Los Altos City Council
May 26, 2026

The City pays the CalPERS health care administrative fees and the cafeteria plan administrative fees.

The City maintains the right to select or change medical plans and providers, and also to modify the medical plans so long as the level of benefits shall remain substantially the same.

16.5.3 CalPERS Annuitants – PEMHCA Health Benefits
In accordance with PEMHCA, eligible retirees shall receive the PEMHCA Minimum Contribution if they elect to continue health benefits with CalPERS.

The City’s monthly contribution for each eligible retiree shall be the minimum employer contribution required under PEMHCA ($162 per month for calendar year 2026), and may be adjusted by CalPERS from year to year.

16.5.4 Additional Employee Contribution
In addition to the PEMHCA Minimum Contribution, the City shall provide an additional contribution to eligible employees to offset the cost of participation in City sponsored medical benefits available through an IRS Section 125 cafeteria plan (Additional Contribution). The Additional Contribution is based on the employee’s medical insurance plan participation level. The PEMHCA Minimum Contribution, when added to the Additional Contribution, will equal the City’s total monthly contribution toward an employee’s medical election (Total Contribution).

16.5.5 Employer Health Contribution
The City’s total contribution will increase each calendar year by 3% as follows:
2027 $3,017.20
2028 $3,107.72
Effective January 1, 2029 and each calendar year thereafter, The City will pay the full cost of monthly plan premiums at the tier at which the employee participates (employee, employee plus one, employee plus family), not to exceed the CalPERS Kaiser Bay Area monthly plan premium.

If the employee elects medical coverage at rates higher than the CalPERS Kaiser Bay Area plan rate, the employee will pay the difference between the CalPERS Kaiser rate at the tier at which the employee participates and the cost of the elected plan, through payroll deductions.

The City will continue the practice of paying the January premium in December at the increased rate.

16.5.6 Employee Contribution
If an employee chooses Flexible Benefit Plan benefits whose aggregate cost exceeds the City’s total contribution to the Cafeteria Plan, the City will automatically deduct the excess amount on a pre-tax basis from the employee’s bi-weekly payroll.

16.5.7 Cash In Lieu of Medical Benefits

16.5.7.1 Employees Hired After October 1, 2013
Employees who provide proof of alternative minimum
essential coverage for themselves and their tax family shall receive $350 per month, beginning the first full pay period after sufficient proof is provided.

Effective January 1, 2027, employees who are covered by the City for health insurance as a dependent of another city employee are ineligible for the $350 per month stipend.

Effective January 1, 2032, this benefit shall apply to all employees in classifications represented by LAMEA
regardless of hire date.

16.5.7.2 Employees Hired On or Before October 1, 2013
Employees who elect health insurance plans and tiers that are less costly are eligible to receive up to a maximum amount of $1,096.59 per month which is subject to taxation as wages, beginning the first full pay period after sufficient proof is provided.

This benefit will sunset on December 31, 2031, and no
payments shall be made under this provision after that date.

The amount an employee is eligible to receive is calculated as follows:

Step 1
Total monthly cost of the employee’s health insurance election minus the monthly cost for the least expensive health
insurance for the employee only tier.

Step 2
The result of Step 1 is subtracted from the maximum cash in lieu of medical benefits amount ($1,096.59) to obtain the Employee's Monthly Cash Payment.

Example
LAMEA member hired 01/01/2013 electing Kaiser, HMO
employee only coverage for calendar year 2026 with a total monthly cost of $1,168.86. The least expensive health
insurance for the employee only tier for calendar year 2026 is PERS Gold, PPO at a total monthly cost of $1,120.58.

Total monthly cost of the employee’s health insurance election ($1,168.86) minus the monthly cost for the least expensive health insurance for the employee only tier ($1,120.58) equals $48.28.

Maximum cash in lieu of medical benefits amount ($1,096.59) minus the results from the first calculation ($48.28) to obtain the employee's monthly cash payment of $1,048.31.

16.6 Dental and Vision Reimbursement Plan
The City’s maximum employee dental and vision reimbursement per fiscal year is two thousand two hundred thirty dollars ($2,230.00) per employee and one thousand four hundred eighty-five dollars ($1,485) per dependent. Based on City Council Resolution 2008-45, the annual reimbursement maximum for employees and dependents will be adjusted annually using the August 12-month CPI for the San Francisco Bay Area from the DOL BLS, up to a maximum of 3%, and becomes effective January 1 of the following year.

The annual benefit is pooled such that the employee and their eligible dependent(s)’ annual maximum benefit amounts are combined and the employee or the eligible dependent(s) may incur eligible expenses up to the pooled maximum annual benefit.

If, during the term of this Agreement a change in dental plans or coverage is necessary, the City shall provide notice and, upon request, to meet with representatives of LAMEA.

Employees should refer to the dental plan documents for a complete description of benefits, coverage and limitations.

The Dental Plan shall provide the ability to shift dental dollars to vision care up to maximum dental reimbursement designated for the year for vision care for the unit member and dependent to include prescriptive lenses and frames, contact lenses, optometry or eye care appointments which are not covered by unit member or dependents medical insurance.

16.7 Flexible Spending Arrangements
The City maintains a Flexible Benefit Plan pursuant to Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code to provide eligible active employees with access to various health and welfare benefits, including a Health Care Flexible Spending Arrangement and a Day Care Flexible Spending Arrangement.

16.8 State of California Short Term Disability Insurance (SDI) Employees participate in the State of California Short Term Disability Insurance (SDI) Program. The program shall be at the employee’s cost.

The City integrates leave balances with SDI benefits, starting with sick leave, upon employee request.

16.9 Medical Insurance While on LTD or SDI
Employees receiving benefits under the City’s LTD Insurance Plan or under the State Disability Insurance may continue their health benefits while still employed by the City by paying the full premium directly to CalPERS, unless otherwise required by law.

16.10 Retiree Health Savings Plan
The City will make available to all employees a retiree health savings plan (RHSP) administered by MissionSquare.

16.10.1 Retiree Health – Employer Contribution
Effective January 1, 2022, the City began contributing to each employee’s RHSP account an amount based on continuous years of service at the City as follows:

Years of Service Pay Period Contribution
0-5 $25.00
5-10 $35.00
10+ $45.00

16.10.2 Retiree Health – Employee Contribution
Effective January 1, 2027, employees shall begin making matching contributions per pay period through pre-tax payroll deductions on the same years of city service tiers listed above For probationary employees, the City’s contribution will vest upon successful completion of probation.

16.11 Deferred Compensation Plan
The City shall continue to make available deferred compensation plans for voluntary employee participation including a self-directed brokerage link.

16.12 Basic Life and AD&D Insurance
The City provides Basic Life and Accidental Death and Dismemberment (AD&D) insurance to full time employees. Employees are enrolled on their date of hire. The current benefit is one and one half (1 ½) times the employee’s Basic Annual Earnings, up to a $150,000 annual maximum.

The City maintains the right to select or change carriers, and also to modify the life insurance plan as long as the level of benefits remains substantially the same. Employees should refer to the plan documents for a complete description of benefits, coverage and limitations.

ARTICLE 17. RETIREMENT PLANS
The City contracts with CalPERS to provide the following retirement benefits.

17.1 2.7% at Age 55 Plan
For “Classic” employees hired on or before December 31, 2011, the City provides the CalPERS 2.7% at age fifty-five (55) retirement plan for miscellaneous employees. Each employee shall pay the full eight percent (8%) employee contribution rate to maintain such benefits. Additional benefits currently provided include:
a) Single highest year (California Government Code section 20042) b) Credit for unused sick leave (California Government Code section 20965) c) 3rd Level 1959 Survivor Benefit (California Government Code section 21573) d) Military Service Credit (California Government Code sections 21024, 21027) e) Annual 2% COLA (California Government Code section 21329) A comprehensive list of additional benefits is available by viewing the City’s contract with CalPERS or the Public Agency Actuarial Valuation Reports regularly prepared by CalPERS.

17.2 2.0% at Age 60 Plan
For “Classic” employees hired on or after January 1, 2012, the City provides the CalPERS

2.0% at age sixty (60) retirement plan for miscellaneous employees. Each employee shall pay the full seven percent (7%) employee contribution rate to maintain such benefits. Additional benefits currently provided include:
a) Three year average final compensation (California Government Code section 20037) b) Credit for unused sick leave (California Government Code section 20965) c) 3rd Level 1959 Survivor Benefit (California Government Code section 21573) d) Military Service Credit (California Government Code sections 21024, 21027) e) Annual 2% COLA (California Government Code section 21329) A comprehensive list of additional benefits is available by viewing the City’s contract with CalPERS or the Public Agency Actuarial Valuation Reports regularly prepared by CalPERS.

17.3 2.0% at Age 62 Plan
For “New Member” employees, the City provides the CalPERS 2.0% at age sixty-two (62) retirement plan. New Member employees shall pay the retirement contributions as required by law, which is currently fifty percent (50%) of the normal cost rate set forth in the annual CalPERS valuation report. Additional benefits currently provided include:
a) Three year average final compensation (California Government Code section 20037) b) Credit for unused sick leave (California Government Code section 20965) c) 3rd Level 1959 Survivor Benefit (California Government Code section 21573) d) Military Service Credit (California Government Code sections 21024, 21027) e) Annual 2% COLA (California Government Code section 21329) A comprehensive list of additional benefits is available by viewing the City’s contract with CalPERS or the Public Agency Actuarial Valuation Reports regularly prepared by CalPERS.

As used here, the term “New Member” is defined by the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA).

ARTICLE 18. SAFETY
The City and LAMEA have a mutual interest in providing safe and healthful working conditions for its employees, in protecting City property from damage and loss and in ensuring the safety of the

public when using City facilities. To this end both parties will work actively to adhere to the provisions of the City’s Injury and Illness Prevention Program.

18.1 Health and Safety Provisions
Health and safety provisions are covered under the City’s Injury and Illness Prevention Program.

18.2 City Safety Committees
One City employee, who is a member of LAMEA, shall be a member of the City’s Safety Committee.

18.3 Outstanding Safety Issues
Any outstanding safety issues or concerns should be addressed to the employee’s immediate supervisor.

ARTICLE 19. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
The Grievance Procedure is established to provide a consistent process for the fair and expeditious resolution of grievances.

19.1 Definition of a Grievance
A grievance is an allegation by one or more employees or LAMEA that there has been a misinterpretation, misapplication or violation of this MOU. However, Article 2 of this MOU (Discrimination) is not within the scope of the grievance procedure.

19.2 Time Limitations
Should a decision not be rendered within the time limits set forth below, the grievant may immediately appeal to the next step of this procedure. Should the grievant fail to appeal a decision within the time limits set forth below, the grievance will be considered resolved and the grievant will have waived all rights to appeal.

19.3 Grievant
An employee, a group of employees, or LAMEA may file a grievance. If an employee(s) is the grievant, they must initiate their grievance at Step One. If LAMEA is the grievant, it must initiate the grievance at Step Two. LAMEA may represent an employee(s) grievant at Step Two or higher in the grievance process.

19.4 Steps in the Grievance Process

19.4.1 Step One (Immediate Supervisor)
An employee(s) must present the grievance to their immediate supervisor. If LAMEA is the grievant, it must submit the grievance at Step Two. The grievance must be presented to the immediate supervisor within ten (10) calendar days of the occurrence giving rise to the grievance or the time within which the grievant knew or should have known of the occurrence.

The supervisor will investigate the alleged grievance. The supervisor shall provide a decision on the grievance within ten (10) calendar days from the date the employee presented the grievance.

19.4.2 Step Two (Department Head)
If the employee(s) is not satisfied with the decision on the Step One, the employee(s) or their representative must present the grievance to the Department Head within ten (10) calendar days from the response from the supervisor at Step One.

The Step Two grievance must in writing and must (1) state the section(s) of the MOU alleged to be violated; (2) provide sufficient facts to establish that at violation of the identified section(s) of the MOU has occurred; and (3) state the desired remedy to resolve the grievance.

If LAMEA is the grievant, the written grievance must be submitted within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the occurrence giving rise to the grievance or the time within which LAMEA knew or should have known of the occurrence.

The Department Head or designee will investigate the alleged grievance. The investigation will include a meeting with the grievant. The Department Head or designee shall provide a written decision on the grievance to the grievant within ten (10) calendar days from the Step Two written grievance.

19.4.3 Step Three (Personnel Review)
If the grievant is not satisfied with the decision on the Step Two grievance, the grievant must present the grievance in writing to the Human Resources Director within ten (10) calendar days of the grievant’s receipt of the decision from the Department Head at Step Two.

The Step Three grievance must (1) state the section(s) of the MOU alleged to be violated; (2) provide sufficient facts to establish that a violation of the identified section(s) of the MOU has occurred; (3) provide as much narrative as possible as to why the employee is not satisfied with the decision on the Step Two grievance; and (4) state the desired remedy to resolve the grievance. The Step Three grievance must attach the written decision of the Department Head at Step Two.

The Human Resources Director or designee shall investigate the alleged grievance.

The Human Resources Director or designee shall provide a written decision on the grievance to the grievant within fifteen (15) calendar days from receipt of the Step Three written grievance.

19.4.4 Step Four (Arbitration)
Should the grievance remain unresolved through the preceding steps, LAMEA may request binding arbitration as the final step in the grievance process, by notifying the City Manager in writing of their intent to proceed to arbitration. Such notice shall be provided to the City Manager within fifteen (15) calendar days from the employee’s receipt of the Human Resources Director’s decision at Step Three.

19.4.4.1 Selection of the Arbitrator: Upon notice of intent to arbitrate, LAMEA and the City Manager or designee shall meet to select an arbitrator.

If unable to mutually agree on the selection of an arbitrator, then a list of seven (7) available arbitrators shall be obtained from the State of California Mediation and Conciliation Services. Upon receipt of such list, the parties shall meet (in person, by phone or virtually) and if unable to mutually select an arbitrator from such list then a coin shall be flipped and the party correctly calling the coin flip shall strike a name from the list. The parties shall then alternately strike names from the list until only one name remains and that individual shall be the arbitrator. The second to last arbitrator shall serve as the alternate, if needed.

19.4.4.2 Decision of the Arbitrator: The decision, opinion, and award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon all parties, subject to review only under the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1280 et seq., as amended. The arbitrator shall not have the power to add to, subtract from, or modify any of the terms of this MOU.

19.4.4.3 If the question of arbitrability is raised, the arbitrator shall make his/her/their determination on arbitrability prior to hearing the merits of the grievance, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise.

19.4.4.4 The Arbitrator shall, if requested by either party, subpoena witnesses and/or require production of other relevant records or material evidence.

The arbitrator may, in his/her/their discretion, require a showing of good cause prior to the issuance of any subpoena.

19.4.4.5 LAMEA and the City agree to share equally all costs of the arbitrator and to be responsible for their own respective costs of making their presentation to the arbitrator.

19.4.4.6 If by mutual agreement or requirement of the arbitrator, services of a court reporter are utilized, the parties agree to equally share the cost of such service. Any cost for transcription shall be borne by the party requesting it.

19.5 Extension of Time Limits
The Step One time limits set forth above may be extended with prior written approval from the City Manager. The remaining time limits set forth above may be extended by mutual agreement.

19.6 General Provisions

19.6.1 Nothing in these procedures shall be construed to prevent discussion or meetings between parties at any time to clarify the facts to conclude any matter as promptly as possible.

19.6.2 Nothing in these procedures shall be construed to prevent the parties from mutually agreeing to other alternative dispute procedures, such as voluntary mediation, at any point during the grievance procedure.

19.6.3 Concurrent grievances alleging violation of the same provision and/or based on the same occurrence may be consolidated upon the agreement of the City and LAMEA. Consolidated grievances or appeals shall be determined in one proceeding.

19.6.4 Once a Step Two grievance has been submitted, no other grievance concerning the issue, incident, or action upon which the grievance is based may be initiated.

ARTICLE 20. APPEAL PROCEDURE FOR FINAL DISCIPLINARY ACTION The following administrative appeal process shall apply to all appeals of final disciplinary actions. For purposes of this section “final disciplinary action” means disciplinary actions involving a loss of compensation, e.g. discharge, demotion, unpaid suspension, or reduction in salary.

20.1 Notice of Appeal
Within seven (7) calendar days of receipt by an employee of Notice of Final Discipline, the employee shall notify the City Manager in writing of the employee’s intent to appeal the final disciplinary action. The Notice of Appeal shall specify the action being appealed and the substantive and procedural grounds for the appeal.

20.2 Hearing Officer
Upon receipt of the employee’s Notice of Appeal, the parties will select a neutral Hearing Officer who will hear the employee’s appeal and provide a written advisory decision to the City Manager. The Hearing Officer shall conduct the formal hearing in accordance with the procedures set forth herein.

The parties may mutually agree upon a Hearing Officer, or the parties will jointly select a Hearing Officer from a list of seven (7) arbitrators provided by the State of California Mediation and Conciliation Service (SCMCS). If the parties cannot reach mutual agreement regarding an arbitrator to serve as Hearing Officer from the SCMCS list, they shall strike names from the SCMCS list. The parties shall flip a coin to determine who strikes first. The parties shall then alternately strike names from the list until only one name remains and that individual shall be the arbitrator. The second to last arbitrator shall serve as the alternate, if needed. If LAMEA is representing the employee in the appeal, the Hearing Officer’s fee and expenses shall be borne equally by the parties. Otherwise, the City will pay the Hearing Officer’s fee and expenses.

20.3 Burden of Proof
The City shall bear the burden of proof at the hearing. The City must prove the facts which form the basis for the charge(s) by a preponderance of the evidence. The City must also prove that the punitive action was reasonable in consideration of the gravity of the offense and any history of prior discipline.

20.4 Conduct of Hearing

20.4.1 The hearing shall be conducted in the manner most conducive to determination of the truth, and the Hearing Officer shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. The Hearing Officer shall have discretion to exclude evidence which is incompetent, irrelevant or cumulative, or the presentation of which will otherwise consume undue time.

20.4.2 Each side will be permitted an opening statement. The City shall first present its witnesses and evidence to sustain the charges and the employee will then present his/her/their witnesses and evidence in defense.

20.4.3 Witnesses shall testify under oath. The oath may be administered by the Hearing Officer.

20.4.4 Each side will be allowed to call and examine witnesses, to introduce exhibits; to cross-examine opposing witnesses on any matter relevant to the issues even though that matter was not covered in the direct examination; to impeach any witness regardless of which party first called him or her to testify; and to rebut the evidence against him or her.

20.4.5 The Hearing Officer shall, if requested by either party, subpoena witnesses and/or require production of other relevant records or material evidence.

The Hearing Officer may, in his/her/their discretion, require a showing of good cause prior to the issuance of any subpoena.

20.4.6 The Hearing Officer may, prior to or during a hearing, grant a continuance for any reason the employee believes to be important to his/her/they reaching a fair and proper decision.

20.4.7 Following the presentation of evidence, the parties may submit oral and/or written closing arguments for consideration by the Hearing Officer.

20.5 Representation
The employee may be represented by an Association representative or attorney of his or her choice at all stages of the proceedings. All costs associated with such representation, and any other costs the employee incurs in association with the appeal hearing, shall be borne by the employee. The City/Department shall also be entitled to representation at all stages of the proceedings.

20.6 Recommended Decision
The Hearing Officer shall prepare and issue a Recommended Decision in writing within thirty (30) calendar days of the submission of the case by the parties for decision. The Hearing Officer’s written Recommended Decision shall set forth whether the charge(s) are sustained, and shall contain findings regarding the facts which form the basis for the charge(s), and a determination on the reasonableness of the penalty in consideration of the gravity of the offense and any history of prior discipline.

The Hearing Officer shall serve the Recommended Decision on the parties.

20.7 Final Decision
The Hearing Officer’s Recommended Decision is advisory to the City Council. After the City receives the Recommended Decision, the City Council will consider the Recommended Decision and will thereafter sustain, modify or revoke the disciplinary action.

The City shall serve the City Council’s Final Decision on the employee as well as his/her/their attorney or representative, and shall advise the employee that the time within which judicial review of the decision may be sought is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.

ARTICLE 21. WORK STOPPAGE AND LOCKOUTS
During the term of this agreement, no work stoppage, slowdown, strikes (including sympathy strikes), or picketing shall be caused or sanctioned by LAMEA, and the City agrees that it will not lock out employees.

ARTICLE 22. CONTRACTING OUT
The City will provide prior written notice to LAMEA related to contracting or subcontracting work customarily performed by members of LAMEA, consistent with state law. LAMEA shall be given an opportunity to discuss the effect of the proposed action upon its members and to propose alternative ways in which the work could be provided by Association members.

ARTICLE 23. MISCELLANEOUS

23.1 Use of City Facilities for Private Purposes:

Employees shall be entitled to rent City facilities for private use by the employee or his/her/their immediate family at the resident rate for up to two (2) non-consecutive days per calendar year, subject to established City policy.

23.2 Americans with Disabilities Act:

The City reserves the right to take all necessary actions to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and other State and Federal laws protecting disabled employees, including determining the need for defining and making available reasonable accommodations to disabled employees who are otherwise qualified to perform the essential job functions of their position. The City agrees to meet and confer with LAMEA to discuss any actions which impact wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment within the scope of representation of any member of this bargaining unit.

23.3 Personnel Regulations:

The City will regularly update the Personnel Regulations. The City shall meet and confer with LAMEA on revisions that are within the scope of representation. Where there are conflicts or differences between the Personnel Regulations and this MOU, the language in this MOU shall supersede the procedure in the City’s Personnel Regulations.

23.4 Outside Employment:

Employees shall comply with the City of Los Altos Personnel Rules and Regulations regarding outside employment and conflicts of interest, as may be amended from time to time.

Employees shall disclose outside employment in accordance with City policy, including situations where such employment may create an actual or potential conflict of interest with City duties.

ARTICLE 24. AUTHORIZED AGENTS
For the purpose of administering the terms and provisions of this MOU the City’s principal authorized agent shall be the Human Resources Director or designee. LAMEA’s principal authorized agent shall be LAMEA President. LAMEA shall update Human Resources upon the selection of a new Association President as soon as possible.

ARTICLE 25. SAVINGS CLAUSE
This MOU is subject to all current and future applicable Federal and State laws and regulations and the Constitution of the State of California. If any part or provision of this agreement is in conflict or inconsistent with such applicable laws, or regulation, or it is rendered or declared invalid by reason of any State or Federal legislation, such invalidation of such part or portion of this MOU shall not invalidate the remaining portions hereof, and the remaining portions shall remain in full force and effect, insofar as such remaining portions shall remain in full force and effect, insofar as such remaining portions are severable. Parties shall meet and confer to the extent required to address the impacts new Federal or State laws have upon matters within the scope of employment.

ARTICLE 26. TERM
The term of this MOU is July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2031. This MOU sets forth the full and entire understanding of the parties regarding the matters set forth herein, and any other prior or existing understanding or agreements by the parties, whether formal or informal, regarding any such matters are hereby superseded or terminated in their entirety. This MOU shall become effective after Association ratification and subsequent City Council approval.

FOR THE LOS ALTOS MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION
______________________________________ _________________ Sean Gallegos, Association President Date
______________________________________ _________________ Candace Avina, Association Vice President Date

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS
______________________________________ _________________ Jon Maginot, Assistant City Manager Date
______________________________________ _________________ Irene Barragan, Human Resources Director Date

APPENDIX A
SALARY SCHEDULE:

Effective the first full pay period after LAMEA’s ratification and subsequent Council approval of this MOU, or the pay period that includes July 1, 2026, whichever is later, base salary (defined as base pay only) for all classifications shall be increased by the April 2026 year over year Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco Bay Area, from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (DOL BLS), with a minimum increase of three (3%) percent and a maximum increase of four and one half percent (4.5%).

3.8% COLA, effective 06/21/26
LAMEA - Salary Schedule FY
26/27 Biweekly
LAMEA Classifications Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Accountant $4,439.59 $4,661.57 $4,894.65 $5,139.38 $5,396.35 Accounting Office Assistant $2,873.32 $3,016.99 $3,167.84 $3,326.23 $3,492.54 Accounting Technician I $3,064.08 $3,217.29 $3,378.15 $3,547.06 $3,724.41 Accounting Technician II $3,528.49 $3,704.92 $3,890.16 $4,084.67 $4,288.91 Assistant Engineer $4,813.03 $5,053.68 $5,306.36 $5,571.68 $5,850.26 Assistant Planner $4,335.77 $4,552.56 $4,780.19 $5,019.20 $5,270.16 Associate Civil Engineer $5,458.99 $5,731.94 $6,018.54 $6,319.47 $6,635.44 Associate Planner $4,789.95 $5,029.45 $5,280.92 $5,544.97 $5,822.21 Building Inspector $4,636.22 $4,868.03 $5,111.43 $5,367.00 $5,635.35 Code Enforcement Officer $4,217.15 $4,428.01 $4,649.41 $4,881.88 $5,125.97 Construction Inspector $4,494.86 $4,719.60 $4,955.58 $5,203.36 $5,463.53 Development Services Technician $3,582.41 $3,761.53 $3,949.61 $4,147.09 $4,354.45 Economic Development
Coordinator $4,800.94 $5,040.99 $5,293.04 $5,557.69 $5,835.57 Emergency Response Coordinator $5,150.44 $5,407.96 $5,678.36 $5,962.27 $6,260.39 Engineering Technician $3,880.32 $4,074.34 $4,278.05 $4,491.96 $4,716.55 Executive Assistant $3,592.06 $3,771.66 $3,960.24 $4,158.25 $4,366.17 GIS Technician $4,643.12 $4,875.27 $5,119.03 $5,374.99 $5,643.74 Information Technology Analyst I $4,938.36 $5,185.27 $5,444.54 $5,716.76 $6,002.60 Information Technology Analyst II $5,185.27 $5,444.54 $5,716.76 $6,002.60 $6,302.73 Information Technology Technician $4,150.89 $4,358.44 $4,576.36 $4,805.18 $5,045.43 Lead Records Specialist $3,428.28 $3,599.70 $3,779.68 $3,968.67 $4,167.10 Network Systems Administrator $5,507.42 $5,782.79 $6,071.93 $6,375.52 $6,694.30 Office Assistant I $2,427.73 $2,549.12 $2,676.57 $2,810.40 $2,950.92

Office Assistant II $2,873.32 $3,016.99 $3,167.84 $3,326.23 $3,492.54 Police Records Supervisor $4,074.78 $4,278.52 $4,492.45 $4,717.07 $4,952.92 Records Specialist $3,116.62 $3,272.45 $3,436.08 $3,607.88 $3,788.27 Recreation Coordinator $3,563.36 $3,741.53 $3,928.60 $4,125.03 $4,331.29 Senior Building Inspector $5,288.78 $5,553.22 $5,830.88 $6,122.42 $6,428.54 Senior Network Systems
Administrator $5,782.79 $6,071.93 $6,375.52 $6,694.30 $7,029.01 Senior Planner $5,676.55 $5,960.38 $6,258.40 $6,571.32 $6,899.88 Sustainability Coordinator $4,347.29 $4,564.65 $4,792.89 $5,032.53 $5,284.16

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: May 26, 2026
Prepared By: Steven Son
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Adoption of Resolutions - 999 Fremont Avenue

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
Public Safety
Business Communities
Circulation Safety and Efficiency
General Government

RECOMMENDATION
- Adopt a resolution to transfer funding allocation from the Almond Fire Station Reroofing Project and the Fire Station Improvement Project and provide an additional $118,008 to fully fund the project; and
- Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a construction contract with Ron Paris Construction Co., Inc., in the amount of $657,069.99 and 20% contingency, if needed, in the amount not to exceed $130,00.00. The total project cost will be $787,070.00, and the Council’s action is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15301(a), and that is one of the circumstances in the CEQA Guidelines

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to CEQA Section 15301(a). The project scope is considered interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances, which are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

FISCAL IMPACT
Based on the Fiscal Year 2025-265 budget adopted by the Council, this project has been allocated $240,500.00 from the City’s CIP fund. The Council's funding allocation allowed the staff to hire an architect to prepare construction plans for $34,500.00. For this reason, a total of $206,000.00 remained in the project's construction budget.

The bid received from the contractor was unexpected and much higher than the original estimate. For this reason, to fully fund this project, the Parks and Recreation Department would like to reallocate the Council-approved budget for the Almond Fire Station Reroofing Project and the Fire Station Improvements Project. The Council has currently appropriated $250,000 and $214,000, respectively, in the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 budget. At this time, the Parks and Recreation Department will not be able to proceed with these two (2) projects before the end of

this fiscal year. With the reallocation of funding, the combined available construction funds are $669,062.50. With the generous $100,000 donation from the Chou Family, which will be utilized to fund this project, an additional funding of $18,008 is needed to fully fund this project with adequate contingency.

The building was built in 1981, and no records of structural modifications have been located.

While the design was carried out as conservatively as possible, with numerous visual inspections, no destructive testing was conducted on the building. Neither the staff nor the architect can determine the building's true condition until construction begins. For this reason, staff is requesting a 20% construction contingency ($130,000.00).

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Not Applicable

BACKGROUND
On January 14, 2020, the Council authorized the purchase of 999 Fremont Avenue, a triangular property located at the intersection of A Street, Miramonte Avenue, and Fremont Avenue, with the intent of improving the property and utilizing it for the City’s use.

Starting in Fiscal Year 2023-2024, the Council allocated $100,000 for tenant improvements. The intent is to provide additional citywide police coverage and a location for community meetings with the Police Department. Due to various competing city priorities, the project delivery was delayed. In the Fiscal Year 2025-2026, the Public Works Engineering Department met with the new Police Chief to discuss the scope of the building renovation. At the meeting, the Chief expressed interest in revising the original scope of work to incorporate a larger open area for community engagement, a dedicated space for officers to rest and complete reports, and provisions for onsite charging of future electric vehicles (EVs) during shifts.

On November 28, 2025, the Chou Family made a generous $100,000 donation to the city. The Chou family wanted to contribute to enhancing and strengthening public safety for the residents of the city. The generous donation that was provided to the city will be utilized for this project.

ANALYSIS
Not Applicable

DISCUSSION
The project opened bid on February 26, 2026, and received eight (8) bids, ranging from the lowest bid of $590,455.99 to the highest bid of $1,051,010.00. Staff reviewed the received bid

packages and determined that the two (2) lowest bidders failed to meet all bid requirements by not submitting the correct bid bonds. After a discussion with the City Attorney, it was determined that failing to submit a bid bond constitutes a major irregularity and disqualifies the bid from consideration. The notice of intent (NOI) to award the bid was posted on March 9, 2026, with no bid protests filed by the two (2) lowest bidders.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Resolution for Appropriations

2. Attachment 2 - Resolution awarding contract

3. Attachment 3 - Project Vicinity Map

4. Attachment 4 - Notice of Intent to Award Contract

ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS

REALLOCATION AND APPROPRIATE ADDITIONAL FUNDING INTO
FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 FOR 999 FREMONT AVENUE – POLICE
DEPARTMENT REMODEL PROJECT CF-01006
WHEREAS, the City will enter into a construction contract with Ron Paris Construction Co., Inc. for construction services in an amount not to exceed $657,069.99 and up to 20% contingency funds not to exceed $130,000; and
WHEREAS, the City advertised the Fiscal Year 2025-26 999 Fremont Avenue – Police Department Remodel Project CF-01006, and eight (8) bids were received and opened in PlanetBids on February 26, 2026. Ron Paris Construction Co., Inc. was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder; and
WHEREAS, the current CIP Project does not have sufficient funds to complete the project as specified in the design; and
WHEREAS, to fund this project, Council will transfer the current funding allocation for the Almond Fire Station Reroofing Project in the amount of $250,000 and the Fire Station Improvement Project in the amount of $214,000; and
WHEREAS, the Council will appropriate additional funding in the amount of $18,008 to fully fund this project; and
WHEREAS, the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to CEQA Section 15301(a). The project scope is considered interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances, which are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby adopts a resolution to transfer funding from Almond Fire Station Reroofing in the amount of $250,000 and the Fire Station Improvement in the amount of $214,000, and appropriate additional funding in the amount of $18,008 into Fiscal Year 2025-26 Capital Improvement & Major Maintenance Program (CIMMP) for 999 Fremont Avenue – Police Department Remodel Project CF-01006.

ATTACHMENT 1

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the 26th day of May 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Sally Meadows, MAYOR
Attest:
_____________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC, CITY CLERK

ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT WITH RON PARIS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. FOR THE 999 FREMONT AVENUE POLICE DEPARTMENT REMODEL PROJECT (CF-01006) IN THE BID AMOUNT OF $657,069.99 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE UP TO 20% CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $130,000.00.

WHEREAS, the 999 Fremont Avenue Police Department Remodel Project (CF-01006) scope of work is to remodel the building to allow the Police Department to have a substation on the southern side of the City; and
WHEREAS, the police substation will provide a permanent police presence, allow officers to utilize the building to conduct public meetings and other necessary business, and WHEREAS, the City advertised the 999 Fremont Avenue Police Department Remodel Project (CF-01006) on December 19, 2025, and eight (8) bids were received and opened in PlanetBids on February 26, 2026. Ron Paris Construction Co., Inc was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder; and
WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Council-approved Capital Improvement & Major Maintenance Program (CIMMP) budget has adequate funding to award the base bid; and WHEREAS, Council to award 999 Fremont Avenue Police Department Remodel Project (CF01006) to Ron Paris Construction Co., Inc., and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract in the amount of $657,069.99 and up to 20% contingency ($130,000).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby adopt a resolution to:

1. Award the 999 Fremont Avenue Police Department Remodel Project (CF-01006) to Ron Paris Construction Co., Inc., and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract in the amount of $657,069.99.

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute change orders not to exceed $130,000.00.

3. Authorize the City Manager to take such further actions as may be necessary to implement the foregoing agreement.

ATTACHMENT 2
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the 26th day of May 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
__________________________
Sally Meadows
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC
City Clerk

ATTACHMENT 3

PROJECT VICINITY MAP
FOR
999 FREMONT AVENUE – POLICE DEPARTMENT REMODEL
(CF-01006)

City of Los
Altos
1 North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, California 94022-3087
Public Works Department
One North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, California 94022-3087
Tel: (650) 947-2780
Fax (650) 947-2732

NOTICE OF INTENT TO AWARD CONTRACT
Project Name:
999 Fremont Avenue – Police Department Remodel Project CF-01006

Bid Opening Date: NOI Posting Date:

February 26, 2026 at 2:00 pm March 9, 2026
The City of Los Altos intends to award a construction contract in the amount of $657,069.99 to the lowest responsive bidder, Ron Paris Construction, for the 999 Fremont Avenue – Police Department Remodel Project CF-01006.

A bidder who wishes to protest the award shall follow the City’s procedures as established by Resolution 2015-36.

CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
ZONE 4 $590,445.99
BP PAK, INC $590,715.00
RON PARIS CONSTRUCTION $657,069.99
A CST GROUP $759,124.20
SAE CONSULTANT ENGINEERING $776,650.00
GREENTECH $787,015.00
MEDICAL FACILITIES SOLUTION LLC $850,944.92
B & M CIVIL LLC $1,051,010.00

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: May 26, 2026
Prepared By: Saskia Lagergren
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Adoption of Resolution - Contract Extension with Flock Safety

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
Public Safety
General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract extension with Flock Safety in the amount of $160,000 to extend the current contracts for an additional two years for maintenance and service for the 25 Flock Safety cameras in the City of Los Altos

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
N/A

FISCAL IMPACT
The $80,000 for Year 1 is already appropriated in the Operating Budget under the Public Safety Department. No additional appropriation is required at this time.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
February 28, 2023—Discussion about potential Flock Pilot Program May 9, 2023—Flock Pilot Program discussed
July 11, 2023—Approval of the ALPR Pilot Program, ALPR policy and the Flock Safety 3-year contract January 28, 2025—Approval of the ongoing usage of ALPRs and approval of changes to policy, Received Flock Pilot Program Report
July 8, 2025 – Approval of Contract Amendment #1 to add ten (10) cameras for a 2-year contract

BACKGROUND

FLOCK PROGRAM
One of the Los Altos City Council’s priorities is Public Safety. An issue of particular concern was the increase in residential burglaries that were on an upward trend between 2020-2023, steadily increasing to seventy-three (73) in 2023. Vehicles thefts had also dramatically increased to thirty-three (33) in 2022.

To combat this, in February 2023, the Los Altos Police Department proposed a one-year pilot program for an Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Program. This type of program

enhances public safety, improves investigative efficiency and supports the City’s broader efforts to reduce crime. ALPR technology provides officers with timely, accurate information about vehicles associated with criminal activity, including stolen vehicles, wanted persons and vehicles linked to active investigations which allows for faster and more targeted responses. ALPR cameras are also used to locate missing persons. In recent years, ALPR systems have become a widely adopted tool among California law-enforcement agencies, offering measurable improvements in recovery rates, case resolution and prevention of repeat offenses. The ALPR systems have also shown to be a crime deterrent.

To address community members’ concerns about transparency and privacy, the Los Altos Police Department worked with community groups and City Council to draft a policy that struck a balance between privacy concerns and enhancing public safety. The following safeguards were written into the policy:
• ALPR data will only be accessed for legitimate law enforcement purposes • ALPR data will not be used for traffic enforcement, immigration enforcement or personal use
• It is expressly prohibited for members of the Los Altos Police Department to access ALPR data for the purposes of harassment/intimidation, use based upon a protected class or characteristic, to infringe upon First Amendment rights or as an invasion of privacy • ALPR data will not be shared with federal agencies to include Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), pursuant to the California Values Act (Government Code 7282.5: Government Code 7284.2 et seq) • ALPR data will only be accessed on a need-to-know, right-to-know basis. Unauthorized use is subject to criminal penalties, civil liability and administrative sanctions • All users of the ALPR system will be required to have individual credentials for access and use of the systems and/or data, which has the ability to be audited • Officers shall visually verify the license plate number of any license plate of interest the ALPR system has alerted law enforcement to, prior to enforcement action • The Los Altos Police Department will conduct twice yearly audits of the ALPR system to ensure compliance with all applicable laws and policies. In addition, a designated outside law enforcement agency will conduct a separate, yearly audit of ALPR queries as an added measure to ensure compliance with all applicable Los Altos Police Department policies and applicable laws
By deploying ALPRs with strong policy safeguards, transparency measures and strict limitations on data access and retention, the City aimed to balance the benefits of this technology with our community’s expectations regarding privacy, accountability and responsible data use. This program reflects our commitment to modernizing public safety practices while upholding the trust and values of our residents.

The City Council approved the pilot program and the City entered into a contract with Flock Safety for fifteen (15) cameras in July 2023. The initial contract was a 1-year contract with a 2- year renewal. The first camera was installed in Los Altos in March 2024. The final camera was

installed in September 2024. In addition to what was written into department policy, the following safety and transparency measures were included in the roll-out of the program:
• Positioning cameras to capture rear vehicle images only, not vehicle occupants • Capturing still images only, not video or audio clips • Not including facial recognition capabilities
• Establishing a limited (30-day) retention period for non-inquiry ALPR data • Requiring training for all Los Altos Police Department staff before granting access to ALPR data and limiting access to a legitimate law enforcement need • Requiring any California agency requesting access to review and agree to comply with the City’s policy and receive approval by the Police Chief or designee in order to receive access
• Creation of a Los Altos Police Department Flock Transparency page describing guiding policies and system usage, including a listing of agencies granted access and the number of searches and vehicles detected in the last 30 days.

In January 2025, the Los Altos Police Department returned to City Council to seek approval to continue the ALPR Program. Council approved the program to continue. There were some minor changes made to the ALPR policy, to include the addition of quarterly internal audits, rather than continuing with bi-annual audits.

In July 2025, the City Council approved an amendment to the Flock Safety contract to add an additional ten (10) cameras in the City of Los Altos, for a total of twenty-five (25) cameras. Staff also completed an informational report on Flock audits that was presented to Council.

FLOCK DATA-SHARING CONCERNS
Since January 2024, there has been a heightened concern in the community about immigration enforcement. There has been a lot of misinformation in the media about Flock Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) data and there have been multiple allegations that law enforcement agencies have shared their ALPR information “with ICE” or to support immigration enforcement and that Flock as a company, has given ICE access to their system. This has been disputed by Flock and the company has assured customers that federal agencies do not have access to the data. Staff want to be clear that the Los Altos Police Department has never shared information to support immigration enforcement, nor would we. As mentioned previously, the department has a strict data sharing policy. It is stated in the policy that data cannot be shared with federal or outof-state agencies and ALPR information cannot be used for immigration enforcement. It was made clear to Flock prior to and during implementation of the cameras of the intention to have a strict data sharing policy.

In July 2025, Los Altos Police Department was made aware that the setting for nationwide lookup was turned on without the department’s knowledge or permission from August 2024 to March 2025. The department was unaware that the setting was ever activated until it was discovered after doing a network audit in July 2025. The department conducted a network audit for the first

time after receiving a Public Records Act (PRA) request in July 2025 that detailed exactly how to run a network audit. Up until that point in time, the department had been running organization audits, per the policy, to monitor Los Altos Police Officers’ usage of the system. The department was unaware of what a network audit even was until receiving the PRA with explicit instructions on how to run a network audit.

After conducting the network audit in July 2025, the department discovered there were some outof-state agencies listed in the network audit from August 2024-March 2025. Staff questioned Flock about this and were informed that there was a glitch in their system during this timeframe and that nationwide look-up was on. Flock turned that feature off for all California agencies in March 2025 to ensure compliance with Senate Bill 34 and the California Values Act (Senate Bill 54). So, this feature was turned on and eventually off, prior to the department even having knowledge of it. The department found out approximately four months after it was already deactivated. However, just because an agency shows up on a network audit, it does not automatically mean that any data was shared with that jurisdiction or that they were able to search our data.

The Los Altos Police Department first obtained Flock ALPR cameras in March 2024. In January 2026, the department ran a Flock network audit for May 2023 just to see if any information would be returned. It is important to note that May 2023 was approximately one year prior to the installation and activation of the department’s first Flock camera. Despite the cameras not yet being installed at that time, the May 2023 network audit document reflected thousands of searches and listed numerous agencies throughout the country. The key point is that the network audit report reflects activity across the entire Flock network, not activity specific to our agency’s cameras or data. Because our cameras were not installed in May 2023, it would have been impossible for any agency to search or access our camera data during that time. The presence of thousands of searches in the May 2023 network audit confirms that the network audit displays network-wide activity rather than activity involving our system.

Similarly, in network audit reports from February 2025, when the City did have cameras installed, out-of-state agencies appeared in the audit. As mentioned above, the department is prohibited from sharing ALPR data with federal or out-of-state agencies and this is written into the policy. It can be deduced from the May 2023 network audit, that just because an agency appears on our network audit, it does not mean: 1) they had access to our camera data, 2) they searched our camera data, or 3) they were granted permission to view our system. The network audit simply identifies agencies that are part of the broader Flock Safety network during the selected time period. It is not limited to agencies that have access to or have conducted searches of our department’s data.

In digging deeper into the network audit, the department discovered there were searches by outof-state agencies that listed “immigration” as a reason for the search. However, for those searches from out-of-state agencies, the users conducting the searches applied a filter for their state or a non-California state, which means they only searched within the state for which the filter was applied. The network audits also list the number of networks searched and the number of devices searched. Typically, the number of devices will be higher than the number of networks listed since there are multiple cameras in a network. For many of the out-of-state

agencies listed on the network audit, it listed that zero devices were searched. This was during the timeframe when Flock stated there was a glitch in their system, so those searches would have provided no results since they were not even completed since zero devices were searched.

In the department’s network audit for the 2-year life of the camera system, March 2024-March 2026, there were 148 searches from out-of-state agencies that listed either “immigration” or “ICE” as the reason for the search. Of those 148 searches listed, all but 10 had a filter for their specific state, so the searches could not have been run within California anyway. Of the remaining ten, three searched zero devices. Miami PD conducted one search related to an “ICE investigation” and Raleigh PD conducted two searches giving “ICE” as the reason for their search. Milford PD in Massachusetts conducted one search and listed “Assist ICE” as their reason and Auburn PD in Massachusetts conducted a search, listing “ICE suspect” as their search reason. Again, it should be noted that this does not mean: 1) they had access to our camera data, 2) they searched our camera data, or 3) they were granted permission to view our system. In five searches by Lowndes County Sheriff’s Office in Georgia, California was actually used as a filter, but the system did not allow the searches, as zero devices were searched. For the past year, there have been no out-of-state agencies that have appeared on our network audit.

After discovering the existence of network audits in July 2025, the department immediately implemented a change in its audit procedure. Rather than conducting only quarterly organization audits, the department added quarterly network audits to ensure there were no violations of its data-sharing policy. In November 2025, the department noticed there were some California agencies in its network audit that were not on its share list. The department immediately reached out to Flock to inquire about the discrepancy. Flock explained that a statewide look-up setting was turned on, allowing any agency in California to search the entire network of Flock cameras.

The department had not approved this feature being turned on, so we asked Flock to disable it, which they did. It should be noted that it is lawful for the department to share our ALPR data with any non-federal agency in California, so this feature being activated was not a violation of the law. It was just not in line with department policy, which is why Flock was asked to deactivate it.

The Los Altos Police Department took additional steps in November 2025 to further tighten data sharing:
• Data sharing is restricted to approved local police departments in Santa Clara, San Mateo, Alameda and Santa Cruz Counties only
• The department revoked search approvals for every California agency outside this fourcounty area, including multi-jurisdictional agencies like CalFire and the California Highway Patrol
• Agencies outside this geographic area cannot search our data directly. They must request that Los Altos PD conduct a search on their behalf, subject to the Chief’s approval under Council-adopted policy
• The department confirmed that no Federal or out-of-State agencies have access to our data

Within the past few months, Flock made multiple changes in California to ensure compliance with the law. Now, it is impossible to activate nationwide look-up in the system for California agencies. Flock also requires a specific search reason to be selected from a drop-down menu in order to run a search. The drop-down menu lists specific crimes so users have to be specific in noting their reason for each search. If a user enters a keyword related to immigration or abortion, the search is denied. There are multiple safeguards in place now to ensure compliance with our policy and California law.

The Los Altos Police Department continues to keep a close eye on our organization and network audits to ensure compliance with department policy and with California law. The ALPR cameras are an invaluable tool for the department and we want to balance the benefits of this technology with our community’s expectations regarding privacy, accountability and responsible data use.

ANALYSIS

LOS ALTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT USAGE
The Los Altos Police Department has seen numerous successes with the ALPR cameras. Of particular note is the decrease in residential burglaries. Between 2023-2025, residential burglaries have been significantly declining. The cameras were installed in early 2024. There has been a 41% decrease in burglaries from 2023 to 2025.

Here are some of the success stories for City of Los Altos cases:

Burglary:

• Following a construction site burglary, Ring camera footage and Flock ALPR data helped detectives identify the suspect vehicle and two suspects. The investigation linked them to additional burglaries in Los Altos and Palo Alto, resulting in four cases being solved and forwarded to the District Attorney’s Office for filing. • A residential burglary investigation used home surveillance footage and Flock ALPR to identify a suspect vehicle, which was linked to additional cases in Santa Clara and Sunnyvale despite multiple license plate switches. The suspect was identified and the case was forwarded to the District Attorney’s Office for filing. • A residential burglary investigation utilized Flock ALPR to identify a suspect vehicle with a stolen license plate entering a Los Altos neighborhood. Of 15 vehicle returns from private Flock cameras, one plate did not match the vehicle description, appearing to be a dark-colored Mercedes but registered to a Toyota out of San Jose. Further investigation confirmed the plate was stolen. A similar crew was identified via a Trak Flyer from Pleasanton Police Department and the investigation is ongoing. • Using Flock ALPR, investigators identified and linked two suspect vehicles involved in a series of residential burglaries in Los Altos and neighboring jurisdictions, despite stolen and swapped license plates and incomplete plate reads. Flock data, corroborated by private and commercial surveillance and interagency coordination, showed the vehicles traveling together before and after the burglaries across multiple Northern California cities. The investigation connected the suspects to a larger multi-state burglary crew, ultimately leading to the arrest of eight individuals by the Scottsdale Police Department and establishing a direct nexus to the Los Altos cases.

Robbery:
• Following a robbery at a local business, surveillance footage and Flock ALPR identified two suspect vehicles, including a secondary vehicle linked to an attempted robbery investigated by Campbell PD earlier that day. The suspect was identified and the case was forwarded to the District Attorney’s Office for filing.

Stolen Vehicle:
• Flock ALPR was used to locate a victim’s stolen vehicle in San Jose. Officers coordinated with San Jose State University Police, who located and recovered the vehicle the same day based on Flock location data.

• After receiving a Flock ALPR alert, officers located a stolen vehicle and confirmed it was stolen through VIN verification. Two juvenile suspects were cited and released to their parents, and the vehicle was recovered and returned to the lawful owner. • Following a Flock ALPR alert, a stolen vehicle was located and a suspect was identified and arrested at a nearby business. The vehicle was recovered and returned to the owner, and the suspect, who was on formal probation, was booked into the main jail.

Identity Theft:
• An identity theft and burglary investigation used Flock ALPR to identify a suspect vehicle entering an apartment complex to steal mail. The suspect was identified and found to have a history of fraud-related offenses in Santa Clara County, including a recent arrest in San Jose for possessing a loaded stolen firearm.

Theft:
• Following a petty theft investigation, surveillance photos led detectives to identify a white Ford Edge with unique features. A Flock ALPR search returned 80 images, with only one matching vehicle, resulting in the identification of both the vehicle and the suspect.

Assault/Battery/Criminal Threats:
• Flock ALPR was used to locate a suspect truck in a battery and criminal threats case and information displayed in the vehicle enabled officers to contact the company and identify the suspect driver based on the vehicle’s route.

Wanted Subject:
• Flock Hotlist was used to identify a wanted subject entering Los Altos, driving on a suspended license and possibly in violation of a restraining order with child.

Crimes in 2026 are solved through a combination of technology, data integration and coordinated police work rather than reliance on a single lead or eyewitness. Modern investigations typically begin with digital evidence, such as automated license plate readers, surveillance video from public and private cameras, phone records and online activity, being quickly aggregated and analyzed. This digital trail is then corroborated with traditional police work such as follow-up

surveillance, interviews, forensic evidence and records checks to build a legally sound case.

It is typical for Los Altos Police Officers and Detectives to use ALPR data in conjunction with residential surveillance cameras in order to generate leads in an investigation. Home surveillance systems will often help identify the type of vehicle and sometimes the color, but the cameras are not typically high enough resolution to capture a specific license plate. This is where Flock becomes a huge tool since the database can be searched for the make, model and color of the suspect vehicle in the area of the crime and the system will give officers and investigators license plates to follow-up on. The officers and detectives would then use other investigative techniques to follow-up on the license plates in hopes of identifying a suspect. Because Los Altos does not have traffic cameras and City-owned surveillance cameras like many neighboring jurisdictions, the department is even more reliant on ALPR cameras to help generate leads. If the department did not have ALPR cameras, the City would need to invest in traffic cameras and other Cityowned surveillance cameras in order to have any kind of impact on investigations. There is no other technology on the market that generates the same investigative leads as ALPR cameras.

Equally important is information sharing. Crimes today often cross city, state, or even national borders, so agencies coordinate in real time through shared databases, intelligence bulletins and regional task forces. This is why networks such as the Flock ALPR network are invaluable to the Los Altos Police Department. A burglary or vehicle crime in one city may be linked to similar cases elsewhere by matching vehicles, methods or timelines, allowing investigators to identify crews rather than isolated suspects, as referenced in one of the success stories above. In short, solving crimes in 2026 is about connecting data, technology and professional judgment and using modern tools to work faster and smarter while still relying on trained officers and detectives to interpret the evidence and hold offenders accountable. Additionally, there are currently no other vendors that compare to Flock based on the size of Flock’s network. There are other ALPR vendors, but they either do not allow for sharing with other jurisdictions or their networks are extremely small, taking away the value of the technology. Currently, there are 260 jurisdictions in California that share their Flock ALPR information with the Los Altos Police Department.

This includes over 200 cities in the state of California, making it an incredibly vast and useful tool for investigations.

State of California Agencies Sharing Flock ALPR Data with Los Altos PD

San Francisco Bay Area Agencies Sharing Flock ALPR Data with Los Altos PD

SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUCCESS STORIES
There have also been multiple Flock success stories throughout Santa Clara County. As mentioned above, agencies share information and coordinate in real time to solve crimes, so having shared databases such as Flock is an important investigative tool.

Homicide:
• Using Flock ALPR, San Jose Police Officers positively identified a vehicle associated to a double homicide that occurred in the city of Pleasanton. Officers located the suspect vehicle and conducted a vehicle stop, detaining both the driver and passenger. The driver of the vehicle was the suspect being sought for the double homicide. Pleasanton Police Department Officers arrived on scene and took custody of the suspect. • Santa Clara Police Department received a Flock alert for a vehicle that was stolen during an armed carjacking three days prior. The suspects involved in the carjacking were also believed to be wanted for a homicide in Alabama. Officers located the vehicle and apprehended the suspects. Two search warrants were served in Sunnyvale and Santa Clara related to the case. The third suspect from the carjacking was safely taken into custody at a residence in Santa Clara.

Kidnapping:
• Mountain View PD responded to a kidnapping report involving a suspect who threatened a victim’s life in the presence of her family. Given the suspect’s volatile behavior, there was immediate concern for the victim’s safety. After entering the suspect’s vehicle as a “hot list,” MVPD officers tracked the vehicle into San Jose. Through a coordinated effort with the San Jose Police Department, the suspect was apprehended and the victim was safely rescued and returned to Mountain View.

Burglary:
• San Jose Police arrested a suspect who stole a firearm during a residential burglary and attempted to burglarize the same home days later. ALPR data was used to identify the suspect vehicle, which was later located in Santa Clara after the suspect fled from officers and struck another vehicle before abandoning the car. With assistance from SJPD specialized units, the suspect was arrested in Los Gatos and found in possession of the stolen firearm and was booked into Santa Clara County Main Jail on burglary and firearms-related charges.
• Mountain View Police Officers assigned to a downtown burglary suppression detail were alerted to a string of auto burglaries in Palo Alto involving a specific suspect vehicle.

Shortly after, MVPD received a Flock alert for the vehicle, which was also confirmed stolen. Officers located the suspects in Mountain View as they were attempting another burglary. The suspects fled, discarding stolen laptops from the Palo Alto crimes in the process. This proactive intervention prevented further burglaries in Mountain View and led to the recovery of stolen property.
• Following multiple reports of auto burglaries at a park in Mountain View, the license plate of a suspect vehicle was identified. Later that evening, a Flock alert notified Mountain View Police Department officers that the vehicle had returned to Mountain View. Officers intercepted the vehicle and detained the occupants, who were found in possession of burglary tools and stolen property from prior thefts. Both suspects were arrested on multiple charges, including auto burglary, possession of stolen credit cards and conspiracy.
• Over the course of several months, an organized criminal group committed multiple commercial burglaries, vehicle thefts, assaults and attempted carjackings across Santa Clara County. The suspects carried out armed vehicle thefts and used the stolen vehicles to forcibly enter businesses, then fled, often evading police and, in one instance,

brandishing a firearm at an officer. Flock Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) data was instrumental in linking the crimes and locating suspects, leading to the arrest of eight individuals and the seizure of evidence.

Robbery:
• In San Jose, an elderly female victim was approached by two suspects who pretended to ask for directions, then distracted her by offering jewelry and stole her necklace worth thousands of dollars before fleeing. Using ALPR technology, SJPD’s Real Time Intelligence Center quickly identified the suspect vehicle, which was later linked to a separate suspicious vehicle report at a local business. Officers located the vehicle, arrested two suspects and both were positively identified and booked into jail on robbery-related charges.
• Three suspects armed with a firearm committed a robbery and assault with a deadly weapon at a business in Santa Clara. Video surveillance footage from the store provided a partial description of the suspect vehicle. A search of Flock ALPR positively identified the suspect vehicle. As Detectives investigated the case, they learned the same suspects committed a similar robbery in a neighboring jurisdiction. The vehicle was later located after officers received a Flock alert. Several agencies coordinated together and ultimately arrested 5 suspects.
• Officers in Santa Clara received a Flock alert of a wanted armed home invasion vehicle out of Modesto PD. Officers located the vehicle and a short vehicle pursuit ensued. The driver was ultimately arrested.

Missing Person:
• Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety received a Flock alert for a vehicle associated with a reported missing person that had entered the city. Officers quickly responded to the area and located the vehicle within approximately 10 minutes of the alert. The driver, an elderly individual, was found to be lost and confused. Officers ensured the driver’s safety and coordinated with family members, ultimately reuniting them and helping facilitate a safe return home.

Theft:
• What began as a single report of mail theft escalated into a major, multi-jurisdictional

investigation after Flock data identified a suspect vehicle. Following a Flock Safety alert from a Mountain View camera, MVPD officers conducted a traffic stop and arrested two occupants for possession of stolen property. Subsequent search warrants executed by detectives at four locations uncovered a massive volume of stolen mail. The suspects were ultimately linked to a mail theft ring spanning six counties and affecting over 588 individual victims.
• Santa Clara Police Detectives investigated a series of “bank jugging” grand thefts committed by a South American Theft Group across Santa Clara County, and surrounding counties, ultimately linking the suspects to more than 50 incidents region-wide. Within Santa Clara alone, the group stole over $250,000 in currency and jewelry in more than 10 cases using distraction tactics such as “money drops” and tire deflation devices, with Flock ALPR data playing a critical role in identifying suspect vehicles and supporting surveillance. The investigation resulted in eight suspects being identified, over 160 felony counts filed, including burglary, grand theft and elder abuse, and multiple arrests following search warrants.

Sexual Assault of a Child:
• Santa Clara Police investigated a case in which an adult suspect met a 13-year-old Santa Clara resident online and sexually assaulted the victim on two occasions, also providing cannabis and alcohol. An extended investigation involving multiple agencies and search warrants identified the Alameda County suspect and additional juvenile victims across the Bay Area, with Flock ALPR data providing critical evidence of the suspect’s travel to Santa Clara near the time of the offenses. The suspect was ultimately arrested for multiple criminal charges.

After two Santa Clara County agencies turned off their Flock cameras within the past six months, recently multiple other City Councils from various Santa Clara County cities' have voted to continue their Flock contracts to include City of San Jose, City of Santa Clara and City of Sunnyvale. Currently, every agency in Santa Clara County except for Mountain View and the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office jurisdiction (Cupertino, Los Altos Hills and Saratoga) is using Flock cameras.

Other cities in the San Francisco Bay Area have also voted to retain Flock, such as the City of Richmond and City of East Palo Alto, among others.

Alerts
In the Flock ALPR system, alerts are automated notifications generated when a vehicle detected by a camera matches a predefined criterion, such as a stolen vehicle, wanted vehicle or custom hotlist entry. These alerts allow officers to quickly identify vehicles of interest in real time or during investigations, supporting timely and informed enforcement actions. Since the inception of the ALPR Program, the Los Altos Police Department Flock cameras have generated the following alerts:

Los Altos
Police Department ALPR Camera Alerts March 2024-March 2026 Alert Type

Stolen Vehicles 201
Custom Hotlist
Alerts 92
Felony Vehicles 14
Officers and Detectives have used the Flock system in hundreds of cases over the past two years.

In 2024, Los Altos Police Department Officers and Detectives searched the Flock database 3,148 times. In 2025, the database was searched 4,518 times. Shown below is a chart that breaks down the types of investigations for which the searches were conducted.

As is shown, the most common search was related to burglary investigations, followed by stolen vehicles, hit & run collisions and theft cases. It should be noted that the number of searches does not equate to the number of cases being investigated. Officers and Detectives will often conduct multiple searches for any given vehicle of interest, covering different timeframes, geographic areas, vehicle descriptions, etc. as the information, scope and direction of a case or area of inquiry evolves.

Many of these searches helped in solving the cases listed above. Based on all of this information, it is recommended to extend the contract with Flock Safety, as the system has proven to be a highly effective investigative tool that enhances real-time awareness, strengthens regional crimesolving capabilities and supports officer and community safety. Continued use will ensure uninterrupted access to critical technology that has consistently delivered measurable public

safety benefits.

DISCUSSION

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__________

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT EXTENSION WITH FLOCK SAFETY IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $160,000
WHEREAS, in July 2023, the CITY entered into an agreement with Flock Group Inc., doing business as Flock Safety (“Flock Safety”), to provide automatic license plate recognition (ALPR) camera systems and related services to enhance public safety and support law enforcement operations; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined there is a continued need to expand and enhance the City’s ALPR camera infrastructure to improve crime deterrence and investigative capabilities; and WHEREAS, the City and Flock Safety desire to amend the existing agreement to provide for additional equipment, services, and related technology in support of these public safety goals; and
WHEREAS, funding for this amendment has been identified and appropriated in the City’s approved budget;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Los Altos adopt a resolution to:

1. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract extension with Flock Safety on behalf of the City to extend the current contracts for an additional two years for an amount not to exceed $160,000

2. The $80,000 for Year 1 was appropriated from the General Fund in the Operating Budget. There is no additional appropriation required.

3. Authorize the City Manager or their designee to take such further actions as may be necessary to implement the foregoing amendment, and
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the 26th day of May, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

______________________________
Mayor Sally Meadows

ATTEST:
___________________________________
Melissa Thurman
Los Altos City Clerk

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: May 26, 2026
Prepared By: Saskia Lagergren
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Introduction of Ordinance –Amend Chapter 2.24 Disposal of Unclaimed Property

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
Public Safety
General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Waive first reading and introduce an ordinance to amend Los Altos Municipal Code Chapter

2.24 Disposal of Unclaimed Property to update sections governing the holding, disposal and auction notice requirements for unclaimed property, in order to reflect current legal requirements and City practices

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Not Applicable

FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Not Applicable

BACKGROUND
Los Altos Municipal Code Chapter 2.24 governs the Police Department’s handling of property and evidence, including procedures for the retention, notice and disposal of unclaimed property.

Several sections of this chapter have remained unchanged for extended periods of time and have become more restrictive than current state law requires or inconsistent with modern operational practices. As a result, compliance with these sections has created operational challenges for the Police Department without providing additional legal or public benefit. Staff is proposing limited, targeted amendments to clarify existing procedures, reduce unnecessary administrative burden and ensure the Municipal Code remains aligned with applicable state law.

ANALYSIS

DISCUSSION
Section 2.24.020 – Holding and Disposal of Unclaimed Property Los Altos Municipal Code section 2.24.020 currently requires unclaimed property to be held for a minimum of six months before it may be deemed unclaimed and eligible for disposal.

However, California Civil Code section 2080.2 provides that owners have 90 days to claim property before it may be considered unclaimed. Holding property beyond that statutory period is not required by law and places a strain on the Police Department’s limited property storage capacity. Extended retention of unclaimed property has resulted in increased use of secure storage space, administrative inefficiencies and delays in lawful disposition of property.

Updating this section to align with state law would maintain compliance while reducing unnecessary logistical challenges for the Department.

Section 2.24.080 – Notice of Sale at Auction
Section 2.24.080 requires the Chief of Police to publish a notice of sale at auction at least twenty (20) days prior to the sale, specifying the time, place and items to be sold. While the Police Department does provide notice by publishing a list of property eligible for auction, current auction practices differ from the assumptions reflected in the Municipal Code. In practice:
• The City utilizes third-party auction vendors
• Auctions are scheduled and conducted by the vendor
• Property is released in batches when an auction opportunity becomes available • The Police Department does not control the exact time or location of the auction Requiring publication of a specific time and place of sale no longer reflects how auctions are conducted and is unnecessarily restrictive. Updating the code would allow notice requirements to reflect current, lawful practices while maintaining transparency and public awareness.

The proposed amendments would:
• Update retention timelines in Section 2.24.020 to align with state law • Clarify and modernize notice requirements in Section 2.24.080 • Ensure the Municipal Code accurately reflects how property and evidence are handled and auctioned today
• Preserve transparency and accountability while reducing administrative inefficiencies These amendments are administrative and clarifying in nature and do not represent a substantive change in policy. The proposed updates to Chapter 2.24 represent a common-sense, legally compliant update to the Municipal Code. Aligning the code with current state law and established practices will improve efficiency, reduce unnecessary administrative burden and maintain appropriate safeguards for the handling and disposal of unclaimed property.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Ordinance

Ordinance No. 2026- 1
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS AMENDING TITLE 2 OF THE LOS ALTOS MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS

2.24.020 AND 2.24.080
WHEREAS, Los Altos Municipal Code, Chapter 2.24 Disposal of Unclaimed Property provides the chief of police with authority to receive found property; and WHEREAS, the chief of police holds such property, which shall be delivered to the true owner upon proof of ownership satisfactory to the chief of police; and; WHEREAS, unclaimed property may be used by the City or sold at auction; and; WHEREAS, adoption of updates to these procedures as set forth in this Ordinance, are necessary to enhance and safeguard public health, safety, general welfare and effectively administer the sale of unclaimed property pursuant to the California Civil Code; and; WHEREAS, the Ordinance amendments set forth below have been reviewed and considered by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (“CEQA”), and the guidelines promulgated thereunder and, further, said Council finds that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that said amendments may have a significant effect on the environment and said amendments are therefore exempt from the requirements of the CEQA pursuant to the provisions of Section 15061(b)(3) of Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 2.24.020 is amended to read as follows:
“Section 2.24.020 Holding and disposal of unclaimed property.

Such property shall be stored in a safe place and such money deposited with the finance director for a period of at least three months six months, unless sooner claimed by the true owner, and shall then be deemed to be unclaimed property or unclaimed money, subject to disposal as provided in this chapter.”
SECTION 2. Section 2.24.020 is amended to read as follows:

Section 2.24.080 Notice of sale at auction.
“The chief of police shall cause a notice of sale at auction to be published in a newspaper printed and circulated within the city at least twenty (20) five (5) days prior to the date of sale.

Such notice shall specify the time and place of sale and the particular items to be sold.” SECTION 3. CONSTITUTIONALITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this code is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this code.

SECTION 4. PUBLICATION. This Ordinance shall be published as provided in

Ordinance No. 2026- 2
Government Code section 36933.

SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective upon the commencement of the thirty-first day following the adoption date.

The foregoing Ordinance was duly and properly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Altos held on May 26, 2026 and was thereafter, at a regular meeting held on June 9, 2026 passed and adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Sally Meadows, MAYOR
Attest:
___________________________
Melissa Thurman, CITY CLERK

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: May 26, 2026
Prepared By: Jessie Kim
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Proposed FY 2026/27 Operating Budget and FY2027-31 Five-Year Capital & Major Maintenance Program

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
Public Safety
Business Communities
Circulation Safety and Efficiency
Environmental Sustainability
Housing
General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Discuss the proposed FY2026/27 Operating Budget and FY2027–31 Capital Improvement and Major Maintenance Program (CIMMP), and provide direction to staff for any revisions prior to final adoption

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Not applicable

FISCAL IMPACT
This item presents a review of the proposed FY2026/27 Operating Budget and FY2027–31 Capital Improvement and Major Maintenance Program (CIMMP). While there is no immediate fiscal impact from this discussion, the financial implications will be finalized upon Council adoption of the budget and capital plan.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
June 10, 2025

BACKGROUND
Each year, staff prepares the Operating Budget and Capital Improvement and Major Maintenance Program (CIMMP) to align with the City Council's strategic priorities. The Operating Budget outlines the City's planned revenues and expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year, while the CIMMP identifies planned capital projects over the next five years. Both documents are developed in coordination with all departments, reviewed by the Financial

Commission, and presented to Council for discussion and input prior to formal adoption in June 2026.

ANALYSIS
The proposed FY2026/27 Operating Budget includes $71.8 million in General Fund revenues, reflecting a 10% increase over the FY2025/26 adopted budget. This growth is primarily driven by a 7% projected increase in property tax revenue and continued strength in community development fees, along with modest growth in the transient occupancy tax (TOT) and documentary transfer tax (DTT). These gains are partially offset by a projected 12% decline in the utility users tax (UUT).

General Fund expenditures are projected at $62.8 million, reflecting an 11% increase compared to the FY2025/26 adopted budget. This increase is driven by several factors, including rising personnel costs from full-year staffing of previously vacant positions, scheduled CalPERS and benefit cost increases, and rising utility costs. Additional cost growth is related to the expansion of the traffic control program. Departmentally, Public Works is projected to increase by 24%, largely due to a departmental reorganization in which Land Use Engineering — previously housed under Development Services and then moved to Public Works — has now been absorbed into Engineering, with personnel allocations adjusted accordingly. The increase also reflects expanded traffic control operations. Community Services (formerly Parks and Recreation) expenditures are also expected to rise by 22%, reflecting departmental reorganization, rising utility costs, and expanded recreation programming.

The proposed budget results in a projected $9.0 million surplus. After planned transfers to reserves and internal service funds, the unassigned General Fund balance is estimated at $19.8 million, which represents 31% of budgeted expenditures. This is in addition to the City's 20% Emergency and Operating Reserve, reflecting a strong and stable financial position.

The FY2027 Capital Improvement and Major Maintenance Program (CIMMP) includes $28.6 million in planned projects, with a total of $35.1 million programmed through FY2031. Major FY2027 projects include citywide street resurfacing, slurry seal, and striping; downtown parking lot resurfacing; the San Antonio Road Complete Streets project; the comprehensive General Plan update; continued community engagement and design refinement for the downtown park space with parking; continued Library design development; and playground replacements at Shoup and Grant Parks. These projects will be funded through a combination of the Capital Projects Fund (supported by General Fund transfers), state transportation revenues (SB1, Measure B, Gas Tax), Park Impact Fees, and grants.

DISCUSSION
The FY2026/27 Operating Budget and FY2027–31 Capital Improvement and Major Maintenance Program (CIMMP) have been developed in alignment with Council's strategic goals and current financial policies. This meeting is intended to present the full scope of projected revenues, expenditures, and capital investments, along with associated fund balances and reserve levels. Staff will provide an overview of the major changes from the prior fiscal year and highlight key program and project adjustments. Feedback from this meeting will be used to finalize the documents in preparation for formal adoption in June 2026.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Proposed FY2026-27 Budget - General Fund and Enterprise Funds Summary

2. Attachment 2 - Draft FY2026 and FY2027 Fund Balance Summary

3. Attachment 3 - Draft FY2027-31 Capital Improvement and Major Maintenance Program (CIMMP)

REVENUES
FY2023/24
Actual
FY2024/25
Actual
FY2025/26
Budget
FY2025/26
Projection
FY2026/27
Budget
% Change
over FY26
Projection
% Change
over FY26
Budget
Taxes $ 45,692,947 $ 48,391,117 $ 50,741,767 $ 51,427,418 $ 53,056,033 3.2% 4.6% Fees 9,884,055 14,245,789 11,573,254 15,463,527 15,048,600 -2.7% 30.0% Interest 2,455,767 2,114,807 1,656,000 2,250,179 2,137,670 -5.0% 29.1% Misc. Revenue 1,422,260 2,074,730 1,142,696 1,516,810 1,540,372 1.6% 34.8% One Time Revenue - - - - -
Total General Fund Revenue 59,455,029 66,826,443 65,113,717 70,657,933 71,782,675 1.6% 10.2%

PROGRAM EXPENDITURES
FY2023/24
Actual
FY2024/25
Actual
FY2025/26
Budget
FY2025/26
Projection
FY2026/27
Budget
% Change
over FY26
Projection
% Change
over FY26
Budget
Legislative $ 584,065 $ 831,179 $ 1,018,533 $ 941,719 $ 1,241,596 31.8% 21.9% City Manager's Office 5,248,766 4,730,211 4,547,263 4,416,975 5,140,706 16.4% 13.1% Finance 2,392,063 1,943,698 2,565,376 1,636,657 2,540,861 55.2% -1.0% Human Resources 1,827,293 1,764,441 2,066,391 1,673,622 2,175,486 30.0% 5.3% Development Services 4,598,636 5,476,638 6,367,951 5,471,355 6,120,984 11.9% -3.9% Public Works 2,367,066 2,160,758 2,677,976 2,586,001 3,316,144 28.2% 23.8% Public Safety 22,006,310 24,326,347 27,016,213 31,771,488 29,547,688 -7.0% 9.4% Community Services 8,635,454 9,793,975 10,435,278 10,403,603 12,735,061 22.4% 22.0% Total General Fund Expenditure 47,659,654 51,027,247 56,694,982 58,901,420 62,818,526 6.7% 10.8% Transfers In / (Out) (1,578,000) (20,065,209) (15,252,719) (15,940,836) (8,034,725) Revenues over Expenditures
Surplus / (Deficit) Before Transfers 11,795,375 15,799,196 8,418,735 11,756,513 8,964,149 -23.8% 6.5% Revenues over Expenditures
Surplus / (Deficit) After Transfers 10,217,375 (4,266,013) (6,833,984) (4,184,323) 929,424

GENERAL FUND SUMMARY

REVENUES
FY2023/24
Actual
FY2024/25
Actual
FY2025/26
Budget
FY2025/26
Projection
FY2026/27
Budget
% Change
over FY26
Projection
% Change
over FY26
Budget
Property Tax $ 34,410,697 $ 36,186,927 $ 38,243,942 $ 39,414,000 $ 40,786,830 3.5% 6.6% Sales Tax 3,442,623 3,591,444 3,592,738 3,437,616 3,496,887 1.7% -2.7% Utility Users Tax 3,517,437 3,725,468 4,128,018 3,678,270 3,654,303 -0.7% -11.5% Other Taxes 4,322,189 4,887,279 4,777,069 4,897,531 5,118,013 4.5% 7.1% Franchise Fees 2,608,195 2,799,296 2,842,464 2,806,194 2,810,800 0.2% -1.1% Recreation Fees 1,598,589 1,437,297 1,647,790 1,622,221 1,734,100 6.9% 5.2% Community Development Fees 5,677,271 10,009,197 7,083,000 11,035,112 10,503,700 -4.8% 48.3% Intergovernmental 23,238 - - - - 0.0% 0.0%
Grants and Donations 806,765 9,900 10,000 5,067 10,000 97.4% 0.0% Interest Income 2,455,767 2,114,807 1,656,000 2,250,179 2,137,670 -5.0% 29.1% Miscellaneous Revenue 592,257 2,064,830 1,132,696 1,511,743 1,530,372 1% 35% Total General Fund Revenue 59,455,029 66,826,443 65,113,717 70,657,933 71,782,675 1.6% 10.2% One-Time Revenue - - - - -
Transfer In - 500,000 - 8,666,500 -
Total General Fund
Revenue/Transfers In $ 59,455,029 $ 67,326,443 $ 65,113,717 $ 79,324,433 $ 71,782,675 -9.5% 10.2%

GENERAL FUND REVENUE SUMMARY

PROGRAM EXPENDITURES
FY2023/24
Actual
FY2024/25
Actual
FY2025/26
Budget
FY2025/26
Projection
FY2026/27
Budget
% Change
over FY26
Projection
% Change
over FY26
Budget

LEGISLATIVE
11110-City Council $ 584,065 $ 831,179 $ 1,018,533 $ 941,719 $ 1,241,596 31.8% 21.9% Total City Council 584,065 831,179 1,018,533 941,719 1,241,596 31.8% 21.9%

CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
12100-City Manager 975,308 1,087,610 920,084 1,474,533 1,033,290 -29.9% 12.3% 13100-City Attorney 1,369,103 1,210,165 817,000 943,172 800,000 -15.2% -2.1% 14100-City Clerk 530,646 585,069 700,038 541,483 598,898 10.6% -14.4% 12400-Public Information 320,545 217,760 109,330 132,383 542,095 309.5% 395.8% 12500-Emergency Preparedness 55,624 41,307 10,000 - 70,500 100.0% 605.0% 12600-Sustainability 138,795 - 414,525 - 387,138 100.0% -6.6% 12300-Economic Development 416,710 241,588 249,415 211,327 264,598 25.2% 6.1% 12200-Information Technology 1,442,033 1,346,711 1,326,872 1,114,076 1,444,187 29.6% 8.8% Total City Manager's Office 5,248,766 4,730,211 4,547,263 4,416,975 5,140,706 16.4% 13.1% 25100-Finance 2,023,378 1,701,366 1,875,616 1,328,268 2,061,495 55.2% 9.9% 26100-Non Department 368,685 242,333 689,760 308,389 479,366 55.4% -30.5% Total Finance 2,392,063 1,943,698 2,565,376 1,636,657 2,540,861 55.2% -1.0% 21100-Human Resources 1,827,293 1,764,441 2,066,391 1,673,622 2,175,486 30.0% 5.3%

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
31100-Planning 2,685,792 2,545,766 2,891,600 2,166,639 2,839,799 31.1% -1.8% 32200-Inspections 1,672,910 2,759,135 3,078,886 3,050,501 3,020,936 -1.0% -1.9% 35100-Business License 89,251 23,440 110,906 57,454 118,128 105.6% 6.5% 36100-Code Enforcement 150,683 148,297 286,560 196,760 142,122 -27.8% -50.4% Total Development Services 4,598,636 5,476,638 6,367,951 5,471,355 6,120,984 11.9% -3.9%

PUBLIC WORKS
41100-Engineering 1,212,366 1,219,413 1,206,547 1,230,232 1,205,174 -2.0% -0.1% 41200-Traffic Control 828,887 591,305 859,699 969,434 1,720,404 77.5% 100.1% 44200-Urban Runoff 325,813 229,602 330,285 289,637 390,565 34.8% 18.3% 38100-Land Use Engineering - 120,438 281,445 96,699 - -100.0% -100.0% Total Public Works 2,367,066 2,160,758 2,677,976 2,586,001 3,316,144 28.2% 23.8%

PUBLIC SAFETY
61100-Administration 2,007,285 3,050,603 3,032,569 4,636,832 4,047,389 -12.7% 33.5% 62100-Support Services 2,459,448 2,854,810 3,648,776 4,016,002 4,248,415 5.8% 16.4% 62200-Investigation Services 1,524,816 1,803,310 1,326,267 1,162,959 1,958,780 68.4% 47.7% 63200-Traffic Operations 1,643,910 1,767,767 1,138,318 1,022,804 1,190,973 16.4% 4.6% 63300-Patrol Services 5,744,867 6,604,883 8,146,234 9,336,451 7,973,646 -14.6% -2.1% 63400-Crossing Guard - - - 372,390 357,696 -3.9% 100.0% 66100-Fire Services 8,625,984 8,244,974 9,724,050 11,224,050 9,770,790 -12.9% 0.5% Total Public Safety 22,006,310 24,326,347 27,016,213 31,771,488 29,547,688 -7.0% 9.4%

GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE SUMMARY

PROGRAM EXPENDITURES
FY2023/24
Actual
FY2024/25
Actual
FY2025/26
Budget
FY2025/26
Projection
FY2026/27
Budget
% Change
over FY26
Projection
% Change
over FY26
Budget

COMMUNITY SERVICES
71100-REC Administration 1,381,190 1,288,965 1,460,724 1,154,039 1,885,065 63.3% 29.1% 72xxx-Facilities 400,937 491,548 367,540 488,373 456,870 -6.5% 24.3% 73100-Tiny Tots 356,245 293,552 254,389 393,193 - -100.0% -100.0% 74100-Community Events 60,643 93,520 142,098 87,284 151,727 73.8% 6.8% 76100-Teen Program 68,561 71,956 98,302 59,882 102,711 71.5% 4.5% 77500-Camps-Contracts 28,548 62,883 48,000 57,355 48,000 -16.3% 0.0% 77400-Camps-Programs 151,440 238,439 344,096 227,223 352,372 55.1% 2.4% 77200-Classes-Youth 223,438 30,814 54,033 26,547 114,082 329.7% 111.1% 77300-Classes-Adults 40,926 215,479 228,001 273,964 297,633 8.6% 30.5% 78200-Sports Junior High 132,947 157,959 165,112 117,764 176,662 50.0% 7.0% 78300-Adult Sports 1,711 108 - - - 0.0% 0.0%
79100-Seniors Operations 262,840 292,679 317,276 284,146 385,852 35.8% 21.6% 79200-Seniors Activities 36,151 52,786 152,700 70,326 167,700 138.5% 9.8% 51100-MSC Administration 238,591 513,348 477,957 352,487 451,509 28.1% -5.5% 53100-Street Maintenance 678,289 799,931 847,123 738,290 1,757,184 138.0% 107.4% 51200-Fleet Maintenance 280,083 380,019 516,837 333,184 497,396 49.3% -3.8% 51400-Parks and Street Landscaping 3,104,082 3,471,104 3,789,690 4,139,648 4,413,035 6.6% 16.4% 51500-Facility Maintenance 1,188,832 1,338,886 1,171,400 1,599,898 1,477,262 -7.7% 26.1% Total Parks & Recreation 8,635,454 9,793,975 10,435,278 10,403,603 12,735,061 22.4% 22.0% Total General Fund Expenditures 47,659,654 51,027,247 56,694,982 58,901,420 62,818,526 6.7% 10.8% Transfer Out 1,578,000 20,565,209 15,252,719 24,607,336 8,034,725 Total General Fund
Expenditures/Transfers Out $ 49,237,654 $ 71,592,456 $ 71,947,701 $ 83,508,756 $ 70,853,251 -15.2% -1.5%

SEWER FUND
FY2023/24
Actual
FY2024/25
Actual
FY2025/26
Budget
FY2025/26
Projection
FY2026/27
Budget
Beginning Net Position $ 30,553,865 $ 32,899,043
Unrestricted Net Position 16,710,691
Interest Income $ 403,753 $ 553,085 $ 310,500 $ 602,642 $ 576,407 Sewer Charges 10,383,108 10,501,872 12,202,565 12,393,184 14,526,369 Sewer Connection Fees 1,085 145,214 14,000 8,895 7,000
Misc. Sewer Fees 25,825 187,377 20,000 60,259 10,000
Total Revenues 10,813,771 11,387,549 12,547,065 13,064,980 15,119,776 Sewer Administration 7,572,122 7,421,132 7,584,710 7,318,045 6,344,466 Sewer System Maintenance 378,203 1,768,896 2,249,544 2,241,195 2,406,696 Capital Program 224,591 531,147 2,263,583 1,160,562 2,154,929 Total Expenditures 8,174,916 9,721,175 12,097,837 10,719,802 10,906,091 Operating Surplus / (Deficit) 2,863,446 2,197,521 2,712,810 3,505,740 6,368,615 Change in Net Position (Including Capital) 2,638,855 1,666,374 449,228 2,345,178 4,213,686 Transfer In / (Out) (720,000) - - - -
Ending Net Position $ 32,899,043 $ 37,112,729

SOLID WASTE FUND
FY2023/24
Actual
FY2024/25
Actual
FY2025/26
Budget
FY2025/26
Projection
FY2026/27
Budget
Beginning Net Position (Unrestricted) $ 2,203,334 $ 967,362 Interest Income 229,463 178,688 103,500 137,602 125,206 Administrative Charges 951,996 1,062,492 1,048,900 946,549 1,064,868 AB939 Tax - 12,300 38,000 9,694 12,000
Grants and donations - - - - -
Total Revenues 1,181,459 1,085,000 1,085,000 1,093,844 1,202,074 Solid Waste Administration - 2,411,198 2,427,641 2,329,817 2,362,572 Total Expenditures - 2,411,198 2,427,641 2,329,817 2,362,572 Net Operations 1,181,459 (1,326,198) (1,342,641) (1,235,972) (1,160,498) Transfer In / (Out) - - - - 500,000
Ending Net Position $ 967,362 $ 306,864

ENTERPRISE FUND SUMMARY

All Funds - Fund Balance Schedule
FY26 Projections & FY27 Budget
FY2025
Audited
FY2026
Projected
Revenues
FY2026
Projected
Expenditures
Transfers
(Approved)
FY26 Year-End
Transfers
(Proposed)
FY2026
Projected
Fund Balance
FY2027
Revenues
(Proposed)
FY2027
Expenditures
(Proposed)
FY2027
Transfers
(Proposed)
FY2027
Proposed Fund
Balance
General Fund 48,134,221 71,004,101 (60,607,634) (4,402,719) (4,195,270) 49,932,699 71,907,675 (65,436,199) (7,251,438) 49,152,737 01 Unassigned 22,912,816 70,763,302 (58,901,420) (10,532,013) (5,408,823) 18,833,862 71,782,675 (62,818,526) (8,034,725) 19,763,286 Nonspendable/Assigned - - -
Inventory and prepaids 213,821 - - - 213,821 - - 213,821 Emergency & Operating Reserve 10,171,485 - - 279,295 1,329,504 11,780,284 - - 783,287 12,563,571 Veteran Memorial Reserve 8,615 - - - 8,615 - - 8,615
67 Facility Maintenance Fund 12,000,000 - (154,666) 5,000,000 (1,500,000) 15,345,334 - (444,300) 14,901,034 44 Fleet Vehicle Fund 2,000,000 - (167,499) - 1,832,501 - (909,450) 923,051 61 Technology Fund 827,484 240,799 (1,384,049) 850,000 1,384,049 1,918,283 125,000 (1,263,923) 779,360 Capital Projects Fund 182,152 - (5,237,320) 5,779,246 5,135,270 5,859,349 1,069,597 (12,203,544) 5,722,838 448,239 62 Capital Projects Fund (394,476) - (5,201,931) 5,779,246 5,228,270 5,411,109 1,069,597 (12,105,544) 5,624,838 0 65 Equipment Replacement Fund 576,628 - (35,389) - (93,000) 448,239 - (98,000) 98,000 448,239 Internal Service Fund 10,447,751 - (3,604,503) (1,499,000) (1,440,000) 3,904,248 - (3,393,551) 1,100,000 1,610,697 03 PERS Reserve 7,048,384 - - (5,000,000) (2,000,000) 48,384 - - 48,384 40 Dental/Vision Fund 328,545 - (492,171) 792,000 50,000 678,374 - (650,000) 28,374 41 Unemployment Fund 44,799 - (50,568) - 10,000 4,231 - - 4,231 42 Workers Compensation Fund 2,001,572 - (1,325,761) 1,174,000 200,000 2,049,811 - (1,259,851) 789,960 43 Liability Fund 1,024,451 - (1,736,003) 1,535,000 300,000 1,123,448 - (1,483,700) 1,100,000 739,748 Special Revenue Fund 28,006,462 5,291,863 (8,269,199) (800,891) - 24,228,235 5,821,047 (11,577,995) (372,090) 18,099,196 04 Measure B - (1,026,278) - 1,026,278 - (881,834) 194,834 (687,000.00) 06 Public safety Impact Fee 11,778 9,554 - - 21,332 6,000 - 27,332 07 SB1 Road Maintenance Rehab 2,014,365 839,493 (751,214) - (1,026,278) 1,076,366 890,016 (925,922) (194,834) 845,626 10 General Govt. Impact Fee 17,067 13,803 - - 30,870 8,000 - 38,870 11 Vehicle Impound Fund (24,415) 18,897 - - (5,518) 15,000 - 9,482 13 Supplemental Law Enforcement Fund 238,240 242,485 (459,625) - 21,100 100,000 - 121,100 14 Gas Tax Fund 1,890,187 843,761 (1,033,675) - 1,700,272 929,343 (1,781,419) 848,196 20 PEG Fees 346,808 52,595 (50,707) - 348,697 - (29,486) 319,211 21 Art in Lieu 677,534 - - (73,500) 604,034 - - 604,034 24 Vehicle Registration Fund 1,400,734 327,653 (640,644) - 1,087,743 500,000 (1,095,467) 492,276 25 TDA Fund 644 19 (106,503) 20,754 (85,086) - (26,610) (111,696) 26 Traffic Impact Fee Fund 901,115 281,386 - - 1,182,501 175,000 (283,000) 1,074,501 27 Park Impact Fee Fund 19,412,446 2,525,291 (3,792,919) (748,145) 17,396,673 2,000,000 (4,434,236) (622,090) 14,340,346 28 Downtown Parking Fund 984,821 115,399 (407,634) - 692,586 65,000 (1,000,020) 250,000 7,566 29 Estate Donation Fund 18,639 - - - 18,639 - - 18,639
64 AB-1379 CASP Fee 116,499 21,527 - - 138,026 10,000 - 148,026 18 - - - - - 1,122,688 (1,120,000) 2,688
Funds
One Bay Area Grant (OBAG)

All Funds - Fund Balance Schedule
FY26 Projections & FY27 Budget
FY2025
Audited
FY2026
Projected
Revenues
FY2026
Projected
Expenditures
Transfers
(Approved)
FY26 Year-End
Transfers
(Proposed)
FY2026
Projected
Fund Balance
FY2027
Revenues
(Proposed)
FY2027
Expenditures
(Proposed)
FY2027
Transfers
(Proposed)
FY2027
Proposed Fund
Balance
Funds
Debt Service Fund 222,725 - (790,690) 923,364 - 355,399 - (800,690) 800,690 355,399 73 General Debt Service 222,723 - (168,600) 175,219 - 229,342 - (178,600) 178,600 229,342 74 LA Community Center 2 (622,090) 748,145 - 126,057 - (622,090) 622,090 126,057 Enterprise Fund 32,757,198 14,158,824 (13,049,618) - 500,000 34,366,404 16,321,851 (13,653,663) - 37,034,592 30 Sewer Fund 30,553,864 13,064,980 (10,719,802) - 32,899,042 15,119,776 (11,291,091) 36,727,728 35 Solid Waste Fund 2,203,334 1,093,844 (2,329,817) - 500,000 1,467,362 1,202,074 (2,362,572) 306,864 Fiduciary Fund 85,300 51,800 (49,733) - - 87,367 51,800 (49,800) 89,367 91 Blue Oak Lane Sewer 85,300 51,800 (49,733) - 87,367 51,800 (49,800) 89,367 TOTAL 119,835,809 90,506,588 (91,608,697) - - 118,733,700 95,171,969 (107,115,442) - 106,790,227 FY2026 projections include anticipated year-end activity. Proposed year-end transfers are pending Council approval and will affect FY2027 beginning balances if approved.

FY2027-31 Capital Improvement & Major Maintenance Projects No. Project # Project Name Project Scope Strategic
Alignment Status Funding Source FY2026-27 Budget
FY2027-28
Budget
FY2028-29
Budget
FY2029-30
Budget
FY2030-31
Budget Total
1 10001 Police Department Building Security
Upgrades The Police department security cameras need replacement/upgrading. Public Safety Active Technology 155,000 - - - - 155,000 2 10002 San Antonio Club Upgrades Upgrades to the interior and exterior of the historic facility. Housing Active Park Impact Fee 85,000 - - - - 85,000 3 10004 999 Fremont
The City-owned facility at 999 Fremont Ave. is currently unoccupied.

The Los Altos Police Department plans to use it as a sub-station with a few interior upgrades that will allow officers better access to the south side of the city. The facility will have a reception area for the public along with workspace, fitness area and break area for officers. Funding for this project is to install a small kitchen space as well as a shower and changing space. Prior year funding added the walls that created the reception area.

Public Safety Active CIP 239,563 - - - - 239,563
4 10005 Halsey House Rehabilitation
The Facilities Maintenance Division manages the annual rat abatement contract and the fencing rental for the Halsey House. An environmental consultant is currently working on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Halsey House.

Housing Active CIP 181,569 - - - - 181,569
5 10007 City Hall Emergency Back-up Power
Generator
The existing stand-by generators at City Hall, Police Department and the Municipal Services Center are beyond their useful life and in need of replacement. The City has been required by Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) to register the emergency generator under the Portable Equipment Registration Program. The generator is subject to unscheduled inspections by the State for compliance with emission requirements. While the existing generator is meeting the current emission requirements, it is aging and at risk of exceeding emission standards soon. A new more energy-efficient generator will meet all BAAQMD requirements and will be more cost-effective to operate.

Public Safety Active CIP 460,000 - - - - 460,000
6 10009 Library Construction
The design team has wrapped up the Schematic Design Phase which includes 30% drawings and refined cost estimates for the overall project.

Over the next fiscal year, the design team will work to develop 60% design documents and further refined cost estimates before ultimately developing full Construction Documents that will be a full bid-ready plans and specifications. This project is anticipated to be ready for final review and bid preparation at the end of FY26-27 so that construction on this project will be targeted for FY27-28 and part of FY28-29.

General
Government Active Grant 919,597 - - - - 919,597
CIP 195,000 - - - - 195,000
Fleet Vehicle 188,450 - - - - 188,450
8 10011 History Museum Roof Replacement This project will replace the roof at the Los Altos History Museum. The roof is beyond it's useful life.

Environmental
Sustainability Active Facility Maintenance 215,000 - - - - 215,000 7 The City is electrifying its fleet with support from SVCE and PG&E. In 2024, SVCE helped develop EV infrastructure plans for 707 Fremont Ave.

Through PG&E’s Make-Ready Program, PG&E handles utility upgrades while the City installs chargers and site work. This CIP readies the site for fleet electrification
10010 MSC EV Infrastructure Project Active Environmental Sustainability

FY2027-31 Capital Improvement & Major Maintenance Projects No. Project # Project Name Project Scope Strategic
Alignment Status Funding Source FY2026-27 Budget
FY2027-28
Budget
FY2028-29
Budget
FY2029-30
Budget
FY2030-31
Budget Total
9 10014 Grant Park Facility Solar and Battery
Storage Installation
This project is for the purchase and installation of solar panels and battery power storage at the Grant Park buldings. This would reduce the electric load required from the public utility supplier and create an emergency power storage back-up in case of power outage.

Environmental
Sustainability Active Park Impact Fee 254,444 - - - - 254,444 10 10015 New Police Building Design
This project focuses on the planning and architectural development of a modern facility to support effective law enforcement operations and community engagement. It may include admin office, secure detention areas, evidence storage, public service counters, and parking.

Public Safety Active Facility
Maintenance 229,300 - - - - 229,300
11 10018 Garden House Upgrade Design Create a design for interior upgrades at the Garden House facility. Housing New Park Impact Fee 75,000 - - - - 75,000 12 10019 Tennis Court Resurfacing Resurface Rosita and Montclaire tennis courts. Montclaire will be a full subsurface replacement and include new fencing. Housing New Park Impact Fee 310,000 - - - - 310,000 13 10020 Grant Park Basketball Court
Replacement and resurfacing
Replace and resurface basketball court surface at Grant Park including posts and backboards. Housing New Park Impact Fee 250,000 - - - - 250,000 14 10021 McKenzie Pickleball Courts Convert McKenzie tennis courts into permanent pickleball court that would include lighting and leisure space. Housing New Park Impact Fee 375,000 - - - - 375,000 15 10022 Lincoln Park Gazebo Replacement Replace gazebo located at the west side of Lincoln Park. Housing New Park Impact Fee 200,000 - - - - 200,000 16 10023 Admin Building B (formerly LAYC)
Playground
Expand the playground footprint, enclose the fencing and add play elements. Housing New Park Impact Fee 80,000 - - - - 80,000 17 10024 Redwood Grove cement pathway
replacement
Replacement/Improvement of damaged cement pathway near archery area in Redwood Grove. Housing New Park Impact Fee 20,000 - - - - 20,000 18 10025 Replacement of irrigation controls Replace outdated irrigation controls in all city parks. Housing New CIP 75,000 - - - - 75,000 19 10026 Sidewalk concrete repair and work City-wide sidewalk condition evaluation. Circulation Safety & Efficiency New CIP 50,000 - - - - 50,000
20 10028 Green Stormwater Infrastructure
Retrofit Program
This Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project will implement green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) retrofits within the public street right of way to support compliance with the Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit MRP

3.0 requirements.The project will construct curb cuts, permeable pavement and bioretention facilities within selected public streets to capture, convey, and treat stormwater runoff from impervious roadway and sidewalk surfaces. Improvements will include but not limited to installation of curb openings, engineered bioretention soil media, permeable pavement, underdrains as needed, and native or climate appropriate vegetation to promote infiltration, evapotranspiration, and pollutant removal.The project is intended to retrofit existing public streets, where feasible, and provide stormwater treatment consistent with MRP 3.0 requirements for Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) and Low Impact Development (LID) practices. The City will pursue implementation of GSI improvements toward a cumulative retrofit target of 1.88 acres of impervious drainage area treated, consistent with the City’s MRP 3.0 compliance obligations by the end of the current permit term (June 30, 2027).

Environmental
Sustainability New CIP 350,000 150,000 - - - 500,000

FY2027-31 Capital Improvement & Major Maintenance Projects No. Project # Project Name Project Scope Strategic
Alignment Status Funding Source FY2026-27 Budget
FY2027-28
Budget
FY2028-29
Budget
FY2029-30
Budget
FY2030-31
Budget Total
21 10029 Capacity Study (Civic Center)
The City will study the electrical capacity for the Civic Center campus in an analysis of current and future improvements to the property. This will allow the City to prepare and plan for any necessary electric infrastructure improvements that will be required for the campus.

Environmental
Sustainability New CIP 120,000 - - - - 120,000
22 20000 Downtown Lighting Improvements
City staff will improve the lighting within the downtown core because sidewalks, Veterans Community Plaza, and parking plazas are not extremely well lit in some locations. This will improve safety for residents and businesses while also increasing downtown vibrancy. City staff will identify other lighting solutions that may limit their impact on the overall electrical infrastructure.

Business
Communities Active CIP 66,526 - - - - 66,526
23 20002 Downtown Park Space with parking
The City completed extensive community engagement last summer by participating in 48 community events and connecting with over 1,000 community members at pop-up events, meetings, and workshops. After engaging with the community, the design team created design options that were presented to City Council in February 2026 that have been refined further based upon Council direction. The design team will take the refined design options back out to the community in the summer of 2026 for community engagement and feedback regarding preferred design options, locations, and amenities now that there are potential design concepts for discussion. Upon completion of the community engagement, this project will return for consideration in FY26-27.

Business
Communities Active Park Impact Fee 1,104,160 - - - - 1,104,160 24 30000 General Plan
The General Plan establishes a community’s long?term vision for growth, reflecting shared priorities and values while guiding future development.

The City of Los Altos last completed a comprehensive update of its General Plan in 2002. Since then, numerous State laws have been enacted that require a full overhaul of the existing plan. Most recently, the City adopted its 6th Cycle Housing Element and updated its Safety Element to comply with State mandates. State law requires that when a jurisdiction adopts a 6th Cycle Housing Element, it must also update its Safety Element. Additionally, when two or more required General Plan elements are updated, the jurisdiction must prepare an Environmental Justice Element. Beyond these State?mandated updates, the City adopted its Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (CAAP) and Complete Streets Master Plan (CSMP) in 2022. Both documents provide important direction for how Los Altos should grow and evolve in the coming decades. Integrating the policies and vision of the CAAP and CSMP into the General Plan is essential, as the General Plan serves as the City’s highest level regulatory land use document.

Housing Active CIP 1,643,420 - - - - 1,643,420
25 40006 Community Center Café
Complete the construction documents and permitting, purchase the appliances, and complete the construction for a new café inside the Los Altos Community Center.

General
Government Active Park Impact Fee 165,000 - - - - 165,000

FY2027-31 Capital Improvement & Major Maintenance Projects No. Project # Project Name Project Scope Strategic
Alignment Status Funding Source FY2026-27 Budget
FY2027-28
Budget
FY2028-29
Budget
FY2029-30
Budget
FY2030-31
Budget Total
26 40008 Shoup Park Playground
This project will upgrade the aging play equipment at Shoup Park. There are two playgrounds in the park. One playground is age appropriate for 2-5 year olds and another for 5-12 year olds. The funding includes design and construction services.

Housing Active Park Impact Fee 619,950 - - - - 619,950
27 40009 Grant Playground This project will upgrade the aging play equipment at Grant Park. The funding includes design and construction services. Housing Active Park Impact Fee 619,950 - - - - 619,950 28 70002 Fremont Ave Pedestrian Bridge
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation would include: replacement of timber decking, replacement of structural blocking and cross bracing, replacement of endspans middle glulam stringer, replacement of timber railing, installation of a drainage system, minor repairs to the bridge abutments, and backfilling of the first span to repair scour damage and loss of backfill material. Existing bridge abutments will remain.

Circulation Safety &
Efficiency Active CIP 465,967 - - - - 465,967
29 70004 Intersection Access Barrier Removal
The Hetch Hetchy pathway is a multi-use bike and pedestrian trail within the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) right-of-way, connecting the City to Palo Alto via Arastradero Road. It also serves maintenance access for SFPUC and City staff. The City will reconstruct the existing crossings at Estrellita Way and Los Altos Avenue to meet current ADA standards and improve connectivity.

Circulation Safety &
Efficiency Active TDA 26,610 - - - - 26,610
Downtown
Parking 1,000,020 - - - - 1,000,020
CIP 2,499,980 - - - - 2,499,980
OBAG 1,120,000 - - - - 1,120,000
TIF 283,000 - - - - 283,000
32 70013 Downtown Circulation Study
Examine the circulation around the downtown area to determine if oneway will be feasible in the downtown area. (State Street and Main Street)
Business
Communities Active CIP 100,000 - - - - 100,000
33 70015 Bicycle/Pedestrian Education
Program
The project will provide bicycle and pedestrian safety education from K12 grades. (Original)The project will deliver bicycle and pedestrian safety education programs for students in grades K–12, promoting safe travel behaviors and increasing awareness of traffic rules and best practices.

Circulation Safety &
Efficiency New Measure B 64,000 - - - - 64,000
34 70016 Maintenance of various Traffic
Safety throughout the City
The maintenance of existing traffic signals, signs, and pedestrian crossings at various locations throughout the City. Also, this project will install other safety features as necessary to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety.

Circulation Safety &
Efficiency New RMRA 250,000 - - - - 250,000
35 70017 New traffic signal controller at
Springer and Fremont
Existing control is old and unable to obtain parts. New control, wiring and synchronization of the traffic signal between Fremont and Foothill Express will be done to allow an efficient flow of traffic through this area. (Original)The existing traffic signal controller is outdated and replacement parts are no longer available. This project will replace the controller, upgrade associated wiring, and implement signal synchronization between Fremont Avenue and Foothill Expressway to improve operational reliability and enhance traffic flow through the corridor.

Circulation Safety &
Efficiency New CIP 600,000 - - - - 600,000
30 31
Active Business
Communities
To prepare topographic survey of all parking lots in the downtown area.

Design and reconstruct Parking Plaza 4, 5 and 6. 70005 Downtown Parking lot resurfacing Active Circulation Safety &
Efficiency
This project would employ best practice street design principles to create designated space for each mode of transportation, separating pedestrians and cyclists from motor vehicle traffic, and reducing conflicts between vulnerable road users and vehicles. This improvement project would facilitate a safer experience for these vulnerable roadway users San Antonio Road Complete Street
Project 70010

FY2027-31 Capital Improvement & Major Maintenance Projects No. Project # Project Name Project Scope Strategic
Alignment Status Funding Source FY2026-27 Budget
FY2027-28
Budget
FY2028-29
Budget
FY2029-30
Budget
FY2030-31
Budget Total
36 70020 Cristo Rey Drive Investigation
The longitudinal cracking of the road and the vertical displacement of the road are such that the embankment on which the road is built may be settling unevenly and shows a possible slope instability.

Circulation Safety &
Efficiency New CIP 150,000 - - - - 150,000
37 70021 City-Owned Sidewalk Construction
This project funds the construction phase of sidewalk, curb, and gutter repairs on City-owned frontages identified through the City-owned Sidewalk Assessment (Project# 70000) and ongoing community service requests. Work includes removal and replacement of failed concrete panels, grinding or ramping of trip hazards, root pruning and root-barrier installation where tree-related damage is present, ADA-compliant curb ramp upgrades, and restoration of adjacent landscaping and pavement.

The project will locate and identify damaged sidewalk and curb/gutter and make necessary repairs that do not fall within the legal responsibility of adjacent property owners.

Circulation Safety &
Efficiency New CIP 175,000 - - - - 175,000
38 70022 FY27 Annual Traffic Sign
Replacement
There are approximately 8,000 standard roadway traffic signs throughout the City including street name signs. After time, the signs lose its reflectivity and makes it difficult for the public to see, especially at night. The Traffic Sign Replacement project provides funds to inventory and maintain and replace these signs. This project will also improve signage per the City’s Complete Streets Master Plan, where appropriate, to improve safe access for bicycles and pedestrians and safer routes to schools. When appropriate, for economies of scale, this project may be integrated with the annual street resurfacing contract. (Original)The City maintains approximately 8,000 roadway traffic signs, including street name signs. Over time, these signs lose reflectivity, reducing visibility—particularly at night—and diminishing their effectiveness. This project provides funding to inventory, maintain, and systematically replace aging or non-compliant signs. The project will also upgrade signage, where appropriate, in alignment with the City’s Complete Streets Master Plan to enhance accessibility and support safer travel for bicyclists, pedestrians, and safe routes to schools. When feasible, sign replacement work will be coordinated with the annual street resurfacing program to improve efficiency and achieve cost savings.

Circulation Safety &
Efficiency
Ongoing -
Annual RMRA 220,000 - - - - 220,000
Measure B 787,677 - - - - 787,677
RMRA 455,922 - - - - 455,922
Gas Tax 576,293 - - - - 576,293
CIP 3,035,671 - - - - 3,035,671
Gas Tax 555,159 - - - - 555,159
VRF 370,106 - - - - 370,106
39 40
Ongoing -
Annual
Circulation Safety &
Efficiency
The annual street resurfacing project includes milling and an overlay of asphalt concrete (AC) on existing street surfaces that are approaching the end of their useful life, as evidenced by cracking and minor pavement failures. Priority was given to streets that is been identified as safe route to school.
70023 FY27 Annual Street Resurfacing
Ongoing -
Annual
Circulation Safety &
Efficiency
Roadway striping and markers throughout the City need to be refreshed on a regular basis. Adjustments of striping on existing roadway to reduce conflicts are also considered. Visibility of pavement markings is important to prevent traffic accidents and improve traffic flow. 70024 FY27 Annual Street Striping

FY2027-31 Capital Improvement & Major Maintenance Projects No. Project # Project Name Project Scope Strategic
Alignment Status Funding Source FY2026-27 Budget
FY2027-28
Budget
FY2028-29
Budget
FY2029-30
Budget
FY2030-31
Budget Total
Measure B 30,157 - - - - 30,157
Gas Tax 649,968 - - - - 649,968
VRF 725,361 - - - - 725,361
CIP 531,252 - - - - 531,252
42 80000 Chamber AV Equipment Upgrade
Replacement and upgrade of audio-visual equipment in the City Council Chambers to improve meeting reliability, broadcast quality, and public accessibility of City meetings.

General
Government Active PEG 29,486 - - - - 29,486
43 80001 Police Records Management &
Dispatch System
Procurement of regional tri-city (Los Altos, Mountain View & Palo Alto) “virtual consolidation” public safety information system, which includes the sharing of a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system, Records Management System (RMS), Field Based Reporting (FBR) and Mobile for Public Safety (MPS) system. These enterprise-wide applications will serve as the centerpiece for the larger project including a common 9-1-1 phone system and a shared police radio frequency. It will provide both technical and physical redundancy for all three cities.

Public Safety Active CIP 247,000 - - - - 247,000
41 Ongoing -
Annual
Circulation Safety &
Efficiency
This project slurry- or micro-seals City streets annually, including cutout and repair of minor pavement failures. The seal typically places a thin layer of sand and oil over City streets. Neighborhood streets should receive a surface treatment (slurry seal) other than an overlay about every seven years. Sealing is a preventative maintenance treatment that prevents moisture from penetrating the pavement and softening the base material supporting the pavement.
70025 FY27 Annual Street Slurry Seal

FY2027-31 Capital Improvement & Major Maintenance Projects No. Project # Project Name Project Scope Strategic
Alignment Status Funding Source FY2026-27 Budget
FY2027-28
Budget
FY2028-29
Budget
FY2029-30
Budget
FY2030-31
Budget Total
44 80004 IT Enhancement
The project originates from the IT Initiatives CIP, which has been carried out since FY 2016-17. After performing critical updates to the City's infrastructure (fiber internet, 10Gb switches, HA Firewalls, Wi-Fi, cloud VoIP, etc.), IT continues to deliver additional enhancements to support the City's operations. The enhancements include data center modernization (server rack reconfiguration, hyperconverged system, Virtualization platform, UPS, backup solution), business applications (TRAKiT, ArcGIS, AppEnhancer, etc.), physical security (simplified camera system and door access readers), and software solutions on cybersecurity (Managed Detection & Responses, Endpoint and Ransomware Protection), and AI-powered solutions. The City's IT Department also continues to perform hardware refresh and software upgrades to keep our IT environment up to date, and enhance the IT experience for all City staff.

General
Government
Ongoing -
Annual Technology 611,503 - - - - 611,503
45 90001 Sewer System Management Plan
Update
In accordance with State requirements, this project will update the City of Los Altos Sewer System Management Plan. The updating is typically done by a sewer management consultant. The update of the SSMP will be based on compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Sanitary Sewer Discharge Requirements (WDR).

Environmental
Sustainability Active Sewer 98,771 50,000 25,000 25,000 50,000 248,771 46 90002 Annual Root Foaming
Annual sewer maintenance program that applies chemical root-control foam to City sewer mains to remove invasive tree roots and prevent regrowth, reducing the risk of blockages and sanitary sewer overflows.

Environmental
Sustainability
Ongoing -
Annual Sewer 170,266 - - - - 170,266
47 90003 Document Scanning
The Document Scanning project includes the conversion of hardcopy documents into digital format and the maintenance of the operating software for the storage and retrieval of documents. This project increases efficiency in work flow for the creation , maintenance, preservation, and retrieval of project records and documentation, which improves the overall utilization of resources including space and staff time.

Environmental
Sustainability Active Sewer 450,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 1,050,000 48 90005 Sanitary Sewer Video Inspection
As sewer system networks age, the risk of deterioration, blockages, and collapses become a major concern. Cleaning and inspecting sewer lines is essential to maintaining a properly functioning system. These activities further a community’s reinvestment into its wastewater infrastructure.

Inspection programs are required to determine current sewer conditions and to aid in planning a maintenance or rehabilitation strategy. Closedcircuit television (CCTV) inspections are the most frequently used, most cost efficient, and most effective method to inspect the internal condition of a sewer.The 2013 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update recommends full video inspection of the sanitary sewer system every 5 years. Current system CCTV data was last collected between 2021 and 2023.

Environmental
Sustainability Active Sewer 878,983 440,000 440,000 440,000 440,000 2,638,983

FY2027-31 Capital Improvement & Major Maintenance Projects No. Project # Project Name Project Scope Strategic
Alignment Status Funding Source FY2026-27 Budget
FY2027-28
Budget
FY2028-29
Budget
FY2029-30
Budget
FY2030-31
Budget Total
49 90006 Adobe Creek Sewer Main
Replacement
The project involves rehabilitation and partial realignment of approximately 6,580 linear feet of sewer main along Adobe Creek. The construction of the project is to be completed in four phases. Obtaining permits with regulatory agencies to work near and within the creek requires additional time, coordination, environmental submittal review, and overall project management.

Environmental
Sustainability Active Sewer 491,908 - - - - 491,908

FY2027-31 Capital Improvement & Major Maintenance Projects No. Project # Project Name Project Scope Strategic
Alignment Status Funding Source FY2026-27 Budget
FY2027-28
Budget
FY2028-29
Budget
FY2029-30
Budget
FY2030-31
Budget Total
50 90007 FY27 Annual Sewer System Repair
Program
The 2013 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update recommended
replacement of segments of pips located at various locations throughout the City that are included in the focused cleaning schedule that have severe sags. Such sags can cause accumulation of debris and grease which necessitates frequent cleaning.

Environmental
Sustainability New Sewer 235,000 - - - - 235,000
51 90008 Sewer Flow Metering - Los Altos
Hills Conveyance
This project will install permanent flow meters on sewers conveying Los Altos Hills wastewater into the City system. The meters will provide continuous flow data to replace the current per-household allocation method with cost sharing based on measured wastewater flows. Project elements include evaluating existing and proposed meter locations, confirming site feasibility (access, power, and communications), constructing permanent meters, and conducting a monitoring and validation period before full implementation for billing, inter-agency coordination and long-term agreements. The anticipated project duration is approximately 2-3 years.

Environmental
Sustainability New Sewer 150,000 1,350,000 - - - 1,500,000 52 90010 FY27 Annual Fats, Oils, Grease
Program (FOG)
State-mandated source-control program that inspects food-service establishments and educates customers on best management practices to keep fats, oils, and grease out of the sanitary sewer system.

Environmental
Sustainability
Ongoing -
Annual Sewer 67,308 54,000 56,000 58,000 60,000 295,308 53 90011 FY27 Annual Structural Reach
Replacement
Annual capital program to replace segments of sanitary sewer main with moderate-to-severe structural defects identified through CCTV inspection, in implementation of the 2013 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update.

Environmental
Sustainability
Ongoing -
Annual Sewer 1,264,680 225,000 900,000 225,000 900,000 3,514,680 TOTAL 28,613,976 2,419,000 1,571,000 898,000 1,600,000 35,101,976

City of Los Altos 2026 Tentative Council Agenda Calendar All items and dates are tentative and subject to change unless a specific date has been noticed for a legally required Public Hearing.

Items may be added or removed from the shown date at any time and for any reason prior to the publication of the agenda.

June 9, 2026
Regular Meeting – 7:00 p.m.

CONSENT:
• Annual Street Resurfacing Program
• Adoption of Property Evidence
• Authorizing Submittal of Grant Applications (CalRecycle) • Vacancy Report from HR
• Adopt Resolution Calling for November Election (2 District Candidate Seats) • Administration Building Conversion
PUBLIC HEARING:
• FY 26/27 Budget Adoption
DISCUSSION:
• Downtown One Way
• Intro of Sidewalk Ordinance

City of Los Altos 2026 Tentative Council Agenda Calendar All items and dates are tentative and subject to change unless a specific date has been noticed for a legally required Public Hearing.

Items may be added or removed from the shown date at any time and for any reason prior to the publication of the agenda.

June 23, 2026
Study Session – Halsey House – 5:00 p.m.

Regular Meeting – 7:00 p.m.

CONSENT:
• Adopt Sidewalk Ordinance
• Adopt Resolution for the Citizen’s Initiative
• Award Contract for Document Scanning
DISCUSSION:
• Downtown One Way Circulation
• Advisory Ballot Measure
The remaining 2026 City Council agenda calendar items are pending and will be published at a later date.

PROGRAM SUB PROJECT INITIATION DATE HEU COMPLETION DATE STATUS Program 2.D: Encourage and streamline Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

Budget & Hire Planning
Technician December 31, 2022 COMPLETED
Program 2.D: Encourage and streamline Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

Amend ADU Ordinance
based upon HCD's letter 6 months or less COMPLETED
Program 6.G: Housing mobility
Allow more than one
JADU (at least two per
site)
with ADU Ordinance
Update COMPLETED
Program 3.H: Amend design review process and
requirements.

Eliminate 3rd Party
Architectural Review February 28, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 3.H: Amend design review process and
requirements.

Dismiss Design Review
Commission February 28, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 3.L: Eliminate the requirement of story poles. March 31, 2023 COMPLETED Program 2.E: Conduct annual ADU rental income surveys.

Budget & Hire Housing
Program 4.J: Facilitate alternate modes of transportation for Manager March 31, 2023 COMPLETED residents.

Adopt VMT Policy &
Transportation Demand June 30, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 2.D: Encourage and streamline Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

RFP-Permit Ready ADU
Plans July 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 1.H: Facilitate housing on City-owned sites. Financial Analysis July 1, 2023 December 31, 2023 COMPLETED Program 3.D: Evaluate and adjust impact fees. August 1, 2023 December 31, 2024 COMPLETED Program 1.H: Facilitate housing on City-owned sites. Release RFP December 31, 2023 COMPLETED Program 6.C: Target housing development in highest
resource areas. Initial Outreach September 31, 2023 COMPLETED Program 6.D: Promote Housing Choice (Section 8) rental
assistance program. September 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 2.A: Continue to implement and enhance
inclusionary housing requirements. December 31, 2023 ONGOING Program 2.B: Establish an affordable housing in-lieu fee and commercial linkage fee. Housing in-lieu fee. December 31, 2023 COMPLETED Program 2.F: Water and Sewer Service Providers. December 31, 2023 COMPLETED Program 3.B: Modify building height in mixed-use zoning districts. Downtown Districts December 31, 2023 COMPLETED Program 3.E: Ensure that the density bonus ordinance
remains consistent with State law. December 31, 2023 ONGOING

Program 3.H: Amend design review process and
requirements. Code Amendments December 31, 2023 COMPLETED Program 3.K: Standardize multimodal transportation
requirements.

Bicycle Storage and
Charging Regulations December 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 3.K: Standardize multimodal transportation
requirements.

Remove CSC Review of
Housing Developments December 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 4.C: Allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers
consistent with AB 101. December 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 4.D: Allow transitional and supportive housing
consistent with State law. December 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 4.E: Allow employee/farmworker housing
consistent with State law. December 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 4.F: Reasonably accommodate disabled persons’
housing needs. December 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 6.B: Maintain and expand an inventory of affordable housing funding sources. Prepare Inventory. December 31, 2023 COMPLETED Program 6.E: Prepare and distribute anti-displacement
information. December 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 1.A: Rezone for RHNA shortfall. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED Program 1.G: Rezone housing sites from previous Housing Elements. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 3.G: Amend Conditional Use Permits findings
applicable to housing developments. March 31, 2024 COMPLETED Program 3.I: Allow residential care facilities consistent with State law. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 3.J: Explicitly allow manufactured homes consistent with State law. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 3.F: Reduce Conditional Use Permit requirement for residential mixed-use and
multi-family. September 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 1.B: Facilitate higher density housing in the
Commercial Thoroughfare (CT) District. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED Program 1.C: Allow housing in the Office Administrative (OA) District. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED

Program 1.E: Update the Loyola Corners Specific Plan. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED Program 2.D: Encourage and streamline Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

Adopt-Permit Ready ADU
Plans December 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 3.A: Prepare a Downtown parking plan and update citywide parking requirements. Downtown Parking Plan December 31, 2024 COMPLETED Program 3.A: Prepare a Downtown parking plan and update citywide parking requirements.

Comprehensive Parking
Ordinance Update December 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 3.B: Modify building height in mixed-use zoning districts.

Commercial
Neighborhood (CN)
District December 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 3.C: Remove floor-to-area ratio (FAR) restriction at Rancho Shopping Center and
Woodland Plaza. December 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 3.M: Modify parking requirements for emergency
shelters consistent with State
law. December 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 2.B: Establish an affordable housing in-lieu fee and commercial linkage fee. Commercial linkage fee. December 31, 2025 COMPLETED Program 1.D: Allow housing on certain Public and
Community Facilities District sites and
facilitate housing on religious institution properties. December 31, 2025 IN-PROGRESS Program 6.G: Housing mobility
Allow housing on all
religious sites within the
City December 31, 2025 IN-PROGRESS
Program 1.F: Rezone Village Court parcel. December 31, 2025 COMPLETED Program 4.H: Provide additional density bonuses and
incentives for housing that accommodates special needs
groups. December 31, 2025 IN-PROGRESS
Program 4.I: Allow senior housing with extended care
facilities in multi-family and mixed-use zoning districts. December 31, 2025 IN-PROGRESS Program 1.I: Incentivize Downtown lot consolidation. July 31, 2026 Program 4.G: Assist seniors to maintain and rehabilitate their homes. July 31, 2026 ONGOING
Program 6.C: Target housing development in highest
resource areas. Follow-up Outreach September 31, 2026

Program 1.H: Facilitate housing on City-owned sites. Entitlement Review December 31, 2026 Program 3.N: Modify standards in the R3 zoning districts. December 31, 2026 COMPLETED Program 4.J: Facilitate alternate modes of transportation for residents.

Capital Improvement
Project for above head
pedestrian crossing
signals on San Antonio
Road near Downtown Los
Altos December 31, 2027
Program 5.F: Incentivize the creation of play areas for multifamily housing projects. December 31, 2027 Program 1.K: Participate in regional housing needs planning efforts. Ongoing ONGOING
Program 1.L: General Plan amendments. Ongoing ONGOING
Program 1.M: SB 9 implementation. Ongoing ONGOING
Program 1.N: Facilitate and monitor pipeline housing
projects. Ongoing ONGOING
Program 2.C: Assist in securing funding for affordable
housing projects. Ongoing ONGOING
Program 2.D: Encourage and streamline Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Ongoing ONGOING
Program 2.E: Conduct annual ADU rental income surveys. Annual Survey Annually ONGOING Program 4.A: Support efforts to fund homeless services. Ongoing ONGOING Program 4.B: Continue to participate in local and regional forums for homelessness,
supportive, and transitional housing. Ongoing ONGOING
Program 5.A: Monitor condominium conversions. Ongoing ONGOING Program 5.B: Continue to administer the City’s affordable housing programs. Ongoing ONGOING
Program 5.C: Restrict commercial uses from displacing
residential neighborhoods. Ongoing ONGOING
Program 5.D: Implement voluntary code inspection program. Ongoing ONGOING Program 5.E: Help secure funding for housing rehabilitation and assistance programs. Ongoing ONGOING

Program 6.A: Assist residents with housing discrimination and landlord-tenant
complaints. Ongoing ONGOING
Program 6.B: Maintain and expand an inventory of affordable housing funding sources.

Inform, Evaluate
Apply/Submit Ongoing ONGOING
Program 6.F: Affirmatively market physically accessible units. Ongoing ONGOING Program 7.A: Promote energy and water conservation and
greenhouse gas reduction
through education and awareness campaigns. Ongoing ONGOING Program 7.B: Monitor and implement thresholds and
statutory requirements of climate change legislation. Ongoing ONGOING

DATE: 05/26/2026
TO: COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
SUBJECT: COUNCIL Q&A FOR MAY 26, 2026 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Agenda Item 1 (Minutes):
• Future Agenda Items: Councilmember Dailey decided not to request a future agenda item.

Answer: See redlined minutes.
• In the proclamation, corrections should be made to the organization name, which is Silicon Valley @ Home, and to the name of the recipient, Cory Wolbach.

Answer: See redlined minutes.
• Councilmember Dailey did not end up making a motion for a future agenda item.

Answer: See redlined minutes.
• Pete Dailey, Councilmember – Requested a future agenda item:
o Discussion regarding the process for grant funding issuance (Supported by) My recollection is that Councilmember Dailey raised this idea earlier, but when the appropriate time in the meeting arrived, he declined to pursue it. But if that recollection is incorrect, the “Supported by” note should be completed.

Answer: See redlined minutes.

Agenda Item 2 (COPS Grant):
• Technology and software: Will any of the proposed purchases require ongoing recurring payments?
Answer: For technology or software items, there could possibly be recurring payments, depending on what was purchased. However, we have not selected any specific technology or software items yet for purchase with the COPS grant.

We would typically pay for 2-3 years worth of ongoing cost with the COPS grant.

If we wanted to continue usage of the technology or software after that timeframe, we would add it into the operating budget.

Agenda Item 3 (Memo of Understanding with LAMEA):
• In Attachment 2, the MOU in 13.1 - Observed Holidays needs to be updated since it still shows March 31 as Cesar Chavez Day which has since been renamed.

Answer: We will update accordingly. Thank you for catching that. • Previous Council Consideration -
October 11, 2022 – Resolution No. 2022-70: Adopt the Side Letter to Extend the Memorandum of Understanding with LAMEA by two additional years to June 30, 2026.

Two additional years would have been 2024. Why the inconsistency? Answer: The Memorandum of Understanding originally adopted by Council on October 11, 2022, covered the period from July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2024. The approved side letter extended that agreement by two additional years, resulting in a new expiration date of June 30, 2026. • What is the likely impact moving health contribution from 3 percent increases to matching the Kaiser premiums? At least in theory, Kaiser decisions could significantly increase the City’s obligations, correct? What are the history of Kaiser increases?
Answer: For Calendar Year 2026, the average CalPERS Bay Area Region 1 PPO Increase was 12.08% and the average HMO increase was 6.48%.

Kaiser’s Calendar Year 2026 increase was 5.05% and has
been historically remained relatively moderate compared to other healthcare plans.

The city anticipates the fiscal impact of this change will be approximately $45K annually beginning in calendar year 2029, though actual costs will depend on future health premium increases, employee enrollment selection, and staffing levels. Approximately 70% of employees represented by LAMEA currently participate in Kaiser Plans.

While tying contributions to Kaiser rates may create greater variability in future City costs compared to fixed percentage increases, the structure more closely aligns with actual healthcare costs, supports internal and external equity, and current market practices among peer cities.

• Are the vacation payouts designed to ensure employees still, in fact, take time off to rest and rejuvenate?
Answer: Yes. The vacation cash-out provisions were
intentionally structured with safeguards to ensure employees continue to utilize vacation leave for rest and rejuvenation. Employees are required to maintain minimum accrued vacation balance of forty (40) hours following any cash-out, and the provisions include limitations on timing and eligible payout amounts.

In addition to this, there is financial benefit to paying for vacation cashouts at an employee’s current rate of pay as opposed to paying at retirement or separation, when the employee’s hourly rate is likely higher. • Has the adoption and use of artificial intelligence been discussed with LAMEA? Answer: Artificial intelligence was not a formal negotiation topic during successor MOU discussions. However, the city recognizes how evolving technologies may impact administrative and operational practices over time. The city plans to address once leadership has a clearer understanding of where AI tools will be initially implemented. Currently, AI tools are being piloted with members of the leadership and management teams.

Agenda Item 4 (Resolutions - 999 Fremont Avenue):
• Will the transfer of funding from the two Fire Station allocations have any impact on the ongoing plans for annexing into the Santa Clara County Central Fire District? Answer: No. There will no impact to the annexation. The City has budgeted seperatly for the $1.5M one-time payment to the County as part of the transfer of buildings and land to their control.
• What sort of public engagement is envisioned at 999 Fremont? Answer: Please see the answer below.
• What data is available about police officer use of the property? Seeking to understand if this is a productive use of a city asset, as opposed to finding a purpose for an abrupt acquisition.

Answer: The substation will be used for various purposes. Some of the uses will be the following: to meet community members who need to file a police report and who live in the southern part of town; to interview victims and/or witnesses in the interview room at the substation; to serve as a breakroom/bathroom for officers; to allow officers to write their reports at the substation rather than returning to the Police Department in order to keep them in their “beat” so they can respond quickly to calls in the southern part of Los Altos; and to provide officers with sleep rooms for those who have long commutes after working overtime or for those who have to go to court in the middle of the day after working a midnight shift.

Agenda Item 5 (Contract Extension with Flock Safety):
• The staff report says that the interface to perform a search now has a drop-down menu to select the reason for the search. It then goes on to mention “keywords” like “abortion” and “immigration?” Are those keywords part of the drop-down menu? Or is there a separate place to enter keywords?
Answer: There is a separate space to enter keywords, but it is not required to enter a keyword in order to run a search. However, it is required to select a crime type from the drop-down menu in order to run a search. • We are told that when nationwide queries included our data, that there were ten searches for information in violation of our policy. We were also told that since the searching agencies’ reason for the search did not comport with our policy, that no data was provided in response. Is it actually the case the search was not performed on our data, or was there simply no “hit” to report from our data? (There is a difference between law enforcement not performing a search because there is no probable cause to do so versus law enforcement performing an unwarranted search and finding nothing incriminating.)
Answer: Nationwide queries did not include our data and there were not searches in violation of our policy. Nationwide look-up was turned on and there were some out-of-state agencies that appeared on our network audit. However, just because an agency appears on our network audit, it does not mean: 1) they had access to our camera data, 2) they searched our camera data, or 3) they were granted permission to view our system. The network audit simply identifies agencies that are part of the broader Flock

Safety network during the selected time period. It is not limited to agencies that have access to or have conducted searches of our department’s data.

Several months ago, Flock changed their audit procedures for network audits.

Now, instead of showing all the agencies in the entire Flock network in a network audit, the network audits only show other agencies that actually ran searches that included the Los Altos Police Department cameras. Additionally, Flock made another change to the network audits.

Now, the network audit will show if any data was shared with the other agency who ran a search. We can now clearly see which agencies searched our cameras and whether or not they got a “hit.” This was not possible when nationwide and statewide search were turned on. It was a change Flock made to enhance transparency several months ago and it gives us a comprehensive audit trail of who exactly searched our data and whether or not they received any data.
• Why was the public comment we received prior to the packet being published excluded? Council members repeatedly advise members of the public to submit their written comment well before a meeting. Our website says “Public comments submitted by 5:00 PM of the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet.” [Original emphasis.] https://www.losaltosca.gov/296/PublicComments?utm_source=copilot.com Answer: Written Public Comment is included in the packet by noon on the date of the meeting. Comments received after noon will be added by 2pm. • Why was our contract with Flock not included in the packet? Answer: It is attached here.
• Are we extending the term of the existing contract with Flock or are we entering into a new contract? If a new contract, please provide a copy of the proposed contract.

Answer: We are extending the term of the current contract. The Master Services Agreement has a twenty-four (24) month auto-renewal every two years unless Flock is notified 30 days ahead of the renewal date that the City is not extending.
• What is the rate of residential burglaries for agencies using Flock ALPR’s vs. the rate of residential burglaries for agencies that do not use ALPR’s in the Bay Area?

Answer: The City of Los Altos does not have access to this data. We can only report on our own data and we have seen a 41% decline in residential burglaries since installing the cameras.
• For agencies in the Bay Area that have elected to stop using Flock ALPR’s, what has been the impact to their residential burglary rate?
Answer: The City of Los Altos does not have access to this data. We can only report on our own data and we have seen a 41% decline in residential burglaries since installing the cameras.
• Section 5.3 of our contract with Flock says:
“Subject to and during the retention Period, Flock ay access, use, preserve and/or disclose the Footage to law enforcement authorities, government officials, and/or third parties, if legally required to do so.”
ICE has an Acquisition and Use of License Plate Reader Data from a Commercial Service PIA which documents ICE’s intention to procure access to ALPR data. In the Privacy Impact Assessment for the Acquisition and Use of License Plate Reader (LPR) Data from a Commercial Service, the document explains:
“The LPR vendor is not permitted to share ICE query information with third parties without ICE’s express permission, including other customers, business parties, an any other individual or entity.”
Taken together, doesn’t section 5.3 of our contract with Flock allow Flock to comply with ICE requests for information? If so, doesn’t federal (ICE) law prohibit Flock from informing the City if ICE demanded a search of our records? My concern is that our network audits wouldn’t show impermissible use of the City’s data because Flock is prohibited from disclosing ICE inquiries.

Answer: In Section 5.3, Flock is referring to a situation if they were to receive a search warrant, etc, from another law enforcement agency, and they would have to comply with the search warrant. They would still not be legally allowed to share our data with federal agencies, including ICE, FBI, etc, since this is prohibited by law. Flock uses blanket language in their contacts since laws differ state-to-state. In not accessible to federal agencies, including the FBI and ICE. The Flock Safety platform includes California-specific protections

that are enforced technically within the system, not just through policy or contract.

As a result:
o Los Altos PD data is not discoverable by any federal agency, including the FBI.
o We do not have the ability to share our system or cameras with federal agencies, nor can any federal entity access our data.
o The National Lookup feature is disabled for all California agencies, further preventing any cross-jurisdictional querying at the federal level. • The staff report says:
“Because Los Altos does not have traffic cameras and City-owned surveillance cameras like many neighboring jurisdictions, the department is even more reliant on ALPR cameras to help generate leads. If the department did not have ALPR cameras, the City would need to invest in traffic cameras and other City owned surveillance cameras in order to have any kind of impact on investigations” What is the cost of investing in “traffic cameras City-owned surveillance cameras?” other than cost, what is the downside to installing these tools? Answer: Staff does not know the cost of this, but could research it and report back. The downside to investing in these cameras to replace ALPR cameras would be the following:
o The cameras would most likely not be high enough resolution to record license plates.
o The Los Altos Police Department would not be able to search the system for particular vehicles, such as those wanted for crimes or associated with missing people.
o General surveillance footage requires manual review, which is extremely time consuming.
o There are no real-time alerts.
o Accuracy at night or when vehicles are in motion is often poor. o There can be broader privacy concerns from the community.

o These systems often lack detailed audit trails, retention policies, CJISoriented controls and search permissions. o No access to other agencies’ ALPR databases, which is where the Los Altos Police Department receives a tremendous benefit and generates leads for investigations.
• Please ask Flock to respond to the concerns raised in sections 1.a. and 1.b. of the memo from the Berkeley City Attorney’s memo to the members of the Berkeley City Council.

Answer: The questions were sent to Flock for a response. Flock may not be able to respond by the Q/A deadline as yesterday was a holiday. Staff will forward any responses received by Flock to the City Council and include them in the final version of the Q/A that is posted online. • If renewed, will this contract cover all 25 ALPRs including the 10 additional cameras that were approved under the most recent contract addendum in July 2025, or are the cameras that were approved in 2025 covered under a different timeline? Answer: The cameras that were approved in 2025 are covered under a different timeline. That contract will expire in July 2027. If not action is taken, the July 2027 contract will auto-renew in two year periods, teh same as the contract Council is considering at this meeting.
• Are the quarterly audits the only way we can detect whether Flock has overridden our policies through settings we may not be aware of, or are there other ways we can ensure that our settings are consistent with our policies? Answer: Staff are able to verify in our administrative settings that the settings are compliant with our policy and California law. The audits provide a secondary verification.
• It appears that more jurisdictions are sharing data with us than we are sharing with others. Does this present any issues when we want to access data from an agency with whom we don’t reciprocally share our data?
Answer: It can present issues and this exact situation happened recently. We used to share with the San Francisco Police Department, but when we restricted our sharing to just our surrounding counties, we removed San Francisco PD’s access. They reached out to our Flock Administrator the other day and asked why they were removed. They also suggested that they may remove our access to their data if we continue not to reciprocally share with

them. There may be other agencies that decide not to share with us if we do not share with them, but most agencies have not taken this stance. • Campbell is listed as a city using Flock, but according to their Councilmember Sergio Lopez: "Campbell is currently in the process of decommissioning our Flock cameras, with one already offline. We plan to move to our own in-house system for safety cameras rather than continuing to rely on outside vendors.” Have we discussed with Campbell their plans, and any possibility of collaborating? Answer: Campbell PD has an extensive surveillance system comprised of traffic cameras, City-owned live surveillance cameras, ALPR cameras and access to business-owned live-feed cameras. They also have a Real-Time Information Center (RTIC) with live monitoring of video surveillance.

They received almost a half million dollars from the Organized Retail Theft (ORT) grant, which they used over the course of several years to build their infrastructure. They also used various other grants to fund their infrastructure and systems. Doing something similar in Los Altos would not be financially possible. One of Campbell’s Flock contracts expired, but they are still in contract for the ALPR cameras received under the ORT grant, so those cameras are still operational.
• The FBI recently issued an RFP for nationwide ALPR data collection (SAM.gov SHOPPR-26-003385). If Flock were to respond, would including Los Altos cameras violate the city contract and policy, as well as state law? What recourse would the city have?
Answer: Los Altos’ cameras would not be included in the network to which the FBI would have access. Los Altos PD’s ALPR system is fully compliant with California law and is not accessible to federal agencies, nor would it be if Flock were to contract with FBI. The Flock Safety platform includes Californiaspecific protections that are enforced technically within the system, not just through policy or contract. As a result:
o Los Altos PD data is not discoverable by any federal agency, including the FBI.
o We do not have the ability to share our system or cameras with federal agencies, nor can any federal entity access our data.
o The National Lookup feature is disabled for all California agencies, further preventing any cross-jurisdictional querying at the federal level.

• Reps. Scott Perry and Chuy García recently introduced an amendment to the Highway Bill to withhold Federal funding from jurisdictions using ALPR. If it were to become law, what impact might that have on the Los Altos system? Answer: The City does not regularly receive Federal funding for projects through the Federal Highway Bill. The City is usually deemed ineligible to apply for funds. When we are eligible we do apply and currently have one project funded under Safe Streets and Roads.

If this amendment does pass it would have limited or no impact on City funds. However, Council could make a determination at that time if the potential offset of these funds would be sufficient to no longer contract wtih Flock.

Agenda Item 6 (Amend Chapter 2.24 Disposal of Unclaimed Property):
• "published in a newspaper” Would online notification also be provided? Answer: In the newspaper, there would be a link posted for the auction company. People could then go onto the auction website to see what items are up for auction and when.
• "Such notice shall specify [the time and place of sale and] the particular items to be sold.”
Presumably time and place don’t make sense anymore, because of online auctions.

But shouldn’t the notice include some information about how to bid? Answer: In the newspaper, there would be a link posted for the auction company. People could then go onto the auction website to see what items are up for auction and when. Information would be posted there on how to bid for items.

Agenda Item 7 (FY2026/27 Operating Budget and FY2027-31 Five-Year Capital & Major Maintenance Program):
• To what do we attribute the 12% decline in UUT?

Answer: The 12% decline reflects a comparison to the FY26 adopted budget, which assumed continued growth in PG&E-related UUT as rate increases from calendar 2024 and early 2025 annualized into the full fiscal year. However, actual FY26 collections tracked closer to FY25 levels, suggesting that lower taxable utility consumption offset much of the expected rate impact. This is generally consistent with continued energy efficiency improvements and the cumulative effect of rooftop solar adoption.

Telecom-related UUT also continues to face structural decline as traditional landline usage decreases, and mobile customers shift to bundled data plans with a smaller share allocated to taxable voice charges. Compared to the FY26 projection, FY27 UUT is essentially flat (-0.7%), reflecting a reset of the budget to better align with actual collection trends.
• The staff report refers to rising utility costs, which utilities costs are increasing and why?
Answer: The increase reflects several factors. PG&E rate increases over the past two fiscal years are now reflected on a full-year basis in the budget. In addition, Neutra House came online during FY26 and its utility costs were absorbed under the Los Altos Community Center budget. In FY27, those costs are budgeted separately, contributing to the increase. Utility costs for the City’s EV charging infrastructure are also being aligned with actual costs as charging stations have expanded at facilities such as the Police Department and Community Center.

Smaller increases are also reflected in parks and landscape maintenance utilities due to expanded park and streetscape areas and increased activity, along with expanded operating hours at the Community Center. Telephone and fleet fuel costs are also budgeted slightly higher in FY27.
• Although there have been reorganizations of services between departments, shouldn’t the increase in costs in one department be balanced by a commensurate decrease in another? For example, why isn’t the 24% increase in Public Works' expenses balanced (more or less) by a similar decrease in another department? Answer: While some of the increase in Public Works reflects organizational changes that are offset by reductions in other departments, the 24% increase is not solely attributable to reorganization. In addition to the reorganization, Public Works added three positions to support growing service needs, particularly in traffic-related operations. The department also added new professional services

funding, including $300,000 for Bear Electric, and $100,000 for delineators and minor striping.

Other departments also experienced cost increases beyond reorganizations.

Community Services increased due to higher utility and service costs, and Legislative and Executive increased due to expanded community engagement efforts, sustainability initiatives, and FY27 election costs. While some reorganization-related costs are offset across departments, overall expenditures increased due to additional staffing, higher operating costs, and expanded service needs.
• CIMMP #25, please provide an update on the status of our selected cafe vendor since this project appears to be significantly delayed from its originally proposed timeline; what are our options to move this forward?
Answer: The contracted designer for the changes to the Cafe space ran into delays at the end of the calendar year. The plans for the building modifications were submitted to the County last month and staff, and Ada’s, are now the process of answering County Health Department questions
to receive approval. Once the county approves, the modifications will be posted for RFP. A realistic timeline will be available once we have County approval. • CIMMPs #26 and 27 show the same costs to update Shoup and Grant Park playgrounds but I had seen elsewhere that the costs were similar but not exactly the same; what are the actual costs for each of these projects? Answer: Both projects were budgeted at $620,000 in FY26. To date, approximately $50 has been paid for CEQA filing fees, and $537,595 is currently encumbered with Playcore Wisconsin, Inc. for renovation work and Town Crier for advertising.

Any remaining balance will be rolled over to FY27.
• Line item 12400-Public Information increases by nearly 400 percent. What new communications initiatives are causing this increase? How do we measure the return on this investment?
Answer: The $432,765 increase is driven by both personnel and operating costs.

Approximately $190,000 is related to the Community Engagement Supervisor position, including salary and associated benefits. On the operating side, Professional Services increased by $125,000, due to a Citywide Communications Strategy ($97,000) and annual website costs ($28,000). Other Services increased by $26,000, for resident mailers ($20,000) and printing services ($6,000) to support community outreach. Software Subscriptions increased by $27,260 for social

media management, email outreach, website accessibility monitoring, graphic design, and public records retention of social media content. These subscriptions were previously budgeted under the Information Technology Department and are now budgeted within individual departments.
• Line item 41200-Traffic Control doubles. What is the cause of this substantial increase?
Answer: The approximately $860,000 increase is driven by both personnel and operating costs. Approximately $460,000 is related to personnel costs, including three positions that will impact the full year of FY2027 (Engineering Manager, Construction Inspector, and Assistant Engineer), together with associated salary and benefits. In addition, payroll allocation for one Assistant Engineer position was redirected to Traffic Control based on actual job responsibilities.

On the operating side, Professional Services increased by approximately $330,000, primarily due to an on-call electrical contract with Bear Electric for traffic signal repairs and electrical work, along with traffic engineering support for development review. Special Departmental Supplies increased by $100,000 for delineators and minor striping work to be completed in-house rather than through project contracts.
• Line item 03 PERS Reserve goes from $7M to zero. What is the motivation for that change?
Answer: The decrease is due to the planned use of the PERS Reserve for one-time Additional Discretionary Payments (ADPs) toward the City’s CalPERS unfunded liability. Of the $7 million reserve balance, $5 million was included in the FY26 adopted budget, and an additional $2 million was approved during the mid-year budget process. These payments were made to reduce future pension costs and unfunded liability, based on discussions with the City’s actuary regarding longterm cost savings and risk reduction. Following completion of the FY26 audit, staff will review available surplus and evaluate whether to replenish the reserve. • Line item 35 Solid Waste Fund includes a $500k transfer. Why does this service require a subsidy from the general fund?
Answer: The Solid Waste Fund requires a General Fund transfer because the Fund does not generate sufficient revenue to cover the City’s costs. Residents pay trash and recycling fees directly to the franchised hauler, so the Fund’s revenues are limited to administrative charges, AB939 fees, and interest income. These

revenues are not sufficient to cover franchise oversight, state-mandated compliance reporting, public education, and contract administration costs.

In FY26-27, Solid Waste Fund revenues are budgeted at approximately $1.20 million compared to expenditures of $2.36 million, creating a structural shortfall. The $500,000 transfer helps slow the depletion of fund reserves while staff develop a long-term cost recovery strategy.

Questions forwarded and answered by FLOCK:

Request to have Flock respond to concerns raised in a memo from the Berkeley City Attorney. The version of the document in the public domain is very difficult to read. In particular, I would like Flock's response to this portion of the memo:

1. The MSA Cannot Fully Protect the City from Unauthorized Sharing. i. The Reported Incidents involving Flock Suggest it May Not Be Able to Comply with Strict Contractual Obligations Not to Share Data
…
First, we are concerned based on reported and unreported incidents involving Flock, that it may not have adequate protocols to ensure compliance with its contracts and/or applicable state or federal laws. In Mountain View, for instance, we understand from conversations with their CAO that Flock reactivation of the national lookup feature violated its contract with the city. It is likely that Flock's alleged reactivation of this feature via software updates violated its contracts with other cities as well. Even without an express prohibition on software updates that chain sharing settings, it is a breach of contract for Flock to share data with third parties in violation of contractual commitments not to share data. Flock's procedures for ensuring compliance with state law similarly may be insufficient. Even though SB54 has required limits on sharing data with federal immigration enforcement for almost ten years, and Flock’s Standard MSA in Section 11.1 requires all parties, including Flock, to comply with state law, Flock has seemingly failed to comply with this obligation on many occasions. While Flock asserts that it has fixed the issue with National Lookup, the reported incidents raise concerns that it has inadequate compliance controls that could be an issue in the future - for example, in the event California passes a new law with which Flock must comply. We also note that the Mountain View City Attorney's Office informed us confidentially that in their view, the issue may be less with Flock's legal compliance capabilities or intentions and more with its software

engineering. In this view, Flock may not be capable of programming its software to the level needed to mitigate risk. They cited issues with corrupt datasets and faulty programming, which cannot be fixed by any contract language, even if Flock's legal team makes every effort to ensure compliance.

Second, Flock's negotiations with the City raised further concerns. After agreeing to language specifically requiring the city's written consent to disclosing data to third party requesters, it sent the City order forms that could have overridden those provisions. After CAO corrected those changes, Flock then set the City a boilerplate amendment, which it claimed to be implementing across all jurisdictions, that, again, would have overridden CAO’s changes to the MSA and given Flock discretion to disclose some data to third parties without the City's consent. We cannot be sure if Flock's amendments reflect an intentional attempt to discreetly revise the City's previous edits without notifying us, or rather just involve a failure to recognize inconsistencies between its standard boilerplate and the City's requests, but either possibility is troubling.

Third, while Flock's willingness to agree to major contract changes without further discussion is encouraging in some respects, it also raises the possibility that Flock may not fully appreciate the substantial departures from its standard operating practices that Berkeley is requesting. For instance, Flock will likely need to make significant technical changes to its software if Berkeley requires it to turn off machine learning or audio updating features. Flock will also need to ensure that whatever data practices it is following for noncalifornia customers or other California customers, it follows different, stricter protocols for Berkeley. This will require a robust compliance operation with significant attention to detail, which Flock has not demonstrated to date. Such an operation is also expensive and a serious commitment for a large nationwide company to make for one mid-size jurisdiction.

Given this, Flock's seeming willingness to agree to major overhauls the city proposes – coupled with widespread media reports of other jurisdictions canceling their Flock contracts, which likely has put pressure on the company – suggests that Flock may be willing to agree to major MSA changes to secure a deal, even though its technical team will not, in practice, be able to implement them.

Fourth, the various alleged incidents involving Flock suggest that there may be tension between Flock's business model and customers’ right to control their own data. Flock is a startup that appears to encourage its customers to share as much data as possible to improve Flock’s service and to help the company grow. Flock has advertised, for instance, the successful apprehension of the Brown University shooter across state lines as a selling point of wide jurisdiction should purchase Flock products and enable broad cross

jurisdictional data sharing. Strict curbs on cross-jurisdictional sharing limit the usefulness of Flock’s database and therefore its attractiveness as a service.

In short, the nature of Flock's business as a growing startup with limited compliance capacity, coupled with its past conduct, suggests that there may still be a significant risk of the city's data being shared with third parties in an unauthorized manner, regardless of the language of the MSA.

2. If Flock Does Not Comply with Limits on Data Sharing, the City’s Remedies Will Be Limited.
…
First, the City’s remedies against Flock will likely be limited to money damages. The City does not have the power to prosecute Flock in court for state or federal law violations or to obtain injunctive relief to force Flock to comply with the contract as injunctive relief is typically unavailable in contract cases. [Citations]
Second, the stipulated penalty to which Flock has agreed has substantial limitations. We understand that Flock has agreed to a clause providing that in the event Flock causes an “Unauthorized Sharing,” Flock shall pay to Customer as a penalty the sum of $150.00 per Violation. A “Violation” is defined as a “single discrete act or incident of unauthorized disclosure . . . irrespective of the volume or number of records, cameras or data elements involved in that same act or incident.” Although this is a sign of good faith, this remedy has legal and practical limits. Legally, it requires Flock to have “caused” the “Unauthorized Sharing,” which will likely lead to litigation over whether Flock caused a particular incident and whether it was “unauthorized.” The city should also expect Flock to argue that even a massive, egregious breach of the MSA sharing hundreds of thousands of videos, amounts to a single “violation.” And practically, even if it is clear Flock has caused an unauthorized share, the city may find it difficult to recover the penalty. Flock is a national company with significant resources and would have capacity to cause a drawn out legal battle that would drain the city's coffers. The lawsuit would be especially resource intensive if the unauthorized sharing stemmed from faulty programming, given that proving software is faulty requires complex source code analysis and is notoriously challenging. Accordingly, any breach of contract lawsuit is likely to be drawn out and expensive, and may result only in a pyrrhic victory.

Finally, even if the City can recover contractual remedies, such remedies cannot, of course, compensate Berkeley residents or visitors from the harm caused by unauthorized disclosure of data. For instance, if Flock did share video footage of an undocumented

Berkeleyan with ICE, no contract remedy could protect the resident from detention and/or deportation.

Answer from FLOCK: If Flock provides answers by the deadline for this QA they will provided here. If the answers are received after the deadline, they will be forwarded to the City Council and included in the final electronic version of this QA and posted online. Given that yesterday was a holiday, it is likely Flock will not meet the initial deadline.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2026
7:00 p.m.
1 N. San Antonio Rd. ~ Los Altos, CA
Sally Meadows,, Mayor
Larry Lang, Vice Mayor
Pete Dailey, Councilmember
Jonathan D. Weinberg, Councilmember
CALL MEETING TO ORDER – Sally Meadows, Mayor, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

ESTABLISH QUORUM – All Councilmembers were present.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Sally Meadows, Mayor, led the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
There was no Closed Session meeting on May 12, 2026.

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda order.

SPECIAL ITEM
Issue Proclamation Recognizing May 2026 as Affordable Housing Month Sally Meadows, Mayor, presented the proclamation to Cory Walbach, SV Silicon Valley at Homes Representative

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
The following members of the public spoke during Public Comment:
• Julia Rapoza

CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by Lang and Second by Meadows to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

1. Approval of Meeting Minutes – Draft Regular Meeting of April 28, 2026

2. Adoption of Resolution — Authorizing the increase of Solid Waste Collection Rates by 4.9041%
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the increase of Solid Waste Collection Rates by 4.9041%, effective July 1, 2026

3. Adoption of Resolution - Purchase of two Parks Maintenance Vehicles Adopt a resolution to approve the purchase of two Parks Maintenance vehicles. One ETransit Van for the irrigation crew and one dump-bed truck for general park material transport

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 12, 2026

DISCUSSION ITEMS

4. Review of Contributions - Non-Profit and Civic Organizations Review non-profit and civic organization contribution applications and direct staff to incorporate funding into the budget for FY 26-27
The City Council asked representatives from organizations with representatives present to discuss their request for funding:
• Maddy McBirney and Karen Zucker – Arts Los Altos
• Mary Gloner and Amy Gibson – CASSY
• Jan McDaniel – Compassion Week
• Abi Karlin-Resnick and Amy Gibson– Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation Summit
Motion by Lang and Second by Dailey to approve funding to Arts Los Altos, in the amount of $45,000. Motion failed due to a tie vote, with Councilmember Dailey and Vice Mayor Lang voting in favor; Councilmember Weinberg and Mayor Meadows opposed.

Motion by Lang and Second by Meadows to approve funding to CASSY, in the amount of $10,000. Motion failed by roll call vote, with Councilmember Lang in favor, and Councilmember Dailey, Councilmember Weinberg, and Mayor Meadows opposed.

Motion by Lang and Second by Dailey to approve funding for Compassion Week, in the amount of $5,500. Motion failed due to a tie vote, with Councilmember Dailey and Vice Mayor Lang voting in favor; Councilmember Weinberg and Mayor Meadows opposed.

Motion by Lang and Second by Meadows to approve funding for the Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation Summit, in the amount of $10,000. Motion carried 3-1 by roll call vote, with Councilmember Weinberg opposed.

The City Council did not make a motion to approve funding for Live Oak Adult Day Services.

The City Council did not make a motion to approve funding for Loved Twice.

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS • Pete Dailey, Councilmember – Requested a future agenda item:
o Discussion regarding the process for grant funding issuance (Supported byRequest withdrawn)
ADJOURNMENT – The regular meeting adjourned at 8:59 p.m.

The meeting minutes were prepared by Melissa Thurman, City Clerk, for approval at the regular meeting on May 26, 2026.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 12, 2026

_________________________________ __________________________________ Sally Meadows Melissa Thurman, MMC
Mayor City Clerk
The May 12, 2026, City Council meeting recording may be viewed via the following external website: https://www.youtube.com/@CityofLosAltosCA
The City of Los Altos does not own or operate YouTube. The video referenced in these minutes was live at the time the minutes were published.