Signed and certified that a copy of this document
has been delivered by electronic or other means to
the President, Board of Supervisors.
ATTEST
Curtis Boone Date
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Approved as to form and legality.
Stephanie M. Jackson Date
Deputy County Counsel
CITY OF XXXX
Date
City Manager
Approved as to form and legality
Date
City Attorney
330
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
334 of 456
Agreement between County of Santa Clara
and City of Cupertino
Exhibits To This Agreement:
Exhibit A Scope of Law Enforcement Services
Exhibit B Law Enforcement and Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Payment Exhibit C County Crime Laboratory Services
Exhibit D Plan for Service
Exhibit E Law Enforcement Services Rates
Exhibit F Supplemental Law Enforcement Support Services Rates
331
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
335 of 456
Agreement between County of Santa Clara
and City of Cupertino
EXHIBIT A: SCOPE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
The purpose of this Exhibit is to describe and define the type and level of law enforcement services to be performed.
I. SERVICES
A. DELIVERY OF SERVICES
County, through its Sheriff’s Office, shall provide law enforcement services within the incorporated limits of the City as may be required by City and as within the capability of the Sheriff’s Office to provide. The rendering of such services, the standards of performance, the discipline of officers, and other matters incident to the performance of such services remain within the discretion of the Sheriff.
B. LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
Law Enforcement services mean those law enforcement activities the Office of the Sheriff deems necessary to ensure public safety within the City, including but not limited to:
1. General Law Enforcement Services: General law enforcement/policing duties customarily performed by a municipal police department or Sheriff in the State of California, including, but not limited to, routine and directed patrol, enforcement of federal, state, and local laws and ordinances, investigation of criminal acts, prevention and detection of crime, apprehension and detention of suspects, response to emergency and non-emergency calls for service, preparation of incident and arrest reports, public safety and crime prevention education; and any other law enforcement or public safety functions that may be necessary to protect life, property, and the general welfare of the public within the City’s incorporated limits, as determined by the Sheriff in consultation with the City.
General law enforcement service levels and staffing are determined by the annual Plan for Service.
2. Traffic Enforcement Services: The monitoring, direction, and regulation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic within the City's incorporated limits to ensure compliance with state and local traffic laws and ordinances, including, but not limited to, the investigation and reporting of ve hicle collisions, enforcement of laws against distracted driving, speed enforcement, red light violations, DUI enforcement, seatbelt compliance, equipment violations, drivers education and safety awareness, reporting collisions to the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), and other routine or directed vehicle-related enforcement activities. This may include dedicated traffic deputies assigned to a motorcycle or vehicle, as well as traffic investigators, as determined by the Sheriff in consultation with the City. Traffic enforcement service levels and staffing are determined by the annual Plan for Service.
3. School Resource Officers: Deputies assigned to partner with school districts within the City to provide a visible police presence, foster positive relationships with students and staff, support crime prevention and safety education, and respond to incidents on or near
332
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
336 of 456
Agreement between County of Santa Clara
and City of Cupertino
school property. SROs collaborate with administrators to maintain a safe learning environment. SRO FTEs are determined by the annual Plan for Service.
4. Direct Law Enforcement Services: Personnel directly assigned to the West Valley Patrol Division to ensure effective delivery of general law enforcement services to each City.
These positions support field operations, administration, planning, coordination, and the operation of the West V alley Substation, and are allocated proportionally based on the City’s share of total hours, as determined by the annual Plan for Service. Staffing shall include the Division Commander (Sheriff Captain), Assistant Division Commander (Sheriff Lieutenant), P atrol Supervisors (Sheriff Sergeants), Administrative Sergeant (Sheriff Sergeant), Traffic Detectives (Sheriff Deputies), Management Analyst, Law Enforcement Records Technicians, Executive Assistant I, and Fleet Maintenance Scheduler, to provide for the administration, supervision, and support of law enforcement services in the City.
5. Investigation Services: Investigate felony and misdemeanor crimes within the City.
Responsibilities include follow -up on investigations and reports completed by patrol deputies, witness and suspect interviews, crime scene processing, evidence collection, report preparation, and collaboration with the District Attorney and other agencies.
Dedicated West Valley detectives focus on property crimes, while specialized units address major crimes, sex crimes, domestic violence, missing persons, on -call detectives, and the Crime Scene Investigation Unit (CSI). Additional functions include property and evidence management, crime scene investigation, and evidence processing and destruction, as determined by the Sheriff in consultation with the City.
6. Law Enforcement Records Services: Provides 24/7 records services, including warrant confirmation, public information, police report record management and processing to support mandated Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR), and state and federal crime reporting on behalf of the City, case sealings/expungements, California Public Records Act requests and processing, vehicle tow processing, public report requests, and other tasks required by law and as determined by the Sheriff in consultation with the City.
7. Emergency Dispatch Services: Handles 9-1-1 and emergency police calls for service, including call intake, prioritization, and rapid deployment of law enforcement resources via radio dispatch. Utilizes Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) systems to track units and incidents. Service provided by Santa Clara County Communications.
8. Community Engagement: Promotes positive relationships with the public through activities such as attendance by Sheriff's Office and Division leadership, at the discretion of the Sheriff, at community events (e.g., Coffee with a Cop, National Night Out), deployment of Sheriff’s Office Public Information Officers for critical or high -interest events related to the Sheriff’s Office in the City, regular social media communication about matters of public interest or policing in the City, and coordination with each city’s Public Information Officer or designated staff.
333
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
337 of 456
Agreement between County of Santa Clara
and City of Cupertino
C. SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES
At the request of the City, the Sheriff may provide additional supplemental law enforcement support services from the Sheriff, beyond Law Enforcement Services as described above.
Supplemental services may include support for special events, targeted enforcement, focused patrols, or other needs that require a temporary increase in staffing through overtime and cannot be anticipated in the Plan for Service. The cost for supplemental law enforcement services shall be at the rates listed in Exhibit F. Supplemental law enforcement services are subject to the approval of the Sheriff and availability of staff and must be approved in writing by the City before services are provided or may be pre-planned as part of the annual Plan for Service.
II. PLAN FOR SERVICE
Prior to February 1st of each contract year, the County, through the Sheriff, shall provide the City with a comprehensive summary of the prior years’ service hours, response times, crime trends, and a recommendation for staffing allocations for the upcoming year for General Law Enforcement Services, Traffic Enforcement Services, and School Resource Officers, and, as needed, Supplemental Law Enforcement Services. The City shall meet with the Sheriff to review and discuss these recommendations and must submit a written response by February 15th of the contract year, specifying its desired service levels for the following contract year. By April 1st of each contract year, the Sheriff will provide the City with an updated Exhibit D that reflects the selected service hours for each service category and the corresponding rates. If the City fails to submit a written response to the Plan for Service, the Office of the Sheriff may continue to provide the same level of service as delivered in the previous contract year.
III. ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
A. ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER POLICY
Sheriff’s deputies assigned to provide General Law Enforcement Services as herein described shall be assigned to City for a period of not less than three years, except when a deputy is reassigned because of promotion or layoff, transfer requested by the deputy, or at the request of the City and with the concurrence of the Sheriff.
Special Assignment personnel (e.g., SRO and Traffic Enforcement) shall be assigned to the City for a period of not less than five years except when a person is reassigned because of promotion or layoff, transfer is requested by the deputy, or by the City and with the concurrence of the Sheriff.
All transfers and assignments shall follow any applicable bargaining agreements or transfer policies of the Sheriff’s Office.
B. DESIGNATION OF CHIEF OF POLICE
If City shall so desire, and County and the Sheriff shall so agree, nothing in the agreement prevents or limits City from designating the Sheriff or their designee as its 334
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
338 of 456
Agreement between County of Santa Clara
and City of Cupertino
Chief of Police in order to satisfy the provision of Part I, Division 3, Title 4 of the California Government Code (sections 36501, et seq.). However, this shall not affect the authority of the Sheriff to control and direct employees of this Office in carrying out duties and obligations pursuant to this contract and shall not increase any liability to the County arising from this agreement.
C. PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
1. Hiring, Training, and Discipline of Staff: The hiring, training, standards of performance, discipline, and/or control of all Sheriff’s Office personnel employed under this Agreement shall remain under the appropriate chain of command with the County Sheriff’s Office.
2. Exclusive Authority: Subject to the terms of this Agreement, the Sheriff shall retain exclusive authority over the activities of their personnel. The planning, organization, scheduling, direction, supervision, standards of performance and discipline of Sheriff’s personnel, and all other related matters incidental to the delivery of general law enforcement services to the City shall be determined by the Sheriff. Nothing herein shall be deemed to limit the Sheriff’s authority, to move, transfer and/or discipline Sheriff’s Office personnel as Sheriff in their discretion deems appropriate.
3. Selection of the West Valley Patrol Captain: The City will be afforded the opportunity to participate in the selection process for the Sheriff's Captain assigned to the West Valley Patrol Division. The City may participate in the interview process and provide a recommendation to the Sheriff regarding the selection; however, the Sheriff retains the authority to select and assign division management.
D. DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN
1. In the event of a major disaster that necessitates the activation of an Emergency Operations Center in City, a Sheriff’s representative shall immediately be dispatched and report to the Director of Emergency Services (City Manager).
2. Initial response by a Deputy Sheriff may be the nearest patrol unit or able - bodied deputy available.
3. A pre-designated Sheriff’s Emergency Operations Center liaison deputy shall be notified as soon as possible to respond to the Emergency Operations Center and coordinate law enforcement responsibilities.
4. The pre -designated Emergency Operations Center liaison deputy shall be maintained on the active call list and shall be available to the Director of Emergency Services.
5. The City and the Sheriff shall exchange relevant emergency contact information annually for the purpose of emergency notification and disaster preparedness. 335
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
339 of 456
Agreement between County of Santa Clara
and City of Cupertino
6. Responsibility for personnel instruction and any specialized training in the Emergency Operations Center shall be provided by City.
7. In the event a major disaster occurs, the Sheriff’s Office shall provide documentation support as required to comply with the City’s emergency operations cost recovery efforts.
E. MUTUAL AID
The City acknowledges and agrees that an unplanned event or emergency may require a temporary reallocation of law enforcement services for the purpose of mutual aid, in accordance with the California Emergency Services Act, codified at Government Code section 8550 et seq. Such a decision will be at the Sheriff’s sole discretion.
IV. ADMINISTRATION AND REPORTING
A. Required Reporting: The Sheriff shall report all monthly and annually required criminal statistical information for the City, including Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR), to the State of California and the California Department of Justice, as it would for the unincorporated areas of the County.
B.Monthly Reports to the City: The Sheriff shall provide the City with monthly reports, suitable for public release, on crime incidence, calls for service and response times, and General Law Enforcement Service hours, any estimated additional costs that would affect the reconciliation or true up described in Exhibit B, and staffing trends for the month and contract year-to-date. These reports shall be formatted as mutually agreed upon by the Sheriff and the City. The Sheriff shall deliver these monthly reports to the City within thirty (30) days following the last day of each month.
C. Policy Objectives. XXXX may identify public safety policy objectives, community concerns, and municipal priorities through its City Council and City Manager. The Office of the Sheriff may consider those objectives, concerns, and priorities, and may implement them to the extent consistent with law, available resources, officer safety, Office of the Sheriff policies and procedures, County policy, and the discretion of the Sheriff.
D. Operational Information for City Services. Upon the request of the City Manager, and subject to all applicable federal, state, and local confidentiality and disclosure laws, the Office of the Sheriff will make available to the City information regarding services in City. Such information may include data on incident response times and outcomes beyond that information included in required reports described in sections A and B. The Parties may develop mutually agreeable operational reports, dashboards, or other tools.
E. Annual Service Consultation. At least once each contract year, the Sheriff, or designee, and the City Manager, or designee, will consult regarding service delivery, operational trends, and any mutually desired refinements. The parties shall meet in good faith to review and identify service 336
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
340 of 456
Agreement between County of Santa Clara
and City of Cupertino
trends, community concerns, operational coordination, technology integration, public safety emergency preparedness coordination, or operational issues likely to affect this Agreement.
F. Attendance at City Council Meetings . Upon the request of the City Manager, the Sheriff, or designee, may attend City Council meetings and present information concerning law enforcement services provided in City during the then-current contract year.
V. OTHER CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY COSTS
The City shall be responsible for criminal justice fees applicable to other municipalities as required by law or agreement, including, but not limited to, California Identification System (CAL-ID) costs.
Santa Clara County Crime Laboratory services and costs are detailed in Exhibit C.
337
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
341 of 456
Agreement between County of Santa Clara
and City of Cupertino
EXHIBIT B: LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
SERVICES PAYMENT
The purpose of this Exhibit is to describe the payment methodology for law enforcement services.
1. In consideration for the law enforcement services provided by the County under this Agreement, the City shall compensate the County at the fully burdened rates set forth in Exhibit E. These fully burdened rates include, but are not limited to, direct labor costs, employee benefits, pension contributions, training, supervision, dispatch and communications support, administrative and departmental overhead, countywide overhead, fleet and equipment support, and any other cost components established by the County’s Office of Budget and Analysis (or Controller‑Treasurer) as necessary to fully recover the County’s actual cost of providing such services as required by Government Code section 51350.
2. Deleted.
3. Billing Rates. The billing rates set forth in Exhibit E shall be readjusted annually by the County’s Office of Budget and Analysis, effective April 1 of each year, to reflect changes in the County’s actual cost of providing services. Upon the County’s approval of revised rates, the Parties shall execute an amendment to this Agreement incorporating the updated billing rates for the applicable fiscal year. The amended Exhibit E shall automatically supersede the prior rate schedule without requiring any additional modification to the remainder of the Agreement.
4. If, during the course of a fiscal year, it appears that the Sheriff’s Office will exceed the hours planned and approved in the annual Plan for Service by more than ten percent (10%) based on monthly reporting and projections, either Party shall notify the other Party in writing as soon as reasonably practicable. Upon such notification, the Sheriff’s Office or the City may propose amendments or modifications to the Plan for Service for the remainder of the fiscal year.
The City shall review any proposed modifications in good faith but shall have no obligation to approve any increase in service levels or associated costs. If the City does not approve the proposed modifications, the Sheriff’s Office shall not be required to provide services in excess of the approved Plan for Service, and the City shall not be responsible for paying for any such unapproved services. The County shall not unilaterally reduce the level of law enforcement services provided to the City without prior consultation and written notice. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Sheriff retains discretion and operational authority to adjust staffing levels to address emerging issues, workload trends, or to strategically reassign personnel as necessary to meet the approved annual Plan for Service hour allocations for each City.
338
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
342 of 456
Agreement between County of Santa Clara
and City of Cupertino
Any mutually approved increase in services or deployment levels shall automatically and proportionately increase the total compensation due for that fiscal year.
5. In any year during which a labor contract between the County of Santa Clara and the Deputy Sheriffs’ Association is under negotiation and not yet settled at the time annual billing rates must be calculated, the County shall apply a provisional increase of five percent (5%) to salary components of the billing rates, plus any known or approved benefit or pension cost increases, for the purpose of establishing interim rates for services to be provided under this Agreement.
Following settlement and finalization of the applicable labor contract, the County shall notify the City in writing of any resulting adjustments to billing rates within thirty (30) days of contract resolution. The County may thereafter recalculate the billing rates to incorporate all finalized salary, benefit, and pension adjustments arising from the collective bargaining agreement.
If the recalculated rates reflect retroactive increases applicable to service periods already rendered, the City shall pay its proportional share of such retroactive costs.
Such retroactive adjustments shall be invoiced separately or incorporated into the next regular billing cycle, as determined by the County.
6. The City shall pay to the County an amount equal to one‑twelfth (1/12) of the annual projected budget amount for Law Enforcement Services , calculated using the prevailing billing rates shown in Exhibit E. Monthly payments shall be due on the tenth (10th) day following the last day of each month during the contract year. Each monthly invoice and payment shall reflect one‑twelfth of the proje cted annual cost unless otherwise adjusted pursuant to this Agreement.
7. The cost for supplemental law enforcement services shall be invoiced in the following monthly invoice as applicable. Costs and expenses arising from any optional - additional-services or from supplemental law enforcement services shall be invoiced separately from the fees associated with the Law Enforcement Services set forth in this Agreement and in accordance with the rates set forth in Exhibit F.
8. BASE RENT AND OPERATING COSTS OF WESTSIDE STATION
A. The City and County shall share the Operating Costs of the West Valley Division substation based on the percent allocations to each jurisdiction set forth in Exhibit E. The City shall pay to the County an amount equal to one‑twelfth (1/12) of the annual projected budget amount, calculated using the prevailing billing rates shown in Exhibit E. Monthly payments shall be due on the tenth (10th) day following the last day of each month during the contract year. Each monthly invoice and payment shall reflect one‑twelfth of the projected annual cost unless otherwise adjusted pursuant to this Agreement.
B. Payments, or any portion thereof, not received by the County within thirty (30) days of the due date shall accrue interest at a rate of ten percent (10%) per annum, or the maximum rate permitted by law, whichever is lower. Interest shall accrue from the day following the due date until the date payment is 339
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
343 of 456
Agreement between County of Santa Clara
and City of Cupertino
received. Accrued interest shall be included on the last invoice issued in the month in which interest is assessed, or on a supplemental invoice if necessary.
C. City shall pay County monthly that portion of the substation operating costs attributable to City. Any change to the location of the substation, or the cost of the facility over and above the contract language, shall be mutually agreed to by the parties to this agreement.
D. For the purposes of this provision of the Agreement, "Operating Costs" are defined as the cost of rent, janitorial services, minor repairs, and utilities and all other costs the County is required to pay under the lease agreement for the substation.
9. RECONCILIATION OR TRUE UP
The Parties acknowledge that certain costs subject to this Agreement, including but not limited to labor costs, overtime, benefits, insurance, and other pass through or reimbursable expenses, may be based on estimates, assumptions, forecasts, or standard rates, that differ from actual amounts incurred. A reconciliation of actual law enforcement costs shall be conducted each year of the Agreement as follows:
A. The County shall provide the City with a complete service activity report for the prior contract year no later than September 30 following the end of such contract year. The report shall include actual staffing levels, deployment hours, overtime usage, and any other cost‑related service metrics necessary to support the reconciliation.
B. The County shall determine the difference between (1) the actual cost of law enforcement services for the prior contract year, based on the actual level of service reflected in the service activity report and fully burdened rates applicable to that year, and (2) the total amount paid by the City to the County for that year. Any resulting balance shall be either invoiced to the City or credited to the City’s account, as appropriate. Any amount owed by either Party shall be paid or credited within sixty (60) days of issuance of the reconciliation statement.
340
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
344 of 456
Agreement between County of Santa Clara
and City of Cupertino
EXHIBIT C: COUNTY CRIME LABORATORY SERVICES
Crime Laboratory services shall include and be defined as review and analysis of any of the following:
Audio Analysis
Bloodstain Pattern Analysis
DNA/Forensic Biology
Computer Forensics (including Cell Phones)
Firearms Examinations
Impression Evidence
Latent Print Processing, excluding analysis, identification, and CalID Trace Evidence
Video Analysis
Toxicology
Controlled Substances Analysis
Each calendar year, the total cost of running the Crime Laboratory is determined. The cost includes Crime Laboratory personnel salaries and benefits, supplies, and other operating costs (including equipment and maintenance) associated with providing Crime Laboratory services.
Also, each calendar year, statistics are generated on the total number of Major Case submissions to the Crime Laboratory. The number of Major Case submissions by each law enforcement agency is expressed as a percentage of the total number of Major Cases submitted by all law enforcement agencies in the County. Major Case submissions are defined as cases requiring Audio Analysi s, Bloodstain Pattern Analysis, DNA/Forensic Biology Analysis, Computer Forensics (including Cell Phones), Firearms Examinations, Impression Evidence, Latent Print Processing, Trace Evidence Analysis, or Video Analysis, that are assigned a single laboratory number by the Crime Lab, and as such different Major Cases may have widely different numbers of individual evidence items requiring a wide range of analyses. Note: Toxicology and Controlled Substances Analysis are not considered Major Cases.
The County will recover a portion of the Crime Laboratory’s operating costs from participating cities. Each CITY’s share will be based on a combination of factors that generally reflect both service utilization and community characteristics. The specific a llocation formula may be updated periodically by the County to maintain fairness and account for changes in workload, operational needs, or demographic shifts. The County shall provide notice to each city in advance of any such updates to the allocation formula.
CITY shall be notified of its payment amount in advance of the coming fiscal year to allow adequate budget planning and will be receiving the invoice from the District Attorney’s Office to provide payment to the District Attorney’s Office.
341
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
345 of 456
Agreement between County of Santa Clara
and City of Cupertino
EXHIBIT D: PLAN FOR SERVICE
City/Town of XXXX
Fiscal Year YYYY-YYYY
Law Enforcement Service Staffing Levels
Service Type Position Rate Hours/
FTE Sub-Total
General Law
Enforcement
Services
Deputy Sheriff $
206.08
20,000 $ 4,121,560.00
Traffic Enforcement Deputy Sheriff $
206.08
5,000 $ 1,030,400.00
Traffic Sergeant Sheriff
Sergeant
$
360,985.00
1 $ 360,985.00
School Resource
Officer (SRO) Sheriff Deputy $
336,731.00
1 $ 336,731.00
342
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
346 of 456
Agreement between County of Santa Clara
and City of Cupertino
EXHIBIT E
343
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
347 of 456
Agreement between County of Santa Clara
and City of Cupertino
EXHIBIT F: SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES RATES
Santa Clara County - Sheriff's Office
West Valley Patrol
SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES
Fiscal Year 2026-2027
Assignment Description Hourly Rate
Deputy Sheriff $206.08
Sheriff's Sergeant $219.57
Sheriff's Lieutenant $256.70
2104477.1
344
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
348 of 456
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AND
THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
This is the Second Amendment to the Agreement between the County of Santa Clara (“County”) and the City of Cupertino (“City”), entered into on June 24, 2014, for the performance of law enforcement services to be provided by the County's Office of the Sheriff to the City, and the compensation provided to the County by the City for those law enforcement services. County and City may be referred to individually as a "Party" or collectively as the "Parties" to this Agreement. The Parties desire to amend the Agreement to extend the term of the agreement and update the rates of compensation.
This Agreement is amended as follows, effective July 1, 2026:
1. The phrase “Exhibit A” in Section I. A. 1 and in Section I. B. 1. is amended to read “Exhibit A-1.”
2. Section I. C. regarding Supplemental Reserve Services, on page 2 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety.
3. Section II. A. 1. regarding Compensation for Law Enforcement Services Provided by Sheriff, on page 4 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
The City shall compensate the County on a monthly, pro rata basis utilizing the 2026-2027 Fiscal Year rates as set forth in Exhibit A-1.
The remainder of the language in Section II. A. 1. shall be deleted.
4. Section II. A. 3 and A. 4. regarding Compensation for Law Enforcement Services Provided by Sheriff, on pages 5-6 of the Agreement shall be deleted.
5. Section II. B. regarding Supplemental/Reserve Service, on page 6 of the Agreement shall be deleted.
6. Section II. C. 1. a. regarding Base Rent and Operating Costs of Westside Substation, on page 6 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
The City shall compensate the County on a monthly, pro rata basis utilizing the 2026-2027 Fiscal Year rates as set forth in Exhibit A-1.
The remainder of the language in Section II. C. 1. a. shall be deleted.
7. Section VI. regarding Term of Agreement, on page 9 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
Docusign Envelope ID: FFE1814F-B487-87A6-8274-6055B57B79C4 Approved: 06/23/2026
345
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
349 of 456
The term of this Agreement is extended to and expires at 11:59 p.m. on September 30, 2026. The County shall, accordingly, provide law enforcement services under this Agreement through that date and time. The expiration of the term shall not affect the parties’ obligations to complete final reconciliation and payment for services rendered through the end of the term, and the provisions of Sections II.E, III, IV, and V shall survive expiration to the extent necessary to give them effect.
8. Remove “Exhibit A – Proposed Costs for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Proposed Costs” in its entirety and replace with “Exhibit A-1– 2026-2027 Fiscal Year Rates” as attached to this Agreement and incorporated herein by reference.
9. Delete “Exhibit B – Law Enforcement Contract Calculation of Annual Compensation” in in its entirety.
10. All references in the Agreement to “County Patrol Activity Network Analysis” and “COPANA” shall be deleted and replaced with the County Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD)” and “CAD”, respectively.
11. Section VII. “Execution and Counterparts” is hereby added and incorporated into the Agreement and reads as follows:
This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which will be considered an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. The parties agree that this Agreement, its amendments, and ancillary agreements to be entered into in connection with this Agreement will be considered signed when the signature of a party is delivered a method described herein.
Unless otherwise prohibited by law or County policy, the parties agree that an electronic copy of a signed contract, or an electronically signed contract, has the same force and legal effect as a contract executed with an original ink signature. The term “electronic copy of a signed contract” refers to a transmission by facsimile, electronic mail, or other electronic means of a copy of an original signed contract in a portable document format.
The term “electronically signed contract” means a contract that is executed by applying an electronic signature using technology approved by County.
All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect. In the event of a conflict between the original Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment, and this Second Amendment, this Second Amendment controls.
The Agreement as amended constitutes the entire agreement of the parties concerning the subject matter herein and supersedes all prior oral and written agreements, representations and understandings concerning such subject matter.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, COUNTY and the CITY hereby agree to the terms of this Second Amendment to the Contract.
Docusign Envelope ID: FFE1814F-B487-87A6-8274-6055B57B79C4 346
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
350 of 456
347
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
351 of 456
Unincorporated
Rates Cupertino Los Altos Hills Saratoga Areas
DIRECT LAW ENFORCEMENT STAFFING COST
General Law Enforcement Services (Primary Rate)
Proposed Hours 41,881 6,681 20,060 14,696
Projected Costs FY26-27 @ $206.08 $8,630,836 $1,376,717 $4,133,965 $3,028,552 Supplemental Services - Traffic Enforcement - Day
Proposed Hours - Enforcement Vehicle - Deputy Sheriff 1,803 - - - Proposed Hours - Motorcycle - Deputy Sheriff 5,447 600 4,195 - Total Proposed Hours 7,250 600 4,195 -
Projected Costs FY26-27 @ $206.08 $1,494,080 $123,648 $864,578 $0 Traffic Sergeant
Projected Costs FY26-27 @ $360,985 $360,985 $0 $0 $0
School Resources Officer
Projected Costs FY26-27 @ $336,731 $673,462 $0 $336,731 $0 Subtotal $11,159,364 $1,500,365 $5,335,273 $3,028,552
Percentage 53.0% 7.1% 25.4% 14.4%
DIRECT LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES
Support Staff - Salaries & Benefits $5,348,552 $2,621,612 $404,996 $1,294,467 $1,027,476 Services & Supplies
IC-Dispatch Services - Internal 4,324,600 2,119,719 327,461 1,046,649 830,771 IC-Automobile Services - Internal 1,571,823 770,435 119,019 380,416 301,953 IC-Insurance 1,025,102 502,457 77,621 248,097 196,926
IC-Office Rents 637,350 312,399 48,261 154,253 122,437
IC-Fuel - Internal 312,329 153,089 23,650 75,590 59,999 B
odyworn Camera & Dashcam 305,959 149,967 23,167 74,049 58,776 IC-Radio Maintenance - Internal 48,571 23,807 3,678 11,755 9,331 Communications and Telephone Svcs 37,380 18,322 2,830 9,047 7,181 IC - Wireless Voice & Data Services 35,543 17,421 2,691 8,602 6, 828
Others 357,486 175,223 27,069 86,520 68,674
$8,656,142 $4,242,840 $655,449 $2,094,977 $1,662,876
INDIRECT COUNTYWIDE SUPPORT $580,573 $284,570 $43,961 $140,512 $111,530 Subtotal $14,585,267 $7,149,023 $1,104,406 $3,529,956 $2,801,883
INDIRECT DEPARTMENT SUPPORT
Investigative $5,531,736 $3,740,926 $364,509 $1,320,653 $382,236 Records $2,832,389 $1,915,449 $186,638 $676,208 $195,714 Personnel & Training $1,057,612 $518,393 $80,083 $255,966 $203,171 IT Services $997,556 $488,956 $75,536 $241,430 $191,634 SO Admin $349,433 $171,276 $26,459 $84,570 $67,127
Fiscal Services $298,434 $146,278 $22,598 $72,228 $57,330 Internal Affairs $253,085 $124,050 $19,164 $61,252 $48,619 Subtotal $11,320,245 $7,105,328 $774,986 $2,712,306 $1,145,832 Total Projected Contract Costs FY26-27 $25,413,714 $3,379,757 $11,577,536 $6,976,266
PROJECTED CONTRACT COSTS - FULL COSTS
Fiscal Year 2026-2027
Santa Clara County - Sheriff's Office
West Valley Patrol
EXHIBIT A-1
Docusign Envelope ID: FFE1814F-B487-87A6-8274-6055B57B79C4 348
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
352 of 456
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance
with Government Code §51350
Fiscal Year 2026-27
Prepared for
City of Cupertino
Prepared by
Vasquez & Company LLP
349
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
353 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350 Table of Contents
PAGE
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................ 1 OBJECTIVES, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 3
1. Understanding Santa Clara County Sheriff Service Delivery Model ...................................................... 6
2. Direct Law Enforcement Costs ............................................................................................................... 7
3. Evaluation of Patrol and Station-Level Cost Allocation (Direct Law Enforcement Support Services) ... 8
4. Review of Contract Law Enforcement Overhead (Indirect Countywide and Department Support) ....... 9
5. Countywide Cost Allocation Plan Support ............................................................................................ 12
6. Evaluation of Cost Transparency and Supporting Documentation ...................................................... 13
7. Review of the County's Historical Public Protection Functional Cost Based on the County's Published ACFR ................................................................................................................................... 13
8. Comparative Analysis of Other Contract-City Arrangements ............................................................... 14
9. Comparative FTE-Based Allocation Analysis ....................................................................................... 27
10. Recommended Budget Analysis of Contract-Related Cost Changes .................................................. 29
350
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
354 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
1 REPORT ON THE CITY OF CUPERTINO’S REVIEW OF
PROPOSED SHERIFF CONTRACT COSTS
Vasquez & Company LLP (Vasquez) was engaged by the City of Cupertino to evaluate Santa Clara County’s proposed FY 2026-27 charges for contract law-enforcement services provided by the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office. The engagement focused on the composition of the proposed charges, the methodologies used to allocate direct and shared costs, the transparency and traceability of the supporting documentation, and the comparability of the proposed costs to selected California sheriff contract-city arrangements.
BACKGROUND
The City of Cupertino (Cupertino or the City) was incorporated in 1955 and is in Santa Clara County (the County) at the western edge of Silicon Valley, adjacent to the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains. The City has a population of approximately 60,000 to 64,000 residents. Cupertino is internationally recognized as a center of technology and innovation and is home to Apple Inc. and other technology companies.
The City operates under a council- manager form of government. The five -member City Council establishes municipal policy, while the City Manager oversees the administration of City programs, services, and operations.
The City provides and coordinates a range of municipal services, including community development, public works, parks and recreation, transportation programs, emergency preparedness, code enforcement, housing programs, and administrative services. Certain public services are provided through contracts, cooperative arrangements, special districts, or other governmental agencies rather than through City -operated departments. The City describes this model as combining municipal operations with partnerships involving key service agencies and local organizations.
Cupertino is a predominantly residential community with a significant technology and business presence. The City emphasizes education, innovation, collaboration, community engagement, and the maintenance of a high quality of life. Its residents participate in municipal governance through the City Council and various commissions and committees addressing planning, housing, parks and recreation, public safety, technology, transportation, and other community matters.
The City of Cupertino, the City of Saratoga, and the Town of Los Altos Hills purchase municipal law - enforcement services from Santa Clara County through the Sheriff’s Office. The West Valley Division also provides law -enforcement services to the adjacent unincorporated area. The model combines city-specific patrol and traffic commitments with shared command, dispatch, station support, vehicles, facilities, Records, Investigative, training, technology, fiscal, Internal Affairs, and administrative resources.
The City requested an independent consulting review to better understand the proposed charges and evaluate whether the underlying costs, assumptions, allocation methods, and supporting documentation were sufficiently transparent and supportable.
The engagement also considered the proposed West Valley cost structure compared with sheriff contract-service models used by other California counties and cities. Comparing cost structures and overhead allocation methodologies with other California counties will provide valuable insight into how counties calculate, evaluate, and apply overhead costs to comply with California Government Code Section 51350. The project was initiated in response to several circumstances, including:
351
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
355 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
2 • The significant increase in Cupertino’s proposed FY 2026–27 contract cost; • The County’s change in methodology for allocating shared and departmentwide costs; • The need to distinguish services from regional, shared, baseline, and Countywide functions; • Questions regarding the relationship between budgeted staffing, assigned staffing, and city - purchased service levels;
• Inclusion of investigative, records, dispatch, administrative, technology, equipment, and other support costs in the proposed charges;
• The need for greater transparency and traceability between the proposed amounts and the supporting cost records; and
• The City’s interest in comparing the proposed West Valley cost structure with other California sheriff contract-city arrangements.
Vasquez’s procedures were performed as a consulting engagement in accordance with the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ Statement on Standards for Consulting Services during the month of July, and encompassed existing conditions, activities and processes. Should additional information become available following the date of this report, our analysis and observations could be affected by such information.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
The primary objective of the engagement was to assist the City of Cupertino in evaluating Santa Clara County’s proposed FY 2026– 27 charges for contract law -enforcement services. The engagement focused on the composition of the proposed costs, the allocation methodologies applied, the transparency and traceability of the supporting documentation, the treatment of direct and shared service components, and the comparability of the proposed charges to other California sheriff contract- city arrangements.
The approach and methodology employed in conducting the engagement included the following:
• Participated in interviews and discussions with representatives of the City of Cupertino, the other West Valley contract cities, Santa Clara County, and the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office. • Read and analyzed the existing law -enforcement services agreements, proposed successor agreement materials, County correspondence, City correspondence, presentations, meeting materials, and related contract documents.
• Reviewed the County’s FY 2025–26 cost allocation worksheets and FY 2026–27 cost proposals, rate calculations, staffing schedules, allocation schedules, personnel-cost projections, services- and-supplies calculations, and supporting cost-allocation documentation. • Reconciled material amounts among the County’s source schedules and compared the FY 2026– 27 proposal with the prior-year methodology and proposed costs. • Evaluated the composition of direct staffing, direct support, shared West Valley services, investigative and records functions, dispatch, administrative support, and departmentwide overhead included in the proposed charges.
• Assessed the allocation bases used to distribute shared and departmentwide costs among Cupertino, Saratoga, Los Altos Hills, and the West Valley unincorporated area.
352
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
356 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
3 • Reviewed staffing information to evaluate the relationship among budgeted positions, assigned positions, city-purchased service levels, and positions classified as shared or overhead. • Analyzed the component -level cost classifications and identified costs that were treated as allocable, partially allocable, or not allocable in the supporting analyses. • Compared the West Valley contract structure, staffing presentation, cost methodology, and fully burdened cost measures with selected California sheriff contract-city arrangements. • Considered relevant statutory, contractual, and legal materials, including California Government Code section 51350 and related authorities, in evaluating the nature and treatment of the proposed cost components.
• Documented Vasquez & Company LLP’s analytical observations and discussed relevant factual matters with City representatives to improve accuracy and consistency. • Prepared this report presenting the engagement procedures, analyses, calculations, and observations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Santa Clara County's FY 2026-27 proposal introduces changes to both the composition of overhead costs and the methodology used to allocate those costs. Historically, overhead allocations were limited primarily to costs incurred by the West Valley Station / Patrol operation and select countywide support functions, such as Personnel and Training, Fiscal, Records, and Information Systems, which were reflected in the hourly billing rates for assigned personnel. The proposed FY 2026-27 allocation shifts to an annual cost-per-position allocation approach for Personnel and Training, Fiscal, and Information Systems, Internal Affairs, and Sheriff’s Office (SO) Admin, and a caseload approach for records and investigative divisions costs. It also expands the overhead base to include countywide Investigation Division costs, SO Admin, and Internal Affairs costs. This change increases overhead allocated to the West Valley Station by approximately $6.0 million compared to the prior year.
The central question in this review is whether the costs included in the County’s proposed charges were incurred in providing contracted law -enforcement services to the West Valley cities. The reasonableness of an allocation formula, by itself, does not establish that the underlying cost is chargeable under Government Code section 51350. Costs that the County would continue to incur regardless of the city contracts may constitute general County overhead and therefore may not be chargeable to the contract cities. This review therefore evaluates both whether the underlying costs are attributable to the contracted services and, separately, whether the methodology used to distribute allowable costs among jurisdictions reasonably reflects the services provided.
Key observations
Direct staffing. Cupertino’s purchased patrol hours, traffic -enforcement hours, traffic -sergeant position, and two school -resource-officer positions are directly associated with the City’s contracted service levels. The related costs are supported by contracted hours or dedicated positions, projected salary and benefit information, and the County’s productive-hour calculation.
Regional service model. The West Valley Division serves Cupertino, Saratoga, Los Altos Hills, and the West Valley unincorporated area. The staffing schedule lists 89 budgeted FTE and 84 assigned FTE. It also labels 17 positions as “Overhead.” Those 17 positions include station co mmand, supervision, administration, records, and other operational- support functions. Support staff salaries and benefits related to 17 overhead positions are allocated to contract cities using a blended methodology consisting of 50% Records Management System (RMS) case counts (caseload) and 353
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
357 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
4 50% service hours. In addition, direct operating costs are attributable to the West Valley Division, including dispatch, automotive services, insurance, rent, fuel, radio maintenance and communications, wireless voice and data services, and body-worn and dash camera programs, and are allocated using the same 50/50 caseload and service- hour allocation method. This approach incorporates both workload and service utilization in distributing overhead and operating costs among contract cities.
Allocation of County-wide incurred costs. The County also allocates several shared division and departmental support cost pools to contract cities. These countywide support functions include the Investigations Division, Records Division, Personnel and Training, Information Technology Services, Sheriff's Office Administration, Fiscal Services, and Internal Affairs. Costs associated with the Investigations and Records Divisions are allocated based on a three- year average of RMS case counts, while the remaining support division costs are allocated usi ng a blended methodology consisting of 50% caseload and 50% service hours.
The County's allocation calculations can be independently recalculated using the data presented in the supporting schedules. However, the methodology applies to the same allocation basis across various cost categories that perform substantially different functions and may be driven by varying workload factors, such as service hours, case activity, staffing levels, transaction volume, or other measures of resource consumption. In addition, the use of caseload as an allocation factor does not distinguish between cases based on the complexity of work performed, staff time required, or level of effort expended. As a result, case counts may not fully reflect the actual demand placed on certain support services . Case counts do not capture differences in case complexity, staff time or effort required to provide services. The County has not provided data regarding the complexity of cases, staff hours incurred, or effort associated with the cases attributed to West Valley Station. Without such information, caseload cannot be substantiated as a reasonable, equitable or cost-causative basis for allocating general operating or overhead costs.
Benchmark cost comparison. The projected FY 2026 –27 cost for Cupertino, Saratoga, and Los Altos Hills totals $40,370,815. The three cities have 54 direct -service FTE, consisting of 33 for Cupertino, 16 for Saratoga, and 5 for Los Altos Hills. This produces an unadjusted fully loaded cost of $747,608 per FTE. The category -level review classified $10,667,109 of the full West Valley cost as not allocable, including the portion assigned to the West Valley unincorporated area. Refer to Table 4-2. Applying the County’s jurisdiction allocation percentages produces a three- city amount of $9,518,457. Removing that amount from the three- city projected cost produces an adjusted amount of $30,852,358, or a fully loaded cost of $571,340 per FTE.
Comparison after adjustment. The adjusted West Valley amount of $571,340 per FTE is 10.5% above Lake Forest, 11.5% above the source- reported West Hollywood amount, 11.5% above Woodside, 12.6% above Portola Valley, 18.6% above San Carlos, 18.9% above Danville, 21.6% above Diamond Bar, and 21.5% above Rancho Santa Margarita. The adjustment reduces approximately 48% to 78% of the original difference between West Valley and the benchmark jurisdictions presented. After the adjustment, the remaining difference is smaller for Lake Forest, West Hollywood, Woodside, and Portola Valley than for San Carlos, Danville, Diamond Bar, and Rancho Santa Margarita. The reported benchmark amounts are based on the staffing and contract -cost information available for each jurisdiction.
Comparative FTE-based allocation. An illustrative reallocation of the costs already assigned to West Valley, using each city’s assigned FTE share while leaving direct patrol, traffic, and school -resource staffing costs unchanged, reduced the three- city total from approximately $40.4 million to $33.9 million—a reduction of approximately $6. 5 million, or 16.1%. The largest decreases were in station and countywide support, Investigative Services, and Records Services. This staffing-based approach is generally more consistent with the benchmark contracts reviewed; however, the analysis does not 354
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
358 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
5 establish the required allocation method, determine the actual support provided to each city, or assess whether every cost included in the County’s proposal is allocable.
Recommended County budget with West Valley closure. The County’s Recommended Budget provides a separate County-developed estimate of how staffing and operating costs would change if the West Valley city contracts were discontinued. The County specifically identifies $2.18 million of services-and-supplies costs that would be reduced, providing evidence that these costs are associated with the contract services rather than costs the County would incur regardless of the contracts. The Recommended Budget also identifies reductions in Investigations Headquarters, Records, Fiscal Administration, Data Management, and other support functions, while indicating that these broader County functions would continue in some form. Accordingly, the continuing baseline components of these functions may represent costs the County would incur regardless of the city contracts. However, because the Recommended Budget does not reconcile these reductions and continuing costs to the cost pools in the FY 2026- 27 contract proposal, the amounts attributable or not attributable to the contract cities cannot be determined without a detailed reconciliation. The absence of a reconciliation supports the classification of the $10,667,109 in overhead costs as non- allocable, as the Recommended Budget reflects no corresponding reduction or elimination of these expenditures. As a result, the evidence indicates that the costs are general County operating costs that would be incurred irrespective of the contract with the three cities and would not be allocable under Government Code Section 51350.
Limitations and Disclaimer
This engagement was conducted in accordance with AICPA Statement on Standards for Consulting Services No. 1, CS section 100. It was not an audit, review, examination, or agreed-upon procedures engagement. Accordingly, Vasquez does not express an audit opinion, attestation conclusion, or other form of assurance regarding the County’s financial information, cost methodology, internal controls, or compliance with Government Code section 51350.
The information presented in this report is derived from materials gathered during the engagement, records and explanations provided by the City and the County, and publicly available information reviewed through the report date. Vasquez did not audit or independently verify all information provided or obtained from public sources, except for the specific recalculations, reconciliations, comparisons, and other procedures described in the report. The completeness and accuracy of the report depend on the completeness and accuracy of the information made available. Additional, revised, or subsequently available information could affect the information, observations, and overall evaluation presented in the report.
The evaluation of allocability of costs in accordance with Government Code section 51350 is conducted based on information, cost allocation and classification used in the file: West Valley FY 27 Rate Projection and the FY 2025-26 Cost Allocation Plan provided by the County and any additional information provided as of the date of this report.
This report does not constitute legal advice or legal opinion. The interpretation and application of Government Code section 51350 are matters for the City and its legal counsel.
This report was prepared for the City of Cupertino for the purposes described in the report. Its distribution is limited to authorized representatives of Cupertino, Saratoga, Los Altos Hills, and the County of Santa Clara. Distribution to these parties does not create a professional duty or responsibility to any party other than the City of Cupertino. The report is not intended for use or reliance by any other party without Vasquez’s prior written consent.
355
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
359 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
6 1. Understanding Santa Clara County Sheriff Service Delivery Model
The records considered in this section included current and proposed agreement materials, the West Valley staffing and service schedules, the April 2026 rate- projection records, the May revised jurisdiction schedule, the County process walkthrough, the January methodology presentation, and County and city correspondence. Together, these records describe a regional/shared policing model rather than three stand-alone municipal departments.
City-purchased direct services consist of general law enforcement patrol, traffic enforcement, a traffic sergeant where purchased, and school resource officers. Supplemental traffic hours and similar additive services use the direct hourly rate. Shared services include West Valley station command and professional support, dispatch, vehicles and supplies, Records, Investigative, and departmental support divisions. The unincorporated area receives a separate allocation in the proposal and therefore remains visible in the shared-pool denominator.
Table 1-1. FY 2026-27 projected West Valley costs by jurisdiction Jurisdiction Direct Staffing Direct Support
County
Department
Support
Total Projected
Cost
Cupertino $11,159,246 $7,149,023 $7,105,328 $25,413,597 Los Altos Hills $1,500,348 $1,104,406 $774,986 $3,379,740 Saratoga $5,335,216 $3,529,956 $2,712,306 $11,577,478
Unincorporated area $3,028,517 $2,801,882 $1,145,832 $6,976,231 Total $21,023,327 $14,585,267 $11,738,452 $47,347,046
Source: County of Santa Clara, West Valley FY 27 Rate Projection - 04-13-2026.xlsx, worksheet “10 - Projected Costs.”
FY 2026-27 calculation changes
Under the prior approach, direct and support costs were converted into a blended hourly rate. The revised approach converts only direct field staffing to an hourly or annual -position rate and allocates the remaining station and departmental pools based on caseload and service hours. Investigative and Records move to three-year RMS case shares; countywide and departmental support costs are first applied to West Valley using FTE measures and then distributed among jurisdictions.
Table 1-2. Principal stated rate drivers
Driver Prior Basis Revised Basis Stated Effect
Productive
hours
1,820 hours 1,634 hours Approximately 11.4% upward
effect on the hourly rate before
other changes.
Deputy
compensation
Contract-capped
rate
Projected average
current salary and
benefits
Approximately 9.6% stated effect
on the FY 2025-26 presentation-
basis hourly rate.
Records Prior
limited/historical
basis
Three-year RMS case
share applied to a
broader pool
Approximately $1.52 million
increase in total West Valley costs,
including approximately $1.47
million attributable to the three
cities.
Investigative Captured hours or
assigned staff
Three-year RMS case
share applied to a
broader division
Approximately $3.50 million
increase in total West Valley costs,
including approximately $3.12
million attributable to the three
cities.
356
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
360 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
7 Source: County of Santa Clara, West Valley FY 27 Rate Projection - 04-13-2026.xlsx; County January 2026 Law Enforcement Contract Rate Calculation presentation; and County process walkthrough.
Observation: The service model itself did not change from a regional / shared operation. The principal FY 2026-27 change is financial: direct field staffing is separated from fixed support pools, broader Investigative and Records populations are allocated by RMS cases, and additional departmental support categories are separately charged.
2. Direct Law Enforcement Costs
The direct -cost analysis used the Personnel Expenditure Projection (PEP) records, position schedules, benefit-rate schedules, productive-hour workpaper, contracted service hours, direct -rate calculation, and final proposal. The deputy rate is built from a population of 73 Deputy Sheriff positions and divides projected average salary and benefits by approximately 1,634 productive hours.
The April 2026 rate-projection records produce a direct rate of approximately $206.08 per hour, which supports the purchased-service summarized below.
Table 2-1. Cupertino direct law enforcement staffing
Service Volume Rate Basis
Proposed
Cost
General law enforcement
patrol
41,881 hours $206.08 per hour $8,630,836
Traffic enforcement 7,250 hours $206.08 per hour $1,494,080 Traffic sergeant 1 dedicated position $360,985 annual projected cost $360,985 School resource officers 2 dedicated positions $336,731 annual projected cost $673,462 Direct staffing subtotal $11,159,364
Source: County of Santa Clara, West Valley FY 27 Rate Projection - 04-13-2026.xlsx, worksheets “9 - WV Deputy Sheriff Cost” and “10 - Projected Costs.”
The rate build uses the position population's projected average cost rather than a rounded top- step salary. Salary, health insurance, retirement, retiree health, workers' compensation, Medicare, and other employer -paid benefits are included through the Cou nty's PEP and benefit schedules. The reviewed proposal did not present a separate Cupertino overtime line; the direct schedule is based on purchased hours and dedicated annual positions. Equipment, vehicles, cameras, fuel, communications, and related supplies are included in the station support schedule analyzed in Section 3 rather than in the direct staffing subtotal.
The amounts remain projections, and the proposal schedule itself does not show actual delivered hours, actual payroll by jurisdiction, or a separately quantified city -specific overtime population for fiscal year 2026-27 because that period had not occurred when the proposal was prepared.
Observation: Direct staffing has the strongest source of attribute in the proposal. The City contract specifies the service volume or dedicated position, and the rate is supported by position- level salary and benefit projections and a documented productive-hour calculation.
357
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
361 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
8 3. Evaluation of Patrol and Station-Level Cost Allocation (Direct Law Enforcement Support Services)
The patrol and station analysis considered the West Valley staffing schedule, shift and service- hour information, PEP records, call and RMS-case measures, station support schedules, substation costs, mileage and fuel support, and the jurisdiction allocations in the projected- cost schedule. The West Valley staffing schedule identifies 89 budgeted FTE and 84 assigned FTE. The five-position difference consists of budgeted Deputy Sheriff positions not assigned within the staffing categories displayed.
Table 3-1. West Valley staffing reconciliation
Classification
Budgeted
FTE
Assigned
FTE Source Description
Captain 1 1 Station command
Lieutenant 1 1 Station command
Sergeant 8 8 Patrol and traffic supervision
Deputy Sheriff 73 68 Patrol, school resource officers, traffic detectives; five budgeted positions not
assigned
Executive Assistant 1 1 Station support
Fleet Maintenance Scheduler 1 1 Fleet coordination
Law Enforcement Records
Technician
3 3 Station records support
Management Analyst 1 1 Administrative and analytical support Total 89 84 Five budgeted Deputy Sheriff positions not
assigned
Source: County of Santa Clara, West Valley FY 27 Rate Projection - 04-13-2026.xlsx, worksheet “WP5 - WV Staffing.”
The staffing schedule labels 17 positions as "Overhead": one captain, one lieutenant, seven sergeants, two traffic detectives, three records technicians, one executive assistant, one fleet maintenance scheduler, and one management analyst. That label is an internal schedule grouping. The listed functions include station command, supervision, investigations, records processing, fleet coordination, and analytical support and therefore do not have one uniform cost behavior or one uniform treatment under Government Code section 51350.
Table 3-2. Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, and Saratoga’s share of station support and services Category Cupertino
Los Altos
Hills Saratoga
Allocation Basis Shown
In Proposal
Support staff salaries
and benefits
$2,621,612 $404,996 $1,294,467 50% service-hour share
and 50% RMS-case
share
Dispatch $2,119,719 $327,461 $1,046,649 50% service-hour share and 50% RMS-case
share
Automobile services $770,435 $119,019 $380,416 50% service-hour share and 50% RMS-case
share
Insurance $502,457 $77,621 $248,097 50% service-hour share and 50% RMS-case
share
358
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
362 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
9 Category Cupertino
Los Altos
Hills Saratoga
Allocation Basis Shown
In Proposal
Office rent $312,399 $48,261 $154,253 50% service-hour share and 50% RMS-case
share
Fuel $153,089 $23,650 $75,590 50% service-hour share
and 50% RMS-case
share
Body-worn camera and
dashcam
$149,967 $23,167 $74,049 50% service-hour share
and 50% RMS-case
share
Radio, telephone, and
wireless services
$59,550 $9,200 $29,404 50% service-hour share
and 50% RMS-case
share
Other services and
supplies
$175,223 $27,069 $86,520 50% service-hour share
and 50% RMS-case
share
Station support and
services subtotal
$6,864,451 $1,060,444 $3,389,445
Source: County of Santa Clara, West Valley FY 27 Rate Projection - 04-13-2026.xlsx, worksheet “10 - Projected Costs.”
The combined 50/50 driver recognizes both scheduled service presence and incident / report workload. The available records did not include a cost -behavior study demonstrating that equal weighting reflects dispatch, vehicles, insurance, rent, fuel, cameras, communications, professional staff, and countywide support in the same manner. The driver is consistently applied and separately assigns an unincorporated-area share, but it is not category-specific.
Observation: The shared-station concept is consistent with the regional model, and the proposal separately assigns the unincorporated area. The 89- to-84 staffing difference and the use of one common driver for cost categories with different operational causes remain material to the interpretation of projected station costs. Because these costs support West Valley Division operations, they have an operational relationship to West Valley service delivery. The amount appropriately attributable to each jurisdiction, however, depends on the nature of the individual cost and the basis used to allocate it. Allocating them among the three cities is also consistent with the regional service model employed by the other California counties.
4. Review of Contract Law Enforcement Overhead (Indirect Countywide and Department Support)
This section compares the West Valley overhead cost schedules with the review of individual cost components, position records, cost -center records, and explanations provided by the County. The analysis considers whether each cost is associated with providing law -enforcement services to Cupertino, Saratoga, and Los Altos Hills or represents general County overhead that would have been incurred without the city contracts.
California Government Code section 51350 states that a county must charge a city the costs incurred in providing contracted services and may not include general County overhead costs that would have been incurred regardless of the contract. An allocation formula shows how a cost is distributed among jurisdictions; the formula does not show that the cost was incurred in providing services to contract cities.
359
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
363 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
10 Table 4-1. Treatment of Overhead Cost Categories
Overhead
Cost Category Component Level Treatment
Countywide
Cost Allocation
The detailed component-level analysis
excludes baseline County executive, budget,
controller, counsel, enterprise administration,
and countywide functions that persist without
the contracts. The County source schedules
also zeroed specified countywide program,
communications, facilities / fleet, and
building/equipment lines.
The comparative overhead analysis
classifies the full $580,573 West
Valley share as not allocable. This
consists of countywide allocated
costs such as county counsel,
finance, and technology related
costs. These costs are included in
the countywide cost allocation plan
and are further allocated to West
Valley. The component analysis
supports exclusion of identified
baseline components but evaluates
any contract-created central-service
transaction separately. They are
costs which are attributable to
services available to all portions or
departments of the County and
therefore, the County would incur
regardless.
Personnel and
Training
Custody/Department of Corrections (DOC)
academy, recruitment and background,
training and staff development, and baseline
recruitment/training capacity are unrelated or
baseline components. City-specific recruiting,
academy, training, and personnel workload
may be mixed where it is caused by West
Valley staffing. The cost is allocated to West
Valley based on the station’s total number of
FTE.
The comparative overhead analysis
classifies the full $1,057,612 as not
allocable; the detailed component-
level analysis is more granular and
does not treat every contract-related
personnel transaction as excluded.
Direct operating costs such as
recruitment and training may be
allocable to the extent they are
related to West Valley staffing.
Fiscal Services DOC Fiscal Services and baseline
accounting/administrative capacity are
excluded or unrelated. Actual contract billing,
payroll, and accounting transactions are
mixed where specifically supported.
The comparative overhead analysis
classifies the full $298,434 as not
allocable; the component analysis
distinguishes custody-only and
baseline work from contract-created
fiscal activity.
IT Services DOC Data Management, custody IT, and
baseline enterprise-system capacity are
excluded or unrelated. Contract-specific
devices, licenses, users, and support
transactions may be attributable to the
service.
The comparative overhead analysis
classifies the full $997,556 as not
allocable; the component analysis
supports exclusion of unrelated /
baseline elements rather than an
automatic exclusion of every IT
transaction.
Internal Affairs BU235 / BU240 custody and DOC Internal Affairs units and baseline governance
capacity are excluded or unrelated. City-
service incidents may create some mixed
workload.
The comparative overhead analysis
classifies the full $253,085 as not
allocable; the detailed component-
level analysis identifies custody-only
and baseline components and
separately assesses city-created
workload.
Sheriff
Administration
Sheriff and Undersheriff positions were
excluded by the County. The detailed
The comparative overhead analysis
classifies the full $349,433 West
360
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
364 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
11 Overhead
Cost Category Component Level Treatment
component-level analysis also identifies
baseline executive / general administration
and newly included CC3900 functions
without a demonstrated West Valley nexus
for exclusion or restricted treatment.
Valley share as not allocable. The
three-city portion in the projected-
cost schedule is $282,306.
Investigative
Services
West Valley detective work and city cases
create actual workload. The County has
stated that contract-city cases are also
supported by Investigative Services Division
headquarters and specialized functions,
including Major Crimes, Sexual Assault,
Domestic Violence, property and evidence
management, and crime-scene investigation.
South County Investigations (cost center
3931; two FTE; approximately $706,929 in
component evidence) is unrelated to West
Valley. For the remaining headquarters and
regional costs, the RMS case-volume
allocation does not identify the staff time,
case complexity, or resources associated
with each jurisdiction; accordingly, a
documented West Valley service nexus
remains necessary.
The comparative overhead analysis
identifies that only $1,233,709 of the
$5,531,736 West Valley Investigative
amount is allocable, leaving
$4,298,027 classified as not
allocable.
Records
Services
City reports create records-processing
transactions. The detailed component-level
analysis identifies baseline management /
platform capacity and a Records Sheriff
overhead allocation of approximately
$1,492,651 as second-order mixed
overhead, while Records Technicians and
Office Specialist transaction work may be
attributable in part.
The comparative overhead analysis
classifies the full $2,832,389 as not
allocable. The detailed component-
level analysis supports a narrower
component-level split between city
transactions and baseline / overhead
capacity.
Source: Vasquez analysis of County information, including West Valley FY 27 Rate Projection - 04-13- 2026.xlsx, supporting cost schedules, position and cost-center records, and County explanations.
Table 4-2. Amount classified as not allocable in the overhead classification analysis Underlying Category West Valley Share
Amount Not
Allocable
Countywide Cost Allocation, Personnel and
Training, Fiscal, IT, Internal Affairs, and Sheriff
Administration
$3,536,693 $3,536,693
Records Services $2,832,389 $2,832,389
Investigative Services $5,531,736 $4,298,027
Total $11,900,818 $10,667,109
Source: Vasquez overhead classification analysis based on County information, including West Valley FY 27 Rate Projection - 04-13-2026.xlsx and supporting cost, position, and cost-center records.
361
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
365 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
12 The $10,667,109 amount reflects the classification of entire overhead categories as not allocable. The more detailed cost-component review provides additional context because several of those categories include both activities that may relate to the West Valley contract cities and activities that may not.
The Personnel and Training cost pool includes academy, recruitment, background, training, and staff- development costs associated with the Department of Correction, together with broader Sheriff personnel and training functions. Department of Correction Academy and training costs relate to custody operations rather than law-enforcement services provided through the West Valley Division.
Recruitment, background, academy, training, and personnel -administration costs associated with West Valley positions are separately distinguishable from Department of Correction costs and baseline departmentwide training capacity.
Section 8 of this report uses the $10,667,109 category -level amount solely to measure its effect on the benchmark comparison.
Observation: The detailed cost-component review separately identifies costs associated with custody operations, the Sheriff’s South County investigative unit, baseline Sheriff executive management, departmentwide administrative functions, and overhead included through other overhead allocations.
The component-level detail provides more specific information about the individual activities and costs included within the broader overhead categories.
5. Countywide Cost Allocation Plan Support
We reviewed the indirect Countywide support categories using the Countywide Cost Allocation Plan and the Sheriff’s financial schedules provided for the engagement. The review included tracing the reported amounts to those records, recalculating the allocation formulas, and examining the exclusions and year-to-year adjustments reflected in the schedules.
The Countywide Cost Allocation Plan includes central- service functions such as County executive administration, budget, controller, County Counsel, technology, facilities, and other County administrative services. The amounts allocated to the Sheriff and the related allocation calculations were traceable to the records reviewed. The Countywide Cost Allocation Plan explains how these central-service costs were distributed to the Sheriff. For purposes of this report, those amounts are presented as County-allocated support costs and are distinguished from costs directly tied to West Valley staffing, purchases, transactions, or service activity.
Observation: The Countywide Cost Allocation Plan supports the allocation and traceability of central- service costs to the Sheriff. That allocation does not, by itself, determine whether a particular cost is attributable to law-enforcement services provided under the West Valley city contracts. For purposes of this report, these are separate considerations: the Cost Plan addresses how central -service costs are distributed to the Sheriff, while the contract-cost analysis considers whether the underlying cost is attributable to the contracted services rather than to general County operations that would continue regardless of the contracts.
The County asserts that its CAP and allocation methodologies are consistent with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Uniform Guidance (2 CFR Part 200 and 45 CFR Part 95) and have been accepted by the California State Controller's Office. While an approved CAP or federal indirect cost rate provides evidence that costs were allocated in accordance with federal cost principles, it does not, by itself, establish compliance with California Government Code § 51350.
362
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
366 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350 13 Uniform Guidance and Government Code § 51350 serve different purposes and apply different standards. Under Uniform Guidance, a cost may be recoverable as an indirect cost if it is equitably and consistently allocated across the County’s various grant and non -grant activities. In contrast, Government Code Section 51350 prohibits counties from charging contract cities for general county overhead costs or for costs that would have been incurred regardless of whether the city contract existed. As a result, a cost may be allowable under Uniform Guidance and included in a CAP, yet remain unallowable under Section 51350 if it represents general county operations or baseline administrative functions that are not incurred as a direct consequence of providing contracted services to the city. Accordingly, compliance with federal cost allocation requirements does not, in itself, demonstrate compliance with Section 51350.
6. Evalua
tion of Cost Transparency and Supporting Documentation
We reviewed the fiscal workbooks, proposal schedules, position and cost -center records, staffing schedules, benefit support, services -and-supplies detail, case data, allocation formulas, County correspondence, and explanations provided during the County walkthrough.
The re
cords reviewed were sufficient to reconstruct the principal FY 2026– 27 proposal calculations, identify the cost pools used in the proposal, and understand the primary allocation methods. The records also showed that Sheriff and Undersheriff costs and certain unrelated cost centers were excluded from the calculations. For cost pools that included multiple functions, the schedules generally presented the combined pool rather than separately identifying baseline County operations and the portion associated with West Valley contract services. The County schedules show the service- hour percentages and the resulting weighted allocation percentages used to distribute shared West Valley support costs among Cupertino, Saratoga, Los Altos Hills, and the West Valley unincorporated area.
We recalculated the weighted allocation using the figures shown in those schedules.
7. Review
of the County's Historical Public Protection Functional Cost Based on the County's Published ACFR
An analysis of the County’s historical public protection expenditures will provide a basis for understanding year -over-year cost growth and evaluating the extent to which increases in costs allocated to contract cities are supported by corresponding changes in overall departmental expenditures.
The hi
storical analysis used Santa Clara County’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) data for public -protection expenses for fiscal years 2016 through 2025 and General Fund public - protection expenditures for fiscal years 2021 through 2025. Government -wide public -protection expense increased from $915.449 million in fiscal year 2016 to $1.464 billion in fiscal year 2025, an increase of 60.0% and a compound annual growth rate of approximately 5.4%. General Fund public- protection expenditures increased from $940.891 million in fiscal year 2021 to $1.194 billion in fiscal year 2025, an increase of 26.9% and a compound annual growth rate of approximately 6.1%.
The decl
ine in government-wide public-protection expense in fiscal year 2022 was affected by pension and other postemployment-benefit investment-related amounts. Accordingly, annual changes in the reported expense do not reflect only changes in staffing, service levels, or operating activity. The public-protection category also includes functions beyond West Valley law- enforcement services, including detention and criminal-prosecution activities. The historical trend provides context regarding broader County public-safety cost growth but does not explain the composition of the West Valley cost pools, the allocation methods applied to those pools, or the increase in Cupertino’s proposed contract amount.
363
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
367 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350 14 Observation: Historical public -protection costs increased over the periods reviewed, reflecting broader growth in County public-safety expenditures. The increase in Cupertino’s proposed FY 2026– 27 contract amount is primarily a result of specific changes in the West Valley cost methodology and the allocation of shared and departmentwide support costs.
8. Com
parative Analysis of Other Contract-City Arrangements
Comparative Sheriff Contract Models
For benchmarking purposes, the sheriff contract models in Orange, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Mateo, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara Counties are similar in that cities reimburse the county for law -enforcement services. Important differences exist, however, in contract structure, staffing exhibits, pricing methods, and governance.
County Contract Structure Staffing Exhibit Pricing Method Typical Cities Los
Angeles
Municipal Law
Enforcement
Services Agreement
between the
contract cities and
the County
Detailed
deployment
schedules and
annual service
levels
Full cost recovery
using County-
approved billing
rates
Diamond Bar, West
Hollywood,
Lakewood, Rolling
Hills Estates, and
others
Orange Municipal contract
with the Orange
County Sheriff’s
Department
Service levels
customized by city
Cost reimbursement
for personnel,
equipment,
overhead, and
special services
Rancho Santa
Margarita, Lake
Forest, Dana Point,
and San Juan
Capistrano
San
Bernardino
Sheriff’s Law
Enforcement
Services Contract
Schedule A listing
staffing, vehicles,
dispatch, support
services, and
annual costs
Annual Schedule A
cost allocation,
frequently amended
during the year
Yucaipa, Highland,
Rancho
Cucamonga,
Victorville, and
Twentynine Palms
San Diego Sheriff’s Municipal
Services
Agreements
Annual staffing
schedules and
service plans
Cost recovery based
on staffing
assignments and
support services
Encinitas, Poway,
Santee, Solana
Beach, and Vista
San Mateo Municipal
agreements with the
County for Sheriff-
provided law-
enforcement
services
Assigned
personnel and
service levels
established by
contract and
updated annually
Cost recovery based
on assigned
personnel, operating
costs, support
services, and other
specifically identified
costs
Woodside, Portola
Valley, and San
Carlos
Contra
Costa
Sheriff-staffed
municipal police
department
City-funded
Sheriff staffing
organized by
police function
City-funded Sheriff
positions and related
operating and
support costs
Danville
Santa Clara Individual contract
with the Sheriff’s
Office
Negotiated
staffing levels
tailored to each
city
Direct
reimbursement of
Sheriff’s costs plus
overhead
Cupertino, Los Altos
Hills, and Saratoga
Source: Law-enforcement service agreements, staffing exhibits, rate schedules, and related contract materials reviewed for Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Mateo, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara Counties; Vasquez comparative analysis.
364
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
368 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
15 Overhead Allocation Methodology
Our review of the sheriff contract, rate calculations and cost allocation methodology used by the County of Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, San Bernardino, San Mateo and Contra Costa indicates the following:
Los Angeles – Regional or station overhead specific costs are built into the annual rate per position, which varies by service code and relief factor. Vehicles are priced and incorporated into the contract based on actual cost while equipment is billed based on annual billing rates, which vary based on the type and cost of equipment. The County also adds 12.5% to the total contract amount , which represents contribution to the contract cities’ liability trust fund (LTF). The total overhead cost allocated is not presented in the County's rate schedule, and therefore, the overhead rate cannot be calculated.
Based on the review of the County’s master rate schedule and contract with certain Los Angeles County cities, it appears that the County does not allocate countywide overhead costs.
San Diego – Cost model includes direct staffing charges, including additional services which are priced per position at an annual rate. Other charges include station support staff costs, law enforcement direct costs, and other overhead allocated based on the number of deputies, detectives and other officers assigned to the city. Overhead costs include supplies, vehicles, space, management and support and ancillary support. Crime prevention, crime analysis, communications center, domestic violence and other case- specific costs are part of Ancillary support costs. The cost model and allocation methodology are very similar to Orange County. Direct staffing is priced per position, which consists of staff costs including benefits. Overhead is allocated based on FTE and represents approximately 34% of direct costs. The County does not allocate countywide costs.
Orange – The costs of services include the full cost of employees, which include wages and benefits, and overhead costs such as mileage, services, supplies, equipment, divisional, departmental and County General overhead. Costs of investigative personnel are allocated as part of regional shared costs. Regional shared costs range from 3% to 4% of direct costs, while other county overhead ranges from 21% to 22% of direct costs for a total overhead allocation of 24% to 26%.
San Bernardino – Cost model includes direct staffing charges, including additional services which are priced per position at an annual rate. Personnel costs include salary and benefits and are subject to change by the Board of Supervisors’ action. Changes in salary and benefit costs are billed to the city on a quarterly invoice. Overhead charges include vehicles and other equipment, dispatch services, insurance, IT (automation) and administrative support , which represent approximately 25% of direct personnel costs. Vehicle costs do not include fuel and maintenance. Cities are responsible for fuel, repair and maintenance of all contract vehicles, including collision damage. The County allocates a minimal county administrative cost of around 2% of direct personnel costs.
San Mateo – Cost model includes direct staffing charges based on personnel assigned to each contract city, together with separately identified operating and support costs. Woodside and Portola Valley reflect additional costs of approximately 18% and 16% of direct policing costs, respectively. The San Carlos FY 2026- 27 agreement similarly identifies assigned staffing and separately calculates personnel and operating costs. San Carlos is assigned 30 FTEs, with approximately $11.7 million of personnel costs and $2.7 million of operating costs, including equipment, training, communications, technology, vehicles, HR and risk management, and centralized Sheriff support services. Certain technology, vehicle, HR, risk management, and Controller costs are identified as direct pass-through charges. The San Carlos agreement also provides for annual rate adjustments and an actual -cost reconciliation under which amounts collected in excess of the actual cost of services are retained for or returned to the City.
365
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
369 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
16 Contra Costa – Danville operates a municipal police department staffed through the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff. The model is organized around city -funded Sheriff staffing and related police operations rather than a shared regional -station allocation comparable to West Valley. The comparative materials reviewed reflect additional costs of approximately 24% of direct policing costs.
Because the Danville model and cost presentation differ from the West Valley methodology, this percentage is best viewed as a comparative cost ratio rather than a confirmed Contra Costa County overhead allocation rate.
The review noted the materials examined did not identify caseload as a basis for allocating general operating or overhead costs in any of the six comparative counties reviewed. Instead, the methodologies primarily use assigned staffing or FTEs, defined service levels, separately identified support costs, and / or predetermined overhead allocation percentages.
Scale of Contract Operations
Los Angeles County has one of the largest contract -city programs in the nation, with the Sheriff’s Department seeking approval of agreements with 42 contract cities for the 2024– 2029 term. Orange County also has a long-standing contract model that began in 1961 and expanded to numerous cities.
Access to Specialized Resources
Across all counties, contract cities generally receive access to countywide resources such as:
─ SWAT
─ Air support
─ Major crime investigations
─ Specialized units
─ The Orange County Sheriff’s Department specifically identifies access to broader Sheriff’s resources as a principal benefit of the contract model.
High-Level Comparison of Contract Features
The following table summarizes the principal contract features identified in the sources reviewed.
Topic
Los Angeles
County Orange County
San
Bernardino
County
San Diego
County
San Mateo
County
Contra
Costa
County
Santa Clara
County
Primary
agreement
Standardized
countywide
Municipal
Law
Enforcement
Services
Agreement
Contract law-
enforcement
agreement with
the Orange
County Sheriff’s
Department
Law
Enforcement
Services
Contract with
the Sheriff’s
Department
Municipal
services
agreement
under a
county
sheriff
model
City-specific
agreements
for law-
enforcement
services
provided by
the San Mateo
County
Sheriff’s Office
Sheriff-staffed
municipal
police-
services
model
Agreement with
the three
contract cities
Number of
contract cities
42 contract
cities under
the 2024–
2029
agreement
framework
13 contract cities
and agencies
participating in
the program
11 contract
cities with
dedicated city
stations
9 contract
cities
3 contract
cities
reviewed:
Woodside,
Portola Valley,
and San
Carlos
1 contract city
reviewed:
Danville
3 contract
cities:
Cupertino, Los
Altos Hills, and
Saratoga
Staffing exhibit Service levels
and
deployment
schedules
incorporated
Customized
service levels by
city
Detailed
Schedule A
incorporated
into the
contract,
similar in
Service
plans and
staffing
schedules
Assigned
personnel and
service levels
identified by
contract; San
Carlos
City-funded
Sheriff
staffing
identified
through the
municipal
Negotiated city-
specific staffing
366
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
370 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
17 Topic
Los Angeles
County Orange County
San
Bernardino
County
San Diego
County
San Mateo
County
Contra
Costa
County
Santa Clara
County
into the
agreement
structure to Los
Angeles
County
identifies 30.0
assigned
FTEs for FY
2026-27
police-
services
model
Cost
methodology
County-
approved
billing rates
and full cost
recovery, with
the ability to
adjust service
levels
Reimbursement
of personnel,
equipment,
overhead, and
specialized
service costs,
with the ability to
adjust service
levels
Annual
Schedule A
cost allocation
based on
positions and
support
services
Staffing-
based cost
recovery,
with the
ability to
adjust
service
levels
Assigned
personnel
costs together
with
separately
identified
operating and
support costs;
rates are
updated
annually, and
the San
Carlos
agreement
provides for
reconciliation
when actual
costs are
below
amounts
collected
City-funded
Sheriff
positions and
related
operating and
support costs
reflected
through the
municipal
police-
services
arrangement
Direct
reimbursement
of negotiated
Sheriff’s costs
Administrative
overhead
charged
Yes, through
the billing-rate
and full-cost-
recovery
structure
Yes, through
contract
reimbursement
of overhead
costs
Yes, through
Schedule A
administrative-
support and
related charges
Separate
overhead
allocation
formula
Support and
administrative
costs are
charged
through
separately
identified
operating and
support costs;
the San
Carlos
agreement
does not state
a single
overhead
percentage
Support costs
are included
in the city-
funded
police-
services
model; the
materials
reviewed do
not identify a
separate
countywide
overhead
formula
comparable
to West
Valley
Yes, as
allocated by the
County
Specialized
resources
available
County
Sheriff
resources
available
through the
contract
model
Access to
specialized
countywide
resources and
services
County Sheriff
resources
incorporated
into the service
model
Expected
under the
Sheriff
model, but
not verified
in the
retrieved
sources
County Sheriff
resources are
available
through the
contract-
service model
Danville’s
local police
operation is
staffed by the
Sheriff and
supported by
County
Sheriff
infrastructure
City-specific
arrangement
Source: Law-enforcement service agreements, staffing exhibits, rate schedules, and related contract materials reviewed for Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Mateo, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara Counties; Vasquez comparative analysis.
367
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
371 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
18 Best Comparable Cities for Cupertino
For benchmarking Cupertino’s contract with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, the comparables identified for contract structure, staffing, and cost treatment include:
Comparable City County Approximate Similarity
Encinitas San Diego Affluent suburban or coastal city with a Sheriff contract West Hollywood Los Angeles Affluent California City; comparable contract-city model Rancho Santa Margarita Orange Contract-city model (30 assigned FTEs) with limited municipal staff
Diamond Bar Los Angeles Affluent suburban contract city Lake Forest Orange Large suburban community contracting for police services San Carlos San Mateo Sheriff contract with 30 assigned FTEs and separately identified personnel, operating, and support costs
Danville Contra Costa Suburban Sheriff-staffed municipal police model with city- funded personnel and support costs
Woodside San Mateo Smaller contract city for comparison of assigned staffing and separately identified support costs
Portola Valley San Mateo Smaller contract city for comparison of assigned staffing and support-cost treatment
Source: Vasquez comparative analysis based on reviewed law -enforcement service agreements, staffing and service structures, and community characteristics of the identified contract cities.
Additional publicly available comparables identified for the review include Diamond Bar in Los Angeles County because of its sheriff contract-city model; Rancho Santa Margarita and Lake Forest in Orange County because of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department contract model; and Encinitas and Poway in San Diego County because of their sheriff contract model. The review also includes Woodside, Portola Valley, and San Carlos in San Mateo County and Danville in Contra Costa County. Woodside and Portola Valley provide smaller-city examples of assigned Sheriff staffing and support costs, while San Carlos provides a larger San Mateo County example with detailed assigned staffing, operating costs, support services, and an actual -cost reconciliation mechanism. Danville provides a different model in which the municipal police department is staffed through the Contra Cos ta County Sheriff.
The benchmark counties use similar contract-service models, but the presentation of staffing, support services, and annual charges varies materially.
San Bernardino County provides the most detailed presentation through its Schedule A staffing exhibits and amendments. Los Angeles County uses a standardized countywide contract framework with published billing rates. Orange County uses flexible, city -specific service packages and a cost - reimbursement model. San Diego County appears to use a structure similar to Orange County, often organized around station-specific municipal service plans. San Mateo County uses city-specific Sheriff service agreements based on assigned staffing and separately identified operating and support costs.
San Carlos also provides for annual rate updates and reconciliation of collections to actual costs.
Contra Costa County’s Danville model operates as a Sheriff-staffed municipal police department with city-funded positions and support through County Sheriff infrastructure. Santa Clara County generally negotiates individually with Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, and Saratoga rather than operating a larger countywide contract-city program.
368
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
372 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
19 These differences affect the transparency and comparability of contract costs. In particular, the degree to which dedicated staffing, vehicles, dispatch, administrative support, technology, equipment, and specialized services are separately identified varies among the counties. As a result, comparisons of total contract cost or cost per position should consider differences in contract structure, including services, and the level of detail provided in the applicable staffing and cost exhibits.
The preceding comparison describes how other counties structure and present contract -city law - enforcement services. The following analysis narrows that comparison to available budget, staffing, and overhead data to evaluate how the West Valley proposal compares with selected benchmark jurisdictions on a cost-per-FTE basis.
The comparative analysis reconciles jurisdiction-level cost and staffing information, supporting budget records, the comparative overhead classifications, the County process walkthrough, the California contract-city county summary, the San Carlos FY 2026- 27 law-enforcement agreement and budget, and reviewed agreement materials. The comparison uses the comparative jurisdiction analysis's definition of fully burdened cost per deputy: total budgeted amount for county contract services divided by total staffing identified in the applicable contract or source record.
Table 8-1A. Contract-city comparison from the comparative jurisdiction analysis - community, budget, and staffing data
City County Population
Area
(Sq.
Mi.) Crime Rate
Density
(/Sq. Mi.)
Police
Contract
Budget Staffing Stated In Source
Diamond
Bar
Los
Angeles
55,072 14.9 78/100,000
residents
3,700 $9,400,000 20 assigned patrol FTE; 1
forty-hour deputy, 10 fifty-six-
hour deputies, 5 forty-hour
no-relief deputies, and 1
community services assistant
with vehicle.
Lake Forest Orange 86,333 16.7 146/100,000
residents
5,170 $24,300,000 47 patrol deputies plus 1 in
FY 2027.
Rancho
Santa
Margarita
Orange 47,949 12.9 605/100,000
residents
(source text)
3,718 $14,102,000 30
Encinitas San Diego 62,000 18.8 170-
200/100,000
residents
3,253 $20,844,000 Total staffing not stated; FY
2026-27 budget includes
start-up costs for two new
traffic deputies and
continuation of a second
Homeless Outreach Program
for Encinitas (HOPE) team.
Cupertino Santa
Clara
58,333 11.3 112/100,000
residents
5,330 $25,413,597 33
Saratoga Santa
Clara
31,000 12.4 N/P N/P $11,600,000 16
Los Altos
Hills
Santa
Clara
8,500 8.8 N/P N/P $3,400,000 5
West
Hollywood
Los
Angeles
35,000 1.9 884/100,000
residents
N/P $28,700,000 55; source description
consists of 21 seventy-hour-
unit, 10 non-relief, and 9
supplemental positions.
Highland San
Bernardino
57,000 18.6 535/100,000
residents
3,050 N/P N/P
Woodside San Mateo 5,309 11.5 N/P 463 $3,588,158 7 FTEs; the comparative service analysis identifies
24/7 deputy coverage plus
two motorcycle deputies.
369
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
373 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
20 City County Population
Area
(Sq.
Mi.) Crime Rate
Density
(/Sq. Mi.)
Police
Contract
Budget Staffing Stated In Source
Portola
Valley
San Mateo 4,456 9.1 N/P Approxim
ately 490
$2,536,757 5 FTEs; the comparative
service analysis identifies
one deputy providing 24/7
coverage.
San Carlos San Mateo 30,722 5.4 20/1000
residents
5,677 $14,455,499 30 assigned FTEs, consisting
of 22 sworn positions and 8
professional / support
positions.
Danville Contra
Costa
43,582 18.0 N/P 2,411 $11,533,458 24 FTEs used in the
comparative overhead
analysis; other project
materials use different
staffing counts depending on
the staffing definition.
Source: Population and crime rates are based on 2020 Census and FBI 2024 statistics; City FY 2026- 27 Adopted Budgets; Contracts with respective Counties; San Carlos FY 2026-27 Law Enforcement Services Agreement and budget; and Vasquez comparative jurisdiction analysis for Woodside, Portola Valley, and Danville.
Note: Police contract budget amounts for Rancho Santa Margarita, Diamond Bar and West Hollywood are based on the city-adopted budget for FY 2026-27 sheriff contract. These amounts are generally higher than the total contract amount per agreement with respective counties. For Woodside, Portola Valley, and Danville, the amounts shown are the total policing costs used in the comparative jurisdiction analysis and have not been normalized for differences in service scope.
Table 8-1B. Contract-city comparison from the comparative jurisdiction analysis - deputy rates, fully burdened cost, overhead, and notes
City
Day /
Non-relief
Rate
Night /
Relief
Rate
Fully
Burdened
Cost per
Deputy
Overhead
as % of
Direct
Cost
Liability
Surcharge Benchmark Context
Diamond
Bar
$335,385 $368,924 $470,000 N/A 12.5% The Municipal Law
Enforcement Services
Agreement uses annual
personnel and equipment
billing rates that include station-
level administrative overhead.
The comparative jurisdiction
analysis indicates that Los
Angeles County does not
separately charge countywide
overhead.
370
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
374 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
21 City
Day /
Non-relief
Rate
Night /
Relief
Rate
Fully
Burdened
Cost per
Deputy
Overhead
as % of
Direct
Cost
Liability
Surcharge Benchmark Context
Lake
Forest
N/P $341,519-
$352,115
$517,021 26% None The comparative jurisdiction
analysis lists leave paydowns,
cameras, contract
administration, data, supplies,
helicopter services, e-citation,
facility lease, holiday pay,
justice-system fees, mobile
data computers, overtime,
patrol training, premiums, and
transportation as additional
charges. It indicates that no
separate countywide overhead
charge is included.
Rancho
Santa
Margarita
N/P $341,519-
$352,115
$470,067 24% N/P The comparative jurisdiction
analysis identifies the same
Orange County additional-
charge categories described for
Lake Forest and indicates that
no separate countywide
overhead charge is included.
Encinitas $244,833 $244,833 $378,892 33.7% None; fixed
staffing-based
allocation
San Diego County uses a
single annual deputy rate rather
than separate day, night, or
relief rates. Encinitas’s FY
2026-27 adopted law-
enforcement contract budget is
$20.84 million. The reconciled
staffing count is 55 sworn
positions: 51 identified in the
agreement, two additional
HOPE patrol positions, and two
additional traffic deputies. The
agreement separately identifies
station support, ancillary
support, supplies, vehicles,
space, management support,
and liability costs.
Cupertino $331,871 $341,439 $770,109 128% None The County's FY 2026-27 contract proposal increases
Cupertino's annual contract
amount from approximately $19
million to approximately $25.4
million. The proposal identifies
the revised FY 2026-27
allocation of shared and
departmentwide support costs
as the principal driver of the
increase.
Saratoga $331,871 $341,439 $725,000 117% None The County’s FY 2026-27 contract proposal for Saratoga
371
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
375 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
22 City
Day /
Non-relief
Rate
Night /
Relief
Rate
Fully
Burdened
Cost per
Deputy
Overhead
as % of
Direct
Cost
Liability
Surcharge Benchmark Context
applies to the same revised
support-cost allocation used for
Cupertino.
Los Altos
Hills
$331,871 $341,439 $680,000 125% None The County's FY 2026-27 contract proposal for Los Altos
Hills applies to the same
revised allocation of shared
and departmentwide support
costs used for Cupertino.
West
Hollywood
N/P N/P $512,500 N/A 12.5% The comparative analysis
reports a fully burdened
amount of $512,500. The
displayed $28.7 million budget
and staffing count of 55
produce $521,818, so the
displayed inputs do not
reproduce the reported amount.
Highland N/P N/P N/P N/P None The available comparative information does not provide
both a police-services budget
and a corresponding staffing
count needed to calculate a
fully burdened cost per deputy.
Woodside N/P N/P $512,594 18% N/P The comparative analysis identifies 7 FTEs,
approximately $3.04 million of
direct policing costs, and
approximately $0.54 million of
additional costs, for total
policing costs of approximately
$3.59 million. The percentage
is a comparative cost ratio and
is not a standardized San
Mateo County overhead rate.
Portola
Valley
N/P N/P $507,351 16% N/P The comparative analysis
identifies 5 FTEs,
approximately $2.18 million of
direct policing costs, and
approximately $0.36 million of
additional costs, for total
policing costs of approximately
$2.54 million. The percentage
is a comparative cost ratio and
is not a standardized San
Mateo County overhead rate.
San
Carlos
N/P N/P $481,850 23% No separate
surcharge
stated; liability
and risk-
management
Cost model include direct
staffing charges including
additional services which are
priced per position at annual
rate. Other operating charges
372
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
376 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
23 City
Day /
Non-relief
Rate
Night /
Relief
Rate
Fully
Burdened
Cost per
Deputy
Overhead
as % of
Direct
Cost
Liability
Surcharge Benchmark Context
charges are
included
within
operating
costs
include station support staff
costs, uniform allowances,
radio and communications,
information services, supplies,
vehicle maintenance and
replacements costs, HR and
support services. The contract
does not indicate the basis of
allocation of operating costs,
which represent approximately
23% of direct staffing costs.
Danville N/P N/P $480,561 24% N/P Danville operates a municipal police department that is
staffed through the Contra
Costa County Sheriff. The
comparative analysis uses 24
FTEs, approximately $9.32
million of direct policing costs,
and approximately $2.21 million
of additional costs, for total
policing costs of approximately
$11.53 million. The cost
presentation differs from the
shared West Valley station
model, and the 24% represents
a comparative cost ratio rather
than a confirmed County
overhead rate.
Source: Applicable county law-enforcement service agreements and rate schedules; FY 2026-27 adopted city budgets and staffing records; California State Controller compensation information; San Carlos FY 2026-27 Law Enforcement Services Agreement and budget; comparative jurisdiction schedules for Woodside, Portola Valley, and Danville; and Vasquez calculations.
Note: Deputies’ annual compensation information was compared with the information published in SCO’s website and deemed comparable for each County.
Supporting Budget Records Incorporated Into The Comparison The Diamond Bar Supporting budget records image reports a fiscal year 2026- 27 adopted Law Enforcement total of $9,418,290. Of that amount, $8,888,490 is the Sheriff's Department contract line; the balance includes Sheriff special events, parking -citation administration, crossing-guard services, supplies, equipment maintenance, rewards, and public-safety outreach. The $9.4 million comparison numerator is therefore a total law-enforcement budget measure rather than a contract-only amount.
373
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
377 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
24 The West Hollywood Supporting budget records image reports fiscal year 2027 Sheriff and Protective Services of $28,710,733, consisting of $28,675,533 contracted services and $35,200 of other operating costs. Its numerator is therefore substantially contracting services, with a small additional operating-cost component. These budget -source differences affect comparability even before differences in investigations, records, dispatch, facilities, relief staffing, pension burden, and technology are considered.
Table 8-2. Summary of direct, overhead, and support costs from the comparative overhead classification analysis
Cost Category Total Cost
West Valley
Share
West
Valley % Comments
Allocability
Classification
West Valley Division -
Direct Costs
$13,592,497 $13,592,497 100.00% Station / department
specific
Allocable
Countywide Cost
Allocation
$56,764,560 $580,573 1.02% Countywide costs Not allocable Personnel and Training $19,089,028 $1,057,612 5.54% Countywide costs Not allocable Fiscal Services $5,487,495 $298,434 5.44% Countywide costs Not allocable IT Services $18,342,696 $997,556 5.44% Countywide costs Not allocable Internal Affairs $4,653,638 $253,085 5.44% Countywide costs Not allocable Sheriff Administration $4,396,442 $349,433 7.95% Countywide costs Not allocable Overhead subtotal $108,733,859 $3,536,693 3.25%
Investigative Services $16,082,396 $5,531,736 34.40% Caseload-based; source comment
states 43 of 49
headquarters FTE
and only four West
Valley FTE totaling
$1,233,709.
Only
$1,233,709 is
allocable to
West Valley
Records Services $8,234,594 $2,832,389 34.40% Countywide Records department cost
allocated by
caseload.
Not allocable
Support-services subtotal $24,316,990 $8,364,125 34.40%
Total $146,643,346 $25,493,315 17.38%
Source: Vasquez overhead classification analysis based on County information, including West Valley FY 27 Rate Projection - 04-13-2026.xlsx, tabs “OH Summary” and “8 - West Valley OH.” The $13,592,497 shown on the “OH Summary” tab reflects the combined West Valley Division direct -cost components detailed on the “8 - West Valley OH” tab: Support Staff – Salaries & Benefits ($5,348,552), Services & Supplies ($7,952,555), and Body-Worn Camera/Dashcam costs ($291,390), and supporting cost, position, and cost-center records.
The overhead classification analysis further states that West Valley has 89 total positions, 17 of which are labeled Overhead; that West Valley represents approximately 5 percent of the Sheriff Department staffing population while the displayed West Valley share of the summarized cost pools is 17.38 percent; and that countywide costs would continue if the three cities obtained service from other providers. The analysis also states that a caseload allocation alone does not represent actual service hours, and information regarding the extent of work required per case was not available. As a result, the available information does not demonstrate that the allocation reflects the level of services performed.
374
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
378 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
25 Adjusted Contract Cities Fully Burdened Cost Per Deputy For the primary comparison, the total projected FY 2026 –27 cost for Cupertino, Saratoga, and Los Altos Hills is $40,370,815. The staffing denominator is 54 direct -service FTE, consisting of 33 for Cupertino, 16 for Saratoga, and 5 for Los Altos Hills. Dividing the combined three- city cost by the combined direct-service staffing produces an unadjusted cost of $747,608 per FTE. The calculation excludes the West Valley unincorporated area from both the cost numerator and the staffing denominator.
The category-level cost review classified $10,667,109 of the full West Valley cost as not allocable.
Because that amount includes costs assigned to the West Valley unincorporated area, the portion associated with the three city contracts was calculated usi ng the jurisdiction allocation percentages shown in the County’s projected-cost schedule. A combined city share of 80.79% was applied to six overhead cost categories, while a combined city share of 93.42% was applied to Investigative and Records costs. This calculation produced a three-city amount of $9,518,457.
Subtracting $9,518,457 from the combined three- city projected cost of $40,370,815 produces an adjusted cost of $30,852,358. Dividing that amount by the same 54 direct -service FTE produces an adjusted cost of $571,340 per FTE.
Table 8-3A. Contract Cities Cost Per FTE Adjustment Calculation Measure
Total
Amount
Staffing
Basis
Cost Per
FTE Calculation / Interpretation
Contract cities cost
before adjustment
$40,370,815 54 direct
staffing
FTE
$747,608 $40,370,815 ÷ 54 FTE
Full contract cities
costs classified as not
allocable
$10,667,109 Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Includes the portions assigned to the
three contract cities and the
unincorporated area.
Contract cities share
of costs classified as
not allocable
$9,518,457 Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Amount attributable to Cupertino,
Saratoga, and Los Altos Hills using the
jurisdiction allocation shares reflected in
the projected-cost schedule.
Adjusted contract
cities cost
$30,852,358 54 direct
staffing
FTE
$571,340 ($40,370,815 − $9,518,457) ÷ 54 FTE
Source: County of Santa Clara, West Valley FY 27 Rate Projection - 04-13-2026.xlsx, worksheet “10 - Projected Costs”; Vasquez overhead classification analysis; and Vasquez calculations.
Table 8-3B. Adjusted Contract Cities Cost Per FTE Compared With Benchmark Jurisdictions Benchmark
Jurisdiction
Benchmark
Cost Per
FTE
Adjusted
Contract
Cities
Cost Per
FTE
Contract
Cities
Amount
Above
Benchmark
Contract
Cities %
Above
Benchmark
Initial Gap
Explained
By
Adjustment Observation
Diamond Bar $470,000 $571,340 $101,340 21.6% 63.5% Adjusted contract cities remains
materially above
the reported
benchmark.
Lake Forest $517,021 $571,340 $54,319 10.5% 76.4% Adjusted contract cities is
reasonably
comparable at a
screening level,
375
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
379 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
26 Benchmark
Jurisdiction
Benchmark
Cost Per
FTE
Adjusted
Contract
Cities
Cost Per
FTE
Contract
Cities
Amount
Above
Benchmark
Contract
Cities %
Above
Benchmark
Initial Gap
Explained
By
Adjustment Observation
subject to
service-scope
differences.
Rancho
Santa
Margarita
$470,067 $571,340 $101,273 21.5% 63.5% Adjusted contract cities remains
materially above
the reported
benchmark.
Encinitas $378,892 $571,340 $192,448 50.8% 47.8% Adjusted contract cities remains
materially above
the Encinitas
benchmark.
West
Hollywood -
reported
$512,500 $571,340 $58,840 11.5% 75.0% Adjusted contract cities is
reasonably
comparable at a
screening level;
however, the
available staffing
count and
reported ratio do
not reconcile.
Woodside $512,594 $571,340 $58,746 11.5% 75.0% Adjusted contract cities is
reasonably
comparable at a
screening level,
subject to
differences in
staffing and
service scope.
Portola
Valley
$507,351 $571,340 $63,989 12.6% 73.4% Adjusted contract cities is relatively
close to the
reported
benchmark at a
screening level,
subject to
differences in
staffing and
service scope.
San Carlos $481,850 $571,340 $89,490 18.6% 66.3% Adjusted contract cities remains
above the San
Carlos
benchmark. The
comparison is
less direct
because the San
Carlos
denominator
includes both
sworn and
professional/supp
ort personnel.
376
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
380 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
27 Benchmark
Jurisdiction
Benchmark
Cost Per
FTE
Adjusted
Contract
Cities
Cost Per
FTE
Contract
Cities
Amount
Above
Benchmark
Contract
Cities %
Above
Benchmark
Initial Gap
Explained
By
Adjustment Observation
Danville $480,561 $571,340 $90,779 18.9% 66.0% Adjusted contract cities remains
above the
Danville
benchmark;
however, Danville
operates under a
Sheriff-staffed
municipal police
model that differs
from the shared
contract cities
station structure.
Source: FY 2026-27 adopted budgets and applicable sheriff contract, rate, and staffing records for the benchmark jurisdictions; County of Santa Clara, West Valley FY 27 Rate Projection - 04-13-2026.xlsx; San Carlos FY 2026-27 Law Enforcement Services Agreement and budget; comparative jurisdiction information for Woodside, Portola Valley, and Danville; and Vasquez calculations.
Note: “Initial gap explained by adjustment” measures the portion of the original difference between the unadjusted West Valley cost per FTE and each benchmark that is eliminated by removing the three- city share of costs classified as not allocable. Benchmark comparisons remain sensitive to differences in service scope, staffing definitions, and included cost categories. The Woodside, Portola Valley, and Danville benchmark costs per FTE are calculated by dividing the total policing costs reflected in the comparative analysis by 7, 5, and 24 FTEs, respectively. The San Carlos benchmark is calculated using the $14,455,499 gross cost of basic law-enforcement services divided by 30 assigned FTEs.
Observation: Removing the amounts classified as not allocable in the overhead classification analysis substantially narrows the West Valley contract cities gap and explains approximately 48 percent to 78 percent of the initial difference across the benchmark jurisdictions presented. The adjusted $571,340 per FTE is reasonably comparable to the upper-range Lake Forest and West Hollywood benchmarks at a screening level and is approximately 11.5 percent above Woodside and 12.6 percent above Portola Valley. It remains approximately 18.6 percent above San Carlos and 18.9 percent above Danville, and approximately 21.6 percent above Diamond Bar and 21.5 percent above Rancho Santa Margarita. The available comparative data therefore supports the observation that the classified overhead explains a substantial portion, but not all, of the cost gap.
9. Comparative FTE-Based Allocation Analysis
This section presents an alternative allocation of the amounts the County’s proposal assigns to the West Valley contract cities. Direct patrol, traffic, and school-resource staffing costs remain unchanged.
The analysis reallocates West Valley station and countywide support and department support costs using each city’s assigned FTE as a share of the 89 budgeted West Valley FTEs. I t shows how the three-city allocation changes when assigned staffing is used instead of the County’s combination of service-hour and RMS case allocation measures.
Cost Category Pool Scope
Cost
Pool
FTE
Base
Cupertino
Los Altos
Hills Saratoga 3 City
Current
3 City
Cost Change FTE Cost FTE Cost FTE Cost FTE Cost
Direct staffing City direct
cost
33 $11.2 5 $1.5 16 $5.3 54 $18.0 $18.0 $0.0
377
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
381 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
28 Cost Category Pool Scope
Cost
Pool
FTE
Base
Cupertino
Los Altos
Hills Saratoga 3 City
Current
3 City
Cost Change FTE Cost FTE Cost FTE Cost FTE Cost
Station and
countywide
support
West Valley $14.6 89 33 $5.4 5 $0.7 16 $2.6 54 $8.7 $11.8 ($3.1) Personnel and
Training
West Valley $1.1 89 33 $0.4 5 $0.1 16 $0.2 54 $0.7 $0.9 ($0.2) IT Services West Valley $1.0 89 33 $0.4 5 $0.1 16 $0.2 54 $0.7 $0.8 ($0.1) SO
Administration
West Valley $0.3 89 33 $0.1 5 $0.0 16 $0.1 54 $0.2 $0.3 ($0.1) Fiscal Services West Valley $0.3 89 33 $0.1 5 $0.0 16 $0.1 54 $0.2 $0.2 $0.0 Internal Affairs West Valley $0.3 89 33 $0.1 5 $0.0 16 $0.0 54 $0.1 $0.2 ($0.1) Investigative
Services
West Valley $5.8 89 33 $2.2 5 $0.3 16 $1.0 54 $3.5 $5.4 ($1.9) Records
Services
West Valley $3.0 89 33 $1.1 5 $0.2 16 $0.5 54 $1.8 $2.8 ($1.0) Totals
$21.0
$2.9
$10.0
$33.9 $40.4 ($6.5)
Source: County of Santa Clara, West Valley FY 27 Rate Projection - 04-13-2026.xlsx, worksheets “WP5 - WV Staffing” and “10 - Projected Costs”; Vasquez FTE-based allocation calculations.
Note: Dollar amounts in millions; FTEs are stated as positions.
The revised analysis keeps each city’s direct patrol, traffic, and school- resource staffing costs unchanged and reallocates West Valley station support, countywide support, and department support costs using each city’s assigned FTE as a percentage of the 89 budgeted West Valley FTEs. Under this approach, the three- city total decreases from approximately $40. 4 million to $33.9 million, a reduction of approximately $6.5 million, or 16.1%.
This approach is generally more consistent with the benchmark contracts reviewed, which allocate shared support and overhead primarily by authorized staffing, assigned personnel, or contracted service levels rather than RMS caseload. The analysis therefore shows how West Valley city costs would change if shared costs were allocated using the same general staffing-based approach. It does not determine the exact level of support provided to each city, establish the required allocation method, or address whether every cost included in the County’s proposal is allocable. Instead, it provides a more directly comparable basis for evaluating the West Valley methodology against the benchmark jurisdictions.
Illustrative FTE-Based Allocation of West Valley Shared Costs The following analysis compares the County’s current proposal with an alternative allocation based on assigned staffing. Direct patrol, traffic, and school -resource staffing costs remain unchanged. The West Valley station and countywide support, departmental support, Investigative Services, and Records Services amounts, including the agreed 5% increase to the West Valley Investigative and Records amounts – are allocated among Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, and Saratoga using each city’s assigned FTE as a share of the 89 West Valley FTE. The analysis does not reallocate countywide Investigative or Records costs to West Valley or determine the exact level or allocability of support provided to each city; it illustrates how the amounts already assigned to West Valley would change under a staffing-based allocation method generally consistent with the benchmark contracts reviewed.
378
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
382 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
29 West Valley Contract-City Cost Comparison — Current vs. FTE-Based Allocation Current three-city proposal ($) $40.4 Current cost per city FTE ($) $0.7 FTE-based three-city cost ($) $33.9 FTE-based cost per city FTE ($) $0.6 Reduction ($) $6.5 Reduction per city FTE ($) $0.1
Reduction (%) 16.1% Three-city assigned FTE 54
Comparison by City
City
Current
Proposal
($)
FTE-
Based
Cost ($)
Reduction
($)
Reduction
(%)
Assigned
FTE
Cupertino $25.4 $21.0 $4.4 17.3% 33
Los Altos Hills $3.4 $2.9 $0.5 14.7% 5
Saratoga $11.6 $10.0 $1.6 13.8% 16
Three-City Total $40.4 $33.9 $6.5 16.1% 54
Comparison by Cost Category — Three Cities Combined
Cost Category
Current
Proposal
($)
FTE-
Based
Cost ($)
Change
($)
Change
(%)
Direct staffing $18.0 $18.0 $0.0 0.0%
Station and countywide support $11.8 $8.7 ($3.1) -26.3% Personnel and Training $0.9 $0.7 ($0.2) -22.2%
IT Services $0.8 $0.7 ($0.1) -12.5%
SO Administration $0.3 $0.2 ($0.1) -33.3%
Fiscal Services $0.2 $0.2 ($0.0) -0.0%
Internal Affairs $0.2 $0.1 ($0.1) -50.0%
Investigative Services $5.4 $3.5 ($1.9) -35.2%
Records Services $2.8 $1.8 ($1.0) -35.7%
Total $40.4 $33.9 ($6.5) -16.1%
Source: County of Santa Clara, West Valley FY 27 Rate Projection - 04-13-2026.xlsx, worksheets “WP5 - WV Staffing” and “10 - Projected Costs”; Vasquez FTE-based allocation calculations.
Note: Dollar amounts in millions; FTEs are stated as positions.
10. Recommended Budget Analysis of Contract-Related Cost Changes
Santa Clara County provided Vasquez with its Fiscal Year 2026- 27 Recommended Budget. In subsequent correspondence, the County identified the Recommended Budget for Budget Unit 230 – Office of the Sheriff as its best estimate of what the Sheriff’s Office budget would look like if the contracts with the West Valley cities did not exist. The Recommended Budget therefore provides a separate, County -developed basis for evaluating which staffing and operating costs the County expects to change if law enforcement services to Cupertino, Saratoga, and Los Altos Hills are discontinued.
The Recommended Budget assumes that the city contracts are not renewed and provides for the dissolution of the West Valley Patrol and West Valley Investigations Divisions. It also identifies reductions from supporting functions, including Investigations Headquarters, Records, Fiscal Administration, Data Management, County Communications, Fleet, Facilities, and technology-related services. These budget actions are informative because they reflect the County’s own estimate of how staffing and expenditures would change in the absence of the city contracts, rather than an allocation derived from service hours, RMS cases, FTEs, or another comparative methodology.
379
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
383 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
30 Staffing Effect of the No-Contract Scenario
The Recommended Budget identifies 88 Office of the Sheriff positions for removal from the West Valley service structure and 17 County Communications positions assigned to West Valley dispatch for deletion. Of the 88 Sheriff positions, 33 Deputy Sheriff positions and one Sheriff Sergeant position are recommended for reallocation to Court Security. Accordingly, 105 positions are affected before reallocation; 34 positions are reassigned to another County function, leaving a net reduction of 71 FTEs.
Recommended Budget Staffing Action FTE
Office of the Sheriff positions removed from West Valley 88 County Communications positions identified for deletion 17 Total positions affected before reallocation 105
Sheriff positions re-allocated to Court Security (34)
Net positions deleted 71
Source: County of Santa Clara, Fiscal Year 2026- 27 Recommended Budget, Budget Unit 230 – Office of the Sheriff, “West Valley Patrol – Eliminate Service to Cities,” “Summary of Position Changes” and related Recommended Action (pages 309–310).
The 34 positions re-allocated to Court Security are therefore different from the 71 positions eliminated.
The Recommended Budget states that the court system has capacity to accommodate the 33 deputies and one sergeant and that Court Security provides a reimbursement structure so that the reallocated employee costs would not affect the General Fund. For purposes of this analysis, the 34 positions are treated as continuing County positions reassigned from West Valley to another function, consistent with the County’s Recommended Budget, rather than as additional position eliminations.
This distinction is relevant to the interpretation of the no-contract scenario. The reallocation does not represent elimination of those employees or their associated compensation costs because they would continue to be employed by the County. It does, however, indicate that the County no longer expects those positions to be required for West Valley operations if the city contracts are discontinued.
Quantified Expenditure Reductions
The Recommended Budget identifies a $21,412,967 decrease in salaries and benefits and a $2,180,583 decrease in ongoing services and supplies associated with discontinuing West Valley city services, for a combined budgeted expenditure reduction of $23,593,550.
The $2,180,583 services-and-supplies reduction is further identified by the County as follows:
Services and Supplies Reduction Amount
Contract dispatch costs $100,000
Contract fleet fuel costs $285,749
Contract fleet procurement and maintenance costs $1,394,330 Contract technology support costs $81,373
Contract software license costs $35,120
Contract telecom service costs $27,967
Other contract services and supplies $256,044
Total $2,180,583
Source: County of Santa Clara, Fiscal Year 2026- 27 Recommended Budget, Budget Unit 230 – Office of the Sheriff, “West Valley Patrol – Eliminate Service to Cities,” “Summary of Other Costs” (page 309).
380
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
384 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
31 The fleet -related reductions total $1,680,079, consisting of fuel and fleet procurement and maintenance. The technology -support, software- license, and telecom reductions total $144,460.
These amounts reconcile to the fleet and technology reductions identif ied in the Recommended Budget; they are components of the $2,180,583 services -and-supplies reduction and should not be added again when evaluating the total budget impact.
Because the County identifies the $2,180,583 of services -and-supplies expenditures as costs that would be reduced if the West Valley city contracts were discontinued, these costs provide evidence of a direct relationship to the contract services and do not appear to represent costs the County would incur regardless of the contracts.
The Recommended Budget also identifies a $27,796,974 decrease in contract revenue and a $10,931,693 increase in Court Security reimbursement in the financial summary at the conclusion of the “West Valley Patrol – Eliminate Service to Cities” budget action. After considering the expenditure and revenue changes, the County reports ongoing net General Fund savings of $6,728,269. The Recommended Budget narrative identifies contract revenue of $27,796,976, a $2 difference from the $27,796,974 amount shown in the financial summary at the conclusion of that budget action; the financial summary amount reconciles with the stated $6,728,269 of ongoing net savings.
The $6,728,269 net savings amount is not a measure of costs attributable to the city contracts. It reflects both expenditure changes and changes in County revenue, including the loss of city contract revenue and the additional Court Security reimbursement associated with the reassigned positions.
The more relevant information for evaluating the relationship of costs to the city contracts is the specific staffing, services, supplies, and support activities the County identifies as changing under the no- contract scenario.
Dispatch
Dispatch provides a particularly useful example of the distinction between an allocation methodology and the County’s own estimate of cost changes. The Recommended Budget identifies the elimination of the County Communications unit assigned to West Valley dispatch, consisting of 17 positions: 11 Communications Dispatcher III positions, one Communications Dispatcher II, two Senior Communications Dispatchers, one Supervising Communications Dispatcher, one Communications Systems Technician, and one Administrative Assistant.
The Recommended Budget separately identifies a reduction in County Communications Dispatch Services of $4,142,305 (page 198). Because the 17 County Communications positions are also included in the Recommended Budget’s overall staffing action, the dispatch amount should be considered in conjunction with the consolidated salaries -and-benefits reduction rather than automatically added to the other no-contract amounts without a line-item reconciliation. Similarly, the $100,000 “Contract Dispatch Costs” reduction included within the $2,180,583 services-and-supplies total is separately identified by the County and should not be assumed to represent the same costs as the County Communications staffing reduction without a detailed crosswalk.
The elimination of a specifically identified 17-position West Valley dispatch unit nevertheless provides County-generated evidence that a portion of dispatch staffing and capacity changes directly with the city contracts. This is consistent with the treatment of dispatch in Section 3 as a West Valley support activity associated with the city contracts. It does not establish that all County Communications costs are attributable to the city contracts, as the County would continue to maintain communications and dispatch functions for its remaining law enforcement responsibilities.
381
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
385 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
32 Investigative, Records, and Other Department Support The Recommended Budget states that the no- contract scenario would result in the complete dissolution of the West Valley Investigations Division and additional reductions within Investigations Headquarters, Records, Fiscal Administration, Data Management, and other County departments supporting West Valley operations. It also identifies reductions in Facilities, Fleet, network and hardware technology, software licensing, and telecommunications.
This information is relevant to the indirect department support categories evaluated in Section 4 of this report. In particular, it demonstrates that Investigative, Records, fiscal, data-management, technology, and other support functions are not uniformly fixed in the absence of the city contracts; the County itself expects some level of these activities to decrease when West Valley city services are discontinued.
The Recommended Budget, however, does not separately quantify each of these reductions using the same cost -pool definitions included in the County’s FY 2026- 27 contract proposal. The contract proposal combines cost centers, staffing, Countywide allocations, and operating expenditures into categories such as Investigative Services, Records Services, Personnel and Training, IT Services, Fiscal Services, Internal Affairs, Sheriff Administration, and Indirect Countywide Support. The Recommended Budget is organized by budget action, position, department, and expenditure category.
Accordingly, amounts appearing in the two documents are not directly interchangeable without reconciling the underlying cost populations.
For the same reason, differences between amounts appearing in the Recommended Budget for Information Systems, Internal Affairs, or other support functions and the amounts used in the County’s contract-cost calculations do not, by themselves, establish an additional reduction or an error in the County’s proposal. A direct adjustment would require a component-level reconciliation showing which positions, expenditures, internal charges, and Countywide allocations are included in each amount.
Accordingly, the difference between the support and overhead amounts included in the FY 2026- 27 contract proposal and the separately identified reductions in the Recommended Budget should not be interpreted as a measure of costs that necessarily continue in the absence of the city contracts, because the two documents use different cost populations and the identified reductions have not been fully reconciled to the contract proposal cost pools.
Relationship to Overhead Analysis
The Recommended Budget provides additional County -generated information relevant to the cost categories evaluated in Section 4. Its no- contract scenario identifies reductions in Investigations Headquarters, Records, Fiscal Administration, and Data Management, while the separately quantified services and supplies reduction of $2,180,583, includes dispatch, fleet, technology, software, telecommunications, and other contract related operating costs.
Conversely, the Recommended Budget indicates that broader County functions continue after the West Valley city contracts are discontinued, even where some contract -related activity within those functions is reduced. These continuing functions include Count y Communications, Investigations Headquarters, Records, Fiscal Administration, Data Management, facilities, fleet, technology, and other departmentwide or countywide support activities. To the extent the FY 2026-27 contract proposal allocates the standing or baseline costs of these continuing functions to West Valley, those components appear to represent costs the County would incur regardless of the city contracts and therefore would not be allocable to the contract cities under Government Code section 513 50. The Recommended Budget does not quantify those continuing components using the same cost -pool definitions as the contract proposal, so the amount cannot be determined without a detailed reconciliation of the two cost populations.
382
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
386 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
33 The Recommended Budget therefore supports the observation in Section 4 that broader support cost pools may contain both contract -related costs that decrease when the contracts are removed and baseline or continuing costs that remain with the County. It does not independently validate the specific component classifications in Section 4 or establish the amount of any broader cost pool that is allocable or not allocable to the contract cities.
The Recommended Budget does not provide a complete reconciliation between the costs eliminated, reduced, or reassigned under the no- contract scenario and each cost pool included in the County’s FY 2026-27 contract proposal. It therefore does not establish the precise amount of each broader support pool attributable to the city contracts and does not resolve the limitations identified in Section 4 for cost pools that continue to include mixed, baseline, countywide, custody -related, or otherwise insufficiently segregated components.
Government Code section 51350 provides “A county which provides services through its appropriate departments, boards, commissions, officers or employees, to any city pursuant to contract or as authorized by law, shall charge the city all those costs which are incurred in providing the services so contracted or authorized. A county shall not charge a city contracting for a particular service, either as a direct or an indirect overhead charge, any portion of those costs which are attributable to services made available to all portions of the county, as determined by resolution of the board of supervisors, or which are general overhead costs of operation of the county government. General overhead costs, for the purpose of this section, are those costs which a county would incur regardless of whether or not it provided a service under contract to a city.
Any determination of general overhead costs shall be subject to court review as to the reasonableness of such determination.”
Observation: The Recommended Budget provides a separate County -developed source of information regarding how the County expects its staffing and operating costs to change if the West Valley city contracts are discontinued. It is consistent with the report’s observations that direct West Valley staffing and specifically identified operational and support resources are associated with the city contracts, and it identifies reductions in several broader support functions under the no- contract scenario. However, because the Recommended Budget does not reconcile those reductions to each cost pool in the FY 2026-27 contract proposal, it is most informative as corroborating evidence of cost behavior and contract-related activity rather than as a standalone calculation of the amount attributable to the contract cities. The absence of a reconciliation supports the classification of the $10,667,109 in overhead costs as non-allocable, as these costs were not reduced or eliminated in the Recommended Budget. This demonstrates that the costs continue to be incurred regardless of the contract and therefore do not represent costs attributable to, or caused by, the services provided to the cities.
383
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
387 of 456
City of Cupertino
Sheriff Contract Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government Code §51350
34 Additional Sources/References:
- Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department FY 2025 -2029 Boilerplate Agreement for Contract Cities Approved by the Board of Supervisors
- Law Enforcement Services Agreement between the City of Lake Forest and the County of Orange - Law Enforcement Services Agreement between the City of Santa Margarita and the County of Orange - Law Enforcement Services Agreement between the City of West Hollywood and the County of Los Angeles
- Law Enforcement Services Agreement between the City of San Carlos and the County of San Mateo - Law Enforcement Services Agreement between the Town of Woodside and the County of San Mateo - City of Diamond Bar, CA FY 2026-27 Budget
- City of West Hollywood, CA FY 26-27 Budget
- City of Encinitas, CA FY 26-27 Budget
- 2026-2027 Portola Valley Budget
384
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
388 of 456
www.vasquez.cpa
655 N Central Avenue, Suite 1550 • Glendale, California 91203-1437 • +1.213.873.1700
385
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
389 of 456
Private and Confidential
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Cost Allowability and Compliance with Government
Code §51350
Fiscal Year 2026-27
Sheriff Contract Cost
Review
386
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
390 of 456
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The County's FY 2026-27 proposal changes both the composition of overhead and the method used to allocate it. Departmental support moves to an annual cost-per-position basis, Records and Investigations move to a three-year RMS caseload share, and the overhead base expands to include countywide Investigations, Sheriff's Office Administration, and Internal Affairs. $6.0M
Increase in overhead allocated to the
West Valley Station compared with
the prior year
$40.4M
Projected FY 2026 -27 cost for
Cupertino, Saratoga, and Los Altos
Hills combined
$10.7M
West Valley cost classified as not
allocable in the category-level
overhead review
128%
Cupertino overhead as a percentage
of direct cost, against 16%- 34% for
the benchmark cities
Principal observations
Common allocation basis. A single 50% caseload / 50% service-hour driver is applied across cost categories that perform substantially different functions, and caseload does not distinguish among cases by complexity or effort.
Alternative allocation. Reallocating the same West Valley amounts on assigned FTE reduces the three-city total from $40.4 million to $33.9 million, a decrease of $6.5 million or 16.1%.
County's own estimate. The FY 2026-27 Recommended Budget identifies $23.6 million of expenditure reductions and a net 71 -position decrease if the city contracts were discontinued.
Benchmark position. Removing the three-city share of costs classified as not allocable lowers the fully loaded cost from $747,608 to $571,340 per FTE — explaining 48% to 78% of the gap to the benchmark jurisdictions, but not all of it. / What Changed, and What It Costs the Three Cities
387
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
391 of 456
3 Government Code section 51350. A county must charge a city the costs incurred in providing contracted services and may not include general County overhead costs that would have been incurred regardless of the contract.
What an allocation formula establishes
• How a c ost pool is distributed among Cupertino, Saratoga, Los Altos Hills, and the unincorporated area
• That t he distribution can be independently recalculated from the supporting schedules
• That t he same basis has been applied consistently across the categories presented
What it does not establish
• That t he cost was incurred in providing services to the contract cities
• That t he chosen driver reflects how each function consumes resources
• That ca se counts capture complexity, staff time, or level of effort per case
The analysis therefore evaluates each component on whether it is associated with providing law-enforcement services to the three cities, rather than on whether it can be distributed by formula.
SECTION 4 - CONTRACT LAW ENFORCEMENT OVERHEAD
/ The Standard Applied to Each Cost Component
388
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
392 of 456
4 Overhead category West Valley
share Component-level considerations Classification
Countywide Cost Allocation $580,573 County counsel, finance, and technology costs allocated through the Countywide Cost Allocation Plan; attributable to services available to all County departments.
Not allocable
Personnel and Training $1,057,612 Custody academy, recruitment, and baseline training capacity are unrelated or baseline; recruiting and training caused by West Valley staffing may be allocable in part.
Not allocable
Fiscal Services $298,434 Custody fiscal services and baseline accounting capacity are excluded; actual contract billing, payroll, and accounting transactions are mixed where specifically supported.
Not allocable
IT Services $997,556 Custody IT and baseline enterprise- system capacity are excluded; contract-specific devices, licenses, users, and support may be attributable to the service.
Not allocable
Internal Affairs $253,085 Custody units and baseline governance capacity are excluded or unrelated; city-service incidents may create some mixed workload.
Not allocable
Sheriff Administration $349,433 Sheriff and Undersheriff positions were excluded by the County; baseline executive functions and newly included CC3900 functions lack a demonstrated West Valley nexus. Three-city portion is $282,306.
Not allocable
Subtotal $3,536,693 Category-level classification ; the component review shows several pools contain both contract-related and baseline activity.
$3,536,693
Observation. These pools are presented as combined amounts rather than separately identifying baseline County operations and the portion associated with West Valley contract services. The component-level review distinguishes custody operations, the Sheriff's South County investigative unit, baseline executive management, and departmentwide administrative functions within the broader categories.
SECTION 4 - COUNTYWIDE AND DEPARTMENT SUPPORT
/ Treatment of the Departmental Overhead Categories
389
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
393 of 456
5 Investigative Services $5,531,736
West Valley share
• Only $1,233,709 is identified as allocable to West Valley; $4,298,027 is c
lassified as not allocable.
• South County Investigations (cost center 3931; two FTE; approximately $706,
929) is unrelated to West Valley.
• Other headquarters and regional positions require a documented West V
alley service nexus.
• The source comment reflects 43 of 49 headquarters FTE against only f
our West Valley FTE.
Records Services $2,832,389
West Valley share
• The f ull amount is classified as not allocable at the category level. • A R ecords Sheriff overhead allocation of approximately $1,492,651 represents second-order mixed overhead.
• Records T echnician and Office Specialist transaction work may be attributable in part.
• The c omponent review supports a narrower split between city transactions and baseline capacity.
$11,900,818
West Valley share of the overhead and
support pools reviewed
$10,667,109
Classified as not allocable in the category-
level review
The $10,667,109 reflects classification of entire categories.
Because several of those categories include activities that may relate to the contract cities as well as activities that may not, the amount is used in Section 8 solely to measure its effect on the benchmark comparison.
SECTION 4 - INVESTIGATIVE AND RECORDS SERVICES
/ The Two Largest Support Pools Drive the Classification 390
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
394 of 456
6 County Contract structure Staffing exhibit Pricing method Los Angeles Standardized countywide Municipal Law
Enforcement Services Agreement
Detailed deployment schedules and annual
service levels Full cost recovery using County-approved billing rates Orange Municipal contract with the Sheriff's Department Service levels customized by city Cost reimbursement for personnel, equipment, overhead, and special services
San Bernardino Sheriff's Law Enforcement Services Contract Schedule A listing staffing, vehicles, dispatch, support services, and annual costs
Annual Schedule A cost allocation, frequently
amended during the year
San Diego Sheriff's Municipal Services Agreements Annual staffing schedules and service plans Cost recovery based on staffing assignments and support services
San Mateo Municipal agreements for Sheriff-provided
services
Assigned personnel and service levels set by
contract, updated annually
Cost recovery based on assigned personnel, operating
costs, and support services
Contra Costa Sheriff-staffed municipal police department City-funded Sheriff staffing organized by police function
City-funded Sheriff positions and related operating and support costs
Santa Clara Individual contract with the Sheriff's Office Negotiated staffing levels tailored to each city
Direct reimbursement of Sheriff's costs plus
overhead
Observation. The materials examined did not identify caseload as a basis for allocating general operating or overhead costs in any of the six comparative counties . Those methodologies use assigned staffing or FTEs, defined service levels, separately identified support costs, or predetermined overhead percentages.
SECTION 8 - COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
/ How Other California Counties Structure Contract Services 391
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
395 of 456
7 16% 18% 23% 24% 24% 26%
34%
117%
125% 128%
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
By county methodology
Los Angeles — station overhead built into the annual rate per position, plus 12.5% for the liability trust fund; countywide overhead does not appear to be allocated.
Orange — regional shared costs of 3% to 4% and, other
county overhead of 21% to 22%, for a total of 24% to 26%.
San Diego — overhead allocated on FTE at approximately
34% of direct costs; no countywide costs allocated.
San Bernardino — overhead of approximately 25% of direct personnel costs, plus roughly 2% county administrative cost.
San Mateo — separately identified operating and support costs of approximately 16% to 23% of direct policing costs.
Contra Costa — additional costs of approximately 24% of direct policing costs under a Sheriff-staffed municipal model.
SECTION 8 - OVERHEAD ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY
/ Overhead as a Percentage of Direct Cost
392
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
396 of 456
8 Direct patrol, traffic, and school -resource staffing costs remain unchanged. West Valley station, countywide, and department support costs — including Investigative and Records Services — are reallocated using each city's assigned FTE as a share of the 89 budgeted West Valley FTE. $11.8
$5.4
$2.8
$0.9 $0.8
$0.3 $0.2 $0.2
$8.7
$3.5
$1.8
$0.7 $0.7
$0.2 $0.2 $0.1
$0M
$2M
$4M
$6M
$8M
$10M
$12M
Station and
countywide
support
Investigative
Services
Records
Services
Personnel and
Training
IT Services SO
Administration
Fiscal Services Internal Affairs
Current proposal FTE-based allocation
$6.5M · 16.1%
Generally, more consistent with the benchmark contracts reviewed. The analysis illustrates how the amounts already assigned to West Valley would change; it does not establish the required allocation method or whether every cost in the proposal is allocable.
City Current FTE-
based Change % FTE
Cupertino $25.4 $21.0 $4.4 17.3% 33
Los Altos Hills $3.4 $2.9 $0.5 14.7% 5
Saratoga $11.6 $10.0 $1.6 13.8% 16
Three-city total $40.4 $33.9 $6.5 16.1% 54
SECTION 9 - COMPARATIVE FTE- BASED ALLOCATION
/ Reallocating the West Valley Costs on Assigned Staffing (FTE-Based) 393
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
397 of 456
9 What it supports
• Direct W est Valley staffing and specifically
identified operational resources are
associated with the city contracts.
• Investigative, R ecords, fiscal, data-
management, and technology support are
not uniformly fixed; the County expects
some level of these activities to decrease.
• A s pecifically identified 17-position West
Valley dispatch unit is eliminated,
evidencing that dispatch capacity changes
with the contracts.
What it does not establish
• The p recise amount of each broader
support pool attributable to the contract
cities.
• That al l County Communications costs are
attributable to the contracts; the County
would continue to maintain dispatch for its
remaining responsibilities.
• That di fferences between Recommended
Budget amounts and contract -cost
calculations represent an error or an
additional reduction.
Reconciliation
• The c ontract proposal combines cost
centers, staffing, Countywide allocations,
and operating expenditures into support
categories.
• The R
ecommended Budget is organized by
budget action, position, department, and
expenditure category.
• Amounts in t he two documents are not
directly interchangeable without a
component-level crosswalk of the
underlying cost populations.
Observation. To the extent the FY 2026-27 proposal allocates the standing or baseline costs of functions that continue after the contracts end, those components appear to represent costs the County would incur regardless and would not be allocable under section 51350. Because the Recommended Budget does not reconcile its reductions to each cost pool in the proposal, it is most useful as corroborating evidence of cost behavior rather than as a standalone calculation of the amount attributable to the cities.
SECTION 10 - RECOMMENDED BUDGET
/ What the No-Contract Scenario Budget Does and Does Not Establish 394
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
398 of 456
10 Allocation basis
A single 50/50 caseload and service-hour driver is
applied across functions with different cost
behavior, and no benchmark county reviewed uses
caseload for general operating or overhead costs.
Category classification
$10,667,109 of the West Valley cost is classified as
not allocable at the category level, concentrated in
Investigative Services, Records Services, and
countywide support.
Benchmark position
Removing the unallowed overhead cost of
$10,667,109, adjusted fully loaded cost to $571,340
per FTE, West Valley is comparable to the upper-
range benchmarks at a screening level but remains
10.5% to 50.8% above the jurisdictions presented.
Alternative allocation
Assigned FTE-based reallocation of the same West
Valley amounts reduces the three-city total by $6.5
million, or 16.1%, and aligns more closely with the
benchmark contracts.
County corroboration
The Recommended Budget identifies $23.6 million
of expenditure reductions and a net 71- position
decrease under a no-contract scenario, evidencing
contract-related cost behavior.
Reconciliation
A component-level reconciliation between the
Recommended Budget and each contract cost pool
is required to quantify the amounts attributable to
the contract cities.
SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS
/ Where the Analysis Leaves the Proposed FY 2026-27 Charges 395
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
399 of 456
11 Government Code section 51350
A county which provides services through its appropriate departments, boards, commissions, officers or employees, to any city pursuant to contract or as authorized by law, shall charge the city all those costs which are incurred in providing the services so contracted or authorized. A county shall not charge a city contracting for a particular service, either as a direct or an indirect overhead charge, any portion of those costs which are attributable to services made available to all portions of the county, as determined by resolution of the board of supervisors, or which are general overhead costs of operation of the county government . General overhead costs, for the purpose of this section, are those costs which a county would incur regardless of whether or not it provided a service under contract to a city.
Any determination of general overhead costs shall be subject to court review as to the reasonableness of such determination.
SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS
/ Matters Requiring County Action – Not Allocable OH Costs 396
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
400 of 456
12 The burden of proof rests with the County. These cost components were not eliminated in the Recommended Budget and therefore, represent costs the County would incur regardless and would not be allocable under section 51350.
County Action Required:
To support its position, the County must provide persuasive and substantiated evidence that the $10.667 million in costs identified as not allocable are not general costs of County operations and would be avoided if the contracts with the three cities were discontinued.
SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS
/ Matters Requiring County Action – Not Allocable OH Costs 397
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
401 of 456
13 The burden of proof rests with the County. West Valley’s staffing allocation of 89 FTEs represents only approximately 5% of the combined staffing of the Sheriff’s Department and Department of Corrections (BUs 230, 235, and 240), which total 1,768 FTEs, and approximately 12% of BU230’s 720 FTEs. The 89 FTEs assigned to West Valley include three Law Enforcement Records Technicians; however, West Valley is also allocated an additional 34.4% share of countywide records services overhead costs based on caseload.
Similarly, of the 49 FTEs assigned to BU230’s Investigative Divisions, only 4 FTEs (8%) are dedicated to West Valley. Despitethis limited staffing assignment, West Valley is allocated 34.4% of countywide investigative costs under the caseload-based allocation methodology.
None of the benchmark counties reviewed use caseload to allocate general operating or overhead costs. While West Valley Station represents 34.40% of the Countywide caseload based on case counts, case volume alone does not measure the level of resources consumed. Case counts do not capture differences in case complexity, staff time or effort required to provide services.
The County has not provided data regarding the complexity of cases, staff hours incurred, or effort associated with the cases attributed to West Valley Station.
Without such information, caseload cannot be substantiated as a reasonable, equitable or cost-causative basis for allocating general operating or overhead costs.
County Action Required:
The C ounty should provide data supporting the relative complexity of cases, staff hours expended, and level of effort associated with the cases attributed to West Valley Station to demonstrate that caseload is an appropriate allocation methodology.
This presentation was prepared for the City of Cupertino for the purposes described in the related report. Its distribution is limited to authorized representatives of Cupertino, Saratoga, Los Altos Hills, and the County of Santa Clara. Distribution to these parties does not create a professional duty or responsibility to any party other than the City of Cupertino. The presentation is not intended for use or reliance by any other party without Vasquez’s prior written consent.
SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS
/ Matters Requiring County Action – Use of Caseload
398
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
402 of 456
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
26-15034 Agenda Date: 9/15/2026
Agenda #: 15.
Subject: Receipt of City Council Policy Review Final Report and Internal Auditor Recommendations for Council Policy Updates
Receive the City Council Policy Review Final Report and provide direction on the recommendations.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/10/2026Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
399
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
403 of 456
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3120
CUPERTINO.GOV
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: September 15, 2026
Subject
Receipt of City Council Policy Review Final Report and Internal Auditor Recommendations for Council Policy Updates.
Recommended Action
Receive the City Council Policy Review Final Report and provide direction on the recommendations.
Background
As part of the Fiscal Year 2024 -2025 City Work Program, the City Council directed staff to complete a review of all City policies and provide recommendations on updates as needed. On March 18, 2025, the City Council received the Citywide Policy Inventory and Gap Analysis Report, reviewed the City Council Policy Inventory, and authorized Moss Adams LLP (now Baker Tilly) , the City’s internal auditor, to include a gap analysis of the C ity Council Policy Inventory as part of the FY 2025-26 Internal Audit Work Plan.
As part of the FY 2025-26 Internal Audit Work Plan, Baker Tilly evaluated Council-related policies to identify opportunities to improve clarity, consistency, and usability, d etermine whether significant policy gaps exist, and align Council operational procedures with recognized industry best practices. The review included the City Council Procedures Manual, Code of Ethics and Conduct, Policies and Guidelines on Sister Cities, Friendship Cities, and International Delegations, Social Media Policy, and Technology Use Policy. The assessment was conducted between September 2025 and February 2026 and included interviews, document review, peer city research, and research on industry best practices.
On April 27, 2026, Baker Tilly presented the City Council Policy Review Final Report to the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee unanimously accepted the report and identified two points of emphasis for City Council consideration: whether a dditional guidance should be established regarding Councilmember attendance at assigned committees and regional bodies, and whether existing policies should more clearly define procedures for disciplinary actions involving Councilmembers, including admonit ion, censure, removal from committee assignments, and investigations.
Reasons for Recommendation and Available Options
400
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
404 of 456
Baker Tilly found that the City has policies in place addressing each of the areas reviewed and did not identify any Council policy areas that were entirely missing. The review did identify opportunities to strengthen individual policies and the overall framework for managing Council- related policies. The Final City Council Policy Review Report is included as Attachment A.
The report includes six observations and corresponding recommendations:
• Council Policy Environment: Implement a structured policy manage ment framework that formalizes periodic policy review, standardizes training, and clarifies enforcement procedures.
• City Council Procedures Manual: Consider revisions and additional sections to provide clearer and more comprehensive guidance for Council operations. • Code of Ethics and Conduct: Consider targeted updates to improve clarity, accountability, and administration.
• Sister Cities, Friendship Cities, and International Delegations: Review and update the policy to improve clarity and provide additional guidance for Council and staff.1 • Social Media Policy: Consider developing a standalone policy providing guidance for elected and appointed officials.
• Technology Use Policy: Consider developing a standalone policy providing guidance for elected and appointed officials.
The City Council may provide direction regarding which recommendations should be addressed and the timing for bringing proposed policy amendments back for Co uncil consideration. Baker Tilly noted that recommendations may be incorporated as individual policies come forward through their regular review cycle rather than requiring all policies to be revised at one time. If Council chooses not to implement some or all of the recommendations, existing policies and practices would remain in place.
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
Fiscal Impact
There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with receiving the report. Implementation of individual recommendations may require staff resources. Any significant fiscal impacts associated with future policy changes would be identified when those items are brought to the City Council for consideration.
City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description
Yes – FY 24-25
Whole Policy Review/ Repeat the 2013 process of compiling and reviewing all City Policies including 1) Administrative and 2) Council policies and provide recommendations/updates, e.g.
Green Purchasing, Property Acquisition
Council Goal:
Public Engagement and Transparency
1 The most recent policy was updated in May 2026, which addressed these recommendations. 401
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
405 of 456
TBD Item:
No
California Environmental Quality Act
The proposed action does not constitute a “project” subject to CEQA. _____________________________________
Prepared by: Astrid Robles, Assistant to the City Manager Reviewed by: Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy City Manager
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, City Manager
Attachments:
A – Final City Council Policy Review Report
402
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
406 of 456
As of June 3, 2025, Moss Adams LLP has merged with Baker Tilly.
Proprietary & Confidential
FINAL REPORT
City of Cupertino
CITY COUNCIL POLICY REVIEW
April 2026
Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP
999 3rd Ave, 2800
Seattle, WA 98104
403
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
407 of 456
COUNCIL POLICY REVIEW
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO ONLY
Table of Contents
I. Executive summary 1
A. Background, Scope, and Methodology 1
B. Summary of Observations and Recommendations 1
II. Introduction 3
A. Background 3
B. Scope and Methodology 3
III. Observations and Recommendations 5
A. Council Policy Environment 5
B. Council Policy Manual 7
C. Code of Ethics and Conduct 11
D. Sister City Policy 11
E. Social Media Policy 12
F. Technology Use Policy 13
Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and Baker Tilly US, LLP, trading as Baker Tilly, operate under an alternative practice structure and are members of the global network of Baker Tilly International Ltd., the members of which are separate and independent legal entities. Baker Tilly US, LLP is a licensed CPA firm that provides assurance services to its clients. Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and its subsidiary entities provide tax and consulting services to their clients and are not licensed CPA firms.
404
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
408 of 456
Council Policy Review | 1
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO ONLY
I. Executive summary
A. Background, Scope, and Methodology
Effective governance is critical to ensuring transparency, accountability, and public trust, particularly in municipal operations where clear roles, consistent procedures, and well-defined policies guide decision-making. As part of the City of Cupertino’s (the City’s) fiscal year 25-26 internal audit program, Baker Tilly evaluated the City’s Council-related policies to identify opportunities to improve clarity, consistency, and usability, determine whether there were any major gaps, and align Council operational procedures with industry best practices.
The policies under review included:
• Council Procedures Manual
• Code of Ethics and Conduct
• Policies and Guidelines on Sister Cities, Friendship Cities, and International Delegations • Social Media Policy
• Technology Use Policy
This assessment was primarily conducted between September 2025 and February 2026. The project’s phases included planning, fieldwork, analysis, and reporting. Fieldwork was informed by interviews, peer research, and document and data review. Based on the information gained during these phases of fieldwork and analysis, we identified areas of improvement related to the project objectives.
B. Summary of Observations and Recommendations
Our observations and recommendations are summarized below. Detailed observations and recommendations are in the Observations and Recommendations section.
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Observation The City’s current Council policy environment lacks several key elements, including a formal policy review cycle, standardized training, and clearly defined enforcement mechanisms. These gaps may reduce the effectiveness and consistent implementation of Council-related policies.
Recommendation Implement a structured policy management framework that formalizes policy review, standardizes training, and clarifies enforcement procedures.
2. Observation While the City Council Procedures Manual addresses many foundational topics, it does not include several sections commonly found in peer city manuals.
Recommendation Consider revising the Manual to add or expand sections that would improve its comprehensiveness and provide clearer guidance for effective Council operations.
405
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
409 of 456
Council Policy Review | 2
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO ONLY
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3. Observation The Code of Ethics and Conduct is a comprehensive policy; however, several areas could be strengthened to improve clarity and implementation.
Recommendation Consider targeted updates to the Code of Ethics and Conduct to improve clarity, accountability, and administration.
4. Observation The Policies and Guidelines on Sister Cities, Friendship Cities, and International Delegations provide a strong framework for international partnerships but would benefit from clearer definitions of key terms and clearer measures of program success.
Recommendation Review and update the policy to improve clarity for both Council and staff.
5. Observation The City’s Social Media Policy primarily provides staff-level administrative guidance and does not address Councilmember use of social media in a comprehensive manner.
Recommendation Consider developing a standalone social media policy to provide guidance to elected and appointed officials.
6. Observation The City’s Technology Use Policy primarily provides staff-level guidance and does not address Councilmember-specific scenarios or needs.
Recommendation Consider developing a standalone technology use policy to provide guidance to elected and appointed officials.
406
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
410 of 456
Council Policy Review | 3
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO ONLY
II. Introduction
A. Background
Effective governance is essential to promoting transparency, accountability, and public trust, particularly in municipal operations where clear roles, consistent procedures, and well-defined policies guide decision-making.
As part of the City of Cupertino’s fiscal year 2025–2026 internal audit program, Baker Tilly conducted a comprehensive review of Council-related policies to strengthen the City’s governance framework.
The assessment was designed to identify opportunities to improve clarity, consistency, and usability across Council policies; determine whether significant policy gaps exist; and align Council operational procedures with recognized industry best practices. Strengthening these governance structures positions the City to support informed decision-making, improve operational effectiveness, and uphold its commitment to serving the community with integrity.
B. Scope and Methodology
This assessment examined how Cupertino’s Council-related operational policies are structured, maintained, and used, with a focus on whether they provide Councilmembers with clear, practical guidance. The review also identified opportunities to strengthen Council-specific expectations and improve the consistency of policy management practices.
The policies included in the review were:
• Council Procedures Manual
• Code of Ethics and Conduct
• Policies and Guidelines on Sister Cities, Friendship Cities, and International Delegations • Social Media Policy
• Technology Use Policy
This analysis was informed by interviews, document review, peer city research, and research on industry best practices. This assessment was primarily conducted between September 2025 and February 2026 and consisted of four major phases.
PROJECT PHASE DESCRIPTION
1 Startup and
Project
Management
Phase one consisted of collaborative project planning with City leadership, including determining who would be interviewed, what documents would be reviewed, and coordination on project status.
Initiate Project: We conducted a kickoff meeting with City leadership to confirm expectations and discuss overall project scope, logistics, deliverables, timing, and progress reporting requirements. We clarified the responsibilities of Baker Tilly and City leadership, timing of project activities, and format of deliverables. 407
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
411 of 456
Council Policy Review | 4
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO ONLY
PROJECT PHASE DESCRIPTION
Perform Project Management: We conducted project management for the duration of the engagement. These activities included periodic check-ins with City leadership, updating on progress, and submitting draft deliverables for review.
Provide Quality Assurance: We recognize the need for quality by providing excellent client service and engagement oversight. All deliverables received a quality assurance review before submittal to the City.
2 Fact-Finding The second phase focused on execution of planned activities, including document review, interviews, peer research, and industry best practice research. We obtained the most current information available from City staff.
Interviews: We conducted interviews with five individuals including council members, City leadership, and staff to gain insight into council policies.
Documentation Review: We gathered relevant documentation for review, including current council-related policies, handbooks, committee lists, and organization charts.
Peer Research: We conducted peer research to assess the City’s alignment with similar entities and identify areas for improvement. The following list of peers we included in our research.
● City of Fremont
● City of Menlo Park
● City of Pleasanton
● City of San Leandro
● City of Santa Clara
● City of Santa Cruz
● City of Walnut Creek
Industry Best Practice: We conducted research into industry best practices for council operational policies.
3 Analysis Based on our observations, we evaluated options to help the City improve council policies and better align with best practices.
4 Reporting Based on our analysis, we prepared a draft report with our observations and recommendations. The draft report was then reviewed by City leadership, and feedback was integrated into an updated report before finalizing. 408
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
412 of 456
Council Policy Review | 5
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO ONLY
III. Observations and Recommendations
Based on the input gathered from interviews, document review, peer research, as well as comparisons to best practices, we prepared a comprehensive set of observations and recommendations, which are presented in detail below.
A. Council Policy Environment
1. Observation The City’s current Council policy environment lacks several key elements, including a formal policy review cycle, standardized training, and clearly defined enforcement mechanisms. These gaps may reduce the effectiveness and consistent implementation of Council-related policies.
Recommendation Implement a structured policy management framework that formalizes policy review, standardizes training, and clarifies enforcement procedures.
The Council’s policy environment encompasses the framework, processes, and practices that govern the development, dissemination, maintenance, and enforcement of Council-related policies. Its effectiveness depends on several factors, including the timeliness of policy updates, the accessibility and usability of policies, the quality and consistency of training, the presence of regular review mechanisms, and the clarity of processes for addressing policy violations. Each of these elements plays a critical role in ensuring that policies serve their intended purpose, remain current and relevant, and are understood and adhered to by all stakeholders.
The city currently has many of these critical elements in place. However, gaps remain that may make it difficult for Councilmembers and staff—particularly newly elected officials and new employees—to identify the most current and relevant guidance. The sections below summarize key observations related to policy review and updates, training and orientation, and violations and enforcement.
Policy Review and Updates
At present, the City’s Council policy environment is dynamic but largely reactive, with limited proactive management of policy updates and reviews. Although all policies included in this assessment had been updated within the past five years—generally consistent with an industry-standard review cycle of three to five years—the City does not have a standardized process for regularly reviewing Council- related policies. Instead, policies are typically reviewed and revised in response to requests from individual Councilmembers or emerging issues.
Updated policies are generally routed to the Clerk’s Office, added to Laserfiche, and uploaded to the City’s internal system, the Hub. However, interviewees reported that superseded versions are not always consistently removed. The City completed a one-time effort last year to add metadata intended to support identification and removal of outdated policies, but subsequent updates have not been applied consistently. As a result, duplicate and obsolete versions of policies may remain accessible.
409
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
413 of 456
Council Policy Review | 6
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO ONLY
Training and Orientation
Historically, training on Council-related policies has been inconsistent and has lacked a structured, documented approach. New Councilmembers may receive a binder of relevant policies during orientation, but there is no formal process identifying which policies must be included, prioritized, or reviewed. Refresher training has generally been reactive and incident driven. For example, interviewees noted that a recent technology policy refresher was delivered in response to a specific issue. Policy materials are typically provided during post-election orientation, which does not occur annually, and optional mid-year refresher sessions may be brief or inconsistent.
Interviewees also reported that the City has recently made improvements to orientation and training, which represents a positive development.
Violations and Enforcement
With the exception of the Code of Ethics and Conduct, most Council operational policies do not clearly describe how violations should be addressed. More broadly, current processes for responding to breaches of Council-related policies are not well understood by either staff or Councilmembers.
This indicates a need for clearer guidance regarding enforcement procedures and accountability mechanisms.
Recommendation
To strengthen the Council policy environment, the City should implement a formal policy management framework that addresses existing gaps in policy review, training, and enforcement. Key actions include:
• Formalize policy management: Establish documented procedures for updating, archiving, renaming, and reviewing Council-related policies. Assign responsibility for policy oversight to a designated office or individual, and implement a regular review cycle, such as every three years. • Standardize training and onboarding: Build on recent improvements by documenting a comprehensive training program for Councilmembers and Commissioners that includes orientation, required policy review, and proactive annual refresher training. • Clarify enforcement procedures: Define and communicate clear protocols for addressing policy violations. Where appropriate, incorporate enforcement language directly into individual Council policies.
Implementing these actions would improve policy effectiveness, transparency, and consistency across the Council policy environment.
410
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
414 of 456
Council Policy Review | 7
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO ONLY
B. Council Policy Manual
2. Observation While the City Council Procedures Manual addresses many foundational topics, it does not include several sections commonly found in peer city manuals.
Recommendation Consider revising the Manual to add or expand sections that would improve its comprehensiveness and provide clearer guidance for effective Council operations.
The City Council Procedures Manual (the Manual) is the City’s primary policy document governing Council operations. Consistent with best practice, the Manual includes guidance on a range of core topics, including communication, meeting management, decorum, and decision-making. It also references applicable sections of the Municipal Code to support compliance with relevant administrative requirements.
Although the Manual was revised in March 2025, additional sections and clarifications could further improve its usefulness as a comprehensive resource for Councilmembers.
POLICY SECTION/
ELEMENT
GAP DESCRIPTION
Adherence to
Council
Handbook/Manual
Full gap Typically, Council Manuals include a section outlining the expectations and responsibilities of council members to comply fully with the guidelines, policies, and procedures detailed within the document. It emphasizes the importance of consistent application to ensure transparency, accountability, and effective governance. This section often includes provisions for non-compliance, reinforcing the commitment of all members to uphold the standards and integrity of the council’s operations.
Powers and Duties Partial gap The Council Manual includes some information related to the roles of the Mayor, Vice Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Commissioners.
Specifically, while councilmember powers are defined in the Municipal Code and referenced throughout the Manual—in sections such as Council/Manager Form of Government, Council-Manager Relations, and Authority of City Council—there is no consolidated overview section that fully outlines the responsibilities and duties of these positions. Including a dedicated section that clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of the Mayor, Vice Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Commissioners would improve clarity and understanding of these positions.
Ethics and Conduct Partial gap In alignment with best practice, the City maintains a separate Code of Ethics and Conduct for Elected and Appointed Officials. Within the Manual, ethics training is mentioned in Section 5.6, but the topic is otherwise absent.
For the benefit of the Council, it would be helpful to include a dedicated section in the Manual that outlines the ethical standards expected of councilmembers. This section should reference the standalone policy, clarify required trainings and disclosures, and highlight key values like integrity, transparency, impartiality, and respect for public trust, tailored specifically to the council’s role. Three 411
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
415 of 456
Council Policy Review | 8
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO ONLY
POLICY SECTION/
ELEMENT
GAP DESCRIPTION
of the seven peer cities reviewed include an ethics section in their Council Manuals.
Sexual Harassment
Prevention Training
Full gap Half of the peer manuals reviewed explicitly include the requirement for sexual harassment prevention training for councilmembers, in compliance with State Assembly Bill 1661. While this training may be covered under the City’s broader ethics training requirements, clearly stating this obligation in the Council Manual helps ensure councilmembers understand their responsibility to complete the training and reinforces the commitment to preventing all forms of sexual harassment in their official duties.
Orientation for New
Councilmembers
Full gap Although the Manual includes a Council Training section (5.6), adding a dedicated orientation section could help clarify expectations regarding how and when councilmembers receive training (see Observation 1 for more details). This section might outline the process for onboarding new councilmembers, specify required trainings (either providing the training directly or information on how to access and complete it), and include meetings with key staff, tours of city facilities, and access to training resources. Clearly defining orientation and training requirements in the policy would better support councilmembers in serving effectively, ethically, and in compliance with the law, ultimately strengthening the city’s overall governance and administration.
Expense
Reimbursement
Partial gap The Council Manual includes a reimbursement section that outlines the basics of reimbursable expenses and references councilmember compensation; however, it does not clearly specify non-reimbursable expenses or set limits on travel, lodging, or meeting costs. Without these details, councilmembers may submit unreasonable expenses or claims outside the scope of their duties.
Several peer cities include an appendix within their Manual or Handbook that details the Councilmember expense reimbursement procedures or have a standalone policy. These appendices typically specify limits on reimbursable expenses (e.g., requiring the most economical travel, expenses only for council purposes, restrictions on vehicle use, lodging, meals, and technology), provide detailed instructions for submitting reimbursement forms and making purchases, outline budget procedures for determining reimbursement levels, and describe ongoing review processes for council expenses throughout the year.
Meeting Procedures Partial gap The Council Manual and Municipal Code Chapter 2.08 address the Rules and Conduct of Meetings for the City Council; however, the Manual could be improved to clarify specific elements of meeting procedures.
For example, the current Manual does not detail how meeting minutes and notices are managed, define quorum requirements, or clarify the role and responsibilities of the presiding officer, typically the mayor.
The Manual would also benefit from including guidelines for remote participation, clear criteria for items eligible for the consent calendar along with procedures for objections or removal requests, and 412
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
416 of 456
Council Policy Review | 9
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO ONLY
POLICY SECTION/
ELEMENT
GAP DESCRIPTION
expanded policies on managing disruptive behavior by attendees, including warnings, removal, and appeals. Additionally, establishing standards for the preparation, approval, and distribution of meeting minutes and official records would help ensure accuracy and public accessibility.
Consolidating and clarifying these procedures within the Council Manual—rather than relying solely on the Municipal Code—would offer councilmembers a more accessible resource and promote consistent, efficient meeting management.
Council's Role in
Disaster/Risk
Management
Full gap Several peer cities (three out of seven) have a section on disaster recovery and/or risk management which clarifies the City Council’s roles and responsibilities during emergencies and to outline the city’s approach to managing risks. In the peer city manuals, this section includes the council’s authority to declare a local emergency and a hierarchy for decision-making including if the Council is unavailable, as well as the designation of standby officers and alternative government locations. Additionally, the section details the city’s risk management framework, covering the identification and mitigation of risks, claims settlement authority, indemnification and insurance requirements for contractors, and reporting obligations to maintain coverage.
Although the City has an Emergency Management Program chapter in the Municipal Code, including this information in the manual can ensure councilmembers understand their critical role in emergency response and risk oversight, supporting effective governance and resilience in times of crisis. The Municipal Code should be referenced in this section.
Liability and
Personal
Responsibility
Partial gap One peer manual includes a section on Liability and Personal Responsibility that outlines potential personal liability for councilmembers in cases of discrimination, harassment, or fraud, as well as the limits of city insurance coverage. While the City addresses protection from liability related to conflicts of interest in the Manual, it would be beneficial to also clarify the limits of liability protection for issues such as discrimination, harassment, and fraud, and to specify the extent of the City’s insurance coverage for councilmembers.
Councilmember
Compensation
Partial gap The current Manual references a separate exhibit on compensation within the reimbursement section but does not provide detailed information elsewhere. Adding more comprehensive details or incorporating the Elected Officials’ Compensation Program directly into the Council Manual would offer greater clarity on councilmember compensation.
Several peer cities (three out of seven) include specific sections that outline councilmember compensation practices, covering details such as related ordinances (chapter 2.16 of the Municipal Code) and a high-level overview of what is included in compensation (e.g., salary, benefits, allowances) as well as what is not compensated (e.g., attendance at standing committees or external agencies). 413
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
417 of 456
Council Policy Review | 10
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO ONLY
POLICY SECTION/
ELEMENT
GAP DESCRIPTION
Public Comment Partial gap While the City previously operated with a designated Policy on Public Comment (which included guidelines for Councilmembers on speaking at meetings, time allocations, agenda items, councilmember comments, and correction of misinformation), interviewees noted that this policy has been discontinued. In its place, the Manual includes a paragraph about how public comments are made.
All peers have a section related to public comment in their council manuals. This section is important as it establishes clear, consistent guidelines that promote fairness, transparency, and orderly public participation. It helps ensure all community members have equitable opportunities to voice their views, supports efficient meeting management, and fosters trust between the council and the public.
The City should expand on the current Public Comment section to include additional details including speaker order, consideration for remote speakers and written comments, correction of misinformation guidelines, and additional details on speaking times for large number of speakers, and managing disruptions.
Communicating
with the Media
Partial gap The Manual does not include information on how councilmembers should respond to the media. However, the Code of Ethics and Conduct Policy does have a short section on conduct with the Media.
This section should be referenced and potentially expanded within the Manual. Clarifications in this area can be especially important when it comes to speaking to the media in the wake of an emergency or disaster situation.
Reference Materials Full gap Another valuable addition to the Manual would be a comprehensive list reference guide within an appendix, including relevant ordinances, resolutions, policies, training materials, and external resources (e.g., League of California Cities Guide, Institute for Local Government) referenced throughout the document. In addition, the other Council operating policies (including the Sister City Policy, Code of Ethics and Conduct, Social Media, and Technology Use Policy) should be actively referenced.
Including such a reference section would enhance usability by providing councilmembers with easy access to important supporting materials, ensuring they have ready access to key information needed for effective governance.
Recommendation
Based on the partial and full gaps identified above, the City should consider revising or adding additional sections to the Manual to enhance its comprehensiveness and provide clearer guidance to support effective Council operations.
414
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
418 of 456
Council Policy Review | 11
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO ONLY
C. Code of Ethics and Conduct
3. Observation The Code of Ethics and Conduct is a comprehensive policy; however, several areas could be strengthened to improve clarity and implementation.
Recommendation Consider targeted updates to the Code of Ethics and Conduct to improve clarity, accountability, and administration.
The Code of Ethics and Conduct was last revised in 2023 and is a well-developed and comprehensive policy. In general, it reflects many public-sector best practices (e.g., conflict of interest provisions, civility standards, Council–Manager boundaries). However, there are several areas that could be strengthened:
• Although the policy describes complaint handling and potential sanctions, such as reprimand and censure, it is largely self-enforcing and does not clearly establish investigative procedures, timelines, roles, documentation standards, or evidentiary expectations. • The policy does not address anonymous reporting channels or protection against retaliation for individuals reporting unethical behavior. Where applicable, the policy could reference existing City processes in these areas.
• The policy requires ethics training but does not clearly specify training frequency beyond initial requirements or consequences for noncompliance, except for Commissioners.
Recommendation
The City should review the Code of Ethics and Conduct and consider whether additional language related to enforcement procedures, reporting mechanisms, anti-retaliation protections, and training requirements would improve the policy’s clarity and effectiveness.
D. Sister City Policy
4. Observation The Policies and Guidelines on Sister Cities, Friendship Cities, and International Delegations provide a strong framework for international partnerships but would benefit from clearer definitions of key terms and clearer measures of program success.
Recommendation Review and update the policy to improve clarity for both Council and staff.
The City maintains the Policies and Guidelines on Sister Cities, Friendship Cities, and International Delegations (Sister City Policy). This policy was last revised in October 2023 and defines program purpose, partnership structure, eligibility, and funding guidelines for Sister City and Friendship City relationships. Although the policy is not strictly a Council operations document, it relies significantly on Council oversight, particularly with respect to budget adoption, funding approval, and establishment or termination of city relationships.
415
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
419 of 456
Council Policy Review | 12
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO ONLY
Despite the policy’s comprehensive goals and structural definitions, staff have reported ongoing challenges in interpreting specific provisions—particularly those related to funding eligibility, travel expense rules, and the identification of City-supported groups.
Interviewees noted the following areas would benefit from clearer definitions or guidance:
• Who qualifies as a dignitary for purposes of dignitary gifts • Whether Sister City and Friendship City relationships are intended to continue indefinitely and whether the number of relationships should be capped
• What criteria qualify an organization as a City-supported group • What constitutes a “large city facility”
• Whether there is a cap on annual travel expenditures for the Mayor or the Mayor’s designee • Which positions are eligible to serve as the Mayor’s designee for City-funded travel, under what circumstances, and subject to what spending limitations
In addition, the City does not have a formal process for periodically reviewing Sister City relationships to determine whether they continue to advance the City’s goals and interests. As a result, there is limited clarity regarding whether the program is achieving intended outcomes and whether all existing relationships should continue indefinitely.
Some municipalities have established performance measures and periodic reporting requirements to help ensure that Sister City activities remain aligned with strategic goals. For example, the City of Austin includes requirements for an annual activity, financial, and work plan reports, with a formal review process in their Sister City policy.
Recommendations
The City should update the Sister City Policy to define key terms more clearly and reduce ambiguity for staff and Council. The City should also consider establishing performance measures and a formal review process, such as annual reporting to the City Council, to assess whether Sister City and Friendship City relationships continue to support the City’s goals.
E. Social Media Policy
5. Observation The City’s Social Media Policy primarily provides staff-level administrative guidance and does not address Councilmember use of social media in a comprehensive manner.
Recommendation Consider developing a standalone social media policy to provide guidance to elected and appointed officials.
The City’s Social Media Policy was developed in 2020 as an organization-wide administrative policy that applies to both staff and elected or appointed officials. However, the policy primarily addresses management of official City social media accounts and does not provide sufficient guidance regarding how Councilmembers should use personal or official social media accounts when communicating about City-related matters.
416
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
420 of 456
Council Policy Review | 13
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO ONLY
Generally, social media policies that apply to elected officials should include information related to:
• Brown Act and open meeting law requirements, including the prohibition on serial meetings through social media interactions
• Public records and disclosure implications associated with social media content • Distinctions between official and personal accounts
• Expectations related to civility and professionalism
• Security and account management
• Accessibility requirements and best practices
• Alignment with the City’s broader Social Media Policy Recommendation
The City should consider developing a standalone policy, or adding a dedicated section within the Council Procedures Manual, to provide elected and appointed officials with clear guidance regarding social media use.
F. Technology Use Policy
6. Observation The City’s Technology Use Policy primarily provides staff-level guidance and does not address Councilmember-specific scenarios or needs.
Recommendation Consider developing a standalone technology use policy to provide guidance to elected and appointed officials.
Similarly to the Social Media Policy, the City’s Technology Use Policy was designed as an organization-wide administrative policy. In alignment with best practice, the policy provides a full framework for acceptable use, retention, security, and compliance and was last updated in 2024.
However, it does not address issues specific to elected or appointed officials. In particular, we would expect to see guidance on the following topics:
• Permitted devices and equipment for Council use, including expectations for official City business, personal use, and political or campaign use
• Public record retention and disclosure requirements related to email and other digital communications
• Brown Act and open meeting law requirements, including the prohibition on serial meetings through email or other electronic communications
• Training requirements related to technology and cybersecurity • Alignment with the City’s broader Technology Use Policy Recommendation
The City should consider developing a standalone policy (or a dedicated section within the Council Procedures Manual) to guide elected and appointed officials’ use of technology.
417
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
421 of 456
418
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
422 of 456
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
26-15351 Agenda Date: 9/15/2026
Agenda #: 16.
Subject: Acceptance of FY 2026-27 Internal Audit Work Program; Fourth Amendment to agreement with Baker Tilly; and, if approved, related budget modification
1. Accept the FY 2026-27 Internal Audit Work Program;
2. If accepted, authorize the City Manager to execute a Fourth Amendment with Baker Tilly to extend the agreement through June 30, 2027; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. 26-099 approving Budget Modification No. 2627-449, increasing appropriations, as necessary to fund the accepted FY 2026-27 Internal Audit Work Program, by an amount to be determined by the City Council.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/10/2026Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
419
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
423 of 456
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3220
CUPERTINO.GOV
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: September 15, 2026
Subject
Acceptance of FY 2026-27 Internal Audit Work Program; Fourth Amendment to agreement with Baker Tilly; and, if approved, related budget modification
Recommended Action
1. Accept the FY 2026-27 Internal Audit Work Program;
2. If accepted, authorize the City Manager to execute a Fourth Amendment with Baker Tilly to extend the agreement through June 30, 2027; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. 26-XXX approving Budget Modification No. 2627-449, increasing appropriations, as necessary to fund the accepted FY 2026-27 Internal Audit Work Program, by an amount to be determined by the City Council.
Background
As of FY 2021 -22, Baker Tilly, formerly Moss Adams LLP (“Moss Adams”), serves as the designated Internal Auditor for the City of Cupertino (the City) and conducts projects focusing on:
• Risks
• Internal controls
• Efficiency and effectiveness
• Best practices
• Compliance
As described in Resolution No. 20-091, establishing the City’s internal audit function, the Internal Auditor works under the direction of the Audit Committee and City Council and conducts internal audits in accordance with a schedule approved by both bodies . In practice, t he Audit Committee and City Council approve the annual audit work program, review audit report findings and recommendations, and monitor the implementation of recommendations. Audit findings are reported in writing to the City Manager, Audit Committee, and City Council.
Internal Audit Work Program
The internal audit work program, developed by Baker Tilly, outlines the projects to be undertaken in FY 2026-27 (Attachment A). The Audit Committee reviews and prioritizes projects for inclusion in the work program, which is then presented to the City Council for approval. 420
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
424 of 456
The internal audit work programs for prior years are listed below:
• FY 2021-22:
o Procurement Operational Review
o Policy Inventory (Fiscal) and Plan
o Capital Program Effectiveness Study Fraud, Waste, and Abuse (FWA) Program
• FY 2022-23:
o Budget Process Review
o Enterprise Leadership Effectiveness Study
o Library Construction Audit
• FY 2023-24:
o Enterprise Risk Assessment
o City Policy Inventory
• FY 2024-25:
o Grants Management Internal Controls Review
o Special Revenue Funds Process Review
o Recommendation Validation Process Establishment
• FY 2025-26:
o Council-Wide Policy Review Inventory
o City-Wide Internal Control Review
o Investment/Cash Flow Policy Review/Recommendation Review o Grants Management Review
For FY 2026-27, Baker Tilly recommended the following internal audit work program:
421
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
425 of 456
The FY 2026-27 Internal Audit Work Program was presented to the Audit Committee on July 28, 2026. The Audit Committee’s recommended priority list is below and broken down further into Tiers with Tier 1 as highest priority. Projects within the tiers are not listed in any specific order of priority.
• Tier 1:
o Code Enforcement – 311 Response Time Review - $45,000 o Permitting Efficiency Study - $50,000
o Recruitment and Retention Study - $45,000
• Tier 2:
o Grants Management Follow-Up - $30,000
o Investment/Cash Flow Review - $35,000
o Property Tax Review - $35,000
• Required (These items must be included in the Work Program):
o Program Management - $20,000
o Recommendation Validations - $10,000
The Audit Committee voted unanimously to receive the FY 2026-27 Internal Audit Work Program and forward them to the City Council for approval.
Agreement Amendment and Budget Modification
If the City Council accepts the FY 2026 -27 Internal Audit Work Program, a Fourth Amendment to the agreement (Attachment B) with Baker Tilly is necessary to perform the approved work program through June 30, 2027. The cost of the amendment will depend on the projects selected by the City Council. If the cost of the approved work program exceeds the $120,000 currently 422
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
426 of 456
budgeted for internal audit services, a related budget modification (Attachment C) will also be required.
Next Steps
Baker Tilly will complete the approved projects and present the audit reports to the Audit Committee for review and the City Council for acceptance. The audit reports will be available on the City’s website at cupertino. gov/finance under Internal Audit.
During the current fiscal year, staff will initiate a new Request for Proposals (RFP) process in the winter. The RFP will seek qualified internal audit firms to provide services for FY 2027-28.
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
Fiscal Impact
In the FY 2026-27 Adopted Budget, the City has budgeted $120,000 for the internal audit contract in the contracts category of the City Council program (GL 100-10 -100 700-702). A dditional appropriations of $ 50,000 are requested if Council approves all items in Tier 1 . If C ouncil approves all items in both Tier 1 and Tier 2, additional appropriations of $150,000 are requested.
The final fiscal impact will vary based on Council’s direction.
City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description
Financial, Investment, and Cashflow Policy Review.
Council Goal
Fiscal Strategy.
TBD Item
No.
California Environmental Quality Act
The proposed action does not constitute a “project” subject to CEQA.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Richard Wong, Acting Finance Manager
Toni Oasay-Anderson, Budget Manager
Reviewed by: Jonathan Orozco, Finance Director
Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy City Manager
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, City Manager
Attachments:
A – FY 2026-27 Internal Audit Work Program
B – Draft Fourth Amendment
C – Draft Resolution
423
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
427 of 456
/0 /1 /2 /3 /i255 /5 /6 /i255 /0 /7 /8 /9 /10 /2 /1 /11 /5 /12 /13 /i255 /14 /15 /16 /14 /17 /i255 /18 /11 /2 /9 /10 /11 /19 /20 /i255 /21 /7 /22 /1 /2 /i255 /23 /10 /5 /24 /10 /19 /25 /26 /27 /28 /29 /30 /i255 /32 /33/34/34/29/30 /30 /35 /35/i255/36/35/35 /30 /29 /37 /38 /i255 /i255 /39 /i255 /i255 /40 /27 /41 /42 /i255 /43 /44 /43 /45 424
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
428 of 456
/0 /1 /2 /3 /i255 /5 /6 /i255 /0 /7/8 /9 /10 /2 /1 /11 /5 /i255 /12 /13 /i255 /14 /15 /16 /i255 /14 /17 /i255 /18 /11 /2 /9 /10 /11 /19 /20 /i255 /21 /7 /22 /1 /2 /i255 /23 /10 /5 /24 /10 /19 /25/14 /26/27/28 /9 /i255 /0 /1 /2 /3 /i255 /10 /9 /2 /19 /1 /11 /9/22 /i255 /29 /19 /30 /9 /10 /i255 /27 /1 /20 /20 /3 /i255 /2 /5 /i255 /31 /9 /10 /32 /9 /i255 /19 /31 /i255 /2 /28 /9 /i255 /22 /9 /31 /1 /24 /11 /19 /2 /9 /22 /i255 /18 /11 /2 /9 /10 /11 /19 /20 /i255 /21 /7 /22 /1 /2 /5 /10 /i255 /19 /11 /22 /i255 /33 /5 /11 /22 /7 /33 /2 /i255 /8 /10 /5 /34 /9 /33 /2 /31 /i255 /6 /5 /33/7 /31 /1 /11 /24 /i255 /5 /11 /35 /26/36/1 /31 /30 /31
/26/18/11 /2 /9 /10 /11 /19 /20 /i255 /0/5 /11 /2 /10 /5 /20 /31 /26/37/6 /6 /1 /33 /1 /9 /11 /33 /3/i255 /19 /11 /22 /i255 /9 /6 /6 /9 /33 /2 /1 /32 /9 /11 /9 /31 /31 /26/29/9 /31 /2 /i255 /8 /10 /19 /33/2 /1 /33 /9 /31
/26/0/5/25/8/20 /1 /19 /11/33 /9
/26/38 /5/10 /30 /i255 /1 /31 /i255 /39 /9 /1 /11 /24 /i255 /33/5/25/8/20 /9 /2 /9 /22 /i255 /7 /11 /22 /9 /10 /i255 /19 /8 /8 /10 /5 /8 /10 /1 /19 /2 /9 /i255 /1 /11 /22 /7 /31 /2 /10 /3 /i255 /31 /2 /19 /11 /22 /19 /10 /22 /31 /i255 /40 /18 /18 /21 /41 /i255 /42 /21 /42 /21 /43 /41 /i255 /21 /18 /0 /23 /21 /44 /45 /46 /47 /48 /49 /46 /50 /51 /i255 /53 /54 /55 /56 /47 /i255 /57 /58 /48 /49 /58 /56 /48 /59 425
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
429 of 456
/0 /1 /2 /3 /i255 /1 /5 /i255
/6 /7 /8 /3 /9 /7 /10 /2 /i255 /11 /12 /13 /14 /8
/15 /16 /17 /18 /i255 /20 /21 /i255 /15 /22/23 /24 /25 /17 /16 /26 /20 /i255 /27 /28 /i255 /29 /30 /31 /i255 /29 /32 /i255 /33 /26 /17 /24 /25 /26 /34 /35 /i255 /36 /22 /37 /16 /17 /i255 /38 /25 /20 /39 /25 /34 /40/41 426
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
430 of 456
/0 /1 /2 /3 /i255 /5 /6 /i255 /0 /7/8 /9 /10 /2 /1 /11 /5 /i255 /12 /13 /i255 /14 /15 /16 /i255 /14 /17 /i255 /18 /11 /2 /9 /10 /11 /19 /20 /i255 /21 /7 /22 /1 /2 /i255 /23 /10 /5 /24 /10 /19 /25/26 /27 /28 /i255 /30 /31 /32 /33 /31 /34/35/i255/36 /37 /38 /39 /40/41 /42 /43 /37 /40 /44 /31 /38 /31 /45 /41 /44 /i255
/27 /41 /41 /44 /41 /41/35/44/37 /40 /41
/42 /43/35/38/46 /32 /47 /44 /44 /i255 /34 /37 /48 /i255 /49 /44 /41 /45 /48 /44 /37 /40 /41
/42 /30 /44 /31 /50 /32 /31/35/34/37 /51 /44 /i255
/52/44/40 /31 /45 /51 /41
/53 /28 /i255 /54 /38 /38 /32 /31 /40 /39 /37 /45 /40 /45 /44 /41 /42 /49 /45 /41 /55 /41
/42 /56 /32 /37 /40 /31 /32 /46 /41
/42 /56 /32/35/38/46 /45 /34 /37 /51 /44
/42 /30 /44 /31 /50 /32 /31/35/34/37 /51 /44
/56 /28 /i255 /57 /31 /34 /51 /55 /45 /37 /33 /i255 /58 /i255 /49 /44 /38 /32 /31 /40 /45 /37 /33
/42 /59 /45/37 /48 /45 /37 /33 /41 /i255 /58 /i255
/49 /44/51 /32/35/35/44/37 /48 /34 /40 /45 /32 /37 /41
/42 /59 /31/34 /39 /48 /60 /i255/61/34/41 /40 /44 /60 /i255 /34 /37 /48 /i255 /27 /62/39 /41 /44 /i255 /63 /32 /40 /46 /45 /37 /44
/42 /56 /32 /31 /31 /44 /51 /40 /45 /64 /44 /i255 /27 /51 /40 /45 /32 /37 /41 /42 /36/35/38/46 /44/35/44/37 /40 /34 /40 /45 /32 /37
/42 /65 /34 /46 /45 /48 /34 /40 /45 /32 /37
/66/67/68 /69 /70 /71 /69 /72 /i255 /74 /75 /71 /76 /77 /75 /78 /68 /i255 /79 /80 /81 /69 /71 /i255 /82 /77 /67 /83 /77 /78/84/i255/85 /67/84/86/67 /75 /76 /75 /71 /70 427
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
431 of 456
/0 /1 /2 /3 /i255 /5 /6 /i255 /0 /7/8 /9 /10 /2 /1 /11 /5 /i255 /12 /13 /i255 /14 /15 /16 /i255 /14 /17 /i255 /18 /11 /2 /9 /10 /11 /19 /20 /i255 /21 /7 /22 /1 /2 /i255 /23 /10 /5 /24 /10 /19 /25/26 /27 /28 /29 /30 /31 /28 /32 /33 /i255 /35 /36 /37 /38 /29 /i255 /39 /31 /40 /41 /31 /32/42/i255/43 /40/42/44/40 /28 /30 /28 /29 /45 /46 /47 /48 /49 /50 /47 /51 /52 /i255 /54 /55 /56 /57 /48 /i255 /58 /52 /51 /47 /59 /60 /61 /62 /61/63 /64 /65 /66 /67 /64 /68 /69 /i255 /71 /72 /64 /65 /67 /72 /69 /61/71 /72/73/74/69 /60 /68 /64 /75 /66/76 /66 /67 /77 /72/67/73/68/64 /75 /66 /54 /78 /78 /79 /55 /47 /48 /57 /47 /80 /i255 /51 /47 /56 /i255 /81 /57 /47 /51 /47 /78 /57 /51 /52 /i255 /50 /49 /82 /79 /50 /48 /57 /47 /80 /83 /i255 /51 /84 /84 /49 /48 /i255/85/51/47 /51 /80 /49/85/49/47 /48 /83 /i255 /78 /51 /82 /57 /48 /51 /52 /i255 /82 /50 /79 /80 /50 /51/85/84/83 /i255 /78 /79/85/82/52 /57 /51 /47 /78 /49 /83 /i255 /49 /78 /79 /47 /79/85/57/78 /84 /i255 /51 /47 /56 /i255 /81 /55 /47 /56 /57 /47 /80 /83 /i255 /81 /50 /51 /55 /56 /83 /i255 /80 /79 /86 /49 /50 /47 /51 /47 /78 /49 /83 /i255 /87 /55/85/51/47 /i255 /50 /49 /84 /79 /55 /50 /78 /49 /84 /83 /i255 /57 /47 /48 /49 /50 /47 /51 /52 /i255 /78 /79 /47 /48 /50 /79 /52 /84 /83 /i255/85/51/57 /47 /48 /49 /47 /51/47 /78 /49 /i255 /51 /47 /56 /i255 /79 /82 /49 /50 /51 /48 /57 /79 /47 /84 /83 /i255/85/51/47 /51 /80 /49/85/49/47 /48 /83 /i255 /79 /82 /49 /50 /51 /48 /57 /79 /47 /84 /i255 /51 /47 /56 /i255 /84 /49 /50 /86 /57 /78 /49 /i255 /56 /49 /52 /57 /86 /49 /50 /88 /83 /i255 /79 /50 /80 /51 /47 /57 /89 /51 /48 /57 /79 /47 /i255 /51 /47 /56 /i255 /84 /48 /51 /81 /81 /57 /47 /80 /83 /i255 /82 /50 /79 /78 /49 /84 /84 /49 /84 /i255 /51 /47 /56 /i255 /82 /50 /79 /78 /49 /56 /55 /50 /49 /84 /83 /i255 /82 /50 /79 /78 /55 /50 /49/85/49/47 /48 /83 /i255 /82 /55 /90 /52 /57 /78 /i255 /84 /51 /81 /49 /48 /88 /83 /i255 /50 /57 /84 /91 /i255/85/51/47 /51 /80 /49/85/49/47 /48 /83 /i255 /51 /47 /56 /i255 /48 /49 /78 /87 /47 /79 /52 /79 /80 /88 /92 /93 /94 /95 /96 /97 /98 /94 /99 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /101 /98/102/103/98 /94 /104 /94 /96 /99 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /105 /106 /107 /94 /108 /57 /48 /88 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /46 /47 /48 /49 /50 /47 /51 /52 /i255 /54 /55 /56 /57 /48 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /54 /47 /47 /55 /51 /52 428
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
432 of 456
/0 /1 /2 /3 /i255 /5 /6 /i255 /0 /7/8 /9 /10 /2 /1 /11 /5 /i255 /12 /13 /i255 /14 /15 /16 /i255 /14 /17 /i255 /18 /11 /2 /9 /10 /11 /19 /20 /i255 /21 /7 /22 /1 /2 /i255 /23 /10 /5 /24 /10 /19 /25/15 /26 /27 /28 /29 /30 /31 /28 /28 /27/32/33/34 /35 /30 /36/32/37/38 /39/30 /40 /41 /42 /43 /44 /45 /44/46 /47 /43 /i255 /49 /46 /47 /50 /i255 /51 /47 /47 /43 /47 /47/52/43/41 /42/47/53 /54 /53 /55 /56 /i255 /53 /54 /53 /57 /58 /41 /42 /43 /44 /41 /59 /60/i255 /61 /62 /41 /42 /44 /62 /60 /47 /i255 /63 /44 /62 /64 /43 /65 /42 /47 /i255 /61 /62/52/45/60 /43 /42 /43 /66 /67/68 /69 /70 /71 /72 /69 /73 /74 /i255 /76 /77 /70 /74 /78 /77 /79 /80 /i255 /68 /81 /77 /70 /78 /81 /80 /i255 /82 /74 /83 /69 /74 /72 /84
/85 /86 /i255 /53 /87
/63 /43 /44 /88 /62 /44 /52/59 /41 /65 /43 /89 /40 /88 /88 /46 /65 /46 /43 /41 /65 /90 /i255 /63 /44 /62 /64 /43 /65 /42 /47 /i255 /61 /62/52/45/60 /43 /42 /43/66/91 /63 /62 /60 /46 /65 /46 /43 /47/i255 /49 /43 /92 /46 /43 /93 /43 /66 /67/68/69 /70 /71 /i255/68 /81 /94 /77 /95 /69 /80 /i255 /82 /74 /83 /69 /74 /72 /i255 /67/76/77 /83 /74 /96/70/97/74/77 /70 /98 /68 /79 /96 /99 /i255 /100 /80 /81 /72 /i255 /101 /81 /80 /69 /95 /71 /i255 /82 /74 /83 /69 /74 /72 /55 /57 /102
/85 /86 /i255 /53 /87
/85 /86 /i255 /53 /87
/49 /43 /65 /62/52/52/43 /41 /66 /59 /42 /46 /62 /41 /47 /i255 /103 /43 /60 /46 /92 /43 /44 /43/66/102 /104 /40 /42 /105 /46 /65 /i255 /106/62 /42 /60 /46 /41 /43 /i255 /49 /43 /45 /62 /44 /42 /47 /i255 /49 /43 /65 /43 /46 /92 /43/66/84 /104 /i255 /44 /43 /45 /62 /44 /42 /47 /82 /74/95 /81/97/97/74/77 /73 /79 /70 /69 /81 /77 /96 /i255 /107 /79 /80 /69 /73 /79 /70 /69 /81 /77 /96 /i255 /69 /77 /i255 /100 /108 /109 /110/102 /111 /112 /113 /114 /112 /115/116/i255/118 /119 /120 /121 /119 /122 429
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
433 of 456
/0 /1 /2 /3 /4 /5/6/1/7 /5 /8 /i255 /10 /11 /12 /1 /4 /1 /13 /14 /15/16/17/i255 /19 /20 /i255 /21/22 /17 /23 /17 /24 /25 /15 /25 /26 /19 /24 /i255 /i255 /27 /i255 /i255 /28 /28 /29 /28 /28 /29 /28 /28/30 /31 /32 /33 /34 /35 /36/37/32/38 /36 /39 /35 /40 /41 /32 /42 /36 /43 /44 /45/46/47/48 /47 /49 /50 /51 /52 /50 /47 /53 /54 /i255 /56/54 /51 /53 /47 /57 /54/49/58 /51 /59 /57 /60 /51 /54/46/54/48 /50 /i255 /61 /62 /62 /63 /64 /47 /48 /52 /48 /57 /54 /i255 /58 /59 /65 /47 /57 /66 /i255 /52 /48 /45 /i255 /58 /51 /59 /57 /54 /45 /60 /51 /54 /49 /i255 /61 /62 /62 /63 /67 /60 /45 /68 /54 /50 /i255 /58 /51 /59 /57 /54 /49 /49 /i255 /69 /54 /53 /47 /54 /70 /i255 /61 /62 /71 /63 /72 /51 /52 /48 /50 /49 /i255/73/52/48 /52 /68 /54/46/54/48 /50 /i255 /74 /48 /50 /54 /51 /48 /52 /65 /i255 /75 /59 /48 /50 /51 /59 /65 /i255 /69 /54 /53 /47 /54 /70 /i255 /61 /62 /76 /63 /56 /77 /54 /57 /47 /52 /65 /i255 /69 /54 /53 /54 /48 /60 /54 /i255 /64 /60 /48 /45 /i255 /58 /51 /59 /57 /54 /49 /49 /i255 /61 /62 /76 /63 /74 /48 /53 /54 /49 /50/46/54/48 /50 /78 /75 /52 /49 /79 /i255 /64 /65 /59 /70 /i255 /58 /59 /65 /47 /57 /66 /i255 /69 /54 /53 /47 /54 /70 /i255 /61 /62 /80 /63 /75 /59 /60 /48 /57 /47 /65 /81 /i255/82/47/45 /54 /i255 /58 /59 /65 /47 /57 /66 /i255 /69 /54 /53 /47 /54 /70 /i255 /61 /62 /80 /63 /75 /47 /50 /66 /i255 /75 /65 /54 /51 /83
/84 /85 /86 /87 /i255/89/90/91 /90 /92 /93 /94 /95 /96 /i255 /97/98 /98 /85 /99/93/64 /82/44/i255 /58 /51 /59 /68 /51 /52/46/i255/61 /62 /62 /63 /75 /59/46/46/60/48 /47 /50 /66 /i255 /100 /54 /53 /54/65 /59 /77/46/54/48 /50 /75 /59/46/46/60/48 /47 /57 /52 /50 /47 /59 /48
/74 /48 /48 /59 /53 /52 /50 /47 /59 /48 /i255 /101 /i255 /102 /54 /57/79 /48 /59 /65 /59 /68 /66 /58 /52 /51 /83 /49 /i255 /101 /i255 /69 /54 /57 /51 /54 /52 /50 /47/59 /48 /58 /60 /103 /65 /47 /57 /i255/82/59/51 /83/49/75 /52 /77 /47 /50 /52 /65 /i255 /58 /51 /59 /68 /51 /52/46/i255/61 /62 /62 /63 /104 /47 /103 /51 /52 /51 /66 /i255 /75 /59 /48 /49 /50 /51 /60 /57 /50 /47 /59 /48 /i255 /44 /60 /45 /47 /50 /i255 /61 /62 /71 /63 /i255 /105 /48 /50 /54 /51 /77 /51 /47 /49 /54 /i255 /58 /51 /59 /106 /54 /57 /50 /49 /107 /i255 /69 /47 /49 /83 /i255 /44 /49 /49 /54 /49 /49/46/54/48 /50 /i255 /61 /62 /108 /109 /i255 /62 /110 /63 /109 /i255 /105 /48 /50 /54 /51 /77 /51 /47 /49 /54 /i255 /104 /54 /52 /45 /54 /51 /49 /79 /47 /77 /i255 /61 /62 /71 /63 /109 /i255 /58 /59 /65 /47 /57 /47 /54 /49 /i255 /52 /48 /45 /i255 /58 /51 /59 /57 /54 /45 /60 /51 /54 /49 /i255 /61 /62 /110 /63 /109 /i255 /69 /54 /57 /59/46/46
/54/48 /45 /52 /50 /47 /59 /48 /i255 /111 /52 /65 /47 /45 /52 /50 /47 /59 /48 /i255 /61 /62 /76 /63 /109 /i255 /74 /48 /50 /54 /51 /48 /52 /65 /i255 /75 /59 /48 /50 /51 /59 /65 /i255 /69 /54 /53 /47 /54/70/i255/61 /62 /80 /63 430
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
434 of 456
/0 /1/2/3/i255 /5 /6 /i255 /7/8 /3 /9 /3 /10 /11 /1 /11 /12 /5 /10 /i255 /i255 /13 /i255 /i255 /14 /14 /15 /14 /14 /15 /14 /14/16 /17 /18 /19 /20 /21 /19 /22 /23 /24 /i255 /26 /27 /28 /29 /30 /28 /31 /i255 /32 /21 /19 /20 /33 /21 /23 /24 /i255 /34 /35 /36 /22 /19 /i255 /17 /33 /18 /37 /20 /38 /19 /39 /40 /41 /42 /43 /44 /45 /46 /i255 /48 /49 /46 /50 /44/40 /41 /42 /43 /44 /45 /46 /i255 /51 /44 /52 /45 /41 /49 /53 /46 /49 /42 /54 /55 /52 /46 /49/56/57/46 /44 /58 /i255 /59 /44 /44 /60 /61 /62 /63 /i255 /65 /66 /67 /61 /68 /69/63/70/63/66 /71 /i255 /72 /i255 /73 /74 /74 /i255 /75 /63 /76 /77 /61 /66 /76 /63 /i255 /78 /79/70/63/i255 /75 /63 /80 /79 /63 /81
/65 /80 /82 /83 /84 /82 /71 /63 /i255 /71 /85 /63 /i255 /60 /79 /71 /86 /87 /76 /i255 /69 /61 /62 /63 /i255 /63 /66 /67 /61 /68 /69 /63/70/63/66 /71 /i255 /69 /61/70/77/83 /82 /79 /66 /71 /i255 /68 /63 /76 /77 /61 /66 /76 /63 /i255 /77 /68 /61 /69 /63 /76 /76 /88 /i255 /81 /79 /71 /85 /i255 /82 /i255 /67 /61 /69 /84 /76 /i255 /61 /66 /i255 /68 /63 /76 /77 /61 /66 /76 /63 /i255 /71 /79/70/63/76 /88 /i255 /76 /71 /82 /67 /67 /79 /66 /89 /i255 /82 /80 /82 /79 /83 /82 /90 /79 /83 /79 /71 /86 /88 /i255 /82 /66 /62 /i255 /76 /63 /68 /80 /79 /69 /63 /i255 /62 /63 /83 /79 /80 /63 /68 /86 /91 /i255/92 /93 /94 /88 /95 /95 /95 /96 /68 /61 /77 /63 /68 /71 /86 /i255 /78 /82 /97/i255 /75 /63 /80 /79 /63 /81 /98 /66 /80 /63 /66 /71 /61 /68 /86 /i255 /77 /68 /61 /77 /63 /68 /71 /86 /i255 /71 /82 /97 /i255 /68 /63 /80 /63 /66 /84 /63 /76 /i255 /82 /66 /62 /i255 /69 /61/70/77/82 /68 /63 /i255 /71 /61 /i255 /68 /63 /83 /63 /80 /82 /66 /71 /i255 /83 /63 /89 /79 /76 /83 /82 /71 /79 /61 /66 /i255 /82 /66 /62 /i255 /79 /66 /71 /63 /68 /83 /61 /69 /82 /83 /i255 /82 /89 /68 /63 /63/70/63/66 /71 /76 /i255 /71 /61 /i255 /79 /62 /63 /66 /71 /79 /67 /86 /i255 /61 /77 /77 /61 /68 /71 /84 /66 /79 /71 /79 /63 /76 /i255 /71 /61 /i255 /79/70/77/68 /61 /80 /63 /i255 /84 /66 /62 /63 /68 /76 /71 /82 /66 /62 /79 /66 /89 /i255 /61 /67 /i255 /71 /82 /97 /i255 /68 /63 /80 /63 /66 /84 /63 /i255 /62 /79 /76 /71 /68 /79 /90 /84 /71 /79 /61 /66 /76 /88 /i255 /69 /61 /84 /66 /71 /86 /i255 /76 /63 /68 /80 /79 /69 /63 /i255 /62 /63 /83 /79 /80 /63 /68 /86 /88 /i255 /82 /66 /62 /i255 /79 /66 /71 /63 /68 /89 /61 /80 /63 /68 /66/70/63/66 /71 /82 /83 /i255 /67 /84 /66 /62 /79 /66 /89 /91
/92 /73 /94 /88 /95 /95 /95
/98 /66 /80 /63 /76 /71/70/63/66 /71 /99/60 /82 /76 /85 /i255 /100 /83 /61 /81 /i255 /75 /63 /80 /79 /63 /81/60 /61/70/77/82 /68 /63 /i255 /63 /97 /79 /76 /71 /79 /66 /89 /i255 /79 /66 /80 /63 /76 /71/70/63/66 /71 /i255 /82 /66 /62 /i255 /69 /82 /76 /85 /i255 /67 /83 /61 /81 /i255 /77 /68 /61 /69 /63 /76 /76 /63 /76 /i255 /71 /61 /i255 /71 /85 /63 /i255 /60 /79 /71 /86 /87 /76 /i255 /63 /97 /79 /76 /71 /79 /66 /89 /i255 /77 /61 /83 /79 /69 /86 /i255 /71 /61 /i255 /82 /76 /76 /63 /76 /76 /i255 /82 /83 /79 /89 /66/70/63/66 /71 /i255 /81 /79 /71 /85 /i255 /71 /85 /63 /i255 /77 /61 /83 /79 /69 /79 /63 /76 /91/92 /73 /94 /88 /95 /95 /95 /96 /63 /68/70/79/71 /71 /79 /66 /89 /i255 /65/67 /67 /79 /69 /79 /63 /66 /69 /86 /i255 /101 /71 /84 /62 /86 /65 /80 /82 /83 /84 /82 /71 /63 /i255 /71 /85 /63 /i255 /63 /67 /67 /79 /69 /79 /63 /66 /69 /86 /i255 /82 /66 /62 /i255 /63 /67 /67 /63 /69 /71 /79 /80 /63 /66 /63 /76 /76 /i255 /61 /67 /i255 /71 /85 /63 /i255 /60 /79 /71 /86 /87 /76 /i255 /77 /63 /68/70/79/71 /71 /79 /66 /89 /i255 /77 /68 /61 /69 /63 /76 /76 /i255 /71 /61 /i255 /79 /62 /63 /66 /71 /79 /67 /86 /i255 /61 /77 /77 /61 /68 /71 /84 /66 /79 /71 /79 /63 /76 /i255 /71 /61 /i255 /76 /71 /68 /63 /82/70/83/79 /66 /63 /i255 /81 /61 /68 /102 /67 /83 /61 /81 /76 /88 /i255 /68 /63 /62 /84 /69 /63 /i255 /77 /68 /61 /69 /63 /76 /76 /79 /66 /89 /i255 /71 /79/70/63/76 /88 /i255 /79/70/77/68 /61 /80 /63 /i255 /69 /84 /76 /71 /61/70/63/68 /i255 /76 /63 /68 /80 /79 /69 /63 /88 /i255 /82 /66 /62 /i255 /63 /66 /85 /82 /66 /69 /63 /i255 /61 /80 /63 /68 /82 /83 /83 /i255 /76 /63 /68 /80 /79 /69 /63 /i255 /62 /63 /83 /79 /80 /63 /68 /86 /91 /92 /94 /95 /88 /95 /95 /95
/103 /68 /82 /66 /71 /i255/104/82/66 /82/89 /63/70/63/66 /71 /i255 /100 /61 /83 /83 /61 /81 /105 /84 /77/100 /61 /83 /83 /61 /81 /i255 /84 /77 /i255 /61 /66 /i255 /61 /84 /71 /76 /71 /82 /66 /62 /79 /66 /89 /i255 /68 /63 /69 /61/70/70/63/66 /62 /82 /71 /79 /61 /66 /76 /i255 /82 /66 /62 /i255 /82 /76 /76 /63 /76 /76 /i255 /81 /85 /82 /71 /i255 /77 /68 /61 /89 /68 /63 /76 /76 /i255 /71 /85 /63 /i255 /60 /79 /71 /86 /i255 /85 /82 /76 /i255/70/82/62 /63 /i255 /71 /61 /i255 /82 /62 /62 /68 /63 /76 /76 /i255 /68 /63 /69 /61/70/70/63/66 /62 /82 /71 /79 /61 /66 /76 /91 /92 /73 /95 /88 /95 /95 /95
/75 /63 /69 /68 /84 /79 /71/70/63/66/71 /i255 /82 /66 /62 /i255 /75 /63 /71 /63 /66 /71 /79 /61 /66 /i255 /101 /71 /84 /62 /86 /106 /107 /107 /108 /107 /107 /i255 /110 /111 /108 /i255 /112 /113 /110 /114 /115 /107 /i255 /116 /108 /117 /116 /118 /113 /110/119/108/120 /110 /i255 /121 /120 /122 /i255 /116 /108 /110 /108 /120 /110 /113 /123 /120 /i255 /124 /116 /121 /117 /110 /113 /117 /108 /107 /i255 /110 /123 /i255 /113 /122 /108 /120 /110 /113 /125 /114 /i255 /123 /124 /124 /123 /116 /110 /118 /120 /113 /110 /113 /108 /107 /i255 /110 /123 /i255 /113/119/124/116 /123 /126 /108 /i255 /111 /113 /116 /113 /120 /127 /i255 /108 /125 /125 /113 /117 /113 /108 /120 /117 /114 /128 /i255 /108 /120 /111 /121 /120 /117 /108 /i255 /110 /111 /108 /i255 /112 /113 /110 /114 /115 /107 /i255 /121 /129 /113 /130 /113 /110 /114 /i255 /110 /123 /i255 /121 /110 /110 /116 /121 /117 /110 /i255 /121 /120 /122 /i255 /116 /108 /110 /121 /113 /120 /i255 /131 /84 /82 /83 /79 /67 /79 /63 /62 /i255 /63/70/77/83 /61 /86 /63 /63 /76 /88 /i255 /82 /66 /62 /i255 /76 /84 /77 /77 /61 /68 /71 /i255 /83 /61 /66 /89 /105 /71 /63 /68/70/i255/61 /68 /89 /82 /66 /79 /132 /82 /71 /79 /61 /66 /82 /83 /i255 /76 /71 /82 /90 /79 /83 /79 /71 /86 /91 /92 /93 /94 /88 /95 /95 /95
/75 /63 /69 /61/70/70/63/66/62 /82 /71 /79 /61 /66 /i255 /133 /82 /83 /79 /62 /82 /71 /79 /61 /66/76/60 /61 /66 /71 /79 /66 /84 /63 /i255 /71 /61 /i255 /71 /68 /82 /69 /102 /i255 /82 /66 /62 /i255 /80 /82 /83 /79 /62 /82 /71 /63 /i255 /68 /63 /69 /61/70/70/63/66 /62 /82 /71 /79 /61 /66 /i255 /79/70/77/83 /63/70/63/66 /71 /82 /71 /79 /61 /66 /91/92 /74 /95 /88 /95 /95 /95 /96 /68 /61 /89 /68 /82/70/i255/104/82/66 /82 /89 /63/70/63/66/71/101 /84 /77 /77 /61 /68 /71 /i255 /61 /66 /89 /61 /79 /66 /89 /i255 /77 /68 /61 /89 /68 /82/70/i255 /70/82/66 /82 /89 /63/70/63/66 /71 /i255 /82 /69 /71 /79 /80 /79 /71 /79 /63 /76/91/92 /134 /95 /88 /95 /95 /95 431
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
435 of 456
/0 /1 /2 /3 /4 /5 /6 /1 /2
/7/8/9 /10 /11 /12 /13/14/11/13 /15 /i255 /17 /18 /13 /19/13 /20 /11 /i255 /21 /22 /22 /18 /20 /11 /12 /23 /24 /i255 /25 /24 /24 /9 /20 /18 /19 /15 /18 /9 /13 /i255 /26 /8 /17 /21 /25 /27 /28/29/30 /31 /32 /i255 /34 /35 /36 /37 /i255 /38 /39 /40 /41/37 /42 /41 /35 /36 /i255 /29 /43 /42 /44 /35 /i255 /45 /46 /i255 /32 /43 /44 /42 /37 /i255 /47 /45/48/48/42/37 /37 /35 /35 /36 /7/49/50 /51 /52 /53 /52 /54 /52 /55 /i255 /57 /58 /i255 /49 /50 /52 /55 /59 /50/60 /61 /i255 /62 /54 /63 /53 /52 /57 /59 /51 /28/64 /64 /65 /i255 /67 /68 /69 /70 /71 /72 /73 /74 /71 /75 /76 /i255 /77/78 /79 /80 /i255 /65 /68 /81 /71 /74 /i255 /82 /75/83/83/71/74 /74 /80 /80 /84 /i255 /64 /76 /74 /80 /85 /76 /73 /70 /i255 /65 /68 /81 /71 /74 /i255 /86 /87 /80 /85 /88 /71 /89 /79 /74 /90
/7/91/92 /93 /92 /i255 /94 /57 /95 /55 /59 /50/96/55/50 /52/i255 /62 /97 /97 /57 /54 /50 /52 /60 /98 /53 /61 /53 /52 /99 /i255 /100 /58 /58 /53 /97 /55 /i255 /101 /94 /62 /100 /102 /7/62/96/55/59 /53 /97 /60 /50 /i255 /49 /50 /51 /52 /53 /52 /54 /52/55 /i255 /57 /58 /i255 /103 /55 /59 /52 /53 /58 /53 /55 /63 /i255 /104 /54 /98 /61 /53 /97 /i255 /62 /97 /97 /57 /54 /50 /52 /60 /50 /52 /51 /7/62/51 /51 /57 /97 /53 /60 /52 /53 /57 /50 /i255 /57 /58 /i255 /103 /55/59 /52 /53 /58 /53 /55 /63 /i255 /105 /59 /60 /54 /63 /i255 /106 /107 /60/96/53/50 /55 /59 /51 /108
432
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
436 of 456
/0 /1
433
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
437 of 456
1 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT 299
BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND BAKER
TILLY, US, LLP FOR INTERNAL AUDIT SERVICES
This Fourth Amendment to Agreement 299 between the CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") and BAKER TILLY US, LLP, a Limited Liability Company (“Contractor”) whose address is PO Box 7398 Madison, WI 53707-7398, and is made with reference to the following:
RECITALS:
A. On August 23, 2021, Agreement 299 (“Original Agreement”) was entered into by and between City and Moss Adams for Internal Audit Services.
B. On June 1, 2022, the City and Moss Adams entered into a First Amendment for Internal Audit Services (“First Amendment”) effective June 30, 2022 with a term expiring on June 30, 2023;
C. On June 1, 2023, t he City and Moss Adams entered into a Second Amendment for Internal Audit Services (“Second Amendment”) effective June 23, 2023 with a term expiring on June 30, 2026 and to increase the contract amount to not to exceed $500,000;
D. On August 23, 2025, Moss Adams and City entered into an Assignment & Assumption Amendment whereby Moss Adams entered into an Equity Purchase Agreement with Contractor, and Contractor assumed the rights and obligations under the Agreement.
E. On September 29, 2025, Contractor and City entered into a Third Amendment for Internal Audit Services (“Third Amendment”) to remove the annual Not-To-Exceed;
F. The Original Agreement, the First, Second and Third Amendments for Internal Audit Services are collectively referred to as the “Agreement”, unless otherwise indicated.
G. City and Contractor desire to continue Contractor’s services to the City under the Agreement, and hereby affirm their intent that it remains in full force and effect as amended and reinstated by this Fourth Amendment and desire to modify the agreement set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows:
1. Paragraph #3 of the Agreement is modified to read as follows:
Section 3.1 of the Agreement is modified to state: TIME OF PERFORMANCE This Agreement begins on the Effective Date and ends on June 30, 2027 (“Contract Time”), unless terminated earlier as provided herein. Contractor’s Services shall begin on the effective date and shall be completed by June 30, 2027. The City’s appropriate department head or the City Manager may extend the Contract Time through a written amendment to this Agreement, provided such extension does not include additional contract funds.
Extensions requiring additional contract funds are subject to the City’s purchasing policy.
434
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
438 of 456
2 2. Paragraph #4 of the Agreement is modified to read as follows:
Section 4.1 of the Agreement is modified as follows: Maximum Compensation. City will pay Contractor for satisfactory performance of the for a total not to exceed contract amount of $730,000 based upon the scope of services in Exhibit A and the budget and rates included in Exhibit C, Compensation attached and incorporated here. The maximum compensation includes all expenses and reimbursements and will remain in place even if Contractor’s actual costs exceed the capped amount. No extra work or payment is permitted without prior written approval of City.
3. Except as expressly modified herein, all other terms and covenants set forth in the Agreement shall remain the same and shall be in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this modification of Agreement to be executed.
CITY OF CUPERTINO
By
Title
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Senior Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Date
BAKER TILLY US, LLP
By
Title
Date
435
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
439 of 456
3 EXPENDITURE DISTRIBUTION
Item PO Number Amount
Original Agreement $200,000
First Amendment $0 (No Change)
Second Amendment $300,000
Third Amendment $0 (No change)
Fourth Amendment $0 ($230,000) – Extended Term
TOTAL $730,000
436
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
440 of 456
RESOLUTION NO. 26-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 BY
APPROPRIATING, TRANSFERRING, AND UNAPPROPRIATING MONIES
FOR SPECIFIED FUNDS
WHEREAS, the orderly administration of municipal government depends on a sound fiscal policy of maintaining a proper ratio of expenditures within anticipated revenues and available monies; and
WHEREAS, accomplishing City Council directives, projects and programs, and performing staff duties and responsibilities likewise depends on the monies available for that purpose; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has determined that the balances from the funds specified in this resolution are adequate to cover the proposed amended appropriations, and therefore recommends the fund reallocations described herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the recommended fund reallocations and ratifies the attached amended appropriations as set forth in Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15th day of September 2026, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
________
Kitty Moore, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
437
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
441 of 456
ATTEST:
________________________
Lauren Sapudar, City Clerk
________________________
Date
438
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
442 of 456
Exhibit A
*Appropriation amendment to be updated by an amount determined by the City Council.
Appropriation
Amendment by Fund
Appropriation
Amendment
Revenue
Amendment
Fund Balance
(Use of)
General Fund
Special Revenue Funds
Capital Project Funds
Enterprise Funds
Internal Service Funds
Total Appropriation
Amendment All Funds $ - $ - $ -
439
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
443 of 456
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14663 Agenda Date: 9/15/2026
Agenda #: 17.
Subject: City Manager Report
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/10/2026Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
440
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
444 of 456
Thursday, September 10, 2026
A Message from the City Manager
Hello Neighbors,
I hope everyone had a wonderful Labor Day weekend and an opportunity to enjoy some time with family, friends, and neighbors. Labor Day is an important opportunity to recognize the contributions of workers throughout our community.
As we enter the fall season, Cupertino continues to offer opportunities to connect with our community, stay active, and learn more about the programs and services available to residents.
The City’s ongoing negotiations with Santa Clara County regarding the Sheriff’s Office law enforcement services contract remain one of the City’s highest priorities.
September is National Preparedness Month, and the City is highlighting efforts to strengthen public safety and community preparedness, including recent community-led emergency preparedness drills.
Cupertino has seen an increase in political sign-related inquiries this election cycle compared with recent election years, resulting in increased staff time dedicated to responding to questions and enforcing the City's political sign regulations. To help residents understand where political signs may be placed, when permission is required, and how to report a concern, the City has prepared the FAQ below.
441
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
445 of 456
Warm Regards,
Tina Kapoor, City Manager
The SCENE Fall 2026 edition is out now, featuring stories and information about what’s happening in Cupertino this fall. I hope you’ll take part in the Move Moore Challenge through Wednesday, October 7. Whether you walk, run, cycle, swim, practice yoga, play sports, or enjoy another activity, every minute helps make our community more active!
Looking ahead, there are many ways to get involved this fall. The Move Moore Challenge is underway, and upcoming events include Fall Bike Fest, a business workshop on digital marketing and branding, and the return of Cupertino Restaurant Week in October. I encourage you to read on and take advantage of these opportunities to connect, learn, and participate in our community.
Thank you, as always, for staying informed and engaged with the City of Cupertino. I hope you have a safe and enjoyable start to the fall season.
Read the full City Manager’s Newsletter September 10, 2026 and all previous editions at cupertino.gov/cmnewsletter.
442
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
446 of 456
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14637 Agenda Date: 9/15/2026
Agenda #: 18.
Subject: Councilmember Reports
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/10/2026Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
443
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
447 of 456
1 CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT
Meeting: September 15, 2026
Reporting Councilmember: Councilmember J.R. Fruen
Report Dates: 8/25/26 to 9/7/26
Item Date, Title, and Description:
Event 1. August 27, 2026 – Cities Association of Santa Clara County JPA Executive Committee Meeting – I attended the meeting of the CASCC Executive Committee in my capacity as 1st Vice President of the JPA. Agenda materials are available here.
Event 2. September 2, 2026 – The Forum at Rancho San Antonio 35th Anniversary Celebration – Together with Mayor Moore, I attended this celebration in honor of The Forum’s 35th Anniversary of operation. The Forum is a 55+ independent and assisted living development in the northwest corner of Cupertino near Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve.
Event 3. September 3, 2026 – Santa Clara County Library District Board Meeting – I attended this meeting in my capacity as Cupertino’s representative on the Board. Meeting materials are available here.
Event 4. September 4, 2026 – Meeting with the City Manager – I met with City Manager Tina Kapoor to go over upcoming council agenda items, items of interest, and issues raised by residents.
444
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
448 of 456
1 CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT
Meeting: September 15, 2026
Reporting Councilmember: Councilmember Sheila Mohan
Report Dates: 8/25/26 to 9/8/26
Item Date, Title, and Description:
8/31/26 Spoke to a group of FUHSD students representing various high schools about priorities of the City for the next few years, current issues which need to be addressed and Council accomplishments during the past year. This was for a class assignment.
9/8/26 Attended the dedication ceremony for the aquarium in the Cupertino library.
This was a well – attended event, where we learned how the idea of an aquarium for a library took hold, and the generosity and continued support by the Chan family. In 2026, the restoration was completed and the County library district will take over the maintenance of the aquarium. Cupertino is fortunate to get this unique 16 foot long, 3500-gallon saltwater aquarium as the center piece of the library. An inspiring example of the culmination of many years of effort on the part of many different groups of library well-wishers.
445
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
449 of 456
1 CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT
Meeting: September 15, 2026
Reporting Councilmember: Mayor Kitty Moore
Report Dates: 8/24/26 to 9/7/26
Item Date, Title, and Description:
August 25, 2026. Meeting with staff regarding Santa Clara County.
August 26, 2026. West Valley Mayors and Managers Meeting RE: Homelessness approaches.
August 27, 2026. Bizwomen Networking Luncheon at Community Hall. Hosted by the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, lunch provided by Pineapple Thai. Provided welcoming remarks for the event. This interactive seminar provided insights into self-talk and how to improve communications.
August 28, 2026. Meeting with Cupertino and Los Altos Hills representatives regarding the Sheriff Contract.
August 31, 2026. Staff meeting RE Move Moore Challenge logistics.
September 1, 2026. Special Meeting Closed Session and Regular city Council Meeting.
September 2, 2026. Internal pre-meeting RE Sheriff Contract.
September 2, 2026. Meeting with Cupertino and Los Altos Hills representatives regarding the Sheriff Contract.
September 2, 2026. The Forum 35
th Anniversary. Provided opening congratulatory remarks and a certificate to The Forum.
September 3, 2026. Online meeting with Cupertino Staff and Assemblymember Ahrens and his staff RE Cupertino concerns.
September 4, 2026. Met with San Jose Water President and their staff for an update. Valley Water BOD sets the groundwater pumping rates and the water rates for imported water.
September 5, 2026. Mayor’s Initiative Tree Planting at Blackberry Farm. Over 20 new native oaks have been planted in the bioretention area at BBF with the help of 30 volunteers, Ivymax 446
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
450 of 456
City Council Mayor Moore Report
2 volunteers, and with the instruction and assistance of our Public Works crew, City Manager Kapoor, and Parks and Recreation coordinator Molly. The trees look great and we look forward to their carbon sequestration, pollinator support, and other wildlife habitat improvement they will provide for decades to come.
September 7, 2026. Day 1 of the Move Moore Challenge! Try to work out (walk, jog, swim etc.) for 36 minutes daily for 250 minutes per week in honor of America 250! It’s ok if you join late, please join in the fun and Get Moving Moore!
Move Moore Challenge- fun and community fitness!
Get moving with the Move Moore Challenge! From September 7 through October 7, track your minutes of physical activity and encourage family, friends, and neighbors to join you. Every minute counts toward our community-wide goal to get moving together. Celebrate October 10! Date: Monday, September 7 through Wednesday, October 7. Celebration October 10! How to Participate: Learn how to sign up and track your activity at cupertino.gov/movemoore.
447
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
451 of 456
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14707 Agenda Date: 9/15/2026
Agenda #: 19.
Subject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/10/2026Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
448
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
452 of 456
DRAFT
Upcoming Draft Agenda Items
CITY OF CUPERTINO
City Cou
ncil
Tuesday, October 6, 2026
Study SessionStudy Session
26-15389 Subject: Placeholder - Legislative Updates from California State Senator Jos
h Becker and California State Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens Ceremonial Items
26-14867 Subject: Recognition of the Community Development Department (Plan
ning, Building, Housing, and Code Enforcement Divisions) Consent Calendar
26-15349 Subj ect: FY 2025-2027 City Work Program Year 1 Wrap up 25-14450 Subj ect: Receive the Monthly Treasurer's Report for 25-14432 Subj ect: Receive the Monthly Treasurer's Investment Report for 25-14685 Subj ect: Approval of September 15, 2026 City Council meeting minutes 26-15390 Subject: Adopt a resolution increasing the employer's contribution for medi
cal and hospitalization insurance consistent with the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act (“PEMHCA” or the “Act”) for retired annuitants hired with the City of Cupertino prior to August 2004. 26-15411 Subject: Approval of a Resolution to Authorize Application for Funds thr
ough the CalRecycle Rubberized Pavement Grant for Pavement Maintenance Phase 2
Public Hearings
26-15393 Subject: Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Cupertino Municipal Code
Chapter 19.08 (Definitions) to revise definitions of “attic” and “garages” and establish a new definition of “square footage” to align with state law, and associated Environmental Review. (Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: City-wide) (Continued from September 15, 2026) 26-15408 Subject: Consider a Use Permit, Tentative Map, Architectural and Site Approv
al, and Tree Removal Permit for the construction of a 35-unit townhome development to replace an existing strip mall (Coach House).
The project utilizes Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) and provisions of State Density Bonus law. (Application No(s): U-2025-005, ASA-2025-014, TM-2025-006, TR-2025-030; Applicant: Joshua Vrotsos, Dividend Homes; Location: 1655 S. De Anza Boulevard and 7357 Prospect Road; APNs: 366 10 061 and 366 10 126)
449
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
453 of 456
DRAFT
Thursday, September 10, 2026
26-15362 Subject: Public Hearing for the Block 5 of the Vallco Rise, under the req
uirements of the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (TETRA) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code").
Future Agenda Items
25-14708 Sub ject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report
Councilmember Reports
25-14644 Sub ject: Councilmember Reports
City Manager Report
25-14664 Sub ject: City Manager Report
Tuesday, October 20, 2026
Consent CalendarConsent Calendar
25-14686 Sub ject: Approval of October 6, 2026 City Council meeting minutes 25-14442 Sub ject: Ratifying Accounts Payable for the periods ending 26-15214 Subject: Second Reading and enactment of an Ordinance Amending Cuper
tino Municipal Code Chapter 19.08 (Definitions) to revise definitions of “attic” and “garages” and establish a new definition of “square footage” to align with state law, and associated Environmental Review. (Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: City-wide) 26-15305 Subject: Adoption of Resolution No. 26-083 authorizing the City Manager to
accept $850,000 in federal grant funds from the Community Project Funding Program, awarding a Design Professional Services Agreement to Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. for a total not to exceed amount of $1,278,700, for the McClellan Road Bridge Project, and authorizing City Manager to execute the agreement. (Postponed on July 21, 2026) 26-15336 Subject: Award of contract to XXX for Gymnastics Class Programs and Camps
for a total not-to-exceed amount of $XXX; Authority to Extend for Two Additional Years for Five-Year Total Not to Exceed $XXX 26-15376 Subject: Review of Future agenda items requested by City Cou
ncilmembers (“TBD List”).
Future Agenda Items
25-14709 Sub ject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report
Action Calendar
26-15365 Sub ject: Adoption of the Health and Safety Element 26-15370 Subject: Future lease of City-owned property at 22100 Stevens Creek Bo
ulevard (formerly Blue Pheasant Restaurant)
Councilmember Reports
25-14645 Sub ject: Councilmember Reports
City Manager Report
450
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
454 of 456
DRAFT
Thursday, September 10, 2026
25-14665 S
ubject: City Manager Report
Monday, November 2, 2026
Study SessionStudy Session
26-15379 Sub ject: Conduct study session on proposed updates to the 2019 Cupertino Emergency Operations Plan (EOP); provide direction to staff. 26-15410 Subject: Study session following up on the October 21, 2025 City Council rev
iew of the Arts & Culture Commission’s recommendation to the Municipal Code standards for art in public and private development, including the standards in the Municipal Code and developing an Art-in-lieu fee policy. (Application No. MCA-2025-003; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: City-wide).
Ceremonial Items
26-14862 Sub ject: Recognition of the City Attorney's Office Consent Calendar
25-14687 Sub ject: Approval of October 20, 2026 City Council meeting minutes 25-14433 Sub ject: Receive the Monthly Treasurer's Investment Report for 25-14451 Sub ject: Receive the Monthly Treasurer's Report for 26-14766 Sub ject: Ordinance to establish City wide speed limit updates. 26-14767 Subject: Mitigation Fee Act - the Annual & Five-Year Report for Fiscal Year
(FY) 2024/2025.
Public Hearings
26-15428 Subject: Municipal Code Amendments to Chapter 19.12 (Administration) to
update noticing requirements pursuant to the Council’s Work Program, and to clarify appropriate approval authorities and thresholds and amendments for internal consistency between other sections of the Municipal Code and the General Plan.
Future Agenda Items
25-14710 Sub ject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report
Councilmember Reports
25-14646 Sub ject: Councilmember Reports
City Manager Report
25-14666 Sub ject: City Manager Report
Tuesday, November 17, 2026
Consent CalendarConsent Calendar
25-14688 Sub ject: Approval of November 2, 2026 City Council meeting minutes 25-14443 Sub ject: Ratifying Accounts Payable for the periods ending
451
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
455 of 456
DRAFT
Thursday, September 10, 2026
26-14768 Subject: Adopt a maximum rate schedule for Rate Period Six (RP 6) for Rec
ology to provide recycling, organics, and solid waste collection, recycling and organics processing services, and transport for disposal as calculated using the allowed and approved methodology in the Franchise Agreement (Attachment A).
25-14457 Sub ject: Receive the Treasurer's Investment Report for Quarter Ending 26-15338 Subject: Authorize execution of the First Amendment to the Lease Agreem
ent with the Santa Clara County Library District Joint Powers Authority.
Public Hearings
26-15417 Subject: Dividend III/19925 SCB - 120 residential units (Tentative PC date:
10/27)
.
Development of a mixed-use housing and retail project including 92 market-rate for-sale townhomes; 17 for-rent apartment units, including 16 affordable units and one (1) manager's unit; 1,500 square feet of retail space; approximately 10,000 square feet of common open space; and 221 parking spaces. This will replace an existing two-story office building on an approximately 4.5 acre site, located mid-block on Stevens Creek Boulevard between Portal Avenue and Blaney Avenue. The requested entitlements include a Use Permit (U-2025-003), Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2025-011), Tentative Map (TM-2025-004), and Tree Removal Permit (TR-2025-015). The proposal is made under the provisions of the Housing Accountability Act and State Density Bonus law. The applicant is requesting density bonus waivers and concessions for setbacks, parking requirements, common and private open space minimums, BMR unit size and dispersal, and floor area ratio.
Future Agenda Items
25-14711 Sub ject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report
Action Calendar
26-15228 Subject: City Work Program Item for Community Development Depar
tment Permit Process Review (to be heard after the Planning Commission)
26-15164 Subject: Revisions to City of Cupertino City Council Procedures Manual. (P
ostponed on May 5, 2026)
Councilmember Reports
25-14647 Sub ject: Councilmember Reports
City Manager Report
25-14667 Sub ject: City Manager Report
452
CC 09-15-26 Searchable Packet
456 of 456