Housing: Hilary Armstrong, Diana Castillo, Michelle Covert, Laura Urteaga Fuentes, Kathryn (KJ) Kaminski, Tina La Perle, Leila Qureishi Destination: Home: Ray Bramson
Good City Company
Nicholas Hamilton, AICP, Public Policy Lead
Aaron Aknin, AICP, Principal
Vera Gil, Housing Specialist
Cover image credits: Top left, bottom left: West Valley Community Services; top right, bottom right: South County Community Services.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 169 of 474
Contents
Executive Summary...................................................................................................................... 4 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................................................ 4 Homelessness Response Programs Summary........................................................................... 6 Background................................................................................................................................... 7 FEASIBILITY STUDY METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 7 SELECT FINDINGS OF NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT ........................................................................................................... 7 2025 POINT-IN-TIME HOMELESS COUNT.................................................................................................................... 9 Feasibility Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 11 HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE PROGRAMS OVERVIEW...................................................................................................11 PREVENTION PROGRAMS...............................................................................................................................................14 OUTREACH AND CASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS....................................................................................................17 IMMEDIATE NEEDS PROGRAMS.....................................................................................................................................22 SHELTER AND PARKING PROGRAMS.............................................................................................................................26 INTERIM AND TRANSITIONAL PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................30 PERMANENT HOUSING PROGRAMS .............................................................................................................................32 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 33 List of Attachments .................................................................................................................... 42 ATTACHMENT A: HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE PROGRAMS – DETAILED METRICS TABLE ATTACHMENT B: EXAMPLE HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE STRATEGY SUMMARY ATTACHMENT C: EXAMPLE PRINTED RESOURCE HANDOUTS
ATTACHMENT D: NAVIGATION CENTER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY PHOTOS ATTACHMENT E: WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT (JULY 24, 2025) Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 170 of 474
4 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
West Valley Homeless Services
Feasibility Study
Cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Monte Sereno,
and Saratoga, and Town of Los Gatos
January 26, 2026
Executive Summary
The West Valley Homeless Services Feasibility Study analyzes potential policy and program responses to address homelessness in the West Valley area, including the Cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Saratoga, and Monte Sereno and the Town of Los Gatos. While homelessness is a complex problem, investing in proven strategies can have considerable positive impact on people experiencing homelessness and the community at large.

Key Recommendations

3. Prioritize additional investments in programs with high feasibility and impact.

These include homelessness prevention and rental assistance; case management; rapid rehousing; permanent affordable housing; health and mental health care; food, showers, and laundry; opportunity funds; and reunification programs.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 171 of 474
FEASIBILITY STUDY 5

5. Engage with people who have experienced homelessness: Identify ways for individuals who have experienced homelessness to meaningfully participate in program design, implementation, and evaluation.

7. Identify funding: Explore creative funding approaches to support homelessness response programs.

8. Support neighborhood health, safety, and cleanliness: Address quality-of-life issues for the entire community.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 172 of 474
6 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
Homelessness Response Programs Summary
The Feasibility Study categorizes the overall program landscape into six categories:
homelessness prevention, outreach and case management, immediate needs, shelter and parking, interim and transitional housing, and permanent housing. When implemented specific programs may span multiple categories or may be more narrowly tailored than the general program typologies presented here. A summary of a potential homelessness response environment for the West Valley area is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Homeless Response Programs Summary
Homeless
Prevention
Homelessness
Prevention &
Rental
Assistance
Tenant
Protections
Opportunity
Fund &
Reunification
Hotlines and
Information
Outreach &
Case
Management
Case
Management
Health, Mental
Health &
Substance Care
Navigation
Centers
Outreach
Mobile
Navigation
Centers
Job Training
Law
Enforcement
Coordination
Immediate
Needs
Food, Showers
& Laundry
Safe Storage
Transportation
Neighborhood
Health &
Cleanliness
Safe Sleeping
and Sanitation
Phone,
Internet, &
Mail
Shelter &
Parking
Temporary
Shelter
Safe Parking
Hotel
Vouchers/
Rentals
Interim &
Transitional
Housing
Rapid
Rehousing
Transitional
Housing
Interim Sites
Permanent
Housing
Affordable
Housing
Development
(Including
Permanant
Supportive
Housing)
Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 173 of 474
FEASIBILITY STUDY 7
Background
Following a brief description of the Feasibility Study methodology and an overview of the key findings from the Needs Analysis report, this document provides an analysis of the feasibility of several potential expanded service options and a set of additional strategy and policy recommendations and options.

Feasibility Study Methodology
The Feasibility Study relies upon interviews with key stakeholders, a review of existing homelessness response plans, and is complemented by insights on best practices and other research. More than thirty-five interviews with service providers, public agency representatives, subject matter experts, and currently unhoused individuals were conducted as part of the needs analysis and feasibility study phases of this project. Additional community input was received during the August 4, 2025, Campbell City Council Meeting regarding the needs analysis.

Select Findings of Needs Analysis Report
The West Valley Homeless Services Feasibility Study builds directly upon the needs and gaps identified in the associated Needs Analysis report, which is attached to this study and available on the City of Campbell’s website1. Both phases of the project were developed following the City of Campbell’s allocation of $100,000 in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to conduct a homeless needs analysis and feasibility study for the West Valley area. In December 2024, the City contracted with Good City Company to conduct a needs analysis and feasibility study, and in Spring 2025, the West Valley jurisdictions entered into a memorandum of understanding, recognizing that homelessness is a regional challenge and best addressed collaboratively.

The Needs Analysis report summarized the status of homelessness in the West Valley area using available quantitative data, a literature review, and outcomes of interviews with key stakeholders. Key findings of the needs analysis:
• Homelessness is a serious problem: At least 524 individuals across 322 households were counted as unhoused in the West Valley area in 2024. About 40% of the 1 West Valley Homeless Services Feasibility Study - Needs Analysis Report. City of Campbell, California, July 24, 2025. https://www.campbellca.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08042025-3124#page=228.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 174 of 474
8 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
population (214) sought shelter or services for the first time in 2024 while 51% have been unhoused for two or more years.
• Homelessness is not one size fits all: While there are many unhoused individuals who visibly live on the street, there is also a large population who are living in their cars or in transitory sleeping arrangements that are hidden and not visible. • Families and youth: At least 38% of the unhoused population in the West Valley area consists of unaccompanied youth and families with children. • Homelessness affects us all: Homelessness impacts all members of the community, not just those who are unhoused. The effects on housed residents, the economy, and local government services are substantial.
• Services and housing work: Permanent housing is critical and saves funds in the long run, although expensive and time-consuming up front. Immediate services can be as important as housing.

The Needs Analysis report also provides an overview of the state of homelessness today, analysis of policy context, quantitative needs analysis, description of existing programs, services, a gap analysis, conclusions, and an extensive list of resources and materials consulted.

Key gaps are identified below. The Needs Analysis report provides a detailed assessment of gaps in services and programs.
• Affordable permanent housing
• Shelter capacity and location
• Interim housing and safe parking
• Case management and outreach capacity
• Healthcare, mental health, and substance use
• Other: Safety, Geography, Transportation, Connectivity, Secure Belongings A high-level summary of the existing services in the West Valley area is provided in the table below. Please see the Needs Analysis report for additional information regarding each of the programs noted in the table.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 175 of 474
FEASIBILITY STUDY 9
Service Type Jurisdiction
People or Clients
Served Annually
(Approx)*
Case Management Cupertino 75
Campbell, Los Gatos, Saratoga 22
Outreach Saratoga, Campbell, Los Gatos 25
Campbell 133
Hotel Vouchers/Rentals Los Gatos 14
Campbell 12 (see notes)
Safe Parking Campbell 20 (13/night)
Saratoga, Cupertino 20
Food & Clothing Distribution,
Laundry, Showers
Los Gatos (29) 29
Countywide Shelters, Transitional
Housing, and Case Management
All WV-affiliated clients 94
Countywide Temporary Housing
and Services for Youth
All WV-affiliated clients 18
Countywide Homeless Healthcare
Programs
All WV-affiliated clients Data not available
Table 1. Existing Homelessness Response Services Summary. Notes: descriptions of the services are included in the Needs Analysis report and summarized in the homelessness response programs descriptions in the following feasibility analysis section.

Campbell’s new inclement weather hotel voucher program was used for a total of 57 individual room nights by approximately 12 clients during its initial six-week operation. *In some cases, a couple or family with dependents are considered a single client in the data available.
2025 Point-in-Time Homeless Count
The 2025 Point-in-Time (PIT) Count, conducted by volunteers and coordinated by OSH, was carried out on the mornings of January 22 and 23, 2025, with the countywide PIT numbers being released in June 2025. The count shows that the number of people experiencing homelessness rose by 8.2% when compared to the 2023 PIT count. The number of unhoused individuals in Santa Clara County has risen from 9,903 in 2023 to 10,711 in 2025. This trend of increasing homelessness aligns with the observations made by the County of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing and County homelessness experts over the past few years. The Bay Area continues to experience an increase in people entering homelessness compared to those exiting. Factors such as the limited availability of affordable housing, wage disparities, and Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 176 of 474
10 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
structural inequalities (poverty, wealth inequality, stigmatization) all contribute to homelessness in the Bay Area, including in Santa Clara County.

The table below compares the 2025 PIT count totals for each of the five West Valley jurisdictions to the 2023 PIT count numbers, along with the corresponding increase or decrease. Only the Town of Los Gatos saw a decrease in the number of unhoused. Other jurisdictions, such as Cupertino and Saratoga, have seen a measurable increase in the number of unhoused individuals, while the City of Campbell has seen a 15% increase.

Jurisdiction 2023 PIT Count 2025 PIT Count % Increase
Campbell 92 108 15%
Cupertino 48 101 52%
Los Gatos 81 27 -200%
Monte Sereno 0 0 0%
Saratoga 0 19 100%
Total 221 255 13%
Table 2. 2025 and 2023 Point-in-Time Counts
Statewide, preliminary data shows that the number of unhoused individuals has decreased by

4.3%, with a 4% decrease in total homelessness and a 9.5% reduction in unsheltered homelessness. Results vary by region; as mentioned earlier, Santa Clara County saw an 8.2% increase from 2023 to 2025, while Sonoma County reported a 22.6% decrease.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 177 of 474
FEASIBILITY STUDY 11
Feasibility Analysis
Homelessness Response Programs Overview
The overall program landscape is broken into six categories in this study: homelessness prevention, outreach and case management, immediate needs, shelter and safe parking, interim and transitional housing, and permanent housing. The following sections describe the categories, and the potential services provided within each. The following sections describe the categories, and the potential services are provided within each.

Each potential program is ranked with a feasibility score and an impact score as indicated in the table below. The impact score is a composite of three indicators: scale of the current gap, short-term impact, and long-term impact. The feasibility score is a composite of five indicators:
cost savings, cost, external funding likelihood, level of difficulty to implement, and the level of established implementation partnerships. In addition to the composite scores in the table below, a detailed table including each program and indicator is included as an attachment.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 178 of 474
12 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
Programs by Type Impact Score Feasibility Score
Prevention
Homelessness Prevention & Rental Assistance Highest Highest Opportunity Fund & Reunification High Highest
Hotlines & Information Moderate Highest
Tenant Protections Moderate High
Outreach & Case Management
Case Management Highest High
Health, Mental Health & Substance Care Highest High
Navigation Center Highest Moderate
Job Training Moderate Highest
Outreach Moderate High
Mobile Navigation Center Moderate High
Law Enforcement Coordination Moderate Moderate
Immediate Needs
Food, Showers & Laundry High Highest
Phone, Internet, & Mail Moderate Highest
Safe Storage Moderate High
Transportation Moderate High
Neighborhood Health & Cleanliness Moderate Moderate
Safe Sleeping & Sanitation Moderate Moderate
Shelter & Parking
Temporary Shelters Highest Moderate
Safe Parking High Moderate
Hotel Vouchers/Rentals Moderate Highest
Interim & Transitional
Rapid Rehousing Highest High
Transitional Housing Highest Moderate
Interim Sites High Moderate
Permanent Housing
Permanent Affordable Housing Highest High
Table 3. Homeless Response Programs and Scores by Program Type Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 179 of 474
FEASIBILITY STUDY 13
The diagram below provides graphic representation of each of the potential programs organized by its respective impact score and feasibility score. Programs with a higher feasibility score are in the greener shaded columns toward the right-hand side. Programs with a higher impact score are in the greener shaded rows toward the top.

Figure 2. Homelessness Response Programs Matrix by Impact and Feasibility Scores Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 180 of 474
14 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
Prevention Programs
Prevention Programs by Impact and Feasibility
Programs Impact Score Feasibility Score
Homelessness Prevention & Rental Assistance Highest Highest Opportunity Fund & Reunification High Highest
Hotlines & Information Moderate Highest
Tenant Protections Moderate High
Figure 3. Prevention Programs by Impact and Feasibility Prevention programs provide financial aid and support services to individuals and families at risk of losing housing to avoid homelessness and its negative impacts. Services often include one-time rent or utility assistance, help with move-in costs such as security deposits, legal assistance for evictions, and referrals to other community resources. These programs provide stability and prevent long-term homelessness.

Homeless Prevention and Rental Assistance
Homeless prevention programs assist those at risk of becoming homeless. This can come in the form of emergency rental assistance to help the tenants meet their rent for a short period of time, help with moving costs and rental payments to move to a more affordable unit , and free legal assistance for evictions The Santa Clara County Homelessness Prevention System (HPS) program assists low-income families or individuals who are at risk of losing their housing in the form of flexible rental assistance, case management, legal services, and other support services through a network of approximately twenty community-based providers.

Free or low-cost tenant legal services are also available throughout Santa Clara County to help with impending or wrongful evictions. Project Sentinel, the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley. Bay Area Legal Aid, and the Santa Clara County Superior Court Self-Help Center offer these services to eligible tenants. However, resources are limited and not sufficient to meet the needs.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 181 of 474
FEASIBILITY STUDY 15
Opportunity Fund and Reunification
An Opportunity fund would allow for “just-in-time” small grants to unhoused individuals or families for rental application fees, bus or airline fare for family reunification, gas money, or a hotel night stay. The ability for a case manager, service provider, or agency to use such funds was raised by several stakeholders as an important resource. It is important that the funding be easily accessible and that there be established rules for the use of the funds and disbursement. The South Bay Cities Council of Governments in Los Angeles County successfully established a similar fund allowing local jurisdictions to help with small costs. Jurisdictions could create their own fund, administered by a nonprofit, or participate in a similar program funded by the County of Santa Clara and administered by the Bill Wilson Center called the Here4You hotline. Interested jurisdictions could provide funding to the Here4You hotline specifically for its residents and specific situations.

Hotlines and Information
Many communities maintain homelessness hotlines and publish online and printed informational resource guides with phone numbers, websites, and physical locations of available services printed. The Here4You hotline matches callers to emergency shelters, including transportation to the shelters. In addition to referrals for openings at emergency shelters, the staff will also help those seeking rental assistance by directing them to additional Homeless Prevention Services in the Santa Clara County region. The Here4You hotline can be accessed at (408) 385-2400. from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM, seven days a week. The Santa Clara County Homelessness Prevention System maintains a county-wide website, https://preventhomelessness.org, and flyer, as well as a centralized hotline for accessing services (408) 516-5100. An example of their flyer is included as an attachment to this document.

The United Way of Santa Clara County also offers assistance through its Emergency Assistance Network (EAN), which brings together local nonprofits to deliver coordinated support for those facing urgent needs. The Emergency Assistance Network (EAN) provides a variety of services to prevent homelessness and act as a safety net for residents facing eviction, utility disconnection, and hunger. The EAN helps families and individuals recover from emergencies, often providing case management and financial education along with referrals for food, rent and mortgage assistance, utility assistance, medical, and transportation aid. The network refers people to the closest local agency Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 182 of 474
16 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
based on zip code, ensuring faster, more personal support. The United Way leads this collaborative network by coordinating fundraising and advertising the program. Four of the West Valley cities use West Valley Community Services (WVCS) as the network coordinator while Campbell’s network coordinator is Sacred Heart Community Services.

Tenant Protections
Tenant protections are tools cities can use to prevent homelessness. Several Bay Area jurisdictions go above and beyond the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482) and the State Density Bonus Law to provide protections. The California Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482) is a statewide law that limits annual rent increases to 5% plus the regional CPI (or 10% maximum) and requires a landlord to have "just cause" to evict tenants after one year of tenancy. The law applies to most properties in California but has several exemptions, including newly built housing (under 15 years old), single-family homes owned by individuals, and owner-occupied duplexes or units.

The Cities of Redwood City, Mountain View, and San Jose all have tenant protection ordinances or programs, which provide displaced tenants with relocation assistance if the tenant is of low or very low income. The programs are all administered by city staff with additional contracts with relocation specialists, who interview the tenants and decide the relocation benefits. The costs for relocation benefits are paid for by the property owner or developers, and the cities usually have housing staff administer the program. These tenant protections have been successful and prevent homelessness in these cities by providing relocation for displaced tenants. The tenants are assisted by relocation specialists who provide them with a list of available units and assist the displaced tenants in securing relocation funds from the property owners displacing them.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 183 of 474
FEASIBILITY STUDY 17
Outreach and Case Management Programs
Outreach & Case Management Programs by Impact and Feasibility Programs Impact Score Feasibility Score
Case Management Highest High
Health, Mental Health & Substance Care Highest High
Navigation Center Highest Moderate
Job Training Moderate Highest
Outreach Moderate High
Mobile Navigation Center Moderate High
Law Enforcement Coordination Moderate Moderate
Figure 4. Outreach and Case Management Programs by Impact and Feasibility Outreach programs connect with individuals experiencing homelessness in the community to assess their needs, while case management provides personalized support, goal planning, and referrals to services like shelter, housing, healthcare, and benefits. Outreach teams engage and build trust with unhoused individuals, often those living in unsheltered locations, to link them to the broader coordinated system and essential resources, while case managers then work with those individuals to develop a plan, set goals for finding employment and housing, and achieving self-sufficiency.

Permanent housing has long been seen as the best way to end homelessness. Methods of providing permanent housing can be found in the permanent housing section of this report.

Case management is a core component of homelessness prevention and is discussed in the outreach and case management programs section below.

Case Management
Case management helps unhoused people and families by providing individualized support and resources to achieve housing stability. The case manager works with the unhoused client to set goals with the ultimate aim of being housed. This means they may work with individual clients on employment opportunities, mental health stability, addiction recovery, etc. Currently, the West Valley cities rely primarily on “soft-touch” case management from West Valley Community Services, services provided by Amigos de Guadalupe (funded by OSH) at safe car parking sites, and some housing focused case management from OSH at certain faith-based locations during the housing screening process. The City of Campbell’s Unhoused Specialist performed outreach to the Campbell unhoused population and was able to perform some additional services that Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 184 of 474
18 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
bridged into what would typically be considered be case management for approximately twenty individuals, including HMIS data entry for any unhoused person interested. There is no proactive plan to provide case management and support services to unhoused individuals or families living on the streets.

Healthcare, Mental Health, and Substance Care
Access to health and dental care remains a high need for unhoused people and families in the West Valley cities. Santa Clara Valley Healthcare provides health services to unhoused individuals through its Valley Homeless Health Care Program (VHHP). While Santa Clara Valley Healthcare services are available to unhoused people who can travel to physical clinic locations located outside the West Valley area, the VHHP has not recently served any of the West Valley cities through their mobile health care or backpack health care programs. The VHHP program presently serves Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Mountain View, South County, and San Jose. Mobile clinics include custom vehicles that are brought to a designated site according to a fixed schedule, such as the first Saturday of each month, and can be paired with pop-ups of other service providers to form the backbone of a mobile navigation center concept. There may be an opportunity for interested cities to contact the VHHP and OSH to request services for individuals or develop plans for more robust mobile or backpack health care programs to serve the West Valley area. A once-a-week visit to one or two specific sites may provide effective support to the unhoused populations in the West Valley.

Navigation Center
Navigation centers are typically physical locations where trained staff provide case management, centralized services, and transitional housing units or other forms of nonpermanent housing are located. The case management provided is not just for the transitional housing residents living on-site but is also made available for “walk-in” clients. The goal is to provide a location where the unhoused client can receive case management and access other resources and support services in one place. They could receive food, help with applying for benefits, showers, and do laundry. Navigation centers are also sometimes paired with other types of places for people to sleep, such as indoor or outdoor safe sleeping sites, safe parking facilities, etc. Some communities in California have created navigation centers by either purchasing and rehabbing existing buildings, rehabbing underutilized public buildings, or through new construction.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 185 of 474
FEASIBILITY STUDY 19
• The San Mateo County Navigation Center, located in Redwood City is a recent example of a new construction navigation center. The center can house up to 260 people, either families or individuals, and cost about $57M to construct. All rooms are non-congregate, meaning families and individuals have access to private sleeping quarters, most with private bathrooms. Residents can also bring pets to the center and have access to a garden. The County of San Mateo believes this is their first step to achieving “functional zero” homelessness. The County of San Mateo defines functional zero as every unsheltered homeless person in San Mateo County who chooses assistance can be sheltered in an emergency shelter or in temporary or permanent housing. The center offers dental services, medical services, case management and access to laundry.

Outreach Services
Homeless outreach involves skilled teams who meet people living in unsheltered locations to build trust and connect them with essential services like shelter, housing, healthcare, and counseling. Outreach workers assess individual needs, provide survival aid, and guide individuals through the process of obtaining benefits and finding permanent housing. Typically, outreach workers do not provide the level of detailed case work that an assigned case manager provides. For example, the City of San Jose contracts with PATH and HomeFirst for outreach within its borders, OSH contracts with the Bill Wilson Center and Abode for countywide outreach and the City of Campbell Unhoused Coordinator provided outreach services in Campbell.

Mobile Navigation Center
Mobile navigation centers are focused on providing immediate, accessible resources such as hygiene and outreach. They act as a stepping stone to the more comprehensive services available at a brick-and-mortar navigation center, with the specific services offered ranging from limited to more extensive. They can come in the form of a “resource fair” where several service providers gather in a parking lot of a faith-based organization or a community center and provide laundry facilities, showers, food, health, dental, veterinary services, and case managers or a retrofitted vehicle, similar to a food truck, that travels to different sites and provides case management, showers, laundry and food.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 186 of 474
20 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
• South County Community Services provides services for unhoused people and families at its Church Street Gilroy location, such as a food pantry and laundry facility. They also provide unhoused people and families with a permanent mailing address at their facility. They do not accept packages and require unhoused people to sign a liability release, but it will provide unhoused clients with a mailing address for benefits and correspondence. In addition, once a month, the facility hosts a
resource fair for unhoused
people and families where they
can access essential services
such as case management, food,
laundry, showers, and health
services. The South County
Community Services program
costs about $925,000 a year to
operate and receives financial
support from the County of
Santa Clara of $725,000 in the
form of grants.

Job Training
Job training programs for people experiencing homelessness provide skills for stable employment and offer wraparound support for success, addressing challenges like gaps in employment and negative employer stereotypes. Programs include vocational training, apprenticeships, and transitional jobs, and are usually offered by government agencies and nonprofits like the Salvation Army, Destination: Work, the State CalFresh Employment Training program, and some local nonprofits. Training covers job readiness, soft skills, resume building, and interview preparation, often alongside life skills such as financial literacy, and is most effective when combined with housing and other support services.

Law Enforcement Coordination
Although many Santa Clara County law enforcement agencies currently receive crisis intervention and de-escalation training, it is important that cities continue to support Figure 5. Popup food distribution (image credit: South County Community Services)
Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 187 of 474
FEASIBILITY STUDY 21
the partnership among law enforcement, mental health service agencies, and homeless response agencies to handle interactions with individuals experiencing homelessness, including mental health crises. Many cities have found it particularly helpful to form interagency task forces that include law enforcement, public works, parks and recreation, and housing staff to meet quarterly to discuss challenges and successes in the fight to eliminate homelessness. Other jurisdictions assign officers as designated homeless outreach officers to work directly with unhoused people after they have received specialized training.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 188 of 474
22 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
Immediate Needs Programs
Immediate Needs Programs by Impact and Feasibility
Programs by Type Impact Score Feasibility Score
Food, Showers & Laundry High Highest
Phone, Internet, & Mail Moderate Highest
Safe Storage Moderate High
Transportation Moderate High
Neighborhood Health & Cleanliness Moderate Moderate
Safe Sleeping & Sanitation Moderate Moderate
Figure 6. Immediate Needs Programs by Impact and Feasibility Immediate needs response programs provide short-term assistance to help individuals and families facing homelessness or a housing crisis overcome a temporary barrier, offering services like temporary shelter, food, storage for belongings, transportation assistance, access to internet service or a cell phone, showers, and laundry services. Emergency warming and cooling centers are discussed in the subsequent shelter and parking section.

Food, Showers, and Laundry
Food distribution is one of the oldest programs provided to people experiencing homelessness and is provided in the area by service providers and volunteer groups, including faith-based community groups. Showers and laundry services for unhoused people are essential for restoring dignity, improving hygiene, and positively impacting mental health. These services are typically provided by non-profits through stationary drop-in centers and mobile units like WeHope's Dignity on Wheels, which travel to different locations. Project WeHope, currently has contracts with the cities of Sunnyvale and Santa Clara to provide not only portable showers and laundry service, but case management, and overnight hotel stays during inclement weather, Overall, the City of Sunnyvale has budgeted about $900 thousand a year for these services, while the City of Santa Clara has budgeted $850 thousand to serve slightly fewer people. Many faithbased communities in the West Valley cities currently offer showers and laundry facilities to unhoused people as part of their homeless services programs, specifically, in the town of Los Gatos. They rely on donations from the congregation and volunteer assistance with minimal cost to the town. Some communities include mobile shower and laundry services with homeless services pop-ups or mobile navigation center schedules. Other communities have also installed temporary or semi-permanent toilet facilities.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 189 of 474
FEASIBILITY STUDY 23
Safe Storage
Safe storage facilities or lockers have been provided in some California communities as a way of offering dignity and compassion to unhoused people. • For example, the City of Burbank uses a combination of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and special measure funding to provide a safe storage location for unhoused people. The program is run by the Salvation Army and uses plastic rolling bins similar to recycling carts to store the belongings for unhoused people. The facility is open daily from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM and serves about 40 unhoused individuals at any given time.
• Madison, Wisconsin, provides lockers scattered throughout the city in groups of 4-10 lockers. The City pays the provider $10,000 to purchase the lockers and the provider works with local businesses to place the lockers on their property.

Transportation
Public transportation is underprovided for the West Valley unhoused. Often, major bus lines are only available along the larger corridors. Transportation options are needed for people with mobility-challenges to access health care appointments and to access shelter opportunities. Interviews with stakeholders and support service providers indicate that very few of the unhoused people can secure transit passes on their own. • One potential solution is the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Mobile Assistance Program (MAP). MAP is designed to address transportation gaps and barriers for Santa Clara County’s older adults, individuals with disabilities, and low-income residents. The program aims to enhance access to employment, education, travel training, healthcare, and essential support services while encouraging public transit use and healthy living. The program provides direct transportation resources (through partnerships with local community organizations. These resources include transit and paratransit fares and gas vouchers. Silicon Valley Independent Living Center (SVILC) and Catholic Charities are two of the community organizations that have been working with VTA to provide these transit resources to those in need. If these organizations are working with any of the West Valley cities, the possibility of partnering with these organizations to assist unhoused people with transportation needs exists.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 190 of 474
24 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
Neighborhood Health and Cleanliness
In July 2024, the Supreme Court sided with Grants Pass in the case Grants Pass v.

Johnson. Previously, in many western states, including California, cities were unable to remove encampments in many circumstances (e.g., without providing an equal number of shelter beds). Following this case, many cities, including San Jose and San Francisco, are beginning to clear encampments, and other cities along the peninsula are beginning to implement policies on when encampments should be cleared and how much notice should be provided. Typically, at least 72 hours of notice is provided to encampment residents when a site is going to be cleared, unless it is close to a sensitive area, such as a river or creek, in which case less notice may be given. Costs for clearing encampments vary based on the area and items being cleared.

Efforts to clear, prevent, and manage San Jose’s homeless encampments cost the city and partner agencies almost $8.6 million in 2019, according to a report entitled, “Exploring Homelessness Among People Living in Encampments and Associated Costs,” published in February 2020. The report analyzed spending in four cities, including San Jose, and found that clearing encampments is a major undertaking for cities and can be quite costly.

In addition to encampment cleanups,
some cities have hired service providers
that employ unhoused people to
ensure that the city streets are clean
and safe. These service providers make
sure used needles and garbage are
kept off the streets and waterways. The
program services two purposes, it helps
formerly homeless individuals by
providing employment, while making
sure the streets and waterways remain
clean and safe. Other cities have
provided free toilets and trash services
to promote cleanliness, sanitation, and
public health.

Figure 7. Prefabricated free public restroom in Redwood City (image credit: Good City Company)
Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 191 of 474
FEASIBILITY STUDY 25
Safe Sleeping and Sanitation
Safe sleeping sites are sanctioned tent encampments that provide tents and services for unhoused residents, these are sometimes referred to as safe tent or designated camping sites. These typically have a low barrier for entry and require unhoused individuals or families to agree to be good neighbors and abide by certain rules, such as no alcohol or drugs. Cities, such as San Jose and Santa Cruz, have navigation centers or other jointly located services adjacent to or at safe sleeping sites to assist in transitioning unhoused people into shelters or transitional housing. The navigation centers also assist with helping unhoused people secure services such as Social Security benefits, Veterans benefits, health care, food, and sanitary services. Tents and sanitary facilities are provided onsite at most sites, but there are a few sites nationwide that allow unhoused people to bring their own tent.
• The City of San Jose recently opened its first safe sleeping site. Initial costs are estimated at $2.4 million per year to operate. This includes services such as security, meals, showers, laundry, case management, and garbage collection for its 56 tents. In addition to locations where tents are pitched outdoors, some cities have facilities located in permanent structures, such as an armory or vacant commercial building, or temporary structures, such as a sprung structure (large event-style tent).

Phone, Internet, and Mail
Mobile phones are necessary for people experiencing homelessness as they provide a lifeline for accessing crucial services, staying in contact with support systems, ensuring personal safety, and improving overall well-being. California LifeLine offers low-cost and free monthly telephone services to eligible, low-income California residents. Participants can qualify for the program if they receive public benefits or meet household income limits. However, the phones must often be mailed to a mailbox. Phones are also frequently lost, stolen, or broken. Additionally, access to electricity to charge the phone is difficult, and there are data limits on the devices. A common barrier is the unhoused person must often have a mailing address to receive the phone. Local libraries also offer computer and internet access.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 192 of 474
26 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
Shelter and Parking Programs
Shelter & Parking Programs by Impact and Feasibility
Programs by Type Impact Score Feasibility Score
Temporary Shelters Highest Moderate
Safe Parking High Moderate
Hotel Vouchers/Rentals Moderate Highest
Figure 8. Shelter and Parking Programs by Impact and Feasibility Emergency shelters and safe parking programs both provide temporary shelter to unhoused people. An emergency shelter provides a temporary indoor place to sleep, offering beds, bathrooms, and meals, typically for individuals or families facing homelessness due to weather or other reasons. A safe parking program offers a designated, monitored outdoor lot for people living in their vehicles, providing safety from vehicle break-ins and access to basic amenities and supportive services to help them transition to stable housing. While shelters offer more structured spaces, safe parking programs focus on providing a stable and secure place to park overnight and access services.

Temporary Shelters
Temporary shelters can be provided in a range of forms, both congregate and noncongregate. These can also include warming and cooling centers, cold weather shelters, domestic violence shelters, and shelters associated with navigation centers. • Warming and cooling centers are facilities that are temporarily made available to the general public during extreme temperature conditions. Centers are not overnight shelters. They are open for a limited number of hours and for a limited number of days and provide limited services. They can be provided in libraries, community centers, and other public buildings that have heat or air conditioning and are only activated during extreme heat or during extreme winter storms.

There is little cost to activate these shelters except for staffing and food costs. • Cold-weather shelters can be provided in public buildings such as community centers and underutilized public facilities. These are typically for the duration of the winter and provide unhoused people with safe and warm sleeping facilities.

Typically, the unhoused people arrive in the early evening and may be provided with dinner, shower facilities, and warm bedding. The facilities are almost always congregate in nature. In the morning, the unhoused people leave the facility and return to work or find a place to spend the daytime hours. In some cases, Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 193 of 474
FEASIBILITY STUDY 27
breakfast and laundry facilities may be provided. HomeFirst, operated through an OSH grant, provides cold weather shelter in Mountain View. The site provides services from November through April, serving women and families and works in conjunction with the Hope’s Corner program which provides meals, showers and laundry to a broader unhoused population. The cold weather shelter is supported by a grant from OSH and costs about $60,000 a year to run out of the Trinity United Methodist Church.
• Overnight warming locations are similar to cold weather shelters. However, they are set up every evening and broken down the following morning, allowing the locations to serve a different purpose during the day. For example, HomeFirst has partnered with the City of San Jose, San Jose Public Libraries, and San Jose Parks and Recreation to offer Overnight Warming Locations (OWLs) across San Jose.

These sites activate in November and close in April. The City has a contract with HomeFirst to provide the overnight staffing, bedding, and clean-up. These services are not currently being provided in the West Valley cities. • Congregate shelters are temporary housing facilities where people sleep in shared or communal spaces, providing little to no individual privacy. All shared spaces are communal as well. These shelters have fallen out of favor with homeless service advocates because many unhoused prefer moderate privacy and protection for their belongings. Examples of congregate shelters in Santa Clara County include the HomeFirst Boccardo Reception Center and HomeFirst Gilroy Shelter, which serve hundreds of adults with a bed, shower, and meals in a shared living environment. These sites offer case management, housing problemsolving, including the exploration of family reunification, and housing search assistance.
• Non-congregate shelters allow for private spaces for sleeping, bathing, and storing of personal possessions while still utilizing communal spaces for gathering and, in some cases, meals. Examples of non-congregate shelters include the LifeMoves Mountain View tiny home facility and the San Jose Family Shelter on King Road in San Jose. New shelters are generally non-congregate in nature and many use modular construction or are hotels leased for sheltering unhoused people.
• Domestic violence agencies operate 24/7 in Santa Clara County and are accessible either online via chat or through a phone hotline. Next Door Solutions Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 194 of 474
28 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
continues to be the largest provider of services to victims of domestic violence and operates shelters throughout Santa Clara County. Locations for shelters for domestic violence victims are confidential, but they serve the entire County. Many cities fund these types of activities with General Fund or CDBG funding for approximately $10,000/ year.

Safe Parking
Safe parking programs offer temporary, legal places for people living in vehicles to park overnight, providing access to basic needs like restrooms and security and helping them transition into more stable housing. Sites provide a temporary, safe location to park for individuals and families living in vehicles, while also providing access to needed services, helping transition them into stable housing. Site managers connect participants with supportive services, including case management, employment search assistance, housing locator assistance, healthcare referrals, and behavioral health services. Some locations provide two meals a day along with restrooms, water, wash stations, and other basic services.
• As an example of this type of program, the City of Mountain View operates four safe parking sites throughout the city, two on city-owned property which operate 24 hours a day and two at faith-based locations. In total, the program provides 105 safe parking sites and additional parking for commuter vehicles for those living in RVs. The City budgets $700,000 a year in general fund monies to MOVE MV to operate the sites. In addition, MOVE MV receives $2,155,238 in funding through OSH to provide support services at these sites. The program has been successful at helping resolve the on-street RV parking issues in the city and providing a safe living environment.
• Safe parking exists in the West Valley cities in the form of Rotating Safe Parking at faith-based communities and has been effective. Case management and operation of the Rotating Safe Parking is provided by Amigos de Guadalupe through a grant from OSH. The budget for the entire program, including San Jose locations, is approximately $800,000. However, the budget for servicing Cupertino, Campbell, Saratoga, and Santa Clara is closer to $200,000.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 195 of 474
FEASIBILITY STUDY 29
Hotel Vouchers/Rentals
Hotel voucher/rental programs for unhoused people and families are another form of temporary shelter, often provided through local jurisdictions. This program offers immediate housing to unhoused people or individuals and families in crisis, such as those fleeing domestic violence, medically vulnerable unhoused, youth fleeing family conflict, or youth transitioning out of the foster program. Currently, Los Gatos and Campbell offer hotel rooms to vulnerable unhoused people during severe weather.

Interim or temporary housing at hotels is another example of how jurisdictions can provide a safe, stable environment for unhoused people after clearing an encampment or when medically necessary. The City of San Jose has a $7M budget to rent hotel rooms in ten hotels throughout the city to provide interim housing to unhoused people. The hotels have agreed to rent the hotel rooms to the City, and the City refers unhoused people to the various hotels. The hotels are currently being used to house those displaced during encampment clearings. HomeFirst operates the program and provides case management and support services.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 196 of 474
30 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
Interim and Transitional Programs
Interim & Transitional Programs by Impact and Feasibility Programs by Type Impact Score Feasibility Score
Rapid Rehousing Highest High
Transitional Housing Highest Moderate
Interim Sites High Moderate
Figure 9. Interim and Transitional Programs by Impact and Feasibility Interim and transitional housing programs provide temporary shelter and supportive services for individuals and families experiencing homelessness. Both serve as a bridge to permanent housing, but the programs may differ in length of stay, level of services, and target populations.

Rapid Rehousing
Rapid rehousing quickly connects unhoused people to housing and services by providing temporary rental assistance. Generally, rapid rehousing is funded through federal sources like the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program (HPRP), Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), and the HOME program, as well as state funds and local initiatives such as the 2016 Measure A Affordable Housing Bond. These programs are available County-wide. Eligibility is determined through the HMIS intake.

Transitional Housing
Transitional housing provides temporary housing with supportive services to individuals and families experiencing homelessness for up to two years. Transitional Housing requires the program participants to pay a portion of their monthly income for rent and usually provides a temporary rent subsidy for the duration of the program. The rental subsidies can be provided through a Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program funded with Federal HOME funding. In the case of HOME funding, the subsidy is not tied to a rental unit but is provided directly to the household.

Transitional housing programs are also used for youth who have aged out of the foster care program and those fleeing domestic violence. The Bill Wilson Center's Transitional Housing Program provides comprehensive services for homeless youth ages 18-24, including young single parents and their children. Clients live in shared, supervised apartments or houses throughout the County while receiving counseling, independent Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 197 of 474
FEASIBILITY STUDY 31
living skills training, parenting classes, and employment services. The goal of the 12-18 month-long program is to help the youth become self-sufficient adults with strong connections to the community.

Some Santa Clara County domestic violence support agencies provide transitional housing at confidential sites throughout the County. An example of this type of program is Maitri, which operates the Anjali Transitional Housing Home for survivors of domestic abuse. The program offers support services and training.

Interim Sites
Interim sites, including “Tiny Home Villages,” are also being used in surrounding communities to quickly provide shelter to unhoused people. Communities will build modular small homes, either pallet or preconstructed structures, to quickly provide shelter. All the tiny homes come with electricity and plumbing. Each tiny home has a small common area that will double as a sleeping area, a small kitchen, and a private bathroom. Some tiny homes are constructed so that they can easily convert from a single unit to a multigenerational unit.
• An example of a tiny home community can be found on Leghorn Drive in Mountain View. The City used prefabricated homes to quickly build 100 units on a recently purchased site. Overall costs for the site purchase and development of the 100 units were $25M, with much of the funding coming in the form of a grant from HomeKey and funding from the City and County of Santa Clara.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 198 of 474
32 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
Permanent Housing Programs
Permanent Housing Programs by Impact and Feasibility
Programs by Type Impact Score Feasibility Score
Permanent Affordable Housing Highest High
Figure 10. Permanent Housing Programs by Impact and Feasibility Permanent affordable housing programs provide long-term housing solutions and supportive services to individuals and families who have recently or are currently experiencing or at risk of homelessness. The level of services provided varies based on the type of affordable housing.

Family housing will provide support services for the children and light support services to the heads of household, whereas permanent supportive housing is a more intensive program.

Permanent Affordable Housing
Affordable housing, whether temporary or permanent, is a high need not just in the West Valley, but throughout Santa Clara County and California. According to Destination: Home, at least 75 percent of Santa Clara County’s unhoused people are unsheltered. This means they are living on the streets, in vehicles, tents or other places not suitable for habitation. Although jurisdictions in the West Valley offer safe parking sites and hotel stays, none of these are classified as transitional or permanent housing.

Cupertino has several 100% affordable housing developments in its jurisdiction and Campbell is looking to provide 100 affordable units at the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Winchester park and ride lot. Housing to serve homeless households specifically includes the following:
• Permanent affordable housing includes the construction of 100 percent affordable developments, inclusionary units, the provision of Section 8 vouchers, and the rehabilitation of existing units to serve the extremely low-income. In addition, Extremely Low-Income (0-30% AMI) and Acutely Low-Income (0-15% AMI) units can be provided in mixed-income housing developments. • Permanent supportive housing combines longer-term rental assistance with supportive services and case management for individuals experiencing chronic homelessness. In the West Valley area, there are presently six units of permanent supportive housing in Cupertino and 23 that have been approved in Campbell.2 2 County of Santa Clara, Office of Supportive Housing, Supportive Housing Development Update, January 28, 2025, https://files.santaclaracounty.gov/exjcpb1571/2025-01/housing-bond-report-25.pdf.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 199 of 474
FEASIBILITY STUDY 33
Recommendations
The project team offers the following recommendations to support prioritization of potential future homelessness services programming. While there are clear advantages to prioritizing programs with both the highest feasibility scores and highest impact scores, ensuring a holistic overall program landscape is also important.

The needs analysis also underscored the higher prevalence of specific subpopulations. Many programs described above, such as permanent affordable housing, temporary shelter, and hotel voucher programs, can be used to support targeted subpopulations of unhoused individuals and families. In addition, such programs may also support housing-vulnerable populations at high risk for homelessness including youth and families with children, domestic violence survivors, youth aging out of the foster care system, LGBTQ+ youth, veterans, postincarceration/reentry populations, and housing insecure community college and university students. Cities may want to partner with local community colleges and domestic violence service providers to create permanent housing, temporary shelters, or other services for these populations.

1. Develop a West Valley area homelessness response implementation plan While this study identifies programs and actions the cities could take to address homelessness, it requires the cities to take the next step to focus on implementation. An implementation plan would establish clear goals and tracking metrics to understand progress is a hallmark of successful strategies to address homelessness. A plan tailored to the five jurisdictions of the West Valley area could include the following elements:
a. Vision: Establish an aspirational vision for the plan over a multi-year time horizon. Consider aligning with the Housing Element cycle. b. Goals and objectives: Write Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound (SMART) goals and objectives for the West Valley area and for each jurisdiction.
c. Mind the gap: Ensure programming addresses each step along the homelessness services continuum and supports individuals to move toward stable housing.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 200 of 474
34 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
d. Priority segments: Develop a common definition of priority segments of the population for the West Valley area and develop services tailored to their specific needs.
e. Near- and long-term outcomes: Include near wins and activities with longertime horizon impacts. f. Leverage existing programs: Wherever possible, strengthen or expand existing services rather than building a parallel system.

A template including examples of relevant SMART goals and objectives are included in the text box below. While not intended to be a comprehensive implementation plan, the following could serve as inspiration for such a plan. An effective plan would be developed in conjunction with a community engagement process and engagement among the jurisdictions and other key stakeholders. An example summary from the City of Mountain View is also included as an attachment to this document. The process used to develop the Santa Clara Valley Agricultural Plan can also serve as a model for how the West Valley jurisdictions could come together through a task force to develop a shared homelessness response implementation plan.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 201 of 474
FEASIBILITY STUDY 35
Figure 11. Example SMART Goals and Objectives
Example Goals and Objectives*:

1. Ensure no family with children or youth sleep outdoors by 2027. a. Establish agreement with County to provide X family and youth beds with priority for West Valley homeless residents by 2027.

2. Cut unsheltered homelessness across the West Valley Area by ~40% by 2028 and by 60% by 2031. a. Secure X number of priority access beds for homeless West Valley residents by 2028. b. Make X permeant housing placements per year by 2028 and X permanent housing placements by 2031.

3. Reduce first-time homelessness by ~25%, by 2028.
a. Provide X of financial support to Santa Clara County Homelessness Prevention System by 2028.
b. Provide financial support to tenant protection service providers (e.g. as indicated in each jurisdiction’s Housing Element)

4. Provide targeted services to 75% of individuals who have been homeless for 2 months or less by 2027. a. Expand safe parking options by an additional 30 spaces by 2027. b. Establish an oversize vehicle safe parking for at least 20 spaces by 2027.

5. Provide intensive formal case management to 50% of unhoused population by 2027. a. Implement a West Valley case management contract with a service provider (e.g. four FTE case managers and one FTE outreach worker) by 2026.
b. One jurisdiction to hire a program manager to manage the shared program by 2026.

6. Remove barriers to health, mental health, and substance use care to 50% of unhoused population by 2028.
a. Provide transportation to 100 individuals per year by 2027. b. Provide mobile services at least once per month by 2028.

7. Provide coordinated services to at least 50 individuals per month by 2028 a. Establish a pop up based or mobile event on a fixed schedule (e.g. First Monday of each month) that includes multiple service providers, community-based programs (e.g. food distribution), and health care by 2028.

8. Establish Homelessness Action Teams by 2026 and publish quarterly scorecard by 2027. a. Formalize West Valley Homelessness Response Task Force by 2026. b. Establish each Jurisdiction Homelessness Action Team by 2026. c. Adopt shared tracking metrics aligned with the Community Plan to End Homelessness and publish quarterly scorecard by 2027.
* Note: all quantitative figures included in the above example goals and objectives are provided for illustrative purposes only. Specific numbers would be developed by the West Valley homelessness response task force.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 202 of 474
36 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026

2. Sustain and strengthen what works
While there is increasing evidence demonstrating the positive impact of a wide range of homelessness services and prevention programs, at present, the expected loss of funding for the Continuum of Care, federal programs, and the potential service cuts caused by these funding cuts remains a reality.
a. Ensure the continuation of existing ongoing services with a proven track record.

Homelessness prevention and permanent affordable housing are critical bookends to an effective homelessness response strategy. Identify ways to support and expand these efforts using the tools available to local governments.

These include but are not limited to:
i. Direct subsidy of permanent housing development and preservation and homelessness prevention programs, including the Santa Clara County Homelessness Prevention System.
ii. Leveraging land use authority to incentivize or require the development of new units, including inclusionary housing programs, commercial linkage fees, and development agreements.

3. Prioritize programs with high feasibility and high impact Programs with both the highest feasibility scores and highest impact scores should be prioritized while still ensuring a holistic strategy that tailors programs across the spectrum of needs.
a. Programs with high feasibility and high impact include: homelessness prevention and rental assistance; case management; rapid rehousing; permanent affordable housing; health and mental health care; food, showers, and laundry; and an opportunity fund and reunification program. These programs are described in greater detail in the above feasibility analysis section. b. Prevention: Every $1 spent on prevention returned $2.47 in public benefits, according to one recent study.3
c. Permanent Supportive Housing developments, such as the Mary Avenue Villas in Cupertino, are more cost-effective in the long run than temporary shelter. 3 Jeff Olivet and Susan Ellenberg, “Homelessness Is Preventable. Ending It and Saving Lives Is a Policy Choice,” Governing, November 15, 2023. https://www.governing.com/housing/homelessness-is-preventable-ending-it-and-saving-lives-is-apolicy-choice Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 203 of 474
FEASIBILITY STUDY 37
Nationally, the annual cost for temporary shelter beds to temporarily shelter three people is about $56,000 over twice as costly as the average permanent supportive housing unit for a family of three at about $25,000 per year.4 d. As described in the Needs Analysis report, the public costs to other public services, including public safety, emergency room visits, EMS, and other health costs are associated with considerably increased use among unsheltered homeless individuals.

4. Cultivate partnerships at all levels
The scale of the homelessness challenge is such that a “whole of society approach” is generally considered a best practice. This involves proactively engaging governments, the private sector, civil society, individuals, and communities. a. Invest to coordinate with Santa Clara County, the lead government agency responsible for coordinating responses to homelessness, the Office of Supportive Housing, Continuum of Care, and Community Plan to End Homelessness. b. Target local investments to strengthen homeless services where such services will complement or strengthen the work of others, wherever possible. c. Establish a formal West Valley homelessness task force that includes the five jurisdictions, County representatives, and other key stakeholders (e.g. community college district representatives and select service providers) to develop the West Valley area homelessness response implementation plan. Establish a formal purpose, goals, objectives, membership, and meeting schedule. Consider quarterly meetings of elected representatives and staff from each jurisdiction and monthly manager-level meetings, along with other key stakeholders. Each jurisdiction would share the progress against established metrics with the full group at least quarterly. Variations of such an approach could include informal collaboration with regular meetings, establishing a memorandum of understanding among jurisdictions to share implementation responsibilities for specific services, and creation of a joint power authority among jurisdictions to 4 Hannah Chimowitz and Adam Ruege, “The Costs and Harms of Homelessness: A Learning Brief Examining the Costs Borne by Individuals, Communities, Systems, and Society,” Community Solutions, September 25, 2023, https://community.solutions/research-posts/the-costs-and-harms-of-homelessness/ Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 204 of 474
38 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
oversee sub-regional implementation of unhoused services as South Bay Cities Council of Governments has done in areas of Los Angeles County. d. Within each jurisdiction: Establish a regular Jurisdiction Homelessness Action Team consisting of representatives from all relevant departments such as city manager’s office, community development, police, parks and recreation, libraries, and where applicable: housing, human/social services. Consider monthly meetings or no less frequent than every other month.
e. Identify opportunities for local agency procurement policies that can allow for one jurisdiction to piggyback on the procurement of one of the others to expand a program or contract to their own. This can expedite the delivery of services, reduce administrative burden for public agencies, and reduce the operational burden for service providers who are servicing multiple adjacent jurisdictions. f. Explore creative solutions to remove barriers to community-led programs, including faith-based programs where appropriate.
g. Leverage local governments’ convening power to bring key stakeholders together to shape homelessness response efforts and become more educated about the work of other agencies and organizations.

5. Engage people who have experienced homelessness
Identify ways for individuals who have experienced homelessness to meaningfully participate during the overall strategy visioning and design phase and additional ways to engage during the development and implementation of specific programs on a recurring basis. Consider adding representatives who have experienced homelessness to housing advisory boards or other structured bodies, which would align with recommendations of the Community Plan to End Homelessness. The Lived Experience Advisory Board (LEAB) may be a helpful resource or partner in this work.

6. Align with the Community Plan to End Homelessness
Demonstrate alignment with the current plan’s three goals: address the root causes of homelessness through system and policy change, improve the quality of life for unsheltered individuals, create healthy neighborhoods for all, and expand homelessness prevention and housing programs to meet the need. An update of the Community Plan Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 205 of 474
FEASIBILITY STUDY 39
to End Homelessness is underway and is an opportunity for West Valley jurisdictions to provide input.

7. Identify funding
Explore creative approaches to identify funding to support homelessness response programs. Engage affordable housing developers to understand what can be done to remove barriers to affordable housing development, particularly barriers to affordable housing finance.
a. Programs to address homelessness are primarily funded through a combination of federal grants, state and local government initiatives, private foundations, and corporate and individual donations. Federal grants are a critical source of funding but are often administered by state and local agencies rather than directly distributed to individual programs. In almost all cases, when jurisdictions apply to the state or federal government for grants for homeless services, they must do so through the local Continuum of Care (CoC), which will administer the distribution of the funding. There are other funding sources such as the public service portion of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and the HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) which are Federal entitlement grants that would not need the CoC partnership.
b. Local and regional funding to support a variety of permanent housing and other homeless services programming is often an effective, if challenging approach to bring additional funding to the table. In many cases, local funding to support the initial capital and startup costs of a program can be helpful in securing additional outside funding. This is often achieved through support from the general fund or through voter approved measures to establish dedicated revenue in the form of sales tax, property transfer tax, bond, or business or lodging taxes. School districts, including community college districts, can also support permanent housing and other homeless services programming. Partnerships with districts to raise funds, especially districts who may also serve as implementation partners, can be an effective way to raise bond funds.
c. In addition, California cities with the Prohousing designation are eligible to apply and receive Prohousing Incentive Program (PIP) funding. These funds can be used to address homeless services as well as affordable housing development. With the small sizes of the five West Valley jurisdictions, it is unlikely that any of the Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 206 of 474
40 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
jurisdictions can apply for the State’s Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) program funding or funds set aside for encampment removal.

This funding is often reserved for larger cities, the CoC, and Counties. d. Some cities that dissolved their redevelopment agencies (RDA) have successfully used a portion of “boomerang” funds to fund homeless services. Boomerang RDA funds are local tax increment funds that return, or "boomerang", to cities for affordable housing after the RDAs were dissolved in 2012. These funds replace the prior tax increment dollars that RDAs used to finance projects, providing a local source for affordable housing development and other programs. However, the overall amount is less than the previous RDA funding.

8. Support neighborhood health, safety, and cleanliness Address quality of life issues for the entire community by contracting with a service provider who would provide case management, outreach, sanitary services and street clean up. This could be similar to what the Cities of Sunnyvale and Santa Clara are currently providing with WeHope contracts.

9. Consider a Functional Zero Homelessness Approach
Functional zero homelessness is a concept used to establish a defined goal regarding the frequency and length of homelessness in the community. The County of Santa Clara defines functional zero as the overall homelessness response system’s ability to consistently house more unhoused families than the number of families experiencing homelessness for the first time each year, and the ability to maintain housing placements at a level sufficient to assist all families currently experiencing homelessness (i.e. those in the Community Queue). This does not mean literal zero instances of homelessness but ensuring sufficient temporary and permanent housing opportunities that are effective at preventing and quickly resolving unsheltered homelessness.

The County of Santa Clara does not include temporary shelter in how it defines meeting functional zero. While some communities define functional zero as including temporary shelter, existing when the number of people experiencing homelessness is consistently fewer than the number that can be housed within 90 days, or use other definitions, this report recommends using the County of Santa Clara definition.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 207 of 474
FEASIBILITY STUDY 41
a. Recently, the City of Redondo Beach made the news for having achieved functional zero homelessness. They still have a homeless population, but they can offer housing to those who want housing, and residents who become unhoused can be housed within 90 days of their becoming unhoused. Redondo Beach used strategies like tiny home villages, leasing hotel rooms, using existing interim and permanent housing, and collaborating with local nonprofit organizations and government entities to attain its goal.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 208 of 474
42 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
List of Attachments
Attachment A: Homelessness Response Programs – Detailed Metrics Table Attachment B: Example Homelessness Response Strategy Summary Attachment C: Example Printed Resource Handouts
Attachment D: Navigation Center of San Mateo County Photos Attachment E: West Valley Homeless Services Needs Analysis Report (July 24, 2025) Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 209 of 474
FEASIBILITY STUDY 43
West Valley Homeless Services
Feasibility Study
Attachment A: Homelessness Response Programs – Detailed Metrics Table Figure A-1. Homelessness Response Program Detail. Note: This table is organized by impact score, then by feasibility score. Component metrics that underly the composite impact and feasibility scores are also provided.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 210 of 474
44 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
West Valley Homeless Services
Feasibility Study
Attachment B: Example Homelessness Response Strategy Summary Figure B-1. Example Homelessness Response Strategy Summary (Source: City of Mountain View) Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 211 of 474
FEASIBILITY STUDY 45
West Valley Homeless Services
Feasibility Study
Attachment C: Example Printed Resource Handouts
Figure C-1. Santa Clara County Prevention System Handout Available: https://preventhomelessness.org/
Figure C-2. City of Mountain View Handout
Available: https://www.mountainview.gov/ourcity/departments/housing/homelessness Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 212 of 474
46 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
West Valley Homeless Services
Feasibility Study
Attachment D: Navigation Center of San Mateo County Photos Figures D-1 to D-3. Navigation Center of San Mateo County (Photos courtesy of San Mateo County Health Department) Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 213 of 474
FEASIBILITY STUDY 47
West Valley Homeless Services
Feasibility Study
Attachment E: West Valley Homeless Services Needs Analysis Report (July 24, 2025)
Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 214 of 474
West Valley Homeless Services
Needs Analysis Report
Cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Monte Sereno,
and Saratoga, and Town of Los Gatos
July 24, 2025
Prepared by:

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 215 of 474
Acknowledgements
West Valley Jurisdictions
City of Campbell: Rob Eastwood, Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, Chris Miranda City of Cupertino: Nicky Vu
Town of Los Gatos: Joel Paulson, Katy Nomura
City of Monte Sereno: Diana Perkins
City of Saratoga: Bryan Swanson, Cindy McCormick
With Special Thanks to
County of Santa Clara, Office of Supportive Housing: Hilary Armstrong, Diana Castillo, Michelle Covert, Laura Urteaga Fuentes, Kathryn (KJ) Kaminski, Tina La Perle, Leila Qureishi Destination: Home: Ray Bramson
Good City Company
Nicholas Hamilton, AICP, Public Policy Lead
Aaron Aknin, AICP, Principal
Vera Gil, Housing Specialist
Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 216 of 474
Contents
Executive Summary...................................................................................................................... 1 KEY FINDINGS....................................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 2 Background................................................................................................................................... 4 UNDERSTANDING HOMELESSNESS TODAY....................................................................................................................4 POLICY CONTEXT..............................................................................................................................................................7 KEY POLICY IMPLICATIONS ..............................................................................................................................................9 METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................................................................13 Quantitative Needs Analysis ..................................................................................................... 15 Existing Programs, Services, and Systems............................................................................... 20 PROGRAMS IDENTIFIED ..................................................................................................................................................21 SYSTEMS AND SUPPORTS ..............................................................................................................................................26 Interviews and Insights of Homeless Individuals ................................................................... 29 Gap Analysis................................................................................................................................ 30 GAPS IN SERVICES FOR CURRENTLY HOMELESS PEOPLE............................................................................................31 SYSTEMS GAPS................................................................................................................................................................34 Conclusion & Next Steps........................................................................................................... 35 FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................................................................35 List of Materials Consulted and Supporting Documents ...................................................... 40 Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 217 of 474
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 1
West Valley Homeless Services
Needs Analysis Report
Cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Monte Sereno
Saratoga, and Town of Los Gatos
July 24, 2025
Executive Summary
The West Valley Homeless Services Needs Analysis Report analyzes the state of homelessness and homeless services in 2025 in the five West Valley cities of Santa Clara County: Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga and identifies gaps in the services provided.

Key findings
• Homelessness is a Serious Problem: At least 524 individuals across 322 households were counted as homeless in the West Valley area in 2024. About 214 new homeless households sought shelter or services for the first time in 2024 and 51 percent have been homeless for two or more years.
• Homelessness is Not One-Size-Fits-All: While there are many homeless individuals who visibly live on the street, there is also a large population who are more hidden. Matching appropriate services to specific individuals is critical. • Impacts on Children: Nineteen percent of homeless households are unaccompanied youth and 19 percent are families with children. In addition, homelessness is associated with significant negative health and child development outcomes.
• Homelessness Affects Us All: Homelessness impacts all members of the community, not just those who are homeless. The effects on housed residents, the economy, and local government services are substantial. • Services and Housing Work: Permanent housing is critical, even if it is expensive and time-consuming. Immediate services are sometimes as important as housing.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 218 of 474
2 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
Introduction
The West Valley cities are located in the heart of Silicon Valley, known for innovation and myriad globally recognized companies. While some of the highest median income zip codes in the state and country are in the area, it is also home to many people facing significant economic challenges. In 2023, Santa Clara County ranked sixth in the US for the prevalence of unsheltered individuals among major population centers, with 412 unsheltered people per 100,000 residents. This data is based on a point-in-time count conducted in January 2023. The County saw a 5 percent increase in homelessness in 2023 compared to 20191 and another 8.2 percent increase between 2023 and 20252.

In July 2024, the City of Campbell allocated
$100,000 in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
funds to conduct a homeless needs analysis and
feasibility study. In December 2024, the City
contracted with Good City Company to conduct a
needs assessment and feasibility study. Good City
Company is a local government consulting firm
based in Redwood City. The firm offers support
to local government agencies in the fields of
planning, economic development, housing, and
city manager’s office services.

The first phase of analysis is reflected in this
needs analysis report, which includes an analysis
of available quantitative data, existing
background material and research, and the
results of interviews with key stakeholders,
including service providers and currently homeless individuals in the area. The needs 1 Love, Hanna, and Tracy Hadden Loh. “Homelessness in US Cities and Downtowns: The Perception, the Reality, and How to Address Both.” Brookings Institution. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/homelessness-in-us-citiesand-downtowns/. 2 County of Santa Clara, California. “County of Santa Clara Releases Preliminary Results of 2025 Point‑in‑Time Homeless Count.” County News Center, June 20, 2025. Accessed July 17, 2025. https://news.santaclaracounty.gov/county-santa-clara-releasespreliminary-results-2025-point-time-homeless-count “I care about the homeless
here, but I have young kids
and the quality-of-life
impact on families also
matters. The status quo
doesn’t work, and I know
we can do better than
this.”
Local Community Member
Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 219 of 474
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 3
assessment describes existing services and identifies gaps in services impacting homelessness in the West Valley area. This analysis is intended to establish a baseline of existing conditions regarding homelessness in the West Valley and provide a foundation of information for a subsequent feasibility study for improved services.

Following the completion of this needs analysis, the project team will also conduct a feasibility analysis. A list of items likely to be analyzed in the feasibility study are included in the conclusions section of this needs analysis document.

Figure 1. The five West Valley Jurisdictions (Image credit: Santa Clara County LAFCO, Good City Company) Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 220 of 474
4 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
Background
Understanding Homelessness Today
Homelessness is a complex problem, impacting different segments of the community in different ways. Individuals and families at risk of homelessness face constant pressure from forces that ultimately push many into homelessness. These forces are magnified by the housing crisis and felt most acutely where the cost of housing is highest, such as the West Valley.

Addressing homelessness has been an increasing priority in the region, and there are social, public health, economic, and quality of life reasons that motivate this. However, there is also a broadly held moral belief that human beings should live with a level of dignity that is not possible to achieve while being homeless. While the problem can feel nearly impossible to solve, immediate services and long-term housing can substantially reduce homelessness and its negative impacts.

The first image of a homeless person that comes to mind for many is a single male with significant substance abuse and mental health issues. While this characterization represents a visible phenomenon, the data paints a more complex picture. There is also a large hidden population of homeless individuals and families. Across the West Valley cities, 37 percent of homeless households are unaccompanied youth or families with children, and 50 percent are male. Many homeless women and families with children are less visible. A recent study of homeless adults in California showed that a significant portion of homeless people reported not having used drugs regularly in the prior six months 3. Homeless people come from a wide range of backgrounds, and while some come from outside the community, many were raised or were previously housed in the local community.

California’s housing challenges are well-documented and acutely felt across the entire West Valley of Santa Clara County. Statewide, nearly one-third of California renters pay more than 50 3 Baggett, Travis P., James J. O’Connell, Jesse M. Yedinak, and Thomas J. Stopka. “Illicit Substance Use and Treatment Access Among Adults Experiencing Homelessness.” JAMA 331, no. 12 (2024): 987–997. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.27922.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 221 of 474
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 5
percent of their income toward rent 4. California
is also home to a disproportionate number of
homeless residents. While the state is home to
12 percent of the nation’s population, the
homeless population makes up 22 percent of
the nation’s homeless population5. In 2023,
Santa Clara County had approximately 10,028
people experiencing homelessness 6. This
translates to roughly 2.3 people per 1,000
residents. The West Valley ratio of homeless
people translates to 1.28 people per 1,000.

The high cost of housing is a central cause of
homelessness and is driven not only by demand
but also by the policy decisions and other
factors that have resulted in so few homes being
built relative to jobs. Job growth in the Bay Area
has far exceeded the production of housing for
decades 7.

Homelessness is also a health issue. Health and medical issues are both an effect and cause of homelessness. Living on the street, in a car, RV, shelter, or couch surfing can be extraordinarily difficult and result in tremendous adverse social, medical, economic, and safety consequences8. 4 California Department of Housing & Community Development. Addressing a Variety of Housing Challenges. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-and-research/addressing-variety-housing-challenges. California Department of Housing & Community Development. Addressing a Variety of Housing Challenges. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-and-research/addressing-variety-housing-challenges. 5 Ibid
6 County of Santa Clara and City of San José, "County of Santa Clara and City of San José Release Preliminary Results of 2023 Point-in-Time Homeless Census," County News Center, May 30, 2023, https://news.santaclaracounty.gov/newsrelease/county-santa-clara-and-city-san-jose-release-preliminary-results-2023-point-time. 7 Kober, Eric. “The Bay Area: The Land of Many Jobs and Too Few Homes.” Manhattan Institute. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://manhattan.institute/article/the-bay-area-the-land-of-many-jobs-and-too-few-homes. 8 Community Solutions. “The Costs and Harms of Homelessness: A Learning Brief Examining the Costs Borne by Individuals, Communities, Systems, and Society.” Accessed May 10, 2025. https://community.solutions/research-posts/the-costs-andharms-of-homelessness/. “We want to end
homelessness forever. Even
for people who have a nice
house here now, what
about their kids? What if
life throws their kids a
curveball? Not addressing
homelessness in a serious
way now may come back
to haunt them later.”
Local Homeless Resident
Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 222 of 474
6 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
Some studies have shown the average age of death for homeless individuals to be 44 years of age 9. The stigma associated with homelessness can impact all aspects of life for those without a home, and research has shown a correlation between stigma and poorer mental and physical health outcomes 10.

Medical debt and loss of work due to illness are major contributing factors to the economic causes of homelessness. Two-thirds of people who have filed for bankruptcy cite these two factors as the primary reason for their bankruptcy 11. While most people with medical debt do not become homeless, research indicates that medical debt can significantly prolong periods of homelessness. Studies suggest that medical debt, even for relatively small amounts, can extend the length of time a person experiences homelessness by an additional two years on average. For those whose medical debt goes to collections, the impact on overall homelessness duration can be even more significant 12.

While single, homeless men are often the most visible in communities, homeless women, families with children, and youth are also prevalent. Women who are homeless or experiencing housing instability are at significantly higher risk for sexual and physical violence 13.

The impacts of homelessness on children and child development cannot be understated.

Homelessness and housing instability expose children to prolonged activation of stress responses, also known as “toxic stress,” which is in turn associated with greater instances of a 9 National Health Care for the Homeless Council. “Premature Mortality in Homeless Populations.” Accessed May 10, 2025. https://sbdww.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/PrematureMortalityFinal.pdf. 10 Reilly, Johanna, Angela Greenfield, Rebecca Gillam, and Peter L. H. Barrett. “A Systematic Review of the Effect of Stigma on the Health of People Experiencing Homelessness.” Health & Social Care in the Community 30, no. 6 (2022): 2128–2141. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13884.
11 Himmelstein, David U., Robert M. Lawless, Deborah Thorne, Pamela Foohey, and Steffie Woolhandler. “Medical Bankruptcy:

Still Common Despite the Affordable Care Act.” American Journal of Public Health 109, no. 3 (2019): 431–433. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304901
12 Bielenberg, Joseph E., Maren Futrell, Benjamin Stover, and Annette Hagopian. “Presence of Any Medical Debt Associated With Two Additional Years of Homelessness in a Seattle Sample.” INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing 57 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/0046958020923535. 13 Riley, Elise D., Jennifer Cohen, Kelly Knight, et al. “Violence and Emergency Department Use among Community-Recruited Women Who Experience Homelessness and Housing Instability.” Journal of Urban Health. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7010900/#CR5.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 223 of 474
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 7
variety of health, social, and developmental problems 14. Homeless children are two to four times more likely to have a mental health issue requiring clinical evaluation than low-income children15. Homeless infants are known to have poor birth outcomes, and homeless children are more likely to be diagnosed with respiratory infections, fevers, injuries, and nutritional problems than housed children16.

Homelessness impacts the entire community, not just those who are homeless. The impact on public services, particularly emergency room visits, is significant, with studies indicating homeless people use the emergency room significantly more than the general population,17, which are generally much more expensive than preventative care.

Other community and public health concerns include increased spread of communicable diseases due to lack of access to hygiene, healthcare, and shelter, and unsanitary conditions in campsites and improper waste disposal with impacts both to public health and the environment. Economic issues include potential reduction in property values or commercial activity in areas with visible homeless people or campsites. While harder to quantify, impacts on public safety and economic investment are widely perceived by communities at large. In addressing these concerns there is often a conflict between different policy objectives, as discussed below.

Policy Context
Local, State, and Federal housing policies, programs, and funding play a pivotal role in assisting local jurisdictions and service providers in preventing homelessness and addressing the homelessness crisis. Below, we will discuss how the West Valley municipalities, the State of California, and the Federal government all play vital roles in addressing homelessness. 14 Shonkoff, Jack P., Andrew S. Garner, et al. “The Lifelong Effects of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress.” Pediatrics 129, no. 1 (2012): e232–e246; https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/129/1/e232/31628/The-Lifelong-Effects-of-EarlyChildhood-Adversity 15 Bassuk, Ellen L., M. Beardslee, and J. Bassuk. “The Prevalence of Mental Illness in Homeless Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271536943.
16 Clark, Robin E., Marguerite E. Tracy, William B. Whitmore, et al. “Infants Exposed to Homelessness: Health, Health Care Use, and Health Spending from Birth to Age Six.” Health Affairs 38, no. 5 (2019): 721–728. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00090.
17 Vohra, Neha, et al. “Homelessness and the use of Emergency Department as a source of healthcare” International Journal of Emergency Medicine. https://intjem.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12245-022-00435-3 Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 224 of 474
8 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
Each of the West Valley municipalities is mandated by State law to draft a Housing Element and submit the element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and approval. The Housing Element is one of seven mandated elements of each jurisdiction’s General Plan. The Housing Element process is complicated, but it essentially outlines how a city or county will plan for housing needs across different income levels. It is a policy document that identifies current and future housing needs, establishes goals and policies, and provides programs to address those needs, including affordable housing and housing for special needs populations, including homeless people and householders at risk of homelessness.

The State of California plays a role in enforcing State laws relating to housing development and providing resources to municipalities. HCD is responsible for reviewing and monitoring municipalities’ progress in implementing approved housing elements. In addition, State laws, such as Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) and Assembly Bill 1482 (AB 1482), place requirements on cities to streamline the housing development process, uphold renter protections and to comply with no net loss requirements relating to housing redevelopment. AB1482, the California Housing Crisis Act of 2019, provides a form of statewide rent control and just cause eviction protections for residential renters. It limits rent increases to five percent plus the local Consumer Price Index (CPI), or ten percent, whichever is less, and requires landlords to have a valid reason (just cause) to evict a tenant. The law went into effect on January 1, 2020, and is set to expire on January 1, 2030. SB 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, is a California law that aims to address the State's housing shortage by streamlining the housing development process and protecting existing housing. It went into effect in 2020.

The State also provides annual funding allocations for affordable housing and homelessness services. HCD's Super NOFA (Super Notice of Funding Availability) was created to streamline and consolidate funding opportunities for affordable housing by combining previously separate funding streams into a single, streamlined application process for developers, aiming to make funds more accessible and equitable. The Super NOFA is broken down between ownership opportunities and multifamily opportunities. The Multifamily Super NOFA combines affordable development funding and funding opportunities for homeless military veterans. In addition, the State provides HomeKey and Homekey+ funding to provide transitional and permanent supportive housing for the homeless population.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 225 of 474
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 9
Santa Clara County’s Department of Office of Supportive Housing (OSH) receives Federal McKinney Act funding for homeless and homeless prevention programs. OSH is responsible for the Continuum of Care (COC) by coordinating the County-wide homeless response, allocating funding throughout the County, and coordinating the Point-in-Time (PIT) homeless count.

Key Policy Implications
Several key findings with policy implications can be drawn from an analysis of the literature and practices of surrounding jurisdictions and are listed below. A bibliography is also provided at the end of this report.

Funding
The current unpredictability of federal and state funding negatively impacts the fight against homelessness by making it difficult to plan and implement effective programs. This can potentially lead to increased homelessness and setbacks in progress. This funding instability also undermines the ability of service providers to maintain stable staffing and operations and continue to provide service levels.

Coordination
Coordination across sectors, jurisdictions, and departments within jurisdictions is critical to developing and implementing lasting impact. As described subsequently, the Continuum of Care model, coordinated entry, the facilitation of coordinated responses by Santa Clara County and the West Valley Cities, the work across departments within cities, and public-private partnerships such as Destination: Home are best practices already underway.

Much of this approach is reflected in the 2020-2025 Community Plan to End Homelessness, which is currently being updated and is also described later in this assessment. Its three goals are to: address the root causes of homelessness through system and policy change, improve the quality of life for unsheltered individuals, and create healthy neighborhoods for all, and expand homelessness prevention and housing programs to meet the need.

Conflicting Policy Objectives
In addressing homelessness, there is often a conflict between different policy objectives. Some approaches are tailored toward minimizing immediate negative impacts on the community at large, such as the removal of encampments. These may provide relief from quality-of-life issues in the immediate area but may also exacerbate the difficulties homeless people experience.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 226 of 474
10 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
While providing long-term housing solutions and preventing homelessness are broadly shared community goals, this approach may do little to address the immediate impacts of homelessness on either homeless people or the broader community. In practice, such policy choices are rarely an either-or choice, and a suite of approaches deployed together generally work best.

Challenges of Congregate Shelter
Many unhoused individuals and families prefer not to stay in congregate shelters for logical reasons. A congregate shelter is defined as a type of temporary housing facility that provides shelter for individuals and families in shared, open spaces with limited privacy. These challenges can result in many choosing to live in a car, RV, couch, or on the street 18. Approximately twice as many homeless people live outside the shelter system as within it 19. These challenges include:
• Concerns about safety and privacy in shelters. Communal living in homeless shelters can be a source of insecurity and unease for some individuals due to factors like the potential for theft, violence, and lack of privacy, especially for those with past traumatic experiences or vulnerable populations. Furthermore, restrictive rules and schedules, limited access to belongings, and the general feeling of being "dormed up" can contribute to a sense of confinement and disconnection.
• Lack of available shelter space, long waiting lists, or shelters are far or difficult to get to relative to where their social, economic, and health networks are located. • Shelters may prohibit pets, visitors, or a large volume of belongings. • While stringent sobriety requirements and the potential for separation of adults or families have been reduced at many facilities, particularly those that are not faith based, these remain concerns among homeless individuals and advocates. 18 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Understanding Encampments of People Experiencing Homelessness and Community Responses: Emerging Evidence as of Late 2018. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/Understanding-Encampments.pdf. 19 Ibid
Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 227 of 474
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 11
Alternatives to the congregate model include safe parking programs, sanctioned camping sites, using hotels as temporary, transitional, or permanent non-congregate shelters, and the “tiny home” model of interim housing20.

Demographics and Disparities
The impacts on child development, families with children, and youth aging out of foster care cannot be understated. 21 According to a report from the Terner Institute, stark racial and ethnic disparities in California’s homelessness rates continue to grow22. For instance, despite making up a small percentage of the state's population, Black individuals are disproportionately represented in the homeless population, with a significant increase in their share of the unsheltered population. According to the report, “Black people in California experienced the highest rate of homelessness, about 205 people per 10,000—almost five times higher than the state’s overall homelessness rate of 44 per 10,000. Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, Native American and Indigenous, and multiracial people also experienced disparate homelessness rates compared to the state’s overall population.” Similar disproportionate rate of homelessness of Black, Hispanic, and Native individuals are reflected in Santa Clara County and the West Valley area 23.

Importance of Housing
Affordable housing is crucial to addressing homelessness because it directly tackles the core issue: lack of stable, affordable housing. When people struggle to afford housing, they become vulnerable to losing their homes and falling into homelessness. By increasing the supply of affordable housing, the number of people experiencing homelessness decreases, and those currently experiencing homelessness find stable homes. When rents and property prices 20 Finnigan, Ryan. “Five Recent Trends in Homelessness in California.” Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkeley.

October 2023. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Five-Trends-in-CA-Homelessness_Oct-2023-

5.pdf.
21 Murran, Sarah, and Emma Brady. “How Does Family Homelessness Impact on Children’s Development? A Critical Review of the Literature.” Child & Family Social Work 28, no. 2 (2023): 360–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12968. 22 Finnigan, Ryan. “Five Recent Trends in Homelessness in California.” Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkeley.

October 2023. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Five-Trends-in-CA-Homelessness_Oct-2023-

5.pdf.
23 Olivet, Jeff, et al., SPARC/Destination: Home. “Race and Homelessness In Santa Clara County, California.” January 31, 2020. https://destinationhomesv.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/02/RacialEquityReport0131020.pdf?mc_cid=06a7865957&mc_eid=53a9a53ca3.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 228 of 474
12 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
increase and wages polarize or don't keep pace, low-income households are at higher risk of losing their housing and becoming homeless.

Short-term and long-term solutions to homelessness are crucial, with short-term interventions providing immediate relief and a path to long-term stability. Short-term solutions, like emergency shelters, offer shelter and access to immediate support services, including mental health and substance abuse programs and assistance. Long-term solutions, such as low barrier, rapid rehousing programs and permanent supportive housing, address many of the underlying dynamics of homelessness and enable individuals to achieve self-sufficiency.

Root Causes and Upstream Issues
Homelessness is a complex issue with certain factors being both a cause and impact of homelessness across economic, social, and personal domains. Some of the upstream causes of homelessness reflect broader dynamics in society, such as income inequality and healthcare access. Addressing them completely may be beyond the scope of local government, however, there are actions local governments can take—alone and in partnership—to make a significant positive impact.

Housing affordability relative to income is a key driver of homelessness 24. The importance of local governments to encourage the production and preservation of housing at all income levels, and especially at the extremely low-income level, is exceedingly important. While local public subsidies for the development of units are important, the local land use regulatory tools of local government, including but not limited to inclusionary housing programs and community benefits agreements, may have even greater potential for impact.

Prevention of homelessness is crucial. Once someone becomes homeless it is significantly more difficult to get them back into permanent housing. The Homelessness Prevention System, piloted by Destination: Home 25 in 2017, is a nationally recognized model for homelessness prevention piloted in Silicon Valley. A six-year randomized control trial showed that immediate financial assistance to at risk families is a proven solution to keeping families from becoming 24 Powell, Alvin. “Why It’s So Hard to End Homelessness in America.” Harvard Gazette. January 2024. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2024/01/why-its-so-hard-to-end-homelessness-in-america/. 25 https://destinationhomesv.org/
Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 229 of 474
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 13
homeless 26. Similarly, home sharing programs can be an important part of the homelessness prevention ecosystem as they can unlock lower cost housing options relatively quickly and serve to reduce social isolation. However, providers underscore that they are usually not practical for the rapid rehousing of people who are currently homeless. Although not ideal for every community, home-sharing programs have proven effective for achieving functional zero homelessness in many communities, such as Redondo Beach, California. Home-sharing programs are also an important part of the overall response to housing and homelessness in nearby counties such as San Mateo County, which operates a program in partnership with HIP Housing.

Another key tool of local government is raising awareness and promoting actions to address homelessness that can be made at the state or federal levels. Regional and subregional efforts to raise awareness and advocate for increased funding can often be a more effective approach than individual communities doing so alone.

Methodology
This research triangulates quantitative analysis, qualitative analysis, and insights from best practices and other research. Quantitative analysis is based on the following core data sources:
2024 Vulnerability Index - Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT): A survey and database used to collect data for the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) and additional data that allows municipal staff to categorize and prioritize needs in the community.
2023 Point-in-Time Count (PIT Count): A count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless people on a single night in January.

Qualitative analysis is based on interviews with stakeholders that included local jurisdiction staff, service providers, and homeless individuals. Meetings and interviews with staff from Santa Clara County, and the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga were conducted between February and April 2025.
26 Phillips, David, and James X. Sullivan. “Do Homelessness Prevention Programs Prevent Homelessness? Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial.” The Review of Economics and Statistics (2023). https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01344.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 230 of 474
14 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
An initial list of service providers was developed in consultation with staff from Campbell, Santa Clara County, Destination: Home, and the four additional West Valley cities. Additional service providers were interviewed at the recommendation of some of the initial interviews. These stakeholders include service providers active in one or more of the five West Valley cities and are listed below. Service provider interviews were conducted between February and April 2025.

Interviews with currently homeless individuals were conducted in March and April 2025.

Interviews were conducted in person in March 2025 and were facilitated by Campbell’s Unhoused Specialist. Additional observational findings were also made in the field, including from individuals who did not wish to be interviewed. An additional interview was conducted via Zoom and email correspondence as a result of outreach made by a homeless advocate and homeless individual to the project team.

The quantitative and qualitative findings are supported by a literature review of relevant research and public documents regarding related topics, best practices understood in the field today. A list of key resources consulted is included as an attachment to this report.

Service Provider Stakeholders Interviewed
Hope's Corner Abode Services
Los Gatos United Methodist Shower Ministry Campbell Unhoused Specialist HomeFirst Catholic Charities
LifeMoves Amigos de Guadalupe
SVILC St Lukes Pantry Program
WVCS St Mary's Catholic Church
Silicon Valley Safe Parking Destination: Home
Saratoga Rotating Safe Car Park
Table 1. Service Provider Stakeholders Interviewed
Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 231 of 474
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 15
Quantitative Needs Analysis
Available quantitative data was analyzed across several factors including unduplicated intakes over time, location across each of the five cities, how long they have been homeless, and demographic breakdowns by age, gender, household (family) type, and race and ethnicity.

The number of homeless people by City, with the data from the Point-in-Time count (individuals) in blue and the data extrapolated from the VI-SPDAT entries (households) in green, is shown in Figure 2. While it is not reflected in the data presented, we know from prior VISPDAT data and interviews with service providers that some homeless people have recently been associated with Monte Sereno.

Figure 2. Homeless Counts by City
Each instance reflected in the data was input following a comprehensive methodology. While these numbers are among the best available, they should be understood to be an absolute floor for the instance of homelessness. This data does not attempt to quantify the total number of homeless people in the community. For example, someone would not be counted if they had not completed a VI-SPDAT assessment or were couch surfing or living in an RV on private property and not visible on the night of the Point-in-Time count. The two data sets were also developed using substantially different methodologies; no trend over time can be inferred from 92 81
48 0 0
209
60 95
19 0
50 100
150
200
250
Campbell Los Gatos Cupertino Monte Sereno Saratoga
Homeless Counts by City (2023 PIT Count, Total 221 Individuals) Homeless Counts by City (2024 VI-SPDAT, Total 383 Households) Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 232 of 474
16 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
the VI-SPDAT data collected in 2024 relative to the Point-in-Time data collected in 2023. Pointin-Time data for 2025 is only available County-wide as of publication. The 2025 data indicates homelessness has increased by 8.2 percent since the 2023 count 27.

Figure 3. Homeless Inflow - First Time VI-SPDAT Assessment 2016-2024 (VI-SPDAT) Individuals in the Point-in-Time are included if they are seen on the morning of the count. In the counts, people are associated with a city based on where they are located on a specific night during the count. This involves identifying and counting individuals experiencing homelessness in shelters, transitional housing, or on the streets within the city's designated area. Whereas with the VI-SDAT assessment, the homeless individuals self-identify in which city they last lived, worked, where any children go to school, or where they spend most of their time. While multiple entries were allowed, only six households are counted in more than one West Valley jurisdiction.
27 County of Santa Clara, California. “County of Santa Clara Releases Preliminary Results of 2025 Point‑in‑Time Homeless Count.” County News Center, June 20, 2025. Accessed July 17, 2025. https://news.santaclaracounty.gov/county-santa-clara-releasespreliminary-results-2025-point-time-homeless-count 215
244
255
222
166
139 143
212 214
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 233 of 474
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 17
Figure 3. Homeless Inflow - First Time VI-SPDAT Assessment 2016-2024, illustrates the number of first-time VI-SPDAT assessments during the corresponding years. It can be noted that the number of assessments was lower during the height of the COVID pandemic but sharply increased in 2023 to above the nine-year average of 201.

During the VI-SPDAT assessment, the homeless individuals or families are asked how long they have been homeless. Figure 8., below, shows the West Valley cities saw a higher percentage of individuals who are more recently experiencing homelessness than the remainder of the County.

It also shows that 51 percent have been homeless for two years or more. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines chronic homelessness as: "An individual who has been experiencing continuous homelessness for a year or more or has experienced at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years, where each episode is at least 30 days in length" 28. While the exact percentage may vary slightly depending on the source, 20 percent of the homeless population in the U.S. is a commonly cited figure for those experiencing chronic homelessness. Also of concern is the high percentage of individuals becoming homeless between one week and three months.
28 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://www.hud.gov/.

Figure 4. Demographics by Gender in 2024 (VI-SPDAT) Figure 5. Household Type in 2024 (VI-SPDAT) 50% 50%
62%
38%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Man Woman / Other
By Gender
West Valley Cities (n=382)
Non-West Valley Cities (n=7,943)
63%
19% 19%
77%
17%
6%
Single Adult Families with Children Single Youth and
Young Adult
By Household Type (Based on
Type of VI-SPDAT Completed)
West Valley Cities (n=382)
Non-West Valley Cities (n=7,943)
Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 234 of 474
18 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
Figure 4. Demographics by Gender in 2024 (VI-SPDAT), indicates a much higher percentage of women clients in the West Valley geography than the remainder of the County (50 percent compared to 38 percent) while Figure 5. Household Type in 2024 (VI-SPDAT), indicates a significantly higher proportion of youth and young adults relative to the remainder of the County (19 percent compared to 6 percent).

Figure 9. Most Frequent Sleeping Location by Household in 2024, indicates West Valley individuals were more likely to sleep in their car or couch surf than the remainder of the County but less likely to utilize a shelter bed. It also shows 31 percent of households sleep outside and 28 percent in a car compared with 11 percent in shelters and 6 percent in transitional housing.

West Valley individuals were also more likely to be White and less likely to be Hispanic/Latino than the remainder of the County. The largest homeless population in the West Valley identifies as White and second largest as Hispanic, however, those who identify as Hispanic or Black are

Figure 6. Demographics by Age in 2024 (VI-SPDAT) Figure 7. Overall and Homeless Population in West Valley by Race and Ethnicity in 2024 (VI-SPDAT, ACS)
20% 19%
21%
16%
15%
10%
9%
21%
25%
19%
18%
8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
Above
West Valley Cities (n=382)
Non-West Valley Cities (n=7,943)
0%
46%
1%
8%
5%
0%
39%
8%
6%
15%
52%
0%
3%
23%
7%
6%
14%
35%
1%
3%
42%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
American Indian, Alaska
Native, or Indigenous
Asian or Asian American
Black, African American, or
African
Hispanic/Latina/e/o
Other
Native Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander
White (NonHispanic/Latina/e/o)
WV Homeless Individuals by Race and Ethnicity (2024 VISPDAT) Non-WV Homeless Individuals by Race and Ethnicity
(2024 VI-SPDAT)
Population Estimates (2023 ACS)
Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 235 of 474
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 19
Figure 8. Time Since Lived in Permanent Stable Housing for 2024 First Time VI-SPDAT Assessment Households (VI-SPDAT) Figure 9. Most Frequent Sleeping Location by Household in 2024 (VI-SPDAT)
Figure 10. By Self-Reported Disability/Vulnerability (VI-SPDAT) Figure 11. By Level of Housing Intervention (Based on VISPDAT Score) 60%
13%
9%
7%
9%
2%
51%
13%
7%
10%
16%
4%
2 years or more
1 - 2 years
6 months to 1 year
3 - 6 months
1 week - 3 months
Less than a week
West Valley Cities (n=382)
Non-West Valley Cities (n=7,943)
5%
7%
16%
8%
21%
41%
5%
8%
12%
16%
28%
31%
Transitional
Housing
Other
Shelters/
Safe Haven
Couch
Surfing
Car
Outdoors
West Valley Cities (n=382)
Non-West Valley Cities (n=7,943)
45%
27%
24%
19%
43%
34%
30%
26%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Domestic
Violence
Survivor
Mental
Health
Physical Drinking and
Drug Use
West Valley Cities (n=382)
Non-West Valley Cities (n=7,943)
7%
42%
51%
7%
33%
60%
Minimal RRH Range PSH Range
West Valley Cities (n=382)
Non-West Valley Cities (n=7,943)
Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 236 of 474
20 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
substantially overrepresented relative to the general population. Overall percentages for each race/ethnicity from the American Community Survey (ACS) 29 are provided for comparison. The race/ethnicity percentage is taken against the overall numbers from the ACS and VI-SPDAT, which rely on different methodologies. The relative percentages should be considered as indicative, but no inferences should be made at a granular level.

Figure 10. By Self-Reported Disability/Vulnerability (VI-SPDAT) indicates a higher domestic violence survivor rate and lower mental, physical, and drinking/drug use rate than the remainder of the County. Figure 11. By Level of Housing Intervention (Based on VI-SPDAT Score) shows a higher share of clients appropriate for Rapid Rehousing and lower for Permanent Supportive Housing than the rest of the County.

The VI-SPDAT data shows the homeless population in the West Valley cities is largely single adults, unaccompanied youth and families with children make up 37 percent of homeless households. An unaccompanied youth is defined as someone under the age of 21 who is living either on the streets, in a youth shelter or “couch surfing” and has no adult relative accompanying them. Also of note is that females make up 48 percent of the population, roughly equivalent to the general population. However, women and families tend to be less visible.

Homeless women may be less visible on the local streets because women may be in domestic abuse shelters and families avoid being seen on the street for fear that their children may be taken away from them. Also, during the days, children attend school, and parents are often working and remain less visible.

Existing Programs, Services, and Systems
Good City Company contacted the five West Valley cities to interview key staff members on services that the cities were funding and providing and services being provided by other community partners. Numerous participants, including service providers, local agencies, data collectors, and strategy and program development support, are striving to address one or more aspects of homelessness. The programs identified through the research to date are described below.
29 United States Census Bureau. “2023 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles, American Community Survey (ACS).” Accessed May 10, 2025. https://data.census.gov/table?q=DP05&g=160XX00US0610345,0617610,0644112,0648956,0670280.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 237 of 474
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 21
Programs Identified
Table 2, below, is a brief overview of each of the services. A short narrative on each program being offered is also provided, with information on the number of clients being served. In the feasibility portion of this report, more details on the overall services will be provided, such as hotel vouchers, rotating safe parking, safe parking programs, etc.

Jurisdiction Clients
Served
Annually
(approx.)
Services
Provided
Service
Provider
Description
Los Gatos 14 Hotel Voucher
Program
City of Los
Gatos/Los
Gatos Faith
based
community
The City provides hotel vouchers
during inclement weather
Los Gatos 29 Food Pantry/
Clothing/Laun
dry/Showers
Faith based
community
Faith based community provides
lunches, laundry vouchers, clothing
to homeless people
Campbell TBD Hotel Voucher
Program
Silicon Valley
Independent
Living Center
Provides hotel vouchers during
inclement weather, phase II will
expand to include older adults and
disabilities
Campbell 20 (13/night) Silicon Valley
Safe Parking
Program, car
repair funding
and gas cards
Amigos de
Guadalupe/Fai
th based
community
Provides safe parking along with case
management, workshops,
Community Nights, laundry cards,
showers, car repair funds, and gas
cards
Campbell 133 Unhoused
Specialist
Staffing
Position
Destination:

Home Grant
Campbell received a grant to cover
the salary for an unhoused specialist
for three years.

Monte
Sereno
N/A Funding Unidentified The City has set aside $20,000 in its budget to provide homeless
services in the West Valley region.

The Council has yet to identify a
project to support.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 238 of 474
22 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
Jurisdiction Clients
Served
Annually
(approx.)
Services
Provided
Service
Provider
Description
Saratoga,
Cupertino
(portions of
San Jose)
20 (up to) Rotating Safe
Car Park
Faith based
community
Safe parking program operates in
Saratoga and West San Jose at local
churches. Wi-Fi and food provided.

Cupertino,
Saratoga,
Campbell,
Los Gatos
75 Cupertino;
25 soft checkins for
Saratoga,
Campbell, Los
Gatos
Ready to eat
meals,
clothing, vet
services, parkit market, Case
management
West Valley
Community
Services
WVCS provides services at its
Cupertino location and with its
mobile food pantry. Services include
case management, ready-to-eat
meals, clothing, veterinary services
for pets, and dental clinics.

Campbell,
Los Gatos,
Saratoga
22 Case
management
Abode
Services
Provides case management in three
of the West Valley cities.

Throughout
Santa Clara
County
TBC Homeless
Healthcare
Programs
Santa Clara
Valley
Healthcare
Mobile clinic and street medicine
team
Throughout
Santa Clara
County
94 Case
management,
transitional
housing, and
shelters in the
County
LifeMoves Tiny Homes and transitional shelters
serve WV residents outside of those
jurisdictions
Throughout
Santa Clara
County
18 Temporary
housing and
support
services for
youth
Bill Wilson
Center
Shelters are not located in the WV
cities, but services are offered to all
WV cities.

Los Gatos Hotel Voucher Program
In June 2023, the Town of Los Gatos Town Council approved $50,000 for unhoused services. Of the $50,000, $10,000 was allocated to a shower ministry program, $20,000 towards a temporary Table 2. Existing Programs and Services Overview
Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 239 of 474
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 23
restroom and $20,000 for a hotel voucher program.

The program has provided 211 hotel nights booked during emergencies triggered by severe weather conditions like extreme heat (100 degrees Fahrenheit), extreme cold (below 40 degrees Fahrenheit), poor air quality (above 150 on the Air Quality Index), and/or medical situations requiring a short-term stay. The hotel vouchers are only available to known members of the Los Gatos’ homeless community. There are currently nineteen people on this known unhoused list (14 have used the vouchers at places like Los Gatos Lodge, the Garden Inn, and the Best Western). There have also been three qualifying “medical stays.” Los Gatos Food Pantry, Clothing Closet, Laundry Voucher, and Showers Los Gatos Methodist Church conducts a weekly outreach program on Thursdays from 2–3:30 PM at the church gym, offering showers, lunch, toiletries, and new socks and undergarments.

The program is primarily funded by the congregation and community donations, with the Town of Los Gatos contributing funding to cover cleaning services for the showers. The program serves 8–14 mostly senior, male regulars. St. Vincent de Paul provides laundry vouchers, and gift cards to places like Subway and Togo's are also distributed.

Bill Wilson Cetner
The Bill Wilson Center (BWC) offers a range of services to the West Valley Cities, including temporary housing, mental health care, supportive services, and advocacy, with a focus on ending youth and family homelessness. They provide services to runaway and homeless youth, young adults, and families, helping them develop self-confidence and personal assets. The Bill Wilson Center provided services to 18 households affiliated with the West Valley in 2024.

Abode
Abode is a major homeless services provider in the Bay Area and provides a variety of services, including interim housing. Abode provided targeted street outreach services to 22 high vulnerability individuals affiliated with the West Valley in 2024 Campbell Hotel Voucher Program
In December 2024, the City of Campbell City Council allocated $147,500 to the Silicon Valley Independent Living Center (SVILC) to operate a hotel voucher program serving homeless Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 240 of 474
24 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
people. The two-year pilot program offers up to 30 nights a year in the city’s Motel 6 for homeless individuals and families, as well as those on the verge of homelessness. In total, the program could provide up to nine hundred overnight stays over the two-year period. SVILC will provide support services during the stays, including mental health services, job support, case management, referrals to substance abuse programs, and food.

Silicon Valley Safe Parking Program
The Silicon Valley Safe Parking Program (SVSP) partners with Amigos de Guadalupe, the City of Campbell, and the City of San Jose, and operates in Campbell and Willow Glen/West San Jose.

The program provides rotating safe parking sites at local churches. Through a grant from the City of Campbell, Amigos de Guadalupe offers a car repair program and gas cards. In addition, a contract from the Santa Clara County’s OSH funds case management, workshops, community meals, laundry cards, and free shower access. In addition to support services, such as referrals to mental health and substance abuse programs, clients may receive assistance to pay for car registration or minor car repairs.

Campbell Unhoused Specialist
The City of Campbell has a budgeted
Unhoused Specialist position that had been
filled throughout the first half of 2025 but was
recently vacated. The position is funded for the
next three years by a grant from Destination:

Home. The specialist proactively conducts
outreach in the streets and other publicly
accessible areas to connect individuals with
services and support. Key activities include
identifying homeless individuals, engaging in
conversations with them, and conducting a VISPDAT intake survey to determine eligibility for housing programs such as permanent
supportive housing, transitional housing, and
rapid rehousing. The specialist provides
information about available community
resources and services such as food pantries
and the shelter hotline phone number. They Figure 12. Hygiene Kit (Image credit: City of Campbell) Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 241 of 474
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 25
also distribute hygiene kits (soap, toothbrush, toothpaste, deodorant, shampoo, etc.), and has bottles of water and other frequently needed supplies. The specialist also plays an important role in providing feedback to City staff regarding the needs of homeless people in the community.

Rotating Safe Car Park (RSCP)
The Rotating Safe Car Park operates in the West
Valley, mostly in Cupertino, West San Jose, and
Saratoga. The faith-based community commits
to serving up to sixteen vehicles for at least one
month and up to three months per calendar
year. Participants park overnight at the current
RSCP location and receive access to additional
supportive services. Each location offers a
hospitality hour where guests can socialize and
enjoy home-cooked meals or snack foods.

Personal items (e.g., socks, toothbrushes,
sleeping bags) are distributed, as needed.

Amigos de Guadelupe also provides case
management to some of the program
participants.

West Valley Community Services Programs
West Valley Community Services (WVCS) offers
services to Cupertino, Los Gatos, and Saratoga. WVCS has a mobile market which serves clients living in Los Gatos, Saratoga, and West San Jose with barriers to transportation. The homeless people in these communities can also receive ready-to-eat meals and fresh fruit or vegetables from the mobile market. The organization offers pop-up dental and pet clinics at the WVCS site in Cupertino. WVCS’s Haven to Home Program serves the homeless community by providing supportive services and resources. The Haven to Home program offers homeless clients access to food, bus passes, laundry funds, hygiene kits, shelter referrals, safe parking, and employment resources. In addition to the services, the agency also partners with the Rotating Safe Car Park to provide support services.
“It is a difficult and timeconsuming to recruit new
churches and other
community organizations
to host safe parking sites.

Community members have
valid concerns. They can be
overcome, but it can take a
long time.”
Brian Link, Silicon Valley Safe Parking
Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 242 of 474
26 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
Santa Clara Valley Healthcare Homeless Healthcare Programs The Valley Homeless Healthcare Program includes fixed location clinics and three mobile health centers 30. This overall program operates at a much larger geography across Santa Clara County that includes the West Valley cities. The Backpack Homeless Healthcare Program utilizes a “street medicine” program to send trained professionals with medical supplies to provide healthcare services to people where they are located31. An after-hours nurse advice hotline is also available.

Other agencies also provided services to households affiliated with the West Valley in 2024, including emergency shelter beds. These include HomeFirst (125 households) LifeMoves (80 households), the Salvation Army (23 households), Family Supportive Housing - San Jose Family Shelter (16 households), People Assisting the Homeless (9 households), and Willow Glen Studios at Pedro Street interim housing (6 households), When available, the vast majority of emergency shelter beds in the County are located within the City of San Jose, with additional shelter locations in Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Gilroy, Santa Clara, and Palo Alto.

Systems and Supports
Santa Clara County Continuum of Care (CoC)
In 1995, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) introduced a new policy requiring communities to submit a single application for McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Grants. This streamlined approach aimed at enhancing coordination among housing and service providers on a local level and promotes the development of Continuums of Care (CoCs). By mandating a single application, HUD sought to encourage a more structured and strategic approach to both housing and service provision for homeless individuals. CoCs, in turn, offered a strategic framework by providing homeless households with housing and services tailored to their diverse needs. HUD distributes funding to Santa Clara County through the Continuum of Care Program, and in turn, the Santa Clara County CoC distributes funding to programs serving Santa Clara County.
30 Santa Clara Valley Medical Center. “Valley Homeless Healthcare Program (VHHP).” Accessed May 10, 2025. https://scvmc.scvh.org/hospitals-clinics/valley-homeless-health-care-program-vhhp. 31 Santa Clara Valley Medical Center. “Backpack Homeless Healthcare Program.” Accessed May 10, 2025. https://scvmc.scvh.org/hospitals-clinics/valley-homeless-health-care-program-vhhp/backpack-homeless-healthcareprogram.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 243 of 474
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 27
In Santa Clara County, the CoC is made up of a group of stakeholders committed to ending and preventing homelessness in our community. CoC responsibilities include implementing community-wide efforts to end homelessness and ensuring programmatic and systemic effectiveness. Through CoC, the County has implemented a coordinated entry process to match homeless people to community resources. The CoC is also charged with tracking and managing homeless households in its area of coverage. This includes the biannual homeless counts referred to as the Point-in-Time count.

In 2024, the County of Santa Clara received nearly $48 million in Continuum of Care grants to provide rental subsidies and supportive services to vulnerable populations, including people fleeing domestic violence, youth transitioning out of foster care, and to address homelessness and those at risk of homelessness. These grants are the County’s largest source of federal funding to address homelessness, ensuring people are housed and have necessary supportive services. It also helps fund the HMIS system that tracks homelessness data.

Coordinated Entry
The coordinated entry system is designed to help homeless people find housing and support services more efficiently. It creates a standardized, consistent process for accessing services, assessing needs, prioritizing those most in need, and connecting people with appropriate resources. In the County’s coordinated entry system, any homeless individual can complete a standard assessment tool called the Vulnerability Index-Service Prioritization Decision Assessment Tool or VI-SPDAT. This assessment considers a household’s situation and identifies the best type of housing program to serve you.

VI-SPDAT
VI-SPDAT (Vulnerability Index - Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool) is a survey used to assess the needs and vulnerabilities of individuals experiencing or at risk of homelessness. It helps prioritize those most in need of available supportive, transitional, or permanent housing.

The VI-SPIDAT assessment is organized into steps. First, trained community partners conduct the VI-SPIDAT assessment at shelters, support service locations, or while conducting outreach.

The gathered information is entered into the HMIS system, and the households/individuals receive a vulnerability score. After receiving the vulnerability score, clients are placed in the community queue, based on the score, for Rapid Rehousing (RR), Transitional Housing (TH), or Public Housing and Supportive Services (PSH). Eligible households who are the most vulnerable and the most in need will be connected to available housing programs first.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 244 of 474
28 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
HMIS
HMIS is an acronym for Homeless Management Information System. It is a database that collects and tracks data on homeless individuals and families or those at risk of becoming homeless. HMIS coordinated entry gathers information on demographics, housing status, service needs, and other relevant data points about individuals and families served by homeless assistance programs. This database helps agencies coordinate services, track outcomes, and improve the overall effectiveness of programs for homeless households. Participation in HMIS is a federal requirement for agencies to access federal funding. 2020-2025 Community Plan to End Homelessness
In 2015, community partners joined forces to create a roadmap for ending homelessness in Santa Clara County. The plan centered around a collaborative response and the Housing First model. The 2020-2025 Community Plan to End Homelessness, which was endorsed by every city in the County, set an ambitious goal to create 6,000 new housing opportunities and identified innovative strategies and programs for reducing homelessness. The 2020–2025 Community Plan to End Homelessness, which serves as a roadmap for ending homelessness in Santa Clara County, is organized around three main strategies:
1) Address the root causes of homelessness through system and policy change. 2) Improve the quality of life for unsheltered individuals and create healthy neighborhoods for all.
3) Expand homelessness prevention and housing programs to meet the need.

An update to the Community Plan is underway, and additional information is expected to be available around the time of publication of this report.

Destination: Home
Destination: Home, a public-private partnership, aims to end homelessness. Founded in 2008, it emerged from a Blue-Ribbon Commission’s recognition of the need for a collaborative approach to achieve collective impact in our community. In 2011, Destination: Home officially became an initiative of the Health Trust and played a pivotal role in launching Housing 1,000, a three-year campaign to house 1,000 of the most vulnerable chronically homeless individuals, Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 245 of 474
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 29
including men, women, and families. The
campaign’s success paved the way for the
adoption of a Housing First approach in Santa
Clara County and laid the foundation for the
2016 voter approval of a historic $950 million
investment in affordable housing in Santa Clara
County, Measure A. In 2017, Destination: Home
transitioned into a Supporting Organization
under the umbrella of the Silicon Valley
Community Foundation.

Destination: Home convenes and collaborates with stakeholders across our community to advance strategies that address the root causes of homelessness and help ensure that all community members have a chance for a stable home. The organization advocates policies, develops ideas and programs, and invests in strategies that reduce and prevent homelessness.

West Valley Jurisdiction Homeless Services Collaboration Since 2023, staff from the West Valley city’s Community Development and Housing Departments have been meeting monthly to collaborate and share resources in addressing homelessness and housing goals. The cities have collectively sponsored a housing fair, including service providers with unhoused services, and have met with affordable housing developers to discuss opportunities for development.

While there is a lack of dedicated homeless shelters in the vicinity of the five West Valley cities, they have all agreed to collaborate on a feasibility study to explore the feasibility of a shelter and other support services and programs that could be offered. A Memorandum of Understanding among the five cities was developed in Fall of 2024. The cities also continue to work with the County of Santa Clara and other organizations to provide resources and support.

Interviews and Insights of Homeless Individuals
Central themes from in-depth interviews with three homeless individuals in the West Valley area are described below. Most of the individuals were raised in the West Valley area, while one had moved to the Bay Area approximately three years prior. Note that these themes were all “Not having housing is life
threatening.”
Local Homeless Resident
Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 246 of 474
30 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
consistent with the conversations and interviews separately conducted by the Campbell Unhoused Specialist in their interactions.

General Themes
• All expressed a notably elevated level of concern for others living on the street. • All felt that broader community is not bothered by the existence of homeless people within their own community, but that they are bothered when they must see it.

Needs Identified by Homeless Individuals
A generally consistent set of needs was identified by the homeless individuals we spoke with.

Permanent housing was the top need, followed by several other needs, listed in approximate order of priority:
• Permanent Housing (including permanent
supportive housing)
• Transportation access (specifically free or
discounted transit passes)
• Health care access (including doctors’
offices, pharmacy, and OTC meds)
• Lack of somewhere to safely store
possessions/things are regularly stolen
• Difficulty charging phones
• Difficulty of moving from one camping
site to another camping site
• Difficulty in participating processes to
address homelessness
Gap Analysis
A homeless services gap analysis is a tool used to identify unmet needs within a community's system for addressing homelessness. It helps pinpoint areas where services are lacking or insufficient, allowing for better resource allocation and targeted interventions. It assesses the current system and compares it to what is needed to effectively address homelessness. “It is the government’s job
to overcome the chaos of
homelessness and provide
real solutions.”
Local Homeless Resident
Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 247 of 474
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 31
Gaps in Services for Currently Homeless People
The gaps in service described below are informed by service providers and City and County staff and an assessment of research and best practices. Most were also reinforced by conversations held with homeless individuals.

Housing
Affordable housing, whether temporary or permanent, is a high need not just in the West Valley, but throughout Santa Clara County and California. According to Destination:

Home, at least 75 percent of Santa Clara County’s homeless population are unsheltered.

This means they are living on the streets, in vehicles, tents or other places not suitable for habitation. Although jurisdictions in the West Valley offer safe parking sites and hotel stays, none of these are classified as transitional or permanent housing. Housing to serve homeless households specifically includes the following:

Permanent affordable housing includes the construction of 100 percent affordable developments, inclusionary units,, the provision of Section 8 vouchers, and the rehabilitation of existing units to serve the extremely low-income. In addition, extremely low-income (ELI) units can be provided in mixed-income housing developments.

Permanent supportive housing combines longer-term rental assistance with supportive services and case management for individuals experiencing chronic homelessness. In the West Valley area there are presently six units of permanent supportive housing in Cupertino and 23 that have been approved in Campbell. 32 Temporary shelters, both congregate and non-congregate, include warming centers, cold weather shelters, and shelters associated with navigation centers. Santa Clara County has the largest total population of homeless individuals, the highest rate of unsheltered homeless, and lowest shelter beds relative to individuals needing support of any of the nine Bay Area counties. When shelter beds are available in other parts of the County, barriers to connecting West Valley residents to those beds include transportation challenges and the disruption of existing geographically rooted social, health, and economic networks. Currently, the Town of Los Gatos offers hotel stays for inclement 32 County of Santa Clara, Office of Supportive Housing, Supportive Housing Development Update, January 28, 2025, https://files.santaclaracounty.gov/exjcpb1571/2025-01/housing-bond-report-25.pdf.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 248 of 474
32 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
weather to approximately 29 known unhoused individuals. The program has served 14 individuals over the last year. The City of Campbell recently started a hotel stay program, which will offer up to 30 nights a year for unhoused individuals and families, as well as those on the brink of homelessness. That could amount to as many as 900 overnight stays over the two-year trial period. Silicon Valley Independent Living Center provides support services during the stays, including mental health care, job support, connections to housing programs, case management, substance abuse programs, and food.

Physically Coordinated Services
Service providers believe the homeless community could benefit from multiple service providers being available at one location, whether it is a brick-and-mortar navigation center like the San Mateo County Navigation Center or a mobile navigation center that travels to various locations. Despite outreach workers’ best efforts, it is often more effective for service providers to engage with households in their current living location or encampments. Currently, physically coordinated navigation services are not available in any of the West Valley jurisdictions.

Safety
Some people experiencing homelessness
may choose to sleep on the street instead
of in a shelter due to various factors,
including safety concerns, mental health
issues, and a preference for their routines
and independence. Shelters can feel
overwhelming due to crowded
environments, rules, and a perceived lack
of safety, even though sleeping on the
street may leave them more vulnerable.

Transience
Moving frequently is difficult for homeless people. They try to stay in areas where they are comfortable living but are often asked to move by property owners or law enforcement. This means that they must relocate several times a month or even during a week. Moving can often be additionally destabilizing. This is a problem which will impact “People steal stuff. They
will steal it right out from
under you when you are
asleep.”
Local Homeless Resident
Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 249 of 474
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 33
nearly all unhoused individuals and families.

Transportation
Transportation has been mentioned multiple times by service providers as something that is lacking for the West Valley unhoused. Often, major bus lines are only available along the larger corridors. Transportation options are needed for the mobility-challenged to access health care appointments and to access shelter opportunities. Interviews with stakeholders and support service providers indicate that very few of the unhoused are able to secure transit passes.

Healthcare, Mental Health, Substance Use Services
Many homeless people do not have access to sufficient medical, mental health, or substance use services. Many service providers and homeless people who were interviewed have expressed a need for bringing free dental and health care to homeless people in addition to the mental health services and substance abuse programs offered by support service providers.

Outreach and Case Management
Lighter-touch outreach reaching more individuals and more intensive casework were identified as needs. There is a call for more coordinated case management at some rotating safe parking sites and the faith-based service locations. This would mean a case manager who works with the clients to put together comprehensive goals and plans to secure housing and a job. This can be accomplished through a service provider like Abode or Amigos de Guadalupe, a County Office of Supportive Housing (OSH) assigned caseworker or through the mobile/brick and mortar navigation center. The case manager would be able to provide the VI-SPDAT intake, which would not only provide demographics to the County, but may lead to the individual receiving much-needed services, including housing.

Connectivity
Often, homeless individuals need a means of communication to sign up for support services. It can also be exceedingly difficult for homeless individuals to receive or submit paperwork due to lack of access to a mailbox. Technology also plays an important role in improving health and well-being. It can be used to reach out to loved ones, access resources, and a way to access medical assistance. However, technology can often Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 250 of 474
34 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
exclude those at the greatest risk. Even for those with a smart phone, using websites to apply for services can be difficult on a phone and some people who have been homeless for an extended period of time may not have strong skills navigating complex websites.

California LifeLine offers low-cost and free monthly telephone services to eligible, lowincome California residents. Participants can qualify for the program if they receive public benefits or meet household income limits, however, the phones must often be mailed to a mailbox. Phones are also frequently lost, stolen, or broken. Additionally, access to electricity to charge the phone is difficult and there are data limits on the devices.

Funding
The overall lack of funding to support the programs identified in this report is a central challenge. Experts generally agree that homelessness prevention, extremely low-income housing, and other programs and services have been underfunded for decades. The current public funding context makes it even more challenging to sustain current levels or strengthen such services.

Systems Gaps
Some gaps relate more to the system of services, knowledge, and logistics of connecting people with services. These gaps are described below.

Knowledge Gaps
Existing available services provided by others are sometimes not known to other providers. Similar gaps between public agencies and departments within a city can also be an issue, e.g., coordination between housing and police departments instead of a “whole of government” approach.

Scaling Impact
There remain questions regarding how to scale and make existing services more effective and efficient at achieving impact instead of creating something new.

Geography
Location of available services: many services are located where people would be required to travel long (or difficult) distances or to locations they do not want or Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 251 of 474
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 35
would have great difficulty in traveling to. This contrasts with an approach of “meeting people where they are at” and offering services in a location where they are more likely to be matched with those who need them.

Conclusion & Next Steps
Feasibility Analysis
In the next phase of this project, we will analyze the feasibility of programs to prevent homelessness and serve homeless individuals and households. Some services may be appropriate for one segment of the homeless population, but not another segment. Below is a list and a brief explanation of the programs that are likely to be analyzed and discussed in detail in the next phase. Some services respond directly to a need discussed above, while others address multiple needs.

Permanent Affordable Housing
Permanent affordable housing can come in a multitude of varieties. For this report, we are exploring permanent affordable housing that serves extremely low income households by either construction of the units, provision of Section 8 vouchers, rehabilitation of existing units to serve the extremely low income. In addition, Extremely Low Income (ELI) units can be provided in a mixed-income or 100 percent affordable housing development. These developments are highly subsidized through a combination of municipal, Low Income Housing Tax Credits, and commercial loans.

Interim Housing
Interim Housing, exemplified by Project Homekey, was a statewide effort to build on the success of the COVID-era success of Project Roomkey, where the State of California rented vacant rooms at hotels to house homeless people or those at risk of homelessness. Homekey was an opportunity for jurisdictions to develop a broad range of housing types by converting hotels, motels, hostels, single-family homes and multifamily apartments, adult residential facilities, manufactured housing, and commercial properties to permanent or interim housing for homeless households. It should be noted that the program is being replaced by Homekey+ which is focused exclusively on Permanent Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 252 of 474
36 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
Supportive Housing, not interim housing. Tiny home villages are another recognizable form of interim supportive housing to address homelessness, providing a pathway to stable housing and self-sufficiency. They focus on rapid construction of modular units, offering private spaces with support services and case management.

Supportive Housing and Transitional Housing
Supportive housing and transitional housing are both housing options for homeless individuals and families, but they differ in their goals and duration of support. Transitional housing offers temporary housing with support services to help people move to permanent housing within a set timeframe, while supportive housing provides long-term affordable housing with ongoing support to help residents maintain tenancy.

Rapid Rehousing
Rapid rehousing is often part of the low barrier approach which emphasizes providing housing first paired with support services. Rapid rehousing typically provides housing subsidies, heavy case management and support services.

Navigation Center
A Navigation Center for homeless individuals and households is a short-term, low-barrier housing program that provides a safe, temporary place to stay, along with intensive support services, to homeless individuals. It is designed to help people transition to stable, permanent housing by offering resources such as case management, connection to public benefits, health services, and employment opportunities.

Shelters
Homeless shelters offer a range of options, from emergency shelters for immediate needs to more long-term solutions. These include emergency shelters, women's shelters, youth shelters, family shelters, cold weather shelters, and warming centers. There are congregate, non-congregate types of shelters as well.

A congregate shelter is a type of emergency shelter that provides communal spaces where individuals sleep in shared areas, offering minimal privacy. These Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 253 of 474
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 37
shelters are often established in large, open settings like schools, churches, or community centers, designed for emergencies. A non-congregate shelter provides private, individual, or family units for shelter, such as hotel rooms, tiny homes, or apartments, instead of a large, shared space.

Safe Parking
Safe parking sites are sanctioned sites where individuals and families living in their vehicles can register and park overnight. Support services like case management and meals are sometimes offered as well. There are rotating shelters where the location moves every 30 days, and shelters that are more long-term and established.

Day Center
A day center is a facility that provides daytime support services to homeless people, offering a safe space to access resources, receive assistance, and potentially transition out of homelessness. Unlike shelters that offer overnight accommodation, day centers focus on daytime services, such as meals, showers, laundry, counseling, job training, and access to case managers. They serve as drop-in centers and can be tailored to those with additional needs like substance abuse or mental illness, providing a space to connect with services and support.

Showers and Laundry
Homeless households need a convenient location to bathe and do laundry. Often this is a mobile shower and laundry service. Other times a fixed location, or vouchers for laundromats or showers at gyms are provided.

Meals
Warm prepared meals can be provided to serve the unhoused. They are often provided by service providers, community- based organizations, and grassroots initiatives. Food pantries can also provide homeless individuals with packaged food that can be eaten at a later time.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 254 of 474
38 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
Training for Law Enforcement Agencies
Many jurisdictions in California have programs that train law enforcement personnel to handle situations involving homeless people. These programs often focus on de-escalation tactics, mental health crisis intervention, and understanding the underlying causes of homelessness. Some agencies have designated officers who specialize in working with the homeless population. These officers often receive specialized training, are familiar with local resources, and aim to connect individuals with appropriate support.

Lockers
Some cities offer storage lockers for homeless individuals specifically in public spaces such as libraries and community centers.

Transportation Support
Homeless individuals often need transportation that is convenient to access and affordable. Free transit passes and vouchers for rides to doctor appointments, etc., can also be provided.

Sanctioned Camping Sites
Sanctioned camping sites, also known as safe sleeping sites or safe stay communities, are designated areas where homeless individuals can stay in tents or other temporary shelters without fear of being arrested or cited for camping. These sites often provide basic services like sanitation, food, and access to case management.

Expanded Outreach and Casework
Broader proactive outreach efforts and more intensive casework have been identified as a need. Outreach workers can identify and engage people over time, which can eventually lead to connecting an individual with a caseworker or other services. Expanding casework for homeless individuals could involve increasing access to personalized, consistent support services that address both immediate and long-term needs. This can be achieved by hiring and deploying trained case managers with specialized knowledge in housing navigation, mental health, and Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 255 of 474
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 39
substance use treatment. Effective casework requires establishing and maintaining trust which typically takes time and repeated engagement.

Connectivity
Additional support to help homeless people have access to phones, Wi-Fi, charging, technology skills, and somewhere to receive physical mail could be explored.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 256 of 474
40 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
List of Materials Consulted and Supporting Documents
Baggett, Travis P., and Stefan G. Kertesz. “Addressing Unsheltered Homelessness—Time for an All-In Approach.” JAMA, vol. 330, no. 18, November 14, 2023, pp. 1723–1724. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2830616.

Baggett, Travis P., James J. O’Connell, Jesse M. Yedinak, and Thomas J. Stopka. “Illicit Substance Use and Treatment Access Among Adults Experiencing Homelessness.” JAMA 331, no. 12 (2024): 987–997. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.27922.

Bassuk, Ellen L., M. Beardslee, and J. Bassuk. “The Prevalence of Mental Illness in Homeless Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271536943.

Bay Area Council Economic Institute. Bay Area Homelessness: A Regional View of a Regional Crisis. San Francisco: Bay Area Council Economic Institute, June 2021. https://www.bayareaeconomy.org/files/pdf/HomelessnessReportJune2021.pdf.

Ben-Moshe, Leah Simon-Weisberg, and Janey Rountree. Five Trends in California Homelessness. Terner Center for Housing Innovation, October 2023. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Five-Trends-in-CAHomelessness_Oct-2023-5.pdf.

Bielenberg, Joseph E., Maren Futrell, Benjamin Stover, and Annette Hagopian. “Presence of Any Medical Debt Associated With Two Additional Years of Homelessness in a Seattle Sample.” INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing 57 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/0046958020923535.

California Department of Housing & Community Development. Addressing a Variety of Housing Challenges. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-and-research/addressing-variety-housing-challenges.

Clark, Robin E., Marguerite E. Tracy, William B. Whitmore, et al. “Infants Exposed to Homelessness: Health, Health Care Use, and Health Spending from Birth to Age Six.” Health Affairs 38, no. 5 (2019): 721–728. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00090.

Community Solutions. “The Costs and Harms of Homelessness.” Accessed May 1, 2025. https://community.solutions/researchposts/the-costs-and-harms-of-homelessness/.

Community Solutions. “The Costs and Harms of Homelessness: A Learning Brief Examining the Costs Borne by Individuals, Communities, Systems, and Society.” Accessed May 10, 2025. https://community.solutions/research-posts/the-costs-andharms-of-homelessness/.

County of Santa Clara, California. “County of Santa Clara Releases Preliminary Results of 2025 Point‑in‑Time Homeless Count.” County News Center, June 20, 2025. Accessed July 17, 2025. https://news.santaclaracounty.gov/county-santa-clara-releasespreliminary-results-2025-point-time-homeless-count Desmond, Matthew. “Homelessness in US Cities and Downtowns.” Brookings, April 12, 2023. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/homelessness-in-us-cities-and-downtowns/.

Fazel, Seena, et al. “The Prevalence of Mental Illness in Homeless Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” The Lancet, vol. 379, no. 9810, 2012, pp. 220–227.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271536943_The_Prevalence_of_Mental_Illness_in_Homeless_Children_A_Systemati c_Review_and_Meta-Analysis.

Finnigan, Ryan. “Five Recent Trends in Homelessness in California.” Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkeley. October 2023. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Five-Trends-in-CA-Homelessness_Oct-2023-5.pdf.

Freimarck, Annalise. “West Valley Cities Team Up to Consider Homeless Shelter.” San José Spotlight, April 19, 2025. https://sanjosespotlight.com/west-valley-cities-campbell-cupertino-los-gatos-saratoga-monte-sereno-team-up-toconsider-homeless-shelter/.

Fuller, Thomas. “San Jose Considers Arresting Homeless People Who Refuse Housing.” The New York Times, April 20, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/20/us/san-jose-homeless-arrest.html.

Gordon, Sophie. “Talking about homes: What we can learn from homelessness and poverty research” Frame Works UK https://frameworksuk.org/wp-content/uploads/talking_about_homes.pdf Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 257 of 474
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 41
Himmelstein, David U., Robert M. Lawless, Deborah Thorne, Pamela Foohey, and Steffie Woolhandler. “Medical Bankruptcy: Still Common Despite the Affordable Care Act.” American Journal of Public Health 109, no. 3 (2019): 431–433. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304901.

Housing California. “Causes of Homelessness.” Accessed May 1, 2025. https://www.housingca.org/policy/focus/causes/.

Karlinsky, Sarah. Structured for Success: Reforming Housing Governance in California and the Bay Area. SPUR, January 2024. https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/2024-01/SPUR_Structured_for_Success.pdf.

Kober, Eric. “The Bay Area: The Land of Many Jobs and Too Few Homes.” Manhattan Institute. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://manhattan.institute/article/the-bay-area-the-land-of-many-jobs-and-too-few-homes.

Koseff, Alexei. “Homelessness Study Flips Commonly Held Beliefs About Causes.” The Mercury News, March 7, 2025. https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/03/07/study-california-homeless-drugs/.

Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. Homeless Mortality in Los Angeles County: CHIE Brief. Accessed May 1, 2025. http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/chie/reports/HomelessMortality_CHIEBrief_Final.pdf.

Love, Hanna, and Tracy Hadden Loh. “Homelessness in US Cities and Downtowns: The Perception, the Reality, and How to Address Both.” Brookings Institution. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/homelessness-in-uscities-and-downtowns/.

Murran, Sarah, and Emma Brady. “How Does Family Homelessness Impact on Children’s Development? A Critical Review of the Literature.” Child & Family Social Work 28, no. 2 (2023): 360–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12968.

National Health Care for the Homeless Council. “Premature Mortality in Homeless Populations.” Accessed May 10, 2025. https://sbdww.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/PrematureMortalityFinal.pdf.

National Low Income Housing Coalition. “Unsheltered Homelessness Associated with Increased Emergency Department Visits.” Accessed May 1, 2025. https://nlihc.org/resource/unsheltered-homelessness-associated-increased-emergency-departmentvisits.

Olivet, Jeff, et al., SPARC/Destination: Home. “Race and Homelessness In Santa Clara County, California.” January 31, 2020. https://destinationhomesv.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/02/RacialEquityReport0131020.pdf?mc_cid=06a7865957&mc_eid=53a9a53ca3 Phillips, David, and James X. Sullivan. “Do Homelessness Prevention Programs Prevent Homelessness? Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial.” The Review of Economics and Statistics (2023). https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01344.

Powell, Alvin. “Why It’s So Hard to End Homelessness in America.” Harvard Gazette. January 2024. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2024/01/why-its-so-hard-to-end-homelessness-in-america/.

Reid, Carolina, Ryan Finnigan, and Shazia Manji. California’s Homekey Program: Unlocking Housing Opportunities for People Experiencing Homelessness. Terner Center for Housing Innovation, March 2022. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2022/03/Homekey-Lessons-Learned-Final-March-2022.pdf.

Reid, Carolina. “On the Edge of Homelessness: The Vulnerability of Extremely Low-Income Households in the Bay Area.” Terner Center for Housing Innovation, December 2, 2021. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/edge-ofhomelessness-extremely-low-income-bay-area/.

Reilly, Johanna, Angela Greenfield, Rebecca Gillam, and Peter L. H. Barrett. “A Systematic Review of the Effect of Stigma on the Health of People Experiencing Homelessness.” Health & Social Care in the Community 30, no. 6 (2022): 2128–2141. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13884.

Rhoades, Harmony; Wenzel, Suzanne; Rice, Eric; Winetrobe, Hailey; Henwood, Benjamin. “No Digital Divide? Technology Use Among Homeless Adults
Riley, Elise D., Jennifer Cohen, Kelly Knight, et al. “Violence and Emergency Department Use among Community-Recruited Women Who Experience Homelessness and Housing Instability.” Journal of Urban Health. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7010900/#CR5.

Santa Barbara County Public Health Department. Premature Mortality Among the Homeless Population in Santa Barbara County. April 2011. https://sbdww.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/PrematureMortalityFinal.pdf.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 258 of 474
42 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
Santa Clara Valley Medical Center. “Backpack Homeless Healthcare Program.” Accessed May 10, 2025. https://scvmc.scvh.org/hospitals-clinics/valley-homeless-health-care-program-vhhp/backpack-homeless-healthcareprogram.

Santa Clara Valley Medical Center. “Valley Homeless Healthcare Program (VHHP).” Accessed May 10, 2025. https://scvmc.scvh.org/hospitals-clinics/valley-homeless-health-care-program-vhhp.

Santa Clara Valley Medical Center. “Valley Homeless Healthcare Program (VHHP): Backpack Homeless Healthcare Program.” Accessed May 1, 2025. https://scvmc.scvh.org/hospitals-clinics/valley-homeless-health-care-program-vhhp/backpackhomeless-healthcare-program.

Shonkoff, Jack P., Andrew S. Garner, et al. “The Lifelong Effects of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress.” Pediatrics 129, no. 1 (2012): e232–e246. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/129/1/e232/31628/.

State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development; https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-andfunding/homekey/program-background; Accessed April 28, 2025 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://www.hud.gov/.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Understanding Encampments of People Experiencing Homelessness and Community Responses: Emerging Evidence as of Late 2018. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/Understanding-Encampments.pdf.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Understanding Encampments of People Experiencing Homelessness and Community Responses: Emerging Evidence as of Late 2023. Office of Policy Development and Research, 2023. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/Understanding-Encampments.pdf.

United States Census Bureau. “2023 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles, American Community Survey (ACS).” Accessed May 10, 2025. https://data.census.gov/table?q=DP05&g=160XX00US0610345,0617610,0644112,0648956,0670280.

Vohra, Neha, et al. “Homelessness and the Use of Emergency Department as a Source of Healthcare.” International Journal of Emergency Medicine. https://intjem.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12245-022-00435-3.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 259 of 474
City Council Report
DATE: March 24, 2026
TITLE: Acceptance of Fiscal Year 2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report and Auditor’s Written Communication on Internal Control RECOMMENDED ACTION:

That the City Council accept the Fiscal Year 2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report and Auditor’s written communication on internal control structure and the audit process as submitted with this report.

BACKGROUND
The Finance Department prepares an Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) to report the City’s financial results for the fiscal year. The financial statements, and the accounts comprising them, are subjected to an independent audit as required by Campbell Municipal Code Section 2.08.080. The City’s audit firm, Eide Bailly LLP, issued their report (opinion) on these financial statements which is contained on page 1 of the ACFR document that is available to you as Attachment 1 of this report.

At the conclusion of the audit process, the auditor also issues its communication to the City Council, in the form of various letters, regarding the audit process and the City’s internal control structure and reports its findings and/or recommendations for improvement (Attachments 2 and 3).

DISCUSSION
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2025 The ACFR is divided into three basic parts: 1) Introductory Section 2) Financial Section and 3) Statistical Section. The introductory section includes a letter of transmittal, award certificate and a listing of City officials, staff, Board and Commissions. The financial section includes the auditors’ report, management discussion and analysis, basic financial statements, fund financial statements, notes to the financial statements, required supplementary information and other supplementary information. The statistical section contains various schedules of trend information that provides useful information for analytical purposes.

The ACFR document is submitted annually to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) award program which grants a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to qualifying ACFRs. The City has received this award Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 260 of 474

for the past 37 consecutive years and has again submitted this year’s document for consideration.

As shown on page 1 of the ACFR, the “Independent Auditor’s Report” reflects an unmodified, “clean opinion” on the financial statements, meaning that it meets the standards of generally accepted accounting principles.

Next is the “Management’s Discussion and Analysis,” or MD&A which begins on page 5 of the ACFR, and contains significant financial highlights for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2025, as well as an explanation of the different types of financial statements and other information found in the ACFR. Included in the discussion are tables which compare the audit year financial results to the prior year, and an explanation of the significant changes between years.

Fiscal Year 2025 highlights from the ACFR are as follows:

As shown on page 9 of the ACFR, City-wide, the City ended its fiscal year with total revenues of $91.9 million, an increase of $10.8 million from the previous year, and total expenses of $83.0 million, an increase of $2.4 million compared to the previous year.

Excluding property taxes, general revenues; comprised of sales and use taxes, other taxes, investment income, and miscellaneous revenues, decreased $2.3 million. Other financial highlights of the past year are as follows:

City-wide (All Funds):
 As shown on page 8 of the ACFR, total City assets and deferred outflows of resources exceeded its liabilities and deferred inflows of resources by $68.2 million. Of this amount, $77.7 million represents the net investment in capital assets while $22.7 million is restricted for various purposes including affordable housing, streets and roads, and community development. The negative $32.2 million in unrestricted net position decreased by $4.0 million since last year. While the City’s overall net position is positive, the unrestricted net position specifically accounts for the City’s Net Pension Liability of $75.9 million, resulting in a negative unrestricted net position of $32.2 million.
 As also shown on page 8 of the ACFR, total net position increased from the previous year by $8.9 million primarily due to an increase in capital assets with construction of the police operations building and renovations to the City library now underway.

Fund level:
 As shown on page 20 of the ACFR, total governmental fund balances were $66.0 million at fiscal year-end, a decrease of $18.6 million from the previous year total governmental fund balances of $84.6 million (as shown on page 20 of the FY 2023 ACFR). This decrease is primarily attributed to the Measure O Capital Fund, whose fund balance decreased by $25.9 million from construction costs related to the police operations building and City library.
 As shown on page 22 of the ACFR, General Fund revenues, excluding transfers, increased $4.9 million to $68.0 million from the previous year General Fund Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 261 of 474

revenues of $63.1 million (as shown on page 22 of the FY 2024 ACFR). This is largely attributable to increases in property tax, sales tax, and licenses and permits; offset by decreases in other taxes.
 As shown on page 22 of the ACFR, related General Fund expenditures of $64.5 million increased by $3.0 million from the previous year General Fund expenditures of $61.5 million (as shown on page 23 of the FY 2024 ACFR). This is largely attributable to cost increases in all operating department.  As shown on page 22 of the ACFR, the General Fund’s fund balance of $26.4 million increased by $5.4 million from the previous year General Fund’s fund balance of $21.0 million (as shown on page 23 of the FY 2024 ACFR).  As shown on page 56 of the ACFR, total Nonspendable General Fund balance of $0.2 million is reserved for leases and prepaid costs. Total Restricted General Fund balance of $1.7 million is for Measure K sales tax receipts and accrued interest. Total Committed General Fund balance of $3.6 million is for future contingencies and capital improvement projects. Total Assigned General Fund balance of $2.9 million is for CalPERS retirement costs and other postemployment benefits, and the remaining $18.0 million is for unassigned and available for to be determined general government purposes, City Council objectives, economic fluctuations, and emergencies.

General Fund Highlights
As shown on page 13 of the ACFR, the General Fund realized an excess of revenues over expenditures of $3.6 million, excluding transfers and other sources. General Fund revenues of $68.0 million, excluding transfers, increased $4.9 million from the previous year General Fund revenues of $63.1 million (as shown on page 13 of the FY 2024 ACFR). Property taxes, sales and use taxes, other taxes, licenses and permits, and charges for services all exceeded budgeted amounts. These were partially offset by fines and forfeitures, investment income, rents and leases, intergovernmental, and miscellaneous revenues, which were less than budgeted amounts.

As shown on page 13 of the ACFR, Property Tax is the General Fund’s largest revenue source. Budgeted at $22.90 million in the final amended budget, actual property tax revenue received was $22.95 million. That represents $0.05 million greater than budgeted. The positive variance is attributed to slightly greater receipt of current secured property taxes and the Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF).

As shown on page 13 of the ACFR, Sales and Use Tax is the General Fund’s second largest revenue source, budgeted at $16.2 million in the final amended budget. The City received $18.0 million or $1.8 million over the final budget. The largest categories of sales tax producers comprise of restaurants and hotels, building and construction, business and industry, and general consumer goods. The positive variance is attributed to the collection of Measure K sales tax receipts.

As shown on page 13 of the ACFR, Charges for services amounted to $6.4 million, which is comprised largely of fees for services provided by the Recreation, Community Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 262 of 474

Development, and Public Works departments. The City received $0.2 million or 3.2% greater than budgeted in the final amended budget.

As shown on page 13 of the ACFR, General Fund expenditures, excluding transfers, were $64.5 million, an increase of $3.0 million from the previous year total of $61.5 million (as shown on page 13 of the FY 2024 ACFR). When compared to the final budget, general fund expenditures were $2.8 million or 4.2% under budget. The savings are mostly attributed to both the Community Development and Public Works departments, which came under budget by 28.4% and 9.2%, respectively. The positive variance is due to lower-than-expected incurred expenditures as it relates to personnel costs and professional services within the General Fund.

As shown on page 13 of the ACFR, The General Fund’s fund balance at fiscal year-end was $26.4 million, an increase of $5.4 million from the previous year General Fund balance of $21.0 million (as shown on page 13 of the FY 2024 ACFR). This is primarily due to the closeout and transfer of ARPA funds into the General Fund to reimburse the General Fund for allowable expenditures approved by the City Council. As again shown on page 56 of the ACFR, Nonspendable fund balance at year end was $0.2 million, reserved for leases and prepaid costs. Restricted fund balance at year end was $1.7 million, comprised solely of Measure K sales tax receipts and accrued interest. Committed and Assigned fund balances at year end were $3.6 million and $2.9 million, respectively.

These balances are utilized to fund operational costs such as capital projects, compensated absences, and to maintain a reserve for PERS and OPEB related costs.

Unassigned fund balance of $18.0 million serves as an additional reserve for unanticipated needs that may arise including a $9.5 million reserve for economic fluctuations and $3.2 million for emergencies. A detailed listing of each reserve account, its balances, and its description can be found in Attachment 4.

Per City Administrative Financial Policies, the economic fluctuations reserve target is set at 16.67% of operating expenditures for use during economic downturns. The City’s Fiscal Year 2026 Adopted General Fund expenditures was $67.7 million, an increase of $0.9 million from the Fiscal Year 2025 Adopted General Fund expenditures. As such, the economic fluctuation reserve target increased to $11.3 million, resulting in a FY 2025 balance of $9.5 million that is $1.8 million below the targeted level. Furthermore, the emergency reserve is to be set at 10% of revenue and used for unexpected physical or fiscal emergency. For fiscal year ending June 30, 2025, the emergency reserve balance remained at $3.2 million, which is $3.4 million below its targeted level of $6.6 million.

For Fiscal Year 2025, the City did not need to draw upon its economic fluctuation or emergency reserve. Although both the economic fluctuation and emergency reserves are below targeted levels, the City continues to maintain strong General Fund reserve balances. The GFOA recommends, at a minimum, a General Fund unrestricted fund balance of no less than two months (or 16.67%) of general fund operating expenditures.

At fiscal year-end, the City maintained an unassigned reserve ratio of 26.65%. This increases to 28.12% if the General Fund PERS reserve is also taken into account. The PERS reserve is intended to either pay down unfunded pension liabilities or mitigate pension premium increases from year to year. Thus, an appropriate use of the PERS reserve, as authorized by Council and consistent with usage in both the FY 2025 and FY 2026 Adopted Budgets of $1,252,000 and $558,000, respectively, could be to fund annual ongoing pension premium costs in any given year. Please note that at the end of FY Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 263 of 474

2026, the PERS Reserve is expected to have a remaining balance of $442,000 due to these previously approved uses.

Written Communications Letters
The auditor, as required by auditing standards, issues several letters regarding the audit process and results (Attachments 2 and 3) as well as any observations and/or findings related to the internal control structure as noted during their audit. There were no findings considered to be a “material weakness” or “significant deficiency.” Finance Sub-Committee Meeting
The results of the audit and written communications were presented by City staff and Eide Bailly LLP and discussed with the City’s Finance Sub-Committee on February 19, 2026.

The Sub-Committee reviewed and asked questions of staff regarding the City’s General Fund reserve ratio, PERS reserve, compensated absences balance, and OPEB liability.

The Sub-Committee was satisfied with the presentation and the answers provided by the auditor and staff and recommended the FY 2024-25 ACFR and auditor’s written communication be accepted by the City Council on March 24, 2026.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact as a result of accepting the ACFR and the auditor’s written communications.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Do not accept the ACFR and/or written communications as submitted.

2. Provide other direction to staff.

PREPARED BY: Norite Vong, Assistant Finance Director
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 264 of 474

Report Approval Details
Document Title: Report - Acceptance of Fiscal Year 2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report and Auditor's Written Communication on Internal Controls.docx
Attachments: Attachment 1 - ACFR - FY2024-25.pdf
Attachment 2 - AU-C 260 Governance Letter.pdf
Attachment 3 - GAGAS Letter.pdf
Attachment 4 - General Fund Comparison FYE 06-30-24 to 06-30-

25.pdf
Final Approval
Date:

March 18, 2026
This document and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:

Will Fuentes, Finance Director
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 265 of 474
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 266 of 474
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 267 of 474
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025
City of Campbell, California
Prepared by:

Finance Department
Will Fuentes, Finance Director
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 268 of 474
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 269 of 474
City of Campbell
Table of Contents
June 30, 2025
Introductory Section
Letter of Transmittal ............................................................................................................................................... i Certificate of Achievement................................................................................................................................. viii Organizational Chart............................................................................................................................................. ix City Officials ........................................................................................................................................................... x Commissions, Committees and Advisory Boards...................................................................................................xi Financial Section
Independent Auditor’s Report............................................................................................................................... 1 Management’s Discussion and Analysis................................................................................................................ 5 Basic Financial Statements
Government Wide Financial Statements
Statement of Net Position ...................................................................................................................................17 Statement of Activities.........................................................................................................................................18 Government Fund Financial Statements
Balance Sheet – Governmental Funds.................................................................................................................20 Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet to the Statement of Net Position............................21 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances – Governmental Funds........................22 Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities ...................................................................................................................23 Proprietary Fund Financial Statements
Statement of Net Position – Proprietary Funds...................................................................................................25 Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Net Position – Proprietary Funds..............................26 Statement of Cash Flows – Proprietary Funds.....................................................................................................27 Fiduciary Fund Financial Statements
Statement of Fiduciary Net Position – Fiduciary Funds.......................................................................................29 Statement of Changes in Net Position – Fiduciary Funds....................................................................................30 Notes to Financial Statements................................................................................................................................. 31 Required Supplementary Information
Schedule of Changes in the Pension Liability and Related Ratios – CalPERS Miscellaneous Plan.......................76 Schedule of Pension Contributions – CalPERS Miscellaneous Plan .....................................................................77 Schedule of Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability – CalPERS Safety Plans.......................................78 Schedule of Pension Contributions – CalPERS Safety Plan ..................................................................................79 Schedule of Changes in the Net OPEB Liability and Related Ratios.....................................................................80 Schedule of OPEB Contributions..........................................................................................................................81 Budgetary Comparison Schedule – General Fund ...............................................................................................82 Notes to Required Supplementary Information..................................................................................................84 Supplementary Information
Description of Other Governmental Funds..........................................................................................................85 Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 270 of 474
Combining Balance Sheet – Other Governmental Fund......................................................................................88 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance other Governmental Funds..90 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Gas Tax Special Revenue Fund .....................................................................................................................................................................92 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Vehicle Impact Fees Special Revenue Fund ..........................................................................................................................................93 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual –Other Grants Special Revenue Fund ......................................................................................................................................................94 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Parkland Dedication Fees Special Revenue Fund..................................................................................................................................95 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Lighting and Landscaping District Special Revenue Fund..............................................................................................................................96 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Drug Enforcement Revenue Special Revenue Fund ...........................................................................................................................97 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Environmental Services Special Revenue Fund ..........................................................................................................................................98 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Supplemental Law Enforcement Special Revenue Fund ....................................................................................................................99 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Community Restitution Fund Special Revenue Fund...............................................................................................................................100 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – ARPA Special Revenue Fund ...................................................................................................................................................................101 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Housing Asset Special Revenue Fund ....................................................................................................................................................102 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Community Facilities District #1 Special Revenue Fund.......................................................................................................................103 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Community Facilities District #2 Special Revenue Fund.......................................................................................................................104 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Capital Projects Fund105 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Measure O Capital Projects Fund .....................................................................................................................................................106 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – 2016 LRB Debt Service Fund ...................................................................................................................................................................107 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Measure O Debt Service Fund ...................................................................................................................................................................108 Internal Service Funds........................................................................................................................................109 Combining Statement of Net Position – Internal Service Funds........................................................................110 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position – Internal Service Funds............111 Combining Statement of Cash Flows – Internal Service Funds..........................................................................112 Custodial Funds..................................................................................................................................................113 Combining Statement of Fiduciary Net Position – Custodial Funds..................................................................114 Combining Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position – Custodial Funds................................................115 Statistical Section
Description of Statistical Section Contents........................................................................................................116 Net Position by Component...............................................................................................................................117 Changes in Net Position .....................................................................................................................................119 Fund Balances of Governmental Funds.............................................................................................................120 Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Fund ............................................................................................122 Assessed and Estimated Actual – Value of Taxable Property............................................................................123 Property Tax Rates – All Overlapping Governments .........................................................................................124 Principal Property Taxpayers.............................................................................................................................125 Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 271 of 474
Property Tax Levies and Collections ..................................................................................................................126 Ratio of Outstanding Debt by Type....................................................................................................................127 Ratio of Net General Bonded Debt Outstanding ...............................................................................................128 Computation of Direct and Overlapping Debt...................................................................................................129 Computation of Legal Bonded Debt Margin......................................................................................................130 Bonded Debt Pledged Revenue Coverage – Redevelopment/Successor Agency Tax Allocation Bonds...........131 Demographic and Economic Statistics...............................................................................................................132 Top Ten Principal Employers..............................................................................................................................133 Full-Time Equivalent City Government Employees by Function........................................................................134 Operating Indicators by Function/Program.......................................................................................................135 Capital Assets Statistics by Function/Program ..................................................................................................136 Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 272 of 474
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 273 of 474
Introductory Section
June 30, 2025
City of Campbell
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 274 of 474
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 275 of 474
i
70 North First Street· Campbell, California 95008-1423 · TEL 408.866.2111 · FAX 408.379.2572 · TDD 408.866.2790

CITY OF CAMPBELL
Finance Department
December 31, 2025
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Citizens of Campbell It is my pleasure to submit the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) of the City of Campbell for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025. The report and accompanying independent audit are published pursuant to State law and the requirements of Section 2.08.080 of the Campbell Municipal Code (CMC). The financial statements are presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and audited in accordance with Generally Auditing Standards by an independent auditing firm of licensed certified public accountants.

While traditionally addressed to the governing legislative body of the City, this report is also intended to provide relevant financial information to the citizens of the City of Campbell, City staff, creditors, investors and other concerned readers. We encourage all readers to contact the Finance Department with any questions or comments concerning this report.

Purpose and Management Responsibility
The report consists of management’s representations concerning the finances of the City of Campbell.

Consequently, management assumes full responsibility for the completeness and reliability of all of the information presented in this report. To provide a reasonable basis for making these representations, management has established a comprehensive internal control framework that is designed both to protect the government’s assets from loss, theft, or misuse and to compile sufficient reliable information for the preparation of the City’s financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Because the cost of internal controls should not outweigh their benefits, the City’s comprehensive framework of internal controls has been designed to provide reasonable rather than absolute assurance that the financial statements will be free from material misstatement. As the City’s Chief Executive Officer, I assert that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, this financial report is complete and reliable in all material respects.

Further, every attempt has been made to conform to the highest standards of public financial reporting as set forth by the following organizations:
• Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB);
• American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and its Committee on Governmental Accounting and Auditing;
• Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) of the United States and Canada; and • California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO).

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 276 of 474
ii
City of Campbell
Letter of Transmittal
June 30, 2025
Audited Financial Statements
Eide Bailly LLP, a firm of licensed certified public accountants, has audited the City of Campbell financial statements. The City’s independent audit was meant to provide reasonable assurance that its financial statements are free of material misstatement. The goal of the independent audit was to provide reasonable assurance that the financial statements of the City of Campbell for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, are presented fairly in all material respects. After a thorough evaluation of the City’s internal controls and all required financial documents, the independent auditors rendered an unmodified (“clean”) opinion that the City of Campbell’s financial statements contained herewith are fairly presented in conformity with GAAP. The independent auditors’ report is presented as the first component of the financial Section of this report.

Organization of Report
The Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) provides a narrative introduction, overview, and analysis of the basic financial statements. This letter of transmittal is designed to complement the MD&A and should be read in conjunction with it. The City of Campbell’s MD&A can be found immediately following the report of the independent auditors.

In addition to meeting the requirements set forth by State law, the audit was also designed to meet the requirement of the Single Audit Act of 1984 as amended in 1996 and the U.S. Office of Management and the Uniform Guidance. The standards governing Single Audit engagements require the auditor to report on the City’s internal controls and compliance with certain legal requirements with special emphasis on the administration of federal awards. For the year ended June 30, 2025, the City did expend over $750,000 on Federal financial assistance programs; and therefore, a Single Audit will be required by March 31, 2026. The Single Audit will be prepared and presented separately from the ACFR and by the required deadline.

City of Campbell Profile
The City of Campbell is located in the heart of Silicon Valley contiguous with the City of San Jose and 50 miles south of San Francisco. The City encompasses 6.7 square miles, is substantially built out, and serves a population of approximately 43,281 as of January 1, 2025. The City is comprised of a mix of residential, office and commercial retail businesses. The City is also home to a number of community festivals and celebrations throughout the year. And located in the heart of the Silicon Valley, its mission is “our community to foster a safe, vibrant, small-town feel where innovation and people thrive”.

The City was incorporated March 28, 1952, as a General Law city and operates under a Council-Manager form of government that includes five council members elected by district for a term of four years. The Mayor is selected each year by majority vote of the other Council members. The Council appoints the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk. The City Council members also serve as the governing board members of the Successor Agency to the dissolved City of Campbell Redevelopment Agency and the Campbell Lighting and Landscape District, which are both included in the accompanying financial reports.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 277 of 474
iii
City of Campbell
Letter of Transmittal
June 30, 2025
City Services
The City provides the following services to its residents: police and contract fire protection; park and street lighting maintenance; recreational classes, services, and cultural events; planning, zoning and building review and inspections; construction and maintenance of streets and roads; and leadership provided through general administrative services. Water, sewage, garbage, and electric utilities are provided directly through joint powers authorities for which the City participates.

Budgetary Policy and Control
The legal level of budgetary control is at the total department level. The annual budget serves as the foundation for the City of Campbell’s financial planning and control. The budget process begins in December with each City department receiving preliminary financial information. Initial appropriation requests are made in March and study sessions are held with the City Council between February and May to discuss department goals and work plans as well as to obtain Council’s input on special priorities or concerns that should be considered in developing the budget. Subsequently, the City Manager meets with each department director to discuss the budget requests and make changes where necessary. The City Manager then prepares and presents the recommended budget in late May or early June for Council’s preliminary consideration. Adoption of the operating and capital budget document takes place in June. Requests for increases in appropriations or adjustments to capital projects require approval by the City Council. Changes in appropriations during the year must be submitted by the City Manager to the City Council for review and approval and must be accompanied by appropriate fiscal impact analysis.

Economic Update and Outlook
National, State and Local Economies—While Silicon Valley is best known for its significant concentration of high technology and electronics research, development and manufacturing, the area also supports a wide variety of retail, office and personal services industries. Historically, this region has experienced cycles of expansion and contraction and has led the nation in productivity, innovation, and economic growth for much of the past two plus decades. The region is home to numerous institutions of higher learning and education that support a broad base of research and development in advanced technology and design.

Similar to other areas of the world though, the United States, California, and the San Francisco Bay Area faced inflationary pressures as a result of tariffs and other economic factors during the last fiscal year. Nevertheless, the nation’s economy saw GDP growth equaling 3.5% in the third quarter of calendar year (CY) 2025; following an increase equaling 3.8% in the second quarter of CY 2025. Such an increase in the third quarter of CY 2025 primarily reflected robust capital investment, a positive swing in net exports, and continued consumer spending in spite of mixed consumer sentiment. Additionally, stock market prices within the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) increased by 12.5% over the course of fiscal year (FY) 2024-25. That performance suggests favorable market sentiment over that year, likely reflecting corporate earnings resilience, risk tolerance, and investment flows — despite macroeconomic headwinds such as trade uncertainty and inflation. On balance, a reasonable expectation is for the U.S. economy to grow modestly through mid-2026 — perhaps in the 1.5 % to

2.5 % real GDP growth range — with downside risks from inflation, interest-rate volatility, and external shocks.

Inflation and real income gains may remain uneven, with potential for a “K-shaped” recovery where some sectors and workers benefit more than others.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 278 of 474
iv
City of Campbell
Letter of Transmittal
June 30, 2025
As of the end of the fiscal year, per the California Employment Development Department (EDD) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the City of Campbell had an unemployment rate of 4.6%, Santa Clara County had an unemployment rate of 4.6%, California had an unemployment rate of 5.4%, and the United States had an unemployment rate of 4.1%.

Local Economy
Silicon Valley is in the midst of a measured reset, with the tech sector continuing to recalibrate after the aggressive hiring cycles of the early-2020s. Once flush with limitless optimism, the region has shifted toward discipline and operational efficiency. Venture capital activity has steadied at levels notably lower than the peak years, with investors applying far more scrutiny than the FOMO-charged environment of the prior cycle. Even so, Silicon Valley remains resilient. Over the past year, VC totals have hovered near their long-term annual average, and the region continues to attract the nation’s largest share of investment—roughly one-third of all U.S. venture dollars. Key industries are contracting in certain areas but expanding in others as the economy accelerates into clean energy, climate-tech, and artificial intelligence. By any AI-focused metric, Silicon Valley still outpaces its peers, with strong year-over-year gains in AI-related VC funding, heightened startup formation, deeper institutional participation, and unmatched research activity. Patent production remains the highest in the nation, and the region has once again recorded a modest population increase, reversing several years of declines.

The best way to understand Silicon Valley during this period is unchanged: we are a region defined by reinvention and the churn of creative destruction. Yet the reinvention now extends beyond technology and into the civic sphere as we confront the lasting impacts of hybrid and remote work, examine opportunities to repurpose underutilized commercial space for housing, and rethink the role and future of our downtowns. What has not changed are the structural challenges that define our regional landscape—persistent wealth and income inequality, a chronic shortage of affordable housing, and stark racial disparities in health, education, and earnings. Our income divide continues to widen more rapidly than that of California or the nation, and nearly one-third of households still fall below basic self-sufficiency standards. Forty percent of Silicon Valley children live in households struggling to meet their economic needs. Expanding affordable housing remains one of the most powerful tools available, yet the pace of new housing approvals slowed again over the past year, contributing to ongoing pressures that have pushed the region’s homeless population above 10,500.

Campbell, however, continues to benefit from a diversified economic base spread across multiple business segments throughout the community. More than 5,000 businesses operate within the City; with the leading categories of sales-tax producers including business-to-business activity, restaurants, neighborhood services, retail, and auto-related enterprises—a reflection of a balanced and resilient local economy.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 279 of 474
v
City of Campbell
Letter of Transmittal
June 30, 2025
Relevant Financial Policies
Because of the many economic and fiscal uncertainties that constantly confront the City, and to address the financial impacts created by these issues, the City has taken necessary steps to preserve its fiscal health. The City incorporates long-term financial planning into its budget process. For example, it has established financial and budgetary policies monitored by the City Council that ensure operating revenues are available to fund operating expenditures resulting in a balanced budget. The City has also designated a Reserve for Economic Fluctuations; the purpose of which is to serve as a buffer for those revenue sources most significantly impacted by downturns in the economy and enable the City to better withstand an economic recession. The City’s financial policies specify target funding of two months of General Fund expenditures. Moreover, the City’s 7-year projections include anticipated increases in retirement costs over the next several years due to changes in actuarial assumptions and underperforming retirement pool investment assets. In addition, there are other reserves set aside for both operating as well as emergency purposes to provide the City a financial “safety net” during the next economic slowdown.

Cash Management
The City manages a pooled investment program for all funds in which temporarily idle cash is invested in a variety of instruments. The investment program is managed in accordance with the Investment Policy approved by the City Council. Safety, liquidity, and yield in that order, are the objectives of the investment program.

Investments are diversified among investment tools that include certificates of deposit, Federal agency securities and the State of California’s Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF). Quarterly reports on investment status and activity are presented to the City Council.

Capital Improvement / Capital Asset
A five-year Capital Improvement Plan is approved on an annual basis with first year projects adopted in conjunction with the operating budget. Sufficient financial commitment is made to preserving the City’s investment in its public facilities (buildings, streets, parks, equipment, etc.) to assure preservation of these assets. Equipment replacement and maintenance is projected and funded throughout its useful life. The annual capital improvement budget includes projects which funding source is reasonably assured and can be started within the fiscal year.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 280 of 474
vi
City of Campbell
Letter of Transmittal
June 30, 2025
Major Initiatives
The City of Campbell City Council and the City’s management team have dedicated significant attention and resources accomplishing the City’s goals and objectives. And for the upcoming fiscal year, Council priorities are to address Long-Term Land Use Planning and Housing, City Infrastructure, Financial Stability, Sustainability, and Community Health and Safety.

Over the course of the fiscal year 2024-25, the City began work on preparing both a citywide Multimodal Plan and a Hamilton Avenue Public Improvement Plan, while continuing work to finish preparation of its first Climate Action and Adaption Plan. The City also continued work on implementing its Housing Element with actions that included sponsoring West Valley housing fair and affordable housing developer roundtable and implementing code updates to support housing development. In addition, the city initiated several new efforts to support unhoused residents, including the creation of a hotel voucher program and supporting a safe parking program.

During the fiscal year, the City also continues with the construction of two major projects as part of the Measure O Program, including the construction of a new Police Operations Building and the renovation of the Campbell Library. In addition, during the fiscal year, the City was awarded and completed construction of the John D.

Morgan Park - San Tomas Expressway Parking Lot in the amount of $156,800. The Pruneyard Creek Trail Extension completed design and began construction in May 2025 with a construction amount of $281,000. The Campbell Priority Development Area along Civic Center Drive in the amount of $981,000 began construction in March 2025. The design of the improvements at the John D. Morgan Park Restroom design continued through the fiscal year with completion of final design in September 2025. The Hamilton/Highway 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study began with significant outreach efforts with the study to complete in early 2026.

In August 2024, the Facility Condition Assessment Report was completed providing the City a thorough inventory and condition assessment of City-owned buildings and structures. And lastly, the City completed replacement of roofs at Sunnyoaks Fire Station and at the Campbell Community Center buildings C, D, H, and M totaling $1,073,800.

Awards (Financial and Budgetary)
The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City of Campbell for its Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024. The Certificate of Achievement is a prestigious national award that recognizes conformity with the highest standards for preparation of state and local government financial reports. In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, the City must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized Annual Comprehensive Financial Report whose contents conform to program standards. The ACFR must satisfy both generally accepted accounting principles and applicable legal requirements.

A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. The City has received a Certificate of Achievement for the past 36 consecutive fiscal years. We believe our current report continues to conform to the Certificate of Achievement Program’s requirements, and we are again submitting it to determine its eligibility for another certificate.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 281 of 474
vii
City of Campbell
Letter of Transmittal
June 30, 2025
The City also received the GFOA’s Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for its annual budget document for the fiscal year 2024-25. This is the 32nd consecutive year of receiving this award. In order to receive this award, the budget document was judged to be proficient in several categories, including as a policy document, a financial plan, an operations guide, and a communications device.

Acknowledgements
The preparation and publication of this report was made possible by the dedicated service of the entire Finance Department under the leadership of the Finance Director and the Assistant Finance Director. Each member of the Department has my sincere appreciation for the many contributions made in the preparation of this report.

In addition, I wish to extend a special thanks to the Finance Department Staff for their hard work in producing this document.

Appreciation is also extended to City departments for their support in planning and conducting the fiscal functions of the City, the commitment of all City employees, as well as the Mayor and City Council for their support and encouragement toward achieving and maintaining the highest standards for the management of the City of Campbell’s finances. Through continued partnership with the community that we serve, the City of Campbell will continue to be a leader in effective municipal governance and maintain high quality of life.

Respectfully submitted,
Will Fuentes
Finance Director
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 282 of 474
viii
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 283 of 474
ix
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 284 of 474
x
City Council
Mayor – Susan M. Landry
Vice Mayor – Sergio Lopez
Councilmember – Anne Bybee
Councilmember – Dan Furtado
Councilmember – Elliot Scozzola
Note: Mayor serves an annual term from December to December. Names and positions are as of July 2024.

City Administrative Staff
City Manager – Brian Loventhal
Assistant City Manager – Angelique Gaeta
City Clerk – Andrea Sanders
City Attorney – William Seligmann
Community Development Director – Rob Eastwood
Finance Director – Will Fuentes
Human Resources Manager – Vacant
Interim Information Technology Manager – Ryan Favila
Police Chief – Gary Berg
Public Works Director – Todd Capurso
Recreation & Community Services Director – Natasha Bissell Note: City Administrative Staff names are current as of July 2024.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 285 of 474
xi
Commissions, Committees, and Advisory Boards
Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee
Mark Nakamura, Chairperson
Barton Smith, Vice Chairperson
Catherine Brady
Rene Carballo
Frank Nilsen
Building Board of Appeal
Bruno Marcelic
Jim Morelan
Jay Perrine
Kevin Salazar
Todd Zeman
Measure O - Citizens Oversight Committee
Al Bito, Chairperson
Anne Souza, Vice Chairperson
Terry Hines
Doris Quai Hoi
Paul Russell
Steven Saunders
Civic Improvement Commission
Jennifer Dooley, Chairperson
Jenna Cadematori, Vice Chairperson
Christopher Bracher
Sophia Commisso
Samantha Kibbish
Georgia Pattison
Maryanne Yoshikawa
Historic Preservation Board
Todd Walter, Chairperson
Susan Blake, Vice Chairperson
Michael Foulkes
Laura Taylor Moore
Bill Zhang
Parks and Recreation Commission
Allen Ishibashi, Chairperson
Traci Mitchell, Vice Chairperson
Frank Beitz
Sherrie Doherty
Robert Fidrych J
Tina Lee
Sharon Teeter
Planning Commission
Alan Zisser, Chairperson
Matt Kamkar, Vice Chairperson
Adam Buchbinder
Davis Fields
Michael Krey
Cori Majewski
Maggie Ostrowski
Rental Fact Finding Committee - (Not currently active)
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 286 of 474
Financial Section
June 30, 2025
City of Campbell
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 287 of 474
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 288 of 474
1 Independent Auditor’s Report
The Honorable City Council
City of Campbell, California
Report on the Audit of the Financial Statements
Opinions
We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Campbell, California (City) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2025, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents.

In our opinion, the accompanying financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City, as of June 30, 2025, and the respective changes in financial position, and, where applicable, cash flows thereof for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Basis for Opinions
We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS) and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States (Government Auditing Standards). Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of our report. We are required to be independent of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions.
eidebailly.com
4040 Campbell Ave., Ste. 200 • Menlo Park, CA. 94025-1053 • T 650.522.3400 • F 650.645.7393 • EOE Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 289 of 474
2 Responsibilities of Management for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

In preparing the financial statements, management is required to evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the City’s ability to continue as a going concern for twelve months beyond the financial statement date, including any currently known information that may raise substantial doubt shortly thereafter.

Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor’s report that includes our opinions. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS and Government Auditing Standards will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Misstatements are considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, they would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user based on the financial statements.

In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS and Government Auditing Standards, we:
• Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. • Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.
• Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.
• Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluate the overall presentation of the financial statements.
• Conclude whether, in our judgment, there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the City’s ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time.

We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit, significant audit findings, and certain internal control–related matters that we identified during the audit.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 290 of 474
3 Required Supplementary Information
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the Management’s Discussion and Analysis, the Schedule of Changes in the Pension Liability and Related Ratios – CalPERS Miscellaneous Plan, the Schedule of Pension Contributions – CalPERS Miscellaneous Plan, the Schedule of Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability – CalPERS Safety Plans, the Schedule of Pension Contributions – CalPERS Safety Plan, the Schedule of Changes in the Net OPEB Liability and Related Ratios, the Schedule of OPEB Contributions, the Budgetary Comparison Schedules for the General Fund and each Major Special Revenue Fund, as listed in the table of contents, be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with GAAS, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance.

Supplementary Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements. The combining fund financial statements and individual schedules of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balance – budget and actual are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements.

The information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with GAAS. In our opinion, the combining fund financial statements and individual schedules of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balance – budget and actual are fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.

Other Information
Management is responsible for the other information included in the annual report. The other information comprises the introductory and statistical sections but does not include the basic financial statements and our auditor's report thereon. Our opinions on the basic financial statements do not cover the other information, and we do not express an opinion or any form of assurance thereon.

In connection with our audit of the basic financial statements, our responsibility is to read the other information and consider whether a material inconsistency exists between the other information and the basic financial statements, or the other information otherwise appears to be materially misstated. If, based on the work performed, we conclude that an uncorrected material misstatement of the other information exists, we are required to describe it in our report.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 291 of 474
4 Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated December 31, 2025, on our consideration of the City’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, grant agreements and other matters.

The purpose of that report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of City’s internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering City’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance.

Menlo Park, California
December 31, 2025
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 292 of 474
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 293 of 474
5 City of Campbell
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
June 30, 2025
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
The management of the City of Campbell, California (City) presents this narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the City as of, and for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 with comparative information from the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024. Since Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) is designed to focus on the current year’s activities, resulting changes, and currently known facts, we encourage readers to consider the information presented herein in conjunction with additional information furnished in the Letter of Transmittal and the accompanying Basic Financial Statements.

Fiscal Year 2024-25 Financial Highlights
City-wide, the City ended its fiscal year with total revenues of $91.9 million, an increase of $10.8 million from the previous year, and total expenses of $83.0 million, an increase of $2.4 million compared to the previous year. Excluding property taxes, general revenues; comprised of sales tax, transient occupancy tax and other revenues, decreased $2.3 million.

Other financial highlights of the past year are as follows:

City-wide
• Total City assets and deferred outflows of resources exceeded its liabilities and deferred inflows of resources by $68.2 million. Of this amount, $77.7 million represents the net investment in capital assets while $22.7 million is restricted for various purposes including affordable housing, streets and roads, and community development. The negative $32.2 million in unrestricted decreased by $4.0 million since last year.
• Total net position increased from the previous year by $8.9 million primarily due to an increase in capital assets with construction of the police operations building and renovations to the City library underway and near completion.

Fund Level
• Total governmental fund balances were $66.0 million at fiscal year-end, a decrease of $18.6 million from the previous year. This decrease is attributed to the Measure O Capital Fund, whose fund balance decreased by $25.9 million from construction costs related to the police operations building and City library.
• General Fund revenues, excluding transfers, increased $4.9 million to $68.0 million from the previous year. Related expenditure increased by $3.0 million from the previous year to $64.5 million. • The General Fund’s fund balance increased $5.4 million to $36.4 million at fiscal year-end. • Total Nonspendable General Fund balance of $0.2 million is reserved for leases. Total Committed General Fund balance of $3.6 million is for future contingencies and capital improvement projects. Total Assigned General Fund balance of $2.9 million is for CalPERS retirement costs and other postemployment benefits, and the remaining $18.0 million is for general government. The total General Fund balance represents a 40.0% reserve ratio to General Fund expenditures, excluding transfers out.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 294 of 474
6 City of Campbell
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
June 30, 2025
Overview of the Financial Statements
The City is required to present its financial statements in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) as promulgated by the Government Accounting Standard Board (GASB) pronouncements. The City of Campbell’s Basic Financial Statements are comprised of three components: 1) government-wide financial statements 2) fund financial statements, and 3) notes to the basic financial statements. This report also contains other supplementary information in addition to the Basic Financial Statements.

Government-wide Financial Statements - These statements are designed to provide readers with a broad overview of the City’s finances, in a manner similar to a private-sector business. They consist of the statement of net position and statement of activities. The statements are reported on the full accrual basis of accounting and eliminate any duplicate activity between City funds.

The statement of net position presents information on all of the City’s assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources including capital assets and long-term debt, with the difference between the four reported as net position. Over time, increases or decreases in net position may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the City is improving or deteriorating.

The statement of activities presents information showing how the City’s net position changed during the most recent fiscal year. It encompasses all revenues and expenses and reports them based on when they are earned or incurred, respectively, rather than the timing of the related cash flows.

The City has only governmental activities that are primarily supported through taxes and intergovernmental revenues. The government-wide financial statements include Campbell Lighting and Landscape District, a legally separate entity that is under the control of the City and for which the City retains financial accountability.

Fund Financial Statements - A fund is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or objectives. The City of Campbell, like other state and local governments, uses fund accounting on a day-to-day basis to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance- related legal requirements. These statements focus on more short-term reporting related to current revenues, expenditures and fund balances. They do not include capital assets or long-term liabilities. The City’s funds can be divided into two categories: governmental funds and fiduciary funds.

Governmental funds are used to account for essentially the same functions reported as governmental activities in the City-wide financial statements. However, unlike the City-wide financial statements, governmental fund financial statements focus on inflows and outflows of spendable resources as well as on balances of spendable resources available at the end of the fiscal year. Such information may be useful in evaluating the City’s nearterm financing requirements.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 295 of 474
7 City of Campbell
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
June 30, 2025
Because the focus of governmental funds is narrower than that of the government-wide statements, it is useful to compare the information presented for governmental funds with similar information presented for governmental activities in the City-wide financial statements. By doing so, a better understanding may result in the long-term impact of the City’s near-term financing decisions. Both the governmental fund balance sheet and the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate this comparison between governmental funds and governmental activities.

The City of Campbell maintains individual governmental funds. Information for the General Fund, Housing Assets Special Revenue Fund and Capital Projects Fund is presented separately in the fund statements as they are considered major funds of the City. The data for the remaining funds are shown in the aggregate in the financial statements. However, the individual fund data for each of these non-major funds is provided as supplemental information in the form of combining statements.

The City of Campbell adopts an annually appropriated budget for its General Fund. A budgetary comparison statement has been provided for the General Fund to demonstrate compliance with this budget.

Fiduciary funds are used to account for resources held for the benefit of parties outside of the City. Fiduciary funds are not reflected in the City-wide financial statements because the resources of those funds are not available to support the City’s own programs. Accordingly, only assets and liabilities are reported for these funds. The City reports three agency funds, representing a joint powers authority, a local improvement district, and a task force. It also reports on a Private Purpose Trust Fund which consists of the Successor Agency to the former Campbell Redevelopment Agency, which was dissolved by State legislation on February 1, 2012.

Notes to the Basic Financial Statements - The notes provide additional information that is essential to a full understanding of the data provided in the City-wide and fund financial statements. They can be found immediately following the financial statements.

Other Information - In addition to the basic financial statements and accompanying notes, this report also presents certain supplemental information in the form of budget and actual schedules for major governmental funds other than the general fund; combining statements for non-major governmental funds and the City’s internal service funds; and a statement of changes in assets and liabilities for the City’s fiduciary funds.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 296 of 474
8 City of Campbell
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
June 30, 2025
Government-Wide Financial Analysis
These City-wide financial statements provide information about the City’s overall financial picture from the perspective of all the City’s governmental funds. The analysis focuses on the net position and changes in net position at the City-wide level as presented in the statement of net position and statement of activities. Net positions for the City are summarized below as of June 30 and an analysis follows (in millions):
2025 2024
Cash and Investments $ 72.0 $ 96.2
Capital Assets 121.7 92.2
Other Assets 17.6 17.2
Total assets 211.3 205.6
Deferred Outflows of Resources 23.8 31.3
Noncurrent Liabilities 66.7 68.6
Other Liabilities 15.1 19.7
Net OPEB Liability 4.9 5.7
Net Pension Liability 75.9 78.0
Total liabilities 162.6 172.0
Deferred Inflows of Resources 4.3 5.6
Net Position
Net investment in capital assets 77.7 75.4
Restricted 22.7 20.1
Unrestricted (32.2) (36.2)
Total net position $ 68.2 $ 59.3
Governmental Activities
The changes in net position were comprised of the following elements:
• Cash and investments decreased by a net of $24.2 million, which is primarily due to payments made towards construction costs related to the construction of the police operations building and City library. • Net capital assets increased by $29.5 million year over year. This increase is due to capital investments made towards the Police Operations Building, City Library, and street resurfacing projects. • Other assets such as taxes, leases, and notes receivable increased by a net of $0.4 million due to a $1.6 million increase in taxes receivable and a $1.0 million decrease in leases receivable. A decrease in leases receivable is expected with regular and recurring lease payments made by the City’s lessees. • Deferred outflows of resources decreased $7.5 million, of which is attributed to a decrease of $6.7 million for amounts related to pensions and a decrease of $0.8 million for amounts related to other post-employment benefits (OPEB). These amounts include deferred contributions that will be recognized as a reduction to the net pension or OPEB liability next year, change in assumptions, and the net differences between projected and actual earnings on plan investments that is being amortized and recognized as a component of pension expense over future periods. • Noncurrent liabilities decreased $1.9 million, which is largely a result of debt service payments towards Measure O General Obligation Bonds.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 297 of 474
9 City of Campbell
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
June 30, 2025
• Other liabilities decreased by $4.6 million solely due to a $1.8 million increase to accounts payable and $6.2 million decrease in unearned revenue within American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA ) Funds. • Net Pension Liability decreased $2.1 million. Of this decrease, $1.5 million is a decrease to the Miscellaneous Plan. The remaining $0.6 million is a decrease to the Safety Plan. • Net investment in capital assets increased by $2.3 million mainly due to ongoing capital projects such as the police operations building, library renovation, and street resurfacing projects. • Restricted net position assets have external limitations placed upon them regarding how they may be spent. These assets, which increased by $2.6 million, may be restricted for debt service, capital projects, or housing programs.

On the following page is a summary of the components that resulted in the change to net position for the fiscal year ended June 30:
2025 2024
Revenues
Program revenues
Charges for services $ 22.6 $ 14.4
Operating grants and contributions 8.2 6.4
Capital grants and contributions 3.6 1.6
General revenues
Property taxes 27.5 26.4
Sales and use taxes 18.0 16.5
Other taxes 7.3 9.0
Investment Income 3.7 4.3
Miscellaneous 1.0 2.5
Total revenues 91.9 81.1
Expenses
General government 11.2 11.0
Recreation 7.9 7.8
Community development 5.7 5.4
Public safety 37.9 35.7
Public works 18.4 18.8
Interest on long term debt 1.9 1.9
Total expenses 83.0 80.6
Change in Net Position 8.9 0.5
Net Position at Beginning of Year 59.3 58.8
End of Year $ 68.2 $ 59.3
Governmental Activities
Changes in Governmental Net Position (in millions)
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 298 of 474
10 City of Campbell
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
June 30, 2025
Government-wide net position increased $8.9 million from the prior year. Key elements of activity are as follows:

Revenues
• Within program revenues, charges for services increased $8.2 million reflecting increased service demands within the Recreation, Community Development, and Public Works departments. Furthermore, operating and capital grants increased year over year by $3.8 million.
• Within general revenues, property tax revenues increased $1.1 million reflecting continued strength in the real estate market fueled by steadily increasing housing prices. Of the $27.5 million in Property Tax Revenues collected government-wide, $2.6 million is attributed to the levies as a result of the 2018 passage of Measure O.
• General tax revenue, other than property tax, decreased by $0.2 million. The decrease is attributed to an increase in sales tax offset by a decrease in garbage franchise fees.

Expenses
• General Government, Recreation, and Community Development expenses did not materially increase year over year, increasing by just $0.2 million, $0.1 million, and $0.3 million respectively from the prior fiscal year. These minimal increases are due to increased personnel costs.
• Similarly, Public Safety expenses increased $2.2 million due to an increase in personnel costs and the allocation of pension related expenses from the City’s Safety Pension Plan. • Public Works expenses decreased $0.4 million as a result of decreases in professional services and in machinery and equipment purchases.
• Interest expense and other charges did not materially change, remaining at the same level year over year.

Financial Analysis of Fund Financial Statements
Combined governmental fund balances at fiscal year-end were $66.0 million, a decrease of $18.6 million from the previous year. The City has Nonspendable, Restricted, Committed, Assigned and Unassigned fund balances of $0.2 million; $40.8 million; $3.6 million; $3.4 million and $18.0 million, respectively, at year end.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 299 of 474
11 City of Campbell
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
June 30, 2025
Governmental fund revenues, excluding transfers, were $91.5 million, an increase of $10.7 million from the previous year. Property taxes were higher by $1.2 million due to continued strength in the real estate market and steadily rising housing prices. Sales and use tax increased by $1.5 million as a result of the passing of Measure K and the quarterly collections of $1.7 million. Other taxes, including transient occupancy tax (TOT), decreased by a combined $1.7 million, largely due to a decrease and reclassification of garbage franchise fees.

Investment income decreased by $0.5 million due to a decrease in cash balances as construction of the police operations building and renovation of the City library continues. Intergovernmental revenues increased $5.4 million due to the receipt of various grants and the revenue recognition of deferred American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds. Lastly, charges for services decreased by $0.5 million due to a decrease in administrative reimbursement from the Solid Waste Management Authority. Governmental fund expenditures, excluding transfers, increased from the prior year by a net amount of $16.2 million to $109.5 million. The increase is mainly attributed to construction costs related to the construction of the City’s police operations building and renovation to the City library.

Analysis of Major Governmental Funds
General Fund
Property Tax is the General Fund’s largest revenue source. While budgeted at $22.9 million, actual property tax revenue received was also $22.9 million. That represents no change.

Sales and Use Tax is the General Fund’s second largest revenue source, budgeted at $16.3 million. The City received $18.0 million or $1.7 million over the final budget. This increase is due to the first quarterly receipt from Measure K Sales Tax.

Charges for services amounted to $6.2 million, which is comprised largely of fees for services provided by the Recreation, Community Development, and Public Works departments. The City received $0.2 million greater than budgeted.

General Fund expenditures, excluding transfers, were $64.5 million, an increase of $3.0 million from the previous year. When compared to the final budget, general fund expenditures were $3.3 million under budget.

The savings are mostly attributed to both the Community Development and Public Works departments, which came under budget by 28.3% and 9.2%, respectively. The positive variance is due to lower-than-expected incurred expenditures as it relates to professional services within the General Fund.

The General Fund’s fund balance at fiscal year-end was $26.4 million, an increase of $5.4 million from the previous year. Actual ending fund balance was higher than projected by $8.5 million. This is due to the General Fund’s higher than budgeted sales tax revenue, lower than budgeted expenditures, and the revenue recognition of ARPA funds. Committed and Assigned fund balances at year end were $3.6 million and $2.9 million, respectively. These balances are utilized to fund operational costs such as capital projects, compensated absences, and to maintain a reserve for PERS and OPEB related costs. Unassigned fund balance of $18.0 million serves as an additional reserve for unanticipated needs that may arise including a $9.5 million reserve for economic fluctuations and $3.2 million for emergencies.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 300 of 474
12 City of Campbell
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
June 30, 2025
Measure O Capital Projects Fund
The Measure O Capital Projects Fund accounts for the expenditures and financing of the City’s capital projects related to the Measure O General Obligation Bond. In August 2020, the City issued $20 million of general obligation bonds in the first of two series of issuances. In May 2022, the City issued an additional $30 million of general obligation bonds to fund the construction of a police operations building as well as the renovation of the City library.

The Measure O Capital Projects fund balance decreased by $25.9 million when compared to the prior year. This decrease is due to the ramp up of construction of the police operations building and City Library and its associated costs.

Other Governmental Funds
Other Governmental Funds are comprised of separate special revenue and debt service funds. These funds are not separately presented in the basic financial statements but are individually presented as supplemental information. Other Governmental Funds, as a whole, increased by $1.8 million.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 301 of 474
13 City of Campbell
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
June 30, 2025
General Fund Budgetary Highlights
The table below summarizes the General Fund Budgetary Highlights as follows:

Variance with
Final Budget
Original Final Actual Positive(Negative)
Revenues
Property taxes $ 22,676,800 $ 22,894,000 $ 22,948,184 $ 54,184 Sales and use taxes 16,832,986 16,258,133 18,013,882 1,755,749 Other taxes 6,837,860 6,888,060 7,204,974 316,914
Licenses and permits 6,494,216 7,191,416 7,465,738 274,322 Fines and forfeitures 100,000 100,000 72,960 (27,040)
Investment income 1,130,000 1,130,000 1,075,611 (54,389) Rents and leases 3,256,284 3,153,184 3,092,024 (61,160) Intergovernmental 1,193,328 2,205,667 1,409,304 (796,363) Charges for services 6,283,915 6,217,250 6,395,809 178,559 Miscellaneous 241,699 386,097 359,007 (27,090)
Total Revenues 65,047,088 66,423,807 68,037,493 1,613,686 Expenditures
General government 7,862,054 10,371,348 10,348,481 22,867 Recreation 7,623,331 7,685,426 7,265,631 419,795
Community development 4,864,982 6,532,847 4,677,682 1,855,165 Public safety 34,537,518 35,019,034 34,734,327 284,707
Public works 7,173,212 7,659,806 6,955,486 704,320
Debt service - - 488,176 (488,176)
Total expenditures 62,061,097 67,268,461 64,469,783 2,798,678 Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures 2,985,991 (844,654) 3,567,710 4,412,364 Other financing sources (uses)
Transfers in 1,392,948 2,206,619 6,604,953 4,398,334
Transfers out (4,406,495) (4,753,315) (346,820)
Total other
financing sources (uses) 1,392,948 (2,199,876) 1,851,638 4,051,514 Net change in fund balance 4,378,939 (3,044,530) 5,419,348 8,463,878 Fund balance at beginning of year 20,963,212 20,963,212 20,963,212 - Fund balance at end of year $ 25,342,151 $ 17,918,682 $ 26,382,560 $ 8,463,878 Budgeted Amounts
The General Fund realized an excess of revenues over expenditures of $3.6 million, excluding transfers and other sources. General Fund revenues, excluding transfers, increased $4.9 million from the previous year to $68.0 million. When compared to the final budget, general fund revenues were $1.6 million higher than budgeted.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 302 of 474
14 City of Campbell
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
June 30, 2025
Capital Assets
The City had net capital assets of $121.70 million as of June 30, 2025. The following is a summary of the City’s capital assets for the fiscal year ended June 30:
2025 2024
Land $ 9.1 $ 9.1
Construction in progress 50.8 20.0
Building & improvements 37.0 35.8
Right-of-Use intangible assets 3.0 2.4
Machinery & equipment 10.9 10.9
Infrastructure 69.9 69.9
Less: Accumulated depreciation (59.0) (55.9)
Net capital assets $ 121.70 $ 92.20
Capital Assets (in millions)
Total additions to capital assets were $29.5 million during the year consisting primarily of construction in progress of the Police Operations Building and City Library. The additions were partially offset by an increase of $3.1 million in depreciation. Additional details on capital assets can be found in Note 5 of the notes to the basic financial statements.

Debt Administration
In August 2016, the City and its Successor Agency concurrently refinanced a combined four outstanding debt issues to achieve significant interest savings for the City and the Agency, given the low-interest rate environment that existed at the time. In August 2020, the City issued $20 million of general obligation bonds followed by an additional $30 million issuance in May 2022 to fund a police emergency operations center and a renovated library. The City also financed energy conservation upgrades and infrastructure improvements through a $1.6 million loan from the California Energy Commission and a $2.2 million loan from Pacific Gas & Electric.

Additional details regarding the City’s long-term debt can be found in Note 6 in the notes to financial statements.

The City had $4.5 million in outstanding certificates of participation, $2.8 million in refunding lease revenue bonds, and $40.3 million of 2018 election general obligation bonds and $5.2 million in other debt outstanding as of June 30, 2025.

The Successor Agency debt is reported in a Private Purpose Trust separate from the City’s financial statement reporting entity. The debt obligations appear on the Fiduciary Funds Statement of Net Position of the ACFR.

Total outstanding debt of the Successor Agency for the refunding tax allocation bonds was $11.3 million as of June 30, 2025.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 303 of 474
15 City of Campbell
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
June 30, 2025
The nation’s economy saw GDP growth equaling 3.5% in the third quarter of 2025; following a GDP increase equaling 3.8% in the second quarter of 2025. The third quarter increase was a result of robust capital investment, a positive swing in net exports, and continued consumer spending in spite of mixed consumer sentiment. Additionally, stock market prices within the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) increased by 12.5% over the course of fiscal year (FY) 2024-25. That performance suggests favorable market sentiment over that year, likely reflecting corporate earnings resilience, risk tolerance, and investment flows — despite macroeconomic headwinds such as trade uncertainty and inflation. In the City of Campbell, the unemployment rate rose to 4.6% as of fiscal year end. Although the unemployment rate increased from the prior year, it is far below the peak of the pandemic during which unemployment in Campbell reached 8.5%.

For the FY26 budget, as to ensure long-term fiscal stability, staff developed, and Council approved several strategic and operational actions that would place the City in a more stable financial position progressing into FY26 and beyond. In developing the FY26 budget, the following assumptions were used:
• Property tax revenues are expected to grow 4.95% compared to FY25 due to continued appreciation in the property tax base. Despite higher mortgage interest rates, the average home price in Campbell continues to rise year over year.
• Sales tax revenue is conservatively estimated to grow 3.1% per year. However, staff notes that inflationary pressures and the possibility of a recession caused by continued high interest rates or tariffs provide headwinds to consumer and business spending and further economic growth. • Charges for Service is historically the City’s third largest revenue source. It is estimated to increase by

3.1% in FY25 due to increased service demands and higher fee levels. • Transient Occupancy Tax has largely recovered from the pandemic, though not yet at pre-pandemic levels of $4.80 million. It is expected to equal approximately $4.10 million in FY26. • Employee costs are assumed to remain relatively flat in FY26 with no assumed Cost of Living Adjustments for any bargaining unit or employee. However, an 8% increase for annual healthcare premium has been factored in.
• Supplies and services are projected to decrease by 8% in FY26 when compared to FY25 in the General Fund.

State statutes limit the amount of general obligation debt a governmental entity may issue to 3.75 percent of the average full valuation of taxable property within the jurisdiction. The current debt limitation for the City is $545.7 million, which is significantly more than the City’s outstanding general obligation debt.

Contacting the City
This financial report is designed to provide a general overview of the City of Campbell’s finances for residents, taxpayers, investors, creditors and any other interested parties. Questions about thisreport may be directed to the City’s Finance Department at 70 N. First St., Campbell, CA 95008 or by e-mail [email protected].

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 304 of 474
16 City of Campbell
Government Wide Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
The Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities summarize the entire City’s financial activities and financial position. They are prepared on the same basis as is used by most businesses, which means they include all the City’s assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources, as well as all its revenues and expenses. This is known as the full accrual basis of accounting. The effect of all the City’s transactions is considered, regardless of whether or when cash changes hands.

The Statement of Net Position reports the difference between the City’s total assets and deferred outflows of resources and the City’s total liabilities and deferred inflows of resources, including all the City’s capital assets and all its long-term debt. It focuses the reader on the composition of the City’s net position, by subtracting total liabilities and total deferred inflows of resources from total assets and total deferred outflows of resources. The Statement of Net Position summarizes the financial position of all the City’s Governmental Activities in a single column.

The City’s Governmental Activities include the activities of its General Fund, along with all its Special Revenue, Debt Service and Capital Projects Funds. Since the City’s Internal Service Funds service these Funds, their activities are consolidated with Governmental Activities, after eliminating inter-fund transactions and balances.

The Statement of Activities reports increases and decreases in the City’s net position. It is also prepared on the full accrual basis of accounting, which means it includes all the City’s revenues and all its expenses, regardless of when cash changes hands.

The format of the Statement of Activities presents the City’s expenses first, which are listed by program.

Program revenues - that is, revenues which are generated directly by these programs - are then deducted from program expenses to arrive at the net expense of each governmental program. The City’s general revenues are then listed in the Governmental Activities column, and the Change in Net Position is computed and reconciled with the Statement of Net Position.

Both these Statements include the financial activities of the City and the City of Campbell Lighting and Landscape District, which is a legally separate but blended component unit of the City because it is controlled by the City, which is financially accountable for its activities.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 305 of 474
See Notes to Financial Statements 17
City of Campbell
Statement of Net Position
June 30, 2025
Governmental
Activities
Assets
Cash and investments $ 70,236,989
Cash held with fiscal agent 1,761,774
Receivables
Taxes 4,957,926
Accounts 1,397,406
Interest 629,449
Notes and loans 7,598,526
Leases 2,873,147
Prepaid items 5,118
Deposits 90,000
Capital assets, not depreciated or amortized 59,882,039 Capital assets, net depreciation and amortization 61,836,154 Total assets 211,268,528
Deferred outflows of resources
Amount related to pensions 21,627,827
Amount related to OPEB 2,207,359
Total deferred outflows of resources 23,835,186
Liabilities
Accounts payable 8,574,495
Accrued liabilities 2,894,259
Interest payable 676,056
Deposits payable 2,959,469
Noncurrent liabilities
Due in less than one year
Bonds, leases, subscriptions, notes, loans, claims, compensated absences 5,277,609 Due in more than one year
Bonds, leases, subscriptions, notes, loans, claims, compensated absences 61,404,468 Net OPEB liability 4,927,284
Net pension liability 75,935,221
Total Liabilities 162,648,861
Deferred inflows of resources
Amount related to leases 2,692,580
Amount related to pensions 560,662
Amount related to OPEB 1,007,192
Total deferred inflows of resources 4,260,434
Net Position
Net investment in capital assets 77,701,411
Restricted for
Streets and roads 7,901,455
Museum and adult center 25,115
Public safety 188,841
Low and moderate income housing 8,140,495
Community development 6,463,157
Unrestricted deficit (32,226,055)
Total net position $ 68,194,419
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 306 of 474
See Notes to Financial Statements 18
City of Campbell
Statement of Activities
Year Ended June 30, 2025
Net (Expenses)
Revenues and
Change in Net
Position
Functions/Programs Expenses
Charges for
Services
Operating
Grants and
Contributions
Capital
Grants and
Contributions
Governmental
Activities
Governmental Activities
General government $ 11,222,631 $ 3,419,429 $ 7,096,206 $ - $ (706,996) Recreation 7,899,167 6,461,772 90,528 - (1,346,867)
Community development 5,743,177 5,838,602 25,000 - 120,425 Public safety 37,886,828 845,170 965,234 - (36,076,424) Public works 18,426,581 6,010,081 14,245 3,577,324 (8,824,931) Interest expense 1,905,362 - - - (1,905,362)
Total governmental activities $ 83,083,746 $ 22,575,054 $ 8,191,213 $ 3,577,324 (48,740,155) General revenues
Taxes
Property 27,566,428
Sales and use 18,013,882
Transient occupancy 3,978,243
Franchise 1,850,090
Other 1,357,532
Payments in lieu of taxes 90,528
Investment income 3,755,087
Miscellaneous 974,868
Total general revenues 57,586,658
Change in net position 8,846,503
Net Position At Beginning of Year 59,347,916
Net Position At the End of Year $ 68,194,419
Program Revenues
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 307 of 474
19 City of Campbell
Government Fund Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Major funds are defined generally as having significant activities or balances in the current year.

The funds described below were determined to be Major Funds by the City in fiscal year 2025. Individual other governmental (nonmajor) funds may be found in the Supplemental Section.

General Fund
Accounts for activities traditionally associated with governments, such as administration, recreation, community development, engineering, and public safety, which are not required to be accounted for in another fund.

Measure O Capital Projects Fund
Accounts for the expenditures and financing of the City’s capital projects related to the Measure O bond.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 308 of 474
See Notes to Financial Statements 20
City of Campbell
Balance Sheet – Governmental Funds
June 30, 2025
Capital
Projects Total
Funds Governmental Governmental
General Fund Measure O Funds Funds
Assets
Cash and investments $ 27,274,915 $ 17,434,812 $ 18,974,352 $ 63,684,079 Cash held with fiscal agent - 1,715,244 46,530 1,761,774 Receivables
Accounts 954,714 - 374,396 1,329,110
Taxes 4,627,909 - 330,017 4,957,926
Interest 241,708 229,928 157,813 629,449
Notes and loans - - 7,598,526 7,598,526
Leases receivable 2,873,147 - - 2,873,147
Prepaid items and other asset 5,118 - - 5,118
Due from other funds 1,228,781 - - 1,228,781
Total assets $ 37,206,292 $ 19,379,984 $ 27,481,634 $ 84,067,910 Liabilities
Accounts payable $ 2,523,895 $ 4,839,856 $ 975,084 $ 8,338,835 Accrued liabilities 2,647,788 13,608 170,545 2,831,941
Deposits payable 2,959,469 - - 2,959,469
Due to other funds - - 1,228,781 1,228,781
Total liabilities 8,131,152 4,853,464 2,374,410 15,359,026 Deferred Inflows of Resources
Lease related 2,692,580 - - 2,692,580
Fund balances
Nonspendable 185,685 - - 185,685
Restricted 1,655,697 14,526,520 24,610,192 40,792,409
Committed 3,619,783 - - 3,619,783
Assigned 2,879,388 - 497,032 3,376,420
Unassigned 18,042,007 - - 18,042,007
Total fund balances 26,382,560 14,526,520 25,107,224 66,016,304 Total liabilities, deferred inflows
of resources and fund balances $ 37,206,292 $ 19,379,984 $ 27,481,634 $ 84,067,910 Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 309 of 474
See Notes to Financial Statements 21
City of Campbell
Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet to the Statement of Net Position June 30, 2025
Fund balances - total governmental funds $ 66,016,304
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Net Position are different because:

Capital assets used in governmental activities are not current financial resources and therefore are not reported in the governmental funds balance sheet:

Capital assets $ 173,122,671
Accumulated depreciation (53,267,161)
119,855,510
Long-term liabilities applicable to the City's governmental activities are not due and payable in the current period and accordingly are not reported as fund liabilities. Interest on long-term liabilities is not accrued in governmental funds, but rather is recognized as an expenditures when due. All liabilities, both current and long-term, are reported in the Statement of Net Position.

Balances at year-end are:

Bonds and certificates of participation (52,881,625)
Loans (3,018,357)
Leases payable (1,259,489)
Compensated absences (4,126,505)
Claims payable (726,366)
Accrued interest (676,056)
(62,688,398)
OPEB related liabilities applicable to the City's governmental activities are not due and payable in the current period and accordingly are not reported as fund liabilities. Deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB are only reported in the Statement of Net Position as the changes in these amounts affects only the government-wide statements for governmental activities:

Deferred outflows of resources 2,140,710
Deferred inflows of resources (976,781)
Net OPEB liability (4,778,511)
(3,614,582)
Pension related liabilities applicable to the City's governmental activities are not due and payable in the current period and accordingly are not reported as fund liabilities. Deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions are only reported in the Statement of Net Position as the changes in these amounts effects only the government-wide statements for governmental activities:

Deferred outflows of resources 21,143,389
Deferred inflows of resources (560,662)
Net pension liability (73,812,126)
(53,229,399)
Internal service funds are used by management to charge the costs of certain activities, such as equipment management, information technology, and workers' compensation self-insurance, to individual funds. The assets and liabilities of the internal service funds are included in governmental activities in the Statement of Net Position. 1,854,984
Net Position of Govenmental Activities $ 68,194,419
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 310 of 474
See Notes to Financial Statements 22
City of Campbell
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances – Governmental Funds Year Ended June 30, 2025
Capital Other Total
General Housing ARPA Projects Governmental Governmental Fund Assets Fund Fund Measure O Funds Funds
Revenues
Property taxes $ 22,948,184 $ - $ 4,618,244 $ 27,566,428 Sales and use taxes 18,013,882 - - 18,013,882
Other Taxes 7,204,974 - - 7,204,974
Special assessments - - 1,391,128 1,391,128
Licenses and permits 7,465,738 - - 7,465,738
Fines and forfeitures 72,960 - 57,145 130,105
Investment income 1,075,611 1,579,319 786,403 3,441,333 Rents and leases 3,092,024 - - 3,092,024
Intergovernmental 1,409,304 1,887,380 10,385,823 13,682,507 Charges for services 6,395,809 - 307,982 6,703,791
Project revenues - - 18,412 18,412
Parkland dedication fees - - 2,340,159 2,340,159
Miscellaneous revenues 359,007 1,694 103,974 464,675
Total revenues 68,037,493 3,468,393 20,009,270 91,515,156 Expenditures
Current
General government 10,348,481 422,870 5,169 10,776,520
Recreation 7,265,631 - - 7,265,631
Community development 4,677,682 - 700,892 5,378,574
Public safety 34,734,327 - 381,722 35,116,049
Public works 6,955,486 - 6,838,302 13,793,788
Capital outlay - 28,910,090 3,870,077 32,780,167
Debt service
Principal 444,311 - 1,985,000 2,429,311
Interest and fiscal charges 43,865 - 1,908,750 1,952,615 Total expenditures 64,469,783 29,332,960 15,689,912 109,492,655 Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures 3,567,710 (25,864,567) 4,319,358 (17,977,499) Other financing sources (uses)
Transfers in 6,604,953 - 5,289,220 11,894,173
Transfers out (4,753,315) - (7,776,758) (12,530,073)
Total other financing
sources (uses) 1,851,638 - (2,487,538) (635,900)
Net change In fund balances 5,419,348 (25,864,567) 1,831,820 (18,613,399) Fund balances (deficit) at beginning
of year as previously reported 20,963,212 8,520,812 - 968,320 40,391,087 32,764,536 103,607,967 Adjustment (Note 17) - (8,520,812) - (968,320) - 9,489,132 - Fund balances (deficit) at beginning
of year, as restated 20,963,212 - - - 40,391,087 23,275,404 84,629,703 Fund balances at end of year $ 26,382,560 $ - $ - $ - $ 14,526,520 $ 25,107,224 $ 66,016,304 Capital
Projects Fund
Special
Funds
Revenue
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 311 of 474
See Notes to Financial Statements 23
City of Campbell
Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities
Year Ended June 30, 2025
Net change in fund balances - total governmental funds $ (18,613,399) Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Activities are different because:

When capital assets that are to be used in governmental activities are purchased or constructed, the resources expended for those assets are reported as expenditures in governmental funds. However, in the Statement of Activities, the cost of those assets is allocated over the estimated useful lives and reported as depreciation expense. As a result, fund balance decreases by the amount of financial resources expensed, whereas net position decreases by the amount of depreciation expense charged for the year.

Capital outlay 32,780,167
Depreciation expense (3,831,021)
28,949,146
Repayment of bond principal is an expenditure in the governmental funds, but the repayment reduces long-term liabilities in the Statement of Net Position.

Principal payments on bonds and loans 2,370,365
Accrued interest expense related to the long-term liabilities. This amount is the difference between the amount of interest paid and the amount of interest incurred on long-term liabilities. 106,199
Some expenses reported in the Statement of Activities do not require the use of current financial resources, and therefore, are not reported as expenditures in the governmental funds.

Payments or issuance of leases payable 197,999
Net change in compensated absences (85,564)
Net change in claims payable 28,057
140,492
Pension expense reported in the governmental funds includes the annual required contributions. In the Statement of Activities, pension expense includes the change in the net pension liability, and related change in pension amounts for deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources. (4,044,809) OPEB expense reported in the governmental funds includes the annual required contributions. In the Statement of Activities, OPEB expense includes the change in the net OPEB liability, and related change in OPEB amounts for deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources. 4,118 Internal service funds are used by management to charge the costs of certain activities, such as equipment management, information technology, and workers' compensation self-insurance, to individual funds. The net revenue (expense) of these internal service funds are included in the governmental activities in the Statement of Net Position. (65,609)
Change in net position of governmental activities $ 8,846,503 Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 312 of 474
24 City of Campbell
Proprietary Fund Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Internal Service Funds
Account for City operations financed and operated in a manner similar to a private business enterprise. The intent of the City is that the cost of providing goods and services to other City funds be financed through user charges to those funds.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 313 of 474
See Notes to Financial Statements 25
City of Campbell
Statement of Net Position – Proprietary Funds
June 30, 2025
Governmental
Activities
Internal
Service Funds
Assets
Current assets
Cash and investments $ 6,552,910
Accounts receivable 68,296
Deposits 90,000
Total current assets 6,711,206
Noncurrent assets
Capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation and amortization 1,862,683 Total assets 8,573,889
Deferred outflows of resources
Amount related to pensions 484,438
Amount related to OPEB 66,649
Total deferred outflows of resources 551,087
Liabilities
Current liabilities
Accounts payable 235,660
Accrued payroll 62,318
Compensated absences, current portion 61,890
Lease payable 728,191
Subscription payable 189,018
Claims and judgments payable, current portion 544,611
Total current liabilities 1,821,688
Noncurrent liabilities
Compensated absences 60,116
Claims payable and judgments 3,085,909
Net OPEB liability 148,773
Net pension liability 2,123,095
Total noncurrent liabilities 5,417,893
Total liabilities 7,239,581
Deferred inflows of resources
Amount related to OPEB 30,411
Total deferred inflows of resources 30,411
Net position
Net investment in capital assets 945,474
Unrestricted 909,510
Total net position $ 1,854,984
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 314 of 474
See Notes to Financial Statements 26
City of Campbell
Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Net Position – Proprietary Funds Year Ended June 30, 2025
Governmental
Activities
Internal
Service Funds
Operating revenues
Charges for services $ 2,981,427
Other 101,339
Total operating revenues 3,082,766
Operating expenses
Personnel services 1,331,278
Services and supplies 2,152,928
Depreciation 613,823
Total operating expenses 4,098,029
Opearting loss (1,015,263)
Nonoperating Income
Investment income 313,754
Transfers
Transfers in 685,900
Transfers out (50,000)
Total transfers 635,900
Change in net position (65,609)
Net position at beginning of year 1,920,593
Net position at end of year $ 1,854,984
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 315 of 474
See Notes to Financial Statements 27
City of Campbell
Statement of Cash Flows – Proprietary Funds
Year Ended June 30, 2025
Governmental
Activities
Internal
Service Funds
Cash flows from operating activities
Cash received from department users $ 3,074,921
Cash payments to suppliers of goods and services (2,003,230) Cash payments to employees for services (1,027,891)
Net cash provided by operating activities 43,800
Cash flows from noncapital financing activities:

Cash received from other funds 685,900
Cash paid to other funds (50,000)
Net cash provided by noncapital financing activities 635,900 Cash flows from capital and related financing activities Acquisition of capital assets (712,576)
Cash flows from capital and related financing activities Investment earnings 313,754
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents 280,878
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year 6,272,032 Cash and cash equivalents at end of year $ 6,552,910
Reconciliation of operating loss to
Net cash provided by operating activities
Operating loss $ (1,015,263)
Adjustments to reconcile operating loss to net
cash provided by operating activities
Depreciation and amortization 613,823
Changes in operating assets and liabilities
(Increase) decrease in accounts receivable 114,468
Increase (decrease) in accounts payable (170,699)
Increase (decrease) in accrued payroll 1,943
Increase (decrease) in compensated absences 28,137
Increase (decrease) in claims and judgments payable 198,084 Increase (decrease) in net OPEB and related deferrals (18,066) Increase (decrease) in net pension liability and related deferrals 291,373 Net cash provided by operating activities $ 43,800
Non-cash transactions:

New leases and SBITAs 767,802
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 316 of 474
28 City of Campbell
Fiduciary Fund Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Private-Purpose Trust Fund
The private-purpose trust fund was created to account for the assets and liabilities of the Campbell Successor Agency, effective February 1, 2012. These amounts represent the assets and liabilities of the former Campbell Redevelopment Agency.

Custodial Funds
Custodial funds are used to account for assets held by the City as an agent for individuals, private organizations, and other governments. The financial activities of these funds are excluded from the government-wide financial statements but are presented in separate Fiduciary Fund financial statements.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 317 of 474
See Notes to Financial Statements 29
City of Campbell
Statement of Fiduciary Net Position – Fiduciary Funds
June 30, 2025
PrivatePurpose Custodial
Trust Fund Funds
Assets
Cash and investments $ 1,014,457 $ 2,414,577
Cash held with fiscal agent 668 -
Accounts receivable 3,749 96,449
Capital assets, not being depreciated 7,123,531 -
Capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation 6,617,395 - Total assets 14,759,800 2,511,026
Liabilities
Accounts payable - 245,002
Accrued interest payable 59,383 -
Long-term debt
Due within one year 1,660,000 -
Due in more than one year 9,610,000 -
Total liabilities 11,329,383 245,002
Net Position
Restricted for individuals and organizations $ 3,430,417 $ 2,266,024 Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 318 of 474
See Notes to Financial Statements 30
City of Campbell
Statement of Changes in Net Position – Fiduciary Funds
Year Ended June 30, 2025
PrivatePurpose Custodial
Trust Fund Funds
Additions
Local government-administered contributions $ 1,911,035 $ 1,293,117 Other income - 733,382
Investment income 20,963 50,051
Total additions 1,931,998 2,076,550
Deductions
Professional and special services - 982,623
Administrative - 928,904
Depreciation 322,577 -
Interest and fiscal agent costs 272,553 -
Total deductions 595,130 1,911,527
Change in net position 1,336,868 165,023
Net position at beginning of year 2,093,549 2,101,001
Net position at end of year $ 3,430,417 $ 2,266,024
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 319 of 474
31 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Note 1 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
The financial statements of the City of Campbell, California (the City), have been prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) as applied to governmental units. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is the accepted standard-setting body for establishing governmental accounting and financial reporting principles. The more significant of the government’s accounting policies are described below.

Reporting Entity
The City of Campbell was incorporated March 28, 1952, under the general laws of the State of California. The City operates under a Council Manager form of government providing such services as public safety (police, contracted fire services, and building inspection), street and sidewalk maintenance, recreation, planning and zoning, and general administrative services. The accompanying financial statements present the activities of the City of Campbell (the primary government) and its blended component units, entities for which the City is financially accountable.

City of Campbell Lighting and Landscape District (the District) is a City-wide assessment District established in 1980 to provide lighting and landscape services and a funding source for these services. The District is governed by a Board composed of City Council members and lighting services are provided by City employees.

Although legally separate, this District is so intertwined with the City that it is, in substance, one and the same.

Accordingly, it is blended with the City in these financial statements. No separate financial statements are prepared for the District.

Measurement Focus and Basis of Accounting
The basic financial statements of the City are composed of the following:
• Government-wide financialstatements
• Fund financial statements
• Notes to the basic financialstatements
Government-Wide Financial Statements:

Government-wide financial statements display information about the reporting government as a whole, except for its fiduciary activities. These statements include a column for the governmental activities of the primary government (including its blended component units). Eliminations have been made in the Statement of Activities so that certain allocated expenses are recorded only once (by the function to which they were allocated). However, interfund services provided and used are not eliminated in the process of consolidation.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 320 of 474
32 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
The statement of activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given function or segment is offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a specific function or segment. Program revenues include: (1) charges to customers or applicants who purchase, use or directly benefit from goods, services, or privileges provided by a given function or segment and (2) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a particular function or segment. Taxes and other items not properly included among program revenues are reported instead as general revenues.

Government-wide financial statements are presented using the economic resources measurement focus and accrual basis of accounting, as are the proprietary fund financial statements and the fiduciary private-purpose trust fund financial statements. Under the economic resources’ measurement focus, all (both current and longterm) economic resources and obligations are reported. Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenses are recognized in the accounts and reported in the financial statements. Under the accrual basis of accounting, revenues, expenses, gains, losses, assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities and deferred inflows of resources, resulting from exchange and exchange-like transactions are recognized when the exchange takes place. Revenues, expenses, gains, losses, assets, and liabilities resulting from nonexchange transactions are recognized in accordance with the requirements of GASB Statement No. 33, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Nonexchange Transactions.

Amounts paid to acquire capital assets are capitalized as assets in the government-wide financial statements, rather than reported as expenditures. Proceeds of long-term debt are recorded as a liability in the governmentwide financial statements, rather than as another financing source. Amounts paid to reduce long-term indebtedness of the reporting government are reported as a reduction of the related liability, rather than as an expenditure.

Fund Financial Statements
The underlying accounting system of the City is organized and operated on the basis of separate funds, each of which is considered to be a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund are accounted for with a separate set of self-balancing accounts that comprise its assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, fund equity, revenues, and expenditures or expenses, as appropriate.

Governmental resources are allocated to and accounted for in individual funds based upon the purposes for which they are to be spent and the means by which spending activities are controlled.

Fund financial statements for the primary government’s governmental, proprietary, and fiduciary funds are presented after the government-wide financial statements. These statements display information about major funds individually and nonmajor funds in the aggregate for governmental and proprietary funds. Fiduciary statements include financial information for the private-purpose trust fund, and custodial funds. Custodial funds of the City primarily represent assets held by the City in a custodial capacity for other individuals or organizations. The fiduciary statements are to be prepared using the economic resources measurement focus and full accrual basis of accounting.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 321 of 474
33 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Governmental Funds
In the fund financial statements, governmental funds are presented using the modified-accrual basis of accounting. Their revenues are recognized when they become measurable and available as net current assets.

Measurable means that the amounts can be estimated, or otherwise determined. Available means that the amounts were collected during the reporting period or soon enough thereafter to be available to finance the expenditures accrued for the reporting period. The City uses an availability period of 365 days, except property taxes which are considered to be available if collected within 60 days.

Sales taxes, property taxes, franchise taxes, gas taxes, motor vehicle in lieu, transient occupancy taxes, grants and interest associated with the current fiscal period are all considered to be susceptible to accrual and so they have been recognized as revenues of the current fiscal period to the extent normally collected within the availability period. Other revenue items are considered to be measurable and available when cash is received by the government.

Exchange transactions are recognized as revenues in the period in which they are earned (i.e., the related goods or services are provided). Locally imposed derived tax revenues are recognized as revenues in the period in which the underlying exchange transaction upon which they are based takes place. Imposed nonexchange transactions are recognized as revenues in the period for which they were imposed. If the period of use is not specified, they are recognized as revenues when an enforceable legal claim to the revenues arises or when they are received, whichever occurs first.

Government-mandated and voluntary nonexchange transactions are recognized as revenues when all applicable eligibility requirements have been met.

In the fund financial statements, governmental funds are presented using the current financial resources measurement focus. This means that only current assets, current liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources are generally included on their balance sheets. The reported fund balance (net current assets) is considered to be a measure of “available spendable resources”. Governmental fund operating statements present increases (revenues and other financing sources) and decreases (expenditures and other financing uses) in net current assets. Accordingly, they are said to present a summary of sources and uses of “available spendable resources” during a period.

Due to the nature of their spending measurement focus, expenditure recognition for governmental fund types excludes amounts represented by noncurrent liabilities. Since they do not affect current assets, such long-term amounts are not recognized as governmental fund type expenditures or fund liabilities.

Amounts expended to acquire capital assets are recorded as expenditures in the year that resources were expended, rather than as fund assets. The proceeds of long-term debt are recorded as other financing sources rather than as a fund liability. Amounts paid to reduce long-term indebtedness are reported as fund expenditures.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 322 of 474
34 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Proprietary and Fiduciary Funds
The City’s internal service funds are proprietary funds. In the fund financial statements, proprietary funds and fiduciary funds are presented using the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized when they are earned, and expenses are recognized when the related goods or services are delivered. In the fund financial statements, proprietary funds and the fiduciary funds, are presented using the economic resources measurement focus. This means that all assets and all liabilities (whether current or noncurrent) associated with their activity are included on their statements of net position. Proprietary fund type operating statements present increases (revenues) and decreases (expenses) in total net position.

Proprietary funds operating revenues, such as charges for services, result from exchange transactions associated with principal activity of the fund. Exchange transactions are those in which each party receives and gives up essentially equal values. In addition, Proprietary funds defines investment earnings as operating income.

Nonoperating revenues, such as subsidies, and taxes result from nonexchange transactions or ancillary activities.

Amounts paid to acquire capital assets are capitalized as assets in the proprietary fund financial statements, rather than reported as an expense. Proceeds of long-term debt are recorded as a liability in the proprietary fund financial statements. Amounts paid to reduce long- term indebtedness of the proprietary funds are reported as a reduction of the related liability.

Fund Classifications
The City reports the following major governmental funds:

The General Fund is used to account for resources traditionally associated with governments, such as administration, engineering and public safety, which are not required to be accounted for in another fund.

The Measure O Capital Projects Fund is used to accounts for the expenditures and financing of the City’s capital projects related to the Measure O bond.

Additionally, the City reports the following fund types:

Special Revenue Funds - These funds are used to account for specific revenues that are legally restricted to expenditure for a particular purpose.

Debt Service Fund - These funds are used to account for the activity related to the City’s share of proceeds from the 2016 Refunding Lease Revenue Bonds and 2018 election General Obligation Bonds, which were utilized chiefly to fund capital projects and refund debt related to the Police Station, City’s Community Center and deferred street maintenance projects.

Internal Service Funds - These funds are used to account for the City’s motor vehicle pool, workers’ compensation self-funded insurance program and information technology services. Departments of the City are charged for the services provided or benefits received from these funds.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 323 of 474
35 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Fiduciary Funds - The City maintains two types of Fiduciary Funds - a Private-Purpose Trust Fund and Custodial Funds. The Private-Purpose Trust Fund accounts for activities of the Successor Agency to the Campbell Redevelopment Agency. Custodial Funds are used to account for monies held for the West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority, 1915 Act Bonds, and the Santa Clara County Specialized Enforcement Task Fund (SCCET).

Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources
In addition to assets, the statement of net position will sometimes report a separate section for deferred outflows of resources. This separate financial statement element, deferred outflows of resources, represents a consumption of net assets that applies to a future period and so will notbe recognized as an outflow of resources (expense/expenditure) until that time. The City has the following items that qualify for reporting in this category:
• Deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB and pension plans equal to employer contributions made after the measurement date of the net OPEB liability and the net pension liability. • Deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB and pensions for differences between actual and expected experiences. These amounts are amortized over a closed period equal to the average of the expected remaining service lives of all employees that are provided with pensions through the plans. • Deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB and pensions resulting from changes in assumptions.

These amounts are amortized over a closed period equal to the average expected remaining service lives of all employees that are provided with pensions through the plans. • Deferred outflows of resources related to pension plans for the changes in the employer’s proportion and differences between the employer’s contributions and the employer’s proportionate share of contributions. These amounts are amortized over a closed period equal to the average of the expected remaining service lives of all employees that are provided with pensions through the plans. • Deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB and pensions resulting from the net differences between projected and actual earnings on plan investments of the pension plans fiduciary net position. These amounts are amortized over five years.

In addition to liabilities, the statement of net position and governmental funds balance sheet will sometimes report a separate section for deferred inflows of resources. This separate financial statement element, deferred inflows of resources, represents an acquisition of net assets that applies to a future period and will not be recognized as an inflow of resources (revenue) until that time. The City has the following items that qualify for reporting in this category:
• Deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB and pensions for differences between actual and expected experiences. These amounts are amortized over a closed period equal to the average of the expected remaining service lives of all employees that are provided with pensions through the plans. • Deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB and pensions resulting from changes in assumptions. These amounts are amortized over a closed period equal to the average expected remaining service lives of all employees that are provided with pensions through the plans.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 324 of 474
36 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
• Deferred inflows of resources related to pensions for the changes in employer’s proportion and differences between the employer’s contributions and the employer’s proportionate share of contributions. These amounts are amortized over a closed period equal to the average of the expected remaining service lives of all employees that are provided with pensions through the plans. • Deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB and pension plans resulting from the net differences between projected and actual earnings on plan investments of the plan’s fiduciary net position. These amounts are amortized over five years.
• Deferred inflows of resources related to unavailable revenues. These amounts will be recognized once cash is received in a fiscal year or with the availability period. • Deferred inflows of resources related to leases. These amounts will be recognized once rental and lease payments are earned.

Net Position and Fund Balance Flow Assumptions
In the government-wide financial statements, when expenses are incurred for purposes for which both restricted and unrestricted net position are available, the City’s policy is to apply restricted net position first.

In the governmental fund financial statements, when expenditures are incurred for purposes for which all categories of fund balances are available, the City’s general policy is to apply the expenditures against fund balance in the following order: restricted, committed, assigned, and unassigned.

Property Taxes
All property taxes and special assessments are levied and collected by the County of Santa Clara (the County) and paid upon collection to the various taxing entities including the City, Successor Agency of the former Redevelopment Agency, and Lighting and Landscape District. Secured taxes are levied on July 1 and are due in two installments on November 1 and February 1 and become delinquent on December 10 and April 10, respectively. Unsecured taxes are due on July 1 and become delinquent on August 31. The lien date for secured and unsecured property taxes is January 1 of the preceding fiscal year.

The County is permitted by State law to levy taxes at 1% of full market value at time of purchase plus other increases approved by the voters and can increase the assessed value no more than 2% per year. The City receives its proportionate share of this levy.

The City has adopted an alternative method of property tax distribution called the Teeter Plan. Under this method, the City receives 100% of its secured property tax levied in exchange for foregoing any interest and penalties collected on delinquent taxes. The City receives payments as a series of advances made by the County throughout the year. Secured property tax levy is recognized as revenue upon receipt, including the final payment, which generally is received within 60 days after the fiscal year end.

The term “unsecured” refers to taxes on personal property other than real estate, land and buildings. Property tax revenues are recognized by the City in the fiscal year they are assessed, provided they become available as defined above.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 325 of 474
37 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Cash and Investments
Investments are reported in the accompanying financial statements at fair value, which is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. Investments in external investment pools are valued based on the stated fair value represented by the external investment pool.

Changes in fair value that occur during a fiscal year are recognized as investment income reported for that fiscal year. Investment income includes interest earnings, changes in fair value, and any gains or losses realized upon the liquidation, maturity, or sale of investments.

The City pools cash and investments of all funds, except for assets held by fiscal agents. Each fund’s share in this pool is displayed in the accompanying financial statements as cash and investments. Investment income earned by the pooled investments is allocated to the various funds based on each fund’s quarterly average cash and investment balance.

For purposes of the Statement of Cash Flows, cash equivalents are defined as short-term, highly liquid investments with maturities of three months or less at the time of purchase that they present insignificant risk of changes in value because of limited interest rate risk. Cash equivalents also represent the proprietary fund’s share in the cash and investment pool of the City.

Capital Assets
Capital assets are recorded at cost where historical records are available and at an estimated historical cost where no historical records exist. Contributed capital assets are valued at their acquisition value at the date of the contribution. Generally, the City capitalizes all infrastructures with a value greater than $25,000. All other capital asset purchases in excess of $5,000 are capitalized if they have an expected useful life of more than one year. Capital assets include all public domain (infrastructure) assets consisting of certain improvements, including roads, streets, sidewalks, medians, and storm drains.

The following schedule summarizes capital asset useful lives:

Buildings and improvements 40 years
Other improvements 20 years
Right-to-use leased equipment 3 to 15 years
Machinery and equipment 3 to 20 years
Infrastructure 15 to 40 years
Depreciation has been provided using the straight-line method over the estimated useful life of the asset in the government-wide financial statements and in the fund financial statements of the proprietary funds.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 326 of 474
38 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Compensated Absences
Accrued vacation and sick leave are accrued as earned by employees. City employees may accrue vacation up to certain maximums as of December 31 of each calendar year, which vary depending on classification and years of service. Upon termination, they may be compensated for their vacation balance at current hourly rates.

Similarly, sick leave may be accumulated without limit and employees may be compensated upon termination based on a vesting schedule determined by years of service, compensated at current hourlyrates.

For all governmental funds, a liability of these amounts is reported only if they have matured, for example, as a result of employee resignations and retirements. The remaining portion is recorded as a liability in the Statement of Net Position. For Internal Service Funds, liabilities of these amounts are recorded liabilities of those funds.

Compensated absences are typically liquidated in the General Fund.

Pensions
For purposes of measuring the net pension liability and deferred outflows/inflows of resources related to pensions, and pension expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the City’s California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) plans (Plans) and additions to/deductions from the Plans’ fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they are reported by CalPERS. For this purpose, benefit payments (including refunds of employee contributions) are recognized when due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value.

Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions(OPEB)
For purposes of measuring the net OPEB liability and deferred outflows/inflows of resources related to OPEB, and OPEB expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the City’s OPEB Plan and additions to/deductions from the OPEB Plans’ fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they are reported by the Plan. For this purpose, the City’s OPEB Plan recognizes benefit payments when due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value.

Leases and Subscription-Based Information Technology Arrangements (SBITA) The City is a lessee for a noncancellable lease of equipment and subscription assets. The City recognizes a lease/SBITA liability and an intangible right‐to‐use lease asset (lease/SBITA asset) in the government‐wide financial statements. The City recognizes lease/SBITA liabilities with an initial, individual value of $5,000 or more.

At the commencement of a lease or SBITA, the City initially measures the lease/SBITA liability at the present value of payments expected to be made during the lease term. Subsequently, the lease/SBITA liability is reduced by the principal portion of lease payments made.

The lease/SBITA asset is initially measured as the initial amount of the lease/SBITA liability, adjusted for lease/SBITA payments made at or before the commencement date, plus certain initial direct costs.

Subsequently, the asset is amortized on a straight‐line basis over its useful life.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 327 of 474
39 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
The City recognizes a lease receivable and a deferred inflow of resources in the government-wide and governmental fund financial statements. At the commencement of a lease, the City initially measures the lease receivable at the present value of payments expected to be received during the lease term. Subsequently, the lease receivable is reduced by the principal portion of lease payments received. The deferred inflow of resources is initially measured as the initial amount of the lease receivable, adjusted for lease payments received at or before the lease commencement date. Subsequently, the deferred inflow of resources is recognized as revenue over the life of the lease term.

Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements requires management to make certain estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities and deferred inflows of resources, at the date of the financial statements, as well as the reported amounts of revenue and expenses/expenditures during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Implementation of GASB Statement No. 100
As of July 1, 2023, the District adopted GASB Statement No. 100, Accounting Changes and Error Corrections. The implementation of this standard requires additional presentation and disclosure requirements for accounting changes and error corrections. The financial statements have been updated to conform to the presentation requirements related to the reclassification in the financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2025. The additional disclosures required by this standard are included in Note 17.

Adoption of New Accounting Standard
Implementation of GASB Statement No. 101
As of June 30, 2025, the District adopted GASB Statement No. 101, Compensated Absences. The provisions of this standard modernize the types of leave that are considered a compensated absence and provides guidance for a consistent recognition and measurement of the compensated absence liability.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 328 of 474
40 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Note 2 - Cash and Investments
Cash and Investments
Cash and investments as of June 30, 2025 are classified in the accompanying financial statements as follows:

Statement of Net Position
Cash and investments $ 70,236,989
Cash held with fiscal agent 1,761,774
Statement of Fiduciary Net Position
Cash and investments 3,429,034
Cash held with fiscal agent 668
Total Cash and Investments $ 75,428,465
Cash and investments as of June 30, 2025 consisted of the following:

Cash on Hand $ 9,090
Deposits with Financial Institutions 3,938,562
Investments 71,480,813
Total Cash and Investments $ 75,428,465
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 329 of 474
41 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Investments Authorized by the California Government Code and the City’s Investment Policy The table below identifies the investment types that are authorized for the City by the California Government Code and the City’s investment policy. The table also identifies certain provisions of the California Government Code (or the City’s investment policy, if more restrictive) that address interest rate risk and concentration of credit risk. This table does not address investments of debt proceeds held by bond trustee that are governed by the provisions of debt agreements of the City, rather than the general provisions of the California Government Code or the City’s investment policy.

Maximum Maximum
Maximum Minimum Percentage Investment in
Authorized Investment TypesMaturityCredit QualityAllowed One Issuer
U.S. Treasury Obligations 5 years None None None
U.S. Agency Securities 5 years None 75% None
Federal Instrumentality
(government sponsored enterprise) 5 years None 75% None Repurchase Agreements 1 year A/A-1 10% None
Commercial Paper 270 days * 25% 5%
A-1 or P-1 or
Banker’s Acceptance 180 days F-1 30% 5%
Medium-Term Notes 5 years AA or Aa2 30% 5%
Non-negotiable Time
Certificates of Deposit 5 years None 25% $1 million
Negotiable Certificates
of Deposit 5 years None 30% None
California Local Agency $75 million
Investment Fund (LAIF) N/A None None per account
AAAm or Aaa
Mutual Funds N/A or AAA/V1+ 15% 10%
AAAm or Aaa
Money Market Mutual Funds N/A or AAA/V1+ 15% 10%
Municipal and State Obligations 5 years A-A-1 None 5%
* Issuer must be U.S. general corporation having assets in excess of $500,000,000 with debt other than commercial paper rated A or higher or U.S. special purpose corporation, trust or limited liability company having program-wide credit enhancements and commercial paper rated A-1 orhigher.

N/A - Not Applicable
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 330 of 474
42 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Investments Authorized by Debt Agreements
Investment of debt proceeds held by bond trustees are governed by provisions of the debt agreements, rather than the general provisions of the California Government Code or the City’s investment policy. The table below identifies the investment types that are authorized for investments held by bond trustee. The table also identifies certain provisions of these debt agreements that address interest rate risk, credit risk, and concentration of credit risk.

Maximum Maximum
Maximum Minimum Percentage Investment in
Authorized Investment Types Maturity Credit Quality Allowed One Issuer U.S. Treasury Bonds, Notes and Bills 5-7 years None No Limit No Limit U.S. Government Sponsored Entities 5-7 years AAA No Limit No Limit Time Certificates of Deposit -
Banks or Savings and Loans 1 year None No Limit No Limit Banker’s Acceptance 360 days A-1/P-1 No Limit No Limit
Commercial Paper 270 days A No Limit No Limit
Repurchase Agreements 30 days - 7 Years A No Limit No Limit California Local Agency $75 million
Investment Fund (LAIF) N/A None No Limit per account
Money Market Funds N/A A No Limit 10%
Investment Agreements 5-7 years A No Limit No Limit
Other Tax Exempt Organizations 7 years A No Limit No Limit California Asset Management
Program (CAMP) N/A None No Limit No Limit
Disclosures Relating to Interest Rate Risk
Interest rate risk is the risk that changes in market interest rates will adversely affect the fair value of an investment. Generally, the longer the maturity of an investment, the greater the sensitivity of its fair value to changes in market interest rates. One of the ways that the City manages its exposure to interest rate risk is by purchasing a combination of shorter term and longer term investments and by timing cash flows from maturities so that a portion of the portfolio is maturing or coming close to maturity evenly over time as necessary to provide the cash flow and liquidity needed foroperations.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 331 of 474
43 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Information about the sensitivity of the fair values of the City’s investments (including investments held by bond trustee) to market interest rate fluctuations is provided by the following table that shows the distribution of the City’s investments by maturity. For purposes of the schedule shown below, any callable securities are assumed to be held to maturity.
12 Months 13 to 24 25 to 60
Investment Type or Less Months Months Total
U.S. Government Sponsored Entities $ 2,592,323 $ 1,447,387 $ 16,540,219 $ 20,579,929 California Local Agency Investment Fund 98,733 - - 98,733 Negotiable Certificates of Deposits 50,802,151 - - 50,802,151 Total Investments $ 53,493,207 $ 1,447,387 $ 16,540,219 $ 71,480,813 Remaining Maturity (in Months)
Disclosures Relating to Credit Risk
Generally, credit risk is the risk that an issuer of an investment will not fulfill its obligation to the holder of the investment. This is measured by the assignment of a rating by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization. Presented below is the minimum rating required by (where applicable) the California Government Code, the City’s investment policy, or debt agreements, and the actual Standard & Poor’s rating as of year-end for each investment type.

Minimum
Legal Total as of Not
Investment Type Rating June 30, 2025 AA+ Rated
U.S. Government Sponsored Entities None $ 20,579,929 $ 20,579,929 $ - California Local Agency Investment Fund None 98,733 - 98,733 Negotiable Certificates of Deposits None 50,802,151 - 50,802,151 Total Investments $ 71,480,813 $ 20,579,929 $ 50,900,884 Concentration of Credit Risk
The investment policy of the City contains no limitations on the amount that can be invested in any one issuer beyond that stipulated by the California Government Code. At June 30, 2025, the Federal Home Loan Banks securities, Federal Farm Credit Banks, Freddie Mac Multifamily and United States treasury Bonds represented more than 5% of total City investments at $12,763,444, which was approximately 23.86%.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 332 of 474
44 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Custodial Credit Risk
Custodial credit risk for deposits is the risk that, in the event of the failure of a depository financial institution, a government will not be able to recover its deposits or will not be able to recover collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. The custodial credit risk for investments is the risk that, in the event of the failure of the counterparty (e.g., broker-dealer) to a transaction, a government will not be able to recover the value of its investment or collateral securities that are in the possession of another party. The California Government Code and the City’s investment policy do not contain legal or policy requirements that would limit the exposure to custodial credit risk for deposits or investments, other than the following provision for deposits:
the California Government Code requires that a financial institution secure deposits made by state or local governmental units by pledging securities in an undivided collateral pool held by a depository regulated under state law (unless so waived by the governmental unit). The market value of the pledged securities in the collateral pool must equal at least 110% of the total amount deposited by the public agencies. California law also allows financial institutions to secure City deposits by pledging first trust deed mortgage notes having a value of 150% of the secured public deposits. At June 30, 2025, the City’s deposits were either federally insured or collateralized.

For investments identified herein as held with fiscal agent, the trustee selects the investment under the terms of the applicable trust agreement, acquires the investment, and holds the investment on behalf of the reporting government.

Investment in State Investment Pool
The City is a voluntary participant in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) that is regulated by the California Government Code under the oversight of the Treasurer of the State of California. The fair value of the City’s investment in this pool is reported in the accompanying financial statements at amounts based upon the City’s pro rata share of the fair value provided by LAIF for the entire LAIF portfolio (in relation to the amortized cost of that portfolio). The balance available for withdrawal is based on the accounting records maintained by LAIF, which are recorded on an amortized cost basis.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 333 of 474
45 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Fair Value Measurements
The City measures and records its investments using fair value measurement guidelines established by generally accepted accounting principles. These guidelines recognize a three-tiered fair value hierarchy. Level 1 inputs are quoted prices in active markets for identical investments, Level 2 inputs are observable inputs other than those in Level 1; and Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs.

Debt and equity securities classified in Level 2 are valued using the following approaches: debt securities are normally valued based on price data obtained from observed transactions and market price quotations from broker dealers and/or pricing vendors; equity securities are valued using fair value per share for each fund.

Certificates of deposit classified in level 2 are valued using broker quotes that utilize observable market inputs.

Uncategorized - Investments in the California Investment Pool are not measured using the input levels above because the City’s transactions are based on a stable net asset value per share. All contributions and redemptions are transacted at $1.00 net asset value per share.

The City has the following recurring fair value measurements as of June 30, 2025:

Quoted Observable Unobservable
Prices Inputs Inputs
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total
U.S. Government Sponsored Entities $ - $ 20,579,929 $ - $ 20,579,929 Negotiable Certificates of Deposits - 98,733 - 98,733
Total investments $ - $ 20,678,662 $ - 20,678,662
Uncategorized
California local agency investment fund* 50,802,151
Total investment portfolio $ 71,480,813
* uncategorized; not subject to fair value measurement tiers.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 334 of 474
46 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Note 3 - Interfund Transactions
Due To/From Other Funds
The current interfund outstanding balances result mainly from the time lag between the dates, that (1) interfund goods and services are provided (2) transactions are recorded in the accounting system, (3) payments between funds are made. These balances are normally repaid as they arise.

Current interfund balances are as follows:

Due from Other Funds Due to Other Funds Amount
General Fund Other Governmental Funds $ 1,228,781
Transfers In/Out
Transfers between funds during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 were as follows:

Transfers Out Transfers In Amount
General Fund Other Governmental Funds (a) (c) $ 1,621,604 Housing Assets (e) 281,240
Internal Service Funds (a) (b) 685,900
Capital Projects Fund (d) 2,164,572
ARPA Fund General Fund (e) 6,404,937
Other Governmental Funds General Fund (a) 150,014
Capital Projects Fund (d) 1,215,806
Other Governmental Funds (a) 6,000
Internal Service Funds General Fund (a) 50,000
$ 12,580,073
Interfund transfers were principally used for the following purposes:
(a) To fund specific programexpenditures.
(b) To fund equipment and vehicle replacements.
(c) To fund a portion of debt service payments.
(d) Capital project expenditures.
(e) Grant funded programexpenditures.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 335 of 474
47 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Note 4 - Notes and Loans Receivables
First-Time Homebuyer Loan Program
The City’s Housing Assets Special Revenue Fund engages in a first-time homebuyer down payment assistance program designed to encourage home ownership among low- and moderate-income households. Under this program, a loan up to $50,000 is provided to eligible households to be used as part of the down payment for the purchase of a home in the City of Campbell. These promissory notes are secured by second deeds of trust and are due thirty years from the date the property was purchased. The notes require a payback of principal plus an 8% fee or an equity share payment, whichever is lower. The balance of the notes’ receivable arising from this program at June 30, 2025 was $382,000.

Housing Rehabilitation and Affordable Housing Loans:

The City’s Housing Assets Special Revenue Fund engages in programs designed to encourage construction or improvement in low to moderate income housing or other projects. Under these programs, grants or loans are provided under favorable terms to homeowners or developers who agree to spend these funds in accordance with the City’s terms. The balance of the loan receivable arising from these programs at June 30, 2025 was $1,305,268.

Maravilla Loans
The City’s Housing Assets Special Revenue Fund engages in programs designed to encourage home ownership among low- and moderate-income households in the Maravilla Community in the City of Campbell. Under this program, an interest free loan up to $200,274 is provided to eligible households to be used as part of the down payment for the purchase of a home in the Maravilla Community in the City of Campbell. These promissory notes are secured by second deeds of trust and are due forty-five years from the date the property was purchased. The balance of the note receivable arising from this program at June 30, 2025 was $3,515,258.

Additionally, under this program, a loan of $94,000 is provided to eligible households to be used as part of the down payment for the purchase of a home in the Maravilla Community in the City of Campbell. These promissory notes are secured by second deeds of trust, earn interest at a rate of 1% per annum, and are due thirty years from the date the property was purchased. The balance of the note receivable arising from this program at June 30, 2025 was $2,256,000.

Rehabilitation Loans
The City administers a housing rehabilitation program using Housing and Community Development Act funds.

Under the Program, individuals with incomes below a certain level are eligible to receive low or no interest loans, secured by deeds of trust, for construction work on their homes. Federal funds received by the City are deposited with a commercial bank. Upon approval of loans, the bank disburses the funds and arranges for and collects repayments.

At June 30, 2025, the City had outstanding rehabilitation loans of $140,000 in its Community Development Block Grant Special Revenue Fund.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 336 of 474
48 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Note 5 - Capital Assets
Capital assets activity for the year ended June 30, 2025 is as follows:

Balance at Balance at
July 1, 2024 Additions Deletions Transfers June 30, 2025 Capital Assets, not Being Depreciated
Land $ 9,105,635 $ - $ - $ - $ 9,105,635
Construction in progress 19,997,535 32,708,920 - (1,930,050) 50,776,405 Total capital assets, not
being depreciated 29,103,170 32,708,920 - (1,930,050) 59,882,040 Capital Assets, Being Depreciated and Amortized
Buildings and improvements 35,818,208 - (745,896) 1,930,050 37,002,362 Right-to-use leased equipment
and subscriptions 2,369,623 767,801 (106,661) - 3,030,763 Machinery and equipment 10,930,524 459,816 (509,635) - 10,880,705 Infrastructure 69,906,076 - - - 69,906,076
Total capital assets,
being depreciated/amortized 119,024,431 1,227,617 (1,362,192) 1,930,050 120,819,906 Less Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization for
Buildings and improvements (18,883,455) (1,025,594) 745,896 - (19,163,153) Right-to-use leased equipment
and subscriptions (768,827) (492,615) 106,661 - (1,154,781) Machinery and equipment (7,880,444) (633,923) 509,635 - (8,004,732) Infrastructure (28,368,375) (2,292,712) - - (30,661,087) Total accumulated depreciation
and amortization (55,901,101) (4,444,844) 1,362,192 - (58,983,753) Total capital assets,
being depreciated/amortized, net 63,123,330 (3,217,227) - 1,930,050 61,836,153 Governmental Activities
capital assets, net $ 92,226,500 $ 29,491,693 $ - $ - $ 121,718,193 Depreciation expense, including $613,823 relating to the internal service funds, was charged in the following functions in the Statement of Activities:

General government $ 530,692
Recreation 272,799
Public safety 415,209
Public works 3,226,144
Total depreciation expense - governmental activities $ 4,444,844 Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 337 of 474
49 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Note 6 - Long-Term Liabilities
The following is a summary of changes in the City’s long-term liabilities for the year ended June 30, 2025:

Balance Additions/ Balance Due within
July 1, 2024 Accretion Reductions June 30, 2025 One Year Other Debt
2002 refunding certificates of
participation - civic center project $ 4,331,965 $ 255,749 $ - $ 4,587,714 $ - 2016 refunding lease revenue bonds 3,415,000 - (630,000) 2,785,000 655,000 2016 refunding lease premium 363,611 - (90,903) 272,708 90,903 2018 general obligation bond,
series 2020 15,420,000 - (345,000) 15,075,000 360,000
2018 GOB, series 2020 premium 2,748,742 - (105,721) 2,643,021 105,721 2018 general obligation bond,
series 2022 26,290,000 - (1,010,000) 25,280,000 495,000 2018 GOB, series 2022 premium 2,327,709 - (89,528) 2,238,181 89,527 California Energy Commission Loan 1,463,167 - (97,876) 1,365,291 98,857 PG&E On-Bill Financing Loan 1,940,555 - (287,490) 1,653,065 287,490 Subscription payables 36,175 212,836 (59,993) 189,018 69,451 Leases payable 1,958,734 554,966 (526,020) 1,987,680 402,383 Other Noncurrent Liabilities
Compensated absences 4,134,810 1,744,753 (1,631,052) 4,248,511 2,078,666 Claims payable (Note 12) 4,186,859 819,404 (649,375) 4,356,888 544,611 Net pension liability 78,010,421 10,450,382 (12,525,582) 75,935,221 - Net OPEB liability 5,702,315 807,136 (1,582,167) 4,927,284 - $ 152,330,063 $ 14,845,226 $ (19,630,707) $ 147,544,582 5,277,609$ Subscription-Based Information Technology Arrangements (SBITAs) During the current year, the City renewed a SBITA contract for the use of Azure Office 365 software. As of June 30, 2025, the value of the subscription liability was $189,018. The City is required to make annual principal and interest payments of $71,447 through June 2027. The subscription has an interest rate of 1%.

Remaining principal and interest payments on subscriptions are as follows:

Fiscal
Year Ending Principal Interest Total
2026 $ 69,450 $ 1,996 $ 71,446
2027 66,383 5,064 71,447
2028 53,185 2,144 55,329
$ 189,018 $ 9,204 $ 198,222
Subscription-Based Information Technology Arrangements
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 338 of 474
50 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
2002 Refunding Certificates of Participation - Civic Center Project Net proceeds of $9,678,751 from the City’s 2002 Refunding Certificates of Participation were used to prepay and refund the City’s 1993 Certificates of Participation. An additional $1,830,975 of proceeds was used to provide partial funding or renovation and expansion of the City’s Police Department and construction of an animal shelter. As of June 30, 2024, the defeased 1993 Certificates had been retired.

Capital Appreciation Certificates in the amount of $1,245,843 bear interest at rates ranging from 5.80% to

5.83%. Capital Appreciation Certificate maturities begin October 1, 2029 and continue annually through 2032.

The Capital Appreciation Certificates are subject to optional redemption in whole or in part any time after October 1, 2022. Each year the outstanding principal balance is increased for the accretion of interest associated with the Capital Appreciation Certificates. The accumulated accreted interest at June 30, 2025 is $3,341,871.

Principal and interest payments are guaranteed under an insurance policy issued by Ambac Assurance Corporation. The amount shown in the schedule of changes include the accreted value to date. The future debt service requirements on the 2002 Refunding Certificates of Participation outstanding at June 30, 2025 are as follows:

Fiscal
Year Ending Principal Interest Total
2026 $ 340,523 $ 1,274,477 $ 1,615,000
2027 319,834 1,295,166 1,615,000
2028 301,149 1,313,851 1,615,000
2029 284,337 1,330,663 1,615,000
1,245,843 5,214,157 6,460,000
Accumulated Accreted
Interest 3,341,871 (3,341,871) -
$ 4,587,714 $ 1,872,286 $ 6,460,000
2002 Refunding COP
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 339 of 474
51 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
2016 Refunding Lease Revenue Bonds
In August of 2016, the Campbell Joint Public Finance Authority issued 2016 Refunding Lease Revenue Bonds (the 2016 PFA Bonds), in the aggregate principal amount of $8,085,000. The bonds pay interest at a rate from 2.0% to 4.0% payable semiannually on April 1 and October 1, commencing on April 1, 2016. The bonds were issued to prepay a portion of the 1997 Refunding Certificates of Participation (Civic Center Project) (the 1997 Certificates) of the City of Campbell (the City), prepay a portion of the 2002 Refunding Certificates of Participation (Civic Center Project) (the 2002 Certificates) of the City, and pay the costs of bond issuance. There is no reserve requirement on bonds.

Fiscal
Year Ending Principal Interest Total
2026 $ 655,000 $ 98,300 $ 753,300
2027 680,000 71,600 751,600
2028 710,000 43,800 753,800
2029 740,000 14,800 754,800
Total $ 2,785,000 $ 228,500 $ 3,013,500
2016 Lease Revenue Bonds
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 340 of 474
52 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
2018 Measure O General Obligation Bonds
On August 18, 2020, the City issued $20,000,000 of general obligation bonds to fund a police emergency operations center and innovative library. The interest rate on the bonds is 0.20% to 4% and the maturity date is September 1, 2038. Payments are made semiannually on April 1 and October 1, commencing on April 1, 2021.

There is no reserve requirement on bonds.

Fiscal
Year Ending Principal Interest Total
2026 $ 360,000 $ 528,900 $ 888,900
2027 375,000 514,200 889,200
2028 390,000 498,900 888,900
2029 405,000 483,000 888,000
2030 420,000 466,500 886,500
2031-2035 2,365,000 2,061,400 4,426,400
2036-2040 2,845,000 1,588,700 4,433,700
2041-2045 3,220,000 1,210,150 4,430,150
2046-2050 3,835,000 567,500 4,402,500
2051 860,000 17,200 877,200
Total $ 15,075,000 $ 7,936,450 $ 23,011,450
2018 Measure O General Obligation Bond Series 2020
In May 2022, the City issued its second and final series of tax-exempt bonds for $30,000,000. The Series 2022 bonds, which were issued at a premium, have coupon interest rates ranging from 4% to 5% with an effective interest rate of 4.06% and maturing September 1, 2050.

Fiscal
Year Ending Principal Interest Total
2026 495,000 1,204,125 1,699,125
2027 520,000 1,178,750 1,698,750
2028 545,000 1,152,125 1,697,125
2029 575,000 1,124,125 1,699,125
2030 605,000 1,094,625 1,699,625
2031-2035 3,500,000 4,976,750 8,476,750
2036-2040 4,460,000 3,986,750 8,446,750
2041-2045 5,685,000 2,724,375 8,409,375
2046-2050 7,250,000 1,144,725 8,394,725
2051 1,645,000 32,900 1,677,900
Total $ 25,280,000 $ 18,619,250 $ 43,899,250
2018 Measure O General Obligation Bond Series 2022
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 341 of 474
53 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
California Energy Commission Loan
On February 18, 2020, City Council authorized staff to enter into an energy services contract agreement with an ESCO (energy services company) to provide turnkey services for energy conservation upgrades and infrastructure improvements. The total cost of the project was $4,177,660. The project was financed through the California Energy Commission and the PG&E On-Bill Financing Program for $1,638,168 and $2,539,492, respectively.

Through the Energy Conservation Assistant Act, the California Energy Commission (CEC) offered a 1% interest Energy Efficiency Loan program. The CEC loan will be paid in full by June 22, 2038.

Fiscal
Year Ending Principal Interest Total
2026 98,857 13,407 112,264
2027 99,848 12,416 112,264
2028 100,818 11,446 112,264
2029 101,859 10,404 112,263
2030 102,881 9,383 112,264
2031-2035 530,062 31,257 561,319
2036-2039 330,966 5,826 336,792
Total $ 1,365,291 $ 94,139 $ 1,459,430
California Energy Commission Loan
Pacific Gas & Electric Loan
The PG&E On-Bill Financing Program is a program that helps governmental agencies pay for energy efficient retrofit projects with no-interest loans that are repaid through monthly PG&E bills. The PG&E loan will be paid in full by March 2031 through 106 equal monthly installments.

Fiscal
Year Ending Principal Interest Total
2026 $ 287,490 $ - $ 287,490
2027 287,490 - 287,490
2028 287,490 - 287,490
2029 287,490 - 287,490
2030 287,490 287,490
2031 215,615 - 215,615
$ 1,653,065 $ - $ 1,653,065
Pacific Gas & Electric Loan
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 342 of 474
54 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Note 7 - Construction and other Significant Commitments In the regular course of business, the City enters into contracts for various services and construction projects. At June 30, 2025, the City had the following construction commitments:

Remaining
Project Commitment
Civic Center Improvement (Measure O) $13,547,365
Pruneyard Creek Trail Extension 235,557
Campbell Community Center E-Wing Renovation 188,639
Hamilton/SR 17 Bike Overcrossing Planning Study 111,069 City Hall Public Counters Improvements 106,259
Campbell Community Center Skate Park renovation 79,500
All other capital projects commitments 172,504
$ 14,440,893
At June 30, 2025, the City had the following other encumbrances including the significant commitment to the Capital Projects Fund under various funds as noted below:

Fund Amount
General Fund $1,278,920
Capital Projects Fund 15,359,087
Nonmajor Governmental Funds 902,327
Proprietary Funds 180,091
Total commitments $ 17,720,425
Note 8 - Net Position and Fund Balances
Net Position
The government-wide and proprietary fund financial statements utilize a net position presentation. Net position is categorized as net investment in capital assets, restricted, and unrestricted.

Net Investment in Capital Assets groups all capital assets, including infrastructure, into one component of net position. Accumulated depreciation and the outstanding balances of debt that are attributable to the acquisition, construction, or improvement of these assets reduce the balance in this category.

Restricted Net Position reflects net position that is subject to constraints either (l) externally imposed by creditors, grantors, contributors, or laws or regulations of other governments, or (2) imposed by law through constitutional provisions or enabling legislation. Enabling legislation authorizes the City to assess, levy, charge, or otherwise mandate payment of resources and includes a legally enforceable requirement that those resources be used only for the specific purposes stipulated in the legislation. A legally enforceable enabling legislation restriction is one that a party external to a government - such as citizens, public interest groups, or the judiciary - can compel a government tohonor.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 343 of 474
55 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Unrestricted Net Position represents net position of the City that is not restricted for any project or purpose.

Fund Balances
Governmental funds report fund balance in classifications based primarily on the extent to which the City is bound to honor constraints on the specific purposes for which amounts in the funds can be spent. Fund balances for government funds are classified asfollows:

Nonspendable Fund Balance - includes amounts that are (a) not in spendable form, or (b) legally or contractually required to be maintained intact. The “not in spendable form” criterion includes items that are not expected to be converted to cash, for example: inventories and prepaid amounts.

Restricted Fund Balance - includes amounts that can be spent only for the specific purposes stipulated by external resource providers, constitutionally or through enabling legislation. Restrictions may effectively be changed or lifted only with the consent of resource providers.

Committed Fund Balance - includes amounts that can only be used for the specific purposes determined by a formal action of the City’s highest level of decision-making authority, the City Council. Commitments may be changed or lifted only by a City Council resolution taking the same formal action that imposed the constraint originally. The decision-making authority is defined as City Council resolutions.

Assigned Fund Balance - includes amounts to be used by the government for specific purposes but do not meet the criteria to be classified as committed. City Council has by resolution authorized the City Manager to assign fund balance. The City Council may also assign fund balance as it does when appropriating fund balance to cover a gap between estimated revenue and appropriations in the subsequent year’s appropriated budget. Unlike commitments, assignments generally only exist temporarily.

Unassigned Fund Balance - is the residual classification for the General Fund and includes all amounts not contained in the other classifications. Unassigned amounts are technically available for any purpose. In the event that funds other than the General Fund are included in the unassigned fund balance it would be a deficit.

Within this classification of fund balance, the City has established by City Council resolution, an Economic Fluctuations Reserve that is maintained at $9,482,800 to provide budget stabilization during economic downturn that could otherwise result in significant reductions in service levels and/or organizational staffing. The reserve shall not be less than $2,000,000. However, if the reserve balance falls below $4 million, or the City’s five-year financial projections indicate the reserve will fall below this minimum requirement at any time during this period, City staff shall present to Council, by the following year’s budget adoption, a plan to return to the target amount within five years. Further, within this classification of fund balance, the City has established by City Council resolution, a General Fund Emergency Reserve that shall be maintained at a level of 10% of General Fund revenues. To be used as determined by the City Council upon declaration of a physical or financial emergency.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 344 of 474
56 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Fund balances for all the major and other governmental funds as of June 30, 2025, were classified as follows:

Projects Fund Other Total
General Measure O Governmental Governmental
Fund Fund Funds Funds
Nonspendable
Prepaid 5,118 - - 5,118
Leases 180,567 - - 180,567
Total nonspendable 185,685 - - 185,685
Restricted
Debt service - - 1,891,129 1,891,129
Streets and roads - - 7,901,455 7,901,455
Museum and adult center - - 25,115 25,115
Public Safety - - 188,841 188,841
Community development - 14,526,520 6,463,157 20,989,677 Housing - - 8,140,495 8,140,495
Measure K 1,655,697 - - 1,655,697
Total restricted 1,655,697 14,526,520 24,610,192 40,792,409 Committed
Historic preservation 5,000 - - 5,000
Compensated absences 1,028,002 - - 1,028,002
Liability insurance 144,800 - - 144,800
Capital improvements Reserve 237,583 - - 237,583
Committed Capital
improvements Reserve 1,963,405 - - 1,963,405
Community Center 159,210 - - 159,210
Heritage Theater 81,783 - - 81,783
Total committed 3,619,783 - - 3,619,783
Assigned
Capital projects
(Construction Tax) 117,314 - 497,032 614,346
Unemployment insurance 90,000 - - 90,000
PERS 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000
OPEB 393,154 - - 393,154
All other 1,278,920 - - 1,278,920
Total assigned 2,879,388 - 497,032 3,376,420
Unassigned
Unassigned 4,986,040 - - 4,986,040
City council reserve 362,624 - - 362,624
Economic fluctuations 9,485,889 - - 9,485,889
Emergency 3,207,454 - - 3,207,454
Total unassigned 18,042,007 - - 18,042,007
Total $ 26,382,560 $ 14,526,520 $ 25,107,224 $ 66,016,304 Capital
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 345 of 474
57 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Note 9 - Pension Plans
The following is a summary of pension related items for the year ended June 30, 2025:

Deferred Deferred
Pension Outflows Inflows Pension
Liability of Resources of Resources Expense
CalPERS Miscellaneous $ 39,904,160 $ 9,105,157 $ - $ 8,262,411 CalPERS Safety 36,031,061 12,522,670 560,662 7,618,964
$ 75,935,221 $ 21,627,827 $ 560,662 $ 15,881,375
Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS)
General Information about the Pension Plans:

Plan Descriptions
All qualified permanent and probationary employees are eligible to participate in the City’s Safety (police) costsharing multiple-employer defined benefit plan or the Miscellaneous (all other) Plan, agent multiple-employer defined benefit pension plans administered by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), which acts as a common investment and administrative agent for its participating member employers. Benefit provisions under the Plans are established by State statute and City resolution. CalPERS issues publicly available reports that include a full description of the pension plans regarding benefit provisions, assumptions and membership information that can be found on the CalPERSwebsite.

Benefits Provided
CalPERS provides service retirement and disability benefits, annual cost of living adjustments and death benefits to plan members, who must be public employees and beneficiaries. Benefits are based on years of credited service, equal to one year of full-time employment. Members with five years of total service are eligible to retire at age 50 to 62 with statutorily reduced benefits. For employees hired into a plan with the 1.5% at 65 formula, eligibility for service retirement is age 55 with at least 5 years of services. PEPRA miscellaneous members become eligible for service retirement upon attainment of age 52 with at least 5 years of service. All members are eligible for non-duty disability benefits after 5 years of service. The death benefit is one of the following: The Basic Death Benefit, the 1957 Survivor Benefit, or the Optional Settlement 2W Death Benefit. Safety members can receive a special death benefit if the member dies while actively employed and the death is job-related. Fire members may receive the alternate death benefit in lieu of the Basic Death Benefit or the 1957 Survivor Benefit if the member dies while actively employed and has at least 20 years of total CalPERS service. The cost-of-living adjustments for each plan are applied as specified by the Public Employees’ Retirement Law.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 346 of 474
58 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
The Plans’ provisions and benefits in effect for the measurement period ended June 30, 2024, are summarized as follows:

Hire date
Prior to
March 7, 2011
On or After
March 7, 2011
On or After
January 1, 2013
Normal benefit formula 2.5%@55 2%@60 2%@62
Benefit vesting schedule 5 years of service 5 years of service 5 years of service Benefit payments monthly for life monthly for life monthly for life Earliest retirement age 50 50 52
Monthly benefits, as a % of eligible compensation 2.0% to 2.5% 1.1% to 2.4% 1.0% to 2.5% Required employee contribution rates 8.00% 7.00% 7.75%
Required employer contribution rates:

Normal cost rate 10.73% 11.32% 11.32%
Employer portion of unfunded liability $ 3,517,799 $ - $ - Hire date
Prior to
October 18, 2010
On or After
October 18, 2010
On or After
January 1, 2013
Normal benefit formula 3%@50 2%@50 2.7%@57
Benefit vesting schedule 5 years of service 5 years of service 5 years of service Benefit payments monthly for life monthly for life monthly for life Earliest retirement age 50 50 50
Monthly benefits, as a % of eligible compensation 3.00% 2.0% to 2.7% 2.0% to 2.7% Required employee contribution rates 9.00% 9.00% 13.75% Required employer contribution rates:

Normal cost rate 29.30% 21.30% 13.54%
Employer portion of unfunded liability $ 2,862,589 $ 51,933 $ - Miscellaneous
Safety
Employees Covered
At June 30, 2024, the measurement date, the following employees were covered by the benefit terms for the Miscellaneous Plan:

Miscellaneous
Inactive employees or beneficiaries currently receiving benefits 286 Inactive employees entitled but not yet receiving benefits 176 Active employees 118
Total 580
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 347 of 474
59 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Contributions
Section 20814(c) of the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law requires that the employer contribution rates for all public employers are determined on an annual basis by the actuary and shall be effective on the July 1 following notice of a change in the rate. The total plan contributions are determined through CalPERS’ annual actuarial valuation process. The actuarially determined rate is the estimated amount necessary to finance the costs of benefits earned by employees during the year, with an additional amount to finance any unfunded accrued liability. The City is required to contribute the difference between the actuarially determined rate and the contribution rate of employees. City contribution rates may change if plan contracts are amended. Payments made by the employer to satisfy contribution requirements that are identified by the pension plan terms as plan member contributions requirements are classified as plan member contributions.

Net Pension Liability
The City’s net pension liability for each Plan is measured as the total pension liability, less the pension plan’s fiduciary net position. The net pension liability of each of the Plans is measured as of June 30, 2024, using an annual actuarial valuation as of June 30, 2023 rolled forward to June 30, 2024 using standard update procedures. A summary of principal assumptions and methods used to determine the net pension liability is shown below.

Actuarial Assumptions
The total pension liabilities in the June 30, 2023 actuarial valuations were determined using the following actuarial methods and assumptions:

Miscellaneous Safety
Valuation Date June 30, 2023 June 30, 2023
Measurement Date June 30, 2024 June 30, 2024
Actuarial Cost Method Entry Age Normal Entry Age Normal Cost Method Cost Method
Actuarial Assumptions:

Discount Rate 6.90% 6.90%
Inflation 2.30% 2.30%
Salary Increase (1) (1)
Mortality (2) (2)
Post Retirement Benefit Increase (3) (3)
(1) Varies by entryage and service.
(2) The probabilities of mortality are based on the 2021 CalPERS Experience Study and Review of Actuarial Assumptions. Mortality rates incorporate full generational mortality improvement using 80% of Scale MP-2020 published by the Society of Actuaries.
(3) Contract COLA up to 2.0% until Purchasing Power Protection Allowance Floor on PurchasingPowerapplies,2.50%thereafter.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 348 of 474
60 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Long-term Expected Rate of Return
The long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was determined using a building-block method in which expected future real rates of return (expected returns, net of pension plan investment expense and inflation) are developed for each major asset class.

In determining the long-term expected rate of return, CalPERS considered both short-term and long-term market return expectations as well as the expected pension fund cash flows. Using historical returns of all the funds’ asset classes, expected compound (geometric) returns were calculated over the short-term (first 10 years) and the long-term (11+ years) using a building-block approach. Using the expected nominal returns for both short-term and long-term, the present value of benefits was calculated for each fund. The expected rate of return was set by calculating the rounded single equivalent expected return that arrived at the same present value of benefits for cash flows as the one calculated using both short-term and long-term returns. The expected rate of return was then set equal to the single equivalent rate calculated above and adjusted to account for assumed administrative expenses.

Assumed
Asset Real rate
Allocation of Return 1, 2
Global Equity - Cap-weighted 30.0% 4.54%
Global Equity - Non-Cap-weighted 12.0% 3.84%
Private Equity 13.0% 7.28%
Treasury 5.0% 0.27%
Mortgage-backed Securities 5.0% 0.50%
Investment Grade Corporates 10.0% 1.56%
High Yield 5.0% 2.27%
Emerging Market Debt 5.0% 2.48%
Private Debt 5.0% 3.57%
Real Assets 15.0% 3.21%
Leverage -5.0% -0.59%
Total 100.0%
(2) Figures are based on the 2021-22 Asset Liability Management study. (1) An expected inflation of 2.30% used for this period.

Discount Rate
The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability was 6.90%. The projection of cash flows used to determine the discount rate assumed that contributions from plan members will be made at the current member contribution rates and that contributions from employers will be made at statutorily required rates, actuarially determined. Based on those assumptions, the Plan’s fiduciary net position was projected to be available to make all projected future benefit payments of current plan members. Therefore, the long-term expected rate of return on plan investments was applied to all periods of projected benefit payments to determine the total pension liability.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 349 of 474
61 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Changes in the Net Pension Liability
The changes in the net pension liability for the Miscellaneous Plan during the measurement year are as follows:

Total Pension
Liability
Plan Fiduciary Net
Position
Net Pension
Liability
Balance at beginning of year $ 142,083,340 $ 100,639,004 $ 41,444,336 Changes in the Year
Service cost 2,689,937 - 2,689,937
Interest on the total pension liability 9,706,434 - 9,706,434 Change in benefit terms - - -
1,138,665 - 1,138,665
Contribution - employer - 4,467,824 (4,467,824)
Contribution - employee - 1,167,832 (1,167,832)
Net investment income - 9,521,446 (9,521,446)
Administrative expenses - (81,890) 81,890
Benefit payments, including refunds
of employee contributions (7,788,016) (7,788,016) -
Net changes 5,747,020 7,287,196 (1,540,176)
Balance at end of year $ 147,830,360 $ 107,926,200 $ 39,904,160 Increase (Decrease)
Differences between expected and
actual experience
Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability - Safety Plan The City’s Safety Plan is included in the Safety Risk Pool administered by CalPERS in its Public Agency CostSharing Multiple Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plan (PERFC). As of the year-end, the City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability for the Safety Risk Pool was as follows:

Proportionate
Share of
Net Pension
Liability
Safety Plan $ 36,031,061
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 350 of 474
62 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
The City’s net pension liability for the Safety Plan is measured as the proportionate share of the net pension liability. The net pension liability of the Plans is measured as of June 30, 2024, and the total pension liability for each Plan used to calculate the net pension liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of June 30, 2023 rolled forward to June 30, 2024 using standard update procedures. The City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability was based on a projection of the City’s long-term share of contributions to the pension plans relative to the projected contributions of all participating employers, actuarially determined.

The City’s change in proportionate share of the net pension liability for the Plan as of the measurement dates ended June 30, 2024 and 2023 was as follows:

Safety
Proportion - Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2024 0.48918%
Proportion - Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2025 0.49420%
Change - Increase (decrease) 0.00502%
Sensitivity of the Net Pension Liability to Changes in the Discount Rate The following presents the net pension liability of the City for the Miscellaneous Plan and proportionate share of net pension liability for the Safety Plan, calculated using the discount rate for each Plan, as well as what the City’s net pension liability and proportionate share of net pension liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is 1-percentage point lower or 1-percentage point higher than the current rate:

Miscellaneous Safety
1% Decrease 5.90% 5.90%
Net Pension Liability $ 58,848,648 $ 53,506,314
Current Discount Rate 6.90% 6.90%
Net Pension Liability $ 39,904,160 $ 36,031,061
1% Increase 7.90% 7.90%
Net Pension Liability $ 24,260,482 $ 21,738,761
Pension Plan Fiduciary Net Position
Detailed information about each pension plan’s fiduciary net position is available in the separately issued CalPERS financial reports.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 351 of 474
63 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Pension Expenses and Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources Related to Pensions For the year ended June 30, 2025, the City recognized an aggregate pension expense of $15,881,375. The City recognized pension expense of $8,262,411 related to the Miscellaneous Plan and $7,618,964 related to the Safety Plan. At June 30, 2025, the City reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the following sources:

Deferred
Outflows of
Deferred
Inflows of
Deferred
Outflows of
Deferred
Inflows of
Deferred
Outflows of
Deferred
Inflows of
$ 6,526,206 $ - $ 5,310,360 $ - $ 11,836,566 $ -
1,672,308 - 2,940,455 95,607 4,612,763 95,607
Changes in assumptions - 887,731 - 887,731 -
- - 1,583,947 233,360 1,583,947 233,360
Change in proportion - - 58,600 231,695 58,600 231,695
906,643 1,741,577 - 2,648,220 -
$ 9,105,157 $ - $ 12,522,670 $ 560,662 $ 21,627,827 $ 560,662 Pension contributions subsequent
to measurement date
Difference between expected
and actual experiences
Difference between actual and
projected contribution
Net difference between projected and
actual earnings on pension plan
investments
Miscellaneous Safety Total
$6,526,206 and $5,310,360 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to contributions subsequent to the measurement date for the miscellaneous and safety plans, respectively, will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in the next fiscal year. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized as pension expense as follows:

Year
Ending
June 30, Miscellaneous Safety Total
2026 $ 752,160 $ 2,315,527 $ 3,067,687
2027 3,195,904 4,290,021 7,485,925
2028 136,573 139,672 276,245
$ 4,084,637 $ 6,745,220 $ 10,829,857
Payable to the Pension Plans
At June 30, 2025, the City had no outstanding amount of contributions to the pension plans required for the year ended June 30, 2025.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 352 of 474
64 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Deferred Compensation Plan
City employees may defer a portion of their compensation under a City sponsored Deferred Compensation Plan created in accordance with Internal Revenue Code 457. Under this plan, participants are not taxed on the deferred portion of their compensation until distributed to them; distributions may be made only at termination, retirement, death or in an emergency as defined by the plan.

The laws governing deferred compensation plan assets require plan assets to be held by a Trust for the exclusive benefit of plan participants and their beneficiaries. Since the assets held under these plans are not the City’s property and are not subject to claims by general creditors of the City, they have been excluded from these financial statements.

Note 10 - Other Retirement System
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA) mandates that public sector employees who are not members of their employer’s existing retirement system as of January 1, 1992 be covered by either Social Security or an alternative plan. Effective July 1, 2004, the City contracted with the Public Agency Retirement System (PARS), a defined contribution plan. This Plan covers employees that are part-time, seasonal or temporary and all other employees that are not covered by another retirement system. All eligible employees covered by the Plan are fully vested. Employer liabilities are limited to the amount of current contributions.

Under PARS, employees contribute 6.2% and the City contributes 1.3% of the employees’ salary each pay period.

For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, total contributions of $100,057 ($82,713 employee and $17,344 employer) were made based on covered compensation of $1,343,187.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 353 of 474
65 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Note 11 - Post-Employment Benefits Plan
General Information about the OPEB Plan:

Plan Description
The City administers Retiree Award Program which provides medical insurance benefits on a reimbursement basis to eligible retirees in accordance with various labor agreements. The City pays up to $325 per month for retiree only medical insurance premiums or the actual cost of the retiree premium, whichever is less. Eligible retirees must be retired from the City with at least 17 years of service with the City and be at least 50 years of age.

The City has established a trust with the California Employers Retiree Benefit Trust, an agent multiple-employer plan, for the purpose of holding assets accumulated for plan benefits. Copies of PERS’ annual financial reports for its OPEB Trust may be obtained from its executive office at 400 “P” Street, Sacramento, California 95814.

Funding Policy
The contribution requirements of plan members and the City are established and may be amended by City Council. The contribution required to be made under City Council and labor agreement requirements is based on the most recent actuarial study using a 10-year phase-in option.

Employees Covered:

As of the June 30, 2024 measurement date, the following current and former employees were covered by the benefit terms under the plan:

Inactive employees or beneficiaries currently receiving benefits 139 Inactive employees or beneficiaries entitled to but not yet receiving benefit payments 56 Active plan members 156
351
Contributions
The contribution requirements are established by the City and may be amended by City Council. The annual contribution is based on the actuarially determined contribution. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, the City’s cash contributions were $0 in payments to the trust, $481,187 of cash benefit payments and an estimated implied subsidy of $284,074 and resulting payments of $765,261.

Net OPEB Liability
The City’s net OPEB liability was measured as of June 30, 2024 and the total OPEB liability used to calculate the net OPEB liability was determined by an actuarial valuation dated June 30, 2023. A summary of the principal assumptions and methods used to determine the total OPEB liability is shown on the next page.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 354 of 474
66 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Actuarial Assumptions
The total OPEB liability in June 30, 2023 actuarial valuation was determined using the following actuarial assumptions, applied to all periods included in the measurement, unless otherwise specified:

Valuation Date June 30, 2023
Measurement Date June 30, 2024
Actuarial Cost Method Entry-Age Normal Cost Method
Actuarial Assumptions
Discount Rate 6.30%
Investment rate of return 6.75%
Inflation 2.50%
Mortality, Retirement, Disability,
Termination
2017 experience study of the California Public Employees Retirement System using data from 1997 to 2015.

Mortality Improvement MW Scale 2022 Generationally
Salary Increase 3.00% per annum, in aggregate.

Medical Trend 6.0% in 2026, decreasing to an ultimate rate of 3.9% in 2075 and later years.

The actuarial assumptions used in June 30, 2023, valuation was based on a standard set of assumptions the actuary has used for similar valuations, modified as appropriate for the City.

Long Term Expected Rate of Return
The long-term expected rate of return was determined using a building-block method in which best- estimate ranges of expected future real rates of return (expected returns, net of OPEB plan investment expense and inflation) are developed for each major asset class. These ranges are combined to produce the long-term expected rate of return by weighing the expected future real rates of return by the target asset allocation percentage and by adding expected inflation. Best estimates of arithmetic real rates of return for each major asset class included in the OPEB plan’s target asset allocation as of year-end, are summarized in the following table:

Asset Class
Target
Allocation
Long-Term
Expected Real
Rate of Return
Global Equity 49.00% 4.50%
Global Fixed Income 23.00% 2.20%
Real Estate Investment Trusts 20.00% 3.90%
Treasury Inflation Protection Securities 5.00% 1.30%
Commodities 3.00% 1.20%
Total 100.00%
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 355 of 474
67 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Discount Rate
The discount rate used to measure the total OPEB liability was 6.30%. This is a 0.20% change from 6.10% as of the last valuation used for fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. The projection of cash flows used to determine the discount rate assumed that City’s contributions will be made at rates equal to the actuarially determined contribution rates. Based on those assumptions, the OPEB’s fiduciary net position was projected to be available to make all projected OPEB payments for current active and inactive employees and beneficiaries.

Therefore, the long-term expected rate of return on OPEB plan investments was applied to all periods of projected benefit payments to determine the total OPEB liability.

Changes in the Net OPEB Liability
Total OPEB
Liability
Plan Fiduciary
Net Position
Net OPEB
Liability
Balance at beginning of year $ 12,122,764 $ 6,420,449 $ 5,702,315 Changes recognized for year
Service cost 276,715 - 276,715
Interest 733,358 - 733,358
Changes due to investment experience - 311,045 (311,045) Change due to other plan experience - - -
Changes of assumptions (254,585) - (254,585)
Contributions
Employer - explicit subsidy - 827,747 (827,747)
Net investment income - 393,820 (393,820)
Administrative expenses - (2,093) 2,093
Benefit payments (754,420) (754,420) -
Net changes 1,068 776,099 (775,031)
Balance at end of year $ 12,123,832 $ 7,196,548 $ 4,927,284 Increase (Decrease)
Sensitivity of the Net OPEB Liability to Changes in the Discount Rate The following presents the net OPEB liability of the City, as well as what the City’s net OPEB liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is 1-percentage point lower or 1-percentage point higher than the current discount rate:

Discount Rate - 1%
(5.30%)
Current Discount Rate
(6.30%)
Discount Rate + 1%
(7.30%)
$ 6,297,015 $ 4,927,284 $ 3,781,931
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 356 of 474
68 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Sensitivity of the Net OPEB Liability to Changes in Health-Care Cost Trend Rates The following presents the net OPEB liability of the City, as well as what the City’s net OPEB liability would be if it were calculated using healthcare cost trend rates that are 1-percentage point lower or 1-percentage point higher than the current healthcare cost trend rates:
1% Decrease Current Healthcare Cost Trend 1% Increase
$ 4,209,230 $ 4,927,284 $ 5,808,059
OPEB Expense and Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources Related to OPEB:

For the year ended June 30, 2025, the City recognized OPEB expense of $762,727. At June 30, 2025, the City reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB from the following sources:

Deferred Outflows of
Resources
Deferred Inflows of
Resources
Employer contributions made subsequent
to the measurement date $ 766,261 $ -
Differences between expected and actual experience 932,134 (53,649) Changes in assumptions 456,351 (953,543)
Net differences between projected and
actual earnings on plan investments 52,613 -
Total $ 2,207,359 $ (1,007,192)
$766,261 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to contributions subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net OPEB liability in the next fiscal year. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB will be recognized as OPEB expense asfollows:

Fiscal Year Ended Deferred Outflows/(Inflows)
2026 $ 114,039
2027 383,925
2028 115,097
2029 (125,444)
2030 (45,498)
Thereafter (8,213)
$ 433,906
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 357 of 474
69 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Note 12 - Risk Management
General Liability
Risk management activity for City exposure to torts (general liability) is accounted for as a liability on the Statement of Net Position. The City is self-insured for the first $100,000 of liability for each occurrence, and the excess (up to $20,000,000) is covered through the City’s participation in the Pooled Liability Assurance Network Joint Powers Authority (PLAN JPA) general liability risk pool. PLAN JPA also provides $1,000,000 of employee theft coverage in the excess of the City’s $5,000 deductible. Over the past three years, no claims exceeded the coverages above.

PLAN JPA pool consists of twenty-eight member agencies within the San Francisco Bay Area. The stated purpose of the PLAN JPA pool is to provide certain levels of liability insurance coverage, claims management, risk management services, and legal defense to each participating city within the pool.

Each city was required to make an initial deposit premium based on an actuarial study of each City’s risk exposure. The premium consists of a risk portion and administrative portion. The premium is revised each year based on claims experience and risk exposure.

Workers’ Compensation
The City has a risk financing fund to account for work related injuries and accidents to City employees. This fund is accounted for as an internal service fund in which assets are set aside for claim payments. Under the California Workers’ Disability and Compensation laws, the City, as an employer, is permissibly self-insured for the first $1,000,000 of claims arising from each occurrence. The City obtains excess Workers’ Compensation insurance through a policy up to statutory limits. A premium is charged to each fund and program that budgets for part-time or full-time employees. The total charge allocated is based upon the percentage of each fund’s current-year payroll as it relates to total payroll of the City.

Liabilities of the fund are reported when it is probable that a loss has occurred, and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Liabilities include an amount for claims that have been incurred but not reported (IBNR). Claims liabilities are calculated considering the effects of inflation, recent claim settlement trends including frequency and number of payouts and other economic and social factors. For the past three fiscal years, no claims were settled in excess of commercial insurance coverage.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 358 of 474
70 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
City’s Claims Liabilities
The City’s liability for uninsured claims was estimated by management based on prior year claims experience, as follows:

General Workers'
Liability Compensation Total
Balance as of July 1, 2023 $ 469,803 $ 3,911,707 $ 4,381,510 Liability for current year fiscal claims 5,284 753,786 759,070 Increase (decrease) in estimated liability 455,223 (940,949) (485,726) Claims paid (175,887) (292,108) (467,995)
Balance as of June 30, 2024 $ 754,423 $ 3,432,436 $ 4,186,859 Balance as of July 1, 2024 $ 754,423 $ 3,432,436 $ 4,186,859 Liability for current year fiscal claims 1,200 753,786 754,986 Increase (decrease) in estimated liability 110,187 (45,771) 64,416 Claims paid (139,444) (509,931) (649,375)
Balance as of June 30, 2025 $ 726,366 $ 3,630,520 $ 4,356,886 Note 13 - Joint Powers Agreements
Congestion Management Agency
The Congestion Management Agency (CMA) was formed in 1991 by a joint exercise of powers agreement between the County of Santa Clara and each of the cities of Santa Clara County for the purpose of preparing, implementing, and administering a traffic congestion management plan pursuant to California Government Code Section 66531.

The CMA financial statements are included as part of the Special Fund of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Audited financial statements may be obtained at 3331 N. First Street, Building B-2, San Jose, California 95134-1927.

Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority
The City is a member of Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority (SVACA), established in 2000 to deliver animal control services. SVACA provides its own field services and has an agreement with the Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley to provide facilities, personnel, shelter, and animal services. SVACA is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of representatives from member cities.

During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, the City contributed $274,750 to SVACA for field services and sheltering costs. Audited financial statements are available from SVACA at 2340-A Walsh Avenue, Santa Clara, California 95051.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 359 of 474
71 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority
The West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority (WVSWMA) was formed on October 1, 1997, to implement and administer the West Valley Solid Waste Management Plan, manage rate studies, and negotiate the related contracts for member’s entities.

WVSWMA includes the Cities of Campbell, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, and the Town of Los Gatos. The City of Campbell maintains the financial records and provides accounting services for WVSWMA. Audited financial statements are available from the City of Campbell.

California Municipal Finance Authority
The California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) was created to assist local governments, non-profit organizations and business with the issuance of taxable and tax-exempt bonds aimed at improving the standards of living in California. In order for the CMFA to have the authority to serve as the issuer of the bonds for the rehabilitation of a project within the City limits, it was necessary for the City to become a member of the CMFA.

The City has no obligation with respect to the bonds issued by the CMFA, and the City has the right to withdraw from the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement upon written notice to the Board of Directors of the CMFA.

Note 14 - Leases
Leases Receivable
The City leases a portion of the space at its Community Center to various third parties. The leases span up to five years. The interest (discount) rate for the leases is a flat 2.00% to 4.00%. The City received $1,044,746 in monthly payments. The City recognized $981,428 in lease revenue and $63,318 in interest revenue during the current fiscal year related to these leases. As of June 30, 2025, the City’s receivable for lease payments was $2,373,457. Also, the City has a deferred outflow of resources associated with these leases that will be recognized as revenue over the lease terms. As of June 30, 2025, the balance of the deferred inflow of resources was $2,245,211.

The City leases land for the usage of cellular towers to various third parties. The leases span up to eight years.

The interest rate for the leases is a flat 2.00%. The City received $106,222 in monthly payments. The City recognized $94,427 in lease revenue and $11,796 in interest revenue during the current fiscal year related to these leases. As of June 30, 2025, the City’s receivable for lease payments was $499,688. Also, the City has a deferred outflow of resources associated with these leases that will be recognized as revenue over the lease terms. As of June 30, 2025, the balance of the deferred inflow of resources was $447,369.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 360 of 474
72 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Leases Payable
The City leases 19 vehicles. An initial lease liability for three vehicles was recorded during the year amount to $233,586. As of June 30, 2025 the value of the total lease liability was $529,124 The City made principal and interest payments of $100,991. The leases have interest rates between 4.75% and 14.75%. The City also has three office equipment leases. As of June 30, 2025 the value of the lease liability was $111,602. The City made principal and interest payments of $31,730. Additionally, the City has a public safety equipment lease for $961,485 at a rate of 3%. As of June 30, 2025. The City made principal and interest payments of $145,277. Lastly, the City maintains an equipment lease at a rate of 3%. As of June 30, 2025, the lease liability was $186,402. The City has new lease in the year 2025, as of June 30, 2025, the lease liability was $199,067. The City made principal and interest payments of $107,127.

The future principal and interest lease payments as of June 30, 2025, were as follows:

Fiscal years Ended June 30 Principal Interest
2026 $ 515,654 $ 114,410
2027 498,825 79,798
2028 270,820 45,705
2029 245,937 31,263
2030 182,058 21,463
2031-2035 274,386 59,731
Total $ 1,987,680 $ 352,370
Note 15 - Contingent Liabilities
Litigation
The City is subject to litigation arising in the normal course of business. In the opinion of the City attorney, there is no pending litigation which is likely to have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the City.

Grant Programs
The City participates in Federal and State grant programs. The amounts received or receivable from granting agencies are subject to audit adjustment by grantor agencies. Any disallowed claims, including amounts already collected, may constitute a liability of the applicable funds. The amount, if any, of expenditures that may be disallowed by the granting agencies cannot be determined at this time, although the City expects such amounts, if any, to be immaterial.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 361 of 474
73 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Annexation of Territory
On May 1, 2013, the City annexed approximately 103 acres from the County of Santa Clara and 24 acres from the City of San Jose as part of a territorial reorganization between these entities. As a condition to the reorganization of territory from the City of San Jose to the City, the City entered into a 40-year agreement with the City of San Jose to provide it with compensation for future net revenues it has given up as a result of the territorial reorganization. Under the terms of the agreement, the City is committed to make annual payments to San Jose based on an initial base amount for the first five years, effective fiscal year 2013-14. This base amount is subject to adjustment if certain conditions are met. In the sixth year, and every subsequent fifth year thereafter, the payment is to be adjusted by an agreed upon formula that calculates the increase/decrease in net revenues, as defined in the agreement, as a percentage, and applies it to the base payment resulting in a revised based payment amount for the ensuing five-year period. Other provisions call for a recalculation of the revised base payment in between calculation dates if certain economic conditions are met. The City expects its annual payment amount to be approximately $229,577 through fiscal 2025-28. The annual payment is revised every five years through fiscal year 2052-53.

Note 16 - Successor Agency
Capital Assets
Capital assets of the Successor Agency as of June 30, 2025 consisted of the following:

Balance at Balance at
July 1, 2024 Additions June 30, 2025
Capital assets, not being depreciated
Land $ 7,123,531 $ - $ 7,123,531
Total capital assets, not
being depreciated 7,123,531 - 7,123,531
Capital assets, being depreciated
Buildings and improvements 18,939,961 - 18,939,961
Other improvements 11,805,911 - 11,805,911
Total capital assets,
being depreciated 30,745,872 - 30,745,872
Less accumulated depreciation for
Buildings and improvements (12,036,767) (309,151) (12,345,918) Other improvements (11,769,133) (13,426) (11,782,559)
Total accumulated depreciation (23,805,900) (322,577) (24,128,477) Total capital assets,
being depreciated, net 6,939,972 (322,577) 6,617,395
Governmental Activities
capital assets, net $ 14,063,503 $ (322,577) $ 13,740,926 Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 362 of 474
74 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Long-term Liabilities
Long-term liabilities of the Successor Agency as of June 30, 2025 consisted of the following:

Balance Balance Due Within
July 1,2024 Additions Deletions June 30,2025 One Year
2016 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds $ 12,900,000 $ - $ (1,630,000) $ 11,270,000 $ 1,660,000 Advances from the City of Campbell
The City has advanced funds to the former redevelopment agency under the terms of a Third Amended and Restated Indebtedness Agreement. Principal was payable out of the excess of tax increment revenues over other similar liabilities and agreements. The Campbell Redevelopment Agency was dissolved on January 31, 2012 and the advance liability was transferred to the Successor Agency to be paid as an enforceable obligation.

This advance was refunded in August 2016 with proceeds from the 2016 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds issued by the Successor Agency of the former Campbell Redevelopment Agency. The proceeds repaid to the City were utilized by the City to refund a portion of the 1997 Refunding Certificates of Participation and a portion of the 2002 Refunding Certificates of Participation as described in Note6. 2016 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds
Concurrently with the issue of the 2016 Refunding Lease Revenue Bonds, the City of Campbell Successor Agency issued Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 in the aggregate principal amount of $22,705,000. These bonds were private placement bonds that pay interest at a rate from 1.825% to 2.15% payable semiannually on April 1 and October 1 commencing on April 1, 2017. The proceeds from the Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 were used to prepay the 2002 RDA Tax Allocation Bonds, Series A, to prepay the 2005 RDA Tax Allocation Bonds, Series A, to prepay a portion of the 1997 Refunding Certificates of Participation and the 2002 Refunding Certificates of Participation, and to pay the cost of issuing the bonds.

The annual debt service requirements to amortize the 2016 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds outstanding at June 30, 2025 are as follows:

Year Ending
June 30, Principal Interest Total
2026 $ 1,660,000 $ 232,066 $ 1,892,066
2027 1,705,000 196,571 1,901,571
2028 1,730,000 160,228 1,890,228
2029 1,740,000 123,195 1,863,195
2030 1,745,000 86,054 1,831,054
2031 2,690,000 48,321 2,738,321
Total $ 11,270,000 $ 846,435 $ 12,116,435
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 363 of 474
75 City of Campbell
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2025
Note 17 - Restatement
Change within the Reporting Entity
During year ended June 30, 2025, there was a change within the financial reporting entity which resulted in the ARPA fund, Housing asset fund and Capital project fund being reported as a nonmajor fund instead of major fund which resulted in adjustments to and restatements of beginning fund balance in the table below:

Housing Capital Other
ARPA Asset Project Governmental
Fund Fund Fund Funds
Beginning, as previously reported on July 1, 2024 $ - $ 8,520,812 $ 968,320 $ 13,786,272 Reclassification from major funds to non-major funds - (8,520,812) (968,320) 9,489,132 Beginning, as restated on July 1, 2024 $ - $ - $ - $ 23,275,404 Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 364 of 474
Required Supplementary Information
June 30, 2025
City of Campbell
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 365 of 474
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 366 of 474
See Notes to Required Supplementary Information 76
City of Campbell
Schedule of Changes in the Pension Liability and Related Ratios – CalPERS Miscellaneous Plan Last Ten Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2025 June 30, 2024 June 30, 2023 June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021 June 30, 2020 June 30, 2019 June 30, 2018 June 30, 2017 June 30, 2016 Measurement period ended June 30, 2024 June 30, 2023 June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021 June 30, 2020 June 30, 2019 June 30, 2018 June 30, 2017 June 30, 2016 June 30, 2015 Total Pension Liability:

Service cost $ 2,689,937 $ 2,526,475 $ 2,534,964 $ 2,410,558 $ 2,407,298 $ 2,335,864 $ 2,318,339 $ 2,334,869 $ 1,958,173 $ 1,794,374 Interest on total pension liability 9,706,434 9,334,654 8,828,016 8,542,268 8,227,199 7,839,384 7,392,762 7,134,146 6,827,812 6,544,912 Differences between expected and actual experience 1,138,665 3,141,093 625,329 (396,930) 613,576 1,563,454 (487,309) 166,228 (487,339) (413,601) Changes in assumptions - - 3,433,930 - - - (809,156) 5,879,356 - (1,598,990) Changes in benefits - 167,571 - - - - - - - -
Benefit payments (7,788,016) (7,598,828) (7,050,778) (6,157,839) (5,507,392) (5,293,752) (4,779,950) (4,314,617) (4,673,560) (3,798,085) Net Change in Total Pension Liability 5,747,020 7,570,965 8,371,461 4,398,057 5,740,681 6,444,950 3,634,686 11,199,982 3,625,086 2,528,610 Total Pension Liability - Beginning of Year 142,083,340 134,512,375 126,140,914 121,742,857 116,002,176 109,557,226 105,922,540 94,722,558 91,097,472 88,568,862 Total Pension Liability - End of Year $ 147,830,360 $ 142,083,340 $ 134,512,375 $ 126,140,914 $ 121,742,857 $ 116,002,176 $ 109,557,226 $ 105,922,540 $ 94,722,558 $ 91,097,472 Plan Fiduciary Net Position:

Contributions - employer $ 4,467,824 $ 4,275,514 $ 3,925,027 $ 3,758,501 $ 3,446,237 $ 3,062,946 $ 2,683,458 $ 2,424,792 $ 2,168,070 $ 1,811,356 Contributions - employee 1,167,832 1,090,549 1,000,275 1,059,499 1,052,758 1,050,023 1,040,310 920,368 903,290 818,954 Net investment income 9,521,446 5,927,063 (7,981,639) 19,929,957 4,262,754 5,242,422 6,387,875 7,735,412 518,527 1,566,471 Plan to plan resource movement - - - - - - (189) - - (12,655) Administrative expenses (81,890) (71,341) (66,773) (88,594) (120,615) (58,198) (119,314) (103,210) (43,290) (79,967) Benefit payments (7,788,016) (7,598,828) (7,050,778) (6,157,839) (5,507,392) (5,293,752) (4,779,950) (4,314,617) (4,673,560) (3,798,085) Other miscellaneous income/expenses - - - - (2,611) 189 (226,579) - - - Net Change in Plan Fiduciary Net Position 7,287,196 3,622,957 (10,173,888) 18,501,524 3,131,131 4,003,630 4,985,611 6,662,745 (1,126,963) 306,074 Plan Fiduciary Net Position - Beginning of Year 100,639,004 97,016,047 107,189,935 88,688,411 85,557,280 81,553,650 76,568,039 69,905,294 71,032,257 70,726,183 Plan Fiduciary Net Position - End of Year (b) $ 107,926,200 $ 100,639,004 $ 97,016,047 $ 107,189,935 $ 88,688,411 $ 85,557,280 $ 81,553,650 $ 76,568,039 $ 69,905,294 $ 71,032,257 Net Pension Liability - Ending (a) - (b) $ 39,904,160 $ 41,444,336 $ 37,496,328 $ 18,950,979 $ 33,054,446 $ 30,444,896 $ 28,003,576 $ 29,354,501 $ 24,817,264 $ 20,065,215 Plan's fiduciary net position as a percentage of
the plan's total pension liability 73.01% 70.83% 72.12% 84.98% 72.85% 73.75% 74.44% 72.29% 73.80% 77.97% Covered payroll $14,180,589 $13,798,336 $13,672,947 $13,853,779 $13,631,359 $12,741,308 $12,620,931 $12,359,036 $11,526,124 $10,550,178 Net pension liability as percentage of coverd payroll 281.40% 300.36% 274.24% 136.79% 242.49% 238.95% 221.88% 237.51% 215.31% 190.19% Notes to Schedule:

Changes in Assumptions:

From fiscal year June 30, 2015 to June 30, 2016:

The discount rate of 7.50% used for the June 30, 2014 measurement date was net of administrative expenses. The discount rate of 7.65% used for the June 30, 2015 measurement date is without reduction of pension plan administrative expense.

From fiscal year June 30, 2017 to June 30, 2018:

The discount rate was reduced from 7.65% to 7.15%.

From fiscal year June 30, 2022 to June 30, 2023:

The discount rate was reduced from 7.15% to 6.90%.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 367 of 474
See Notes to Required Supplementary Information 77
City of Campbell
Schedule of Pension Contributions – CalPERS Miscellaneous Plan Last Ten Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year ended 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 Actuarially determined contribution $ 6,526,206 $ 5,637,515 $ 4,275,514 $ 3,925,027 $ 3,758,501 $ 3,446,237 3,062,946$ 2,683,458$ $ 2,424,792 $ 2,168,070 Contributions in relation to the actuarially
determined contributions (6,526,206) (5,637,515) (4,275,514) (3,925,027) (3,758,501) (3,446,237) (3,062,946) (2,683,458) (2,424,792) (2,168,070) Contribution deficiency (excess) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Covered payroll $15,960,241 $14,180,589 $13,798,336 $13,672,947 $13,853,779 $13,631,359 $12,741,308 $12,620,931 $12,359,036 $11,526,124 Contributions as a percentage
of covered payroll 40.89% 39.76% 30.99% 28.71% 27.13% 25.28% 24.04% 21.26% 19.62% 18.81% Notes to Schedule:

Changes in Assumptions:

From fiscal year June 30, 2016 to June 30, 2017:

The discount rate was reduced from 7.65% to 7.15%.

From fiscal year June 30, 2022 to June 30, 2023:

The discount rate was reduced from 7.15% to 6.90%.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 368 of 474
See Notes to Required Supplementary Information 78
City of Campbell
Schedule of Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability – CalPERS Safety Plans Last Ten Fiscal Years*
Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2025 June 30, 2024 June 30, 2023 June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021 June 30, 2020 June 30, 2019 June 30, 2018 June 30, 2017 June 30, 2016 Measurement period ended June 30, 2024 June 30, 2023 June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021 June 30, 2020 June 30, 2019 June 30, 2018 June 30, 2017 June 30, 2016 June 30, 2015 Proportion of the net pension liability 0.49420% 0.48918% 0.49314% 0.54672% 0.46782% 0.47274% 0.48183% 0.47999% 0.50062% 0.52828% $ 36,031,061 $ 36,566,085 $ 33,886,517 $ 19,187,021 $ 31,167,715 $ 29,511,142 $ 28,271,751 $ 28,680,686 $ 25,928,666 $ 21,767,656 Covered payroll $ 7,120,552 $ 6,748,836 $ 6,821,979 $ 6,646,761 $ 6,137,525 $ 6,194,278 $ 6,180,899 $ 5,832,083 $ 5,370,852 $ 5,168,789 506.01% 541.81% 496.73% 288.67% 507.82% 476.43% 457.41% 491.77% 482.77% 421.14% Fiduciary net position as a percentage of the
plan's total pension liability 76.66% 74.87% 76.52% 82.42% 73.12% 73.37% 73.39% 71.74% 72.69% 77.27% Net pension liability as a percentage
of covered payroll
Proportionate share of the
net pension liability
Notes to Schedule:

Changes in Assumptions:

From fiscal year June 30, 2016 to June 30, 2017:

The discount rate was reduced from 7.65% to 7.15%.

From fiscal year June 30, 2022 to June 30, 2023:

The discount rate was reduced from 7.15% to 6.90%.
* - Fiscal year 2015 was the 1st year of implementation.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 369 of 474
See Notes to Required Supplementary Information 79
City of Campbell
Schedule of Pension Contributions – CalPERS Safety Plan Last Ten Fiscal Years*
Fiscal Year ended 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 Actuarially determined contribution $ 5,310,360 $ 4,737,566 $ 4,674,536 $ 4,287,989 $ 4,968,440 $ 3,858,649 $ 3,579,757 $ 3,180,698 $ 2,928,596 $ 2,610,566 Contributions in relation to the
actuarially determined contributions (5,310,360) (4,737,566) (4,674,536) (4,287,989) (4,968,440) (3,858,649) (3,579,757) (3,180,698) (2,928,596) (2,610,566) Contribution deficiency (excess) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Covered payroll $ 7,265,476 $ 7,120,552 $ 6,748,836 $ 6,821,979 $ 6,646,761 $ 6,137,525 $ 6,194,278 $ 6,180,899 $ 5,832,083 $ 5,370,852

73.09% 66.53% 69.26% 62.86% 74.75% 62.87% 57.79% 51.46% 50.22% 48.61% Contributions as a percentage
of covered payroll
Notes to Schedule:

Changes in Assumptions:

From fiscal year June 30, 2016 to June 30, 2017:

The discount rate was reduced from 7.65% to 7.15%.

From fiscal year June 30, 2022 to June 30, 2023:

The discount rate was reduced from 7.15% to 6.90%.
* - Fiscal year 2015 was the 1st year of implementation.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 370 of 474
See Notes to Required Supplementary Information 80
City of Campbell
Schedule of Changes in the Net OPEB Liability and Related Ratios Last Ten Fiscal Years*
Fiscal Year ended 6/30/2025 6/30/2024 6/30/2023 6/30/2022 6/30/2021 6/30/2020 6/30/2019 6/30/2018 Measurement period ended 6/30/2024 6/30/2023 6/30/2022 6/30/2021 6/30/2020 6/30/2019 6/30/2018 6/30/2017 Total OPEB Liability:

Service cost $ 276,715 $ 406,676 $ 394,831 $ 341,663 $ 331,712 $ 339,543 $ 329,653 $ 320,051 Interest on total OPEB liability 733,358 729,661 699,837 617,389 587,481 582,939 549,781 518,912 Actual vs. expected experience - 946,361 - 684,363 - (375,537) - - Assumption changes (254,585) (1,083,835) - 1,073,039 - (40,651) - - Benefit payments (754,420) (667,662) (575,477) (497,843) (474,260) (388,140) (408,022) (374,490) Net Change in Total OPEB Liability 1,068 331,201 519,191 2,218,611 444,933 118,154 471,412 464,473 Total OPEB Liability - Beginning of Year 12,122,764 11,791,563 11,272,372 9,053,761 8,608,828 8,490,674 8,019,262 7,554,789 Total OPEB Liability - End of Year (a) 12,123,832 12,122,764 11,791,563 11,272,372 9,053,761 8,608,828 8,490,674 8,019,262 Plan Fiduciary Net Position:

Contributions - employer 827,747 913,540 659,310 613,391 646,871 675,398 1,566,022 829,490 Net investment income 704,865 373,673 (884,900) 1,399,683 169,139 261,853 255,576 251,971 Administrative expenses (2,093) (1,687) (1,673) (1,927) (3,830) (2,124) (5,460) (1,332) Benefit payments (754,420) (667,662) (575,477) (497,843) (474,260) (388,140) (408,022) (374,490) Net Change in Plan Fiduciary Net Position 776,099 617,864 (802,740) 1,513,304 337,920 546,987 1,408,116 705,639 Plan Fiduciary Net Position - Beginning of Year 6,420,449 5,802,585 6,605,325 5,092,021 4,754,101 4,207,114 2,798,998 2,093,359 Plan Fiduciary Net Position - End of Year (b) 7,196,548 6,420,449 5,802,585 6,605,325 5,092,021 4,754,101 4,207,114 2,798,998 Net OPEB Liability - Ending (a) - (b) $ 4,927,284 $ 5,702,315 $ 5,988,978 $ 4,667,047 $ 3,961,740 $ 3,854,727 $ 4,283,560 $ 5,220,264 Plan fiduciary net position as a percentage of the
total OPEB Liability 59.36% 52.96% 49.21% 58.60% 56.24% 55.22% 49.55% 34.90% Covered-employee payroll $27,216,437 25,483,309 $ $ 23,935,378 $ 23,360,322 $ 23,681,909 $ 22,349,167 $ 22,223,899 $ 21,017,236 Net OPEB Liability as percentage of covered payroll 18.10% 22.38% 25.02% 19.98% 16.73% 17.25% 19.27% 24.84% Notes to Schedule:

Changes in Assumptions:

From fiscal year June 30, 2017 to June 30, 2018:

The discount rate was reduced from 7.25% to 6.75%.

From fiscal year June 30, 2021 to June 30, 2022:

The discount rate was reduced from 6.75% to 6.15%.

From fiscal year June 30, 2023 to June 30, 2024:

The discount rate was reduced from 6.15% to 6.10%.

From fiscal year June 30, 2024 to June 30, 2025:

The discount rate was reduced from 6.10% to 6.30%.
* - Fiscal year 2018 was the 1st year of implementation.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 371 of 474
See Notes to Required Supplementary Information 81
City of Campbell
Schedule of OPEB Contributions
Last Ten Fiscal Years*
Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2025 June 30, 2024 June 30, 2023 June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021 June 30, 2020 June 30, 2019 June 30, 2018 Actuarially determined contribution $ 719,538 $ 847,447 $ 822,791 $ 624,000 $ 610,000 $ 642,000 $ 629,000 $ 1,038,000 Contributions in relation to the
actuarially determined contributions (766,261) (827,747) (913,540) (659,310) (613,391) (646,871) (675,398) (1,566,022) Contribution deficiency (excess) $ (46,723) $ 19,700 $ (90,749) $ (35,310) $ (3,391) $ (4,871) $ (46,398) $ (528,022) Covered-employee payroll $25,922,829 $27,216,437 $25,483,309 $23,935,378 $23,360,322 $23,681,909 $22,349,167 $22,223,899 Contributions as a percentage
of covered payroll 2.96% 3.04% 3.58% 2.75% 2.63% 2.73% 3.02% 7.05% Notes to Schedule:

Changes in Assumptions:

From fiscal year June 30, 2017 to June 30, 2018:

The discount rate was reduced from 7.25% to 6.75%.

From fiscal year June 30, 2021 to June 30, 2022:

The discount rate was reduced from 6.75% to 6.15%.

From fiscal year June 30, 2023 to June 30, 2024:

The discount rate was reduced from 6.15% to 6.10%.

From fiscal year June 30, 2024 to June 30, 2025:

The discount rate was reduced from 6.10% to 6.30%.
* - Fiscal year 2018 was the 1st year of implementation.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 372 of 474
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 373 of 474
See Notes to Required Supplementary Information 82
City of Campbell
Budgetary Comparison Schedule – General Fund
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025
Variance with
Final Budget -
Positive
Original Final Actual (Negative)
Revenues
Property taxes $ 22,676,800 $ 22,894,000 $ 22,948,184 $ 54,184 Sales and use taxes 16,832,986 16,258,133 18,013,882 1,755,749 Other taxes 6,837,860 6,888,060 7,204,974 316,914
Licenses and permits 6,494,216 7,191,416 7,465,738 274,322 Fines and forfeitures 100,000 100,000 72,960 (27,040)
Investment income 1,130,000 1,130,000 1,075,611 (54,389) Rents and leases 3,256,284 3,153,184 3,092,024 (61,160) Intergovernmental 1,193,328 2,205,667 1,409,304 (796,363) Charges for services 6,283,915 6,217,250 6,395,809 178,559 Miscellaneous 241,699 386,097 359,007 (27,090)
Total Revenues 65,047,088 66,423,807 68,037,493 1,613,686 Expenditures
General government
City council 369,643 369,643 415,741 (46,098)
City manager 1,499,792 1,534,242 1,517,389 16,853
City clerk 814,446 830,546 765,432 65,114
Human resources 1,478,884 1,499,955 1,216,601 283,354
Accounting 2,597,448 2,597,448 2,550,314 47,134
Non-departmental finance - 2,266,756 3,244,011 (977,255) COVID response 40,000 - - -
Legal services 595,402 745,402 899,439 (154,037)
Economic development 466,439 527,356 227,730 299,626
Total general government 7,862,054 10,371,348 10,836,657 (465,309) Recreation
Community services and administration 609,555 608,915 593,891 15,024 Senior citizens nutrition program 291,327 291,327 274,403 16,924 Adult services 615,141 637,141 601,863 35,278
Campbell community center 1,669,889 1,808,613 1,734,502 74,111 Museum services 480,711 488,911 503,603 (14,692)
Theater 1,234,517 1,236,095 1,128,855 107,240
Sports, aquatics and fitness 1,100,943 1,090,267 1,058,103 32,164 Trips, tours and classes 1,621,248 1,524,157 1,370,411 153,746 Total recreation 7,623,331 7,685,426 7,265,631 419,795
Community development
Community development administration 997,795 1,024,395 1,062,270 (37,875) Current planning 855,360 818,360 739,450 78,910
Policy development 776,712 1,961,460 753,493 1,207,967
Building 1,958,426 2,463,943 1,855,346 608,597
Code Enforcement 276,689 264,689 267,123 (2,434)
Total community development 4,864,982 6,532,847 4,677,682 1,855,165 Budgeted Amounts
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 374 of 474
See Notes to Required Supplementary Information 83
City of Campbell
Budgetary Comparison Schedule – General Fund
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025
Variance with
Final Budget -
Positive
Original Final Actual (Negative)
Public safety
Police administration $ 2,347,349 $ 2,531,375 $ 2,351,317 $ 180,058 Communications 3,290,524 3,348,293 3,107,863 240,430
Records 1,673,144 1,673,144 1,638,201 34,943
Special enforcement services 4,256,185 4,561,185 4,545,414 15,771 Field services 11,743,385 11,678,106 11,864,601 (186,495) Fire protection services 11,226,931 11,226,931 11,226,931 - Total public safety 34,537,518 35,019,034 34,734,327 284,707 Public works
Public works administration 1,086,141 1,220,407 1,232,865 (12,458) Transportation engineering 516,079 524,079 481,551 42,528 Engineering 1,804,382 1,804,382 1,334,782 469,600
Land development/environment programs 1,035,593 1,082,881 986,714 96,167 Maintenance administration 742,139 742,139 759,633 (17,494) Building maintenance 1,988,878 2,285,918 2,159,941 125,977 Total Public works 7,173,212 7,659,806 6,955,486 704,320 Total expenditures 62,061,097 67,268,461 64,469,783 2,798,678 Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures 2,985,991 (844,654) 3,567,710 4,412,364 Other financing sources (uses)
Transfers in 1,392,948 2,206,619 6,604,953 4,398,334
Transfers out (2,174,300) (4,406,495) (4,753,315) (346,820) Total other
financing sources (uses) (781,352) (2,199,876) 1,851,638 4,051,514 Net change in fund balance 2,204,639 (3,044,530) 5,419,348 8,463,878 Fund balance at beginning of year 20,963,212 20,963,212 20,963,212 - Fund balance at end of year $ 23,167,851 $ 17,918,682 $ 26,382,560 $ 8,463,878 Budgeted Amounts
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 375 of 474
84 City of Campbell
Notes to Required Supplementary Information
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025
Note 1 - Budgets and Budgetary Data
The City adopts an annual budget for the General, Special Revenue, Capital Projects, and Debt Service Funds.

The budget becomes effective July 1 for the ensuing fiscal year. Upon adoption by the City Council, the amounts authorized in the budget become appropriations available to the various City departments.

The City’s legal level of budgetary control is at the department level. For the General Fund, budgetary comparisons for line-operating departments are presented, while supporting departments—Finance and the City Manager’s Office—are combined and reported as General Government. All appropriations lapse at yearend. Supplemental appropriations adopted by the City Council during the fiscal year are included in the budgetto-actual statements.

Annual budgets are adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles, except for the Museum and Adult Center and Community Development Block Grant Special Revenue Funds for which no budget was adopted in the current fiscal year. Accordingly, no budgetary comparison for these funds are presented in the financial statements.

Under encumbrance accounting, purchase orders, contracts and other commitments of the expenditures are recorded in order to reserve that portion of the applicable appropriation. Encumbrance accounting is employed as an extension of the formal budgetary process. Encumbrances outstanding at year-end lapse and must be reappropriated as part of the following year budget.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 376 of 474
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 377 of 474
Supplementary Information
June 30, 2025
City of Campbell
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 378 of 474
85 City of Campbell
Description of Other Governmental Funds
June 30, 2025
Other Governmental Special Revenue Funds
Gas Tax
Accounts for revenues and expenditures pertaining to the construction and maintenance of City streets.

Vehicle Impact Fees
Accounts for revenues and expenditures pertaining to street maintenance.

Other Grants
Consists of State and Local grants, TDA grant and Federal grants. • State and Local grant accounts for funds which are provided for specific purposes from the State or other local agencies.
• TDA grant accounts for funds received from the Transportation Development Act (TDA) of 1971. • Federal grant accounts for federal grant funds which are provided for specific purposes.

Parkland Dedication Fees
Accounts for Quimby Act monies received from developers and records expenditures related to development of designated areas.

Lighting and Landscaping District
Accounts for revenues and expenditures providing for City street lighting and landscaping.

Community Development Block Grant
Accounts for Federal Block Grant Funds used for community development, such as low-and-moderate rehabilitation grants and loans.

Drug Enforcement Revenue
Accounts for revenues received through drug related asset seizures and any drug related convictions.

Environmental Services
Accounts for revenues received from developers and franchised garbage collection to be utilized for solid waste management and storm drain improvements.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 379 of 474
86 City of Campbell
Description of Other Governmental Funds
June 30, 2025
Community Restitution Fund
Accounts for assets of the City’s Successor Housing Agency, formed to take over certain housing assets from the former Redevelopment Agency Low-Moderate Income Housing Fund upon its dissolution by the State of California.

Supplemental Law Enforcement
Accounts for revenues and expenditures pertaining to grants received from enhancing law enforcement services.

Community Facilities District #1
Accounts for revenues and expenditures pertaining to specific ongoing maintenance of the District’s boundaries.

Community Facilities District #2
Accounts for revenues and expenditures pertaining to specific ongoing maintenance of the District’s boundaries.

Museum and Adult Center
Accounts for donations received from expenditures related to the City’s Museum and Adult Center. The City’s Museum and Adult Care Center did not have an adopted or final budget.

Housing Assets Special Revenue Fund
Accounts for assets of the City’s Successor Housing Agency, formed to take over certain housing assets from the former Redevelopment Agency Low-Moderate Income Housing Fund upon its dissolution by the State of California.

ARPA Special Revenue Fund
Accounts for American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) federal grant funds which are provided for specific purposes.

Capital Projects Fund
Accounts for the expenditures and financing of the City’s capital projects.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 380 of 474
87 City of Campbell
Description of Other Governmental Funds
June 30, 2025
Debt Service Fund:
2016 LRB
Accounts for the City’s share of proceeds from the repayments of the 2016 Lease Revenue Bonds, which were utilized for the refunding of the City’s 1997 and 2002 COP obligations.

Measure O Debt Service Fund
Accounts for the City’s repayments of the 2020 Measure O General Obligation Bond.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 381 of 474
88 City of Campbell
Combining Balance Sheet – Other Governmental Fund
Year Ended June 30, 2025
Vehicle Parkland Lighting and Community Drug Supplemental Gas Impact Other Dedication Landscaping Development Enforcement Environmental Law Tax Fees Grants Fees District Block Grant Revenue Services Enforcement Assets
Cash and investments $ 2,538,950 2,333,086$ $ 922,534 $ 6,145,543 1,487,499$ $ - $ 154,968 $ 1,164,556 $ 47,568 Cash held with fiscal agent - - - - - - - - -
Receivables:

Accounts - 40,994 284,322 - 20,917 - - 16,613 -
Taxes 314,386 - - - 4,809 - - - -
Interest 23,759 25,206 11,372 61,601 9,823 - 1,497 10,844 662 Notes and loans - - - - - 140,000 - - -
Total assets $ 2,877,095 2,399,286$ 1,218,228$ $ 6,207,144 1,523,048$ $ 140,000 $ 156,465 $ 1,192,013 $ 48,230 Liabilities
Accounts payable $ 103,648 $ - $ 2,043 $ - $ 126,983 $ - $ - $ 40,047 $ 7,453 Accrued payroll 46,217 - - - 101,567 - - - 8,401
Due to other funds - - 1,085,732 - - 139,670 - - -
Total liabilities 149,865 - 1,087,775 - 228,550 139,670 - 40,047 15,854 Fund balances (deficit)
Restricted 2,727,230 2,399,286 130,453 6,207,144 1,294,498 330 156,465 1,151,966 32,376 Assigned - - - - - - - - -
Total fund balances (deficit) 2,727,230 2,399,286 130,453 6,207,144 1,294,498 330 156,465 1,151,966 32,376 Total liabilities, deferred inflows
of resources and fund balances $ 2,877,095 2,399,286$ 1,218,228$ $ 6,207,144 1,523,048$ $ 140,000 $ 156,465 $ 1,192,013 $ 48,230 Special Revenue Funds
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 382 of 474
89 City of Campbell
Combining Balance Sheet – Other Governmental Fund
June 30, 2025
Total
Community Housing Community Community Museum Capital Other Restitution ARPA Asset Facilities Facilities and Project Governmental Fund Fund Fund District #1 District #2 Adult Center Fund Measure O 2016 LRB Funds Assets
Cash and investments $ 196,177 $ - $ 760,052 $ - $ 254,938 $ 24,874 1,107,292$ 1,836,315$ $ - $ 18,974,352 Cash held with fiscal agent - - - - - - - - 46,530 46,530 Receivables:

Accounts - - - - - - 11,550 - - 374,396
Taxes - - - 2,298 1,155 - - 7,369 - 330,017
Interest 1,845 - 5,021 - 2,481 241 2,526 935 - 157,813
Notes and loans - - 7,458,526 - - - - - - 7,598,526
Total assets $ 198,022 $ - $ 8,223,599 $ 2,298 $ 258,574 $ 25,115 1,121,368$ 1,844,619$ $ 46,530 $ 27,481,634 Liabilities
Accounts payable $ - $ - $ 69,074 $ 1,042 $ 438 $ - $ 624,336 $ 20 $ - $ 975,084 Accrued payroll - - 14,360 - - - - - 170,545
Due to other funds - - - 3,379 - - - - 1,228,781
Total liabilities - - 83,434 4,421 438 - 624,336 20 - 2,374,410 Fund balances (deficit)
Restricted 198,022 - 8,140,165 (2,123) 258,136 25,115 - 1,844,599 46,530 24,610,192 Assigned - - - - - - 497,032 - - 497,032
Total fund balances (deficit) 198,022 - 8,140,165 (2,123) 258,136 25,115 497,032 1,844,599 46,530 25,107,224 Total liabilities, deferred inflows
of resources and fund balances $ 198,022 $ - $ 8,223,599 $ 2,298 $ 258,574 $ 25,115 1,121,368$ 1,844,619$ $ 46,530 $ 27,481,634 Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Fund
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 383 of 474
90 City of Campbell
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance other Governmental Funds Year Ended June 30, 2025
Vehicle Parkland Lighting and Community Drug Supplemental Gas Impact Other Dedication Landscaping Development Enforcement Environmental Law Tax Fees Grants Fees District Block Grant Revenue Services Enforcement Revenues
Property taxes $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,032,948 $ - $ - $ - $ - Special assessments - - - - 1,197,323 - - - -
Fines and forfeitures - - - - - - - - -
Investment income 115,504 130,640 57,019 289,642 50,962 - 7,389 55,648 5,490 Intergovernmental 2,416,014 819,855 502,147 - 2,245 - 33,961 12,000 194,664 Charges for services - - - - - - - 307,982 -
Project revenues - - - - - - - - -
Parkland dedication fees - - - 2,340,159 - - - - -
Miscellaneous revenues 122 - - - 103,852 - - - -
Total revenues 2,531,640 950,495 559,166 2,629,801 3,387,330 - 41,350 375,630 200,154 Expenditures
Current:

General government - - - - - - - - -
Community development - - - - - 16 - - -
Public safety - - - - - - - - 381,722
Public works 2,057,801 - 7,163 - 4,403,200 - - 355,643 - Capital outlay - - - - - - - - -
Debt service:

Principal - - - - - - - - -
Interest and fiscal charges - - - - - - - - -
Total expenditures 2,057,801 - 7,163 - 4,403,200 16 - 355,643 381,722 Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures 473,839 950,495 552,003 2,629,801 (1,015,870) (16) 41,350 19,987 (181,568) Other financing sources (uses)
Transfers in - - 113,203 - 728,000 - - 20,000 -
Transfers out - (516,319) (305,632) (386,477) (7,377) - - - - Total other financing
sources (uses) - (516,319) (192,429) (386,477) 720,623 - - 20,000 - Net change in fund balances 473,839 434,176 359,574 2,243,324 (295,247) (16) 41,350 39,987 (181,568) Fund balances at beginning of year, as restated 2,253,391 1,965,110 (229,121) 3,963,820 1,589,745 346 115,115 1,111,979 213,944 Fund balances at end of year $ 2,727,230 $ 2,399,286 $ 130,453 $ 6,207,144 $ 1,294,498 $ 330 $ 156,465 $ 1,151,966 $ 32,376 Special Revenue Funds
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 384 of 474
91 City of Campbell
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance other Governmental Funds Year Ended June 30, 2025
Total
Community Housing Community Community Museum Capital Other Restitution ARPA Asset Facilities Facilities and Project Governmental Fund Fund Fund District #1 District #2 Adult Center Fund Measure O 2016 LRB Funds Revenues
Property taxes $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,585,296 $ - $ 4,618,244 Special assessments - - - 145,634 48,171 - - - - 1,391,128 Fines and forfeitures 57,145 - - - - - - - - 57,145
Investment income 8,608 - 34,443 446 12,118 1,233 - 16,236 1,025 786,403 Intergovernmental - 6,404,937 - - - - - - - 10,385,823
Charges for services - - - - - - - - - 307,982
Project revenues - - - - 18,412 - - 18,412
Parkland dedication fees - - - - - - - - - 2,340,159
Miscellaneous revenues - - - - - - - - - 103,974
TOTAL REVENUES 65,753 6,404,937 34,443 146,080 60,289 1,233 18,412 2,601,532 1,025 20,009,270 Expenditures
Current:

General government - - 5,169 - - - - - 5,169
Community development 4,546 - 696,330 - - - - - 700,892 Public safety - - - - - - - - 381,722
Public works - - - 14,495 - - - - 6,838,302
Capital outlay - - - - 3,870,077 - - 3,870,077
Debt service:

Principal - - - - - - 1,355,000 630,000 1,985,000
Interest and fiscal charges - - - - - - 1,784,750 124,000 1,908,750 Total expenditures 4,546 - 696,330 5,169 14,495 - 3,870,077 3,139,750 754,000 15,689,912

EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES
OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 61,207 6,404,937 (661,887) 140,911 45,794 1,233 (3,851,665) (538,218) (752,975) 4,319,358 Other financing sources (uses)
Transfers in - - 281,240 - - - 3,380,377 - 766,400 5,289,220 Transfers out - (6,404,937) - (144,016) (12,000) - - - (7,776,758) Total other financing
sources (uses) - (6,404,937) 281,240 (144,016) (12,000) - 3,380,377 - 766,400 (2,487,538) Net change in fund balances 61,207 - (380,647) (3,105) 33,794 1,233 (471,288) (538,218) 13,425 1,831,820 Fund balances at beginning of year 136,815 - 8,520,812 982 224,342 23,882 968,320 2,382,817 33,105 23,275,404 Fund balances at end of year $ 198,022 $ - $ 8,140,165 $ (2,123) $ 258,136 $ 25,115 $ 497,032 $ 1,844,599 $ 46,530 $ 25,107,224 Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Fund
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 385 of 474
92 City of Campbell
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Gas Tax Special Revenue Fund
Year Ended June 30, 2025
Variance with
Final Budget -
Positive
Original Final Actual (Negative)
Revenues
Investment income $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 115,504 $ 90,504
Intergovernmental 2,331,938 2,331,938 2,416,014 84,076
Miscellaneous revenue 2,500 2,500 122 (2,378)
Total Revenues 2,359,438 2,359,438 2,531,640 172,202
Expenditures
Current
Public works 2,068,370 2,120,313 2,057,801 62,512
Total expenditures 2,068,370 2,120,313 2,057,801 62,512 Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures 291,068 239,125 473,839 234,714 Other financing sources (uses)
Transfers in 5,925 - (5,925)
Transfers out (1,100,000) (1,423,100) - 1,423,100
Total other
financing sources (uses) (1,100,000) (1,417,175) - 1,417,175 Net change in fund balance (808,932) (1,178,050) 473,839 1,651,889 Fund balance at beginning of year 2,253,391 2,253,391 2,253,391 - Fund balance at end of year $ 1,444,459 $ 1,075,341 $ 2,727,230 $ 1,651,889 Budgeted Amounts
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 386 of 474
93 City of Campbell
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Vehicle Impact Fees Special Revenue Fund
Year Ended June 30, 2025
Variance with
Final Budget -
Positive
Original Final Actual (Negative)
Revenues
Investment income $ 250 $ 250 $ 130,640 $ 130,390
Intergovernmental 791,928 791,928 819,855 27,927
Total revenues 792,178 792,178 950,495 158,317
Other financing sources (uses)
Transfers out (897,000) (972,000) (516,319) 455,681
Net change in fund balance (104,822) (179,822) 434,176 613,998 Fund balance at beginning of year 1,965,110 1,965,110 1,965,110 - Fund balance at end of year $ 1,860,288 $ 1,785,288 $ 2,399,286 $ 613,998 Budgeted Amounts
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 387 of 474
94 City of Campbell
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual –Other Grants Special Revenue Fund
Year Ended June 30, 2025
Variance with
Final Budget -
Positive
Original Final Actual (Negative)
Revenues
Investment income $ - $ - $ 57,019 $ 57,019
Intergovernmental 1,482,000 2,407,857 502,147 (1,905,710) Total Revenues 1,482,000 2,407,857 559,166 (1,848,691)
Expenditures
Current
Public works - 75,000 7,163 67,837
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures 1,482,000 2,332,857 552,003 (1,780,854) Other financing sources (uses)
Transfers in - - 113,203 113,203
Transfers out (1,832,000) (3,662,757) (305,632) 3,357,125 Total other
financing sources (uses) (1,832,000) (3,662,757) (192,429) 3,470,328 Net change in fund balance (350,000) (1,329,900) 359,574 1,689,474 Fund balance at beginning of year (229,121) (229,121) (229,121) - Fund balance at end of year $ (579,121) $ (1,559,021) $ 130,453 $ 1,689,474 Budgeted Amounts
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 388 of 474
95 City of Campbell
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Parkland Dedication Fees Special Revenue Fund
Year Ended June 30, 2025
Variance with
Final Budget -
Positive
Original Final Actual (Negative)
Revenues
Investment income $11,900 $11,900 289,642 $ $ 277,742
Parkland dedication fees 400,000 400,000 2,340,159 1,940,159 Total revenues 411,900 411,900 2,629,801 2,217,901
Other financing sources (uses)
Transfers out (981,000) (1,450,001) (386,477) 1,063,524 Net change in fund balance (569,100) (1,038,101) 2,243,324 3,281,425 Fund balance at beginning of year 3,963,820 3,963,820 3,963,820 - Fund balance at end of year $ 3,394,720 $ 2,925,719 $ 6,207,144 $ 3,281,425 Budgeted Amounts
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 389 of 474
96 City of Campbell
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Lighting and Landscaping District Special Revenue Fund
Year Ended June 30, 2025
Variance with
Final Budget -
Positive
Original Final Actual (Negative)
Revenues
Property taxes $ 1,143,000 $ 1,143,000 $ 2,032,948 $ 889,948 Special assessments 1,210,000 1,210,000 1,197,323 (12,677) Investment income - - 50,962 50,962
Intergovernmental 2,500 2,500 2,245 (255)
Miscellaneous revenues 25,000 28,000 103,852 75,852
Total revenues 2,380,500 2,383,500 3,387,330 1,003,830
Expenditures
Current
Public works (4,113,522) (4,131,265) 4,403,200 (8,534,465) Total expenditures (4,113,522) (4,131,265) 4,403,200 (8,534,465) Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures 6,494,022 6,514,765 (1,015,870) (7,530,635) Other financing sources (uses)
Transfers in 728,000 728,000 728,000 -
Transfers out - - (7,377) (7,377)
Total other
financing sources (uses) 728,000 728,000 720,623 (7,377) Net change in fund balance 7,222,022 7,242,765 (295,247) (7,538,012) Fund balance at beginning of year 1,589,745 1,589,745 1,589,745 - Fund balance at end of year $ 8,811,767 $ 8,832,510 $ 1,294,498 $ (7,538,012) Budgeted Amounts
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 390 of 474
97 City of Campbell
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Drug Enforcement Revenue Special Revenue Fund
Year Ended June 30, 2025
Variance with
Final Budget -
Positive
Original Final Actual (Negative)
Revenues
Investment income $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 7,389 $ 4,889
Intergovernmental - - 33,961 33,961
Miscellaneous revenues 10,000 10,000 - (10,000)
Total revenues 12,500 12,500 41,350 28,850
Net change in fund balance 12,500 12,500 41,350 28,850
Fund balance at beginning of year 115,115 115,115 115,115 - Fund balance at end of year $ 127,615 $ 127,615 $ 156,465 $ 28,850 Budgeted Amounts
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 391 of 474
98 City of Campbell
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Environmental Services Special Revenue Fund
Year Ended June 30, 2025
Variance with
Final Budget -
Positive
Original Final Actual (Negative)
Revenues
Property taxes $ -
Investment income $ 500 $ 500 $ 55,648 $ 55,148
Intergovernmental 259,328 259,328 12,000 (247,328)
Charges for services 262,746 262,746 307,982 45,236
Total revenues 522,574 522,574 375,630 (146,944)
Expenditures
Current
Public works 364,987 384,987 355,643 29,344
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures 157,587 137,587 19,987 (117,600) Other financing sources (uses)
Transfers in - 20,000 20,000 -
Transfers out (50,000) (98,878) - 98,878
Total other
financing sources (uses) (50,000) (78,878) 20,000 98,878 Net change in fund balance 107,587 58,709 39,987 (18,722) Fund balance at beginning of year 1,111,979 1,111,979 1,111,979 - Fund balance at end of year $ 1,219,566 $ 1,170,688 $ 1,151,966 $ (18,722) Budgeted Amounts
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 392 of 474
99 City of Campbell
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Supplemental Law Enforcement Special Revenue Fund
Year Ended June 30, 2025
Variance with
Final Budget -
Positive
Original Final Actual (Negative)
Revenues
Investment income $ 3,964 $ 3,964 $ 5,490 $ 1,526
Intergovernmental 162,343 162,343 194,664 32,321
Total revenues 166,307 166,307 200,154 33,847
Expenditures
Current
Public safety 340,522 376,286 381,722 (5,436)
Net change in fund balance (174,215) (209,979) (181,568) 28,411 Fund balance at beginning of year 213,944 213,944 213,944 - Fund balance at end of year $ 39,729 $ 3,965 $ 32,376 $ 28,411 Budgeted Amounts
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 393 of 474
100
City of Campbell
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Community Restitution Fund Special Revenue Fund
Year Ended June 30, 2025
Variance with
Final Budget -
Positive
Original Final Actual (Negative)
Revenues
Fines/Forfeits/Penalties $ 45,000 $ 45,000 $ 57,145 $ 12,145 Investment income - - 8,608 8,608
Total Revenues 45,000 45,000 65,753 20,753
Expenditures
Current
Community Development 15,000 15,000 4,546 10,454
Total expenditures 15,000 15,000 4,546 10,454
Net change in fund balance 30,000 30,000 61,207 31,207
Fund balance at beginning of year 136,815 136,815 136,815 - Fund balance at end of year $ 166,815 $ 166,815 $ 198,022 $ 31,207 Budgeted Amounts
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 394 of 474
101
City of Campbell
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – ARPA Special Revenue Fund
Year Ended June 30, 2025
Variance with
Final Budget -
Positive
Original Final Actual (Negative)
Revenues
Intergovernmental $ - $ - $ 6,404,937 $ 6,404,937
Total revenues - - 6,404,937 6,404,937
Expenditures
Current
City Managers Office 40,000 55,000 - 55,000
Total expenditures 40,000 55,000 - 55,000
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures (40,000) (55,000) 6,404,937 6,459,937 Other financing sources (uses)
Transfers out (1,413,286) (1,324,257) (6,404,937) 5,080,680 Total other
financing sources (uses) (1,413,286) (1,324,257) (6,404,937) (5,080,680) Net change in fund balance (1,453,286) (1,379,257) - 1,379,257 Fund balance at beginning of year - - - -
Fund balance at end of year $ (1,453,286) $ (1,379,257) $ - $ 1,379,257 Budgeted Amounts
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 395 of 474
102
City of Campbell
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Housing Asset Special Revenue Fund
Year Ended June 30, 2025
Variance with
Final Budget -
Positive
Original Final Actual (Negative)
Revenues
Investment income $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 34,443 $ (15,557) Intergovernmental - - - -
Miscellaneous revenue 175,000 175,000 - (175,000)
Total revenues 225,000 225,000 34,443 (190,557)
Expenditures
Current
Community development 838,428 1,171,607 696,330 475,277 Total expenditures 838,428 1,171,607 696,330 475,277
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues
Over (Under) Expenditures (613,428) (946,607) (661,887) 284,720 Other Financing Sources (Uses):

Transfers in 220,352 482,852 281,240 (201,612)
Total Other
Financing Sources (Uses) 220,352 482,852 281,240 (201,612) Net change in fund balance (393,076) (463,755) (380,647) 83,108 Fund balance at beginning of year 8,520,812 8,520,812 8,520,812 - Fund balance at end of year $ 8,127,736 $ 8,057,057 $ 8,140,165 $ 83,108 Budgeted Amounts
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 396 of 474
103
City of Campbell
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Community Facilities District #1 Special Revenue Fund
Year Ended June 30, 2025
Variance with
Final Budget -
Positive
Original Final Actual (Negative)
Revenues
Special assessments $ 146,075 $ 146,075 $ 145,634 $ (441) Investment income 550 550 446 (104)
Total revenues 146,625 146,625 146,080 (545)
Expenditures
Current
Community development 3,700 3,700 5,169 (1,469)
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures 142,925 142,925 140,911 (2,014) Other financing sources (uses)
Transfers out (144,014) (144,014) (144,016) (2)
Net change in fund balance (1,089) (1,089) (3,105) (2,016) Fund balance at beginning of year 982 982 982 -
Fund balance at end of year $ (107) $ (107) $ (2,123) $ (2,016) Budgeted Amounts
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 397 of 474
104
City of Campbell
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Community Facilities District #2 Special Revenue Fund
Year Ended June 30, 2025
Variance with
Final Budget -
Positive
Original Final Actual (Negative)
Revenues
Investment income $ - $ - $ 12,118 $ 12,118
Special assessments 35,250 35,250 48,171 12,921
Total revenues 35,250 35,250 60,289 25,039
Expenditures
Current
Public Works 32,500 42,500 14,495 28,005
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures 2,750 (7,250) 45,794 53,044
Other financing sources (uses)
Transfers out (12,000) (12,000) (12,000) -
Total other
financing sources (uses) (12,000) (12,000) (12,000) -
Net change in fund balance (9,250) (19,250) 33,794 53,044 Fund balance at beginning of year 224,342 224,342 224,342 - Fund balance at end of year $ 215,092 $ 205,092 $ 258,136 $ 53,044 Budgeted Amounts
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 398 of 474
105
City of Campbell
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Capital Projects Fund Year Ended June 30, 2025
Variance with
Final Budget -
Positive
Original Final Actual (Negative)
Revenues
Project revenues $ 230,000 $ 1,233,500 $ 18,412 $ (1,215,088) Miscellaneous revenues - -
Total revenues 230,000 1,233,500 18,412 (1,215,088)
Expenditures
Current
Other - -
Capital outlay 6,870,171 22,389,344 3,870,077 18,519,267 Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures (6,640,171) (21,155,844) (3,851,665) 17,304,179 Other financing sources (uses)
Transfers in 6,637,245 10,816,151 3,380,377 (7,435,774) Total other
financing sources (uses) 6,637,245 10,816,151 3,380,377 (7,435,774) Net change in fund balance (2,926) (10,339,693) (471,288) 9,868,405 Fund balance at beginning of year 968,320 968,320 968,320 - Fund balance at end of year $ 965,394 $ (9,371,373) $ 497,032 $ 9,868,405 Budgeted Amounts
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 399 of 474
106
City of Campbell
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Measure O Capital Projects Fund
Year Ended June 30, 2025
Variance with
Final Budget -
Positive
Original Final Actual (Negative)
Revenues
Investment income $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,579,319 $ 1,379,319 Intergovernmental 1,887,380 1,887,380
TOTAL REVENUES 200,000 200,000 3,468,393 3,268,393
Expenditures
Capital outlay 42,114,086 44,698,442 29,332,960 15,365,482 Total expenditures 42,114,086 44,698,442 29,332,960 15,365,482 Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures (41,914,086) (44,498,442) (25,864,567) 18,633,875 Other financing sources (uses)
Transfers in - - -
Total other
Financing sources (uses) - - - -
Net Change in Fund Balance (41,914,086) (44,498,442) (25,864,567) 18,633,875 Fund Balance at Beginning of Year 40,391,087 40,391,087 40,391,087 - Fund Balance at End of Year $ (1,522,999) $ (4,107,355) $ 14,526,520 $ 18,633,875 Budgeted Amounts
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 400 of 474
107
City of Campbell
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – 2016 LRB Debt Service Fund
Year Ended June 30, 2025
Variance with
Final Budget -
Positive
Original Final Actual (Negative)
Revenues
Investment income $ 500 $ 500 $ 1,025 $ 525
Expenditures
Debt Service
Principal 655,000 655,000 630,000 25,000
Interest and fees 114,000 114,000 124,000 (10,000)
Total expenditures 769,000 769,000 754,000 15,000
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures (768,500) (768,500) (752,975) 15,525 Other financing sources (uses)
Transfers in 766,400 766,400 766,400 -
Net change in fund balance (2,100) (2,100) 13,425 15,525 Fund balance at beginning of year 33,105 33,105 33,105 - Fund balance at end of year $ 31,005 $ 31,005 $ 46,530 $ 15,525 Budgeted Amounts
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 401 of 474
108
City of Campbell
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget Actual – Measure O Debt Service Fund
Year Ended June 30, 2025
Variance with
Final Budget -
Positive
Original Final Actual (Negative)
Revenues
Property taxes $ 2,600,000 $ 2,600,000 $ 2,585,296 $ (14,704) Investment income - - 16,236 16,236
Total revenues 2,600,000 2,600,000 2,601,532 1,532
Expenditures
General government - - -
Debt Service 3,141,250 3,141,250 3,139,750 1,500
Total expenditures 3,141,250 3,141,250 3,139,750 1,500
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures (541,250) (541,250) (538,218) 3,032 Net change in fund balance (541,250) (541,250) (538,218) 3,032 Fund balance at beginning of year 2,382,817 2,382,817 2,382,817 - Fund balance at end of year $ 1,841,567 $ 1,841,567 $ 1,844,599 $ 3,032 Budgeted Amounts
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 402 of 474
109
City of Campbell
Internal Service Funds
June 30, 2025
Account for goods or services provided to other departments of the City where the intent of the City is that the costs of these goods or services are to be recovered through interdepartmental charges at the time that the goods are delivered, or the services rendered to those departments.

Motor Vehicle Pool
Accounts for the costs of operating maintaining and replacing vehicle and other equipment used by City departments. Rental rates charged to user departments include costs and equipment depreciation.

Workers’ Compensation Self-Insurance
Accounts for revenues derived from charges made to operating departments at rates based on the State Compensation Fund annually adjusted to ensure an adequate reserve for future claims. This fund is charged for administrative costs of settling claims, as well as material and other costs of job-related illness or injury.

Information Technology Services
Accounts for the costs of operating maintaining and replacing computer hardware and software. Rental rates charged to the user departments include operating costs and equipment depreciation.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 403 of 474
110
City of Campbell
Combining Statement of Net Position – Internal Service Funds June 30, 2025
Motor Workers' Information
Vehicle Compensation Technology
Pool Self-Insurance Services Total
Assets
Current assets
Cash and investments $ 920,094 $ 5,099,033 $ 533,783 $ 6,552,910 Accounts receivable 8,601 49,174 10,521 68,296
Prepaid items - - - -
Deposits - 90,000 - 90,000
Total current assets 928,695 5,238,207 544,304 6,711,206 Noncurrent assets
Capital assets, net 1,354,816 - 507,867 1,862,683
Total noncurrent assets 1,354,816 - 507,867 1,862,683
Total assets 2,283,511 5,238,207 1,052,171 8,573,889
Deferred outflows of resources
Amount related to pensions 155,617 - 328,821 484,438
Amount related to OPEB 21,410 - 45,239 66,649
Total deferred outflows of resources 177,027 - 374,060 551,087 Liabilities
Current liabilities
Accounts payable 106,510 48,386 80,764 235,660
Accrued payroll 20,036 - 42,282 62,318
Compensated absences, current portion 17,056 - 44,834 61,890 Leases payable 529,124 - 199,067 728,191
Subscription liabilities - - 189,018 189,018
Claims and judgments payable, current portion - 544,611 - 544,611 .

Total current liabilities 672,726 592,997 555,965 1,821,688 Noncurrent liabilities
Compensated absences 20,152 - 39,964 60,116
Claims and judgments payable - 3,085,909 - 3,085,909
Net OPEB liability 47,791 - 100,982 148,773
Net pension liability 682,007 - 1,441,088 2,123,095
Total noncurrent liabilities 749,950 3,085,909 1,582,034 5,417,893 Total liabilities 1,422,676 3,678,906 2,137,999 7,239,581 Deferred inflows of resources
Amount related to pensions - - - -
Amount related to OPEB 9,769 - 20,642 30,411
Total deferred inflows of resources 9,769 - 20,642 30,411 Net position
Net investments in capital assets 825,692 - 119,782 945,474 Unrestricted 202,401 1,559,301 (852,192) 909,510
Total net position $ 1,028,093 $ 1,559,301 $ (732,410) $ 1,854,984 Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 404 of 474
111
City of Campbell
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position – Internal Service Funds Year Ended June 30, 2025
Motor Worker' Information
Vehicle Compensation Technology
Pool Self-Insurance Service Total
Operating revenues
Charges for services $ 1,101,068 $ 718,367 $ 1,161,992 $ 2,981,427 Other 84,717 674 15,948 101,339
Total operating revenues 1,185,785 719,041 1,177,940 3,082,766 Operating expenses
Personnel services 443,061 - 888,217 1,331,278
Services and supplies 280,292 891,361 981,275 2,152,928 Depreciation and amortization 404,284 - 209,539 613,823 Total operating expenses 1,127,637 891,361 2,079,031 4,098,029 Operating income (loss) 58,148 (172,320) (901,091) (1,015,263) Nonoperating Income
Investment income 43,900 252,058 17,796 313,754
Transfers
Transfers in - - 685,900 685,900
Transfers out (50,000) - - (50,000)
Total transfers (50,000) - 685,900 635,900
Net change in net position 52,048 79,738 (197,395) (65,609) Net position at beginning of year 976,045 1,479,563 (535,015) 1,920,593 Net position at end of year $ 1,028,093 $ 1,559,301 $ (732,410) $ 1,854,984 Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 405 of 474
112
City of Campbell
Combining Statement of Cash Flows – Internal Service Funds Year Ended June 30, 2025
Motor Worker' Information
Vehicle Compensation Technology
Pool Self-Insurance Service Total
Cash flows from operating activities
Cash received from department users $ 1,184,750 $ 713,577 $ 1,176,594 $ 3,074,921 Cash payments to suppliers of goods and services (237,182) (693,185) (1,072,863) (2,003,230) Cash payments to employees for services (388,861) - (639,030) (1,027,891) Net cash provided (used)
by operating activities 558,707 20,392 (535,299) 43,800 Cash flows from noncapital
financing activities
Cash received from other funds - - 685,900 685,900
Cash paid to other funds (50,000) - - (50,000)
Net cash provided by
noncapital financing activities (50,000) - 685,900 635,900 Cash flows from capital and relating financing activities Acquisition of capital assets (494,375) - (218,201) (712,576) Cash flows from investing activities
Investment earnings 43,900 252,058 17,796 313,754
Net increase (decrease) in
cash and cash equivalents 58,232 272,450 (49,804) 280,878 Cash and cash equivalents
at beginning of year 861,862 4,826,583 583,587 6,272,032 Cash and cash equivalents
at end of year $ 920,094 $ 5,099,033 $ 533,783 $ 6,552,910 Reconciliation of opearting income (loss)
to net cash provided (used) by operating activities
Operating income (loss) $ 58,148 $ (172,320) $ (901,091) $ (1,015,263) Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss)
to net cash provided (used) by operating activities
Depreciation 404,284 - 209,539 613,823
Changes in operating assets and liabilities
(Increase) decrease in accounts receivables (1,035) (5,464) 120,967 114,468 Increase (decrease) in accounts payable 43,110 92 (213,901) (170,699) Increase (decrease) in accrued payroll 811 - 1,132 1,943 Increase (decrease) in compensation absences 1,954 - 26,183 28,137 Increase (decrease) in claims and judgements payable - 198,084 - 198,084 Increase (decrease) in net OPEB and related deferrals 3,658 - (21,724) (18,066) Increase (decrease) in net pension and related deferrals 47,777 - 243,596 291,373 Net cash provided (used)
by operating activities $ 558,707 $ 20,392 $ (535,299) $ 43,800 Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 406 of 474
113
City of Campbell
Custodial Funds
June 30, 2025
Custodial Funds
Custodial funds are used to account for assets held by the City as an agent for individuals, private organizations, and other governments. The financial activities of these funds are excluded from the Entity-wide financial statements but are presented in separate Fiduciary Fund financial statements.

Account for assets held by the City on behalf of other organizations are as follows:

West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority
Accounts for the monies of the West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority. The City acts as custodian for the operating resources of the entity.
1915 Acts Bonds
Accounts for the assessments received and the payment of principal and interest under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915.

Santa Clara County Specialized Enforcement Task Fund (SCCSET) Accounts for the monies of the Santa Clara County Specialized Enforcement Task Force. The City acts as custodian for the operating resources of the task force.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 407 of 474
114
City of Campbell
Combining Statement of Fiduciary Net Position – Custodial Funds June 30, 2025
West Valley
Solid Waste
Management 1915 Act SCCSET
Authority Bonds Fund Fund Total
Assets
Cash and investments $ 1,146,859 $ 35,421 $ 1,232,297 $ 2,414,577 Accounts receivable 96,107 342 - 96,449
Total assets 1,242,966 35,763 1,232,297 2,511,026
Liabilities
Accounts payable 245,002 - - 245,002
Total liabilities 245,002 - - 245,002
Net Position
Restricted for individuals
and organizations $ 997,964 $ 35,763 $ 1,232,297 $ 2,266,024 Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 408 of 474
115
City of Campbell
Combining Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position – Custodial Funds Year Ended June 30, 2025
West Valley
Solid Waste
Management 1915 Act SCCSET
Authority Bonds Fund Fund Total
Additions
Local government-administered contributions $ 1,293,117 $ - $ - $ 1,293,117 Other income 48,900 - 684,482 733,382
Investment income 48,296 1,755 - 50,051
Total additions 1,390,313 1,755 684,482 2,076,550
Deductions
Professional and special services 982,623 - - 982,623
Administrative - - 928,904 928,904
Total deductions 982,623 - 928,904 1,911,527
Change in net position 407,690 1,755 (244,422) 165,023
Net position at beginning of year 590,274 34,008 1,476,719 2,101,001 Net position at end of year $ 997,964 $ 35,763 $ 1,232,297 $ 2,266,024 Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 409 of 474
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 410 of 474
Statistical Section (Unaudited)
June 30, 2025
City of Campbell
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 411 of 474
116
City of Campbell
Description of Statistical Section Contents
Year Ended June 30, 2025
This part of the City of Campbell, California’s annual comprehensive financial report presents detailed information as a context for understanding what the information in the financial statements, note disclosures, and required supplementary information say about the government’s overall financial health.

Contents:

Pages
Financial Trends theses schedules contain trend information to help the reader understand how the City’s financial performance and well-being have changed over time. 117 - 122
Revenue Capacity these schedules contain information to help the reader assess the City’s most significant local revenue source, the property tax. 123 - 126 Debt Capacity these schedules present information to help the reader assess the affordability of the City’s current levels of outstanding debt and the City’s ability to issue additional debt in the future. 127 - 131 Demographic and Economic Information these schedules offer demographic and economic indicators to help the reader understand the environment within which the City’s financial activities take place. 132 - 133 Operating Information these schedules contain service and infrastructure data to help the reader understand how the information in the City’s financial report relates to the services the City provides and the activities it performs. 134 - 136 Sources:

Unless otherwise noted, the information in these schedules is derived from the Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports for the relevant year.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 412 of 474
117
City of Campbell
Net Position by Component
Last Ten Fiscal Years (Accrual Basis of Accounting)
$(40,000,000)
$(20,000,000)
$-
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
$120,000,000
Net of Related Debt Restricted Unrestricted
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 413 of 474
118
City of Campbell
Net Position by Component
Last Ten Fiscal Years (Accrual Basis of Accounting)
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Governmental activities: (A)
Net investments in
capital assets $ 26,997,661 $ 34,884,223 $ 38,177,017 $ 47,429,206 $ 48,798,520 Restricted 23,616,442 17,077,829 15,970,726 17,211,524 20,196,004 Unrestricted (12,748,328) (12,358,383) (21,605,385) (24,121,289) (32,631,237) Total governmental activities net position $ 37,865,775 $ 39,603,669 $ 32,542,358 $ 40,519,441 $ 36,363,287 Primary government:

Net investments in
capital assets $ 26,997,661 $ 34,884,223 $ 38,177,017 $ 47,429,206 $ 48,798,520 Restricted 23,616,442 17,077,829 15,970,726 17,211,524 20,196,004 Unrestricted (12,748,328) (12,358,383) (21,605,385) (24,121,289) (32,631,237) Total primary government net position $ 37,865,775 $ 39,603,669 $ 32,542,358 $ 40,519,441 $ 36,363,287 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Governmental activities:

Net investments in
capital assets $ 56,200,867 $ 60,313,314 $ 69,455,950 $ 75,408,051 $ 77,701,411 Restricted 21,541,280 22,029,954 19,250,568 20,120,283 22,719,063 Unrestricted (37,922,516) (32,155,840) (29,843,712) (36,180,418) (32,226,055) Total governmental activities net position $ 39,819,631 $ 50,187,428 $ 58,862,806 $ 59,347,916 $ 68,194,419 Primary government:

Net investments in
capital assets $ 56,200,867 $ 60,313,314 $ 69,455,950 $ 75,408,051 $ 77,701,411 Restricted 21,541,280 22,029,954 19,250,568 20,120,283 $ 22,719,063 Unrestricted (37,922,516) (32,155,840) (29,843,712) (36,180,418) (32,226,055) Total primary government net position $ 39,819,631 $ 50,187,428 $ 58,862,806 $ 59,347,916 $ 68,194,419 (A) Reported Pension Liability resulted in a negative $20.1 million of unrestricted in net position in order to comply with provision of GASB 68.

Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 414 of 474
119
City of Campbell
Changes in Net Position
Last Ten Fiscal Years (Accrual Basis of Accounting)
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Expenses:

Governmental activities:

General government $ 6,679,357 $ 9,472,432 $ 7,671,343 $ 7,315,270 $ 8,363,548 $ 7,740,547 $ 7,780,899 $ 10,756,246 $ 11,047,211 $ 11,222,631 Public safety 22,179,057 23,679,842 27,628,421 29,623,711 31,160,818 31,982,827 30,801,294 29,060,937 35,745,519 37,886,828 Public Works 10,595,886 11,122,831 15,187,009 13,981,288 15,040,395 12,994,559 13,002,919 16,603,696 18,812,196 18,426,581 Community Development 2,590,034 3,111,691 3,484,767 3,661,787 4,166,582 2,938,422 2,853,912 4,758,602 5,447,126 5,743,177 Recreation and Community Services 5,689,721 6,166,806 6,894,086 7,183,132 6,765,508 4,281,719 4,942,719 6,569,294 7,753,645 7,899,167 Interest on long-term debt 936,250 579,013 336,577 330,687 324,934 1,056,277 1,319,942 1,794,044 1,865,614 1,905,362 Total Primary Government Expenses 48,670,305 54,132,615 61,202,203 62,095,875 65,821,785 60,994,351 60,701,685 69,542,819 80,671,311 83,083,746 Program Revenues:

Governmental activities:

Charges of services:

General government 1,624,617 1,602,647 1,586,881 18,592 9,375 342 1,814,425 1,993,223 2,188,702 3,419,429 Public safety 740,750 790,163 857,212 693,216 787,204 409,743 883,254 235,043 883,548 845,170 Public Works 3,443,486 3,464,407 3,178,780 3,522,641 3,530,034 4,289,206 2,793,430 5,014,492 2,564,257 6,010,081 Community Development 4,375,330 3,335,990 2,947,460 2,817,123 2,257,036 2,857,170 4,516,534 3,387,574 4,880,247 5,838,602 Recreation and Community Services 3,822,648 4,136,749 4,142,115 5,946,637 4,536,171 3,225,350 2,864,338 3,261,942 3,853,225 6,461,772 Operating Grants and Contribution 5,437,108 2,316,936 2,789,656 3,512,647 4,681,319 7,135,599 4,033,399 4,158,620 6,428,666 8,191,213 Capital Grants and Contributions 3,240,726 1,688,085 534,583 634,321 2,595,822 3,537,522 6,745,712 3,060,743 1,572,079 3,577,324 Total Primary Government Program Revenues 22,684,665 17,334,977 16,036,687 17,145,177 18,396,961 21,454,932 23,651,092 21,111,637 22,370,724 34,343,591 Net (Expense)/Revenue:

Total primary government net revenue (25,985,640) (36,797,638) (45,165,516) (44,950,698) (47,424,824) (39,539,419) (37,050,593) (48,431,182) (58,300,587) (48,740,155) General Revenues and Other Changes in Net Position
Governmental activities:

Taxes:

Property tax 13,161,587 14,191,181 15,251,542 16,921,874 19,812,728 21,009,102 23,469,044 25,550,037 26,403,788 27,566,428 Sales Tax 14,818,495 14,297,751 14,859,014 15,684,222 13,965,745 14,006,163 16,419,363 18,832,569 16,549,227 18,013,882 Transient Occupancy Tax 4,439,668 4,420,208 4,554,949 4,768,870 3,144,208 1,568,908 2,657,334 3,626,019 3,747,247 3,978,243 Franchise Fees 3,319,603 3,478,916 3,586,297 3,515,547 3,527,926 3,458,300 3,690,355 3,924,558 4,135,646 1,850,090 Business License Taxes 683,445 694,569 698,184 693,263 664,071 666,642 659,094 656,109 666,379 686,339 Property Transfer Taxes 551,007 467,990 761,583 519,407 566,794 542,456 665,607 335,574 374,144 605,157 Construction Taxes 338,718 208,373 85,406 26,451 50,505 143,066 212,975 47,353 57,595 66,036 Motor Vehicle In Lieu 69,109 19,077 45,523 20,494 34,231 135,448 47,981 44,984 54,209 90,528 Investment earnings 487,662 171,257 181,016 1,040,069 1,062,566 122,547 (1,114,797) 1,754,835 4,305,013 3,755,087 Miscellaneous 1,399,265 586,210 436,370 293,126 439,896 1,343,131 2,170,315 2,334,522 2,492,449 974,868 Total Primary Government 39,268,559 38,535,532 40,459,884 43,483,323 43,268,670 42,995,763 48,877,271 57,106,560 58,785,697 57,586,658 Change in Net Position
Governmental activities 13,282,919 1,737,894 (4,705,632) (1,467,375) (4,156,154) 3,456,344 11,826,678 8,675,378 485,110 8,846,503 Total primary government $ 13,282,919 $ 1,737,894 $ (4,705,632) $ (1,467,375) $ (4,156,154) $ 3,456,344 $ 11,826,678 $ 8,675,378 $ 485,110 $ 8,846,503 (a) Extraordinary gain resulted from the State mandated dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) as of 1/31/2012. (b) Housing rehabilitation loans transferred to the County due to dissolution of RDA.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 415 of 474
120
City of Campbell
Fund Balances of Governmental Funds
Last Ten Fiscal Years (Modified Accrual Basis of Accounting) $(20,000,000)
$-
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
$120,000,000
$140,000,000
General Fund Non-Spendable Restricted Committed Assigned Unassigned Total General Fund Restricted Committed Assigned Unassigned Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 416 of 474
121
City of Campbell
Fund Balances of Governmental Funds
Last Ten Fiscal Years (Modified Accrual Basis of Accounting) 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
General Fund
Non-Spendable $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 173,181 $ 199,081 $ 185,685 Restricted - - - - - - - - - 1,655,697
Committed 25,392,112 23,896,221 21,592,089 21,743,948 5,192,639 4,296,174 3,482,825 3,091,992 2,916,934 3,619,783 Assigned 3,830,100 4,027,890 4,528,546 4,257,115 3,757,823 3,643,857 3,918,437 4,013,616 3,791,233 2,879,388 Unassigned 1,000,000 999,994 360,129 1,026,759 13,322,046 12,976,419 14,525,529 14,864,482 14,055,964 18,042,007 Total General Fund $ 30,222,212 $ 28,924,105 $ 26,480,764 $ 27,027,822 $ 22,272,508 $ 20,916,450 $ 21,926,791 $ 22,143,271 $ 20,963,212 $ 26,382,560 All Other
Governmental Funds
Restricted $ 23,493,450 $ 16,993,836 $ 15,772,926 $ 17,211,524 $ 20,250,454 $ 40,615,483 $ 72,927,462 $ 75,653,168 $ 62,927,292 $ 39,136,712 Committed 1,223,623 - - - - - - - - -
Assigned 140,666 1,758,104 1,747,982 1,715,955 1,703,633 914,232 947,217 929,106 968,320 497,032 Unassigned (2,414,736) (2,064,713) (498,452) (242,428) (311,506) (1,424,397) (938,687) (1,040,149) (229,121) - Total all other
governmental funds $ 22,443,003 $ 16,687,227 $ 17,022,456 $ 18,685,051 $ 21,642,581 $ 40,105,318 $ 72,935,992 $ 75,542,125 $ 63,666,491 $ 39,633,744 Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 417 of 474
122
City of Campbell
Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Fund
Last Ten Fiscal Years (Modified Accrual Basis of Accounting) 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenues
Taxes $ 37,324,522 $ 37,768,238 $ 39,809,475 $ 42,145,259 $ 41,269,352 $ 41,967,223 $ 47,782,758 $ 52,987,985 $ 51,944,916 $ 52,785,284 License, permits and fees 6,900,052 3,873,976 3,214,847 3,232,524 3,714,070 4,493,838 3,742,393 3,387,574 3,344,256 7,465,738 Special Assessments 1,369,696 1,387,853 1,377,069 1,469,308 1,391,283 1,398,933 1,391,231 1,406,520 1,392,199 1,391,128 Fines and forfeitures 324,137 320,193 345,627 704,030 694,347 547,469 222,721 212,102 209,337 130,105 Use of money and property 2,746,371 2,829,484 3,115,345 4,273,538 3,492,676 2,065,292 1,734,314 4,876,180 7,205,957 6,533,357 Intergovernmental revenues 5,346,920 4,172,179 4,630,928 3,262,896 6,466,424 10,440,661 10,774,460 7,214,847 8,146,187 13,682,507 Changes for services 4,491,002 4,623,876 4,897,185 4,784,243 3,268,310 2,566,943 5,696,772 6,059,638 7,225,373 6,703,791 Other 2,237,463 1,200,939 981,249 1,105,429 610,516 1,373,431 1,159,577 1,896,986 1,389,676 2,823,246 Total Revenues 60,740,163 56,176,738 58,371,725 60,977,227 60,906,978 64,853,790 72,504,226 78,041,832 80,857,901 91,515,156 Expenditures
Current:

General government 6,220,587 8,543,097 6,832,027 7,245,353 8,194,825 7,266,166 8,115,428 9,906,051 10,195,925 10,776,520 Public safety 23,007,615 24,544,078 25,837,666 27,423,109 29,132,295 31,419,241 30,639,409 31,703,764 33,907,880 35,116,049 Public works 10,506,080 11,493,731 12,576,675 10,940,940 11,170,432 10,748,474 11,675,932 12,556,021 13,748,043 13,793,788 Community development 2,702,702 3,230,153 3,166,797 3,387,115 3,608,339 2,938,030 3,392,935 4,545,041 4,611,952 5,378,574 Recreation and Community Services 5,611,544 6,080,395 6,235,452 6,663,662 5,854,410 4,018,010 5,190,818 6,146,030 6,801,733 7,265,631 Capital outlay 4,675,614 2,487,393 4,878,204 2,103,720 3,878,985 12,550,723 10,624,498 6,084,529 18,559,233 32,780,167 Debt services:

Principal repayment 810,000 625,000 595,000 605,000 535,000 1,690,000 2,253,957 3,790,441 3,399,448 2,429,311 Interest and fiscal changes 793,300 176,642 259,200 244,275 227,076 833,397 1,131,724 1,762,972 2,066,240 1,952,615 Bond issuance costs - 209,762 - - - - - - - -
Payments to refunding escrow agent - 6,203,790 - - - - - - - - Total Expenditures 54,327,442 63,594,041 60,381,021 58,613,174 62,601,362 71,464,041 73,024,701 76,494,849 93,290,454 109,492,655 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over
(under) expenditures 6,412,721 (7,417,303) (2,009,296) 2,364,053 (1,694,384) (6,610,251) (520,475) 1,546,983 (12,432,553) (17,977,499) Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Transfers In 10,100,282 9,809,123 10,383,455 6,759,234 8,251,100 40,785,100 43,207,002 8,432,564 11,894,173 11,894,173 Transfers Out (10,414,149) (9,659,635) (10,481,271) (6,913,634) (8,354,500) (40,239,796) (44,071,054) (8,984,144) (12,530,073) (12,530,073) Issuance of debt - 8,085,000 - - - 20,809,094 33,368,566 (590,026) (2,238,181) (2,238,181) Premium from bond issuance - 1,090,835 - - - 3,171,626 2,506,763 2,417,236 2,238,181 2,238,181 Payments to refunding escrow agent - (8,962,993) - - - - - - - - Total other financing sources (uses) (313,867) 362,330 (97,816) (154,400) (103,400) 24,526,024 35,011,277 1,275,630 (635,900) (635,900) Net Change in fund balances $ 6,098,854 $ (7,054,973) $ (2,107,112) $ 2,209,653 $ (1,797,784) $ 17,915,773 $ 34,490,802 $ 2,822,613 $ (13,068,453) $ (18,613,399) Debt service as a percentage of
noncapital expenditures 3.2% 11.8% * 1.5% 1.5% 1.3% 4.3% 5.4% 7.9% 7.3% 5.7% * 2017 Debt service as a percentage of noncapital expenditures is calculated by taking the sum of the principal repayment, interest and fiscal changes, and payments to refunding escrow agent by Total expenditures less capital outlay.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 418 of 474
123
City of Campbell
Assessed and Estimated Actual – Value of Taxable Property Last Ten Fiscal Years
Total Total
Fiscal Secured HOPTR SBE Secured Unsecured Total Direct Year Property Exemptions Utilities Value Property Assessed (a) Tax Rate (b) 2016 $ 7,912,201,031 $ 45,357,200 $ 172,250 $ 7,957,730,481 $ 273,569,603 $ 8,231,300,084 1% 2017 8,522,484,862 45,200,400 172,250 8,567,857,512 290,398,591 8,858,256,103 1% 2018 9,158,664,046 44,251,200 172,250 9,203,087,496 276,228,712 9,479,316,208 1% 2019 9,866,148,537 43,876,000 238,500 9,910,263,037 276,847,459 10,187,110,496 1% 2020 10,724,368,314 43,384,600 238,500 10,767,991,414 295,779,677 11,063,771,091 1% 2021 11,446,319,015 42,973,000 238,500 11,489,530,515 318,127,779 11,807,658,294 1% 2022 11,967,282,485 41,654,200 238,500 12,009,175,185 363,425,707 12,372,600,892 1% 2023 12,787,900,741 40,744,200 238,500 12,828,883,441 320,304,772 13,149,188,213 1% 2024 13,501,814,011 41,193,600 397,500 13,543,405,111 365,919,955 13,909,325,066 1% 2025 14,142,221,065 40,905,200 397,500 14,183,523,765 368,675,063 14,552,198,828 1% Source: Santa Clara County Assessor's Office
(a) The State Constitution requires property to be assessed at one hundred percent of the most recent purchase price, plus an increment of no more than two percent annually, plus any local over-rides. These values are considered to be full market values. (b) California cities do not set their own direct tax rate. The state constitution establishes the rate at 1% and allocates a portion of that amount, by an annual calculation, to all the taxing entities within a tax rate area. The City of Campbell encompasses more than 20 tax rate areas. (c) Total assessed value increased 11.6% due primarily to the annexation of several County pockets in 2013. $-
$2,000,000,000
$4,000,000,000
$6,000,000,000
$8,000,000,000
$10,000,000,000
$12,000,000,000
$14,000,000,000
$16,000,000,000
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Millions
Secured Unsecured
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 419 of 474
124
City of Campbell
Property Tax Rates – All Overlapping Governments
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Elem or Hospital
Basic Unified High SCVWD West and
xpenses Direct SCC Library City of School School State Valley Housing Year Tax Rate Retirement Retirement Campbell Bonds Bonds Project College Bond Total 2016 1.0000 0.0388 0.0024 0.0000 0.0467 0.0257 0.0057 0.0232 0.0088 1.1513 2017 1.0000 0.0388 0.0024 0.0000 0.0442 0.0252 0.0086 0.0196 0.0086 1.1474 2018 1.0000 0.0388 0.0024 0.0000 0.0437 0.0519 0.0062 0.0200 0.0209 1.1839 2019 1.0000 0.0388 0.0024 0.0000 0.0418 0.0487 0.0042 0.0198 0.0177 1.1734 2020 1.0000 0.0388 0.0024 0.0100 0.0415 0.0436 0.0041 0.0296 0.0169 1.1869 2021 1.0000 0.0388 0.0024 0.0100 0.0415 0.0439 0.0037 0.0311 0.0069 1.1783 2022 1.0000 0.0388 0.0024 0.0175 0.0672 0.0421 0.0051 0.0304 0.0188 1.2223 2023 1.0000 0.0388 0.0024 0.0200 0.0672 0.0410 0.0044 0.0283 0.0171 1.2192 2024 1.0000 0.0388 0.0024 0.0175 0.0672 0.0366 0.0041 0.0258 0.0150 1.2074 2025 1.0000 0.0388 0.0024 0.0170 0.0672 0.0362 0.0041 0.0259 0.0098 0.2014 Source: Santa Clara County Assessors Office.

Note: In 1978, California voters passed Proposition 13 which set property tax rate at a fixed amount of 1.00% of assessed value.

Each year, the assessed values may be increased by the California consumer price index (CPI), not to exceed 2.0%. Properties are reassessed at market value upon sale. The 1.0% tax levy is shared by all jurisdictions within the County. Based upon the Assessors report for 2019-20 the levy was distributed as follows:

School Districts 44% Community Colleges 7%
Cities 14% Special Districts 6%
Other (Successor Agencies) 11% County 18%
Total 100%
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 420 of 474
125
City of Campbell
Principal Property Taxpayers
Current Year and Ten Years Ago
Percentage of Percentage of
Taxable Total Taxable Taxable Total Taxable
Assessed Assessed Assessed Assessed
Taxpayer Value Rank Value Value Rank Value
Pruneyard Regengy LLC $ 227,842,947 1 1.57%
AG-SW Hamilton Plaza Owner LP 159,000,265 2 1.09% 123,857,757 2 0.0150 Pruneyard Office Investors LLC 154,750,928 3 1.06%
KW Fund V1 Vasona Medical Tech 153,198,898 4 1.05%
675 Creekside Owner LLC 149,036,085 5 1.02%
Revere LLC 108,002,783 6 0.74% 74,830,815 4 0.91%
Parc Residences LLC 107,126,482 7 0.74%
Campbell Technology Park LLC 91,152,102 8 0.63% $77,376,949 3 0.94% SHI-III Campbell LP 76,522,132 9 0.53%
Raintree Campbell LLC 74,652,477 10 0.51%
CFEP Pruneyard LLC 219,541,016 1 2.67%
Legacy III Campbell LLC 54,814,290 5 0.67%
CRP Vasona LLC 53,875,049 6 0.65%
RP Maximus Pruneyard Owner LLC 53,026,469 7 0.64%
Hamilton Plaza Investors LLC 49,469,166 8 0.60%
Bay Apartment Communities Inc 46,602,499 9 0.57%
Essex The commons LP 45,329,569 0.55%
Marc W Buzolich Trustee Et Al
Campbell Plaza Apartments LLC
$ 1,301,285,099 8.94% $ 798,723,579 9.70%
Total Net Assessed Valuation
Fiscal Year 2024-2025 $ 14,552,198,828
Fiscal Year 2015-2016 8,231,300,084
Source: Santa Clara Tax Assessor's Office.
2024-25 2015-16
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 421 of 474
126
City of Campbell
Property Tax Levies and Collections
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Percent
of Total
Current Percent Delinquent Total Tax
Fisal Total Tax of Levy Tax Tax Collections
Year Tax Levy (a) Collections Collected Collections Collections to Tax Levy 2016 13,161,587 $ $ 13,161,587 100% $ - $ 13,161,587 100% 2017 14,191,181 14,191,181 100% - 14,191,181 100%
2018 16,058,014 16,058,014 100% - 16,058,014 100%
2019 16,882,323 16,882,323 100% - 16,882,323 100%
2020 19,812,728 19,812,728 100% - 19,812,728 100%
2021 20,965,132 20,965,132 100% - 20,965,132 100%
2022 23,464,393 23,464,393 100% - 23,464,393 100%
2023 25,587,659 25,587,659 100% - 25,587,659 100%
2024 26,437,162 26,437,162 100% - 26,437,162 100%
2025 27,598,468 27,598,468 100% - 27,598,468 100%
Source: City of Campbell Records
NOTES: Proposition 13 approved by the voters in 1978 provided for a maximum tax rate. The proceeds are apportioned to the various taxing entities on a formula basis. In 1981 – 1982 the basis of assessed valuation was adjusted to full cash value upon resale or new construction, rather than the previous 25 percent estimate. The property tax levy was not to exceed one percent. (a) Includes RDA in total tax levy through 1/31/2012.
$-
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Total Tax Levy (a) Tax Collections
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 422 of 474
127
City of Campbell
Ratio of Outstanding Debt by Type
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Fiscal
General
Obligation SBITAs &
Lease Revenue
Bonds and
Certificates of
Total
Primary
Percentage
of Personal Per
Year Bonds Loans Leases Participation (b) Government Income (a) Capita (a) 2016 $ - $ - $ - $ 17,722,700 $ 17,722,700 0.5742% 416.18 2017 - - - 10,359,329 10,359,329 0.3157% 242.46
2018 - - - 9,935,519 9,935,519 0.2892% 232.70
2019 - - - 9,511,787 9,511,787 0.2636% 219.93
2020 - - - 9,168,762 9,168,762 0.2175% 216.82
2021 21,925,905 - - 9,458,411 31,384,316 0.7308% 212.41 2022 52,666,947 4,153,703 267,692 9,012,853 66,101,195 1.4387% 1,543.23 2023 49,471,699 3,788,075 2,082,339 8,564,972 63,907,085 1.3447% 1,496.20 2024 46,786,451 3,403,722 1,994,909 8,110,576 60,295,658 1.2136% 1,399.13 2025 45,236,202 3,018,356 2,176,698 7,645,422 58,076,678 1.1689% 1,341.85 Note: Debt amounts exclude any premiums, discounts, or other amortization amounts.

RDA tax allocation bonds are included in total debt through 1/31/2012.

Sources: City of Campbell
State of California, Department of Finance (population).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (income). (a) See page 130 (Demographic Statistics) for personal income and population data. (b) Certificates of Participation were refinanced in 2017. A portion of the Certificates related to the Campbell Successor Agency was repaid during the refinancing.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 423 of 474
128
City of Campbell
Ratio of Net General Bonded Debt Outstanding
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Fiscal
Total Primary
Government
Less: Amounts
Available in Debt
Percentage of
Estimated Actual
Taxable Value of Per
Year Debt (a) Service Fund (b) Total Property (c) Capita (d) 2016 $ 17,722,700 $ - $ 17,722,700 0.0000% 416.18
2017 10,359,329 - 10,359,329 0.0000% 242.46
2018 9,935,519 - 9,935,519 0.0000% 232.70
2019 9,511,787 - 9,511,787 0.0000% 219.93
2020 9,168,762 1,114,130 8,054,632 -0.0101% 216.82
2021 31,384,316 3,774,338 27,609,978 0.1537% 212.41
2022 66,101,195 5,821,476 60,279,719 0.3786% 1,543.23
2023 63,907,085 4,123,176 59,783,909 0.3449% 1,494.11
2024 60,295,658 2,382,817 57,912,841 0.4164% 1,399.13
2025 58,076,678 1,844,599 56,232,079 0.3864% 1,341.85
Note: Details regarding the City’s outstanding debt can be found in the notes to the financial statements. (a) This is the general bonded debt of the governmental activities, net of original issuance premiums. (b) This is the amount restricted for debt service principal payments in the Measure O debt service fund. (c) See the Schedule of Assessed and Estimated Actual – Value of Taxable Property for property value data. (d) Population data can be found in the schedule of Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 424 of 474
129
City of Campbell
Computation of Direct and Overlapping Debt
June 30, 2025
2024-25 Assessed Valuation: $14,552,198,828
Amount
Net Debt Applicable Applicable to
Outstanding Percentage (1) City of Campbell
Santa Clara County $ 1,217,905,000 2.092% 25,478,573 $
West Valley - Mission Community College District 631,255,000 7.263% 45,848,051 Campbell Union High School District 318,105,000 20.654% 65,701,407 Cambrian School District 113,749,944 30.568% 34,771,083 Campbell Union School District 240,714,324 30.568% 73,408,240 Moreland School District 134,544,320 12.260% 16,495,134 City of Campbell 45,236,202 100.000% 45,236,202
City of Campbell Loans, Leases, and Subscription payables 5,195,054 100.000% 5,195,054 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 114,920,000 0.041% 47,117 Santa Clara County Valley Water District benefit Assessment District 24,940,000 2.092% 521,745 $ 312,702,606
Santa Clara County General Fund Obligations $ 1,002,458,930 2.092% 20,971,441 $ Santa Clara County Pension Obligations Bonds 317,654,990 2.092% 6,645,342 Santa Clara County Board of Education Certificates of Participation 12,072,417 2.092% 252,555 Campbell Union High School District General Fund Obligations 12,500,000 20.654% 2,581,750 West Valley - Mission Community College District General Fund Obligations 2,520,000 7.263% 183,028 Campbell Union School District General Fund Obligations 855,000 30.496% 260,741 City of Campbell General Fund Obligations 7,645,422 100.000% 7,645,422 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District General Fund Obligations 74,065,600 0.041% 30, 367 SUB-TOTAL OVERLAPPING GENERAL FUND OBLIGATION DEBT $ 38,570,646 Less: Santa Clara County supported obligations 50,626
TOTAL NET DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GENERAL FUND DEBT $ 38,520,020 OVERLAPPING TAX INCREMENT DEBT (Successor agency): 11,270,000 100.000% 11,270,000 $ TOTAL DIRECT DEBT $ 58,076,678
TOTAL GROSS OVERLAPPING DEBT $ 293,196,574
TOTAL NET OVERLAPPING DEBT $ 293,145,948
GROSS COMBINED TOTAL DEBT $ 351,273,252
NET COMBINED TOTAL DEBT (excludes County supported item) $ 351,222,626 Ratios to 2024-25 Assessed Valuation:

Total Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt 2.01%
Total Direct Debt ($58,076,678) 0.40%
Gross Combined Total Debt 2.41%
Net Combined Total Debt 2.41%
Ratios to Redevelopment Successor Agency Incremental Valuation ($1,519,306,278):

Total Overlapping Tax Increment Debt 0.74%
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc. and City of Campbell

OVERLAPPING GENERAL FUND DEBT

DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING TAX AND ASSESSMENT DEBT
(1) The percentage of overlapping debt applicable to the city is estimated using taxable assessed property value. Applicable percentages were estimated by determining the portion of the overlapping district's assessed value that is within the boundaries of the town divided by the district's total taxable assessed value.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 425 of 474
130
City of Campbell
Computation of Legal Bonded Debt Margin
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Total
Net Debt Legal
Fiscal Assessed Debt Limit Applicable Debt
Year Value 3.75% (1) to Limit Margin
2016 $ 8,231,300,084 $ 308,673,753 $ - $ 308,673,753
2017 8,858,256,103 332,184,604 - 332,184,604
2018 9,479,316,208 355,474,358 - 355,474,358
2019 10,187,110,496 382,016,644 - 382,016,644
2020 11,063,771,091 414,891,416 - 414,891,416
2021 11,807,658,294 442,787,186 18,860,000 423,927,186
2022 12,372,600,892 463,972,533 47,200,000 416,772,533
2023 13,149,188,213 493,094,558 44,200,000 448,894,558
2024 13,909,325,066 521,599,690 41,710,000 479,889,690
2025 14,552,198,828 545,707,456 40,355,000 505,352,456
(1) Pursuant to California Government Code Section 43605 (15% of 25% of full cash value).

Source: City of Campbell Finance Department.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 426 of 474
131
City of Campbell
Bonded Debt Pledged Revenue Coverage – Redevelopment/Successor Agency Tax Allocation Bonds Last Ten Fiscal Years
Tax Interest and Total
Fiscal Increment Fiscal Debt
Year Revenue Principal Charges Service Coverage
2016 $ 1,376,380 $ 340,000 $ 1,036,380 $ 1,376,380 1.00 2017 652,867 335,000 317,867 652,867 1.00
2018 1,821,338 1,355,000 466,338 1,821,338 1.00
2019 1,595,695 1,170,000 425,695 1,595,695 1.00
2020 1,590,741 1,175,000 415,741 1,590,741 1.00
2021 1,590,737 1,200,000 390,737 1,590,737 1.00
2022 1,740,150 1,375,000 365,190 1,740,150 1.00
2023 1,883,552 1,555,000 328,552 1,883,552 1.00
2024 1,895,984 1,595,000 300,984 1,895,984 1.00
2025 1,896,871 1,630,000 266,871 1,896,871 1.00
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 427 of 474
132
City of Campbell
Demographic and Economic Statistics
Last Ten Fiscal Years

Calendar
Year Population
Personal
Income
Per Capita Personal
Income
Unemployment
Rate
Santa Clara County
Population
City Population %
of County
2016 42,584 3,086,261 $ $ 72,475 2.9% 1,927,888 2.21%
2017 42,726 3,262,837 76,367 2.5% 1,938,180 2.20%
2018 42,696 3,435,638 80,467 2.4% 1,956,598 2.18%
2019 43,250 3,607,941 83,421 2.4% 1,954,286 2.21%
2020 42,288 4,215,608 99,688 8.5% 1,961,969 2.16%
2021 41,533 4,294,776 103,406 4.5% 1,934,171 2.15%
2022 42,833 4,594,414 107,263 2.2% 1,894,783 2.26%
2023 42,713 4,752,434 111,264 3.1% 1,886,079 2.26%
2024 43,095 4,968,514 115,292 4.0% 1,903,198 2.26%
2025 43,281 5,311,311 122,717 4.9% 1,922,259 2.25%
Sources: State of California, Department of Finance; Employment Development Department.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Note: Unemployment rate for FY2011 is an average. FY2012-2016 are collected as of June 30.

Per Capita Income for 2017 is adjusted using the California Department of Finance Change in Per Capita Income as reported in May 2016 (5.37%).
(1) The City annexed several County pockets effective May 1, 2013.

2.05%

2.10%

2.15%

2.20%

2.25%

2.30%
2016201720182019202020212022202320242025
City Population % of County
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
Total Personal Income
$-
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026
Per Capita Personal Income

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%
2016201720182019202020212022202320242025
Unemployment Rate
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 428 of 474
133
City of Campbell
Top Ten Principal Employers
Current Year and Ten Years Ago
Percentage Percentage
Number of of Total City Number of of Total City
Employer Employees Rank Labor Force Employees Rank Labor Force 8x8 Inc 670 1 2.88%
West Valley Construction 411 2 1.76% 270 2 1.0%
ZRG Partners LLC 411 3 1.76% 179 10 0.7%
Barracuda Networks Inc 315 4 1.35% 393 1 1.5%
Imperative Care Inc 300 5 1.29%
Qolsys, Inc. 300 6 1.29%
The Home Depot #0642 270 7 1.16%
Care Indeed Inc. 261 8 1.12%
(24)7.AI.INC 245 9 1.05% 200 7
Chargepoint, Inc. 231 10 0.99% 228 5
Daley'sDrywall & Taping Inc 260 3 1.0%
Whole Foods Market 240 4 0.9%
Bioreference Laboratories, Inc. 201 6 0.8%
Hightail Inc 200 7 0.8%
SAAMA Technologies 185 8 0.7%
Friendfinder Networks Inc 184 9 0.7%
Fry's Electronics
Moss Adams, Inc
Subtotal 3,414 14.65% 2,540 8.15%
Total City Labor Force 23,300 25,900
Source: City of Campbell - California Employment Development Department. 2024-25 2015-16
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 429 of 474
134
City of Campbell
Full-Time Equivalent City Government Employees by Function Last Ten Fiscal Years
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Function
General government 25.28 26.26 25.35 24.45 24.55 22.3 23.46 23.95 26.15 26.15 Public safety 70.01 73.01 74.13 76.33 76.83 72.37 74.84 76.4 74.13 74.13 Public works 54.26 56.65 56.05 55.7 55 51.1 49.53 52.20 53.85 52.9 Community development 15.55 16.1 16.77 16.77 16.77 15.14 12.14 14 17.62 18.62 Recreation and
community services 56.37 57.49 58.5 57.73 58.57 31.81 28.03 35.57 38.84 43.81 Total 214.02 221.47 229.51 230.80 230.98 231.72 188.00 202.12 210.59 215.61 Source: City of Campbell, California Budget Documents.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 430 of 474
135
City of Campbell
Operating Indicators by Function/Program
Last Ten Fiscal Years
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Function/Program
Public safety
Fire:

Fire calls for service 81 67 72 90 84 78 74 64 71 94
Medical aid calls 2,177 2,318 2,354 2,174 2,102 2,044 2,478 2,611 2,228 2,387 Police:

Police calls for service 24,408 23,275 23,312 26,242 25,141 29,917 32,124 31,465 30,077 28,730 Law violations:

Arrests 2,183 2,027 2,080 1,898 1,347 1,657 1,963 1,819 1,361 1,387 Traffic violations 4,501 4,638 4,339 3,544 1,356 825 1,307 955 2,584 795 Parking violations 3,733 4,384 3,741 3,716 2,369 518 761 1,378 608 1,940 Public works
Miles of streets (major) 16 16 16 16 15 14 14 14 14 14
Miles of streets (secondary) 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Potholes repaired 90 108 58 228 350 200 220 215 290 309 Culture and recreation:

Community services:

Recreation class participants 35,082 35,737 42,195 63,207 51,150 23,133 40,463 43,648 67,359 65,511 Performing Arts Center performances 6 6 7 6 4 0 2 6 5 5 Wastewater
Miles of sewers (storm) 50 50 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59
Miles of sewers (sanitary - entire district) 618 618 602 602 602 602 602 602 580 580 Miles of sewers (sanitary - Campbell only) 158 158 168 168 168 168 165 165 161 161 Solid Waste
Refuse landfilled (tons per year) 29,422 28,386 28,300 22,082 26,460 24,943 25,573 24,717 23,471 21,492 Green waste - 6,781 7,312 6,893 7,375 7,201 6,703 5,948 339 172 Recyclables processed (tons per year) 15,866 10,004 18,483 10,251 9,085 9,362 7,615 8,549 7,187 6,925 Organics (tons per year) 0 0 0 0 0 0 505 2,891 9,101 9,323 Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 431 of 474
136
City of Campbell
Capital Assets Statistics by Function/Program
Last Ten Fiscal Years
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Function/Program
Public safety:

Fire stations 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Police stations 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Police patrol units 15 15 15 15 14 14 13 14 15 16
Public works:

Miles of streets 96 96 96 96 96 94 94 94 94 94
Street lights 2705 2706 2715 2715 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 Traffic Signals 44 44 45 45 46 45 45 45 45 45
Culture and recreation:

Community services:

City parks 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
City park acreage 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87
Playgrounds 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
City trails 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
City trails miles 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Historic house (museum) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Community gardens 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Community centers 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Adult centers 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sports centers 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Performing arts centers 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Swimming pools 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Tennis courts 8 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Baseball/softball diamonds E 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Soccer/football fields 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Library:

City Libraries 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 432 of 474
1 December 31, 2025
To the City Council of
City of Campbell
Campbell, California
We have audited the financial statements of the City of Campbell, California (City) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2025, and have issued our report thereon dated December 31, 2025.

Professional standards require that we advise you of the following matters relating to our audit.

Our Responsibility in Relation to the Financial Statement Audit under Generally Accepted Auditing Standards and Government Auditing Standards
As communicated in our planning letter, our responsibility, as described by professional standards, is to form and express an opinion about whether the financial statements that have been prepared by management with your oversight are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our audit of the financial statements does not relieve you or management of your respective responsibilities.

Our responsibility, as prescribed by professional standards, is to plan and perform our audit to obtain reasonable, rather than absolute, assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit of financial statements includes consideration of the system of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, as part of our audit, we considered the system of internal control of the City solely for the purpose of determining our audit procedures and not to provide any assurance concerning such internal control.

We are also responsible for communicating significant matters related to the audit that are, in our professional judgment, relevant to your responsibilities in overseeing the financial reporting process.

However, we are not required to design procedures for the purpose of identifying other matters to communicate to you.
eidebailly.com
4040 Campbell Ave., Ste. 200 • Menlo Park, CA. 94025-1053 • T 650.522.3400 • F 650.645.7393 • EOE Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 433 of 474
2 Planned Scope and Timing of the Audit
We conducted our audit consistent with the planned scope and timing we previously communicated to you.

Compliance with All Ethics Requirements Regarding Independence The engagement team, others in our firm, as appropriate, our firm, and other firms utilized in the engagement, if applicable, have complied with all relevant ethical requirements regarding independence.

Significant Risks Identified
As stated in our auditor’s report, professional standards require us to design our audit to provide reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free of material misstatement whether caused by fraud or error. In designing our audit procedures, professional standards require us to evaluate the financial statements and assess the risk that a material misstatement could occur. Areas that are potentially more susceptible to misstatements, and thereby require special audit considerations, are designated as “significant risks.” We have identified the following as significant risks:
• We are required by our audit standards to perform procedures related to override of internal controls.
• Sales Tax & Grants Revenue Recognition – could occur in the inappropriate period due to timing of cash receipts not corresponding with the period earned. • Estimates as it relates to compensated absences, pension, other post-employment benefits (OPEB), and claims liabilities.

Qualitative Aspects of the Entity’s Significant Accounting Practices Significant Accounting Policies
Management has the responsibility to select and use appropriate accounting policies. A summary of the significant accounting policies adopted by the City is included in Note 1 to the financial statements. There have been no initial selection of accounting policies and no changes in significant accounting policies or their application during the fiscal year, except for the implementation of GASB Statement No. 101, Compensated Absences. No matters have come to our attention that would require us, under professional standards, to inform you about (1) the methods used to account for significant unusual transactions and (2) the effect of significant accounting policies in controversial or emerging areas for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 434 of 474
3 Accounting Estimates and Related Disclosures
Accounting estimates and related disclosures are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management’s current judgments. Those judgments are normally based on knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ markedly from management’s current judgments. The most sensitive accounting estimates affecting the financial statements are related to the City pension, OPEB, and claims liabilities.

Management’s estimate of the City compensated absences, pension, OPEB, and claims liabilities is based on actuarial estimates performed by management specialists. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the management estimates and determined that they are reasonable in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole.

Financial Statement Disclosures
Certain financial statement disclosures involve significant judgment and are particularly sensitive because of their significance to financial statement users. The most sensitive disclosures affecting the City’s financial statements relate to:
• Note 9 describes the valuation of the City’s net pension liability and related deferred outflows and inflows of resources. Such amounts are sensitive to the underlying actuarial assumptions used including, but not limited to, the investment rate of return and discount rate. As disclosed, a one percent increase or decrease in the discount rate has a material effect on the City’s net pension liability.
• Note 11 describes the City’s postemployment benefits liability and related deferred outflows and inflows of resources are sensitive to the underlying actuarial assumptions used including, but not limited to, the discount rate and healthcare cost trend rate. As disclosed, a one percent increase or decrease in the discount rate or the healthcare cost trend rate has a material effect on the City’s net post-employment benefits liability.

Significant Difficulties Encountered during the Audit
We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management relating to the performance of the audit.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 435 of 474
4 Uncorrected and Corrected Misstatements
For purposes of this communication, professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that we believe are trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. Further, professional standards require us to also communicate the effect of uncorrected misstatements related to prior periods on the relevant classes of transactions, account balances or disclosures, and the financial statements as a whole.

Uncorrected misstatements or matters underlying those uncorrected misstatements could potentially cause future-period financial statements to be materially misstated, even though the uncorrected misstatements are immaterial to the financial statements currently under audit. We noted passed adjustments, as determined by management, that are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole related to loan interest receivables and related deferred inflows of resources on the aggregate remaining fund information financial statements in the amount of $435,417 and loan receivables and net position on the governmental activities financial statements for the same amount.

Disagreements with Management
For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, concerning a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, which could be significant to the City’s financial statements or the auditor’s report.

No such disagreements arose during the course of the audit.

Circumstances that Affect the Form and Content of the Auditor’s Report For purposes of this letter, professional standards require that we communicate any circumstances that affect the form and content of our auditor’s report. We did not identify any circumstances that affect the form and content of the auditor’s report.

Representations Requested from Management
We have requested certain written representations from management which are included in the management representation letter dated December 31, 2025.

Management’s Consultations with Other Accountants
In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters. Management informed us that, and to our knowledge, there were no consultations with other accountants regarding auditing and accounting matters.

Other Significant Matters, Findings, or Issues
In the normal course of our professional association with the City, we generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, significant events or transactions that occurred during the year, operating and regulatory conditions affecting the entity, and operational plans and strategies that may affect the risks of material misstatement. None of the matters discussed resulted in a condition to our retention as the City’s auditors.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 436 of 474
5 Other Information Included in Annual Reports
Pursuant to professional standards, our responsibility as auditors for other information, whether financial or nonfinancial, included in the City’s annual comprehensive financial reports (ACFR) does not extend beyond the financial information identified in the audit report, and we are not required to perform any procedures to corroborate such other information.

However, in accordance with such standards, we have read the other information which includes the introductory and statistical sections within City’s Annual Financial Report and considered whether a material inconsistency exists between the other information and the basic financial statements, or the other information otherwise appears to be materially misstated. If, based on the work performed, we conclude that an uncorrected material misstatement of the other information exists, we are required to describe it in our report.

Our responsibility also includes communicating to you any information which we believe is a material misstatement of fact. Nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that such information, or its manner of presentation, is materially inconsistent with the information, or manner of its presentation, appearing in the financial statements.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City Council, and management of the City and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties.

Menlo Park, California
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 437 of 474
Independent Auditor’s Reports
June 30, 2025
City of Campbell
eidebailly.com
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 438 of 474
1 Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards
To the Board of Directors
City of Campbell, California
Campbell, California
We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States (Government Auditing Standards), the financial statements of the governmental activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of City of Campbell, California (the “City”), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2025, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements and have issued our report thereon dated December 31, 2025.

Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.

Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the City’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that were not identified. eidebailly.com
4040 Campbell Ave., Ste. 200 • Menlo Park, CA. 94025-1053 • T 650.522.3400 • F 650.645.7393 • EOE Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 439 of 474
2 Report on Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City's financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.

Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.

Menlo Park California
December 31, 2025
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 440 of 474
3 City of Campbell
Schedule of Findings and Responses
June 30, 2025
None.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 441 of 474
4 City of Campbell
Schedule of Prior Findings and Responses
June 30, 2025
None.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 442 of 474
General Fund - Fund Balance Comparison
Fiscal Year Ending (FYE) June 30, 2024 to FYE June 30, 2025 Audited Audited
FYE 06/30/24 FYE 06/30/25 Variance Short Description
Nonspendable:

Prepaid $ - $ 5,118 $ 5,118 Accounts for General Fund prepaid costs Leases 199,081 180,567 (18,514) Accounts for nonspendable General Fund monies from leases Total Nonspendable $ 199,081 $ 185,685 $ (13,396)
Restricted:

Measure K $ - $ 1,655,697 $ 1,655,697 No General Fund monies are restricted by external factors Total Restricted $ - $ 1,655,697 $ 1,655,697
Committed:

General plan update $ - $ - $ - Accounts for General Plan (GP) expenses and GP Maint. Fees.

Historic preservation 5,000 5,000 - Accounts for historic preservation in-lieu fees.

Compensated absences 970,698 1,028,002 57,304 50% of noncurrent liability for absences.

Liability insurance 157,936 144,800 (13,136) Set at minimum of 100% of self-insured retention for claims.

Available Capital Improvements Reserve 212,351 237,583 25,232 CIPR for General Fund funded capital projects. Target $5M.

Committed Capital Improvements Reserve 1,240,899 1,963,405 722,506 Carryover CIPR projects approved in prior years.

Community Center Facility 149,706 159,210 9,504 For use at Community Center.

Heritage Theater 180,344 81,783 (98,561) For use at Heritage Theater.

Total Committed $ 2,916,934 $ 3,619,783 $ 702,849
Assigned:

Capital projects (Construction Tax) $ 138,406 $ 117,314 $ (21,092) Construction tax funded capital projects.

Unemployment insurance 90,000 90,000 - Fixed amount to pay for anticipated unemployment costs.

PERS 2,252,000 1,000,000 (1,252,000) Set aside for pay down of PERS, trust, or cost mitigation.

OPEB 393,315 393,154 (161) Annual required contribution for OPEB liabilities.

Other 917,512 1,278,920 361,408 Set aside for operating encumbrance carryovers.

Total Assigned $ 3,791,233 $ 2,879,388 $ (911,845)
Unassigned:

Unassigned, Undesignated 1,000,000 4,986,040 3,986,040 To be maintained at $1M for operating cash flow purposes.

City council reserve 362,624 362,624 - Council discretionary reserve for requests, recognition, etc.

Economic fluctuations 9,485,886 9,485,889 3 16.67% of Operating Expenditures for economic downturns.

Emergency 3,207,454 3,207,454 - 10% of Revenue for unexpected physical or fiscal emergency.

Total Unassigned $ 14,055,964 $ 18,042,007 $ 3,986,043
TOTAL FUND BALANCE 20,963,212 26,382,560 5,419,348
Adopted GF Operating Budget 66,843,036 67,704,915 861,879 Unassigned as % of Budget 21.03% 26.65%
Unassigned + PERS as % of Budget 24.40% 28.12%
Unassigned Reserve Stress Test (GFOA Guidance 16.67%)
$1 million deficit in FY 2026 (1,000,000) 25.17%
$2 million deficit in FY 2026 (2,000,000) 23.69%
$3 million deficit in FY 2026 (3,000,000) 22.22%
$4 million deficit in FY 2026 (4,000,000) 20.74%
$5 million deficit in FY 2026 (5,000,000) 19.26%
Unassigned + PERS Reserve Stress Test (GFOA Guidance 16.67%) $1 million deficit in FY 2026 (1,000,000) 26.65%
$2 million deficit in FY 2026 (2,000,000) 25.17%
$3 million deficit in FY 2026 (3,000,000) 23.69%
$4 million deficit in FY 2026 (4,000,000) 22.22%
$5 million deficit in FY 2026 (5,000,000) 20.74%
Item 9.2
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 443 of 474
City Council Report
DATE: March 24, 2026
TITLE: Fiscal Year 2026 Mid-Year Financial Update and Budget Adjustments RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Staff recommends that the City Council accept the Fiscal Year 2026 Mid-Year Financial Update Report and adopt a Resolution authorizing the Fiscal Year 2026 Mid-Year Budget Adjustments.

BACKGROUND
The City’s Financial policies require staff to provide the City Council with a mid-year financial status update report each fiscal year. The report discusses how the City’s yearto-date actual results are progressing with respect to their prior-year actual and currentyear budgeted revenues and expenditures, including a discussion of recommended budgetary adjustments, if any. The current mid-year report before Council is for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 and the basis for year-end estimates is current trends through December 31, 2025, Executive Team analysis, and discussions with the City’s property and sales tax consultants. The main focus of this report will be the General Fund (101), which supports most of the City’s ongoing and essential operations, but recommended budgetary adjustments, where necessary, may also be included for other funds as well.

DISCUSSION
Attachment 1 (General Fund Revenue vs. Expenditure Comparison) of this report provides Council with a high-level overview of the items described above and incorporates mid-year budget corrections and requests so that their full impact can considered by Council. Proposed mid-year budget corrections and requests are further detailed in Attachment 2 (Resolution) and Attachment 3 (Budget Adjustment Account Detail). Furthermore, a full reconciliation of the FY 2026 Adopted Budget to the FY 2026 Amended Budget is shown in Attachment 4 (Adopted to Amended Budget Reconciliation). This attachment provides a summary of Council approved budgetary adjustments since July 1, 2025, as well as any encumbrance and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) carryovers from FY 2025 that are still expected to be expended.

General Fund Overview
Item 9.3
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 444 of 474

At the start of FY 2026, the General Fund was fully balanced due to $3.75 million of short-term corrective strategies implemented by the City in the FY 2026 Adopted Budget.

Such short-term corrective strategies included a temporary hiring freeze, limited to no use of temporary staffing, utilization of FEMA reimbursements for COVID-19 expenses, utilization of ARPA interest earnings, partial utilization of the City’s CalPERS Pension Reserve, liquidation of duplicative reserves, and other miscellaneous reductions across all City departments. While several emergency repairs to City facilities and greater than expected overtime, legal, and claims expenses detailed in Attachment 3 and Attachment 4 could cause the General Fund to become imbalanced in FY 2026, the City has also experienced elevated turnover and attrition greater than the 2% assumed vacancy factor built into the FY 2026 Adopted Budget to account for normal turnover and attrition. The Executive Team regularly reviews, prioritizes, and coordinates the filling of vacancies that are not frozen with the Human Resources Division, but not all unexpected vacancies can be filled immediately due to a number of steps required for the recruitment process.

Nevertheless, given these excess vacancy savings, staff recommends using $1,005,905 of the savings as shown in Attachment 3 to ensure that the General Fund remains fully balanced in FY 2026; with projected revenues matching projected expenditures as shown in Attachment 1. Please note that this does not account for any other unknown and unexpected budget adjustments that might be needed between now and the end of FY 2026. Further details on revenues, expenditures, and proposed adjustments will be provided in the following sections:
 Revenues – In summary, as of December 31, 2025, General Fund revenues equaled approximately $26.92 million; an increase of $792,200 or 3.03% when compared to the same time period last fiscal year, which showed approximately $26.13 million in year-to-date revenues. And when compared to budgetary estimates for FY 2026, revenues are at 38.39%. Last fiscal year at the same time period, General Fund revenues equaled 34.58% of year-end actual revenues. After extensive analysis, staff now expects year-end General Fund revenues for FY 2026 to equal approximately $70.18 million; an increase of $53,193 from the budgetary estimates for FY 2026.

The following will discuss key factors leading to the revision of year-end revenue estimates:
 Property Tax – FY 2026 Budget Estimate of $23,761,700 vs. Revised YearEnd Projection of $24,542,000 (increase of $780,300) – The City relies on property tax estimates from both a consultant as well as the Santa Clara County Office of the Assessor and Controller-Treasurer Department. The latter two County agencies provide quarterly projections and recently provided an update on February 12, 2026. While most property tax categories are tracking very close to initial budgetary estimates for FY 2026, the County expects the City to receive slightly more in Secured Property Tax than originally expected; demonstrating the relative overall strength in core property taxes despite the slowdown in the housing market due to high interest rates and a shortage in supply. Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) payments made to the City by the State through property taxes are also projected to be higher than originally expected.

Item 9.3
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 445 of 474

 Sales Tax – FY 2026 Budget Estimate of $16,071,437 vs. Revised YearEnd Projection of $15,756,028 (decrease of $315,409) – The City relies on sales tax estimates from a qualified consultant. Based on the fact that several of the City’s top sales tax producers have moved to other cities in the past few years and a general slowing in sales tax revenue statewide, the sales tax consultant significantly decreased revenue estimates for FY 2025 and beyond. It may be possible that recent departures can be offset by other sales tax generators in the future, but their departure leaves a significant hole in the City’s sales tax base for the immediate future. Staff will continue to monitor the situation and keep Council updated.

Implementation of the City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan should help in this area as well as Property Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), and Permits. Please also note that the Sales Tax numbers shown above do not include the City’s Sales Tax Add On (Measure K), which was approved by voters in November 2024 and went into effect April 1, 2025. The City was legally challenged on this matter by a taxpayer advocacy group and the funds remain untouched in an interest-bearing escrow account pending the final outcome of the legal process. Before interest earnings, Measure K funds equal $3.46 million through the mid-point of FY 2026 and $5.11 million since implementation on April 1, 2026. If the City receives a favorable and final non-appealable judgement on Measure K, accumulated and ongoing revenues will be added to the General Fund.
 Other Taxes – FY 2026 Budget Estimate of $7,050,100 vs. Revised YearEnd Projection of $6,850,200 (decrease of $204,900). This revenue category consists of Franchise Taxes, Construction Tax, Business License Tax, Real Property Tax Transfers, and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT).

Most of these categories are expected to meet budgetary estimates in FY 2026 except Cable Franchise Fees, Business License Tax, and Construction Tax; which are projected to miss budgetary estimates by $55,000, $49,900, and $100,000 respectively.
 Licenses and Permits - FY 2026 Budget Estimate of $6,813,075 vs.

Revised Year-End Projection of $6,824,086 (increase of $11,000). This category consists primarily of Community Development Construction Permit Fees and Plan Check Fees. Based on year-to-date activity as well as known and planned developments throughout the remainder of the fiscal year, staff expects a $100,000 decrease in Construction Permits, a $100,000 increase in Advanced Plan Check Fees, and slight increases in other related fees in FY 2026 compared to original budgetary estimates.  Intergovernmental Revenue - FY 2026 Budget Estimate of $1,489,210 vs.

Revised Year-End Projection of $1,378,100 (decrease of $111,000). This revenue category largely consists of smaller limited restriction federal, state, and county grants, state mandated cost reimbursements, contractual arson investigator payments from the Santa Clara County Fire Department. Yearend projections are expected to miss budgetary estimates primarily due to not having sufficient staffing to assign to the County of Santa Clara Regional Item 9.3
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 446 of 474

Auto Theft Task Force (RATTF) and not receiving subsequent and estimated reimbursement from RATTF.
 Charges for Service - FY 2026 Budget Estimate of $6,412,442 vs. Revised Year-End Projection of $5,937,277 (decrease of $475,165). This category consists of fee-based programs, camps, and classes in the Recreation and Community Services (RCS) Department as well as service fees in the Community Development, Public Works, and Police Departments. The downward revision to estimates is largely due to lower-than-expected participation in sports programs (offset by decreased staffing costs), lower than expected Zoning Fees, and lower than expected Public Works Project Overhead Charges (due to delay in Hamilton Avenue Resurfacing project).  Leases and Rentals - FY 2026 Budget Estimate of $3,087,143 vs. Revised Year-End Projection of $3,255,700 (increase of $168,557). This increase is due primarily to greater than expected leases and rentals at the Heritage Theater and the Campbell Community Center.
 Miscellaneous Revenue - FY 2026 Budget Estimate of $204,649 vs.

Revised Year-End Projection of $243,699 (increase of $39,050). This is a relatively small revenue category for the City consisting of Donations, InLieu fees, and other miscellaneous and sporadic revenue sources. The increase in FY 2026 estimates is due primarily to higher-than-expected donations and other miscellaneous items.
 Other Funding Sources (OFS) Committed / Assigned Reserves - FY 2026 Budget Estimate of $3,282,120 vs. Revised Year-End Projection of $3,442,880 (increase of $160,760). The increase is due to staff recommended utilization of the Community Center Reserve and Heritage Theater Reserve for various unexpected repairs at both locations over FY 2026.
 Expenditures - As of December 31, 2025, General Fund expenditures equaled approximately $32.31 million; an increase of $185,987 or 0.58% when compared to the same time period last fiscal year, which showed approximately $32.13 million in year-to-date expenditures. The minimal growth in year-to-date expenditures is primarily due to larger than expected vacancy savings to date as discussed previously.

As Attachment 1 shows, if staff proposed mid-year budget adjustments are approved by City Council, General Fund expenditures for FY 2026 will equal approximately $70.18 million; a decrease of $529,876 from FY 2026 budgetary appropriations amended since July 1, 2025. This decrease is again primarily due to proposed utilization of excess vacancy savings to date; offset by previously approved emergency repairs and slightly higher than expected General Fund revenue discussed previously. Mid-year cost adjustments are detailed further in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3. The expenditure summary above as well as Attachment 1 again reflects the inclusion of requested mid-year appropriations adjustments so that their full impact can be considered by Council:

Item 9.3
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 447 of 474

Economic Update (as of March 13, 2026)
National Economy - The U.S. economy showed moderating growth in late 2025 amid the October–November federal government shutdown, but remains resilient heading into Q1 2026. Real GDP grew at an annual rate of just 0.7% in Q4 2025 (second estimate released today, March 13, 2026), down sharply from 4.4% in Q3 and the advance estimate of 1.4%. Full-year 2025 GDP rose 2.2%, below 2024’s 2.8%. Consumer spending and private investment drove the modest Q4 gain, offset by weaker government spending and exports.

Inflation remains contained. The CPI rose 0.3% month-over-month in February 2026 and

2.4% year-over-year, unchanged from January.

The labor market softened unexpectedly: nonfarm payrolls fell 92,000 in February (versus expected gains), and the unemployment rate ticked up to 4.4% from 4.3%.

Consumer sentiment dipped to 55.5 (preliminary March University of Michigan index), down from February’s final 56.6, pressured by the U.S.–Iran conflict and higher gasoline prices. Despite this, consumer spending held firm—retail sales rose ~0.3% month-overmonth in February (per NRF data) and 6.2% year-over-year, marking the fifth straight monthly gain.

Manufacturing expanded modestly for the second straight month: the ISM Manufacturing PMI registered 52.4 in February (down slightly from 52.6). New orders and backlogs strengthened, though employment remained soft.

Housing showed early signs of improvement. Existing-home sales rose 1.7% month-overmonth in February to a 4.09 million annualized rate; the median price was $398,000 (+0.3% year-over-year).

Overall, national growth has slowed but consumer resilience and contained inflation provide a stable backdrop, with AI-driven investment supporting longer-term optimism.

California Economy - California’s economy outperformed the nation in recent quarters but faces higher unemployment and housing affordability challenges. Real GDP grew a robust 4.5% (annualized) in Q3 2025—led by the information sector—slightly above the national pace.

The statewide unemployment rate stood at 5.5% in December 2025 (latest detailed EDD data), down 0.1 percentage point month-over-month but well above the national figure.

Job losses occurred in construction and professional services, partially offset by gains in education/health and leisure/hospitality.

Item 9.3
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 448 of 474

Housing activity remains elevated but prices are softening modestly. The median existing single-family home price fell to $850,680 in December 2025 (–1.2% year-over-year), while sales volume edged up 2%. Building permits averaged 101,000 units year-to-date through October 2025 (+1.1% year-over-year).

California benefits from tech strength but remains sensitive to federal policy shifts and energy costs tied to geopolitical events.

Santa Clara County Economy - Santa Clara County (Silicon Valley) continues to outperform state and national averages, driven by technology. The unemployment rate was a low 4.0% in December 2025 (San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA), down from prior months and far below California’s 5.5% and the U.S. 4.4%.

Local employment has stabilized post-shutdown effects, with tech and professional services providing resilience. Housing demand remains strong in this high-income region, supporting Campbell’s local market. The county’s low unemployment and innovation focus position it well for continued moderate growth amid national moderation.

City of Campbell Economy - Campbell’s economy is closely tied to Santa Clara County’s tech ecosystem and remains stable with high asset values. Median home sale prices in February 2026 ranged from $1.701 million (Redfin, –12.8% year-over-year in one dataset) to $1.937 million average (Zillow, +1.7% year-over-year), reflecting a high-value but competitive market with homes selling in ~21 days (up from 13 days last year).

February saw 21 sales (+31% year-over-year).

Key Takeaways for Campbell - National and state growth has moderated due to temporary factors (shutdown, geopolitics), yet inflation is stable, consumer spending resilient, and Silicon Valley unemployment exceptionally low. Campbell benefits from strong local home values and tech adjacency but should monitor future General Fund pressures and prepare for potential federal policy impacts on energy prices and investment. Overall, the local outlook remains positive with cautious vigilance on spending and revenue diversification.

FISCAL IMPACT
If approved, staff proposed adjustments would result in an increase to General Fund budgeted revenues of $53,193 and a decrease to General Fund budgeted expenditures of $529,876; as shown in Attachments 1, 2, and 3. If approved, the General Fund will remain fully balanced in FY 2026.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Approve requested budget adjustments, but modify as desired.

2. Do not approve requested budget adjustments, but ask staff to return at a later date with modifications.

3. Provide staff with other direction.

Item 9.3
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 449 of 474

PREPARED BY: Will Fuentes, Finance Director
Item 9.3
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 450 of 474

Report Approval Details
Document Title: Fiscal Year 2026 Mid-Year Financial Update and Budget Adjustments.docx
Attachments: Attachment 1 - Mid-Year Fiscal Update (FY 2026) - General Fund Summary (v 01-26-26).pdf
Attachment 2 - FY 2026 Midyear Resolution.docx
Attachment 3 - Line-Item Detail for Mid-Year Adjustments (FY 2026).pdf
Attachment 4 - Reconciliation of FY 2026 Adopted Budget to FY 2026 Amended Budget.pdf
Final Approval
Date:

March 18, 2026
This document and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:

Will Fuentes, Finance Director
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Item 9.3
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 451 of 474
SUMMARY - Fiscal Year (FY) 2026
Q2 - Ending December 31, 2025GENERAL FUND
YTD Actuals Amd. Budget % of Budget Year-End Proj Proj vs Bud YTD Actuals Year-End % of YE YTD Growth ($) YTD Growth (%) REVENUES by Type
Property Tax 5,628,77 $ 23,761,70 0 $ 23.69% 24,542,00 0 $ 780,30 0 $ 0 + $ 22,948,18 5,446,183 $ 23.73% 182,58 4 $ 3.35% 7 Sales & Use Taxes 7,908,73 $ 16,071,43 9 $ 49.21% 15,756,02 7 $ (315,409) 8 $ - $ 18,013,88 5,285,353 $ 29.34% 2,623,38 2 $ 49.64% 5 Other Taxes 2,703,31 $ 7,055,10 2 $ 38.32% 6,850,20 0 $ (204,900) 0 $ - $ 7,204,97 2,676,632 $ 37.15% 26,68 4 $ 1.00% 0Licenses and Permits 3,226,84 $ 6,813,08 0 $ 47.36% 6,824,08 6 $ 11,00 6 $ 0 + $ 7,466,37 3,401,136 $ 45.55% (174,296) 2 $ -5.12% Fines/Forfeits/Penalties 34,833 $ 105,10 $ 33.14% 105,10 0 $ - 0 $ = 32,195 $ 72,32 $ 44.51% 2,638 6 $ 8.19% Investments Income 533,671 $ 1,163,90 $ 45.85% 1,163,90 0 $ - 0 $ = 359,96 $ 1,075,61 6 $ 33.47% 173,705 1 $ 48.26% Intergovernmental Revenue 362,942 $ 1,489,21 $ 24.37% 1,378,21 0 $ (111,000) 0 $ - $ 1,400,87 505,833 $ 36.11% (142,891) 0 $ -28.25% Charges for Service 2,678,69 $ 6,412,44 6 $ 41.77% 5,937,27 2 $ (475,165) 7 $ - $ 6,395,80 2,721,746 $ 42.56% (43,050) 9 $ -1.58% Leases & Rentals 1,773,07 $ 3,087,14 3 $ 57.43% 3,255,70 3 $ 168,55 0 $ 7 + $ 3,092,02 1,684,798 $ 54.49% 88,27 3 $ 5.24% 6 Miscellaneous Revenues 99,01 $ 204,649 6 $ 48.38% 243,699 $ 39,05 $ 0 + $ 272,08 201,580 $ 74.09% (102,565) 0 $ -50.88% Other Revenues 38,50 $ 103,00 8 $ 37.39% 103,00 0 $ - 0 $ = 51,235 $ 95,36 $ 53.73% (12,726) 0 $ -24.84% OFS - Operating Transfers In 290,57 $ 581,14 4 $ 50.00% 581,14 8 $ - 8 $ = 3,302,47 $ 6,604,95 7 $ 50.00% (3,011,902) 3 $ -91.20% OFS - Committed / Assigned Reserves 1,641,06 $ 3,282,12 0 $ 50.00% 3,442,88 0 $ 160,76 0 $ 0 + $ 917,499 458,750 $ 50.00% 1,182,31 $ 257.72% 1 TOTAL REVENUES 26,920,03 $ 70,130,03 5 $ 38.39% 70,183,22 6 $ 53,193 9 $ + $ 75,559,94 26,127,884 $ 34.58% 792,151 5 $ 3.03%

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE
EXPENDITURES by Type
Salaries 10,915,01 $ 24,136,86 4 $ 45.22% 22,997,83 7 $ (1,139,031) 6 $ + $ 22,792,07 10,923,178 $ 47.93% (8,164) 3 $ -0.07% Benefits 6,724,07 $ 14,426,46 2 $ 46.61% 14,426,46 9 $ - 9 $ = 6,714,81 $ 14,407,23 6 $ 46.61% 9,256 7 $ 0.14%Supplies & Services 12,432,96 $ 26,468,90 2 $ 46.97% 27,017,56 9 $ 548,653 2 $ - $ 25,004,82 12,506,048 $ 50.01% (73,086) 7 $ -0.58%Rents & Leases 846,72 $ 1,672,83 6 $ 50.62% 1,672,83 7 $ - 7 $ = 756,615 $ 1,693,45 $ 44.68% 90,112 3 $ 11.91% Other Charges 169,49 $ 412,70 6 $ 41.07% 412,70 0 $ - 0 $ = 72,921 $ 481,81 $ 15.13% 96,575 7 $ 132.44% Capital Outlay 4,531 $ 62,723 $ 7.22% 62,723 $ - $ = 64,787 $ 90,382 $ 71.68% (60,256) $ -93.01% Operating Transfers Out 1,218,70 $ 2,437,40 0 $ 50.00% 2,497,90 0 $ 60,502 2 $ - $ 2,588,74 1,087,150 $ 42.00% 131,55 3 $ 12.10% 0 Capital Transfers Out - $ 1,095,20 $ 0.00% 1,095,20 0 $ - 0 $ = - $ 2,164,57 $ 0.00% - 2 $ N/A TOTAL EXPENDITURES 32,311,50 $ 70,713,10 2 $ 45.69% 70,183,22 5 $ (529,876) 9 $ + $ 69,223,10 32,125,514 $ 46.41% 185,98 3 $ 0.58% 7

Campbell City CouncilMarch 24, 2026

Campbell City Council
March 24, 2026