Written Communications (Updated 6/5/24) — Cupertino City Council, June 4, 2024

CC 6-04-2024
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
Cupertino Copertino Sister Cities Association Student Exchange Program 2024 To the Cupertino City Council: Honorable Mayor Shiela Mohan Honorable Vice Mayor JR Fruen Councilmember Liang Chao Councilmember Kitty Moore Councilmember Hung Wei The purpose of our sister city relationship with Copertino, Italy is to promote friendship and mutual understanding between our two cultures by sending/hosting adult delegations every four to ﬁve years and by carrying out a student exchange on an annual basis. Brief history of our program: • Oldest sister city relationship – MOU signed in 1963 by our respective mayors • 1960’s - various informal visits from Cupertino to Copertino • Dormant until 2013 when the relationship was re-established by Cupertino Mayor Gilbert Wong and Copertino Councilmember Mauro Valentino • 2013 - adult delegation from Copertino led by Councilmember Mauro Valentino travels to Cupertino • 2015 - adult delegation from Cupertino led by Mayor Gilbert Wong travels to Copertino • 2016 - The Cupertino Copertino Sister Cities Association is incorporated as a non-proﬁt • 2016 – ﬁrst student delegation from Cupertino travels to Copertino • 2017 - ﬁrst student delegation from Copertino travels to Cupertino • 2018 -19 - reciprocal student exchange between both cities each year • 2019 – adult delegation from Cupertino led by Mayor Steven Scharf travels to Copertino • 2020 – fourth student delegation cancelled due to pandemic • 2024 – fourth reciprocal student exchange between both cities Copertino is in the Puglia region of Italy, in the heel of the boot, nestled between the Adriatic and Ionian Seas. It is primarily an agricultural area known for its olive trees and vineyards with an ancient history and a strong cultural heritage. There is a unique bond between the two cities as we are named after their patron saint, St. Joseph of Cupertino. This year we sent six students and one chaperone, Dawn McLeod, from St. Joseph of Cupertino School to Copertino, Italy. Prior to the trip the students attended two orientation meetings and one Italian cultural class. The orientation meetings cover various aspects of the exchange – travel, responsibilities, behavior, itinerary, etc. Our committee facilitates these meetings and creates itineraries in both countries. We do this in coordination with both schools and the host families. Our primary liaison in Copertino is St. Joseph of Copertino School Vice Principal Lorena Luperto. The students and host families start communication with each other before the trip. We create a private Facebook page to share the exchange with our committee, the families, and other interested parties. Council may contact Helene Davis at [email protected] to gain access to the page. Our students traveled to Copertino and spent a couple days afterwards in Rome before heading home to Cupertino.

April 1 – Airport welcome April 2 – Day trip to the Adriatic Coast April 3 and 4 – spending time at San Giuseppe da Copertino School Italian Class
Dance Class Baking Class
The Cupertino Copertino Sister Cities Association thanks the City for its support of our program and especially for hosting the Italian delegation at City Hall.

April 3 - Visit to Lecce – the “Florence of the South”
Farewell Party New (now best) friends
Rome
Cupertino-HsinchuSister CityAssociationStudent ExchangeProgram2024 TotheCupertinoCityCouncil:

HonorableMayor SheilaMohanHonorableViceMayor J.R. FruenCouncilmember LiangChaoCouncilmember KittyMooreCouncilmember HungWei TheCupertino-HsinchuSister CityAssociation, CHSCA, ispleasedtopresent totheCupertinoCityCouncil our Student ExchangeProgramApril 2024Report.Our student exchangeprogramstartedin2004whenwewelcomedthefirst studentdelegationfromour Sister City- Hsinchu, Taiwan. Thisyear markedthe20thAnniversaryof ourExchangeProgram. Our delegationof 25studentsfromtheCupertinoUnionSchool District(CUSD) andFremont UnionHighSchool District (FUHSD) traveledtoHsinchufor aoneweekexchangefromApril 12thtoApril 21, 2024. TheCHSCAStudent ExchangeProgramprovides7th-12thgradersfromour cityand2school districtstheopportunitytostaywithahost familyinHsinchu, attendlocal schoolstoexperiencetheeducationsysteminTaiwan, learnabout thehistoryof HsinchuandTaiwan, andmost importantlyestablishpeople-to-peopleconnectionsbetweenthetwocitiesandlifelongfriendshipsbetweenour studentsandhost families.HsinchuisknownastheSiliconValleyof Taiwanwithover 300techcompanieslocatedintheHsinchuScienceandTechnologyPark, andpart of thisexchangeistoprovidestudentsanopportunitytoseehowconnectedour twocitiesare. Our report will highlight themajoractivitiesof our tripbasedonjournalsprovidedtoour 2024CHSCAStudent DelegationWebsitebythestudents. Thiswebsiteincludesstudent journalswhereeachstudent wasaskedtochroniclethetimeandreflect ontheactivitiesparticipatedinHsinchandaphotogallery. Councilmembersmaycontact our grouptogainaccesstothewebsite.Thisyear’sdelegationconsistedof 25students, 8fromFUSHDand17fromCUSD, and2teacher Chaperones, Ms. TanyaKamaufromMiller, andMs. GraceLinfromMuir Elementary,aswell asour CHSCAmembers: President AngelaChen, VicePresident JaniceSung, VicePresident Chia-ChingLin, andStudent ActivitiesCoordinator AngeloNoguera.Prior toour tripinApril, our studentsparticipatedin6cultural trainingsessionstolearnabout Taiwaneseculture, preparedseveral skitsanddancestohighlight student lifehereinCupertino, andconnectedvirtuallywiththeir host familiesbeforearrivinginTaiwan. Ourmeetingswerefacilitatedbymembersof our groupwhoworkedwithcityandeducationofficialsinCupertinoandHsinchu, andactedasprimarycontactsfor all familymembers. Thesemeetingshelpensureour studentsarepreparedfor their timeinHsinchuastheyattendschoolsandspendtimewiththeir host families.

Official DelegationVisit toHsinchuCityHall andMeetingwithMayor GaoonApril 15, 2024 Thoughour student exchangewasonlyaweeklong, thankstotheHsinchuCityEducationOfficialsandour host school for thisyear, HulinJunior HighSchool andPrincipalHsieh, studentswereabletoexperiencevariousaspectsof student lifeinHsinchu. Theweekconsistedof our official delegationmeetingwithHsinchuCityHall Officials, adaytriptoTaipeianditssurroundingareas, 3daysof school withtheir host student, andtimetoexploreHsinchuwiththeir host families. Throughout our entiretrip, our studentswereabletoengagewithvariousmembersof theHsinchucommunitywhoalsohelpedmakesureour studentsenjoyedtheir activitypackedweekinHsinchu.

WelcomeCelebrationat HulinJunior HighSchool onApril 14th, 2024 Amajor component of our programishavingstudentsexperienceschool lifeinHsinchu.Throughout theweekour wholestudent delegationwasabletovisit several schoolsintheareatoexperienceuniqueclassesandelectivesHsinchu junior andhighschoolshavetooffer whilejoiningtheir host studentsinclass. Our studentsfirst spent themorningwiththeir host studentsinschool andthenintheafternoonstraveledtoanother school toexperienceclassesasagroup. Duringour first school visit toFuli Junior HighSchool onMonday, April 17thour wholedelegationparticipatedinclassesonglassblowingandarchery. WeareveryfortunatetohavecreatedastrongrelationshipwithFuli over theyearstohelpprovideour studentswiththisuniqueopportunityof workingwithstudentsat theschool tocreateglasscharmsanddecorationsinoneof theonlyglassblowingclassesinHsinchufor middleschool studentswhilelearningarcheryfromateamcoachedbyanOlympicMedalist.

Student Delegationvisit toFuli Junior HighSchool onApril 15th, 2024 Thenext school our studentsvisitedasadelegationwasChienHuaJunior HighonTuesday, April 16th, wherestudentsparticipatedinseveral of theschool’sart classesincludingcreatingpreservedflowers, Chinesecalligraphy, andwatercolor. Manyof theschoolsarewellknownfor uniqueandspecial programs, suchasChienHuafor their art program, soschool staffcreatespecial schedulestogiveour studentsopportunitiestoexperiencethesecoursesfirsthand. Fromeachof theseclasses, studentswereabletobringhometheir creationsasaspecialsouvenir fromtheir timethere..

Student Delegationvisit toChienHuaJunior HighSchool onApril 16th

Our final school visit wastoYuHsienJunior HighSchool onApril 18thwhereweweregreetedbytheschool’sdanceteam. Thedanceteamnot onlyperformedatraditional dancebutalsotaught theroutinetoour studentswhothenjoinedthedanceteamtoperform! After theperformance, studentsjoinedtheschool'spercussionensembletolearnandplayaTaiwaneseClassicSong“BangChhun-hong” (Longingfor theSpringBreeze) andendedtheir daywithlearningtothrowafrisbeefromamember of thenational UltimateFrisbeeteam.

Student Delegationvisit toYuHsienJunior HighSchool onApril 18th

Inall of theseschool activitiesour Cupertinostudentsinteractedandlearnedwithlocalstudentswhichprovidedour studentsfirst handexperienceof school lifeinHsinchu. Ourstudentssharehowonthefirst daymanylocal studentsgreetedthemwhenarrivingoncampus,sharingsocial mediaprofiles, andhelpingour studentsnavigatetheschool. Eventhoughourstudents' timewasshort intheir host schools, manyof our studentsexpresshowtheyalwaysfelt welcomedbyall membersof theschool communityandwearethankful toall our hostschoolswhomadeour studentsfeel liketruemembersof theschool community.Aswell asattendingclassat their host school, our studentshaveachancetoimmersethemselvesinTaiwanandHsinchu’sculturethroughlivingandexploringTaiwanwiththeir hostfamilyfor theweek. OnWednesday, April 17th, alongwithour host studentsandstaff fromHulin, our wholedelegationtookadaytriptoTaipei tovisit DihuaOldStreet, theChiangKaiShekMemorial, TheNational PalaceMuseum, andviewthecityfromthetopof Taipei 101.Seeingour studentslaugh, eat local foods, andbondover commoninterestswiththeir hoststudentsastheyexplorethenewandoldof Taipei highlightsthemajor goal of our programincreatinglifelongfriendshipsthroughtravel together.

Student Delegationvisit toTaipei withhost StudentsonApril 17th Whiletheadult delegationparticipatedinmanyof our student activities, our CHSCAmembersalsovisitedmanyof theschoolsinthearea, includingreconnectingwithmanypasthost schools, principals, andstaff whohavehostedour studentsinthepast andvisitedCupertino. Our teacher chaperonesalsohadthe opportunitytoobserve, share, andlearnabouttheeducational systeminTaiwan. ThisincludedvisitingSpecial DayClassesat YuHsienJuniorHighSchool andobservingaPElessonat theNational Experimental School at HsinchuSciencePark, NEHS.NEHSalsohoststheInternational Bilingual School at HsinchuScienceParkandincollaborationwiththeHsinchuScienceParkoffersamixof WesternandTaiwaneseeducationsystemstosupport thescienceparkandfamilieswhoworkat thecompaniesheadquarteredinHsinchu. CHSCAstartedour student exchangewiththeschool over 7yearsagoandour visitthisyear wasspecial sinceGraceLin, oneof our teacher chaperones, wasreturningtoIBHSwhereshewasateacher for over 9yearsandwhowemet duringour first exchangewiththeschool. It ismomentsandrelationshipslikethisthat wehavegrownover theyearsthat helpkeepour programgoingandwehopethat our studentsareabletodothesameinthefuture.Weremindour studentsat theendof eachexchangetokeeptheserelationshipsaliveastheynever knowwhereit will taketheminthefuture. Wehopethebondsstudentscreateheredevelopintolifelongrelationshipslikewehavewithmanyof our friendsinHsinchu.Our FridayFarewell Dinner isour final opportunitytocelebrateasawholedelegationwithour host families, school leaders, andmembersof theHsinchuCityGovernment. Comedyskits, songperformances, andlinedancingwasour students' waytoshareour culturehereinCupertinoandtoexpressour thankstoour hostsfor all theyhavedonefor usthisweek. It wasduringthisdinner that weexchangedgiftsandrecognizedeachof thehost familymembersfor

welcomingour studentswithopenarmsandtakingtheminastheir own. Wearealsoverygrateful for Mayor Gao’sspecial gift of facemaskstoeachmember of our delegationinconnectiontothestudent’sQandAsessionduringour visit toHsinchuCityHall. It isactslikethisandspecial momentsbetweenstudents, families, school andgovernment leadersthat asanorganizationweareextremelygrateful for andmakeall theworkall membersput insoworthitintheend.

Farewell andRecognitionPartyonApril 19th, 2024
Thoughour student exchangelastsjust alittleover aweek, our studentswereabletoexperiencesomuchthankstothehelpfromour hostsinHsinchu. Manyof our studentswill bewelcomingtheir host studentsinOctober 2024andwelookforwardtoworkingwithmanyof theschool andgovernment officeswhosupportedusinour trip. Our goal istodevelopandestablishlifelongfriendshipsandpartnershipsbetweenour twocitiesandmuchof that comesfromtheexperiencesour studentsareabletohaveasmembersof theCHSCAExchangeProgram. Inorder toaccomplishour mission, weareextremelythankful toall thevolunteers,school leadersandteachers, andfamiliesbothhereinCupertinoandHsinchu. Wewouldalsoliketoextendour appreciationandgratitudefor thesupport fromtheCityof Cupertinoandourtwoschool districts, CUSDandFUHSD, inensuringapositiveandhealthyprogramforstudents. Welookforwardtocontinuingtoshareour students' experiencesinyearstocome.

Sincerely,Cupertino-HsinchuSister CityAssociation

From: Santosh Rao
To: Kirsten Squarcia; City Council
Cc: Pamela Wu; Sheila Mohan; City Clerk; Bill Mitchell
Subject: Enabling hybrid meetings for commission meetings.

Date: Friday, May 31, 2024 10:51:38 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Council, Mayor Mohan and Manager Wu,
Cc: City Clerk
I look forward to staff and council considering input on the hybrid remote comment enablement for commission meetings. At a minimum please enable hybrid meetings for parks and rec, audit committee and public safety commission. Public must be able to offer remote public comment.

A webcast is not the same as a hybrid meeting. A webcast does not permit resident engagement via public comments. Hybrid meetings affirm your commitment to community engagement.

Parks and rec used to accept remote public comment but no longer does. I urge you to resume hybrid meetings at the earliest for at least parks and rec and also audit committee, public safety commission.

Thank you.

Thanks,
Santosh Rao
Italy Trip Highlights
By: Ruhi Aggarwal and Jocelyn Leanos
Places in Copertino

School

Places in Rome

The Vatican

What We Are Thankful For

From: Swim5am (Connie Cunningham)
To: City Clerk
Subject: 2024-6-04 Photo 2 , Oral Communications Connie Cunningham (Google) Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 2:57:22 PM
Attachments: Screenshot 2024-05-17 at 5.03.07 PM.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Connie Cunningham
To: City Clerk
Subject: 2024-6-04 Photo 1 , Oral Communications Connie Cunningham (Planning) Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 2:57:12 PM
Attachments: 2024-06-04 PR-2024-017 better.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Jean Bedord
To: City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk; Bill Mitchell; Teri Gerhardt, CGCIO Subject: Hybrid Meeting Update Informational Memo, May 30, 2024 Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 3:38:28 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable Sheila Mohan, Vice-Mayor J.R. Fruen, and Councilmembers Liang Chao, Kitty Moore and Hung Wei, city manager and staff
I'd like to commend city staff for their implementation of live streaming and archiving of commission meetings. Post Zoom meetings with commissioners meeting in-person has been challenging for communication with the public. The livestream and archiving is cost-effective, requiring the most reasonable amount of staff time commitment.

My experience as commissioner was that only a small handful of residents appear live for commission meetings, either in-person or on Zoom. There were fewer than 10 in the 8 years I served on the library commission. Those of us who speak frequently know that in-person is always more effective, and emails are another option. The real value is the livestreaming and the archiving of meetings, since the minutes do not reflect what actually happens in meetings.

Many of us have conflicts with other community meetings so can't attend synchronously either in person or Zoom., I would still like to have DRAFT minutes posted within 2-3 days of meetings because it can be difficult to hear the actual votes.

I have some suggestions for improving the recordings:
* Can closed captions be turned on? This feature is important for older adults and the hearing impaired. YouTube has this invaluable feature, but I didn't see the option on the city website. * It would be helpful to have the chair recognize individual commissioners by name when they speak - it can be hard to distinguish voices with the fixed microphone. * Commissioners should be encouraged to articulate clearly, with fast speakers slowing down and soft-spoken speakers speaking more loudly. I could not understand some of the commissioners. Closed captioning might pick up the voices sufficiently. * Please post all presentation materials on the website.

I encourage commissioners and staff to review the recordings to improve the recordings. I have been frustrated by the lack of recording of commission meetings and welcome this response to improve public participation..

Thank you for your responsiveness to the community.

Warm regards,
Jean Bedord
1 2024-6-4 CC Oral Communications
SB330 PR-2024-017.

Good evening Mayor Mohan, Vice Mayor Fruen and
Councilmembers
I implore the City to make written findings to
disapprove SB330 pre-application PR-2024-017 (0
Linda Vista), and any other proposal that uses the law
to encroach into the hillsides.

Once people have encroached into an area, it is almost
impossible to reverse course.

It will reduce the amount of open space near our city,
reducing space for wildlife to live, breed and
thrive. People continue to encroach into wildlife
areas—Cupertino has other, better, options for
housing.

We know that because the State mandated building
4588 plus a buffer into our new Housing Element.

Cupertino’s new HE was carefully written to provide
infill housing to make room for more people. Infill
2 SB330 projects in are very good ideas. These on the
hillsides are not.

The HE did not put any housing sites on residential
hillsides. Note 1 on Page B5-1 says that “Residential
Hillside Classification is intended to protect
environmentally sensitive areas from extensive
development and to protect human life from hazards
associated with floods, fires, and unstable terrain.”
Further, the Wildland Urban Interface map shown in
Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code shows that the
hillsides are High Fire Risk.

I urge the city to make written findings that these
proposed developments are inconsistent with SB330
sections d4 and d5. (found on page 7 and 8 of 27
pages.)
as to one of the following:

First, (d)(4). The location is surrounded by several
preserves:
*McClellan Ranch Preserve (north)
*Steven Creek County Park (reservoir) (east)
3 *Picchetti Ranch Open Space Preserve (southeast)
*Fremont Older Open Space Preserve (south)
*Stevens Creek is a riparian habitat for endangered
species. Stevens Creek flows north from the hills to
the bay, from above the reservoir, through Stevens
Creek County Park and along the McClellan Ranch
Preserve.

Secondly, (d)(4) this property is unlikely to
have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve
the project. This area is zoned for only a few
homes. This new project will have 30 single-family
units and a community sports center. I have heard
that there is another project like this one that would
encroach on the hillsides with about the same number
of homes. 60 homes.

*Thirdly, (d)(5) T he housing development project … is
inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning
ordinance and general plan land use designation as
specified in any element of the general plan as it
existed on the date the application was deemed
complete, Therefore, this third paragraph (d )(5) will
apply when the Council approves re-zoning (in process
now).
4 Cupertino has carefully written its Housing Element
within the law. Below Market Rate projects are
intended to be near work, school, and other amenities.

Cupertino leaders and residents have made it clear
that they value nature and open space.

General Plan, and Land Use Plan, CAP 2.0, the
Sustainability Commission, the Bird Safe and Dark
Skies Ordinance all show that intent.

There is no reason for this project to proceed.

I appreciate this time to speak.

I urge the city to write findings to reject any
application resulting from pre-application PR-2024-017.

From: Peggy Griffin
To: Kirsten Squarcia
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 6-4-2024 Oral Comm - Peggy"s Slide
Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 7:13:02 PM
Attachments: Oral Comm-Peggy Griffin.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Kirsten,

If possible, please show this PDF when I speak during Oral Communications.

Thank you,
Peggy Griffin
From: Susan Bassi
To: City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: Fwd: Objection to Funding WomenSV and founder Ruth Patrick Darlene Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 5:00:16 PM
Attachments: image.png
069612dc-710e-46e8-998a-97be427d6dbb.png
CC3 .png
cc4.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good Afternoon,
First , we would like to thank the city, Ms. Kirsten Squarcia, the city attorney and city manager, for the assistance provided today with our request to access and inspect records related to the nonprofit WomenSV. Ms. Squarcia was professional, friendly and fully understood the law with respect to public records access and inspection laws. She was well trained and made our job as journalists easier so we could meet our deadlines.

Ms. Squarcia offered a refreshing change from our experience in Los Altos.

Below please see an email I sent to the Los Altos city council in advance of a public meeting as it relates to our reporting on WomenSV.

Whistleblowers at the Los Altos City Hall have pointed us to funding for WomenSV from 2017 to 2024 that amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars and includes $100,000 buried in the police budget what allegedly was never approved by the city council. The city has refused to comply with public records access laws and public officials openly called our reporting " defamatory " and a ' smear campaign ".

Our reporting is top notch and we stand behind it. It was supported with public records, court documents and over 80 sources duped to donate or harmed by the charity. One such donor is an affluent property owner in Cupertino.

Therefore we will continue our reporting on the nonprofit and will additionally be looking at a misuse of public funds with focus on the Los Altos city government and elected officials.

Our sources are survivors and private donors who do not want to publicly come forward, but have asked me to encourage Cupertino officials to investigate the funding it provided to WomenSV in 2022 in the amount of $21,000.

Other than our reporting, if you should require information contained in our source documents, we would be happy to provide it.

Respectfully,
Susan Bassi
Publisher, Investigative Journalist
Public Records & Local News Advocate
P.O. Box 2220
Los Gatos, CA 95031
LinkedIn: Susan Bassi | LinkedIn
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Susan Bassi <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, May 28, 2024 at 1:30 PM
Subject: Objection to Funding WomenSV and founder Ruth Patrick Darlene To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Dear City Council Members,
By way of introduction, I am a 35 year Santa Clara resident and former local magazine publisher and investigative journalist who reports locally on police, the courts and domestic violence in Silicon Valley.

In 2017 I was introduced to Ruth Patrick Darlene and the nonprofit WomenSV by individuals who had donated to and supported the organization. In my work as an investigative reporter, I referred donors and sources to the nonprofit based on the community support and funding that appeared to legitimize the nonprofit's activities.

In 2018 I referred Ms. Patrick to my associates at NBC and the San Jose Mercury, which brought Ms.

Patrick media attention she desperately craved, despite an abundance of publicity she had been afforded through the Los Altos Town Crier. At the time, I was unaware the Crier's publishers sat on the WomenSV nonprofit board, raised funds through their publication and also prepared the nonprofit's tax returns.

Ms. Patrick referred women to me, knowing our team was reporting on high asset divorce and domestic violence cases in the area.

In 2020 our team began to get complaints from the women referred to the group. We were provided recordings from group meetings where the women " clients " were brought to WomenSV, not for a meeting to assist them move through allegations of domestic violence and related divorce, but to hear presentations from private divorce lawyers and the Santa Clara County District Attorney, Jeff Rosen.

We heard recordings of meetings where Ms. Patrick referred and recommended private divorce attorneys and told " clients " to vote for DA Rosen as he "supported " those associated with WomenSV. We are aware that Mr. Rosen and countless divorce lawyers who benefited from WomenSV referrals attended their fundraisers at the Los Altos Country Club.

In 2021 our team began actively investigating Ms. Partick and WomenSV in connection with a divorce attorney and real estate referral scheme. Ultimately we found 80 donors and former clients who came forward to report an appearance that the nonprofit acted as a predatory business that largely benefited divorce lawyers, local real estate agents and the publishers of the Los Altos Crier.

Ruth Patrick is not a therapist, or an attorney. She did not offer services vulnerable women needed.

Further, she openly discriminated against women of color and men who are often victims of domestic violence.

Ms. Patrick Darlene sold her home in Los Altos shortly after our reporting. The real estate agent who assisted in that sale, Patricia Horwath, was appointed to the WomenSV board and continues to seek public funding and private donations for this group in a manner that is deeply troubling.

Links to our reporting are here:

February 2023 : https://www.davisvanguard.org/2023/02/tainted-trials-tarnished-headlines-stolen- justice-part-three-ex-wives-of-silicon-valley/
March 2023 : Silicon Valley Nonprofit Victim Shames over 50 Former Clients in Online Post | Davis Vanguard
December 2023: Nonprofit Founder Poised to Flee as Ex Wives Demand Fair Trials and Return of Funds Taken from Duped Donors | Davis Vanguard
January 2024: Silicon Valley Ex-Wives and Duped Donors Silenced as Judge Orders Lawsuit into Arbitration | Davis Vanguard
We stand by our reporting and hope to give a voice to the 80 plus victims and duped donors we have interviewed. As a local resident, journalist and business operator, it is my hope that the city council will deny the 2024 WomenSV funding application and launch an investigation into how funds previously donated were used.

Respectfully Submitted,
Susan Bassi
Publisher, Investigative Journalist
Public Records & Local News Advocate
P.O. Box 2220
Los Gatos, CA 95031
LinkedIn: Susan Bassi | LinkedIn
CC 06-04-2024
#2
Proclamation for June to
be LGBTQ Pride Month
Written Communications
From: Connie Cunningham
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: 2024-06-04 CC Agenda Item 2 Proclamation LGBTQ+ Pride Month! Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 1:07:18 PM
Attachments: 256px-Social_Justice_Pride_Flag.svg.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
2024-06-04 CC Agenda Item 2 Proclamation
LGBTQ+ Pride Month!
Dear Mayor Mohan, Vice Mayor Fruen, and Councilmembers, Thank you for issuing this Proclamation of Cupertino’s support for our LGBTQ+ community.

It is a beautiful statement for our City’s commitment to being an inclusive, welcoming community. It is a great time to restate our appreciation for Vice Mayor Fruen as an outstanding leader!
Love is Love!
Connie (she/her) Cunningham

CC 06-04-2024
#7
Law Enforcement Contract
Extension with the County of
Santa Clara Sheriff's Office
Written Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Cupertino City Council 6/4/2024 Sheriff Contract Agenda #7 Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 11:24:02 AM
Attachments: A - Donation Agreement.pdf
C - Amended FY19 Exhibit A Proposed Costs (redlined).pdf FY 2023-24 Cupertino Proposed Budget Law Enforcement.pdf SARATOGA Attachment_A___Santa_Clara_County_Sheriff_Office_FY_202122_Proposed_Costs.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,

I would like to remind you that Assistant City Manager Matt Morley said that the Sheriff contract with respect to the Apple agreement would be amended in a council meeting held in Community Hall.

Now that the contract is getting renewed, please fix the contract to resolve the Apple issue.

Background: As you may know, Apple has an unusual agreement with Cupertino / County Sheriff.

It is similar to the controversial agreement that the City of Menlo Park has Facebook. https://www.vice.com/en/article/d3akm7/how-facebook-bought-a-police-force .)
The Apple/Cupertino agreement was mentioned in the news as part of the concealed-gun- permit case as
highlighted below.

In 2018, Apple “donated” about $560K to Cupertino to spend on enhanced sheriff services (first attachment).

Cupertino amended its contract with the sheriff to increase sheriff services (second attachment).

This amount is now at over $1M and shows up in the budget as miscellaneous income (third attachment).

The question of fairness: For years, we have been underspending on our Sheriff hours. Is this because the Sheriff’s department is unable to allocate enough hours? If this is the case, is it fair to the community for Apple to carve out its own hours?

The Foothill Patrol Car: I have heard that the Foothill patrol car is no longer happening. I haven’t seen a car up there in years. Please make sure that our allocations make sense.

Separately, Are businesses paying their fair share? When comparing Cupertino to other Cities, it seems that Cupertino has a lot more Sheriff per capita. And that makes me wonder whether businesses are paying their fair share of the Sheriff cost or are the residents shouldering most of the burden. See the third and fourth attachments have some interesting statistics in comparing the expenditures for sheriff in the 3 cities that contract with Santa Clara County. Cupertino spends 1.9X more on patrol than Saratoga - - - but 3X more on investigative hours, why? (see page 17, the 18
th page of the 4th attachment). Similarly,
Cupertino spends 5.8X more on patrol than Los Altos Hills - - - but 12X more on investigative hours, why? Why does Cupertino need so many investigative hours?

I get why we’re doing some updates with the County portion but I think we need to do some more work on the rest of the contract.

Thank You,
Rhoda Fry
40-year Cupertino resident and recipient of 2022 City of Cupertino Public Safety award Gun bribery probe: Santa Clara County Sheriff acted to obscure use of donor’s Sharks suite, according to testimony
Robert Salonga
PUBLISHED: January 12, 2021 at 3:34 p.m. | UPDATED: January 13, 2021 at 4:02 p.m.

Categories:California News, California Politics, City Politics, Crime and Public Safety, Latest Headlines, Local News, Local Politics, News, Politics
Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith bought nose-bleed seats to avoid disclosing her use of a donor’s luxury box at a San Jose Sharks game two years ago, an event scrutinized in a bribery indictment against her second-in-command
, according to newly released grand-jury
transcripts.

Management analyst Lara McCabe testified Nov. 16 that Smith had her buy the cheap tickets specifically to skirt gift-reporting obligations for the penthouse suite that hosted her re-election celebration in February 2019.

The testimony was contained in a 1,300-page transcript of criminal grand jury hearings that would lead to charges alleging favor-trading for coveted concealed-gun permits involving Undersheriff Rick Sung, a top Apple security executive
, a prominent supporter, and a sheriff’s
captain who doubled as a close adviser.

Other testimony reaffirmed suspicion of a fast-and-loose policy for issuing concealed-carry weapons licenses by her office, in which political allegiance was paramount, with Sung serving as a loyal enforcer who leveraged the licenses to secure that support.

On Monday, Sung, Apple’s global security director Thomas Moyer, businessman Harpreet Chadha, and sheriff’s Capt. James Jensen were arraigned remotely by Judge Eric Geffon, and pleaded not guilty to bribery charges first announced in November. Geffon denied a defense motion to seal the transcripts of the grand jury proceedings.

According to the indictment, Sung and Jensen are accused of extracting a donation of 200 iPads from Moyer to hasten the release of concealed gun permits for four executive security agents protecting Apple CEO Tim Cook. Sung is separately charged with holding up a gun license for Chadha so he would donate his wife’s company’s suite.

Even though the sheriff was a listed guest in the suite, McCabe says Smith handed her a credit card to purchase three of the cheapest seats for the Feb. 14, 2019 game for Smith, Sung and Jensen costing $147. None of the tickets were used, and McCabe testified Smith asked for this expressly as a way to circumvent California Fair Political Practices Commission reporting requirements for gifts valued over $50. One seat in the luxury suite was valued at more than seven times that amount.

When asked by Deputy District Attorney Matt Braker to affirm that contention, she said, “I believe, yes this was a way to get around reporting a gift,” and “The sheriff wanted to avoid putting this on her Form 700.”
Braker followed up: “She said that to you?”
McCabe answered, “Yes.”
The statement stands as the most direct claim of wrongdoing against the sheriff in a case that has mostly tainted her by virtue of her position leading the agency.

Deputy District Attorney John Chase, head of his office’s public integrity unit, and Braker shepherded the two-week grand jury session. Unlike an earlier related indictment, which characterized Jensen as the linchpin in a narrative where nearly $90,000 in political donations were discussed in a direct trade for the gun permits, the latest charges portray Sung as the engine, with Jensen on the periphery.
“Make no mistake about it,” Braker said in his closing statements to jurors. “It is Rick Sung who is the driving force in both instances.”
The prosecutors presented a more circumstantial case than in the first indictment last August — in which a co-conspirator who cooperated with authorities literally recorded the words “quid pro quo” being said — and keyed in on testimony from sheriff staff and high- level employees for Apple and Chadha depicting Sung making the “unusual” move of holding up their CCW permits. The prosecutors also drew jurors’ attention to how the licenses became quickly available after the iPad donation promise and Chadha’s donation of his $365-a-head Sharks suite.

Smith has not been charged with any crimes. In the first grand-jury hearings, Smith and Sung invoked their Fifth Amendment rights
against self-incrimination in refusing to testify.

The personal attorneys for Smith and Sung could not be reached Tuesday.

The Apple allegations
Tuesday, a statement released on behalf of Moyer attorney Ed Swanson said, “There is no evidence to be found in these transcripts – or anywhere else – that Tom Moyer committed a crime … Tom Moyer is innocent, and he never should have been dragged into this case.” Swanson also restated his November contention that his client is collateral damage in a rivalry between Sheriff Smith and District Attorney Jeff Rosen. An appellate motion by defense attorneys in the first indictment, to disqualify Rosen’s office , continues to progress, with the
Sixth District Court of Appeal scheduling oral arguments for later this month.

Still, the transcripts depict some internal conflict at Apple centered on Moyer’s authorization to donate 200 iPads, valued at upward of $80,000, with the described aim of helping the sheriff’s office with training.

In 2017, Moyer, Eric Mueller, senior director of security operations at Apple, and James Neidig, executive protection director, began looking into obtaining CCW licenses for its team that protects CEO Tim Cook, according to testimony from Mueller and Neidig, both of whom were granted immunity from criminal prosecution.

Dave Gullo, a former Campbell police chief who served as a senior director in global security for Apple, accompanied Mueller to a lunch with Sung, where they said the then-assistant sheriff brought up the prospect of political donations to support Smith’s upcoming bid for a sixth term.

Gullo testified that he thought his involvement in the CCW pursuit would be a hindrance because of his support for John Hirokawa, a former undersheriff opposing Smith. He added that Apple security managers Scott Vermeer, a former Mountain View chief, and Greg Finch, another former Campbell chief, would only inflame that, given their past tepid relationships with Smith.

Mueller recalled that a year later, after Smith handily won re-election after a contentious primary, Sung berated him after Gullo and Finch were listed as Hirokawa endorsers during the campaign. Testimony from Mueller, affirmed by Braker, stated that Moyer made clear that Finch and Gullo were free to endorse whoever they wanted, and that “we will not give money or anything of value in exchange for CCW.”
But months after three executive protection agents and Neidig applied for CCW licenses seemingly with the sheriff’s blessing, there was no movement, according to the testimony.

That led to a subsequent series of “nudge” emails to the sheriff and her office.

In October 2018, a month before Election Day, Moyer and Mueller each donated $1,000 to Smith’s campaign, though neither live in the county. Mueller testified it was a gesture to express how his “experience working with the sheriff’s office has been great.” It was at a Feb. 8, 2019 meeting at Apple Park between Sung, Jensen and Moyer, in which the iPad donation idea is said to have first been mentioned. In later interviews, as testified by DA investigators, Sung and Jensen gave opposing accounts of what the meetup discussed: Sung said it was about CCW’s and the iPads were not mentioned; Jensen said it was vice-versa.

A March 7, 2019 forwarded email, from Moyer to Jensen then passed along to Sung and Assistant Sheriff Michael Doty, included the phrase “Curious if you need iPads at your new facility,” referencing a training project. On March 26, 2019, Neidig and three agents picked up their CCW licenses at the sheriff’s office.

Records show that the permits had actually been approved two months earlier.

There was some consternation in the sheriff’s office and at Apple about the iPad donation.

Doty expressed surprise and confusion, testifying that “we don’t really have a specific need for iPads that would have prompted this.” He also noted that to accept the donation, it would have to be presented before the Board of Supervisors with its value being more than $10,000.

Doty said he was under the impression the prospective donation was part of a law-enforcement support program at Apple. But testimony by Apple finance managers indicate they did not know such a program existed, and presumed it was associated with the allocation of two dedicated deputies around Apple Park, a proposal that was discussed around the same time Moyer and Mueller pushed for CCW permits, and was later funded by a $558,969 donation to Cupertino. Those same managers also scrutinized this deputy arrangement, in part because it was paid through a city donation avenue but by their own accounting classifications was a business expense.

When similar questions arose about the iPads, those finance officials said Moyer assured them the donation was not for any reciprocal benefit.

In August 2019, DA investigators served search warrants at the sheriff’s office, with Jensen being one of the subjects. Three months later, Sung’s office would be searched. Not long after, both Moyer and Sung, independently of each other, scuttled the iPad arrangement.

The Sharks suite allegation
Chadha’s attorney said in November that his indictment was “a grave miscarriage of justice” and retaliation for objecting to prosecutors’ insistence that his donation to the sheriff’s office of a penthouse suite at the SAP Center for a Feb. 14, 2019 Sharks game was a “quid pro quo.” The transcripts describe a protracted renewal process for Chadha that started in 2017 and wasn’t resolved until two days before that hockey game. There is copious correspondence between Chadha’s executive assistant and sheriff’s office staff processing CCW licenses, in this case then-public information officer Sgt. Reginald Cooks.

Chadha’s application process came up in the earlier grand jury, also during Cooks’ testimony.

As prosecutors were looking to establish the amount of control Sung had over the licensing process, Cooks recalled that on Feb. 12, 2019, he was abruptly ordered to fast-track Chadha’s permit, even though compulsory fingerprint scanning hadn’t been completed.

Other testimony, by former PIO Sgt. Richard Glennon, seemingly reaffirmed accusations of political favoritism in the CCW approval process, describing his commanders’ orders that unless he was instructed otherwise, applications from people lacking political connections or prominence “were put into that filing cabinet and never touched again.” Nearly two years into Chadha’s efforts to renew his permit, and after Smith had already secured re-election, Braker argued to jurors that it was “remarkable” that his permit was issued two days before the Sharks game.

Virus-free.www.avg.com
City of Cupertino
Standard Donation Form
The City of Cupertino acknowledges and thanks individuals arid institutions who wish to donate funds, goods/property, and their voluntary time to help the City achieve its public goals and objectives for the betterment of the community. This Donation Form is intended to memorialize the understanding between the City and the Donor. The undersigned Donor wishes to make a donation to the City of Cupertino as described in more detail below.

The Donor is ( check and complete all that apply):
l ,/ I Donating $ 558m9 in a lump sum.

D Donating$ __________ in---------- (monthly, quarterly, etc.) contributions of$ ___________ in ____ installments.

D Donating the following ( describe products, services, investment securities, real property, etc.) valued at$ __________ _
Donor wishes to have this donation used as follows (check one):
[_J For a general purpose consistent with the City's adopted goals and objectives, based on the City's discretion.

By the----------- (Department/Division) for a general purpose at their discretion.
l.�J By the· Law Enforcement Division
specific purposes:
(City/Department/Division) for the following
Enhanced law enforcement services for the CS beat that encompasses Apple Park, equivalent to two Santa Clara County deputies with patrol vehicles. These services shall be provided from October 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. Annually, Apple intends to make a similar donation to support two deputies based on established rates.

Except as provided above, the City may use the donation in any manner at its sole discretion and the Donor has no right or obligation to control the City's use of the donation.

Donor understands that the City will endeavor to meet the use conditions of restricted donations, in accordance with the wishes of the donor. If, however, the City is unable to meet the Donor's restrictions, the City will make reasonable attempts to contact the Donor or the representative identified by Donor in the Form/Agreement to discuss alternative uses or to return the Donation.

EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED COSTS
FISCAL YEAR 2018 ‐2019
LOS ALTOS UNINCORP.

RATES CUPERTINO HILLS SARATOGA CITIES
GENERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
Proposed Hours ‐ Activity
Proposed Hours ‐ Patrol
Total Hours 38,248.0 5,421.0 20,060.0 14,696.0
Capped Rates/Costs FY 2018‐2019 @ $205.13 $7,845,709 $1,111,995 $4,114,854 $3,014,551 TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT ‐ DAYS:

Proposed Hours 9,015.0 1,859.5 4,195.4 0.0
Capped Rates/Costs FY 2018‐2019 @ $200.93 $8,640 $842,960 $0 Motor @ $199.89 $1,801,977 $363,094
TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT ‐ NIGHTS:

Proposed Hours 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Capped Rates/Costs FY 2018‐2019 @ $207.31 $0 $0 $0
Motor @ $206.27 $0
INVESTIGATIVE HOURS:

Proposed Hours 7,200.0 600.0 2,400.0 0.0
Capped Rates/Costs FY 2018‐2019 @ $202.48 $1,457,856 $121,488 $485,952 $0 FY19 Contract Cities_Proposed Costs add 2 FTE 08‐15‐2018 A ‐ 36 DSA=3% EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED COSTS
FISCAL YEAR 2018 ‐2019
LOS ALTOS UNINCORP.

RATES CUPERTINO HILLS SARATOGA CITIES
RESERVES ACTIVITY HOURS:

Proposed Hours 1,650.0 22.0 340.0 0.0
Capped Rates/Costs FY 2018‐2019 @ $56.00 $92,403 $1,232 $19,041 $0 OPERATING COSTS OF WEST VALLEY SUBSTATION:

Proj Hours FY 2018 ‐2019 47,263 7,281 24,255 14,696
93,495
Percentage 50.5514% 7.7876% 25.9426% 15.7185%
Proj Costs July 2018 ‐ Nov 2018 @ $448,510 yr $94,470 $14,553 $48,481 $29,375 Proj Costs Dec 2018 ‐ Jun 2019 @ $458,974 yr $135,344 $20,850 $69,457 $42,084 Total Proj Costs of Substation = $454,614 $229,814 $35,403 $117,938 $71,459 SUBTOTAL COSTS:

Proj Costs FY 2018 ‐2019 $11,427,759 1,641,852 $5,580,745 $3,086,010 PROJECTED SPECIAL SERVICES
Projected Hours FY 2018‐2019 1,816.5000
Cupertino Traffic Sergeant $247,233 $0 $0 $0
Saratoga School Resource Officer $0 $0 $100,000 $0
SCHOOLS RESOURCE OFFICER
Capped Rates/Costs FY 2018‐2019 @ $172.09 $500,162 $0 $0 $0 (1 SRO @ 85% and 1 SRO @ 75%)
TOTAL SHERIFF LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS
$12,175,154 $1,641,852 $5,680,745 $3,086,010
$12,199,580 $1,642,408 $5,689,948 $0
($24,426) ($556) ($9,203) $0
$12,175,154 $1,552,603 $5,680,745 $0
89,249
$12,175,154 $1,641,852 $5,680,745 $0
$558,979
Proposed Capped Rates/Costs FY 2018‐2019
TOTAL CAPPED COSTS 2018‐2019
Proj Costs Capped @ 5.128% (CPI+2%) Increase
AMOUNTS OVER/(BELOW) CAP OF 5.128%
Supplemental Information:

Current Level of Services
Added Services in FY19
Added Services effective October 1st 2018:
2 General Law Enforcement Deputies for 2,725 hrs
Proposed Capped Rates/Costs FY 2018‐2019 $12,734,133
FY19 Contract Cities_Proposed Costs add 2 FTE 08‐15‐2018 A ‐ 37 DSA=3% Page | 0

County of Santa Clara
SHERIFF’S OFFICE | 55 WEST YOUNGER AVENUE, SAN JOSE, CA 95110 Law Enforcement Contract - Saratoga
FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 PROPOSED COSTS

Page | 1

This page intentionally left blank
Page | 2

Table of Contents
The Sheriff’s Office ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Organizational Chart ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Law Enforcement Contract – Background .................................................................................................... 9 Benefits to Cities of Contracting for Services ............................................................................................. 11 Local Public Safety Budget and Statistics .................................................................................................... 13 Contract Costing Model .............................................................................................................................. 15 Cost Calculation Methodology .................................................................................................................... 16 Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Proposed Hours ...................................................................................................... 17 Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Summary of Proposed Costs ................................................................................... 18 Fiscal Years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 Costs Comparison ........................................................................ 19 Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Proposed Hourly Rates ........................................................................................... 20 Proposed and Capped Rate Comparison .................................................................................................... 21 Contract Cities’ Statistical Data ................................................................................................................... 22 Statistical Data - City of Saratoga ................................................................................................................ 27

Page | 3

The Sheriff’s Office
The Sheriff's Office is divided into 4 major bureaus: Administrative Services, Enforcement, Custody, and Support Services.

I. Administrative Services
The Administrative Services Director manages Information Systems, Legislative, Contracts and Analysis Unit, Fiscal Division and Sheriff’s Identification Unit. The Administrative Services Director also oversees all administrative and support staff for all the b ureaus. Together they work with a team approach to effectively manage this large organization.

II. Enforcement - comprised of the following divisions
Headquarters Patrol
Headquarters Patrol provides 24 -hour uniformed law enforcement patrol services for most county buildings and all Central, East and South unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. The unincorporated areas of the Mount Hamilton Range, including Mount Hamilton, San Antonio Valley, Isabel Valley, San Felipe Valley, and Hall's Valley are patrolled from this station. The unincorporated south county communities of San Martin, Rucker, and Uvas Canyon as well as the unincorporated areas surrounding Morgan Hill and Gilroy are patrolled by units from the South County Station.

The Sheriff’s Office is also responsible for the Parks Patrol Unit that provides law enforcement services for the 27 parks and lakes managed by the Santa Clara County Parks Department. The Rural Crimes Unit was formed in 1992 and specializes in crimes associated with rural farming businesses. The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office also enjoys great collaboration with Gavilan College to provide an additional layer of safety and security for students on campus and the Gilroy Early College Academy (GECA) which is located on the property.

West Valley Patrol
The West Valley (WV) Patrol Division of the Sheriff’s Office proudly serves the Cities of Saratoga, Cupertino, Town of Los Altos Hills, as well as the Western Unincorporated areas of the county from Summit Road to Moffett Field. The WV Patrol Division is committed to providing progressive law enforcement services and maintaining healthy community partnerships. Deputies are routinely involved in community eve nts across all cities. There are 83 sworn positions and 7 professional support staff assigned to the West Valley Patrol Division. Deputies provide a full range of law enforcement responsibilities to include Patrol, Traffic Enforcement, Investigative Services, School Resource Officers, Neighborhood Resource Officers, K -9 Services and Special Enforcement assignments.

The Division employs modern strategies such as community oriented policing and predictive policing, as well as innovative and progressive initiatives geared toward enhancing quality of life measures. A full time analyst works directly with patrol deputies and detectives to identify crime trends. Deputies perform daily enforcement duties with the goal of making neighborhoods safe by bringing criminals to justice. The Division is managed by Captain Rich Urena, who serves as Commander and works closely with each city and the various communities.

Page | 4

Transit Patrol
The Sheriff Transit Patrol Division provides contracted supplemental general law enforcement services for the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) with the primary goal of safety for VTA patrons, employees, and the security of VTA vehicles and properties. VTA’s mass transit system of bus and light rail operations includes a 346 square mile service area which transcends through 15 municipalities and unincorporated Santa Clara County. Law Enforcement responsibilities in the Sheriff Transit Patrol Division include 24 -hour uniformed patrol, explosives detection K -9s, motorcycle patrol, bicycle patrol, detectives, and 2 special teams focused on transit related crime suppression.

The Sheriff’s Office Transit Patrol Division also provides supplemental law enforcement services for Valley Transportation Authority property and assets located at the Milpitas BART Station.

Investigative Services
The Investigative Services Division operates out of three primary locations: Headquarters, West Valley Station, and South County Station. To accomplish the mission of the Investigative Services Division, investigators are trained for general investigation and receive additional training for specific areas of expertise. In order to ensure that each crime is properly investigated by a detective with skill and experience, the following units are each dedicated to a particular type of crime.
• Homicide / Major Crimes
• Sexual Assault
• Property Crimes
• Missing Persons / Juvenile Crimes / Child Abuse
• Domestic Violence
• Hate Crime
• Court Liaison
• West Valley Detectives
• South County Investigations
• Jail and Gang Investigations
• Notario Fraud Investigation
• Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement (SAFE) Task Force
• Law Enforcement to Investigate Human Trafficking (LEIHT) Task Force • Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team (REACT) Task Force • Santa Clara County Regional Auto Theft Task Force ( R.A.T.T.F) • Crime Scene Investigation
Special Operations
The Special Operations Division encompasses the Air Support Unit, California Multi-Jurisdictional Methamphetamine Enforcement Team (Cal-MMET), Intelligence Unit, and Marijuana Eradication Team (MET). We strive to establish a wide, collaborative, consistent and coordinated approach to abating criminal activity and narcotics trafficking with an emphasis on enforcement, intelligence gathering, investigation, prosecution, intervention and prevention.

Page | 5

Special Operation also oversees all specialized teams in the Office of the Sheriff. Deputies assigned to this teams are trained in the following areas:
• Bomb Squad
• Sheriff's Emergency Response Team - S.E.R.T.
• Crisis Negotiation Team (CNT)
• Canine Unit K9
• Underwater Search Unit (USU)
• Sheriff's Off-Road Enforcement (SORE)
• Search and Rescue (SAR)
• Crowd Control Unit (CCU)
Civil/Warrants
The Civil Warrants Division serves Civil process in the manner prescribed by law. Civil process includes restraining orders, bench warrants, arrest warrants, evictions and any other notice or order from the courts. We also levy on wages, bank accounts, vehicles or any asset of the judgment debtor.

III. Custody
The Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office Custody Division is the fifth largest jail system in California, and among the 20 largest systems in the United States. Our jail is among the 100 systems nationwide with an inmate population of more than 1,000. Currently, the average daily population for the Santa Clara County C orrectional facilities was approximately 2,160 inmates a day. Approximately 48,000 arrestees are booked annually with an average length of stay of about 206 days.

The Custody Bureau consists of several divisions: Main Jail Facility, Elmwood Correctional Facility, Custody Administrative Services, Jail Reforms, Support Services, and Compliance.

IV. Support Services
Support Services are comprised of the following services:

Personnel/Recruiting/Backgrounds/Reserves
The Sheriff’s Office Personnel Division is a full functioning Service Center that provides all aspects of Human Resource support to every employee and retiree of our office. It is responsible for the Backgrounds and Recruiting unit, Health and Injury Prev ention Unit, and the Reserve and Youth Cadet Programs.

Training & Compliance Division
The Training and Compliance Division oversees all aspects of professional growth and development for Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office personnel. The mission of the Training and Compliance Division is to provide creative and collaborative training resources and opportunities to employees of the Sheriff’s Office; to ensure state and agency specific mandated training is tracked efficiently to ensure compliance, update agency policies and procedures as needed, and facilitate the Regional Justice Training Academies of the Sheriff’s Office. The division is composed of five distinct training programs encompassing a wide variety of training:
• The Santa Clara County Justice Training Center
Page | 6

• Field and Jail Training Program
• In-Service Training
• Regional Driver Training Center
• The Regional Firearms Training Facility
All Sheriff's Office personnel must complete either the California Peace Officer Standards or Training Basic Academy C ourse or the California Standards and Training for Corrections Core Course. These basic academy training courses are administered by certified instructors and Sheriff's Office Recruit Training Officers (RTO).

Once the new peace officer graduates from the Basic Academy, they will go through an extensive Field Training Program or Jail Training Program. Well qualified peace officers instruct new deputies on the day-to-day responsibilities of a peace officer.

The Training & Compliance Division also puts on several annual in-service trainings. These courses include De -Escalation, Tactical Communication, Crisis Intervention, Use of Force, Defensive Tactics, Driving, First Aid/CPR, Implicit Bias, Blue Courage, Mindfulness, etc. All of these courses are regulated by the California POST and STC for the Enforcement and Custody Bureaus, respectively.

Court Security
Court Security division provides security to the seven State of California Superior Courts located within Santa Clara County on a contract basis. There are more than 220 sworn and professional staff assigned to the Court Security Contract.

There are many specialized assignments within the Court Security Division to include Judicial/Dignitary Protection, Felony and Misdemeanor Court Trial Bailiffs, Risk Assessment Unit, CIT trained Dual Diagnosis Court Bailiffs, Juvenile Dependency Bailiffs, Juvenile Court Bailiffs Holding Cell Operations and Court Movement Deputies.

More than 1,250,000 people pass through our security screening stations each year. Deputies and Sheriff’s Technicians operate security screening stations at the entrance of each court facility.

Their primary job is to ensure no illegal or dangerous items enter a court facility.

Valley Medical Center Security
Valley Medical Center Security divisio n provides oversight of all security and law enforcement services for Santa Clara County’s Health and Hospital System, 24 -hours a day/7 -days per week.

Valley Medical Hospital system includes 13 Medical/Urgent Care Clinics, O’Connor, St. Louise Hospitals an d De Paul Health Center. Santa Clara Valley Medical Center is the county’s main trauma center and located in San Jose. Santa Clara County Health and Hospital System employs approximately 10,000 employees, two thirds of which are assigned to the Valley Medical Campus.

Stanford University
Stanford University division provides oversight and operational authority to Stanford Department of Public Safety through direct supervision of the assigned Captain. The Sheriff’s Captain acts at the direction of the Sheriff in policy matters. The Sheriff’s Captain will coordinate cases involving death and serious felonies to ensure coordination and control with the Sheriff’s Office. The Page | 7

assigned Captain further reviews policy and procedures to safeguard adherence to the standards set by the Sheriff.

Currently, the Sheriff’s Office has 1,797 employees. Of those employees, 1,402 of them are sworn law enforcement officers and 395 of them are non -sworn, civilian staff who provide support to the entire operation. In addition to the full -time badge staff, the Sheriff’s Office has numerous Reserve Deputy Sheriffs.

Page | 8

Organizational Chart

·
Office
Of the Sh,
Clf1ilnll«10nlll (
. .,..,
.., _ _,_
---~-••MJA- DWelt Aepcwt to
OSIU: MSD/PRWLO
Off1ce of the Shenff
Sheriff Laurie Smith
I
-; Corrc>lianoo
I II lh-
Undenherllf Public ln~b 0111oer Lt. David Roberts Ken ~nder S&t .... lOw I
Deputy~ Gabaldon
~ "
Adminis.trati\le ~Mces Director Enforcement :.tant Sheriff Custody ,.;r.,.., Sheflff su_..5eN~-.ant Silenn luk~ung Mtchael Ooty Timot~ Davis Dalla ~nguez
/.>.
~ J ,.........J J
lnveatjfltlve Se~Jall Crimea Ma~Joll v v
capt Den Rodr1(uez Capt. James Kirkland
" fcrmation S)'Sklma U. Jtm., ~- • AOC u.~r.t'\IIIICiei · AOC f-
Stanbd Onl~
WesleyChonC U. Brenctan omotl • MCU U ._blt CIMC)UIO T ... C$pt. Nuno Ribeiro ISOI,_ u. Jatnet c:.nan. RAnF U.IICIItU.Siac!M · CT-
....

LLIIIIIIRIDIII.: · ~ f .. m
.....
v
~ -Volley,. ... v
Capt. Ricardo Urena Capt. Malil Pad get v
_ ..... eon..- end Anelylla U. T~hlton · AOC Court S.W:.arlty Unit U. Nel Yatentue&l • A.OC LLWN ~·Cbli Michelle Oov11TUbl11 ....

U~Oullll · .vl fMm r- Clpl James Helm•
u~.,., .. ,.ct•m Lt. Steven Hernandez Proe"&m Manater 111 U.NIIIUI till~· 0 lte~~t ..... .... v U, TfC1$1'111111...;.!,r.~
BucWet Mln.,.rr:.t end ~tin
~- t'lf- tlnrul v CApt. Elbert Rivera ..,
Thuyet ztyalan .... Pnllcy VMC
,IMfltltl~tllwtiM ,.....,. Capt Frank Zacharlsen r- Capt. Erldt 8ourasu IItvin ZltiCfWOOC) .., .... S&t DeMit O...na
OtpiM- IAI.:-- 1 Mllnl ....

OMVW•,.., ntJ.

Content"-
.....

Lt. Kelvin Mah ... .... u .. McCabe ~fW/AN\~tl'll'l~,_ ldentlbtlon Unit ProCJ11m .... Manacer Clpt Quit Grumbol Tlmfayto .., r- Lt. Mlctletle Albin Stu Dtteotor Tn~~ntilt P.tn'll ~ JanTran sltlnn ctwlttlnt Goodaon - HR Manaftr .... Copt. llevld l.t<l Jell Refofml ....

U. - Cotdoze • ADC CHSUoloon
.... ~ O.MCI ...... ...cl• v
u. ~H'r · Or~ Tn.tNnc
Cl pt. Adam Obttdo rfer
HQ""~"' ""trol """"""~-
L-
Lt. fHchttd Allnit
Capt Roberl Curt
~lluiWr HI~ • ADO Capt Thom11 Our1n
~I.IIJI~t~t~ W.cneoo- U. N~•m-.. . ~
u, lt-,~ C..OciiiMl lLOifpt.-CI• · "'oar~!U
u,.._, · WMtiiCDIMI In"*: ;~.,.~~~ ··u•,.,. • - ~u
lloci--T-
T
Cluolocl!""
fleet a nd eomn.t nlcatlont . ..;;....

Q/COml)lltnot C&p\, AOO.rt Ourr ~htllt Ccwerl'\lblt t
,....,,m~n...,lll
Page | 9

Law Enforcement Contract – Background

I. SERVICES
City of Cupertino, City of Saratoga, and Town of Los Altos Hills entered into an agreement with the County of Santa Clara, Sheriff’s Office for the following law enforcement services:

A. Law Enforcement Services - include patrol of established beats, responses to emergency calls, investigative services and other law enforcement services.

B. Supplemental Services – as requested by the City which may include traffic law enforcement beyond the basic services, crime prevention patrols, and other law enforcement services that are acceptable of being scheduled and within the capability of the Sheriff to provide.

C. Supplemental Reserve Services – services provided by reserve sheriff deputies such as transportation of arrestees from the arrest location to the appropriate jail facility and additional services as requested by City and approved by the Sheriff’s Office.

D. Booking and Processing Services – include booking and processing services to those arrested persons within the corporate limits of City and who are brought to County jail for booking or detention.

E. Communication Services – emergency communication services in support of the Sheriff’s Office and City’s operations. Services include 24 hour per day 9 -1-1 telephone answering and radio dispatching of Sheriff’s personnel.

II. COMPENSATION
Law Enforcement Services
FY 2014- 2015 base rate . Annual increase limited to the lesser of (a) percentage increase in total compensation and annual PERS cost increase or (b) annual CPI/W plus 2% and annual PERS cost increase.

Supplemental/Reserve Services
a. Primary Rate – average full cost of a single Deputy with patrol vehicle b. Supplemental Day Rate – cost of a single Deputy with patrol vehicle during periods when the night shift differential salary increment is not payable c. Supplemental Night Rate – cost of a single Deputy with patrol vehicle during periods when the night shift differential salary increment is payable
d. Supplemental Reserve Rate – cost of two Reserve Deputy Sheriff with patrol vehicle e. Investigative Service Rate – average full cost per hour of an investigator’s time.

Base Rent and Operating Costs of Westside Substation
The cities’ share of the base rent and operating cost will be based upon the lease agreement between the County and Dollinger Properties, LLC. The monthly base rent will increase 2.5% each year. The cities shall be responsible for the base rent increase and any increase in operating expenses and real estate taxes allocated to the building to the extent that such expenses exceed costs incurred in the FY2014-2015 base year. Yearly controllable operating costs shall be capped at 5%. The cities’ share of the operating cost and base rent will be a prorated amount based upon the actual billable hours as indicated in the COPANA reports.

Page | 10

III. TERM OF AGREEMENT – July 1, 2014 to July 1, 2024.

The agreement may be terminated without cause upon giving 180 days written notice of such termination to the other party. At the expiration of this ten (10) year contract, this contract can be renewed for an additional five (5) year period upon written notice of renewal by City and the County to other parties upon 180 days advance notice.

IV. ANNUAL CONTRACT USAGE HISTORY

Saratoga FY15-16 FY16-17 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 Services
General Law
Enforcement Hours
20,060.0 20,060.0 20,060.0 20,060.0 20,060.0 20,060.0
Traffic Enforcement
– Days - Hours
4,195.4 4,195.4 4,195.4 4,195.4 4,195.4 4,195.4
Investigative Hours 2,400.0 2,400.0 2,400.0 2,400.0 2,400.0 2,400.0 Reserve Activity
Hours
340.0 340.0 340.0 340.0 340.0 340.0
Special Services –
Traffic Sergeant
- - - - - -
School Resources
Officer
$100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Projected Costs $4,973,080 $5,176,173 $5,420,767 $5,680,745 $6,057,371 $6,417,203 Actual Costs $4,981,030 $5,170,962 $5,200,757 $5,678,842 $5,958,047

Page | 11

Benefits to Cities of Contracting for Services

Contracting for police services may help a community enhance its level and quality of service delivered, providing an array of services that can be revised as needs change and at a cost less than that for supporting an independent law-enforcement organization.

Cost Savings
Communities may contract for police services for many reasons, most of which are related to resources.

Contracting for police services most often resulted in significant cost savings. Savings may result from reducing administrative and command staff positions with consolidation, pooling of resources, and lower capital costs. Contracting may also provide economies of sc ale, as larger organizations may be more efficient and provide services at lower cost than smaller ones.

Enhanced Quality and Level of Service
Since the policing system is highly fragmented and leads to a significant duplication of local services that consolidation through contracting can mitigate , a city contracting for services may find it can provide equivalent services with fewer staff than in a stand-alone entity. A city may, for example, provide capacity for rare events that far exceeds its true needs. By contracting with a larger agency with specialized capabilities as needed, a city can better focus its resources on base law-enforcement services.

Contracting for police services may provide an opportunity to enhance both the level and quality of service delivered. By contracting, a community can receive not only the benefits of the contract deputies assigned to it, but also has access to more specialized areas such as investigations, forensics, crime-analysis services of the Sheriff’s Office and much more. The breadth and experience in the Sheriff’s Office far exceed those in smaller cities’ police departments.

Cost savings
Staffing
flexibility
Efficient
use of
resources
Appropriate
staffing
level
Enhanced
level of
service
Enhanced
quality of
service
Breadth &
depth of
experience
Page | 12

Efficient Use of Staffing Resources
Contracting can make more efficient use of staffing resources, especially in communities with local law - enforcement agencies governed by minimum staffing levels. Such levels may be defined by collective bargaining but more often are driven by policy and practice. Such levels assume departments are autonomous and cannot rely on nearby agencies for resources. This may lead to communities setting staffing levels at an unnecessarily high level. The Sheriff’s Office has resources in the other areas, which allows basic staffing level for the city to be at a lower level but backup and supervision from others can provide additional resources when needed.

Page | 13

Local Public Safety Budget and Statistics
County of Santa Clara, Office of the Sheriff Average Cost Per Resident for Police Services and Percent of City Budget Allocated to Law Enforcement Services 2020-2021 Police Operating Budgets
# City Land
Area in
Square
Miles
(1)
Population/
Square
Mile
Population
(1)
Police
Budget
Budget per
Capita
Total City
Budget
Percent of
City
Budget
1 Los Altos Hills (2) 8.8 957.2 8,423 $2,065,245 $204.77 $13,181,131 15.7% 2 Cupertino (2) 11.3 5,245.7 59,276 $14,792,330 $233.97 $82,287,295 18.0% 3 Palo Alto 23.9 2,734.9 65,364 $47,110,074 $670.00 $238,801,000 19.7% 4 Saratoga (2) 12.4 2,431.7 30,153 $6,408,958 $205.36 $26,641,745 24.1% 5 Santa Clara 18.4 7,085.1 130,365 $77,593,819 $570.64 $269,399,009 28.8% 6 San Jose 176.5 5,789.2 1,021,795 $455,188,814 $531.95 $1,547,689,229 29.4% 7 Los Altos 6.5 4,629.1 30,089 $12,836,225 $382.92 $43,318,880 29.6% 8 Monte Sereno (3) 1.7 2,046.5 3,479 $1,020,157 $273.80 $3,221,326 31.7% 9 Mountain View 12.0 6,894.9 82,739 $46,152,014 $528.79 $144,021,218 32.0% 10 Sunnyvale (4) 22.0 6,941.0 152,703 $114,306,055 $222.36 $354,913,330 32.2% 11 Milpitas 13.6 6,190.9 84,196 $38,367,020 $453.01 $116,831,532 32.8% 12 Los Gatos 11.1 2,722.7 30,222 $17,587,825 $552.18 $53,180,454 33.1% 13 Campbell 5.8 7,205.7 41,793 $20,229,929 $675.90 $54,559,148 37.1% 14 Morgan Hill 12.9 3,562.2 45,952 $17,697,892 $377.34 $43,763,247 40.4% 15 Gilroy 16.2 3,644.0 59,032 $25,380,854 $407.38 $57,711,594 44.0% Incorporated Cities 353.1 5,226.8 1,845,581
Unincorporated Areas 937.0 87.8 82,271
County Total 1,290.1 1,494.3 1,927,852

1 US Census estimates on 3/24/21 at "http://www.census.gov/quickfacts" 2 Law enforcement services in Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, and Saratoga are provided under contract by the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office. 3 Monte Sereno's contract for police services is for 105 hours per week only. The police budget noted above is the flat rate for 105 hours. 4 The City of Sunnyvale includes both police and fire protection costs in the department's public safety budget.

Page | 14

Annual Crime Rate
Number of Annual Crimes1
Crime Rate1
(per 1,000 residents)
Name FY 2021 Public
Safety
Budget*
Budget
per Capita
Crime Index1
(100 is
Safest)
Violent Property Total Violent Property Total
Los Altos Hills2 $2,065,245 $205 67 3 68 71 0.36 8.07 8.43 Cupertino2 $14,792,330 $234 32 58 1,027 1,085 0.98 17.33 18.31 Palo Alto $47,110,074 $670 13 89 1,993 2,082 1.36 30.49 31.85 Saratoga2 $6,408,958 $205 66 18 244 262 0.60 8.09 8.69 Santa Clara $77,593,819 $571 9 221 4,766 4,987 1.70 36.56 38.26 San Jose $455,188,814 $532 15 4,633 25,592 30,225 4.53 25.05 29.58 Los Altos $12,836,225 $383 55 23 314 337 0.76 10.44 11.20 Monte Sereno3 $1,020,157 $274 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Mountain View $46,152,014 $529 13 169 2,474 2,643 2.04 29.90 31.94 Sunnyvale4 $114,306,055 $222 22 266 3,401 3,667 1.74 22.27 24.01 Milpitas $38,367,020 $453 17 106 2,204 2,310 1.26 26.18 27.44 Los Gatos $17,587,825 $552 43 16 423 439 0.53 14.00 14.53 Campbell $20,229,929 $676 11 91 1,362 1,453 2.18 32.59 34.77 Morgan Hill $17,697,892 $377 36 54 709 763 1.18 15.43 16.61 Gilroy $25,380,854 $407 15 254 1,488 1,742 4.30 25.21 29.51 California 174,331 921,114 1,095,445 4.41 23.31 27.72 United States 1,245,410 6,925,677 8,171,087 3.80 21.11 24.91

Page | 15

Contract Costing Model
The Sheriff’s Office (SO), Fiscal Division annually develops a cost estimate for the contracting cities based upon the Contract Costing Model. The model has been developed in -house and takes into account a variety of cost factors, which are updated annually. It is important to note that not all cost factors in use within the costing model are developed by the SO. Some of the cost factors are dictated by other County departments to the SO, and the cost is just passed along to the contracting agencies. The following points outline the overall approach utilized to calculate the baseline estimates for the contracted cities.

1. Salaries and Benefits – based on Countywide salary table, applicable benefit rates developed by County Office of Budget and Analysis , and annual salary increases and allowances specified by labor agreements.

The salaries and benefits section of the contract is where the costs are captured for not only the direct staff that are assigned to each city, but also the regional and shared staff among the contracted cities.

2. Services and Supplies – the direct services and supplies include the projected expenditures for any supplies, materials, or services associated with the direct or shared staff.

3. Indirect Costs
For all services provided, there are direct costs associated (salaries, benefits, services, and supplies) and indirect costs such as training, countywide support, divisional overhead, and departmental overhead. To truly capture the full cost of any service, both direct and indirect cost components must be captured. SO captures all indirect costs associated with the provision of its law enforcement services.
• Overhead is calculated on a per position and is developed by taking the costs associated with those services that primarily provide support to the entire SO. The overhead calculation consists of the Personnel and Training Division, Information Systems Division, Records and Fiscal Division. For each of these areas, the cost per employee is generated by estimating the total administrative costs related to these activities and divided it by the total number of employees that are supported by those activities. The costs are then allocated to the division providing contract services based on number of staff assigned to the contract services or annual percentage of time spent on the activities (Records) . The total costs for these divisions included the applicable division’s share of the Countywide overhead.

Page | 16

Cost Calculation Methodology

Page | 17

Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Proposed Hours

Cupertino Los Altos Hills Saratoga
Unincorporated
Areas
General Law Enforcement Services
Proposed Hours 41,881 7,256 * 20,060 14,696

Supplemental Services - Traffic Enforcement - Day
Enforcement Vehicle 3,639 ** - - - Motorcycle 7,212 1,860 4,195 - Proposed Hours 10,851 1,860 4,195 -

Investigative Services
Proposed Hours 7,200 600 2,400 -

Supplemental Reserve Services
Proposed Hours 1,650 22 340 -

Total Proposed Hours 61,582 9,738 26,995 14,696

School Resources Officer (SRO)
Number of SRO 2 - 1 -

* Includes additional hours equivalent to productive hours of one full-time deputy ** Includes 1 Traffic Sergeant

Page | 18

Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Summary of Proposed Costs

Cupertino Los Altos Hills Saratoga
Unincorporated
Areas
General Law Enforcement Services
Proposed Costs $10,168,707 $1,761,757 $4,870,568 $3,568,189

Supplemental Services - Traffic Enforcement - Day
Enforcement Vehicle* $918,336 $0 $0 $0
Motorcycle $1,718,475 $443,082 $999,668 $0
Proposed Costs $2,636,811 $443,082 $999,668 $0

Investigative Services
Proposed Costs $1,742,544 $145,212 $580,848 $0

Supplemental Reserve Services
Proposed Costs $107,778 $1,437 $22,209 $0

School Resources Officer (SRO)
Proposed Costs $574,732 $0 $251,445 $0

Operating Costs Of West Valley Substation
Proposed Costs $254,915 $44,068 $117,252 $71,043

Total Proposed Costs $15,485,487 $2,395,556 $6,841,990 $3,639,232 Total Capped Costs** $15,485,487 $2,395,556 $6,841,990 Amount Over/(Below) Capped Costs $0 $0 $0

* Includes 1 Traffic Sergeant
** Increase in costs capped at CPI + 2% (3.53%) and PERS Increase

Page | 19

Fiscal Years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 Costs Comparison

Cupertino Los Altos Hills
General law Enforcement Services
Budgete d Costs FY 2020-2021 $9,73 4,401 $ 1,26Q003
Proposed Costs FY 2021-2022 $10,168,707 $ 1,761,757
Change ($) $434,306 $50 1,754
Change (%) 4.5% 39.8%.

Supplemental Services- Traffic Enforcement- Day
Budgeted Costs FY 2020-2021 $2,307,678 $421,1 90
Proposed Costs FY 2021-2022 $2,636,8 11 $443,082
Chanee (S) $329, 133 $2 1.892
Change (%) 14.3% .. 5.2%
lnve.stigative Services
Budgeted Costs FY 2020-2021 $ 1,653,480 $137,790
Proposed Costs FY 2021-2022 $ 1,742,544 $ 145,2 12
Change ($) $83,064 $7, 422
Change (%) 5.4% 5.4%
Supplemental Reserve Services
Budgeted Costs FY 2020-2021 $108,488 $ 1, 380
Proposed Costs FY 2021-2022 $107,778 $ 1,437
Change ($) $4,290 $57
Change (%) 4.1% 4. 1%
Sl:l nHJI 1\oou u.:t:.::.. O((it.:t:t (SRO)
Budgeted Costs FY 2020-2021 $542,290 $0
Proposed Costs FY 2021-2022 $574,732 $0
Change ($) $32,442 $0
Change (%) 6.0% 0%
Operating Costs Of W e.st Valley Substation • u •
Budgeted Costs FY 2020-2021 $249,493 $35,692
Proposed Costs FY 2021-2022 $254,9 15 $44,068
Change ($) $5,422 $8, 376
Change (%) 2.2% 23.5%
Total Budgeted Costs FY 2020-2021 $14, 59Q830 $ 1,856,055 TotJ I Proposed Costs FY 2021-2022 $15,4 85,487 $2,395,556 Change ($) $894,657 •• $539,501
Change (%) 6.1% 29. 1%
• ln<ludes aclclitional hours equivalent to productive hou ~ of one full-time deputy •• Includes cost adjustment for Traffic Sergeant
••• lncludescost adjustment for School Resources Officer •
Unincorporat ed
Saratoga Area-s
$4,662,546 $3,415,791
$4,870,568 $3,568,189
$208,022 $152,398

4.5% 4.5%
$955,029 $0
$999,668 $0
$44,639 so

4.7% 0%
$55 1, 160 $0
$580,848 $0
$29,688 $0

5.4% 0%
$21,325 $0
$22 ,209 $0
$88 4 $0

4.1% 0%
$100,000 $0
$25 1,445 $0
$151,445 $0
15 1.4% ... 0%
$118,898 $72,040
$117,252 $71,043
($1,646 ) ($997 )
-1.4% -1.4%
$6,408,958 $3,487,831
$6,841,990 $3,639,232
$433,082 ••• $15 1,401

6.8% 4.3%
•••• Costs for operat irc: the W est V alley Substation varies each month dependent upon Gene ral la\v Enforcem:nt Hours and Sup5=lementa l Hours used b y each city.

Page | 20

Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Proposed Hourly Rates

General Law Enforcement Services - Deputy
Sheriff

Supplemental Services - Day - Motorcycle Unit
FY 2021-2022 $242.80

FY 2021-2022 $238.28
FY 2020-2021 $232.43

FY 2020-2021 $226.48
Increase $10.37 4.4616%

Increase $11.80 5.2102%

Supplemental Services - Day - Patrol Car
FY 2021-2022 $239.49

FY 2021-2022 $246.38
FY 2020-2021 $227.64

FY 2020-2021 $233.76
Increase $11.85 5.2056%

Increase $12.62 5.3987%

Supplemental Services - Swing - Patrol Car
FY 2021-2022 $243.19

FY 2021-2022 $242.02
FY 2020-2021 $234.92

FY 2020-2021 $229.65
Increase $8.27 3.5203%

Increase $12.37 5.3865%

Supplemental Services - Night - Patrol Car

FY 2021-2022 $246.38

FY 2021-2022 $65.32
FY 2020-2021 $234.92

FY 2020-2021 $62.72
Increase $11.46 4.8783%

Increase $2.60 4.1454%

Supplemental Services - Traffic Sergeant

FY 2021-2022 $265.07

FY 2021-2022 $195.70
FY 2020-2021 $251.63

FY 2020-2021 $185.35
Increase $13.44 5.3412%

Increase $10.35 5.5840%

Page | 21

Proposed and Capped Rate Comparison
For FY 2020-2021 and FY 2021-2022

a b c = a - b d e f = e + d g
Rate Category FY22 Rates FY21 Rates
Increase/
(Decrease)
PERS
Increase
FY21 Rate
w/Increase
of 3.53%
FY22 CAP at
FY21 +

3.53% (=
CPI + 2%) +
PERS
FY22
Proposed
Rates
General Law Enforcement Services - Deputy Sheriff $242.80 $232.43 $10.37 $3.89 $240.63 $244.52 $242.80 Supplemental Services - Day - Patrol Car $239.99 $227.64 $12.35 $3.81 $235.68 $239.49 $239.49 Supplemental Services - Swing - Patrol Car $243.19 $234.92 $8.27 $3.90 $243.21 $247.11 $243.19 Supplemental Services - Night - Patrol Car $246.38 $234.92 $11.46 $3.98 $243.21 $247.19 $246.38 Supplemental Services - Traffic Sergeant $268.09 $251.63 $16.46 $4.56 $260.51 $265.07 $265.07 Supplemental Services - Day - Motorcycle Unit $245.41 $226.48 $18.93 $3.81 $234.47 $238.28 $238.28 Supplemental Services - Swing - Motorcycle Unit $248.61 $233.76 $14.85 $3.90 $242.01 $245.91 $245.91 Supplemental Services - Night - Motorcycle Unit $251.80 $233.76 $18.04 $3.98 $242.01 $245.99 $245.99 Law Enforcement Services - Detective $259.98 $229.65 $30.33 $4.26 $237.76 $242.02 $242.02 Supplemental Reserve Services $80.34 $62.72 $17.62 $0.39 $64.93 $65.32 $65.32 School Resources Officer $196.11 $185.35 $10.76 $3.81 $191.89 $195.70 $195.70 Page | 22

Contract Cities’ Statistical Data

2020
Arrests

Totals and Averages

66 Total
Number
Average Per
Deputy
262 3.97
312 4.73
63 0.95
248 3.76
885 13.41
Misdemeanor On View Arrests
Felony Warrant Arrests
Misdemeanor Warrant Arrests (Includes Cite & Release)
Total Arrests
Number of Field Enforcement Deputies
Assigned to West Valley Patrol Division
Felony On View Arrests

Page | 23

2020
Citations

Totals and Averages

66 780 11.82
1296 19.64
3706 56.15
5782 87.61
Speeding Citations
Moving Violation Citations
Number of Field Enforcement Deputies
Assigned to West Valley Patrol Division
All Other Traffic Citations
Total Citations

Page | 24

2020
Reports

Totals and Averages

66 3203 48.53
450 6.82
3653 55.35
Number of Field Enforcement Deputies
Assigned to West Valley Patrol Division
Reports (Felony / Misdemeanor / Other)
Accident Reports
Total Reports

Page | 25

2020
Calls

Totals and Averages

66 29288 443.76
94807 1436.47
124095 1880.23
Number of Field Enforcement Deputies
Assigned to West Valley Patrol Division
Self-Initiated Calls
Total Incidents / Contacts
Radio Generated Calls

Page | 26

2020
Priority Calls by District

Totals
Priority Level C H L S W
1 37 1 1 15 4
2 3244 229 634 1996 364
3 4431 406 647 2065 461

C = Cupertino S = Saratoga
H = Unincorporated Santa Cruz Mountains W = Unincorporated West Valley L = Los Altos Hills

Page | 27

Statistical Data - City of Saratoga

City of Saratog a
Selected Crimes
Code Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Robbery 2110 2115 2018 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 5
2019 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
2020 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3
Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Burglary , 2018 5 10 8 3 4 0 3 5 10 4 8 12 7 2
Residential
4590 10 5 7 2 13 7 2 5 7 2 8 10 78 2019
2020 8 11 4 0 2 2 1 3 5 6 1 6 49
Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Burglary , 4591 4592 2018 1 1 0 0 1 1 4 1 3 3 2 0 17
Commercial 2019 3 3 2 2 1 2 0 1 4 0 1 2 21
2020 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 17
Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Burglary , 4593 2018 2 0 2 2 2 3 1 7 5 6 1 3 3 4
Vehicle 2019 3 0 2 1 0 5 3 1 8 2 4 5 34
2020 3 1 1 0 1 2 7 2 2 1 0 2 22
Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J lil J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Grand Theft 4870 2018 1 0 3 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 0 3 23
2019 0 9 3 2 2 1 2 1 6 3 1 1 3 1
2020 2 2 3 2 2 6 2 1 2 8 4 10 44
Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Auto Theft 4703 2018 1 0 0 0 1 3 2 3 2 2 0 0 14
2019 2 0 4 0 0 2 1 1 2 3 3 2 20
2020 0 0 4 3 3 3 4 2 1 2 3 1 2 6
Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Vandalism 5940 5941 2018 4 1 1 0 0 3 1 0 4 6 0 0 20
2019 1 2 3 1 3 2 5 0 3 2 3 2 27
2020 2 0 3 1 1 5 6 3 2 0 3 4 30
Identity Theft Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 2018 4 6 6 6 3 8 12 3 7 5 8 8 76 Forgery 4700 4702 2019 15 11 12 2 6 4 4 2 4 1 1 5 6 7 Fraud 2020 5 8 7 5 12 6 3 5 7 10 3 5 76
Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Domestic 2018 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 4 3 0 2 3 21
Violence
2430 2730 1 1 2 2 4 2 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 5 2019
2020 2 5 0 3 2 3 2 0 1 2 0 1 21
Simple& Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 2400 2401 2018 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 7 Aggra vated 2402 2403 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 0 Assaults 2404 2405 2019
2020 2 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 3 14
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 2610 2615 2018 0 0 1 0 3 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 Sex Crimes 2880 2885 2890 2895 2019 2 1 1 2 3 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 14
2020 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 5
Page | 28

Saratoga Crime Totals 2018-2020
5 Robbery Iii 2
liiil 3 r ~
t 72
Residential Burglary 78
49 I I
17 Commercial Burglary 21
17 I I
t-- j 34
Vehicle Burglary 34
22 I I
-J 23
Grand Theft 31
44 I I -I 14
Auto Theft 20
26 I I
I j 20
Vandalism 27
30 I I !
J 76
ID Theft, Forgery Fraud 67
76 I I I
J 21
Domestic Violence 25
21 b 7
Assault 10
14 r
J 10
Sex Crimes 14
iiiiiil s
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
" 2018 11 2019 11 2020
Page | 29

Saratoga Crime Index
2019- 2020 VARIANCES
2019 2020 % Difference
Commercial Burglary 21 17 -19% Jl
Residential Burglary 78 49 -37% l
Vehicle Burglary 34 22 -35% Jl
Auto Theft 20 26 30% t
Grand Theft 31 44 42% t
Identit y Theft 67 76 13% t
Robbery 2 3 SO% t
Assaults 10 14 40% t
Domestic Violence 25 21 -16% i
Sex Crimes 14 5 -64% l
Page | 30

In 15 of the reported cases, known time frame of burglary occurred over course of multiple days, day of week unknown.

SARATOGA RESIDENTIAL BURGLARIES

Page | 31

SARATOGA AUTO THEFT

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58
2011 2012 2013 2014
59 2015 2016 2017
~ 50% - Key was left
l inside/with the vehicle
)
42%- Vehicle was left
unlocked
27%- Vehicle stolen from
contractor, landscaper or
other service provider during
scope of employment
2018 2019 2020
Page | 32

SARATOGA GRAND THEFT

r--
ED
--
--- ------
:
1-
- r-- r--
- E1 E1 E\ -

I I I I
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 • Cat a lytic Converter • Other 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Page | 33

City of Saratoga
Traffic Related Activity- Patrol and Traffic Units Combined Code Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Moving 2018 124 102 80 120 90 103 84 103 88 105 109 81 1189 8300 Violations 2019 102 81 67 62 68 80 93 131 123 113 73 52 1045 2020 66 69 38 8 14 9 29 10 23 27 23 21 337
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Speeding 2018 25 55 40 42 44 52 56 36 45 42 19 6 462
Citations
8305
2019 14 27 13 23 14 13 25 22 12 34 24 14 235
2020 4 9 8 3 11 9 11 8 10 25 14 16 128
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Other 8310 8315 8320 2018 89 134 127 144 85 204 140 117 110 157 153 128 1588 Citations 8325 8330 8335 2019 199 157 139 162 123 134 185 197 135 242 166 133 1972 2020 219 234 184 so 115 42 51 42 43 74 68 80 1202
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 2018 0 3 6 1 5 2 2 1 2 0 3 4 29 DUis 8500 8505 8510
2019 2 4 3 0 4 4 1 2 1 3 0 1 25
2020 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Accidents, 8000 8005 8030 2018 6 4 2 4 3 4 5 2 4 9 3 2 48 Injury 8035 2019 3 3 6 2 3 1 3 5 4 5 7 3 45
2020 2 6 0 2 7 3 2 5 2 6 2 5 42
Accidents, Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Property 8010 8015 8020 2018 9 14 17 12 16 9 12 11 10 13 9 7 139 8025 8040 8045 2019 16 7 10 11 7 4 14 8 10 10 8 7 112 Damage 2020 12 8 8 5 8 7 3 7 7 12 5 5 87 Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Accidents, DUI 8050 8055 8060
2018 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
2019 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
2020 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
Citations
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
• Moving Violation • Speeding Citat ions • Ot her Citat ions Page | 34

Saratoga Accidents 2020

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
Injury (8000, 8005) 2 6 0 2 7 3 2 5 2 6 2 5 42
Property Damage (8010) 10 5 6 4 6 5 2 5 6 8 3 3 63
Accident, No Details (8015) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Bike / Pedestrian (8020, 8025) 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 2 0 8 Hit & Run - Injury (8030, 8035) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hit & Run - Property Damage (8040) 2 4 2 1 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 17 Hit & Run - No Details (8045) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DUI - Injury (8050, 8055) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DUI - Property Damage (8060) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
TOTAL ACCIDENTS 14 16 8 7 17 10 5 13 9 18 7 10 134

11.2 Revenues and Expenditures
The following table details revenues, expenditures, changes in fund balance and General Fund costs by category.

It includes actuals for two prior ﬁscal years, the Adopted Budget for the prior ﬁscal year, and the Proposed
Budget for the current
fiscal year.

Category
2021 Actual
2022 Actual
2023 Adopted Budget
2024 Proposed Budget
Revenues
Intergovernmental Revenue
$ 156,727
$ 161,285
$ 156,000
$ 161,094
Charges for Services
$ 410,824
$ 558,777
$ 61,000
$ 115,000
Fines and Forfeitures
$ 102,396
$ 188,053
$ 202,000
$ 180,000
Miscellaneous Revenue
$ 837,329
$ 887,259
$ 948,721
$ 1,006,552
Transfers In
$
-
$ 972,987
$
-
$
-
Total Revenues
$ 1,507,276
$ 2,768,361
$ 1,367,721
$ 1,462,646
Expenditures
Materials
$ 158
$ 222
$ 53,891
$ 408
Contract Services
$ 14,652,520
$ 15,547,160
$ 16,558,198
$ 17,667,516
Cost Allocation
$ 123,003
$ 167,594
$ 153,007
$ 144,684
Total Expenditures
$ 14,775,681
$ 15,714,976
$ 16,765,096
$ 17,812,608
Fund Balance
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
General Fund Costs
$ 13,268,406
$ 12,946,615
$ 15,397,375
$ 16,349,962
Staffing
There is no staffing associated with this program.

FY 2023-24 Proposed Budget
Law Enforcement
276
CC 06-04-2024
#8
Proposed amendment for
All-Inclusive Playground
Written Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: City Council Agenda Item #8 Jollyman Park
Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 11:40:20 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,

I don’t think that we should be increasing the contract for Jollyman with MIG.

This project has been going on a long time and it doesn’t make sense for this contract to be continually increasing.

Also, please make sure that MIG and 4LEAF have business licenses.

I checked the business license list and they do not appear to be there.

I think that all contracts with vendors should show an active business license just as we do with liability insurance.

Here is the list of licenses in Cupertino:
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/31857/638499998265000000

Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
Virus-free.www.avg.com
CC 06-04-2024
#9
Approve agreement with City
of San Jose for animal
management services
Written Communications
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2024-06-04 City Council Meeting Agenda ITEM9 - Automatic 4% compounded without public input through 2033! Date: Monday, June 3, 2024 2:37:28 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM.

Dear City Council,

REQUEST: PULL ITEM CONSENT ITEM 9 – regarding the agreement with the City of San Jose for animal management services.

REASON: The Staff Report says this contract will automatically increase by 4% every year! This is compounded regardless of inflation or actual cost of services!

Questions need to be asked and answered!

Why is staff willing to automatically accept increases of 4% per year compounded annually through 2033 without any review or discussion of actual costs, other providers, if services have been acceptable, etc.?

There is a reason contracts are reviewed by Council!
There is a reason contracts are on the agenda – for the public to provide input!

PLEASE pull this item and discuss it!
PLEASE do not authorize the City Manager to approve extensions. The budget discussions contain so much information that many items go undiscussed and they are buried in hundreds of pages of material. This needs to be approved by Council – each and every extension! It needs to be agendized so it has it’s own time slot to be discussed – not in budget discussions!

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin

From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2024-06-04 City Council Meeting Agenda ITEM9-PULL and REJECT Rec Action #2 Date: Monday, June 3, 2024 2:21:56 PM
Attachments: image001.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM.

Dear City Council,

REQUEST: PULL ITEM CONSENT ITEM 9 – regarding the agreement with the City of San Jose for animal management services.

REASON: Remove “Recommended Action #2”. There is a reason contracts are reviewed by Council! Who will determine if “services remain acceptable” without allowing the public an opportunity to provide input?
Who will decide which services can or cannot be eliminated as part of this contract if the public is eliminated?

Many contracts now happen to just come in under the required amount to avoid bringing them to Council for review and approval. This contract with the City of San Jose needs to come to Council each time!

PULL CONSENT ITEM 9 and reject Recommended Action #2. Stop eliminating the public’s ability to provide input!

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
CC 06-04-2024
#14
Consider the Recommended
Operating and CIP Budgets
for FY 2024-25
Written Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: City Council June 4 Oral Communications - why 3 different org charts? Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 11:28:43 AM
Attachments: org chart FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget.pdf
City Organization Chart.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
I am asking again that you direct the City Manager to restore the Citizens of Cupertino to the top of the org chart as shown in the 3rd attachment and as reflected in most City org charts in the State of California.

There is an inconsistency between current org charts available from the City website. Please fix it and put the Citizens of Cupertino on the top of the org chart where they belong.

1. Org chart in budget

2. Org chart on website

3. Downloaded pdf org chart
Sincerely,
Rhoda Fry
Virus-free.www.avg.com
/0/1/2/3/i255/5/6/7/8/9/1/10/8/2/1/11/9/8/12/i255/0/13/8/6/2 /14/15/16/17/i255/19/20/21/22/i255/15/23/17/24/25/26/23/17/23/i255/20/25/i255/21/16/17/i255/27/20/23/17/28/21/29/23/i255/29/30/i255/31/32/33/20/34/20/25/21/23/24/21/20/35/17/i255/36/17/23/35/20/28/17/25 /37/38/i255/39/40/39/41/42/39/43/i255/44/23/29/45/29/25/17/32/i255/46/26/32/47/17/21/48 /34/21/23/29/32/26/28/21/20/29/34/49 Citizens of
Cupertino
City Council
Committees and
Commissions
City Manager City TreasurerCity Attorney
Sustainability
ProgramsPublic AffairsCity Clerk
Recreation and
Community Services Public WorksCommunity
Development
Innovation &
Technology
Administrative
Services
Finance
Human Resources
Building
Planning
Economic
Development
Code Enforcement
(Zoning & Building)
Recreation &
Education
Sports,Safety &
Outdoor Recreation
TransportationCapital Improvement
Program
Environmental
Programs
Development
Services
Service Center
Streets Trees & ROWGrounds Facilities & Fleet
InfrastructureGIS
ApplicationsVideo
Housing
Business &
Community Services
Law Enforcement
(Santa Clara County
Sherriff – Contract)
Code Enforcement

From: Deepa Mahendraker
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Request for Correction of Organizational Chart to Reflect Citizens of Cupertino at the Top Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 12:18:46 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City Council of Cupertino
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Honorable Mayor Sheila Mohan, Members of the Cupertino City Council and City Manager Wu, I hope this letter finds you in good health and high spirits. I am writing to bring to your attention a matter of great significance that requires your immediate consideration and rectification. This issue pertains to the representation of the Citizens of Cupertino in the organizational structure of our city government, as depicted in the official org charts.

Upon reviewing the organizational charts currently available on the City of Cupertino’s official website, I have observed a notable inconsistency that merits correction. In several other municipal organizational charts across the State of California, it is customary and fitting for the Citizens to be prominently positioned at the pinnacle, reflecting their paramount role in the governance and stewardship of the community. This arrangement is not merely symbolic; it underscores the foundational principle that government exists to serve its people, and that the citizens are the ultimate authority to whom all public servants are accountable.

In the documents provided on the City’s website, there appears to be a discrepancy in this regard. Specifically, the organizational chart included in the budget documents, the org chart available directly on the website, and a downloaded PDF version of the org chart all differ in their presentation and do not consistently place the Citizens of Cupertino at the apex. This inconsistency not only causes confusion but also diminishes the recognized status of the citizens in the governance framework of our city.

Therefore, I earnestly request that the Cupertino City Council direct City Manager Wu to address and rectify this discrepancy with urgency. The Citizens of Cupertino should be restored to the top position of the organizational chart, as illustrated in the third attachment, aligning with the standard practice observed in other cities within our state. This adjustment will ensure that our organizational charts accurately reflect the true structure and spirit of our city’s governance, emphasizing the centrality of the Citizens in all municipal affairs.

In conclusion, I urge you to consider this matter with the seriousness it warrants and take the necessary steps to update the organizational charts to reflect the rightful position of the Citizens of Cupertino. Your attention to and action on this issue will greatly contribute to reaffirming the values of transparency, accountability, and citizen- centric governance that we all hold dear.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your prompt response and the appropriate amendments to the organizational charts.

Sincerely,
Deepa Mahendraker
Resident of Cupertino since 2002
( consider my family of four asking for this not just me - my husband and both my children who went to local schools and are now in college)
Sent from my iPhone
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: June 4 2024 City Council agenda #14 budget
Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 3:55:09 PM
Attachments: 22d6c5a3-bd2c-4979-9487-8100905a616e.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,

At the previous City Council, Councilmember Kitty Moore asked an interesting and compelling question about the potential of property tax revenue going down.

So I took a look at our disclosure documents pertaining to our City debt and found that the valuation of our 10 largest property owners has indeed gone down as follows:

In FY 2023 the assessed value of our top 10 property taxpayers was:
$10,882,692,169
In FY 2024 the assessed value of our top 10 property taxpayers was: $10,547,531,000

How will we account for that in our budget?

Sincerely,
Rhoda Fry

Virus-free.www.avg.com

Prepared for:

CITY OF CUPERTINO

Continuing Disclosure Annual Report
For Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 20 23

By:

URBAN FUTURES, INC.

Analytics & Compliance Group

C ity of Cupertino
Continuing Disclosure Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 20 2 3

Urban Futures, Inc. – Analytics & Compliance Group 2

Affected Issuance(s):

$22,040,000

CITY OF CUPERTINO
2020A Certificates of Participation

C ity of Cupertino
Continuing Disclosure Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 20 2 3

Urban Futures, Inc. – Analytics & Compliance Group 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 4 I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................... 4 II. OBJECTIVE .......................................................................................................................................... 4 III. CUSIP NUMBERS ................................................................................................................................ 5 FINANCIAL INFORMATION & OPERATING DATA .......................................................................................... 6 I. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ................................................................................................................... 6 II. ASSESSED VALUATION ....................................................................................................................... 6 III. TOP TEN PRINCIPAL PROPERTY TAXPAYERS ...................................................................................... 7 IV. SALES TAX REVENUES ........................................................................................................................ 8 V. SIGNIFICANT EVENTS ......................................................................................................................... 8

C ity of Cupertino
Continuing Disclosure Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 20 2 3

Urban Futures, Inc. – Analytics & Compliance Group 4

INTRODUCTION

I. BACKGROUND

$22,040,000 2020A Certificates of Participation

On October 22, 2020, the City of Cupertino (“City”) issued its $22,040,000 2020A Certificates of Participation (“2020A Certificates”). Proceeds from the sale of the 2020A Certificates were used to: (i) provide funds to prepay the outstanding Certificates of Participation (2012 Refinancing Project); and (ii) pay the costs of issuance incurred in connection with the execution and delivery of the 2020A Certificates. Please see the Official Statement for the 2020A Certificates as provided online at Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s (“MSRB”) Electronic Municipal Market Access (“EMMA”) repository for further background information. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have their meanings as given in the Indenture.

Interest represented by the 2020A Certificates is payable semiannually on June 1 and December 1 of each year, commencing on December 1, 2020, with principal payments due on June 1.

II. OBJECTIVE

Pursuant to the Continuing Disclosure section of the Official Statement and Continuing Disclosure Agreement/Certificate for the Affected Issuance(s), this Annual Report is being provided by the Dissemination Agent for distribution to the MSRB’s EMMA document repository.

This Annual Report has been prepared by Urban Futures, Inc. , at the direction of the City . The information set forth herein has been furnished by the City and/or County, along with other sources believed to be reliable, but no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of any such information is made by the City or Urban Futures, Inc. The City and Urban Futures, Inc. make no representation that this Annual Report contains all information material to make a decision to purchase or sell bonds or any other debt obligations of the City . Any information contained herein which involves estimates, forecasts, projections, and expressions of opinion, whether o r not expressly stated, is intended solely as such and is not to be construed as representations of fact by the City or Urban Futures, Inc., and no representation is made that such opinions or estimates will be realized. The information, opinions, and estimates herein are subject to change without notice. The City and Urban Futures, Inc. shall not take responsibility for any statements or information of any kind disseminated to the MSRB or EMMA or any other medium that is not disseminated by and authorized in writing by either the City or Urban Futures, Inc.

C ity of Cupertino
Continuing Disclosure Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 20 2 3

Urban Futures, Inc. – Analytics & Compliance Group 5

III. CUSIP NUMBERS

The CUSIP numbers below are provided for convenience of reference.

City of Cupertino
2020A Certificates of Participation
Maturity Date CUSIP*
6/1/2021 231210GE9
6/1/2022 231210GF9
6/1/2023 231210GG4
6/1/2024 231210GH2
6/1/2025 231210GJ8
6/1/2026 231210GK5
6/1/2027 231210GL3
6/1/2028 231210GM1
6/1/2029 231210GN9
6/1/2030 231210GP4
*CUSIP is a registered trademark of American Bankers Association.

C ity of Cupertino
Continuing Disclosure Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 20 2 3

Urban Futures, Inc. – Analytics & Compliance Group 6

FINANCIAL INFORMATION & OPERATING DATA

The following financial information and operating data is provided pursuant to the Continuing Disclosure section of the Official Statement and the Continuing Disclosure Agreement/Certificate.

I. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

As outlined in Continuing Disclosure Agreement/Certificate, the financial statements required as part of the Annual Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 20 23, will be posted to the EMMA document repository upon availability.

II. ASSESSED VALUATION

The table below present s a historical summary , including the most recent Fiscal Year, of the secured and unsecured valuations, net of exemptions, for property in the City.

Fiscal
Year Local Secured Unsecured
SBE Non-
Utility Total
2015 16,133,637,244$ 965, 141,148$ -$ 17,098,778,392$ 2016 18,308,720,226 1,086,786,901 - 19,395,507,127 2017 20,196,258,418 1,150,311,942 - 21,346,570,360 2018 22,024,906,420 1,114,123,426 - 23,139,029,846 2019 23,402,123,229 1,779,936,377 - 25,182,059,606 2020 24,370,718,536 1,641,863,322 - 26,012,581,858 2021 25,397,331,860 2,423,984,683 - 27,821,316,543 2022 27,083,468,890 1,723,829,174 - 28,807,298,064 2023 29,758,348,085 1,069,629,678 - 30,827,977,763 2024 31,093,380,458 1,779,123,738 - 32,872,504,196

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Asse sse d Va lua tion
Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Source: Santa Clara County Assessor (Urban Analytics, LLC).

C ity of Cupertino
Continuing Disclosure Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 20 2 3

Urban Futures, Inc. – Analytics & Compliance Group 7

III. TOP TEN PRINCIPAL PROPERTY TAXPAYERS

The table below presents a summary of the top ten principal property taxpayers in the City based on assessed valuation for the most recent and prior Fiscal Years.

Property Owner FY 2024 Asse sse d
Valuation
Percent of
Total (1)
APPLE INC $8,435,035,247 25.66%
CUPERTINO CITY CENTER 435,824,402 1.33%
MAIN STREET CUPERTINO 381,524,334 1.16%
VALLCO SHOPPING MALL LLC 364,276,620 1.11%
MARKHAM APARTMENTS LP 256,729,104 0.78%
CUPERTINO PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LLC 215,132,010 0.65%
PR CUPERTINO GATEWAY LLC 140,150,193 0.43%
AVERY GLENBROOK LP 116,016,640 0.35%
LAKE BILTMORE APARTMENTS 109,817,517 0.33%
CUPERTINO VILLAGE LP 93,024,933 0.28%
Total $10,547,531,000 32.09%

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Ten Principal Property Taxpayers
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024
(1) Total FY 2024 Assessed Valuation (secured and unsecured) net of exemptions:
$32,872,504,196.

Source: Santa Clara County Assessor (Urban Analytics, LLC).

Property Owner FY 2023 Asse sse d
Valuation
Percent of
Total (1)
APPLE INC $8,888,725,321 28.83%
MAIN STREET CUPERTINO 373,936,694 1.21%
VALLCO SHOPPING MALL LLC 357,133,944 1.16%
SWIFT RESULTS WAY LLC 352,920,000 1.14%
CUPERTINO CITY CENTER 240,731,454 0.78%
CUPERTINO PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LLC 216,935,305 0.70%
PR CUPERTINO GATEWAY LLC 137,402,151 0.45%
AVERY GLENBROOK LP 113,723,103 0.37%
MARKHAM APARTMENTS LP 109,473,477 0.36%
CUPERTINO VILLAGE LP 91,710,720 0.30%
Total $10,882,692,169 35.30%

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Ten Principal Property Taxpayers
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2023
Source: Santa Clara County Assessor (Urban Analytics, LLC). (1) Total FY 2023 Assessed Valuation (secured and unsecured) net of exemptions:
$30,827,977,763.

C ity of Cupertino
Continuing Disclosure Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 20 2 3

Urban Futures, Inc. – Analytics & Compliance Group 8

IV. SALES TAX REVENUES

The table below present s a five-year historical summary, including the most recent Fiscal Year, of total sales tax revenues received by the City.

V. SIGNIFICANT EVENTS

In compliance with the Continuing Disclosure Agreement/Certificate, material event notices are posted on MSRB’s EMMA document repository at the following web address under the “Continuing Disclosure” tab:

$22,040,000 2020A Certificates of Participation
https://emma.msrb.org/IssueView/Details/P1405077
Fis cal Year
Total Sales Tax
Revenues
2019 $24,901,779
2020 35,657,214
2021 42,581,070
2022 43,646,813
2023 34,819,341

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Sales Tax Revenues
Source: City of Cupertino.

From: Ravi Kiran Singh
To: City Council; City Clerk; City Clerk
Subject: Request for Correction of Organizational Chart to Reflect Citizens of Cupertino at the Top Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 3:54:37 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Honorable Mayor Sheila Mohan, City Council Members, and City Manager Wu, I am writing to bring to your attention a discrepancy in the City of Cupertino's organizational charts, which currently do not consistently place the Citizens of Cupertino at the top. This omission diminishes the recognized status of citizens in the governance framework and causes confusion.

I request that the City Council direct City Manager Wu to rectify this inconsistency, restoring the Citizens to the top position, as seen in other California municipal charts. This adjustment will ensure accurate reflection of our city's governance structure and spirit, emphasizing citizen centrality.

Please take prompt action to update the organizational charts, reaffirming transparency, accountability, and citizen-centric governance values. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Regards,
Ravi Kiran Singh
Cupertino Resident
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; Pamela Wu
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Subject: Request for Correction of Organizational Chart to Reflect Citizens of Cupertino at the Top Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 12:05:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Honorable Mayor Sheila Mohan, Members of the Cupertino City Council and City Manager Wu,
I hope this letter finds you in the pink of health and high spirits. I am writing to bring to your attention a matter of utmost import and significance that requires your immediate consideration, prioritization and rectification. This issue pertains to the representation of the Citizens of Cupertino in the organizational structure of our city government, as depicted in the official org charts.

Upon reviewing the organizational charts currently available on the City of Cupertino’s official website, I have observed a notable inconsistency that merits immediate correction.

In several other municipal organizational charts across the State of California, it is customary and fitting for the Citizens to be prominently positioned at the pinnacle, reflecting their paramount role in the governance and stewardship of the community. This arrangement is not merely symbolic; it underscores the foundational principle that government exists to serve its people, and that the citizens are the ultimate authority to whom all public servants are accountable.

In the documents provided on the City’s website, there appears to be a discrepancy in this regard. Specifically, the organizational chart included in the budget documents, the org chart available directly on the website, and a downloaded PDF version of the org chart all differ in their presentation and do not place the Citizens of Cupertino at the apex. The citizens of Cupertino are entirely ABSENT in the org chart. We the people of Cupertino have been eliminated from the city org chart. This omission not only causes confusion but more importantly diminishes the recognized status of Cupertino citizens and voters in the governance framework of our city.

Therefore, I earnestly request that the City Council direct City Manager Wu to address and rectify this discrepancy with urgency. The Citizens of Cupertino should be restored to the top position of the organizational chart, as illustrated in the third attachment, aligning with the standard practice observed in other cities within our state. This adjustment will ensure that our organizational charts accurately reflect the true structure and spirit of our city’s governance, emphasizing the centrality of the Citizens in all municipal affairs.

Further, I urge you to inform the public how this came about Was this change made with the Mayor’s direction. Was this change made upon council direction. Was this change made upon direction from city manager or another city staff member. Please investigate the root cause of what led to the removal of we the people of Cupertino from the city org chart. We look forward to hearing your findings. Please agendaize this topic on council agenda so the people may hear your findings and whether council members directed the city to eliminate the people of Cupertino from the org chart.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your prompt action and the appropriate amendments to the organizational charts. Thank you for your service to the city.

Sincerely,
Santosh Rao
Cupertino resident

Cupertino City CouncilJune 4, 2024

Cupertino City Council
June 4, 2024