CC 02-19-2025
Item No. 7
Ratifying Accounts
Payable for
Jan. 3-Jan. 31
Supplemental Reports
1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL 1
Meeting: February 19, 2025
Agenda Item #7
Subject
Ratifying Accounts Payable for the periods ending January 3, 2025; January 17, 2025; and January 31, 2025
Recommended Action
A. Adopt Resolution No. 25-XXX ratifying Accounts Payable for the Period ending January 3, 2025;
B. Adopt Resolution No. 25-XXX ratifying Accounts Payable for the Period ending January 17, 2025; and
C. Adopt Resolution No. 25-XXX ratifying Accounts Payable for the Period ending January 31, 2025
Background:
Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmembers are shown in italics.
Q1: Why are the expenses from the Senior Center trip being pulled from the General Fund rather than a specific Senior Center Fund within Parks & Rec? (Mayor Chao) Staff Response: The Senior Center is a general fund budget, and all senior center activities are programs within the general fund.
Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:
A – Draft Resolution 1.3.25
B – Weekly AP Payment Register for the Period Ending 1.3.25 C – Draft Resolution 1.17.25
D – Weekly AP Payment Register for the Period Ending 1.17.25 E – Draft Resolution 1.31.25
F – Weekly AP Payment Register for the Period Ending 1.31.25
CC 02-19-2025
Item No. 8
Acceptance of Federal
Highway Administration
grant
Supplemental Report
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL 1
Meeting: February 19, 2025
Agenda Item #8
Subject
Acceptance of Federal Highway Administration grant, and award of design professional services agreement to Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. for a total not-to- exceed contract amount of $625,000 for the Stevens Creek Bridge Repair Project.
Recommended Action
1. Adopt Resolution No. 25-XXX accepting $688,000 in Federal grants from the Federal Highway Administration’s Highway Bridge Program for the Stevens Creek Bridge Repair Project.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 25-XXX approving budget modification #2425-381, approving an increase of Federal grant revenue estimates of $688,000 and an appropriation of $688,000 in the Capital Improvement Program Fund (420-99- 267).
3. Authorize the City Manager to award a design professional services agreement with Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. in the total not-to-exceed contract amount of $625,000 for the Stevens Creek Bridge Repair Project.
Q1: What’s engineering estimate for this designated service? Why do we not reopen the RFP to wait for more bids? (Chao)
Staff response: The engineer’s estimate for the designated service is approximately $230,000 for design services. The contract amount of $688,000 included design services cost of approximately $250,000 with the remaining cost for hydraulic analysis, technical environmental documents, assistance in obtaining regulatory permits, geotechnical investigation, public outreach, and bid and construction support. The RFP was initially advertised for 3 weeks. An addendum was issued extending the deadline for the RFP for an additional 4 weeks for a total advertisement period of 7 weeks. Bridge design is a specialized field with limited qualified consultants. Caltrans, who administers our federal funding, approved our justification to move forward with only one proposal since extending the advertisement period further does not guarantee additional bids. Caltrans has approved and is providing 80% reimbursement for the consultant contract costs.
Q2: What’s the estimated total construction cost of the Stevens Creek Bridge? (Chao)
Staff response: That is yet to be determined, however the initial construction estimates range from $900,000 to $2,200,000. The feasibility study will determine the appropriate repair method needed to mitigate the scouring issue.
Q3: Since the bridge just needs to be repaired, $688,000 seems to be quite high for the design of one bridge. Please provide the breakdown of the design cost and considerations. (Chao)
Staff response: See breakdown below.
Design, Surveying, and Coordination Costs: $250,000
Hydraulic Modeling/Analysis: $54,000
Environmental Technical Studies: $93,000
Regulatory Permits Assistance and Monitoring Plan: $130,000 Geotechnical Investigation and Analysis: $64,000
Bid and Construction Support: $20,000
Public Outreach: $10,000
Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:
A. Draft Resolution Grant Acceptance
B. Draft Resolution Budget Modification
C. Draft Design Professional Services Agreement
CC 02-19-2025
Item No. 9
Zoning Map
Amendment
Supplemental Report
1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL 1
Meeting: February 19, 2025
Agenda Item #
Agenda Item #9
Subject
Zoning Map Amendment to correct zoning for Priority Housing Site No. 24 in the 6th Cycle Housing Element (Application No.(s): Z-2024-001, EA-2024-001; Applicant: City of Cupertino; APN: 359 13 019; Location: 20865 McClellan Road)
Recommended Action
That the City Council introduce and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 25-2268 titled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Correcting the zoning of a Priority Housing Element Site located at 20865 McClellan Road from R-3 to R-3/TH to Ensure Consistency with the General Plan and Housing Element,” by title only.
Background:
Staff’s responses to questions received from Councilmembers On February 18, staff received the following questions via email from Mayor Chao regarding Item #9:
Q1: What is the difference in design standard between R3 and R3TH? Specifically on setback requirements and parking requirements ?
Staff response: The development standards for the R-3 Zoning District and the TH (townhome) Combining District are similar. Both allow maximum building heights of 30 feet. The R-3 District has front and rear setbacks of 20 feet, interior setbacks of 6 feet for developments of four or fewer units and 10 feet for developments of five units or more, and street side setbacks of 12 feet. The TH District uses the base zoning district’s (either R-3 or R-4) front setback requirements, has a rear setback of 15 feet, and interior side setback of 6 feet and a street side setback of 12 feet.
Q2: Is this site with 1/2 mile of transit corridor so there is no parking requirements? Or is there parking requirements?
2 Staff response: The site is not within ½ mile of a transit corridor. There are parking requirements for all development proposals. City parking requirements are described in Chapter 19.124 of the Municipal Code.
Q3: Can we still add objective standards for setback or parking to such sites as a part of this rezoning to address community concerns?
Staff response: The proposed R-TH zoning includes objective standards for setbacks and parking.
If Council wishes to revisit the setback or parking standards for the TH overlay, a referral to the Planning Commission is required.
CC 02-19-2025
Item No. 10
Tyler New World ERP
replacement
Supplemental Report #4
1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL 3
Meeting: February 19, 2025
Agenda Item #10
Subject
Tyler New World Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) replacement
Recommended Action
Adopt Resolution No. 25-XXX approving Budget Modification No. 25- 380 increasing appropriations in the amount of $3,744,526 in the General Fund Applications Budget unit (100 -32-308 750-237) for the Tyler New World Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) replacement
Background:
Q1: Is Tyler ERP really a “lower Tier 2” option? (Chao)
Tyler New World is a lower Tier 2 ERP solution. Tyler Technologies offers several ERP solutions, each designed for different public sector needs. Tyler Enterprise ERP might be a good fit for Cupertino we won’t know until we go through the selection process.
We are not writing off any systems that are in the Tier 2 range. Going with Tier 2 high end scenario pricing allows us to evaluate vendors in this entire tier.
Q2: How much has the city worked with its existing ERP, Tyler, to solve its problems and improve upon the solution it has? Tyler is a leading public sector ERP. Can we negotiate our existing contract to obtain the features that are needed? (Chao)
The Tyler New World product currently used by Cupertino is not considered a leading public sector ERP. While Tyler Technologies offers several ERP solutions, New World lacks critical functionality and has significant limitations that do not align with the City’s operational needs.
Over the years, Cupertino has worked within the constraints of the system, but key deficiencies remain unresolved, and there are no indications from the vendor that these shortcomings will be addressed in future updates. Additionally, attempting to negotiate enhancements or add features has not been a
2 viable option, as the product's roadmap does not prioritize the required improvements.
Rather than continuing to invest in a system that does not meet the City's long-term needs, it is more strategic to explore a scalable, modern ERP solution that can support Cupertino’s operations effectively now and into the future.
Q3: If all of the options we are evaluating are “tier 2”, what precisely are the benefits to changing softwares? By switching, do we risk spending millions on other technologies without significantly improved outcomes? (Chao)
The reasons for replacing our current ERP are in the staff report. We are asking Council to approve the ERP Replacement project. Once we receive approval we will evaluate all of the ERP solutions that respond to Cupertino’s RFP.
Q4: Can we spend a smaller amount to fix the security issues with Tyler? We owe it to ourselves to explore the options here. (Chao)
See answer #2
Q5: Cupertino only has ~100 employees. Is it really worth spending millions on a combined HR-Finance solution? (Chao)
Cupertino has over 250 full- and part-time employees. A larger workforce as well as revenue transactions from our land-based permitting system and Park and Recreation system increases the complexity of HR and Finance operations, making a robust and integrated system a preferred solution.
Q6: Are there options for technologies that perform each function well separately and integrate with one another, rather than both functions together but mediocrely/expensively? (Chao)
While there are technologies that specialize in individual functions and can be integrated, this approach comes with significant challenges. Cupertino currently operates with multiple standalone systems that handle various ERP-related functions but do not seamlessly communicate with one another. As a result, staff must rely on manual processes to transfer data between systems, which is time-consuming, inefficient, and prone to errors.
Additionally, integrating multiple separate systems requires ongoing maintenance, custom development, and costly middleware solutions to ensure data consistency—often making it just as expensive, if not more so, than implementing a fully integrated ERP. Each system may also have its own updates, support contracts, and compatibility issues, adding further complexity and long-term costs.
3 A modern, integrated ERP system eliminates these inefficiencies by centralizing data, improving automation, and streamlining operations. It reduces the risks associated with fragmented systems while ensuring scalability, accuracy, and long-term cost-effectiveness.
Q7: Most smaller companies use a tech stack of integrated tools. Attempting to find a tool that does everything at once is unrealistic, and leaves little flexibility for future customization as needs change. (Chao)
Cupertino is not a small company; it is a government organization with unique compliance, budgeting, transaction, and reporting requirements that differ significantly from private-sector businesses.
Q8: If implementation takes 5+ years, do we risk the technology being outdated by the time it is implemented? (Chao)
The ERP implementation is expected to take 2-3 years, ensuring a timely transition while allowing for proper system configuration, data migration, and staff training. The goal is to select a scalable system that evolves with technological advancements, minimizing the risk of obsolescence.
Q9: What options exist for improving upon what we already have, which would be faster and more efficient? (Chao)
See answer to Q4.
Q10: Thank you for comparing with a few other cities. But the cities in the comparison table, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Milpitas and Los Gatos are all full service cities. They all have their own police departments. Some have their own fire departments. Some even manage their own water system. Thus, I wonder whether they are comparable comparison? (Chao)
Pricing varies widely from city to city due to numerous factors, making direct comparisons challenging. We are seeking approval to proceed with the ERP replacement project, with the high Tier 2 scenario pricing providing the necessary flexibility to identify a system that aligns with Cupertino’s specific needs, as outlined in the ERP needs assessment conducted under your direction. While we anticipate finding a solution below this price point, our priority as staff is to select the best-fit system at the most cost-effective price.
Q11: Could you include the number of employees? (Chao)
That information is not readily available. The comparison illustration demonstrated the wide variation 4 in ERP costs across different cities. However, once we examine the details, the differences in systems, requirements, and implementation factors make direct comparisons impractical.
Q12: The cost for the higher end Tier 2 is three times of the cost of the lower end Tier 2. From the answer give in Supplemental Report, the lower end Tier 2 would have similar functionality of the current system, what justifies spending three times the cost for a higher end system? (Chao)
Higher-tier solutions offer greater automation, enhanced functionality, and increased process efficiencies by consolidating multiple functions into a single system, reducing reliance on standalone applications and lowering integration costs. For example, if the system includes a contract management module, we could leverage its built-in integration capabilities and eliminate the need for a separate contract management solution, ultimately offsetting costs in the long run. Without the opportunity to evaluate these features, we may overlook systems that are both more effective and cost- efficient over time.
Additionally, mature ERP solutions have a larger customer base, meaning they have undergone extensive real-world testing and have been successfully implemented in public sector environments with similar needs.
Opting for a lower-tier system could also result in unanticipated costs which may not beknown at this time, such as purchasing additional software to fill functionality gaps, higher integration expenses, and increased staff resources needed for implementation tasks like data conversion, training, and customization. Investing in a comprehensive and scalable ERP will ensure Cupertino adopts a future- ready solution that meets its long-term operational and financial goals.
Q13: Can we go for a lower end Tier 2 now and then selectively upgrade later as needed? Software systems should be configurable to add extensions later. (Chao)
While it may seem like a viable approach to start with a lower-end Tier 2 system and upgrade later, this strategy comes with significant risks and hidden costs. Many ERP systems, particularly those at the lower end of Tier 2, may not offer the scalability, flexibility, or seamless integration required for future upgrades. Adding new modules or extending functionality later can be more complex, costly, and time-consuming than implementing a comprehensive solution from the start.
Additionally, integrating new features into an existing system often requires custom development, costly third-party add-ons, and increased staff resources for implementation, training, and data migration. This can lead to fragmented systems, inefficiencies, and ongoing integration challenges.
A more strategic approach is to invest in a scalable and adaptable ERP from the beginning, ensuring the system can grow with Cupertino’s needs while minimizing future disruptions, integration costs, and potential rework. By selecting the right system now, we can avoid technical limitations and 5 ensure a smoother, more cost-effective long-term solution that meets both current and future operational demands.
Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:
A – Draft Resolution 2025-xxx
Additional Attachments Provided with Supplemental 1:
B - ERP Needs Assessment