Los Altos City Council
May 26, 2026

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
May 26, 2026 - 7:00 PM
In Person
PARTICIPATION: Members of the public are invited to participate by attending the meeting at the Los Altos Council Chamber, located at Los Altos City Hall, 1 N. San Antonio Rd, Los Altos, CA, during the meeting.

Public comments are accepted in person at the physical meeting location or via email to [email protected] or through the Public Comment forum on the city website: Public Comments Form.

RULES FOR CONDUCT: According to Los Altos Municipal Code, Section 2.05.010 "Interruptions and rules for conduct": Understanding that the purpose of the city council meetings is to conduct the people's business for the benefit of all the people, in the event that any meeting of the city council is willfully interrupted by a person or group of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of the meeting impossible, the mayor, mayor pro tem, or any other member of the city council acting as the chair may order the removal of the person or persons responsible for the disruption and bar them from further attendance at the council meeting, or otherwise proceed pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.0 or any applicable penal statute or city ordinance.

REMOTE MEETING OBSERVATION: Members of the public may view the meeting via the link below, but will not be permitted to provide public comment via Zoom or telephone. Public comments will be accepted in person, and members of the public may submit written comments by following the instructions below. https://losaltosca-gov.zoom.us/j/97177719250?pwd=IGrOuuHa1lsvAxsVrEsVY7TjuaQbMh.1 Telephone: 1-669-444-9171 / Webinar ID: 971 7771 9250 / Passcode: 585042 SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS: Before the meeting, comments on matters listed on the agenda may be emailed to [email protected]. Emailed public comments sent directly to the City Council, either as a group or individually, will not be included in the agenda packet but may be disclosable as part of a public records request. Emails sent to [email protected] will be included in the appropriate agenda packet and are also disclosable as part of a public records request.

Please note: Personal information, such as e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, home addresses, and other contact information, is not required to be included with your comments. If this information is included in your written comments, it will become part of the public record. Redactions and/or edits will not be made to public comments, and the comments will be posted as submitted. Please do not include any information in your communication that you do not want to be made public.

Correspondence submitted in hard copy/paper format must be received by 2:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting to ensure distribution prior to the meeting. Hard copy/paper format comments presented during the meeting will be distributed to the City Council the following day. Members of the public may present a copy of their comments or attachments to the City Clerk for distribution to the City Council.

The Mayor will open public comment and will announce the length of time provided for comments during each item.

AGENDA

CALL MEETING TO ORDER

ESTABLISH QUORUM

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

SPECIAL ITEMS
Issue Proclamation Recognizing May 2026 as Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Month

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Members of the audience may bring to the Council's attention any item that is not on the agenda. The Mayor will announce the time speakers will be granted before comments begin. Please be advised that, by law, the City Council is unable to discuss or take action on issues presented during the Public Comment Period.

According to State Law (also known as “The Brown Act”) items must first be noted on the agenda before any discussion or action.
05-26-2026 Written Public Comment

CONSENT CALENDAR
These items will be considered by one motion. Prior to consideration of the Consent Calendar, a Councilmember may remove an item from the Consent Calendar. Any item removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion will be handled at the discretion of the Mayor.

1. Approval of Meeting Minutes - Draft Regular Meeting Minutes of May 12, 2026

2. Adoption of Resolution - Accept COPS Grant Funding
Accept grant funding from the Citizens Option for Public Safety/Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (COPS/SLESF) and authorize revenue and allocate it to the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund for Fiscal Year 2025–26

3. Adopt a Resolution - Approval of Memorandum of Understanding Adopt a Resolution to approve a successor Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Los Altos and Los Altos Municipal Employee Association

4. Adoption of Resolutions - 999 Fremont Avenue
- 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

DISCUSSION ITEMS

5. Adoption of Resolution - Contract Extension with Flock Safety 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

6. Introduction of Ordinance –Amend Chapter 2.24 Disposal of Unclaimed Property 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

7. Proposed FY 2026/27 Operating Budget and FY2027-31 Five-Year Capital & Major Maintenance Program
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

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS / COUNCIL Q&A
There will be no discussion or action on Informational Items. The Council Q&A will be included in the packet the day of the meeting.

8. Tentative Council Calendar and Housing Element Implementation Schedule

9. 05-26-2026 Council QA

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

ADJOURNMENT

SPECIAL NOTICES TO THE PUBLIC
According to the City Council Norms and Procedures: It will be customary to have a recess at approximately 9:00 p.m. Before the recess, the Mayor shall announce whether any items will be carried over to the next meeting. The established hour after which no new items will be started is 11:00 p.m. Remaining items, however, may be considered by consensus of the Council.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Altos will make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please get in touch with the City Clerk at least 72 hours before the meeting.

All public records relating to an open session item on this agenda, which are not exempt from disclosure according to the California Public Records Act, and that are distributed to a majority of the legislative body, will be available for public inspection at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the legislative body.

From: Josie Harke To: Public Comment Subject: Encampment on Fremont Avenue Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 10:55:10 AM Here is a new photo of the encampment. Dear Council Members:

It appears that overnight the encampment has grown and there is more belongings on Fremont Avenue. When I went for my walk a boy/man was out there sorting his things and what is there now seems to be new things that I haven't seen before. There are few more bikes and more containers. Do you have a timeline when they will begin to remove the encampment? Kind Regards, Josie

From: Harry Price
To: Public Comment
Subject: The recent Changemaker Summit
Date: Friday, May 15, 2026 3:52:44 PM
Attachments: 131693_image001 copy.png
Importance: High
Hi Council Members,
I am writing in support of the funding request by LAMVCF for the next Changemaker Summit. I was impressed by the recent summit. There were a number of substantive discussions taking place on a variety of topics. Part of the summit was a type of speed-dating conference - attendees could pick the topics of their choice that was moderated by an experienced individual as a facilitator, and then move on to a different topic moderated by a different experienced individual. What proved to be especially productive was that the attendees brought their own experience to each table - and the interaction was improved by both the questions and answers and their own sharing of their experiences. I came away both gratified to have participated, and thankful to have learned from both speakers and attendees.

The format of the event was a positive one. I believe that participants came away energized to pursue actions that will serve to benefit the community.

Thank you, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Harry I. Price
Price Law Firm
300 Third Street, Suite 10
Los Altos, CA 94022-3628
Tel: 650-949-0840
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:
https://url.avanan.click/v2/r01/___www.PricesLaw.com___.YXAzOmxvc2FsdG9zY2E 6YTpvOmE5YzhiYWI3NzI1ODQwNjczNDMyNTJlMmVkY2VhOWVjOjc6NTcyNzoz NDAyMzk5ZGFmOTExMTNmMTM4ODZhMDEyZGMyNGEyZGEyZWZhNWE5M
TFiOWRmOTUxNGYwNzg0ZjI4OWQwMjM1OnQ6VDpO
Directions: 300 Third Street, Los Altos, CA
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended

recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your computer.

From: Richard White
To: Public Comment
Subject: Flock Cameras
Date: Friday, May 15, 2026 4:27:54 PM
City Council Members,
While I appreciate that these cameras are very useful for law enforcement, from what I read I'm certainly concerned about the misuse of the data collected from these cameras for purposes other than keeping Los Altos safe. What are the safeguards in place to ensure that these data are not shared with outside agencies who have other agendas.

Richard White
928 Clinton Rd, Los Altos, Ca 94024

From: Jesse S
To: Public Comment
Subject: Comment on electronic surveillance
Date: Sunday, May 17, 2026 2:08:28 PM
Hi! I'm a local resident, Jesse Schwab, who works in Los Altos. I understand there will be a city council meeting later this month.

Please, do what you can to prevent electronic surveillance from being used! Implementing ANY kind of increase in electronic surveillance is inappropriate today for reasons that anyone should comprehend if they are not politically and technologically illiterate. Our local governments MUST behave wisely when larger government bodies can't be relied on.

Thank you!

From: Rabbi Amy Eilberg
To: Public Comment
Subject: cancel city contract with Flock
Date: Monday, May 18, 2026 4:30:50 PM
This message is for the Flock agenda item on the May 26th City Council Meeting Agenda.

Dear City Council,
My name is Rabbi Amy Eilberg, and I have lived in Los Altos for 10 years. I'm writing to urge you to cancel our city contract with Flock. Mass surveillance makes me feel LESS safe, not more safe. It worries me to have my location tracked in a national database owned by a private company backed by Peter Thiel and Marc Andreeson. I do not feel confident they have Los Altans' best interests at heart. Our police have been doing a great job for many years without needing Big Brother spy devices, and I have confidence in them to keep doing that job the way they always have.

Please cancel this Flock contract, and work to find other ways to address crime without putting all of our safety at risk.

Sincerely,
Rabbi Amy Eilberg

IF YOU RECEIVE A BOUNCEBACK WHEN YOU SEND ME A MESSAGE, PLEASE RESEND YOUR MESSAGE. SORRY FOR THE BOTHER WHILE I TRY TO RESOLVE THIS PROBLEM WITH MY GMAIL.
"I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something.

And, because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do.” (Edward Everett Hale)
Rabbi Amy Eilberg
(she/her/hers)
Spiritual Director,
Teacher of Mussar, Peace and Justice activist and educator [email protected]
https://url.avanan.click/v2/r01/___www.rabbiamyeilberg.com___.YXAzOmxvc2FsdG9zY2E 6YTpvOmZlODE2NmY4NDI2ZTQ5ZTI2OTRiZWNlNDFhOWM4NzY5Ojc6MjE5Zjo3OW ZkMTlkZDFiYmQyYWM2OTFlODhkNjcwMjBiNWMzODExMmI3NDUzYzczMzZhMzQ wM2U3M2MwYzcxZjE2MDc1OnQ6VDpO
Author, From Enemy to Friend: Jewish Wisdom and the Pursuit of Peace (Orbis Books) Rabbi Amy Eilberg

[email protected]

From: Hansel Aguilar
To: Public Comment; City Council
Cc: Melissa Thurman
Subject: Public Comment for the Record: Evidence-Based Considerations Regarding ALPR and the Expansion of Surveillance Technologies
Date: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 5:30:01 PM
Attachments: 2026-05-20-Aguilar_Letter_Los_Altos_Council_ALPR.pdf Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:

Please accept the attached letter as public comment for the record in advance of any forthcoming agenda item concerning the City's ALPR program or the expansion of surveillance technologies. I have copied the City Clerk to ensure inclusion in the official public correspondence file.

I am a Santa Clara County resident writing in my personal capacity. The letter offers evidencebased considerations drawn from the independent research literature, the recent experience of neighboring Bay Area jurisdictions, and my own background in civilian oversight of law enforcement. The full text and supporting citations are in the attachment, with the body of the letter also pasted below for ease of review.

I am grateful for the Council's service and for the opportunity to contribute to this discussion.

Respectfully, -- Hansel Alejandro Aguilar, PhD
"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift" ---Steve Prefontaine

Hansel Alejandro Aguilar, Ph.D.

Santa Clara County, California

May 19, 2026
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Los Altos
1 North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
Re: Evidence-Based Considerations Regarding ALPR and the Expansion of Surveillance Technologies Dear Mayor Meadows and Councilmembers:

I write as a Santa Clara County resident with nearly fifteen years of experience in civilian oversight of law enforcement across multiple jurisdictions. I also write as a former law enforcement officer. I most recently served as the Director of Police Accountability for the City of Berkeley, and I hold a Ph.D. in sociology, with academic and practical focus on transnationalism, human rights, civil rights, and public accountability. I am writing in my personal capacity as a concerned member of the regional community; my professional affiliations are provided solely for identification.

I offer this letter respectfully and not as a critique of the Los Altos Police Department or its dedicated personnel. The issues raised here are common across jurisdictions and reflect a regional conversation that, over the past several months, has led Santa Cruz, Mountain View, Los Altos Hills, El Cerrito, and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to reassess, suspend, terminate, or restrict their ALPR programs,1 and led the City of Berkeley and the City of Richmond to reassess and modify theirs.2 My purpose is to encourage the Council to ground its forthcoming decisions about ALPR, and about the broader expansion of surveillance technologies generally, in the best available empirical evidence and in durable civilian oversight infrastructure.

The Independent Research Does Not Support the Vendor Narrative 1 See, e.g., Mass surveillance fears push Silicon Valley city to scrap automated license plate readers, Press Democrat (Feb. 25, 2026); Los Altos Hills to remove ALPR cameras, Los Altos Town Crier (Jan. 28, 2026); California City Shuts Down Surveillance Cameras After Feds Accessed Data (Feb. 4, 2026) (discussing Mountain View, Los Altos Hills, Santa Cruz). The Santa Clara County cameras in contract cities including Cupertino, Saratoga, and Los Altos Hills. See Palo Alto looks to audit Flock license plate cameras after breaches in other cities, Palo Alto Online (Mar. 6, 2026). Berkeley and Richmond ultimately opted for modified continuations of their ALPR programs rather than outright termination; both outcomes are discussed in the next footnote. 2Berkeley and Richmond reassessed but did not terminate. In Berkeley, the City Council voted 8 1 on May 7, 2026 to reject a proposed $2 million expansion that would have added drones, additional cameras, and investigative software, while narrowly approving a one-year extension of the existing 52-camera ALPR contract at a cost of up to $200,000. The vote followed the leak, publicly reported days before the meeting, of an April 24, 2026 confidential City Attorney memorandum warning that contracting Flock plate readers to stay; Berkeley
nixes surveillance expansion, Berkeleyside (May 8, 2026), https://www.berkeleyside.org/2026/05/08/flock-safety-berkeleysurveillance-cameras-drones-nova-community-video-streams. In Richmond, Police Chief Timothy Simmons deactivated the ALPR de
agencies in violation of city policy and California law. See Richmond police chief shuts down license plate readers after discovering data was searchable, Richmonside (December 09, 2025), https://richmondside.org/2025/12/09/richmond-license-plate-readerdata-breach/; after several months of public debate, the City Council voted 4 3 on March 17, 2026 to reinstate the cameras through December 31, 2026 and directed the City Attorney to negotiate stronger data-sharing protections. See license plate readers will be turned back on through 2026, Richmondside (Mar. 18, 2026), https://richmondside.org/2026/03/18/richmond-flock-cameras-license-plate-readers-on/; Richmond City Council extends Flock license plate reader contract amid privacy concerns, Local News Matters (Mar. 18, 2026).

Hansel Alejandro Aguilar, Ph.D.

Santa Clara County, California

ALPR vendors routinely describe their systems as engines of crime prevention and reduction. The independent research literature is markedly more cautious. The most current and comprehensive review, published last year in the Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing by Cynthia Lum, Christopher Koper, Hyunji Lee, Daniel Nagin, and Lawrence Sherman (several of the leading scholars in policing that technologies in policing have made police more effective or have helped community members realize 3 As to ALPRs specifically, the authors find that the methodologically ALPRs are more effective 4 A central insight of this body of work is that ALPRs are not interventions in themselves. They are tools whose effect depends on the organizational strategy in which they are embedded. As the authors put it, 5 A national survey of agencies deploying ALPRs found that 59% provided officers complete discretion over how ALPR units were used, with no strategic guidance, and 6 Absent targeted deployment, tracking, and
assessment grounded in problem analysis, expensive new technology tends to reinforce existing practice rather than improve outcomes.

A Careful Look at the Local Evidentiary Basis
and 2025 and attribute meaningful credit for that decline to Flock ALPR.7 I do not question the sincerity of that attribution. I would, however, respectfully encourage the Council to scrutinize the underlying analytic basis before extending, expanding, or layering additional surveillance technologies on top of ALPR. A few considerations:

Residential burglary trends across the Bay Area have declined over this period for reasons that are not attributable to ALPR. Drawing causal conclusions from pre/post comparisons in a single jurisdiction, without a comparison group or counterfactual analysis, is precisely the methodological problem flagged by the Lum et al. review and by the underlying randomized and quasi-experimental studies it summarizes.8
The most relevant local counterfactual is instructive. Los Altos Hills, which deployed approximately 31 Flock cameras beginning in 2021 at a per-capita density far greater than that of Los Altos, publicly concluded in January 2026 that despite a similar burglary decline, the ALPR system was not what produced it. Council members there explicitly identified other factors as more likely explanations and voted to terminate the contract.9 3Cynthia Lum, Christopher S. Koper, Hyunji Lee, Daniel S. Nagin & Lawrence Sherman, Measuring the Cost-Effectiveness of New Technologies in Policing: The Case of Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPR), 9 Cambridge J. Evidence-Based Policing, art. 4 (2025), at 2, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41887-025-00099-y. 4
Id. at 6. 5
Id. at 11. 6Cynthia Lum, Christopher S. Koper, James J. Willis, Stephen Happeny, Heather Vovak & Julie Nichols, The Rapid Diffusion of License Plate Readers in U.S. Law Enforcement Agencies 7City of Los Altos, Flock Safety ALPR Cameras, https://www.losaltosca.gov/402/Flock-Safety-ALPR-Cameras. 8 Lum et al. (2025), at 6 8, reviewing Lum et al. (2011); Koper, Taylor & Woods (2013); Koper et al. (2022); Ozer (2016); Wheeler & Phillips (2018), among others. 9
Los Altos Hills to remove ALPR cameras, Los Altos Town Crier (Jan. 28, 2026), https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/los-altos-hills-to-removealpr-cameras/article_59f90aa8-14c1-4309-9f7f-12d16c649d9e.html (noting Los Altos Hills had 31 deployed cameras and that the burglary decline was attributed by council members to factors other than ALPR).

Hansel Alejandro Aguilar, Ph.D.

Santa Clara County, California

ALPR may well have genuine investigative utility. The narrower point here is that the strength of the causal public-safety claim being made for ALPR in Los Altos warrants more rigorous analytic support than it has been given.

A Distinct Concern: Federal Access to Locally Collected Data The empirical questions above would warrant caution on their own. A second dimension of this discussion has grown sharper over recent months, and I want to raise it plainly. The practical risk is that ALPR data collected in Los Altos becomes available to federal agencies through technical and procedural pathways that California law prohibits but that the technology has repeatedly demonstrated vulnerabilities that local contractual safeguards have not fully prevented.

I write this in part as someone whose own life informs the way I think about this risk. I came to this country from Honduras, and I have spent the bulk of my professional career on the civilian-oversight side of law enforcement. I raise that biographical detail not to elicit sympathy but because the people most directly exposed to the downstream consequences of a leaky surveillance network rarely sit on city councils, and discussions like this one are better when at least one such voice is in the record.

The pattern is no longer speculative. Within the past several months alone:

A public letter from U.S. Senator Ron Wyden dated October 16, 2025 confirmed, based on direct disclosures by Flock to his oversight staff, that U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Homeland Security Investigations (a division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement), the U.S. Secret nationwide network, and that CBP and HSI conducted approximately 200 and 175 searches respectively. Flock also acknowledged to Senato
and local law enforcement customers, inaccurately, that it had no relationship with the Department of Homeland Security.10
Richmond deactivated its ALPR system in late 2025 after the police chief discovered the same law. The cameras were reinstated in March 2026 only after months of public debate and on the condition that the city negotiate stronger contractual protections.

Mountain View disabled its entire ALPR fleet after discovering that Flock had configured one of (including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the GSA Office of Inspector General, and personnel at multiple military installations) had accessed city data for approximately seventeen months.11
In Berkeley, a confidential City Attorney memorandum that leaked on the eve of the May 7, 2026 City Council vote warned that contracting with Flock may carry legal exposure that contractual safeguards alone cannot fully resolve, including potential Fourth Amendment, California sanctuary-law, and SB 34 liability, even where no data is in fact shared.12 10Letter from Sen. Ron Wyden to Garrett Langley, CEO, Flock Group, Inc. (Oct. 16, 2025), https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/wyden_letter_to_flock.pdf; see also Joseph Cox, ICE, Secret Service, Navy All Had Access to , 404 Media (Oct. 17, 2025), https://www.404media.co/ice-secret-service-navy-all-had-access-to-flocksnationwide-network-of-cameras/. The Wyden letter states that Flock confirmed to his office in September 2025 the pilot access to CBP, HSI, the cus 11California City Shuts Down Surveillance Cameras After Feds Accessed Data (Feb. 4, 2026), https://www.gblock.app/articles/california-flockcameras-ice-data (Mountain View audit revealed federal access to city data from August to November 2024 via a Flock configuration the city had not authorized). 12Leaked city attorney memo shows Berkeley risks potential million-dollar lawsuits if council renews Flock contract, The Daily Californian (May 5, 2026), https://www.dailycal.org/news/city/leaked-city-attorney-memo-shows-berkeley-risks-potential-million-dollar-lawsuits-if-councilPage 15 of 271 Hansel Alejandro Aguilar, Ph.D.

Santa Clara County, California

On May 18, 2026, 404 Media reported on Federal Bureau of Investigation procurement records seeking up to $36 million for nationwide access to license plate reader data, with Flock Safety and Motorola Solutions identified as the primary vendors positioned to provide the requested scope. 13 I appreciate that the Los Altos Police Department has affirmed in writing that it does not share data with federal or out-of-state agencies and that its policy prohibits immigration-enforcement use. I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of that commitment. The issue raised by the pattern above is not commitment. It is capability. Mountain View had the same commitment. Richmond had the same alone may not be sufficient to guarantee the result.

For residents whose families came to this country from places where state surveillance has been used as a tool of political control and family separation, this is not an abstract concern. It is the concern.

Better-Evidenced Alternatives Exist
The George Mason University Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy maintains an Evidence-Based Policing Matrix that catalogs interventions with rigorous empirical support across crime types.14 For the property-crime concerns most often cited to justify ALPR expansion, the interventions with the strongest evidence base are problem-oriented policing tailored to specific theft patterns, hot-spots policing, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), and target hardening. None of these requires suspicionless mass data collection on uninvolved residents.

Problem-oriented policing, commonly structured through the SARA framework (Scan, Analyze, Respond, Assess), begins with specific analytic questions. What is actually being stolen: catalytic converters, packages, bicycles, items from vehicles? When and where do incidents cluster? Who is offending: local repeat offenders, organized crews, transient suspects? What environmental conditions enable the offenses, such as lighting, sight lines, access routes, and unsecured property? What is the victim profile? Once
-pirate awareness; for car
burglaries, targeted patrols at hot times and places combine -it, hide-it, keepfor catalytic-converter theft, etching programs and scrap-yard regulations.

I would also respectfully suggest that the framing under which surveillance debates often unfold, the is one the surveillance-technology industry relies on; the better-evidenced alternatives above do not require that trade-off.

Three Recommendations
renews-flock/article_2a5efc3e-4d33-4b2f-8683-0e1395642fe8.html (reporting that the April 24, 2026 City Attorney memorandum identified Fourth Amendment, California sanctuary-law, and SB 34 exposure). 13Joseph Cox, The FBI Wants to Buy Nationwide Access to License Plate Readers, 404 Media (May 18, 2026), https://www.404media.co/the-fbiwants-to-buy-nationwide-access-to-license-plate-readers/ (reporting up to $36 million in proposed FBI procurement and identifying Flock and Motorola as the only realistic vendors capable of providing the requested scope; quotation in body is from the FBI Statement of Work as reported). 14George Mason University, Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, Evidence-Based Policing Matrix, https://cebcp.org/evidence-basedpolicing/the-matrix/.

Hansel Alejandro Aguilar, Ph.D.

Santa Clara County, California

1. Require Analytic Justification Before Any Expansion. Before the Council takes up any expansion of ALPR or the adoption of additional surveillance technologies (integrated data-analytics platforms, drones, fixed cameras, or otherwise), I would urge that the Police Department first be asked to articulate, in analytic detail:
the specific crime trends and patterns of concern, disaggregated well beyond high-level Part I categories (type, time, place, victim profile, suspected offender characteristics, and modus operandi);
the interventions, technological and otherwise, that have already been attempted to address those problems, and what was learned from them; and
the case for why a proposed new technology, evaluated against alternatives with stronger evidence bases, is the most appropriate response.

The burden of justification should rest on the proposed solution, whether that solution is ALPR renewal, an analytic platform, or anything else. Communities are too often asked to evaluate specific solutions without ever being shown the underlying analysis. I do not assume that is what is occurring here. The structural way to prevent it, though, is to insist on the analytic work up front.

The next two recommendations are structural complements designed to ensure that the analytic discipline above becomes a durable feature of City practice rather than an episodic ask.

2. Adopt a Surveillance Technology Ordinance (STO). An STO would require Council approval, public review, an impact assessment, and annual reporting before any surveillance technology is acquired, expanded, or materially repurposed. Such ordinances have been adopted by numerous Bay Area jurisdictions, including Santa Clara County itself (the first such ordinance in the United States), the City of Berkeley, the City of Palo Alto, the City of Oakland, and the City and County of San Francisco. They provide a structured mechanism for precisely the kind of evidence-based, public-facing scrutiny that decisions like the present one require.15 An STO would also align Los Altos with the spirit of the Santa Clara County

3. Establish a Standing Civilian Oversight Body with a Policy Review and Surveillance Mandate. Los Altos 16 I would encourage the Council to
consider establishing a standing civilian body, structured consistent with the principles articulated by the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE),17 with a clear mandate that includes ongoing review of surveillance technology policies, audits, and outcomes. Such a body provides institutional continuity and the technical and ethical review capacity that ad hoc public comment alone cannot sustain. Bay A
18 15See Santa Clara County Ordinance Code, Div. A40 (adopted June 2016, the among the first county-level surveillance technology ordinance in the United States); Berkeley Municipal Code Ch. 2.99, Acquisition and Use of Surveillance Technology (Ord. No. 7,592-N.S., adopted Mar. 13, 2018), https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/2.99; Palo Alto Municipal Code §§ 2.30.620 2.30.690, Surveillance and Privacy Protection Ordinance (Ord. No. 5420, 2018); San Francisco Administrative Code Ch. 19B, Acquisition of Surveillance Technology; Oakland Municipal Code Ch.

9.64, ; see also Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, Surveillance Use Policy (amended Feb. 24, 2026). 16City of Los Altos, , https://www.losaltosca.gov/397/Citizens-Police-Task-Force-Dissolved. 17National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, Thirteen Principles for Effective Oversight, https://www.nacole.org/principles. 18For Bay Area models, see City of Berkeley, Police Accountability Board and Office of the Director of Police Accountability, established by Measure II (Nov. 2020); City of Richmond, Community Police Review Commission, governed by Richmond Ordinances Nos. 15-84 N.S., 11-85 N.S., 3-16 N.S., 5-16 N.S., 02-19 N.S., 05-19 N.S., and 29-20 N.S., https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/81/Community-Police-Review-Commission.

Hansel Alejandro Aguilar, Ph.D.

Santa Clara County, California

Closing
commitment to community safety. It is offered in the spirit that the most durable public-safety decisions are those grounded in the best available evidence and supported by structures that allow the community to participate meaningfully in the trade-offs involved. The current regional moment, with neighboring jurisdictions actively reassessing the same technology, offers Los Altos a useful opportunity to set a thoughtful, evidence-based example.

I am happy to make myself available as a resource to the Council, City staff, or the Police Department if that would be useful. Thank you for your service and for your consideration.

In Community,
Hansel Alejandro Aguilar, Ph.D. | Practitioner of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement & Researcher Vice Chair, Membership and Support Committee | NACOLE*
* The views expressed are my own. Affiliations are provided for identification purposes only.

From: Brian Jones
To: Public Comment; City Council
Subject: Comment on the ALPR agenda item for City Council on May 26, 2026 Date: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 11:29:45 PM
Attachments: SOS Los Altos - Letter to Council 5-26-26.pdf Esteemed Councilmembers,
Under the banner of Safety over Surveillance (SOS) Los Altos, members of Los Altos for Representation and Equity (LARE) and Indivisible Palo Alto Plus (IPA+) have met with several of you in the past weeks to talk about the use of mass surveillance devices in Los Altos. We thank you for the time, effort, and considered thought that you have put into this issue.

The attached letter summarizes and reiterates some of the things we talked about, while providing citations and backup information for your convenience.

Thank you for your diligence,
-Brian Jones
SOS Los Altos

From: [email protected]
To: Public Comment
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Public Comment Submission to City Council Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 11:34:08 AM
Public Comment Submission to City Council
Submitting Written Comments on Agenda Items
Please note: Personal information, such as email addresses, telephone numbers, home addresses, and other contact information are not required to be included with your comments. If this information is included, they will become part of the public record.

Redactions and/or edits will not be made to public comments, and the comments will be posted as they are submitted. Please do not include any information in your communication that you do not want to be made public.

Public comments submitted by 5:00 PM of the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet.

Public comments and any associated attachments are subject to the California Public Records Act.

Your Public Comment Please see my attached letter.

Attachments LA Council Mtg (5-26-2026)-FK Letter re Deficient Contract.docx.pdf
Name Field not completed.

Email Field not completed.

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

From: David Faden
To: Public Comment
Subject: Drop Flock
Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 11:26:42 AM
Dear Los Altos City Council Members,
Please vote *no* on renewing our contract with Flock.

Flock has a poor record both in terms of security and ethics.

Researchers demonstrated numerous security flaws in their system November last year, making unauthorized access trivial (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB0gr7Fh6lY).

Rather than responding forthrightly, Flock's answer has been obfuscation. This matches larger ethical issues with the company, such as ignoring a city's order to remove its cameras (https://www.berkeleyside.org/2025/11/24/flock-safety-cameras-berkeley-license-platereaders) and potentially tens of thousands of violations of CA state law on data sharing (https://sanjosespotlight.com/palo-alto-license-plate-data-searched-by-hundreds-of-out-ofstate-agencies/, https://www.eff.org/press/releases/dozens-rogue-california-police-agenciesstill-sharing-driver-locations-anti-abortion).

Even if Flock was a good company, there would be big concerns about plugging into a surveillance network at this moment. But they're a bad company.

We should be concerned not only with the potential damage to our civil liberties but also *civil liability*. Class action lawsuits seem a certainty. Let's take this opportunity to join multiple other communities, including Mountain View, in stepping away from Flock (https://www.mv-voice.com/city-government/2026/02/25/city-council-terminates-mountainviews-license-plate-camera-contract/).

Thank you.

From: Karen Scarpelli
To: Public Comment
Subject: Regarding Flock cameras
Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 8:56:04 AM
Attachments: wyden_letter_to_flock.pdf
To the Members of the Los Altos City Council:

I write to express my opposition to the use of Flock cameras in Los Altos, my home for the past 35 years. Attached is a letter written last October by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon to the CEO of Flock. It perfectly states my position, and that of, I believe, many of our citizens who care deeply about the right of privacy and the assaults against it by surveillance technology under the proposition that we cannot be "safe" without such technology.

I urge you to read Senator Wyden's letter and reconsider the city's use of tax money to continue to deploy Flock cameras in our community.

Sincerely yours,
Karen Scarpelli

From: Andrew Siegler
To: Public Comment
Cc: City Council
Subject: Opposition to Flock
Date: Monday, May 25, 2026 11:31:07 PM
Hello,
My name is Andrew Siegler, and I'm a local resident and member of Showing Up for Racial Justice Santa Clara County. I'm writing in total opposition to Flock cameras and to ALPRs as a whole.

Flock keeps building its efficacy case on anecdotes. The PowerPoint slides showing up at City Council meetings across different jurisdictions look suspiciously similar, which suggests Flock is handing police departments a template deck and just swapping in whatever local crimes fit the narrative.

When they highlight a case Flock "helped solve," they never engage with the obvious counterfactual: would that crime have gone unsolved without the cameras? That question doesn't get answered, because answering it honestly would undermine the pitch.

Other departments are telling their councils that Flock is a "must have, not a nice to have." That framing should land with a thud here, because Silicon Valley police departments have managed remarkably low crime rates for decades without Flock. Whatever is working in this region clearly does not require mass ALPR surveillance.

I request that at minimum, the council ask:

Any time anyone (PD or Flock) claims something "can't" be done, push back and find out what they actually mean. Are they saying it is technically impossible? Or is it administratively prohibited, meaning "may not be done"? If the latter, dig into why: what are the consequences of doing it anyway, who set the prohibition, and where do the incentives line up? Any time anyone (PD or Flock) credits a specific case to Flock, dig deeper. Are they actually claiming this crime would have gone unsolved without the cameras? What about similar crimes from a few years ago, before this technology existed? Were those cases unsolvable, or did they get cleared through old-fashioned investigative work?
If mass surveillance actually delivers what its boosters promise, we should be able to see results in at least one of these three measurable ways:

Clearance rates go up. More crimes get solved, more residents recover their stolen property.

Crime rates go down. The deterrence effect makes people less likely to commit crimes in Los Altos in the first place.

Police efficiency goes up. The department can do the same job with fewer resources, and the savings show up in a reduced police budget for the City.

The other question I want to leave you with is--if mass surveillance is public safety, ask yourself safety for whom? Is it safety for some at the expense of already-marginalized communities? Or does it in fact make everyone safer? Give honest thought to that question.

No to Flock. No to ALPRs. No to Mass Surveillance.

Thanks,
Andrew Siegler (he/they)
Unceded Tamien & Muwekma Ohlone Land | San Jose, CA
Social Justice Advocate & Organizer

TRUST Community Advisory Board Member
(669) 220-8581
[email protected]
[email protected]
Book a 1on1 with me!
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

From: Alison Gardner Biggs
To: Public Comment
Subject: No Flock!
Date: Monday, May 25, 2026 10:57:00 PM
Dear Council,
I am a long term Los Altos resident. I will keep this brief. Flock has proven itself an unworthy keeper of our data. They have misused access and sharing. Even if I believed in the value of this type of surveillance - which I do not - Flock would be the wrong choice to do it.

Please do not renew this contract. It does not keep us safe. It does not work for the people of our community. We do not want Flock here.
-Alison Biggs
89 Pasa Robles Ave, Los Altos, CA 94022

From: Maureen Griffin
To: City Council; Gabriel Engeland; Public Comment
Cc: Maureen Griffin
Subject: Tues. May 26: Agenda Item 5 - Contract Extension with Flock Safety Date: Monday, May 25, 2026 10:38:11 PM
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the Los Altos City Council, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the renewal or extension of the city’s contract with Flock Safety.

The staff report states that "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." To ensure true oversight, I ask that the Council demand definitive answers to the following operational, technical, and efficacy questions:

Technical Oversight & Network Security
System Change Verifications: How will the Los Altos Police Department (LAPD) track behind-the-scenes software, network, and system configuration changes made by Flock?
Technical Training: Does the LAPD currently possess the specialized network administration training required to audit Flock's systems and detect unauthorized changes?
Data & Software Residency: Where exactly does the LAPD data reside, and where is the Flock Inquiry software hosted? If data resides outside of local LAPD servers, it remains vulnerable to external modifications and access.

Independent Network Safeguards: If Flock independently manages its countywide network, what technical safeguards—not just paper policies—prevent unauthorized or non-compliant network setting adjustments? Update Management: How are Flock’s software and network updates restricted and audited to guarantee they continuously meet Los Altos datasharing and privacy policies? Data Accuracy & Crime Efficacy
Causation vs. Correlation: What specific data proves a direct causal relationship between ALPR deployment and the reduction in residential burglaries? Correlation does not equal causation.

Conviction Rates: While ALPRs may increase initial arrests, how many of those arrests have resulted in actual convictions? Is this technology effectively removing violent or repeat offenders from our streets, or are individuals quickly released back into the community on bail?
Legal Compliance
California State Law: How will the city guarantee that these ALPRs will not be used for immigration enforcement or other purposes explicitly banned by

California law, specifically SB 34 (2016), SB 54, and AB 1243 (2022)? A secure municipal infrastructure requires local control. Most organizations employ highly trained network administrators to manage mission-critical operations rather than outsourcing them to a third-party vendor with its own corporate agenda. For the privacy, security, and legal protection of Los Altos residents, please deny the Flock Safety contract extension.

Sincerely,
Maureen Griffin
23 Alma Court, Los Altos
Resident in Los Altos for 25+ years

From: [email protected]
To: Public Comment
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Public Comment Submission to City Council Date: Monday, May 25, 2026 10:19:55 PM
Public Comment Submission to City Council
Submitting Written Comments on Agenda Items
Please note: Personal information, such as email addresses, telephone numbers, home addresses, and other contact information are not required to be included with your comments. If this information is included, they will become part of the public record.

Redactions and/or edits will not be made to public comments, and the comments will be posted as they are submitted. Please do not include any information in your communication that you do not want to be made public.

Public comments submitted by 5:00 PM of the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet.

Public comments and any associated attachments are subject to the California Public Records Act.

Your Public Comment I'd like to talk about trust — specifically, whether Flock has earned ours.

Your own staff report admits that nationwide search was turned on for Los Altos without your knowledge or permission from August 2024 to March 2025. When staff asked Flock about it, Flock called it a “glitch.”
Mountain View got the same answer. They didn’t buy it — and they canceled their contract.

Here’s what we know: public records requests in Boulder, Colorado revealed that over 6,000 agencies — including Border Patrol — were searching Flock’s network. Not because of a glitch. Because that’s how the system was designed.

Flock didn’t disclose this. They called it a glitch when caught.

That’s not a vendor error. That’s a pattern of deception.

If you can’t trust what Flock tells you about how your own system is configured, you cannot trust this contract.

Please vote no.

Attachments Field not completed.

Name Melissa Dinwiddie
Email [email protected]
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

From: Monica Waldman
To: Public Comment
Subject: Comment on Agenda Item 5 - Adoption of Resolution - Contract Extension with Flock Safety Date: Monday, May 25, 2026 8:50:58 PM
Dear City Council Members,
Los Altos should strive to lead in developing thoughtful and effective public safety solutions, not simply follow the path of other cities. As a 26-year resident of Los Altos, I appreciate and support the City Council’s commitment to keeping our community safe. However, I do not support approving the proposed $160,000 contract extension with Flock Safety to maintain and operate the City’s 25 cameras for an additional two years.

My concerns stem from growing reports regarding the misuse and potential sharing of data collected through Flock’s surveillance systems. Across the country, numerous municipalities have already ended, suspended, or are actively reconsidering their partnerships with Flock Safety due to privacy, transparency, and data security concerns.

I have included examples below of cities that have canceled or reevaluated their contracts.

Even Ring, along with our neighboring communities of Los Altos Hills and Mountain View, have ended partnerships with Flock. Los Altos should carefully reconsider continuing this relationship and instead explore providers that offer stronger privacy protections, greater transparency, and more reliable safeguards to ensure sensitive data cannot be improperly accessed, shared, or exposed through system vulnerabilities or configuration failures.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Monica Waldman
A brief survey of cities, towns and companies that have canceled their partnerships with Flock. Numerous other cities are debating terminating their partnerships.

Ring Canceled their partnership with Flock https://www.theverge.com/news/878447/ringflock-partnership-canceled) and various Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office including Cupertino, Saratoga and Los Altos Hills ““Flock is a problematic company, and their reported conduct and sharing of private data is incompatible with our county’s values, my personal values and the values that I promised the voters of District 2 that I would uphold, and with multiple policies that we as a board have unanimously approved in recent years,” Duong said.” https://www.kqed.org/news/12074467/santa-clara-county-leaders-cut-out-flock-safety-innew-surveillance-policy South Pasadena after “reports that some local law enforcement agencies in Southern

California illegally shared data collected by Flock with federal immigration agents” https://laist.com/brief/news/south-pasadena-cancels-flock-safety-contract-privacy-concerns Santa Cruz “citing reports that the city’s data has been accessed by out-of-state agencies, at a time when the Trump administration is pursuing an increasingly aggressive immigration enforcement agenda.” [...] “Last November, Santa Cruz police Chief Bernie Escalante confirmed the city’s Flock data had been accessed by out-of-state agencies, prompting city officials to temporarily limit outside agencies’ access to the city’s license plate reader data and to review its agreement with Flock.”
https://www.kqed.org/news/12069705
Mountain View terminated their ALPR contract with Flock Safety https://www.mountainview.gov/Home/Components/News/News/1211/284 Danville, Illinois “A public records request from the Danville, Illinois, police department obtained by 404 Media revealed that local and state police around the country searched automatic license plate reader (ALPR) camera data more than 4,000 times for immigration related reasons between June 1, 2024, and May 5, 2025.” https://reason.com/2025/05/29/illinois-cops-gave-ice-access-to-more-than-5000- surveillance-cameras-nationwide/
Flagstaff, AZ has removed their Flock cameras
https://www.flagstaff.az.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/2229?arc=4065 Olympia, Washington suspends Flock Camera Pilot Program https://www.olympiawa.gov/services/police_department/flock.php Redmond. Washington suspends its FLock Camera program
https://www.redmond.gov/m/newsflash/home/detail/2833
In the months since President Donald Trump’s second term began, five metro Atlanta police agencies have accessed data from Flock Safety’s nationwide network of automatic license plate readers (ALPR), using search terms related to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), according to a Flock network audit of the Danville, Illinois, Police Department obtained through an open records request.
https://atlpresscollective.com/2025/06/03/flock-metro-atlanta-ice/ According to the ACLU of Massachusetts, “Police in Texas, Florida, and thousands of departments nationwide can track Massachusetts drivers in real-time — without a warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. Documents obtained by the ACLU of Massachusetts reveal that police across the state are collecting detailed information about the locations of Massachusetts drivers and sharing that information with a

network of over 7,000 agencies and organizations all over the country — including in states that have passed laws banning abortion and gender-affirming healthcare for minors, and laws requiring police to conduct civil immigration enforcement operations.“ https://data.aclum.org/2025/10/07/flock-gives-law-enforcement-all-over-the-country-accessto-your-location/

From: Melissa Smith
To: Public Comment
Subject: public comment re: flock cameras
Date: Monday, May 25, 2026 5:48:41 PM
Dear Los Altos Council Members,
No matter how many crimes ALPR/Flock mass surveillance cameras are perceived to solve, there is weak evidence to prove that the value outweighs the high cost in civil liberties. As a long-time Los Altos resident, I want Flock out of our City. Flock is controlled by a hostile third-party, fraught by controversy, and violates public trust. Policing by mass surveillance technology is policing without consent. The technology itself erodes trust and thereby threatens public safety. What might have started out as a well-intentioned effort to solve local crimes has exploded into a full-scale assault on our civil liberties.

Mass surveillance is used by autocracies. Suspicionless mass surveillance of our entire population gives only an illusion of safety for one group in exchange of the real safety of everyone.

We cannot rely on having “turned off” federal sharing access in the Flock provided dashboard.

Flock owns, controls, and operates the entire surveillance value chain — and has already misused its access countless times. Flock has proven its ability to find creative ways around contract provisions that nominally give cities perceived "control" of data.

Can each of you, in good conscience, continue to grant Flock access to our lives and commit Los Altos to mass-surveillance? Can you guarantee, with confidence, that if Flock — or any entity with access to city data — contracts with a federal agency, data collected here will not end up in federal hands and endanger us?
Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Melissa Smith
Los Altos Resident

From: Nancy Brémeau
To: Public Comment
Cc: City Council
Subject: Maintain Public trust - Flock Out of Los Altos Date: Monday, May 25, 2026 3:22:33 PM
Los Altos Council Members,
No matter how many crimes ALPR/Flock mass surveillance cameras are perceived to solve, there is weak evidence to prove that the value outweighs the high cost in civil liberties. As long-time Los Altos residents we want Flock out of our City. Flock is controlled by a hostile third-party, fraught by controversy, and violates public trust. Policing by mass surveillance technology is policing without consent. The technology itself erodes trust and thereby threatens public safety. What might have started out as a well-intentioned effort to solve local crimes has exploded into a full-scale assault on our civil liberties.

Mass surveillance is used by autocracies and is implicit in Flock's propaganda and it's dangerous and rapidly expanding use of it by ICE, CBP and our now corrupt FBI. Suspicionless mass surveillance of our entire population involves high civil liberties costs, and gives only an illusion of safety for one group in exchange of the real safety of everyone.

We cannot rely on having “turned off” federal sharing access in the Flock provided dashboard. Flock owns, controls, and operates the entire surveillance value chain — and has already misused its access countless times. Flock has proven it's ability to find creative ways around contract provisions that nominally give cities perceived "control" of data.

Can each of you, in good conscience continue to grant Flock access to our lives and commit Los Altos to mass-surveillance? Can you guarantee, with confidence, that if Flock — or any entity with access to city data — contracts with a federal agency, data collected here will not end up in federal hands and endanger us all?
You don't want to be on the wrong side of history on this one.

Nancy & Christian Bremeau - 350 University Avenue Los Altos Nancy Bremeau
Board Member, National Association of Commissions for Women Commissioner, Santa Clara County
Founder, The CEDAW Challenge Team
AAUW CA Public Policy Committee
The UNA - SF Ratify Movement steering committee
Friends of Santa Clara County Women
LWV, ZONTA INTL, UNA-SF, UNA-Silicon Valley member, US Women's Caucus Vice Chair, Foothill-DeAnza CC District Citizen's Oversight Bond Committee

From: [email protected]
To: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: 26 May 2026 Council meeting, Discussion item 5: Turn off ALPRs, Cancel the Flock Contract Date: Monday, May 25, 2026 2:56:51 PM
I am writing to ask the City of Los Altos to cancel its contract with Flock and to remove the Flock cameras in our city.

I know that the City of Los Altos believes that Flock's corporate policies and procedures are sufficient to control access to the data, and that the City has implemented policies saying how the data should be used and shared (or not). The City asserts that this is sufficient to protect our privacy given the public safety benefits of ALPR data.

These policies are not a sufficient control.

If Flock violates the policies, the remedy is cancelling their City contract--there is no way to undo release of data.

I want to know:
- Has the City reviewed Flock's control of the data, and does the City understand the difference between what CAN be done and what MAY be done? The policy says you MAY not do something--but the technology still allows it to happen, so it CAN be done.
- Does the City accept that Flock may answer a query by Dept of Homeland Security and we will not know about it? The DHS policy states: "The LPR vendor is not permitted to share ICE query information with third parties without ICE’s express permission, including other customers, business parties, or any other individual or entity."
The City of Los Altos has now become an outlier. Neighboring cities are reassessing their use of Flock to track residents' movements around their communities. They're deciding that they cannot rely on Flock to responsibly manage this data. They're deciding that the loss of residents' privacy and the risk of disclosure is not justified.

Several local jurisdictions have cancelled their Flock contracts.

Our Los Altos Police Department has a strong record in protecting the City and addressing crime, including before the implementation of Flock. I have confidence they will continue their successful work without Flock through their diligent police work.

Los Altos residents can no longer rely on the protections that the City has put in place on proper use and access to this data.

This loss of privacy is too high of a price for Los Altos residents to pay.

The City of Los Altos and the Los Altos Police Department must take immediate steps to suspend the use of ALPR, to end the Flock contract, and to reel in the

data shared.

Ann Hepenstal
Los Altos Resident
District 2

From: Jim Fenton
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public comment for City Council meeting of May 26, 2026 Date: Monday, May 25, 2026 2:45:36 PM
This public comment is regarding item 5, "Adoption of Resolution - Contract Extension with Flock Safety" for the 26 May 2026 Council meeting.

I appreciate the Police Department's transparency regarding the use of automatic license plate reader (ALPR) cameras, both in Chief Lagergren's March 9 community message (https://www.losaltosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2506/Community-Message-from-Police-Chief-SaskiaLagergren-Regarding-Flock-Safety-Automated-License-Place-Reader-ALPR-Data) and in the staff report for this agenda item. I have a great deal of confidence in the Los Altos Police Department that they will use the system responsibly and within the guidelines set by Council.

However, I do not have the same degree of trust in the vendor, Flock Safety. The community message described a "glitch in the system" that resulted in nationwide look-up being turned on sometime during the period August 2024- March 2025. It also described a discovery in November 2025 that statewide look-up had been turned on. Both of these incidents cause me to question whether Flock has the necessary safeguards in place to ensure that our city's restrictions on access to our data are taken seriously.

It's also somewhat troubling to me that until the July 2025 PRA request we were not doing audits to verify compliance with the restrictions on access to the data from other agencies. I'm also a bit confused about the wording in the statements, "just because an agency appears on our network audit, it does not mean...they had access to our camera data...". What does it mean, then? Do we have a way to distinguish searches and data access from outside agencies that do succeed from other, apparently spurious, audit reports? I would recommend that renewal of the Flock contract include a provision that if further glitches or other out-ofcompliance access by outside agencies is discovered, that the contract be immediately terminated without requiring action by City Council to do so.

Jim Fenton

From: [email protected]
To: Public Comment
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Public Comment Submission to City Council Date: Monday, May 25, 2026 2:20:31 PM
Public Comment Submission to City Council
Submitting Written Comments on Agenda Items
Please note: Personal information, such as email addresses, telephone numbers, home addresses, and other contact information are not required to be included with your comments. If this information is included, they will become part of the public record.

Redactions and/or edits will not be made to public comments, and the comments will be posted as they are submitted. Please do not include any information in your communication that you do not want to be made public.

Public comments submitted by 5:00 PM of the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet.

Public comments and any associated attachments are subject to the California Public Records Act.

Your Public Comment This message is regarding the Flock agenda item on the May 26, 2026 City Council Meeting Agenda.

Dear City Council,
As a 20-year Los Altos resident, I'm writing to urge you to cancel our city contract with Flock. Mass surveillance makes me feel LESS safe, not more safe, especially with all the things happening in our country at a national level that are in violation of rights. The potential for harm and abuse outweighs any upsides.

There is a lot of evidence that Flock is not even close to being a trustworthy company. Why would we in Los Altos do business with them? That is just foolish. Our police have been doing a great job for many years without needing these devices, and I have confidence in them to keep doing that job the way they always have. I expect my elected officials to engage in due diligence and not renew an expensive contract with a very questionable company. Please cancel this Flock contract for the safety of our residents. Thank you.

Attachments Field not completed.

Name Field not completed.

Email Field not completed.

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

From: [email protected]
To: Public Comment
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Public Comment Submission to City Council Date: Monday, May 25, 2026 12:34:44 PM
Public Comment Submission to City Council
Submitting Written Comments on Agenda Items
Please note: Personal information, such as email addresses, telephone numbers, home addresses, and other contact information are not required to be included with your comments. If this information is included, they will become part of the public record.

Redactions and/or edits will not be made to public comments, and the comments will be posted as they are submitted. Please do not include any information in your communication that you do not want to be made public.

Public comments submitted by 5:00 PM of the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet.

Public comments and any associated attachments are subject to the California Public Records Act.

Your Public Comment Please follow Mountain View's lead and cancel the Flock contract completely. Flock is irresponsible with our data and regardless of what police say it does for them, it is not what I want for our community. We want to feel welcome and at peace when we visit and shop and live in this community, not feel like we are under surveillance and that our neighbors are at risk of being tracked or taken. Flock and any of these ALPR systems that use AI are not trustworthy and have no place in Los Altos. Let's build a corridor of safety and peaceful living between Mountain View and Los Altos. Cancel the contract. There are enough cameras around, we don't need any more.

Attachments Field not completed.

Name KBT
Email Field not completed.

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

From: Pierre Laurent
To: Public Comment
Subject: Comments for May 26th ALPR agenda Item
Date: Monday, May 25, 2026 11:47:26 AM
Attachments: Letter to Los Altos City council.pdf
Please find attached some comments for your consideration.

Pierre Laurent
634 Jay Street
Los Altos, CA 94022

Dear City Councilmembers,
I have been a resident of Los Altos for roughly 26 years. I came here to continue my career in the tech sector, raise a family in town, and lead a local K-12 school that rented the Grand Oak for many events. I shop and eat downtown.

Since moving here, I have been the victim of two minor crimes: an expensive bike taken from my backyard, and a car window smashed at SFO to steal an inexpensive gym bag from unease that followed were not.

I am writing to urge you to end the City’s contract with Flock. The camera at the end of my street reminds me, every day, of a loss of privacy not unlike the one I felt when I was robbed — captures my car.

The more I have researched Flock and the ALPR program, the more convinced I am that this privately run mass surveillance program must be stopped.

Why would the city contract with a company that has a sustained record of misrepresentation and misconduct? A few examples — the full list is longer:
• In Evanston, Illinois, Flock continued operating cameras after losing its contract, and the city issued a cease-and-desist order. Flock did a similar misdeed in Cambridge, MA.
• Most recently, in Dunwoody, Georgia, Flock employees accessed live camera feeds and used them for sales demos. Rather than apologize or discipline anyone, the company invoked a contractual loophole.

This is a startup whose values are not aligned with the public’s, and that does not learn from its mistakes. Its conduct in jurisdiction after jurisdiction shows no recognition of limits, and it cannot be entrusted with the personal information its cameras capture and store.

Flock’s system relies on AI to identify cars. AI systems are known to make mistakes and can be deployed for harmful ends. That makes AI-driven mass surveillance unsafe. For instance, consider the wrongful arrests that have followed ALPR misreads — one of which cost the City of Aurora, Colorado $1.9M to settle the wrongful detention at gunpoint of . Or the Chicago case in which Marimar Martinez, a Montessori teaching assistant and U.S.

. pulled 30 days of Flock images of Martinez’s car to try to substantiate the terrorism label — evidence her attorney says instead showed her driving . These and other similar events clearly indicate that an AI system that indiscriminately collects everyone's personal travel information is unsafe.

Two arguments have been used to justify ALPR: that it reduces crime and that it meaningfully lowers policing costs. Neither stands up to scrutiny.

Can the city show that any reduction in crime is causally linked to ALPR? Our local data crime statistics elsewhere is also missing. Police reports of individual crimes solved using ALPR data are not in dispute, but when a technology carries the safety risks of AI mass surveillance, the bar for justifying it should be causal evidence, not anecdotes — and to date, no data showing even a correlation between ALPR use and crime reduction in Los Altos has been presented.
one route-around app exists, and methods for masking a plate against the IR sensors — or hacking the cameras outright — are widely available online. and cameras have been touted as a way to shift more police work from patrol to a desk. But that patrolling itself
reduces crime where ALPR does not.

Over time, an AI mass-surveillance program run by a questionable company risks eroding public trust in the police — and it is that trust that allows the police to operate at all. That trust should be worth more than the convenience this technology might . I encourage , as other jurisdictions are doing.

Recent federal activity raises a further, more serious concern.

The FBI has published an RFP to purchase access to existing LPR systems. Given the federal government’s recent record in policing and its stated intent to punish sanctuary states and cities, this is alarming. As the largest ALPR network in the country — collecting roughly 20 billion records a month — Flock Group is well positioned to bid and to win the contract, in whole or in part. The RFP also asks for AI-powered search and API access to the : inferring associations

data
retention. Putting federal resources behind ALPR would be an order of magnitude more invasive than what local police are authorized to do today. represent that they can, and may, hand the data to the federal government. The FBI does not need local permission — and if Flock asserts it owns the data, neither does Flock. The verify compliance with state / local laws regarding LPR.” Does this mean the FBI takes the position that if data is not stored in California, California law does not apply? federal sharing access in the Flockprovided dashboard. Flock owns, controls, and operates the entire surveillance value chain — collection, distribution, presentation, and storage. With that degree of control, it will not nd contract provisions that nominally give
cities “ownership of the ALPR data.” For instance: does the city know how many raw images each camera captures before one is processed as ALPR data on the city’s behalf? Do the city’s installation permits limit each pole to a single recording apparatus? After Dunwoody and the other incidents, can the council, in good faith, rely on Flock’s representations to commit Los Altos to a mass-surveillance program it operates? And can the city tell its — or any entity with access to city data —
contracts with a federal agency, data collected here will not end up in federal hands? Flock Group can fairly be credited with inventing Mass Surveillance as a Service — the SaaS model applied to civic life. Mass surveillance is the kind of premise that opens a dystopian novel, when a society's democratic norms have been shattered. Mass surveillance in the hands of a private company, outside public supervision and public governance, is worse. It is a bad idea for our society and a safety risk for everyone in it.

Unsurprisingly, a broad coalition is emerging against ALPR: immigrants’-rights advocates, tech workers who understand the data-use issues, and citizens who see how locally nd
other legal organizations now suing cities, they are organizing to push back.

The vote to continue or end the city’s relationship with a Mass-Surveillance-as-a-Service vendor like Flock Group is not just a question of helping the police do their job. It is a question of public safety (physical, emotional, and of public trust. I urge you to end the contract with Flock Group and its mass-surveillance service.

Thank you for your time and your service to Los Altos.

Respectfully,
Pierre Laurent

From: Cindy Sidaris
To: City Council
Cc: Gabriel Engeland; Public Comment
Subject: May 26; Agenda Item 5 - Contract Extension with FLOCK Safety Date: Monday, May 25, 2026 11:25:15 AM
I strongly oppose the renewal of the city's contract with FLOCK Safety.

Flock Safety has proven to be untrustworthy and incompetent or just plain sneaky with a private agenda. I would never personally hire such a company and I hope the City Council will uphold the same standard for honesty and integrity for all companies the city hires or does business with.

Questions I hope the Council will demand answers for:

How will the PD implement this statement (from the staff report)? "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." No Los Altos Police Dept policy will ever prevent Flock from future changes to their software that go unnoticed by our PD. I hope the council will ask HOW, exactly, the PD will have the technical training and knowledge to keep track of Flock's system changes, software changes, network setting and structure changes.

How are Flock's software and network updates managed, restricted, and guaranteed to meet OUR data sharing and privacy policies? Where does the Los Altos PD data reside? Where does the Flock Inquiry software reside? If Flock is managing their county-wide network independently, where are the real safeguards (not policy) that prevent incorrect or nefarious network setting changes? Why would we trust Flock will keep our PD apprised of changes? Who in our PD has the technical knowledge to detect network changes that violate our policy? Any software or data that resides anywhere BUT on Los Altos PD computers can be accessed or changed by Flock. Most companies have their own highly trained network administration staff to run their networks; they do not trust outsiders for mission critical functions.

Where is the data that shows cause and effect that ALPRs were the reason for the reduction in residential burglaries? Correlation of the use of ALPRs and the reduction in residential burglaries does not mean ALPR use RESULTED in the reduction. Correlation is not causation.

While arrests are great, how many of them have resulted in actual convictions? Is the use of ALPRs really leading to getting criminals off our streets? Once arrested, how many people charged are soon released on bail and back on the streets? How do you guarantee the policy that ALPRs will not be used for immigration or other uses that are illegal in California (SB 34, 2016; AB 1243, 2022; SB 54)? Please deny the contract extension.

Respectfully,
Cindy Sidaris

long time Los Altos resident

From: Judy Rucker
To: Public Comment
Cc: "Judy Rucker"
Subject: Flock agenda item - comment
Date: Monday, May 25, 2026 8:00:53 AM
Dear Council members,
First, let me thank you all for what you do for our city and your public service that can be increasingly challenging as technology evolves in our public and private lives. We’ve lived in Los Altos for 30+ years, have voted in every election, worked in high tech for the duration, and have seen wonderful advancements therein. We have also seen commensurate encroaching advancements that put the freedoms we take for granted at risk.

The fact that Los Altos still employs a private surveillance entity on private citizens is chilling. Even if the intent is good, the potential for abuse is appalling. With the inexorable advancements in AI, the ability to track movement with artificial logic streams that draw “indisputable” conclusions based on profiling and massive data drops of personal information, even the real potential for integrating handheld computers in children’s hands with that video surveillance is beyond feasible. It doesn’t take much to envision a police state in the making—if not already in existence, right? I’ve never been a paranoid person, but that trust is being eroded everywhere. Please take the necessary steps to merit that trust, end the private surveillance contract, and protect us as best you can. Even in a crazy challenging world, we all have to do what we can, and we so appreciate what you do.

Thank you,
Judy & Randy Rucker

From: Susan Hinton
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment, 5/26/26, Agenda item# 7, Proposed FY 2026/27 Operating Budget and FY2027-31 Five-Year Capital & Major Maintenance Program
Date: Sunday, May 24, 2026 10:26:03 PM
Attachments: Screenshot 2026-05-24 at 21.03.06.png
Subject: Public comment: Council Meeting 5/26/26, Agenda item# 7, Proposed FY 2026/27 Operating Budget and FY2027-31 Five-Year Capital & Major Maintenance Program Dear Mayor Meadows, Vice Mayor Lang, and Honorable Councilmembers, Los Altos should direct staff to rethink the proposed budget line items calling for playground redos in Shoup and Grant Parks.

Entering Shoup Park feels special, as though entering a state park or perhaps a small corner of a national park. There are mature trees hosting squirrels and birds, hills, a creek with minnows, and in the middle of the afternoon there is bird song. The lucky children and their families living near the park have an entire living ecosystem in their backyard.

Entering Shoup Park, March 18, 2026, 2:38PM
Though the ADA compliant EWF (Engineered Wood Fiber - which is engineered and is nothing like wood chips or mulch in a landscaping project) on the playground might stand with some topping off, it is fine shape and is certified for fall protection. The play structures, though over 15 years old, are in good shape and are actively played upon.

Yet, for some reason, the FY2027-31 Capital Improvement & Major Maintenance Projects (see Attachment #3, page 4 - https://t.ly/pvRij) contains line items that propose to completely redo

the playgrounds in Shoup and Grant Parks - and for the hefty fee of $619,950 each, or for a total of $1,239,900:
26 40008 Shoup Park Playground, $619,950
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.
27 40009 Grant Playground, $619,950
This project will upgrade the aging play equipment at Grant Park. The funding includes design and construction services.

This money might be better spent creating a green area or pocket park near the new construction along El Camino Real, where there currently is no neighborhood park but where there will be many new Los Altos residents. ______________ Below is a pictured simulation from a presentation “Grant & Shoup Park Playground Replacements” made by staff on February 17, 2026. Notice the pour-in-place (PIP) synthetic rubber surfacing. It would be most unfortunate should Los Altos decide to replace the current EWF with this substance. The entire character of the park will change, as PIP becomes quite hot on warm days and even hotter on hot days.

Below this simulated picture are actual photographs, taken on March 17, 2026, at an actual park having a PIP surface. Notice

1. The surface temperature of the PIP

2. That no one is playing at this park - probably because of the heat

Fair Oaks Park in Sunnyvale, March 17, 2026, 3:35PM
There are other reasons for avoiding PIP surfacing, but I would hope that the thought of transforming a magical place today into a tomorrow’s Disneyfied heat-island devoid of children on hot days would convince the Council that Los Altos can do better.

Sincerely,
Susan Hinton
Plastic Pollution Prevention Committee Chair
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
https://url.avanan.click/v2/r01/___https://www.sierraclub.org/loma-prieta/plastic-pollutionprevention___.YXAzOmxvc2FsdG9zY2E6YTpvOmM3OWIyMzBjYjllMzQ1NGIwMDk1ZDk5 NzUyNGE0MzFiOjc6NzU0MTpjZjk4YTI1ODU2NDg2MzA4MzBlN2I4OWYzNjM3ZDlhMTE zMDMwMWNiOTFiZTYyOTVlZDQ3MDhmOTQ3YWNmNzc4OnQ6VDpO

From: [email protected]
To: Public Comment
Subject: May 26 Council meeting; agenda item no. 5
Date: Sunday, May 24, 2026 5:35:04 PM
Attachments: 2026-05-24 Silver Letter to Los Altos Council.docx Please see attached public comment letter.

Thanks,
Cara Silver
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

May 24, 2026
Re: Public Comment - Agenda Item No. 5, May 26, 2026 Flock License Plate Reader Contract Renewal
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:

I am the co-lead of the Immigrant Rights Action Team of Indivisible Palo Alto Plus. I am also a municipal attorney, and in this capacity have reviewed thousands of Service Agreements.

For the past year, I have been monitoring actions taken by Santa Clara County cities with respect to Flock contracts. The collection of detailed data, held by a private company with documented privacy abuses and close ties to the federal government, creates a mass surveillance state in a time of egregious federal overreach. As residents and local governments learn more about this technology, alarm bells are going oƯ across the country. This is profoundly unsafe. And it is about much more than license plates.

As discussed in more detail below, I have grave concerns about the existing terms and conditions contained in Flock standard contracts as well as the new terms and conditions that Flock is rolling out.

The Legal Framework
There are several constitutional and statutory safeguards regarding automated license plate readers (ALPR’s). Both the federal and state constitutions provide a right to privacy from government surveillance. The application of this principle to Flock technology is the subject of many recently filed lawsuits. For example, a recent class action was filed against the City of San Jose under a privacy theory. The suit argues that Flock’s ALPR network violates privacy protections: “No oƯicer ever has to establish probable cause, swear to the facts in a warrant application, or await the approval of a judge. . . .OƯicers can run searches based on a hunch, idle curiosity, or even personal animus. Around the country, oƯicers have been caught using [automated license-plating reader] databases to stalk their expartners, monitor protestors and even track down a woman who reportedly had an abortion.”1
A similar class action lawsuit was filed against Flock in San Francisco Superior 1 https://www.kqed.org/news/12080233/san-jose-residents-sue-city-saying-flock-safety-cameras-allowmass-surveillance.

Court.2
And a class action lawsuit was filed against Home Depot alleging that it had turned over surveillance data to law enforcement agencies without a warrant.3 California also has two statutory schemes preventing the sharing of ALPR-collected data.

First, SB 54, known as California’s sanctuary state law, prohibits all cities from sharing data with ICE and Border Patrol. Second, SB 34, the ALPR privacy law, prohibits sharing data with federal and out of state agencies. Importantly, SB 34 contains a $2,500 penalty for data sharing violations as well as a private cause of action.

A recently leaked legal memorandum from the City of Berkeley’s Attorney’s OƯice about Flock Safety warned that Flock technology might be incapable of complying with city, state and federal unauthorized data sharing restrictions even with the addition of strenuous contractual safeguards.
4 Flock’s Collection of Data Via a Nationwide Database is Inherently Risky ALPR technology is a powerful surveillance system that can be used to invade the privacy of individuals and violate the rights of entire communities, particularly vulnerable residents. ALPR systems collect and store location information about drivers that can be built into a database that, in turn, reveals sensitive details about where individuals work, live, associate, worship, seek medical care, and travel.5 As with other surveillance
technologies, police often disproportionately deploy license plate readers in communities experiencing poverty and historically overpoliced communities of color, regardless of crime rates.6 ALPR information has also been shared with immigration authorities such as 2 https://www.classlawgroup.com/flock-license-plate-cameras-face-class-action-lawsuit-by-gibbs-mura-alaw-group. 3 https://www.dailyjournal.com/article/390841-home-depot-sued-over-license-plate-reader-use-in-parkinglots 4 https://www.dailycal.org/news/city/leaked-city-attorney-memo-shows-berkeley-risks-potential-milliondollar-lawsuits-if-council-renews-flock/article_2a5efc3e-4d33-4b2f-8683-0e1395642fe8.html. 5 See, e.g., Automatic License Plate Readers, ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION(Mar.29, 2023)https://www.eƯ.org/sls/tech/automated-license-plate-readers; You Are Being Tracked: How License Plate Readers Are Being Used to Record Americans’ Movements, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (July 2013) https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/you-are-being-tracked. 6 Dave Maass and Jeremy Gillula, What You Can Learn from Oakland’s Raw ALPR Data, ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION(Jan. 21, 2015)https://www.eƯ.org/deeplinks/2015/01/what-we-learned-oaklandraw-alpr-data; Barton Gellman and Sam Adler-Bell, The Disparate Impact of Surveillance, THE CENTURY FOUNDATION (Dec. 21, 2017)https://production-tcf.imgix.net/app/uploads/2017/12/03151009/thedisparate-impact-of-surveillance.pdf; see also, e.g., Kaveh Waddell, How License-Plate Readers Have Helped Police and Lenders Target the Poor, THE ATLANTIC(Apr. 22, 2016) https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/04/how-license-plate-readers-have-helped-policePage 72 of 271 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to identify, detain, and deport immigrant community members.7 The possibility of human workarounds at every level undermines any technical safeguards Flock may claim. Search term blocking relies on oƯicers accurately labeling search intent—a system easily defeated by entering vague reasons like "investigation" or incorrect justifications, made either intentionally or not. And, of course, words like "investigation" or "missing person" can mean virtually anything, oƯering no value to meaningful oversight of how and for what the system is being used. The recently employed drop down menu options make it even easier for users to select a search term that would “pass” a network audit. The same can be said for case number requirements, which depend on manual entry. This can easily be circumvented by reusing legitimate case numbers for unauthorized searches. Audit logs only track inputs, not contextual legitimacy. Flock's proposed AIdriven audit alerts, something that may be able to flag suspicious activity after searches (and harm) have already occurred, relies on local agencies to self-monitor misuse— despite their demonstrated inability to do so.8
Even the most restrictive department policy may not be enough. Austin, Texas, had implemented one of the most restrictive ALPR programs in the country, and the program still failed: the city's own audit revealed systematic compliance failures that rendered its guardrails meaningless.9
The Flock Contract Has Troubling Terms and Conditions
Flock encourages all of its city customers to sign a template contract that on its face appears to protect city data, but in reality contains large loopholes. Further, Flock is rolling out new terms and conditions that continue to cut inroads into data privacy. As Flock’s success depends on a connected network of data, this is not surprising. and-lenders-target-the-poor/479436/(summarizing data indicating that Oakland Police Department deployed ALPRs “disproportionately often in low-income areas and in neighborhoods with high concentrations of African-American and Latino residents”).
7 SairaHussain and Adam Schwartz, EFF Files New Lawsuit Against California SheriƯ for Sharing ALPR Data with ICE and CBP, ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION (Oct. 19, 2021) https://www.eƯ.org/deeplinks/2021/10/eƯ-files-new-lawsuit-against-california-sheriƯ-sharing-alpr-data-iceand-cbp. 8 https://www.eƯ.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-licenseplate-readers-safe. 9 Id.

For example, Paragraph 3.3 of the Flock contract provides a fairly straightforward customer data security provision:

3.3. Flock Obligations. Flock shall keep written documentation of who accesses the Customer Data and who the Customer Data is released to, and shall provide such documentation upon request from the Customer. Subject to Section 5.3, Flock shall not (1) share the Customer Data with any individual, entity or agency without written permission from Customer; (2) access, download, or decrypt the Customer Data without written permission from Customer; (3) store the Customer Data in any form or for any length of time that violates this Agreement; (4) allow its agents or employees without authorized clearance to access the Customer Data; and (5) otherwise use the Customer Data in a manner that is not approved in writing by Customer. (Emphasis added.)
However, this provision is subject to a more sinister contract provision:

Section 5.3 Disclosure of Footage. Subject to and during the Retention Period, Flock may access, use, preserve and/or disclose the Footage to law enforcement authorities, government oƯicials, and/or third parties, if legally required to do so.

Subject to reasonable advance notice to Customer, Flock may also access, use, preserve, and/or disclose Footage if Flock has a good faith belief that such access, use, preservation and/or disclosure is both permissible under applicable law and reasonably necessary either to: (x) comply with a legal process; (y) enforce this Agreement; or (z) detect, prevent or otherwise address security, privacy, fraud or technical issues, or emergency situations. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, Flock shall not disclose Footage under any other circumstance without Customer’s express written prior authorization.

Since the contract permits Flock to make the decision on whether the data release is “legally required” without requiring the City’s permission to disclose such data, we must rely on Flock’s “good will’ in interpreting and applying this contract provision. However, Flock’s reputation for illegal releases belies this ability.10 The standard contract terms are also carving out more rights to Flock and less rights over data to municipalities.11
10 https://www.aclu-co.org/press-releases/coalition-of-civil-rights-and-advocacy-organizations-deeplyconcerned-about-use-of-flock-cameras-for-ice-surveillance/. 11 https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flocks-terms-and-conditions

Flock Has Every Incentive to Expand Its System and Use Los Altos’ Data to Assist in Federal Searches and Incursions into Our Privacy.

Flock’s business model depends on ultimately creating an integrated database which can then be marketed to the federal government. On May 14, 2026, the FBI released an RFP for a nationwide RFP that can provide ALPRs for tracking subjects on roads and highways over the US and its territories. The requirements include:
• The bidder must provide law enforcement and/or commercial license plate reader data provided through the Contractor’s existing platform. The system must cover 75 percent of locations.
• The system must oƯer the ability to search for license plate information and other descriptive data such as vehicle description information, time/date criteria, and geo-location criteria.
• The system must provide search result notifications. The Contractor system must have the ability to access and/or query cameras across the United States and its territories. The Contractor system must be capable of providing this data in near real time.
• Contractors have to be able to share/create maps depicting camera coverage (i.e. heat mapping), and provide the FBI the source of information (i.e. red-light cameras, repossession vendors, speed cameras, etc.).
• The FBI must be able to search the database for partial or full plate numbers, plate states, addresses, locations where a plate was scanned, and vehicle makes and models.12
It is widely reported that Flock will be bidding on this contract. This bid’s success will rely on the most robust and comprehensive network Flock can demonstrate.

For all these reasons, I urge the Council to take the following actions:

1. Cancel the existing contract with Flock and not exercise any of the renewal provisions;

2. If the Council is not inclined to immediately cancel the Flock contract, direct the City Attorney to review the Berkeley City Attorney legal memorandum and opine whether the concerns addressed in the Berkeley memorandum apply to the Los Altos contract.
12 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/05/fbi-seeks-us-wide-access-to-license-plate-cameras-wantsdata-in-near-real-time/

Sincerely,
Cara Silver
Safety over Surveillance Los Altos
Indivisible of Palo Alto

From: lindabaker
To: Public Comment
Subject: Flock in Los Altos
Date: Sunday, May 24, 2026 3:54:41 PM
Dear Los Altos City Council members,
I write in opposition to the use of Flock mass surveillance systems in Los Altos.

I worked in beautiful downtown Los Altos at the Packard Foundation for many years.

One of the values the Foundation holds close is integrity. The Foundation says that integrity means that "we are open and honest, hold ourselves accountable, and adhere to the highest standards of conduct and ethics in all we do." I am confident that the Los Altos City Council also wishes to hold up this value.

Unfortunately, integrity is not possible when partnering with a company like Flock. For example, earlier this month in Berkeley, a confidential memo from the City Attorney was obtained by the Californian. The memo outlined potential lawsuits, unreliable data protections, and “what could have been either simple negligence or shady maneuvering by Flock while negotiating with Berkeley.” The Californian says “The attorneys suggested that Flock is likely going to agree to any safety measures the city demands, but added, “we [the City] cannot ensure Flock will abide by its contractual obligations.” Indeed, they continued, “the company may not even have the technical ability to implement some of the safeguards to which it might agree.” Several municipalities are being sued for their use of Flock, including two lawsuits in nearby San Jose. At Stanford, an open letter opposing the use of Flock has nearly 900 signatures from members of the Stanford community, including democracy scholar Larry Diamond, twelve faculty of the Stanford Law School, and over 100 other faculty from across the university.

Even though dedicated law enforcement does its best, local oversight of Flock is unfortunately toothless. Earlier this year in Palo Alto, city leaders assured residents that despite breaches in Mountain View and elsewhere, Palo Alto’s data access policies were strong and outside agencies had not accessed the Palo Alto Flock system. Then, in April, the Department’s release of network audit logs showed a multi-year pattern of outside agencies improperly accessing the Palo Alto Police Department’s system, in violation of California law (SB 34) and the City’s own Surveillance Use Policy. Similar patterns of improper access have been documented in Mountain View, Menlo Park, Capitola, San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, Saratoga, Oxnard, and other communities across the nation.

Furthermore, this month 404 media reported the FBI release of a statement of work seeking to “buy access to automated license plate readers (ALPRs) nationwide, which would likely allow the agency to track the movements of vehicles—and by

extension people—across the country without a warrant.” Documented access of ICE and CBP to Flock data through side doors is already widely reported, and this statement is one step further.

Since the beginning of this month, four more cities have rejected Flock — bringing the total to sixty-eight, a number that continues to grow. On May 5, El Cerrito City Council voted to cancel their Flock contract. The mayor said “ultimately my biggest concern is the federal government could access the data…The law has been changing constantly, we are losing more rights every week.” Evanston, Illinois canceled Flock last year after a discovery by the Illinois Secretary of State that Flock had allowed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to access cameras in the state as part of a “pilot project,” illegal under state law. After Evanston canceled the contract and had the cameras removed, Flock reinstalled them. The city issued a cease-and-desist and covered the cameras with black plastic to prevent Flock from continuing to collect data until they were physically removed.

For the safety of Los Altos residents and their visitors, service workers, colleagues, and friends, and for the sake of our democracy, I urge the Los Altos City Council to reject Flock.

Linda Baker

From: Andrea Wald
To: Public Comment; Gabriel Engeland
Subject: Agenda item #7 - Proposed FY 2026/27 Operating Budget and FY 2027-31 Five-Year Capital & Major Maintenance Program
Date: Sunday, May 24, 2026 2:36:20 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
Dear Mayor Meadows, Vice Mayor Lang, City Council members and City Manager England,
I am writing in regards to Agenda item #7 Proposed FY 2026/27 Operating Budget and FY2027-31 Five-Year Capital & Major Maintenance Program.

From Page 4 of the proposed Capital Budget FY2027-2031 there are dollar amounts shown for design and construction services for both Shoup and Grant Playgrounds. See screen shot below.

I do not see any documents pertaining to the equipment nor ground covering for the parks. I’m wondering where those numbers appear and why they are not part of this budget.

I’m still very concerned about previous discussion and plans for the playgrounds – especially the suggested PIP ground covering. I’d like to know what the status is of the renovation plans for both parks.

Below are three sections from the Council’s own strategic goals (https://www.losaltosca.gov/291/Council-Strategic-Goals):

Here I would like to highlight the statement about engaging the community in making decisions. This, unfortunately, was not the case when council decided to approve PIP for the new outdoor exercise area. I sincerely hope things will be different for the ground covering at both Shoup and Grant playgrounds

where many have spoken out against going with PIP – including ALL members of your own Parks and Rec Commission.

In order to be a leader in environmental sustainability it is crucial to understand the impact of unnatural materials, specifically plastics – that are neither environmentally friendly nor sustainable. PIP is unhealthy and not sustainable.

I will spare you by repeating all the materials you’ve already been provided on why this is so.

Lastly, “protecting green space” is not only related to housing but also applies to your parks and playgrounds. Once again – PIP is harmful and does nothing to protect our “green spaces”!
When the time comes for you to approve plans for the two park renovations, PLEASE DO NOT approve PIP. EWF (Engineered Wood Fiber) is currently in the parks, is working well and is preferred by those using the parks and those of us who truly understand the harms of PIP.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Andrea Wald

From: gorgP
To: Public Comment
Subject: (No Subject)
Date: Friday, May 22, 2026 11:34:46 AM
Dear City Council,
My name is Mary Buysse and I have lived in Los Altos for almost 30years.

I'm writing to urge you to cancel our city contract with Flock. Mass surveillance makes me feel LESS safe, not more safe.

It worries me to have my location tracked in a national database owned by a private company backed by Peter Thiel and Marc Andresson. I do not feel confident will protect those of us that live and work here.

I am also VERY worried about the hard working Residents that work in and around our city.

Please cancel this Flock contract.

Thank you,
Mary
Please cancel this Flock contract.

From: Jim Wing
To: Public Comment
Subject: Council 05/26/2026 Meeting Agenda Item 7 CIP Project 90006 Adobe Creek Sewer Line Date: Thursday, May 21, 2026 7:45:39 PM
Los Altos Mayor Meadows and Distinguished Council Members Subject: Capital Improvement Major Maintenance Project 90006 {ww-01012} Adobe Creek Sewer Main capacity increase [6-inch to 8-inch diameter] from Manresa downstream to Edith. Agenda Item 7
What the draft CEQA Report taught me is this project is like “tail waging the dog”.

Los Altos needs to “fix the tail first” and then see if the “dog is ok” Over past 30 years, upstream start of Adobe Creek Sewer Line usage has dramatically increased with development of 15-unit Manresa Housing Complex and recently increased public usage of Jesuit Retreat Event Center. Recent new events like hoisting weekday local business meetings with groups arriving in at least 2 double decker busses and weekend overnight individual retreats that are booked online. Visitors come from many states because of location that offers rooms / meals with fantastic views of Silicone Valley and Mt. Hamilton. Also, walking trail that has view of San Francisco City Skyline / Bay and easy walk to Redwood Grove trees and Downtown Los Altos restaurants. Most recently a natural landscape “religious labyrinth” large enough to be seen on Google Maps is seeing heavy use.

I recommend you consider breaking this project into two phases:

Phase 1: Follow 1960’s Los Altos Sewer Line plan connecting to Jesuit Retreat / Manresa Housing Complex sewer line to existing branch of High-Capacity University Ave. sewer line that goes downhill on Manresa to connection manhole. Existing sewer line pump with backup electrical power could possibly be used to pump sewerage up Manresa to “connection manhole”. Existing sewer line that goes under Adobe Creek at New Manresa bridge can be abandon because new double enclosed line could be mounted on cement wall on downstream side of Manresa Bridge. A hydraulic flow study needs to be done by engineering to confirm if existing sewer line pump has sufficient “lift capacity”. If not, a higher lift capacity pump could be installed.

Phase 2: After completing Phase 1 [less than one year] only monitor existing Adobe Creek Sewer 6-inch line from University Ave, homes that are connected to it for customer reported problems or green algae that suggests possible leaks. In my 58 years of walking Adobe Creek the only confirmed by City Staff Adobe Creek sewer line leak was last year at where the Manresa Pump House line starts to go under Adobe Creek.

This leak zone would be abandoned as part of Phase 1. I have seen green algae from “trash dumps”, dead animals or in places that are not near 6- inch line.

Keep in mind if Phase 1 works, you will have solved problem in one year for less than $491,908 rather than several years and $7,541,960. Also keep in mind that Phase 2

requires heavy equipment that will cause damage to native Creekside plants and trees.

Thank You for your consideration!
Jim Wing Milverton Road, Los Altos, Ca.

From: carolovelman
To: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: Say NO to Flock
Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 1:11:20 PM
Dear Los Altos City Council members,
Please listen to your constituents and do as all the cities surrounding our beautiful city have already done and say NO to renewing the Flock contract. Please - we are surveiled enough as it is.

Thank You,
Carol Ovelman
[email protected]

From: Renee Rashid
To: Public Comment
Subject: Council Meeting 5/26/26 Agenda Item #5
Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 1:58:25 PM
Attachments: Screenshot 2025-10-08 at 11.13.30 AM.png
To Mayor, Vice-Mayor & Councilmembers,
I am writing to you as a resident of Los Altos to urge you to cancel our agreement with Flock Safety. Through numerous discussions with LARE members and Councilmembers, we have consistently brought up the ways that Flock is unsafe for our community and how they have broken trust in Los Altos and other communities across the US. But I saw this statement in the staff report for today's meeting:
"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."
This is in direct contradiction to statements I found on Flock's website on Oct. 8, 2025:

As you can see, here Flock clearly says that a search is preserved in the audit trail of every agency whose cameras were included in the search. Even to a layperson, this makes sense.

An audit of a person's financial records includes the transactions that particular person was involved in. If a Flock network audit gives data about all the Flock cameras across its entire

system, it is of no use to us - or to any other city using Flock. It makes no sense whatsoever . However, if this is the way you want to insist that Flock is doing the network audit, then another problem arises - we have NO WAY of determining who has accessed our data.

Please - as you consider the arguments before you - remember that Flock is not being honest with us, and that is no longer something our community will tolerate when it comes to our rights in this age of federal overreach.

Thank you,
Renee Rashid
Los Altos Resident
LARE member

From: Joshua Williams
To: Public Comment
Cc: Kim Woo
Subject: Agenda item 5 Adoption of Resolution - Contract Extension with Flock Safety Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 2:27:05 PM
I do not support Flock or ALPR cameras and we should not extend the contract.

Flock and ALPR cameras are warrantless mass surveillance and they do not make our city safer. There are countless articles and studies that have proven this. The public safety angle is sensationalized with hand picked examples that do not represent the reality on the ground. Even if you are convinced they help, having a warrantless way to track me in my daily life is not acceptable. Even cell data needs a warrant.

The Supreme Court in Carpenter ruled that there is an expectation of privacy in public spaces when the data tracking is this pervasive like flock cameras is not constitutional. There is a growing groundswell against this technology so I urge you not to be on the wrong side of history supporting mass surveillance and its abuse by government agencies and ICE.

Please protect our privacy and spend city funds on items that actually improve public safety like repairing sidewalks and our streets and improving intersections and vehicular movement and safety. - Josh Williams

From: [email protected]
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fw: May 26 Council meeting; agenda item no. 5
Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:26:35 PM
Attachments: 2026-05-24 Silver Letter to Los Altos Council.docx I am re-sending the attached public comment letter regarding Agenda Item No. 5 as it did not appear to make it into the agenda packet.

Thank you,
Cara Silver
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

May 24, 2026
Re: Public Comment - Agenda Item No. 5, May 26, 2026 Flock License Plate Reader Contract Renewal
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:

I am the co-lead of the Immigrant Rights Action Team of Indivisible Palo Alto Plus. I am also a municipal attorney, and in this capacity have reviewed thousands of Service Agreements.

For the past year, I have been monitoring actions taken by Santa Clara County cities with respect to Flock contracts. The collection of detailed data, held by a private company with documented privacy abuses and close ties to the federal government, creates a mass surveillance state in a time of egregious federal overreach. As residents and local governments learn more about this technology, alarm bells are going oƯ across the country. This is profoundly unsafe. And it is about much more than license plates.

As discussed in more detail below, I have grave concerns about the existing terms and conditions contained in Flock standard contracts as well as the new terms and conditions that Flock is rolling out.

The Legal Framework
There are several constitutional and statutory safeguards regarding automated license plate readers (ALPR’s). Both the federal and state constitutions provide a right to privacy from government surveillance. The application of this principle to Flock technology is the subject of many recently filed lawsuits. For example, a recent class action was filed against the City of San Jose under a privacy theory. The suit argues that Flock’s ALPR network violates privacy protections: “No oƯicer ever has to establish probable cause, swear to the facts in a warrant application, or await the approval of a judge. . . .OƯicers can run searches based on a hunch, idle curiosity, or even personal animus. Around the country, oƯicers have been caught using [automated license-plating reader] databases to stalk their expartners, monitor protestors and even track down a woman who reportedly had an abortion.”1 A similar class action lawsuit was filed against Flock in San Francisco Superior 1 https://www.kqed.org/news/12080233/san-jose-residents-sue-city-saying-flock-safety-cameras-allowmass-surveillance.

Court.2
And a class action lawsuit was filed against Home Depot alleging that it had turned over surveillance data to law enforcement agencies without a warrant.3 California also has two statutory schemes preventing the sharing of ALPR-collected data.

First, SB 54, known as California’s sanctuary state law, prohibits all cities from sharing data with ICE and Border Patrol. Second, SB 34, the ALPR privacy law, prohibits sharing data with federal and out of state agencies. Importantly, SB 34 contains a $2,500 penalty for data sharing violations as well as a private cause of action.

A recently leaked legal memorandum from the City of Berkeley’s Attorney’s OƯice about Flock Safety warned that Flock technology might be incapable of complying with city, state and federal unauthorized data sharing restrictions even with the addition of strenuous contractual safeguards.
4 Flock’s Collection of Data Via a Nationwide Database is Inherently Risky ALPR technology is a powerful surveillance system that can be used to invade the privacy of individuals and violate the rights of entire communities, particularly vulnerable residents. ALPR systems collect and store location information about drivers that can be built into a database that, in turn, reveals sensitive details about where individuals work, live, associate, worship, seek medical care, and travel.5 As with other surveillance technologies, police often disproportionately deploy license plate readers in communities experiencing poverty and historically overpoliced communities of color, regardless of crime rates.6 ALPR information has also been shared with immigration authorities such as 2 https://www.classlawgroup.com/flock-license-plate-cameras-face-class-action-lawsuit-by-gibbs-mura-alaw-group. 3 https://www.dailyjournal.com/article/390841-home-depot-sued-over-license-plate-reader-use-in-parkinglots 4 https://www.dailycal.org/news/city/leaked-city-attorney-memo-shows-berkeley-risks-potential-milliondollar-lawsuits-if-council-renews-flock/article_2a5efc3e-4d33-4b2f-8683-0e1395642fe8.html. 5See, e.g., Automatic License Plate Readers, ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION(Mar.29, 2023)https://www.eƯ.org/sls/tech/automated-license-plate-readers; You Are Being Tracked: How License Plate Readers Are Being Used to Record Americans’ Movements, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (July 2013) https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/you-are-being-tracked. 6 Dave Maass and Jeremy Gillula, What You Can Learn from Oakland’s Raw ALPR Data, ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION(Jan. 21, 2015)https://www.eƯ.org/deeplinks/2015/01/what-we-learned-oaklandraw-alpr-data; Barton Gellman and Sam Adler-Bell, The Disparate Impact of Surveillance, THE CENTURY FOUNDATION (Dec. 21, 2017)https://production-tcf.imgix.net/app/uploads/2017/12/03151009/thedisparate-impact-of-surveillance.pdf; see also, e.g., Kaveh Waddell, How License-Plate Readers Have Helped Police and Lenders Target the Poor, THE ATLANTIC(Apr. 22, 2016) https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/04/how-license-plate-readers-have-helped-policePage 90 of 271 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to identify, detain, and deport immigrant community members.7 The possibility of human workarounds at every level undermines any technical safeguards Flock may claim. Search term blocking relies on oƯicers accurately labeling search intent—a system easily defeated by entering vague reasons like "investigation" or incorrect justifications, made either intentionally or not. And, of course, words like "investigation" or "missing person" can mean virtually anything, oƯering no value to meaningful oversight of how and for what the system is being used. The recently employed drop down menu options make it even easier for users to select a search term that would “pass” a network audit. The same can be said for case number requirements, which depend on manual entry. This can easily be circumvented by reusing legitimate case numbers for unauthorized searches. Audit logs only track inputs, not contextual legitimacy. Flock's proposed AIdriven audit alerts, something that may be able to flag suspicious activity after searches (and harm) have already occurred, relies on local agencies to self-monitor misuse— despite their demonstrated inability to do so.8
Even the most restrictive department policy may not be enough. Austin, Texas, had implemented one of the most restrictive ALPR programs in the country, and the program still failed: the city's own audit revealed systematic compliance failures that rendered its guardrails meaningless.9
The Flock Contract Has Troubling Terms and Conditions
Flock encourages all of its city customers to sign a template contract that on its face appears to protect city data, but in reality contains large loopholes. Further, Flock is rolling out new terms and conditions that continue to cut inroads into data privacy. As Flock’s success depends on a connected network of data, this is not surprising. and-lenders-target-the-poor/479436/(summarizing data indicating that Oakland Police Department deployed ALPRs “disproportionately often in low-income areas and in neighborhoods with high concentrations of African-American and Latino residents”).
7 SairaHussain and Adam Schwartz, EFF Files New Lawsuit Against California SheriƯ for Sharing ALPR Data with ICE and CBP, ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION (Oct. 19, 2021) https://www.eƯ.org/deeplinks/2021/10/eƯ-files-new-lawsuit-against-california-sheriƯ-sharing-alpr-data-iceand-cbp. 8 https://www.eƯ.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-licenseplate-readers-safe. 9 Id.

For example, Paragraph 3.3 of the Flock contract provides a fairly straightforward customer data security provision:

3.3. Flock Obligations. Flock shall keep written documentation of who accesses the Customer Data and who the Customer Data is released to, and shall provide such documentation upon request from the Customer. Subject to Section 5.3, Flock shall not (1) share the Customer Data with any individual, entity or agency without written permission from Customer; (2) access, download, or decrypt the Customer Data without written permission from Customer; (3) store the Customer Data in any form or for any length of time that violates this Agreement; (4) allow its agents or employees without authorized clearance to access the Customer Data; and (5) otherwise use the Customer Data in a manner that is not approved in writing by Customer. (Emphasis added.)
However, this provision is subject to a more sinister contract provision:

Section 5.3 Disclosure of Footage. Subject to and during the Retention Period, Flock may access, use, preserve and/or disclose the Footage to law enforcement authorities, government oƯicials, and/or third parties, if legally required to do so.

Subject to reasonable advance notice to Customer, Flock may also access, use, preserve, and/or disclose Footage if Flock has a good faith belief that such access, use, preservation and/or disclosure is both permissible under applicable law and reasonably necessary either to: (x) comply with a legal process; (y) enforce this Agreement; or (z) detect, prevent or otherwise address security, privacy, fraud or technical issues, or emergency situations. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, Flock shall not disclose Footage under any other circumstance without Customer’s express written prior authorization.

Since the contract permits Flock to make the decision on whether the data release is “legally required” without requiring the City’s permission to disclose such data, we must rely on Flock’s “good will’ in interpreting and applying this contract provision. However, Flock’s reputation for illegal releases belies this ability.10 The standard contract terms are also carving out more rights to Flock and less rights over data to municipalities.11
10 https://www.aclu-co.org/press-releases/coalition-of-civil-rights-and-advocacy-organizations-deeplyconcerned-about-use-of-flock-cameras-for-ice-surveillance/. 11 https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flocks-terms-and-conditions

Flock Has Every Incentive to Expand Its System and Use Los Altos’ Data to Assist in Federal Searches and Incursions into Our Privacy.

Flock’s business model depends on ultimately creating an integrated database which can then be marketed to the federal government. On May 14, 2026, the FBI released an RFP for a nationwide RFP that can provide ALPRs for tracking subjects on roads and highways over the US and its territories. The requirements include:
 The bidder must provide law enforcement and/or commercial license plate reader data provided through the Contractor’s existing platform. The system must cover 75 percent of locations.
 The system must oƯer the ability to search for license plate information and other descriptive data such as vehicle description information, time/date criteria, and geo-location criteria.
 The system must provide search result notifications. The Contractor system must have the ability to access and/or query cameras across the United States and its territories. The Contractor system must be capable of providing this data in near real time.
 Contractors have to be able to share/create maps depicting camera coverage (i.e. heat mapping), and provide the FBI the source of information (i.e. red-light cameras, repossession vendors, speed cameras, etc.).
 The FBI must be able to search the database for partial or full plate numbers, plate states, addresses, locations where a plate was scanned, and vehicle makes and models.12
It is widely reported that Flock will be bidding on this contract. This bid’s success will rely on the most robust and comprehensive network Flock can demonstrate.

For all these reasons, I urge the Council to take the following actions:

1. Cancel the existing contract with Flock and not exercise any of the renewal provisions;

2. If the Council is not inclined to immediately cancel the Flock contract, direct the City Attorney to review the Berkeley City Attorney legal memorandum and opine whether the concerns addressed in the Berkeley memorandum apply to the Los Altos contract.
12 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/05/fbi-seeks-us-wide-access-to-license-plate-cameras-wantsdata-in-near-real-time/

Sincerely,
Cara Silver
Safety over Surveillance Los Altos
Indivisible of Palo Alto

From: Julie Lunn
To: Public Comment
Subject: Please get Flock Out of Los Altos Agenda Item#5 on 5/26 Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:26:38 PM
Dear City Council,
I'm Julie Lunn and have enjoyed living in and around Los Altos since the mid 1980s.

I've enjoyed raising our three children here in Los Altos for the past 17 years, with great public schools, easy access to local shops and dining, and plenty of fun, safe parks.

I'm writing to communicate my strong opposition to the use of Flock cameras in our community. This technology makes me feel vulnerable to forces I dont have visibility into nor influence upon. There is nothing about the use of these cameras that makes me feel more safe, in fact, they do just the opposite. Just like with social media, once you share data, you lose control over where it goes, who sees it, and how they decide to use it long into the future. Just as an example, if someone needs to cross through town to attend A No Kings Protest or even shop at a business near the protest's location that has no connection whatsoever, their data should not be tracked. They should feel free to peacefully go about their business that day, whatever that happens to be, without fear that AI based surveillance systems are tracking them.

Our police department has done an admirable job for decades, keeping our broader community safe without the use of this intrusive surveillance technology. If curtailing property crime is a priority, more targeted, evidenced based solutions are available.

The amount of data breach notifications I receive on a weekly basis now is both frustrating and frightening. Despite policies and safe guards in place, data security is an ongoing concern. I should be able to get groceries, return a library book, or grab coffee with a colleague, without adding to the wealth of information tech systems have collected, stored and shared without my explicit permission for their own monetary gain.

I urge you to cancel the Flock contract. Please continue to support our police in the important work they do, but without a company that continues to have worrisome conduct as documented by cities around the country. Flock has yet to prove they have our community's best interest or long term safety at heart. Please do your best in listening to the concerns raised, heeding the warnings of other communities, and protecting us all by getting Flock out.

With deep appreciation for the time and effort you put into our community, Julie Lunn

From: [email protected]
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda item - FLOCK renewal - Do Not Renew
Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 4:04:42 PM
As a Los Altos resident (1715 Selig Ln) , I strongly oppose renewing FLOCK. The unwarranted collection of personal movements is clearly not constitutional. Arguments that current policies are in place that the data will not be used in an unconstitutional manner are weak and naive. Valuable data will ultimately be intentionally or unintentionally leaked. Federal policies have changed so dramatically in the last couple years that no one should feel comfortable that tomorrow’s policies won’t leverage this information for political gain and not for enforcing laws.

Please stop funding this program.

Respectfully
Brian Lunn
Sent from my iPhone

From: leigh.abott
To: Public Comment
Subject: City Council Meeting 5/26/2026 Flock Cameras Item #5 (Against Renewal of Flock Contract) Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 5:41:09 PM
Dear Mayor & City Council Members -
I read the Staff Report in Full and am against the renewal of the Contract For Flock Cameras I believe it is a sliding scale issue meaning there is no right answer. It is an evaluation of safety vs. the right to privacy and a civil liberties issue. I understand the argument that there is no right to privacy in a public space. However, even if you have no absolute right to privacy in public, there is a massive difference between being casually observed by a passerby and being tracked by a permanent, government-controlled system.

Pre-Flock camera installation I felt safe. I still feel safe. Los Altos is a safe place to live and the Police Department does an excellent job. I do have significant concerns about our right to privacy and our civil liberties. After reading the Staff Report, I question Flock's ability to keep our data secure, our ability to protect ourselves from Flock or another entity's ability to get around Flock and access our data, and the success of the system. I believe only 2 of the examples in the staff report mentioned Los Altos directly and one was a minor incident.

If the contract is renewed we need to have another discussion about camera placements, policies, security and ongoing evaluation.

Leigh

From: [email protected]
To: Public Comment
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Public Comment Submission to City Council Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 6:42:18 PM
Public Comment Submission to City Council
Submitting Written Comments on Agenda Items
Please note: Personal information, such as email addresses, telephone numbers, home addresses, and other contact information are not required to be included with your comments. If this information is included, they will become part of the public record.

Redactions and/or edits will not be made to public comments, and the comments will be posted as they are submitted. Please do not include any information in your communication that you do not want to be made public.

Public comments submitted by 5:00 PM of the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet.

Public comments and any associated attachments are subject to the California Public Records Act.

Your Public Comment As a twenty-plus-year resident of Los Altos and Los Altos Hills, I am in favor of retaining FLOCK ALPR cameras. There currently does not appear to be a more reasonable, effective, and constrained law enforcement tool for comparable functions, as described on the Los Altos website. Moreover, concerns
regarding privacy and surveillance seem inflated. What is the surveillance difference between a photo of a license plate from a FLOCK camera and the FASTTRACK toll cameras? Or a
speeding camera? Or a red light camera? Is it credible to believe that none of these other camera databases are accessible by federal government agencies? I doubt it. The difference is that FLOCK is one of the only tools available to local law enforcement to effectively catch criminals. Crime happening in Los Altos or Los Altos Hills does not stay here. The criminals will inevitably cross over to another neighboring city. Without FLOCK, how will Los Altos PD coordinate with neighboring police departments to track and apprehend criminal vehicles? The dozens of examples on the Los Altos PD website demonstrate the value of this tool.

Eliminating flock would not only handicap our law enforcement, it would be naive. Ultimately, there will be some form of traffic cameras. Flock has owned up to past mistakes and offers robust protections on privacy and no data sharing with ICE or
government agencies. There is a strong likelihood that, no matter what, traffic cameras will be in place in Los Altos. But there is no guarantee that an alternative to flock would be better or offer the same protections.

Attachments Field not completed.

Name 20+ year resident
Email Field not completed.

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

From: [email protected]
To: Public Comment
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Public Comment Submission to City Council Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 6:40:20 PM
Public Comment Submission to City Council
Submitting Written Comments on Agenda Items
Please note: Personal information, such as email addresses, telephone numbers, home addresses, and other contact information are not required to be included with your comments. If this information is included, they will become part of the public record.

Redactions and/or edits will not be made to public comments, and the comments will be posted as they are submitted. Please do not include any information in your communication that you do not want to be made public.

Public comments submitted by 5:00 PM of the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet.

Public comments and any associated attachments are subject to the California Public Records Act.

Your Public Comment As a twenty-plus-year resident of Los Altos and Los Altos Hills, I am in favor of retaining FLOCK ALPR cameras. There currently does not appear to be a more reasonable, effective, and constrained law enforcement tool for comparable functions, as described on the Los Altos website. Moreover, concerns
regarding privacy and surveillance seem inflated. What is the surveillance difference between a photo of a license plate from a FLOCK camera and the FASTTRACK toll cameras? Or a
speeding camera? Or a red light camera? Is it credible to believe that none of these other camera databases are accessible by federal government agencies? I doubt it. The difference is that FLOCK is one of the only tools available to local law enforcement to effectively catch criminals. Crime happening in Los Altos or Los Altos Hills does not stay here. The criminals will inevitably cross over to another neighboring city. Without FLOCK, how will Los Altos PD coordinate with neighboring police departments to track and apprehend criminal vehicles? The dozens of examples on the Los Altos PD website demonstrate the value of this tool.

Eliminating flock would not only handicap our law enforcement, it would be naive. Ultimately, there will be some form of traffic cameras. Flock has owned up to past mistakes and offers robust protections on privacy and no data sharing with ICE or
government agencies. There is a strong likelihood that, no matter what, traffic cameras will be in place in Los Altos. But there is no guarantee that an alternative to flock would be better or offer the same protections.

Attachments Field not completed.

Name 20+ year resident
Email Field not completed.

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

From: [email protected]
To: Public Comment
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Public Comment Submission to City Council Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 6:38:31 PM
Public Comment Submission to City Council
Submitting Written Comments on Agenda Items
Please note: Personal information, such as email addresses, telephone numbers, home addresses, and other contact information are not required to be included with your comments. If this information is included, they will become part of the public record.

Redactions and/or edits will not be made to public comments, and the comments will be posted as they are submitted. Please do not include any information in your communication that you do not want to be made public.

Public comments submitted by 5:00 PM of the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet.

Public comments and any associated attachments are subject to the California Public Records Act.

Your Public Comment As a twenty-plus-year resident of Los Altos and Los Altos Hills, I am in favor of retaining FLOCK ALPR cameras. There currently does not appear to be a more reasonable, effective, and constrained law enforcement tool for comparable functions, as described on the Los Altos website. Moreover, concerns
regarding privacy and surveillance seem inflated. What is the surveillance difference between a photo of a license plate from a FLOCK camera and the FASTTRACK toll cameras? Or a
speeding camera? Or a red light camera? Is it credible to believe that none of these other camera databases are accessible by federal government agencies? I doubt it. The difference is that FLOCK is one of the only tools available to local law enforcement to effectively catch criminals. Crime happening in Los Altos or Los Altos Hills does not stay here. The criminals will inevitably cross over to another neighboring city. Without FLOCK, how will Los Altos PD coordinate with neighboring police departments to track and apprehend criminal vehicles? The dozens of examples on the Los Altos PD website demonstrate the value of this tool.

Eliminating flock would not only handicap our law enforcement, it would be naive. Ultimately, there will be some form of traffic cameras. Flock has owned up to past mistakes and offers robust protections on privacy and no data sharing with ICE or
government agencies. There is a strong likelihood that, no matter what, traffic cameras will be in place in Los Altos. But there is no guarantee that an alternative to flock would be better or offer the same protections.

Attachments Field not completed.

Name 20+ year resident
Email Field not completed.

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

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 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 by 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.

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: May 26, 2026
Prepared By: Saskia Lagergren
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Adoption of Resolution - Accept COPS Grant Funding

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
Public Safety
General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Accept grant funding from the Citizens Option for Public Safety/Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (COPS/SLESF) and authorize revenue and allocate it to the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund for Fiscal Year 2025–26

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Not applicable

FISCAL IMPACT
If Council approves the proposed recommendation, the Police Department will continue to receive a minimum of $100,000 in annual SLESF funding. The allocation of SLESF funds will be maintained in the Supplemental Law Enforcement Fund, which is a special revenue fund, with corresponding revenue and expenditure line to manage the funds. This ensures the funds are appropriately tracked, with the revenue deposited into the COPS/SLESF grant program. The current grant program allocates an annual minimum of $100,000 for front-line law enforcement operations.

After the initial disbursement of funds to participating jurisdictions, any additional growth funds are distributed by the County of Santa Clara to participating jurisdictions. The funding received during FY 25/26 to date is $201,540.94

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
May 13, 2025—Accept COPS Grant Funding
August 26, 2025—Accept Surplus COPS Grant Funding

BACKGROUND
In 1996, Assembly Bill 3229 established the Citizen’s Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program’s Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF). The Legislature determined that there was a compelling need for additional resources at the local level for the purpose of ensuring public safety and established the COPS program to advance community policing in all

counties. The COPS program awards non-competitive and non-matching grants to law enforcement agencies to fund frontline municipal police services. These funds are to be used to purchase officer safety and duty equipment, communications equipment and vehicles, among other things, that are all used directly and solely in the provision of frontline police services to the community.

Per Government Code §§ 30061-30063, cities are allocated a proportionate share of COPS funds by the California Department of Finance, through Santa Clara County. Proportionate shares are based on population estimates determined by the California Department of Finance.

This is not a fixed amount grant. Under the standard grant program allocation, the City of Los Altos is eligible to receive a minimum of $100,000 annually. Each fall, the California Department of Finance estimates the allocation for each law enforcement agency in the county; the actual amount paid varies from the projection and is unknown until the payment cycle is complete. Monthly distributions are received via wire transfer and the City’s Finance Department deposits these funds into a separate grant account. These distributions are not received in equal installments from month-to-month; therefore, spending over the course of the payment cycle can be unpredictable.

The COPS/SLESF grant does not have any application or other requirements; the monies are transferred to local entities through the County by operation of law (Government Code §§30061-30063) and are to be expended in accordance with the requirements of those code sections. The Government Code contains the following requirements for a recipient agency:
• The funds shall be used exclusively for front line law enforcement services • The funds cannot be used to supplant other existing funding sources for general law enforcement services
• Moneys in the fund shall not be transferred to, or intermingled with, the moneys in any other fund in the City treasury, except to the extent necessary to facilitate the appropriation and expenditure of those transferred moneys • The City Council shall approve the appropriation of COPS funds which authorizes that such funds can be expended by staff
• Once the appropriation of the grant funds is made, it cannot be subsequently altered by the City Council
• The funds cannot be used for a capital or construction project that does not directly support front line law enforcement services

ANALYSIS

DISCUSSION
Staff recommends the use of SLESF funds continue in the spirit of the COPS program. Staff recommends FY 2025/26 approval and allocation of SLESF funds to the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund for FY 25/26. The department intends to utilize the funding for the following purposes:

• Recon Robotics Throwbot 2 (approved by Council during the annual AB 481 report) • Ballistic shields, NIJ Level III or IV body armor and other protective equipment • Technology and software, such as that used for digital forensics, Crime Analysis, or other uses that enhance operational efficiency, improve communication, and enable enhanced data analysis, crime deterrent measures, crisis negotiation or case management.

The goal is to leverage equipment integration of modern technology that can improve public safety and overall service delivery.
• Protective vehicle-mitigation barriers used to prevent intentional vehicle intrusions and related threats

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Resolution

2. Attachment 2 - COPS Grant Funding Letter 2025

Resolution No. 2026- Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

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

AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF FUNDS FROM THE CITIZENS

OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY/SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

SERVICES FUND (COPS/SLESF)
WHEREAS, the State of California has authorized a cumulative grant of $201,540.94 to the Los Altos Police Department under the Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS) program to be distributed through the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund-SLESF administered by Santa Clara County; and WHEREAS, as a condition of receiving the grant funds, state law requires the City Council to authorize the expenditure of grant funds for specific purposes related to “front line law enforcement;” and
WHEREAS, the Los Altos Police Department recommends that the grant funds be spent on a Recon Robotics Throwbot 2; ballistic shields, NIJ Level III or IV body armor and other protective equipment; technology and software, such as that used for digital forensics, Crime Analysis, or other uses that enhance operational efficiency, improve communication, and enable enhanced data analysis, crime deterrent measures, crisis negotiation or case management; and protective vehicle‑mitigation barriers used to prevent intentional vehicle intrusions and related threats.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby authorize the expenditure of the COPS/SLESF grant funds as outlined above.

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 May 26, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Sally Meadows, MAYOR
Attest:

Resolution No. 2026- Page 2
_____________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC,

CITY CLERK

September 9, 2025
Honorable Malia M. Cohen
State Controller
3301 C Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
Attention: Evelyn Calderon-Yee, Chief
Bureau of Payments, Local Government Programs and Services Division, State Controller’s Office
Dear Controller Cohen:

Pursuant to Government Code section 30029.05, subdivision (e), paragraph (2), the Department of Finance respectfully submits the attached (Attachments I and II) percentages for the 2025-26 allocation of $214,200,000 in Citizens’ Option for Public Safety (COPS) and Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) funds deposited in the Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount (ELEAS) in the Law Enforcement Services Account within the Local Revenue Fund 2011.

Pursuant to Government Code section 30061, subdivisions (b) and (g), subsequent to the allocation described in Section 29552, subdivision (d), 47.08727192 percent of the remaining funds deposited in the ELEAS for the COPS (23.54363596 percent) and JJCPA (23.54363596 percent) programs are to be allocated, according to the relative population for each county and city, as follows:
(1) 5.15 percent to county sheriffs for county jail construction and operation ($11,031,300).
(2) 5.15 percent to district attorneys for criminal prosecution ($11,031,300). (3) 50 percent to counties to implement a comprehensive multi-agency juvenile justice plan ($107,100,000).
(4) 39.7 percent to counties and cities for front-line law enforcement ($85,037,400).

Please note that the by-county percentages for the first three allocations above: (1) county jail construction and operation, (2) district attorney criminal prosecution, and (3) multi-agency juvenile justice plans, are specified on Attachment I and the bycounty/city percentages for the fourth allocation, front-line law enforcement, are identified on Attachment II.

2 Pursuant to Government Code section 30061, subdivision (b), paragraph (3), each law enforcement jurisdiction receiving front-line law enforcement funding is to receive a minimum grant of $100,000. The percentages included in Attachment II are calculated in a manner that provides for a minimum grant allocation of $100,000 to each law enforcement jurisdiction listed in Attachment II.

Also note that the allocations shown on Attachments I and II may be slightly different from the final allocations made by the State Controller’s Office due to rounding.

If you have any questions, or need additional information, please call Kyle Gayman, Finance Budget Analyst, at (916) 445-8913.

Sincerely,

AMY JARVIS
Program Budget Manager
Attachment
cc:

Anne Kato, Acting Chief, Local Government Programs and Services Division, State Controller’s Office
Evelyn Calderon-Yee, Chief, Bureau of Payments, Local Government Programs and Services Division, State Controller’s Office
Melma Dizon, Manager, Local Apportionments Section, Local Government Programs and Services Division, State Controller’s Office Aaron Maguire, Executive Director, Board of State and Community Corrections

2025-26 Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) and Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) Allocations Based on Jan. 1, 2025 Population Estimates
Attachment I
Total
100.00%
214,200,000
Co. Jail
Operation
Allocation by
County
Percent of Co.

Jail Operation
Allocation by
County
District
Attorney
Allocation by
County
Percent of District
Attorney
Allocation by
County
Juvenile
Justice
Allocation by
County
Percent of
Juvenile Justice
Allocation by
County
Total
Allocation by
County
Percent of Total
Allocation by
County
Front-line Law
Enforcement
Percent of Total
Allocation by
County
Total Allocation
by County
Alameda 1,662,482 4.20571669% $463,945 4.20571669% $463,945 4.20571669% $4,504,323 4.20571669% $5,432,213 4.20571669% $2,797,398 3.28960930% $8,229,611 Alpine 1,177 0.00297755% $328 0.00297755% $328 0.00297755% $3,189 0.00297755% $3,846 0.00297755% $100,000 0.11759532% $103,846 Amador 39,563 0.10008576% $11,041 0.10008576% $11,041 0.10008576% $107,192 0.10008576% $129,273 0.10008576% $600,000 0.70557190% $729,273 Butte 207,525 0.52499297% $57,914 0.52499297% $57,914 0.52499297% $562,267 0.52499297% $678,095 0.52499297% $673,984 0.79257419% $1,352,079 Calaveras 44,722 0.11313690% $12,480 0.11313690% $12,480 0.11313690% $121,170 0.11313690% $146,131 0.11313690% $200,000 0.23519063% $346,131 Colusa 22,026 0.05572097% $6,147 0.05572097% $6,147 0.05572097% $59,677 0.05572097% $71,971 0.05572097% $300,000 0.35278595% $371,971 Contra Costa 1,158,225 2.93005652% $323,223 2.93005652% $323,223 2.93005652% $3,138,091 2.93005652% $3,784,537 2.93005652% $2,559,844 3.01025712% $6,344,382 Del Norte 26,544 0.06715053% $7,408 0.06715053% $7,408 0.06715053% $71,918 0.06715053% $86,733 0.06715053% $200,000 0.23519063% $286,733 El Dorado 190,770 0.48260647% $53,238 0.48260647% $53,238 0.48260647% $516,872 0.48260647% $623,347 0.48260647% $443,151 0.52112445% $1,066,498 Fresno 1,037,053 2.62351780% $289,408 2.62351780% $289,408 2.62351780% $2,809,788 2.62351780% $3,388,604 2.62351780% $2,593,429 3.04975080% $5,982,033 Glenn 29,369 0.07429716% $8,196 0.07429716% $8,196 0.07429716% $79,572 0.07429716% $95,964 0.07429716% $300,000 0.35278595% $395,964 Humboldt 133,817 0.33852781% $37,344 0.33852781% $37,344 0.33852781% $362,563 0.33852781% $437,251 0.33852781% $807,696 0.94981261% $1,244,947 Imperial 186,499 0.47180177% $52,046 0.47180177% $52,046 0.47180177% $505,300 0.47180177% $609,391 0.47180177% $800,000 0.94076254% $1,409,391 Inyo 18,800 0.04755990% $5,246 0.04755990% $5,246 0.04755990% $50,937 0.04755990% $61,430 0.04755990% $200,000 0.23519063% $261,430 Kern 923,961 2.33741972% $257,848 2.33741972% $257,848 2.33741972% $2,503,377 2.33741972% $3,019,072 2.33741972% $2,309,413 2.71576153% $5,328,485 Kings 154,015 0.38962434% $42,981 0.38962434% $42,981 0.38962434% $417,288 0.38962434% $503,249 0.38962434% $500,000 0.58797658% $1,003,249 Lake 67,254 0.17013794% $18,768 0.17013794% $18,768 0.17013794% $182,218 0.17013794% $219,755 0.17013794% $300,000 0.35278595% $519,755 Lassen 28,716 0.07264521% $8,014 0.07264521% $8,014 0.07264521% $77,803 0.07264521% $93,830 0.07264521% $200,000 0.23519063% $293,830 Los Angeles 9,876,811 24.98617664% $2,756,300 24.98617664% $2,756,300 24.98617664% $26,760,195 24.98617664% $32,272,795 24.98617664% $18,542,720 21.80537059% $50,815,516 Madera 162,599 0.41133999% $45,376 0.41133999% $45,376 0.41133999% $440,545 0.41133999% $531,297 0.41133999% $319,847 0.37612473% $851,144 Marin 254,550 0.64395596% $71,037 0.64395596% $71,037 0.64395596% $689,677 0.64395596% $831,750 0.64395596% $1,201,496 1.41290293% $2,033,246 Mariposa 16,917 0.04279632% $4,721 0.04279632% $4,721 0.04279632% $45,835 0.04279632% $55,277 0.04279632% $100,000 0.11759532% $155,277 Mendocino 89,827 0.22724271% $25,068 0.22724271% $25,068 0.22724271% $243,377 0.22724271% $293,513 0.22724271% $500,000 0.58797658% $793,513 Merced 293,080 0.74142845% $81,789 0.74142845% $81,789 0.74142845% $794,070 0.74142845% $957,648 0.74142845% $784,477 0.92250833% $1,742,125 Modoc 8,491 0.02148038% $2,370 0.02148038% $2,370 0.02148038% $23,005 0.02148038% $27,745 0.02148038% $200,000 0.23519063% $227,745 Mono 12,684 0.03208775% $3,540 0.03208775% $3,540 0.03208775% $34,366 0.03208775% $41,445 0.03208775% $200,000 0.23519063% $241,445 Monterey 438,831 1.11014667% $122,464 1.11014667% $122,464 1.11014667% $1,188,967 1.11014667% $1,433,894 1.11014667% $1,506,114 1.77111902% $2,940,008 Napa 136,124 0.34436402% $37,988 0.34436402% $37,988 0.34436402% $368,814 0.34436402% $444,790 0.34436402% $618,799 0.72767811% $1,063,588 Nevada 100,354 0.25387372% $28,006 0.25387372% $28,006 0.25387372% $271,899 0.25387372% $327,910 0.25387372% $401,973 0.47270110% $729,883 Orange 3,175,427 8.03313741% $886,159 8.03313741% $886,159 8.03313741% $8,603,490 8.03313741% $10,375,809 8.03313741% $5,637,270 6.62916545% $16,013,079 Placer 421,446 1.06616642% $117,612 1.06616642% $117,612 1.06616642% $1,141,864 1.06616642% $1,377,088 1.06616642% $927,171 1.09030948% $2,304,259 Plumas 18,885 0.04777493% $5,270 0.04777493% $5,270 0.04777493% $51,167 0.04777493% $61,707 0.04777493% $200,000 0.23519063% $261,707 Riverside 2,495,640 6.31342463% $696,453 6.31342463% $696,453 6.31342463% $6,761,678 6.31342463% $8,154,583 6.31342463% $4,599,559 5.40886638% $12,754,143 Sacramento 1,604,745 4.05965468% $447,833 4.05965468% $447,833 4.05965468% $4,347,890 4.05965468% $5,243,556 4.05965468% $2,611,378 3.07085879% $7,854,934 San Benito 66,822 0.16904508% $18,648 0.16904508% $18,648 0.16904508% $181,047 0.16904508% $218,343 0.16904508% $300,000 0.35278595% $518,343 San Bernardino 2,207,424 5.58430104% $616,021 5.58430104% $616,021 5.58430104% $5,980,786 5.58430104% $7,212,828 5.58430104% $4,025,057 4.73327828% $11,237,885 San Diego 3,330,139 8.42452501% $929,335 8.42452501% $929,335 8.42452501% $9,022,666 8.42452501% $10,881,336 8.42452501% $5,499,547 6.46720954% $16,380,882 San Francisco 842,027 2.13014457% $234,983 2.13014457% $234,983 2.13014457% $2,281,385 2.13014457% $2,751,350 2.13014457% $1,286,812 1.51323012% $4,038,162 San Joaquin 805,856 2.03863984% $224,888 2.03863984% $224,888 2.03863984% $2,183,383 2.03863984% $2,633,160 2.03863984% $1,493,419 1.75619025% $4,126,579 San Luis Obispo 279,337 0.70666166% $77,954 0.70666166% $77,954 0.70666166% $756,835 0.70666166% $912,743 0.70666166% $883,508 1.03896453% $1,796,251 San Mateo 748,337 1.89312932% $208,837 1.89312932% $208,837 1.89312932% $2,027,542 1.89312932% $2,445,215 1.89312932% $2,340,960 2.75285966% $4,786,175 Santa Barbara 447,132 1.13114639% $124,780 1.13114639% $124,780 1.13114639% $1,211,458 1.13114639% $1,461,018 1.13114639% $1,117,350 1.31395177% $2,578,369 Santa Clara 1,922,259 4.86289582% $536,441 4.86289582% $536,441 4.86289582% $5,208,161 4.86289582% $6,281,043 4.86289582% $3,348,184 3.93730804% $9,629,227 Santa Cruz 263,710 0.66712876% $73,593 0.66712876% $73,593 0.66712876% $714,495 0.66712876% $861,681 0.66712876% $595,821 0.70065803% $1,457,502 Shasta 180,201 0.45586921% $50,288 0.45586921% $50,288 0.45586921% $488,236 0.45586921% $588,813 0.45586921% $443,143 0.52111546% $1,031,956 Sierra 3,170 0.00801941% $885 0.00801941% $885 0.00801941% $8,589 0.00801941% $10,358 0.00801941% $200,000 0.23519063% $210,358 Siskiyou 43,311 0.10956738% $12,087 0.10956738% $12,087 0.10956738% $117,347 0.10956738% $141,520 0.10956738% $1,100,000 1.29354849% $1,241,520 Solano 449,839 1.13799451% $125,536 1.13799451% $125,536 1.13799451% $1,218,792 1.13799451% $1,469,863 1.13799451% $1,028,933 1.20997689% $2,498,796 Sonoma 482,848 1.22150008% $134,747 1.22150008% $134,747 1.22150008% $1,308,227 1.22150008% $1,577,721 1.22150008% $1,272,610 1.49652969% $2,850,331 Stanislaus 555,765 1.40596418% $155,096 1.40596418% $155,096 1.40596418% $1,505,788 1.40596418% $1,815,980 1.40596418% $1,313,945 1.54513815% $3,129,925 Sutter 100,257 0.25362833% $27,979 0.25362833% $27,979 0.25362833% $271,636 0.25362833% $327,593 0.25362833% $307,668 0.36180368% $635,261 Tehama 64,827 0.16399816% $18,091 0.16399816% $18,091 0.16399816% $175,642 0.16399816% $211,824 0.16399816% $400,000 0.47038127% $611,824 Trinity 15,884 0.04018305% $4,433 0.04018305% $4,433 0.04018305% $43,036 0.04018305% $51,901 0.04018305% $100,000 0.11759532% $151,901 Tulare 487,209 1.23253246% $135,964 1.23253246% $135,964 1.23253246% $1,320,042 1.23253246% $1,591,971 1.23253246% $1,144,366 1.34572140% $2,736,337 Tuolumne 54,357 0.13751135% $15,169 0.13751135% $15,169 0.13751135% $147,275 0.13751135% $177,613 0.13751135% $200,000 0.23519063% $377,613 Ventura 829,005 2.09720176% $231,349 2.09720176% $231,349 2.09720176% $2,246,103 2.09720176% $2,708,800 2.09720176% $1,595,987 1.87680654% $4,304,788 Yolo 225,433 0.57029630% $62,911 0.57029630% $62,911 0.57029630% $610,787 0.57029630% $736,610 0.57029630% $500,000 0.58797658% $1,236,610 Yuba 85,023 0.21508964% $23,727 0.21508964% $23,727 0.21508964% $230,361 0.21508964% $277,815 0.21508964% $304,369 0.35792368% $582,184 Total 39,529,101 100.00000000% 11,031,300 100.00000000% 11,031,300 100.00000000% 107,100,000 100.00000000% 129,162,600 100.00000000% 85,037,400 100.00000000% 214,200,000 *The COPS Front-line Law Enforcement breakdown by county and city for SCO distribution is provided in Attachment II. 129,162,600 85,037,400
Subtotal COPS (Front-line Law Enforcement)*

5.15% 5.15% 50.00% 60.30% 39.70%
JJCPA
107,100,000
County
1/1/2025
Population by
County
Percent of 1/1/2025
Population by County
COPS (Excluding Front-line Enforcement)
11,031,300 11,031,300

2025-26 Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount Citizens' Option for Public Safety
Front-line Law Enforcement Allocation for 2025-26

ATTACHMENT II
City/County
City/County
Population Estimates
1/1/2025
Projected Allocations by
City/County
Percent of Allocation by
City/County
Alameda 1,662,482 $2,797,398 3.28960932%
Alameda 79,020 $120,761 0.14200904%
Albany 20,578 $100,000 0.11759532%
Berkeley 128,348 $196,145 0.23065776%
Dublin 74,691 $114,145 0.13422927%
Emeryville 13,471 $100,000 0.11759532%
Fremont 232,619 $355,496 0.41804607%
Hayward 162,359 $248,122 0.29177987%
Livermore 85,899 $131,273 0.15437148%
Newark 48,886 $100,000 0.11759532%
Oakland 426,457 $651,725 0.76639772%
Piedmont 10,806 $100,000 0.11759532%
Pleasanton 77,232 $118,028 0.13879577%
San Leandro 87,813 $134,199 0.15781118%
Union City 66,657 $101,867 0.11979115%
Balance of County 147,646 $225,637 0.26533873%
Alpine 1,177 $100,000 0.11759532%
Amador 39,563 $600,000 0.70557192%
Amador 196 $100,000 0.11759532%
Ione 9,037 $100,000 0.11759532%
Jackson 4,822 $100,000 0.11759532%
Plymouth 1,122 $100,000 0.11759532%
Sutter Creek 2,538 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 21,848 $100,000 0.11759532%
Butte 207,525 $673,984 0.79257421%
Biggs 1,973 $100,000 0.11759532%
Chico 113,847 $173,984 0.20459761%
Gridley 7,302 $100,000 0.11759532%
Oroville 19,653 $100,000 0.11759532%
Paradise 11,088 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 53,662 $100,000 0.11759532%
Calaveras 44,722 $200,000 0.23519064%
Angels City 3,570 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 41,152 $100,000 0.11759532%
Colusa 22,026 $300,000 0.35278596%
Colusa 6,536 $100,000 0.11759532%
Williams 5,589 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 9,901 $100,000 0.11759532%
Contra Costa 1,158,225 $2,559,844 3.01025715%
Antioch 116,781 $178,468 0.20987038%
Brentwood 65,747 $100,477 0.11815576%
Clayton 10,743 $100,000 0.11759532%
Concord 122,650 $187,438 0.22041772%
Danville 42,960 $100,000 0.11759532%
El Cerrito 25,862 $100,000 0.11759532%
Hercules 26,225 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lafayette 25,054 $100,000 0.11759532%
Martinez 36,817 $100,000 0.11759532%
Moraga 16,637 $100,000 0.11759532%
Oakley 46,826 $100,000 0.11759532%
Orinda 19,351 $100,000 0.11759532%
Pinole 18,261 $100,000 0.11759532%
Pittsburg 76,374 $116,717 0.13725384%

2025-26 Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount Citizens' Option for Public Safety
Front-line Law Enforcement Allocation for 2025-26

ATTACHMENT II
City/County
City/County
Population Estimates
1/1/2025
Projected Allocations by
City/County
Percent of Allocation by
City/County
Pleasant Hill 33,601 $100,000 0.11759532%
Richmond 113,594 $173,598 0.20414293%
San Pablo 31,507 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Ramon 83,391 $127,441 0.14986428%
Walnut Creek 69,927 $106,865 0.12566775%
Balance of County 175,917 $268,842 0.31614533%
Kensington Police Department 0 $100,000 0.11759532%
Del Norte 26,544 $200,000 0.23519064%
Crescent City 6,056 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 20,488 $100,000 0.11759532%
El Dorado 190,770 $443,151 0.52112445%
Placerville 10,642 $100,000 0.11759532%
South Lake Tahoe 21,022 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 159,106 $243,151 0.28593381%
Fresno 1,037,053 $2,593,429 3.04975084%
Clovis 129,121 $197,327 0.23204694%
Coalinga 17,608 $100,000 0.11759532%
Firebaugh 8,714 $100,000 0.11759532%
Fowler 7,667 $100,000 0.11759532%
Fresno 557,032 $851,273 1.00105768%
Huron 6,932 $100,000 0.11759532%
Kerman 17,535 $100,000 0.11759532%
Kingsburg 13,285 $100,000 0.11759532%
Mendota 12,710 $100,000 0.11759532%
Orange Cove 9,717 $100,000 0.11759532%
Parlier 14,649 $100,000 0.11759532%
Reedley 26,603 $100,000 0.11759532%
Sanger 27,037 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Joaquin 3,654 $100,000 0.11759532%
Selma 24,585 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 160,204 $244,829 0.28790706%
Glenn 29,369 $300,000 0.35278596%
Orland 8,704 $100,000 0.11759532%
Willows 6,475 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 14,190 $100,000 0.11759532%
Humboldt 133,817 $807,696 0.94981263%
Arcata 19,001 $100,000 0.11759532%
Blue Lake 1,136 $100,000 0.11759532%
Eureka 26,122 $100,000 0.11759532%
Ferndale 1,361 $100,000 0.11759532%
Fortuna 12,198 $100,000 0.11759532%
Rio Dell 3,232 $100,000 0.11759532%
Trinidad 296 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 70,471 $107,696 0.12664539%
Imperial 186,499 $800,000 0.94076256%
Brawley 28,952 $100,000 0.11759532%
Calexico 40,073 $100,000 0.11759532%
Calipatria 6,061 $100,000 0.11759532%
El Centro 46,007 $100,000 0.11759532%
Holtville 5,685 $100,000 0.11759532%
Imperial 22,866 $100,000 0.11759532%
Westmorland 2,084 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 34,771 $100,000 0.11759532%

2025-26 Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount Citizens' Option for Public Safety
Front-line Law Enforcement Allocation for 2025-26

ATTACHMENT II
City/County
City/County
Population Estimates
1/1/2025
Projected Allocations by
City/County
Percent of Allocation by
City/County
Inyo 18,800 $200,000 0.23519064%
Bishop 3,850 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 14,950 $100,000 0.11759532%
Kern 923,961 $2,309,413 2.71576157%
Arvin 19,991 $100,000 0.11759532%
Bakersfield 419,238 $640,692 0.75342426%
California City 13,317 $100,000 0.11759532%
Delano 52,831 $100,000 0.11759532%
Maricopa 1,024 $100,000 0.11759532%
McFarland 14,213 $100,000 0.11759532%
Ridgecrest 28,386 $100,000 0.11759532%
Shafter 23,455 $100,000 0.11759532%
Taft 7,087 $100,000 0.11759532%
Tehachapi 11,476 $100,000 0.11759532%
Wasco 26,235 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 306,708 $468,721 0.55119347%
Bear Valley Community Services Distri 0 $100,000 0.11759532% Stallion Springs Community Services D 0 $100,000 0.11759532% Kings 154,015 $500,000 0.58797660%
Avenal 13,315 $100,000 0.11759532%
Corcoran 21,612 $100,000 0.11759532%
Hanford 61,238 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lemoore 27,692 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 30,158 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lake 67,254 $300,000 0.35278596%
Clearlake 16,533 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lakeport 5,026 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 45,695 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lassen 28,716 $200,000 0.23519064%
Susanville 12,270 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 16,446 $100,000 0.11759532%
Los Angeles 9,876,811 $18,542,720 21.80536957%
Agoura Hills 19,904 $100,000 0.11759532%
Alhambra 82,374 $125,886 0.14803660%
Arcadia 56,116 $100,000 0.11759532%
Artesia 16,359 $100,000 0.11759532%
Avalon 3,383 $100,000 0.11759532%
Azusa 48,988 $100,000 0.11759532%
Baldwin Park 70,848 $108,272 0.12732291%
Bell 33,315 $100,000 0.11759532%
Bellflower 76,656 $117,148 0.13776063%
Bell Gardens 38,471 $100,000 0.11759532%
Beverly Hills 31,945 $100,000 0.11759532%
Bradbury 902 $100,000 0.11759532%
Burbank 106,146 $162,216 0.19075793%
Calabasas 22,797 $100,000 0.11759532%
Carson 91,812 $140,310 0.16499790%
Cerritos 47,871 $100,000 0.11759532%
Claremont 37,299 $100,000 0.11759532%
Commerce 12,146 $100,000 0.11759532%
Compton 93,692 $143,183 0.16837650%
Covina 51,090 $100,000 0.11759532%
Cudahy 22,132 $100,000 0.11759532%

2025-26 Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount Citizens' Option for Public Safety
Front-line Law Enforcement Allocation for 2025-26

ATTACHMENT II
City/County
City/County
Population Estimates
1/1/2025
Projected Allocations by
City/County
Percent of Allocation by
City/County
Culver City 40,403 $100,000 0.11759532%
Diamond Bar 53,539 $100,000 0.11759532%
Downey 111,871 $170,965 0.20104648%
Duarte 23,746 $100,000 0.11759532%
El Monte 107,986 $165,028 0.19406464%
El Segundo 16,983 $100,000 0.11759532%
Gardena 60,263 $100,000 0.11759532%
Glendale 192,212 $293,744 0.34542953%
Glendora 51,254 $100,000 0.11759532%
Hawaiian Gardens 13,561 $100,000 0.11759532%
Hawthorne 85,653 $130,898 0.15392939%
Hermosa Beach 19,014 $100,000 0.11759532%
Hidden Hills 1,746 $100,000 0.11759532%
Huntington Park 53,051 $100,000 0.11759532%
Industry 431 $100,000 0.11759532%
Inglewood 106,305 $162,459 0.19104367%
Irwindale 1,509 $100,000 0.11759532%
La Canada Flintridge 20,160 $100,000 0.11759532%
La Habra Heights 5,503 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lakewood 80,596 $123,169 0.14484131%
La Mirada 48,233 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lancaster 177,768 $271,671 0.31947181%
La Puente 37,546 $100,000 0.11759532%
La Verne 32,300 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lawndale 30,860 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lomita 20,407 $100,000 0.11759532%
Long Beach 462,561 $706,900 0.83128122%
Los Angeles 3,835,263 $5,861,167 6.89245647%
Lynwood 66,660 $101,872 0.11979654%
Malibu 10,604 $100,000 0.11759532%
Manhattan Beach 34,051 $100,000 0.11759532%
Maywood 24,496 $100,000 0.11759532%
Monrovia 38,920 $100,000 0.11759532%
Montebello 62,732 $100,000 0.11759532%
Monterey Park 59,269 $100,000 0.11759532%
Norwalk 101,075 $154,466 0.18164469%
Palmdale 167,097 $255,363 0.30029466%
Palos Verdes Estates 12,999 $100,000 0.11759532%
Paramount 52,371 $100,000 0.11759532%
Pasadena 140,631 $214,917 0.25273188%
Pico Rivera 60,858 $100,000 0.11759532%
Pomona 153,042 $233,883 0.27503603%
Rancho Palos Verdes 40,727 $100,000 0.11759532%
Redondo Beach 68,091 $104,059 0.12236823%
Rolling Hills 1,677 $100,000 0.11759532%
Rolling Hills Estates 8,545 $100,000 0.11759532%
Rosemead 50,501 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Dimas 34,209 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Fernando 23,692 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Gabriel 38,953 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Marino 12,330 $100,000 0.11759532%
Santa Clarita 232,377 $355,126 0.41761116%
Santa Fe Springs 18,680 $100,000 0.11759532%
Santa Monica 93,212 $142,449 0.16751387%
Sierra Madre 10,870 $100,000 0.11759532%
Signal Hill 11,421 $100,000 0.11759532%
South El Monte 19,535 $100,000 0.11759532%
South Gate 92,955 $142,057 0.16705201%
South Pasadena 26,287 $100,000 0.11759532%

2025-26 Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount Citizens' Option for Public Safety
Front-line Law Enforcement Allocation for 2025-26

ATTACHMENT II
City/County
City/County
Population Estimates
1/1/2025
Projected Allocations by
City/County
Percent of Allocation by
City/County
Temple City 36,322 $100,000 0.11759532%
Torrance 143,261 $218,936 0.25745832%
Vernon 207 $100,000 0.11759532%
Walnut 28,214 $100,000 0.11759532%
West Covina 109,428 $167,231 0.19665610%
West Hollywood 35,284 $100,000 0.11759532%
Westlake Village 7,918 $100,000 0.11759532%
Whittier 87,850 $134,255 0.15787768%
Balance of County 1,004,490 $1,535,092 1.80519689%
Madera 162,599 $319,847 0.37612473%
Chowchilla 18,742 $100,000 0.11759532%
Madera 66,443 $101,540 0.11940656%
Balance of County 77,414 $118,306 0.13912285%
Marin 254,550 $1,201,496 1.41290296%
Belvedere 2,058 $100,000 0.11759532%
Corte Madera 9,966 $100,000 0.11759532%
Fairfax 7,407 $100,000 0.11759532%
Larkspur 12,731 $100,000 0.11759532%
Mill Valley 13,688 $100,000 0.11759532%
Novato 51,690 $100,000 0.11759532%
Ross 2,309 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Anselmo 12,551 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Rafael 59,885 $100,000 0.11759532%
Sausalito 6,941 $100,000 0.11759532%
Tiburon 8,910 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 66,414 $101,496 0.11935444%
Mariposa 16,917 $100,000 0.11759532%
Mendocino 89,827 $500,000 0.58797660%
Fort Bragg 7,187 $100,000 0.11759532%
Point Arena 452 $100,000 0.11759532%
Ukiah 16,325 $100,000 0.11759532%
Willits 4,838 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 61,025 $100,000 0.11759532%
Merced 293,080 $784,477 0.92250834%
Atwater 31,862 $100,000 0.11759532%
Dos Palos 5,712 $100,000 0.11759532%
Gustine 6,021 $100,000 0.11759532%
Livingston 14,441 $100,000 0.11759532%
Los Banos 48,896 $100,000 0.11759532%
Merced 98,039 $149,826 0.17618861%
Balance of County 88,109 $134,651 0.15834313%
Modoc 8,491 $200,000 0.23519064%
Alturas 2,657 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 5,834 $100,000 0.11759532%
Mono 12,684 $200,000 0.23519064%
Mammoth Lakes 7,040 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 5,644 $100,000 0.11759532%
Monterey 438,831 $1,506,114 1.77111905%
Carmel-by-the-Sea 3,049 $100,000 0.11759532%
Del Rey Oaks 1,546 $100,000 0.11759532%
Gonzales 8,434 $100,000 0.11759532%

2025-26 Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount Citizens' Option for Public Safety
Front-line Law Enforcement Allocation for 2025-26

ATTACHMENT II
City/County
City/County
Population Estimates
1/1/2025
Projected Allocations by
City/County
Percent of Allocation by
City/County
Greenfield 20,785 $100,000 0.11759532%
King City 14,344 $100,000 0.11759532%
Marina 23,086 $100,000 0.11759532%
Monterey 27,273 $100,000 0.11759532%
Pacific Grove 14,871 $100,000 0.11759532%
Salinas 160,645 $245,503 0.28869959%
Sand City 373 $100,000 0.11759532%
Seaside 32,019 $100,000 0.11759532%
Soledad 27,310 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 105,096 $160,611 0.18887094%
Napa 136,124 $618,799 0.72767813%
American Canyon 22,396 $100,000 0.11759532%
Calistoga 5,160 $100,000 0.11759532%
Napa 77,736 $118,799 0.13970153%
St Helena 5,349 $100,000 0.11759532%
Yountville 2,638 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 22,845 $100,000 0.11759532%
Nevada 100,354 $401,973 0.47270111%
Grass Valley 13,364 $100,000 0.11759532%
Nevada City 3,336 $100,000 0.11759532%
Truckee 16,928 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 66,726 $101,973 0.11991515%
Orange 3,175,427 $5,637,270 6.62916550%
Aliso Viejo 50,213 $100,000 0.11759532%
Anaheim 341,773 $522,308 0.61420975%
Brea 47,900 $100,000 0.11759532%
Buena Park 82,667 $126,334 0.14856316%
Costa Mesa 110,321 $168,596 0.19826093%
Cypress 49,499 $100,000 0.11759532%
Dana Point 32,730 $100,000 0.11759532%
Fountain Valley 56,560 $100,000 0.11759532%
Fullerton 141,469 $216,197 0.25423787%
Garden Grove 171,492 $262,079 0.30819304%
Huntington Beach 193,134 $295,153 0.34708648%
Irvine 318,629 $486,939 0.57261703%
Laguna Beach 22,763 $100,000 0.11759532%
Laguna Hills 30,309 $100,000 0.11759532%
Laguna Niguel 65,257 $100,000 0.11759532%
Laguna Woods 17,183 $100,000 0.11759532%
La Habra 61,202 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lake Forest 87,639 $133,933 0.15749848%
La Palma 15,110 $100,000 0.11759532%
Los Alamitos 12,006 $100,000 0.11759532%
Mission Viejo 91,740 $140,200 0.16486850%
Newport Beach 82,654 $126,314 0.14853980%
Orange 139,724 $213,531 0.25110188%
Placentia 53,982 $100,000 0.11759532%
Rancho Santa Margarita 46,341 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Clemente 62,865 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Juan Capistrano 35,329 $100,000 0.11759532%
Santa Ana 315,325 $481,889 0.56667932%
Seal Beach 24,400 $100,000 0.11759532%
Stanton 40,552 $100,000 0.11759532%
Tustin 79,326 $121,228 0.14255896%
Villa Park 5,738 $100,000 0.11759532%
Westminster 90,295 $137,992 0.16227165%

2025-26 Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount Citizens' Option for Public Safety
Front-line Law Enforcement Allocation for 2025-26

ATTACHMENT II
City/County
City/County
Population Estimates
1/1/2025
Projected Allocations by
City/County
Percent of Allocation by
City/County
Yorba Linda 66,267 $101,271 0.11909027%
Balance of County 133,033 $203,305 0.23907730%
Placer 421,446 $927,171 1.09030949%
Auburn 13,286 $100,000 0.11759532%
Colfax 1,996 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lincoln 54,520 $100,000 0.11759532%
Loomis 6,689 $100,000 0.11759532%
Rocklin 73,172 $111,824 0.13149943%
Roseville 158,494 $242,215 0.28483397%
Balance of County 113,289 $173,132 0.20359481%
Plumas 18,885 $200,000 0.23519064%
Portola 2,098 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 16,787 $100,000 0.11759532%
Riverside 2,495,640 $4,599,559 5.40886644%
Banning 31,949 $100,000 0.11759532%
Beaumont 59,708 $100,000 0.11759532%
Blythe 15,400 $100,000 0.11759532%
Calimesa 10,994 $100,000 0.11759532%
Canyon Lake 11,004 $100,000 0.11759532%
Cathedral City 51,651 $100,000 0.11759532%
Coachella 44,384 $100,000 0.11759532%
Corona 159,157 $243,229 0.28602547%
Desert Hot Springs 33,262 $100,000 0.11759532%
Eastvale 69,799 $106,669 0.12543772%
Hemet 91,934 $140,496 0.16521715%
Indian Wells 4,862 $100,000 0.11759532%
Indio 92,539 $141,421 0.16630441%
Jurupa Valley 105,928 $161,882 0.19036615%
Lake Elsinore 73,783 $112,757 0.13259748%
La Quinta 38,796 $100,000 0.11759532%
Menifee 115,316 $176,229 0.20723759%
Moreno Valley 210,823 $322,186 0.37887587%
Murrieta 111,789 $170,839 0.20089912%
Norco 25,221 $100,000 0.11759532%
Palm Desert 51,980 $100,000 0.11759532%
Palm Springs 44,476 $100,000 0.11759532%
Perris 81,240 $124,153 0.14599866%
Rancho Mirage 17,120 $100,000 0.11759532%
Riverside 320,337 $489,549 0.57568652%
San Jacinto 54,990 $100,000 0.11759532%
Temecula 112,220 $171,498 0.20167368%
Wildomar 37,077 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 417,901 $638,649 0.75102150%
Sacramento 1,604,745 $2,611,378 3.07085881%
Citrus Heights 86,280 $131,856 0.15505619%
Elk Grove 182,842 $279,425 0.32859044%
Folsom 92,577 $141,479 0.16637270%
Galt 26,092 $100,000 0.11759532%
Isleton 764 $100,000 0.11759532%
Rancho Cordova 85,451 $130,589 0.15356637%
Sacramento 527,979 $806,874 0.94884573%
Balance of County 602,760 $921,156 1.08323674%
San Benito 66,822 $300,000 0.35278596%
Hollister 43,492 $100,000 0.11759532%

2025-26 Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount Citizens' Option for Public Safety
Front-line Law Enforcement Allocation for 2025-26

ATTACHMENT II
City/County
City/County
Population Estimates
1/1/2025
Projected Allocations by
City/County
Percent of Allocation by
City/County
San Juan Bautista 2,078 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 21,252 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Bernardino 2,207,424 $4,025,057 4.73327831%
Adelanto 37,150 $100,000 0.11759532%
Apple Valley 75,262 $115,018 0.13525543%
Barstow 24,811 $100,000 0.11759532%
Big Bear Lake 4,953 $100,000 0.11759532%
Chino 95,206 $145,497 0.17109735%
Chino Hills 77,314 $118,154 0.13894314%
Colton 53,278 $100,000 0.11759532%
Fontana 219,172 $334,945 0.39388009%
Grand Terrace 12,803 $100,000 0.11759532%
Hesperia 101,792 $155,562 0.18293323%
Highland 57,088 $100,000 0.11759532%
Loma Linda 25,322 $100,000 0.11759532%
Montclair 37,526 $100,000 0.11759532%
Needles 4,791 $100,000 0.11759532%
Ontario 184,404 $281,812 0.33139755%
Rancho Cucamonga 175,992 $268,956 0.31628011%
Redlands 73,488 $112,307 0.13206733%
Rialto 105,565 $161,328 0.18971379%
San Bernardino 222,727 $340,378 0.40026888%
Twentynine Palms 24,257 $100,000 0.11759532%
Upland 79,140 $120,944 0.14222469%
Victorville 141,013 $215,500 0.25341838%
Yucaipa 54,838 $100,000 0.11759532%
Yucca Valley 22,027 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 297,505 $454,656 0.53465450%
San Diego 3,330,139 $5,499,547 6.46720959%
Carlsbad 116,368 $177,837 0.20912817%
Chula Vista 281,401 $430,046 0.50571356%
Coronado 22,610 $100,000 0.11759532%
Del Mar 3,950 $100,000 0.11759532%
El Cajon 104,932 $160,360 0.18857621%
Encinitas 61,956 $100,000 0.11759532%
Escondido 150,425 $229,884 0.27033295%
Imperial Beach 26,369 $100,000 0.11759532%
La Mesa 60,908 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lemon Grove 28,163 $100,000 0.11759532%
National City 58,965 $100,000 0.11759532%
Oceanside 174,340 $266,432 0.31331126%
Poway 50,379 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Diego 1,408,937 $2,153,181 2.53203983%
San Marcos 97,123 $148,426 0.17454244%
Santee 59,568 $100,000 0.11759532%
Solana Beach 12,986 $100,000 0.11759532%
Vista 101,599 $155,267 0.18258639%
Balance of County 509,160 $778,114 0.91502558%
San Francisco 842,027 $1,286,812 1.51323012%
San Joaquin 805,856 $1,493,419 1.75619027%
Escalon 7,232 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lathrop 38,596 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lodi 67,093 $102,534 0.12057469%
Manteca 93,733 $143,246 0.16845018%
Mountain House 28,795 $100,000 0.11759532%

2025-26 Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount Citizens' Option for Public Safety
Front-line Law Enforcement Allocation for 2025-26

ATTACHMENT II
City/County
City/County
Population Estimates
1/1/2025
Projected Allocations by
City/County
Percent of Allocation by
City/County
Ripon 15,753 $100,000 0.11759532%
Stockton 320,877 $490,374 0.57665697%
Tracy 98,215 $150,095 0.17650491%
Balance of County 135,562 $207,170 0.24362224%
San Luis Obispo 279,337 $883,508 1.03896455%
Arroyo Grande 17,910 $100,000 0.11759532%
Atascadero 30,134 $100,000 0.11759532%
El Paso de Robles 31,061 $100,000 0.11759532%
Grover Beach 12,411 $100,000 0.11759532%
Morro Bay 10,404 $100,000 0.11759532%
Pismo Beach 7,804 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Luis Obispo 49,534 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 120,079 $183,508 0.21579731%
San Mateo 748,337 $2,340,960 2.75285972%
Atherton 7,007 $100,000 0.11759532%
Belmont 28,206 $100,000 0.11759532%
Brisbane 4,676 $100,000 0.11759532%
Burlingame 31,552 $100,000 0.11759532%
Colma 1,411 $100,000 0.11759532%
Daly City 102,155 $156,116 0.18358559%
East Palo Alto 29,133 $100,000 0.11759532%
Foster City 32,658 $100,000 0.11759532%
Half Moon Bay 11,303 $100,000 0.11759532%
Hillsborough 11,254 $100,000 0.11759532%
Menlo Park 33,311 $100,000 0.11759532%
Millbrae 23,164 $100,000 0.11759532%
Pacifica 37,217 $100,000 0.11759532%
Portola Valley 4,285 $100,000 0.11759532%
Redwood City 82,073 $125,426 0.14749567%
San Bruno 42,631 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Carlos 29,535 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Mateo 104,315 $159,417 0.18746738%
South San Francisco 65,397 $100,000 0.11759532%
Woodside 5,206 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 61,848 $100,000 0.11759532%
Broadmoor Police Protection District 0 $100,000 0.11759532% Santa Barbara 447,132 $1,117,350 1.31395178%
Buellton 5,091 $100,000 0.11759532%
Carpinteria 12,735 $100,000 0.11759532%
Goleta 32,747 $100,000 0.11759532%
Guadalupe 8,851 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lompoc 43,424 $100,000 0.11759532%
Santa Barbara 86,451 $132,117 0.15536349%
Santa Maria 112,208 $171,480 0.20165211%
Solvang 5,755 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 139,870 $213,754 0.25136426%
Santa Clara 1,922,259 $3,348,184 3.93730807%
Campbell 43,281 $100,000 0.11759532%
Cupertino 59,831 $100,000 0.11759532%
Gilroy 62,205 $100,000 0.11759532%
Los Altos 31,720 $100,000 0.11759532%
Los Altos Hills 8,548 $100,000 0.11759532%
Los Gatos 33,355 $100,000 0.11759532%
Milpitas 81,915 $125,185 0.14721172%
Monte Sereno 3,637 $100,000 0.11759532%

2025-26 Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount Citizens' Option for Public Safety
Front-line Law Enforcement Allocation for 2025-26

ATTACHMENT II
City/County
City/County
Population Estimates
1/1/2025
Projected Allocations by
City/County
Percent of Allocation by
City/County
Morgan Hill 46,599 $100,000 0.11759532%
Mountain View 86,513 $132,212 0.15547492%
Palo Alto 68,794 $105,133 0.12363161%
San Jose 979,415 $1,496,772 1.76013391%
Santa Clara 134,587 $205,680 0.24187004%
Saratoga 31,110 $100,000 0.11759532%
Sunnyvale 159,673 $244,017 0.28695278%
Balance of County 91,076 $139,185 0.16367521%
Santa Cruz 263,710 $595,821 0.70065805%
Capitola 9,670 $100,000 0.11759532%
Santa Cruz 62,972 $100,000 0.11759532%
Scotts Valley 11,831 $100,000 0.11759532%
Watsonville 51,101 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 128,136 $195,821 0.23027677%
Shasta 180,201 $443,143 0.52111547%
Anderson 10,967 $100,000 0.11759532%
Redding 93,534 $142,942 0.16809255%
Shasta Lake 10,133 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 65,567 $100,202 0.11783228%
Sierra 3,170 $200,000 0.23519064%
Loyalton 730 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 2,440 $100,000 0.11759532%
Siskiyou 43,311 $1,100,000 1.29354852%
Dorris 830 $100,000 0.11759532%
Dunsmuir 1,628 $100,000 0.11759532%
Etna 662 $100,000 0.11759532%
Fort Jones 663 $100,000 0.11759532%
Montague 1,195 $100,000 0.11759532%
Mount Shasta 3,179 $100,000 0.11759532%
Tulelake 851 $100,000 0.11759532%
Weed 2,716 $100,000 0.11759532%
Yreka 7,879 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 23,708 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lake Shastina Community Services Dis 0 $100,000 0.11759532% Solano 449,839 $1,028,933 1.20997690%
Benicia 26,195 $100,000 0.11759532%
Dixon 20,174 $100,000 0.11759532%
Fairfield 120,720 $184,488 0.21694927%
Rio Vista 10,338 $100,000 0.11759532%
Suisun City 29,036 $100,000 0.11759532%
Vacaville 103,181 $157,684 0.18542944%
Vallejo 122,207 $186,760 0.21962159%
Balance of County 17,988 $100,000 0.11759532%
Sonoma 482,848 $1,272,610 1.49652972%
Cloverdale 8,678 $100,000 0.11759532%
Cotati 7,290 $100,000 0.11759532%
Healdsburg 10,972 $100,000 0.11759532%
Petaluma 59,094 $100,000 0.11759532%
Rohnert Park 44,062 $100,000 0.11759532%
Santa Rosa 178,452 $272,716 0.32070105%
Sebastopol 7,367 $100,000 0.11759532%
Sonoma 10,507 $100,000 0.11759532%
Windsor 25,625 $100,000 0.11759532%

2025-26 Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount Citizens' Option for Public Safety
Front-line Law Enforcement Allocation for 2025-26

ATTACHMENT II
City/County
City/County
Population Estimates
1/1/2025
Projected Allocations by
City/County
Percent of Allocation by
City/County
Balance of County 130,801 $199,894 0.23506611%
Stanislaus 555,765 $1,313,945 1.54513817%
Ceres 49,305 $100,000 0.11759532%
Hughson 7,977 $100,000 0.11759532%
Modesto 219,765 $335,852 0.39494579%
Newman 12,389 $100,000 0.11759532%
Oakdale 23,231 $100,000 0.11759532%
Patterson 25,868 $100,000 0.11759532%
Riverbank 26,090 $100,000 0.11759532%
Turlock 72,219 $110,367 0.12978677%
Waterford 9,169 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 109,752 $167,726 0.19723837%
Sutter 100,257 $307,668 0.36180368%
Live Oak 9,658 $100,000 0.11759532%
Yuba City 70,453 $107,668 0.12661304%
Balance of County 20,146 $100,000 0.11759532%
Tehama 64,827 $400,000 0.47038128%
Corning 8,268 $100,000 0.11759532%
Red Bluff 14,466 $100,000 0.11759532%
Tehama 428 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 41,665 $100,000 0.11759532%
Trinity 15,884 $100,000 0.11759532%
Tulare 487,209 $1,144,366 1.34572142%
Dinuba 26,025 $100,000 0.11759532%
Exeter 10,233 $100,000 0.11759532%
Farmersville 10,392 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lindsay 12,725 $100,000 0.11759532%
Porterville 63,622 $100,000 0.11759532%
Tulare 73,002 $111,564 0.13119392%
Visalia 146,978 $224,616 0.26413825%
Woodlake 8,005 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 136,227 $208,186 0.24481733%
Tuolumne 54,357 $200,000 0.23519064%
Sonora 5,116 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 49,241 $100,000 0.11759532%
Ventura 829,005 $1,595,987 1.87680656%
Camarillo 68,927 $105,336 0.12387063%
Fillmore 17,035 $100,000 0.11759532%
Moorpark 34,754 $100,000 0.11759532%
Ojai 7,559 $100,000 0.11759532%
Oxnard 198,733 $303,710 0.35714860%
Port Hueneme 20,838 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Buenaventura 108,985 $166,554 0.19585997%
Santa Paula 31,658 $100,000 0.11759532%
Simi Valley 124,815 $190,746 0.22430850%
Thousand Oaks 122,468 $187,159 0.22009065%
Balance of County 93,233 $142,482 0.16755161%
Yolo 225,433 $500,000 0.58797660%
Davis 65,423 $100,000 0.11759532%
West Sacramento 55,403 $100,000 0.11759532%
Winters 8,021 $100,000 0.11759532%

2025-26 Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount Citizens' Option for Public Safety
Front-line Law Enforcement Allocation for 2025-26

ATTACHMENT II
City/County
City/County
Population Estimates
1/1/2025
Projected Allocations by
City/County
Percent of Allocation by
City/County
Woodland 61,623 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 34,963 $100,000 0.11759532%
Yuba 85,023 $304,369 0.35792368%
Marysville 12,717 $100,000 0.11759532%
Wheatland 4,012 $100,000 0.11759532%
Balance of County 68,294 $104,369 0.12273304%
CALIFORNIA TOTAL 39,529,101 $85,037,400 100.00000000%
CALIFORNIA CITY TOTAL 33,188,202 $73,399,455 86.31432129%

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: May 26, 2026
Prepared By: Scott Gerdes
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Adopt a Resolution to Approve a Successor Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Los Altos and Los Altos Municipal Employee Association.

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
☐Business Communities
☐Circulation Safety and Efficiency
☐Environmental Sustainability
☐Housing
☐Neighborhood Safety Infrastructure
☒General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution to approve a successor Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Los Altos and Los Altos Municipal Employee Association.

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) includes compensation, benefit, and administrative changes for employees represented by the Los Altos Municipal Employees Association (LAMEA). All known costs associated with the proposed agreement for Fiscal Year 2026/2027 have been incorporated into the proposed FY 2026/2027 budget; therefore, adoption of the MOU will not require additional budget appropriations for the upcoming fiscal year.

The financial impact of the agreement includes both known and estimated costs. Certain provisions have fixed or readily calculable costs (e.g., bilingual certification premium increases), while other provisions are dependent on future variables including Consumer Price Index (CPI) calculations, market survey results, staffing levels, and employee benefit elections. Additionally, certain market adjustment provisions included in later years of the agreement cannot be fully determined at this time and will depend on future compensation survey outcomes.

The estimated total increase in known and projected costs associated with the agreement is approximately $428.5K in FY 2026/2027 and approximately $3.49M over the five-year term of the agreement.

FY Salary Certifications Benefits Total Annual
26/27 $ 389,861 $ 2,600 $ 36,040 $ 428,501
27/28 $ 415,087 $ 2,600 $ 69,697 $ 487,384
28/29 $ 560,410 $ 2,600 $ 100,708 $ 663,718
29/30 $ 729,955 $ 2,600 $ 155,827 $ 888,382
30/31 $ 826,837 $ 2,600 $ 188,631 $ 1,018,068
Grand
Total $ 2,922,151 $ 13,000 $ 550,903 $ 3,486,054

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action does not qualify as a “Project” as defined by Section 15378(b) of the CEQA Guidelines because it involves organizational and administrative activities that will not result in a direct or indirect physical change to the environment.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
June 22, 2021 - Resolution No. 2021-37: Adopt the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Los Altos and the Los Altos Municipal Employees Association covering July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2024.

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.

BACKGROUND
The current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Los Altos and the Los Altos Municipal Employees Association (LAMEA) expires June 30, 2026. LAMEA represents miscellaneous employees responsible for providing a wide range of municipal services supporting City operations and service delivery.

During the term of the current MOU, the City continued implementation of its Total Compensation Philosophy with a focus on maintaining competitive compensation, supporting recruitment and retention, and ensuring long-term fiscal sustainability. The City experienced continued labor market pressure across many public sector classifications, particularly in the Bay Area, resulting in ongoing evaluation of compensation competitiveness and operational flexibility.

In preparation for successor negotiations, the City conducted a market compensation analysis comparing classifications represented by LAMEA against peer agencies selected based on geographic proximity, population, staffing levels, agency expenditures, expenditures per capita, and organizational similarity. The peer agency framework included the Town of Los Gatos and the Cities of Foster City, Campbell, San Carlos, East Palo Alto, Morgan Hill, Belmont, Milpitas, and Gilroy.

The market survey data completed to date indicates that application of the negotiated FY 2026/2027 salary adjustments is anticipated to position most represented classifications at or above the 50th percentile of the market for both base salary and total compensation.

Representatives from the City and LAMEA met and conferred in good faith over multiple bargaining sessions between March 3, 2026 and April 30, 2026 regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. Negotiations included discussions regarding compensation, overtime and scheduling practices, leave and benefit provisions, recruitment and retention considerations, and modernization of various administrative provisions within the MOU.

The parties reached a tentative agreement on a successor five-year MOU covering the period July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2031. LAMEA membership ratified the tentative agreement on May 13, 2026. Final approval of the successor MOU is now before the City Council.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The successor MOU with LAMEA is for five years and covers the period July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2031. The City and LAMEA reached agreement on a package of modifications intended to maintain competitive compensation, support recruitment and retention, clarify administrative practices, and modernize contract language.

Key highlights include:
• CPI-based salary adjustments during the term of the agreement, including negotiated minimum and maximum increase provisions.
• Market adjustment and market range adjustment provisions tied to peer agency compensation data and market survey analysis to support long-term compensation competitiveness.
• Increased bilingual pay premium amounts, aligned with the median compensation offered by peer agencies, and updated recertification requirements. • Alignment of the City’s health insurance contribution structure with the Kaiser rate associated with the employee’s selected level of coverage, consistent with current market practices among peer agencies.
• Sunset of the prior health benefit option for employees hired on or before October 1, 2013 that allowed employees to receive additional compensation when enrolling in medical plans costing less than the City’s contribution amount. • Voluntary vacation cash-outs, including limited one-time opportunities to assist employees with high balances due to limited vacation use, along with related Personnel Regulation updates applicable citywide regarding discretionary pre-separation vacation cash-outs in extraordinary circumstances subject to written City Manager approval. These provisions require employees to maintain a minimum balance and are structured to comply with IRS constructive receipt rules.
• To maintain consistency with negotiated employee benefits and align with practices commonly offered by market peer agencies, the City will also implement voluntary vacation cash-out provisions for unrepresented employees, including authorization for annual vacation cash-outs of up to forty (40) hours. These provisions will be incorporated into the City of Los Altos Personnel Rules and Regulations.

The agreement is intended to support the City’s Total Compensation Philosophy while balancing operational needs, market competitiveness, and long-term fiscal sustainability.

A summary of key changes by fiscal year is provided in the table below:

Fiscal Year Items Proposed
Year 1
(FY 26/27)
• Effective the pay period including July 1, 2026, 3.8% Pay Increase based on April CPI.
• Increased bilingual pay premium aligned with median peer agency compensation.
• MOU cleanup and modernization updates.

Year 2
(FY 27/28)
• Effective the pay period including July 1, 2027, 3% - 4.5% Pay Increase based on April CPI.
• One Time Tiered Voluntary Vacation Cashout in July 2027 - 0 – 4 Years of Service = 40 Hours
- 5+ Years of Service = 80 Hours
• One Time Tiered Voluntary Vacation Cashout in October 2027 - 10 – 15 Years of Service = 40 Hours
- 15+ Years of Service = 80 Hours
Year 3
(FY 28/29)
• Effective the pay period including July 1, 2028, Market Adjustments based on peer agency compensation survey data in conjunction with a maximum CPI increase of 3% based on April CPI.
• Effective January 1, 2029, and each calendar year thereafter, the city’s contribution to health insurance will be the Kaiser rate associated with the employee’s selected level of coverage, consistent with current market practices among peer agencies.

Year 4
(FY 29/30)
• Effective the pay period including July 1, 2029, 2.5 - 3.5% Pay Increase based on April CPI.
• Reopener for FY 30/31.

Year 5
(FY 30/31)
• Effective the pay period including July 1, 2030, Market Range Adjustments.
• Effective December 31, 2031, the health benefit option for employees hired on or before October 1, 2013 will sunset.

ATTACHMENTS

1. City of Los Altos Resolution No. 2026-XX

2. Memorandum of Understanding between City of Los Altos & Los Altos Municipal Employees Association between July 1, 2026 – June 30, 2031

Resolution No. 2026-XX
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-___

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

APPROVE A SUCCESSOR MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS AND THE LOS ALTOS MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION.

WHEREAS, on June 22, 2021, the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between the City of Los Altos and the Los Altos Municipal Employees Association (“LAMEA”) for the term July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2024; and WHEREAS, on October 11, 2022, the City Council approved a Side Letter Agreement extending the term of the MOU through June 30, 2026; and WHEREAS, representatives from the City and LAMEA met and conferred in good faith regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment for a successor MOU; and WHEREAS, the City and LAMEA reached a tentative agreement on a successor five-year MOU covering the period July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2031; and WHEREAS, on May 13, 2026, LAMEA members completed voting and successfully ratified the successor MOU; and
WHEREAS, the parties signed the agreement on May 14, 2026; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the successor MOU and desires to approve the agreement;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby:

1. Approves the Successor MOU between the City of Los Altos and the Los Altos Municipal Employees Association for the term July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2031, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

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 ___ day of ____, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

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

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN

CITY OF LOS ALTOS
AND

LOS ALTOS MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION
JULY 1, 2026 - JUNE 30, 2031

Table of Contents
PREAMBLE........................................................................................................................................................6 ARTICLE 1. RECOGNITION..................................................................................................................6 ARTICLE 2. NO DISCRIMINATION....................................................................................................6 ARTICLE 3. DUES DEDUCTION .........................................................................................................6 ARTICLE 4. ASSOCIATION RIGHTS...................................................................................................7

4.1 Meet and Confer ......................................................................................................................................................7

4.2 New Employee Notification................................................................................................................................8

4.3 New Employee Orientation ................................................................................................................................8

4.4 Employee Contact Information.........................................................................................................................8

4.5 Disclosure of Employee Contact Information to Third Party ..............................................................9

4.6 Bulletin Board...........................................................................................................................................................9

4.7 City Communications to Unit Members Concerning Association Rights..............................9

4.8 Access to Association Representatives.......................................................................................................10

4.9 Steward....................................................................................................................................................................10

4.10 Representatives for Disciplinary or Grievance Matters ......................................................................10

4.11 Meeting Places.......................................................................................................................................................10 ARTICLE 5. MANAGEMENT RIGHTS .............................................................................................11

5.1 Rights Retained.....................................................................................................................................................11

5.2 Impact on Bargaining Unit ...............................................................................................................................11

5.3 Emergency...............................................................................................................................................................11 ARTICLE 6. LAYOFF AND RECALL .................................................................................................11

6.1 Definition of Layoff..............................................................................................................................................11

6.2 Reason for Layoff..................................................................................................................................................11

6.3 Notification of Layoff ..........................................................................................................................................12

6.4 Order of Layoff.......................................................................................................................................................12

6.5 Seniority..................................................................................................................................................................12

6.6 Application for Seniority Reassignment.....................................................................................................12

6.7 Reassignment.........................................................................................................................................................12

6.8 Reemployment Rights........................................................................................................................................12

6.9 Full Rights................................................................................................................................................................13 ARTICLE 7. PROBATIONARY PERIODS ........................................................................................13

7.1 Probationary Periods for Newly Hired Employees:.....................................................................................13

7.2 Probationary Periods for Newly Promoted Employees: ............................................................................14

7.3 Probationary Period Extension:............................................................................................................................14

ARTICLE 8. BASE SALARY........................................................................................................................14

8.1 Salary Increases ....................................................................................................................................................14

8.2 Market Survey........................................................................................................................................................15

8.3 Step Increases........................................................................................................................................................16

8.4 Salary Review.........................................................................................................................................................17

8.5 Promotion (Non Flexibly-Staffed Positions)............................................................................................17

8.6 Flexibly Staffed Positions..................................................................................................................................18 ARTICLE 9. WORK PERFORMED IN A HIGHER CLASSIFICATION .......................................19 ARTICLE 10. BILINGUAL PREMIUM PAY ...................................................................................19 ARTICLE 11. WORK SCHEDULES, OVERTIME, CALL-OUT PAY.......................................20

11.1 Work Schedule.......................................................................................................................................................20

11.2 Ten Hour Rest Period .........................................................................................................................................20

11.3 Alternative Work Schedules ............................................................................................................................20

11.4 Meal Periods...........................................................................................................................................................22

11.5 Rest Periods............................................................................................................................................................22

11.6 Overtime...................................................................................................................................................................22

11.7 Compensatory Time Off.....................................................................................................................................23

11.8 Call-Out Pay ............................................................................................................................................................23 ARTICLE 12. UNIFORMS, SAFETY EQUIPMENT, AND MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT...24

12.1 Uniforms...................................................................................................................................................................24

12.2 Safety Equipment.................................................................................................................................................24

12.3 Appearance .............................................................................................................................................................25

12.4 Mileage Reimbursement...................................................................................................................................25 ARTICLE 13. HOLIDAYS....................................................................................................................25

13.1 Observed Holidays...............................................................................................................................................25

13.2 Paid Time Off for Holidays ...............................................................................................................................26

13.3 Floating Holidays..................................................................................................................................................26 ARTICLE 14. VACATIONS .........................................................................................................................26

14.1 Vacation Accrual...................................................................................................................................................26

14.2 Vacation Eligibility Requirements ................................................................................................................27

14.3 Scheduling Vacations..........................................................................................................................................27

14.4 Maximum Vacation Accumulation................................................................................................................27

14.5 Holiday Falling During Vacation....................................................................................................................27

14.6 Illness During Vacation......................................................................................................................................27

14.7 Vacation Cash Out................................................................................................................................................27

14.8 Voluntary Vacation Cash Out ..........................................................................................................................28 ARTICLE 15. LEAVE PROVISIONS .................................................................................................28

15.1 Time Off to Vote ....................................................................................................................................................28

15.2 Bereavement Leave.............................................................................................................................................29

15.3 Leave of Absence Without Pay .......................................................................................................................29

15.4 Family Medical Leave .........................................................................................................................................29

15.5 Sick Leave ................................................................................................................................................................29

15.6 Limited Personal Use of Sick Leave..............................................................................................................29

15.7 Sick Leave Pay Out at Honorable Separation...........................................................................................30

15.8 Management Leave..............................................................................................................................................30 ARTICLE 16. BENEFIT PROGRAMS.....................................................................................................30

16.1 Workers’ Compensation Insurance / Industrial Temporary Disability:......................................30

16.2 QUALITY OF LIFE / WELLNESS EMPLOYEE REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM .............................30

16.3 Long Term Disability Insurance.....................................................................................................................31

16.4 Tuition Reimbursement Program.................................................................................................................31

16.5 Health and Medical Benefits:...........................................................................................................................31

16.6 Dental and Vision Reimbursement Plan.....................................................................................................34

16.7 Flexible Spending Arrangements ..................................................................................................................34

16.8 State of California Short Term Disability Insurance (SDI).................................................................34

16.9 Medical Insurance While on LTD or SDI ....................................................................................................35

16.10 Retiree Health Savings Plan........................................................................................................................35

16.11 Deferred Compensation Plan .....................................................................................................................35

16.12 Basic Life and AD&D Insurance.................................................................................................................35 ARTICLE 17. RETIREMENT PLANS.......................................................................................................35

17.1 2.7% at Age 55 Plan.............................................................................................................................................36

17.2 2.0% at Age 60 Plan.............................................................................................................................................36

17.3 2.0% at Age 62 Plan.............................................................................................................................................36 ARTICLE 18. SAFETY ..................................................................................................................................36

18.1 Health and Safety Provisions ..........................................................................................................................37

18.2 City Safety Committees......................................................................................................................................37

18.3 Outstanding Safety Issues.................................................................................................................................37 ARTICLE 19. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE............................................................................................37

19.1 Definition of a Grievance...................................................................................................................................37

19.2 Time Limitations ..................................................................................................................................................37

19.3 Grievant....................................................................................................................................................................37

19.4 Steps in the Grievance Process.......................................................................................................................37

19.5 Extension of Time Limits ..................................................................................................................................39

19.6 General Provisions...............................................................................................................................................39 ARTICLE 20. APPEAL PROCEDURE FOR FINAL DISCIPLINARY ACTION..........................40

20.1 Notice of Appeal....................................................................................................................................................40

20.2 Hearing Officer ......................................................................................................................................................40

20.3 Burden of Proof.....................................................................................................................................................40

20.4 Conduct of Hearing..............................................................................................................................................41

20.5 Representation......................................................................................................................................................41

20.6 Recommended Decision....................................................................................................................................41

20.7 Final Decision.........................................................................................................................................................42 ARTICLE 21. WORK STOPPAGE AND LOCKOUTS........................................................................42 ARTICLE 22. CONTRACTING OUT.......................................................................................................42 ARTICLE 23. MISCELLANEOUS..............................................................................................................42

23.1 Use of City Facilities for Private Purposes: ...............................................................................................42

23.2 Americans with Disabilities Act:....................................................................................................................42

23.3 Personnel Regulations:......................................................................................................................................42

23.4 Outside Employment:.........................................................................................................................................43 ARTICLE 24. AUTHORIZED AGENTS..................................................................................................43 ARTICLE 25. SAVINGS CLAUSE..............................................................................................................43 ARTICLE 26. TERM.......................................................................................................................................43 APPENDIX A..................................................................................................................................................45

PREAMBLE
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into by and between the City of Los Altos (CITY) and the Los Altos Municipal Employee Association (hereinafter referred to as LAMEA) as a result of meeting and conferring in good faith regarding matters related to wages, hours, and /or other terms and conditions of employment between the employees represented by the Association and the City pursuant and subject to Sections 3500-3510 of the Government Code of the State of California.

For the purposes of this Memorandum of Understanding, “employee” shall mean an employee appointed to a classification represented by LAMEA.

This MOU sets forth the items on which the City and the Association have reached Agreement, so that these items will not have to be renegotiated during the term of the contract. The term of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2031, having been ratified by LAMEA on 05/XX/2026 and approved by the City Council on 05/XX/2026.

During the initial four-year term, the contract may also be reopened through mutual consent of the association and the City Manager. In addition, either party may reopen this MOU for the sole purpose of discussing specific provisions of this contract during the 2030-2031 fiscal year.

The written request must be submitted between the following dates:
• January 1, 2029 and March 15, 2029 for the fiscal year 2030-2031 reopening Upon receipt of such timely written request, the parties agree to meet and confer in good faith regarding the identified provisions. In the absence of mutual agreement, the terms and conditions of this MOU shall remain in full force and effect for the duration of the Agreement.

ARTICLE 1. RECOGNITION
Pursuant to City policies and procedures and Section 3500-3510 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City recognizes LAMEA as the exclusive representative of all full-time employees in the classifications listed in Appendix A attached. Hereto and incorporated for reference.

ARTICLE 2. NO DISCRIMINATION
The City and LAMEA agree that no person covered by this MOU shall be discriminated against because of race, religious creed, political affiliation, color, national origin, ancestry, union activity, disability, medical condition, genetic condition, marital status, sex, age, gender identify, gender expression, sexual orientation, or any other basis protected by law, unless such factor is a bona fide occupational qualification or such action is required to comply with Federal or State law.

ARTICLE 3. DUES DEDUCTION
Upon written notification to the Human Resources Director by the LAMEA representative, the City shall implement LAMEA dues deductions within thirty (30) days as follows:

3.1 The City will deduct LAMEA dues upon written certification from LAMEA that it has and will maintain employees’ written authorization to be a dues-paying member of LAMEA.

3.2 Payroll deductions shall be for a specified amount set by LAMEA and shall not include fines. LAMEA may change the fixed uniform dollar amount by giving the City thirty (30) days notice of any such change. Dues deductions shall be made upon notice from the Association of an employee’s desire for dues deduction. Authorization, cancellation or modification of payroll deduction shall be made upon written request and confirmation in writing from the Association. The City shall direct unit members to the Association if they so request to cancel or change dues deductions. Dues deductions may be revoked only by certification from the Association pursuant to the terms of the unit member’s written authorization. The voluntary payroll deduction authorization shall remain in effect until employment with the City is terminated or until written notice to cancel or modify the deduction is received by the City from the Association. Unit members may authorize dues deductions only for the organization certified as the recognized employee organization of the unit to which such unit members are assigned.

3.3 The City shall transmit withheld dues deductions to LAMEA on a periodic basis and by method agreed upon by the Parties.

3.4 When an employee is in a non-pay status for an entire pay period (currently two weeks), no deduction shall be made. In that instance, no withholding will be made to cover that pay period from future earnings nor will the employee deposit the amount with the City which would have been withheld if the employee had been in pay status during that pay period.

In the case of an employee who is in a non-pay status during a part of the pay period, and the salary is not sufficient to cover the full withholding no deduction shall be made. Note that all legally-required deductions have priority over LAMEA dues deduction.

3.5 LAMEA shall refund to the City an amount paid to it in error upon presentation of supporting evidence.

3.6 LAMEA shall indemnify the City and any Department of the City and hold it harmless against any and all claims, demands, suits, or other forms of liability that may arise out of, or by reason of, any action taken by the City or any Department of the City for the purpose of complying with the provisions of this Section.

ARTICLE 4. ASSOCIATION RIGHTS

4.1 Meet and Confer
LAMEA will be notified and given the opportunity to meet and confer prior to changes in terms and conditions of employment, which are within the scope of representation as defined

by the Meyers Milias Brown Act (MMBA). The City retains the right to act on matters within the scope of representation after discharging all of its obligations under the MMBA.

4.2 New Employee Notification
When an employee is hired into any of the job classifications represented by LAMEA, the City shall notify the employee that LAMEA is the exclusive recognized bargaining representative for that classification and shall inform the employee of his/her right to join and participate in LAMEA activities.
(a) The City will provide a written statement to each new employee hired into a classification in the bargaining unit represented by LAMEA stating, that the employee’s classification is represented by LAMEA and the name of a LAMEA representative. The City will provide the employee with a packet of information that has been supplied by the Association and a membership application form. (b) The City will notify LAMEA, in writing, no less than fifteen (15) calendar days in advance of any new employee orientation who joins the bargaining unit whether by hire, transfer or otherwise specified. Email notification will suffice. The fifteen (15) calendar days advance notice for new employee orientation may be shortened only when there is an urgent need critical to the City’s operations that was not reasonably foreseeable (e.g. the employee’s first day of work in the bargaining unit position is less than fifteen (15) calendar days after the hiring decision) in which case the City shall provide as much advanced notice as practicable and must provide LAMEA the rationale for the exception in writing.
(c) The new employee orientation notice provided to LAMEA will include the date, time and location of the orientation. The City shall not disclose the date, time, or place of any such new employee orientation(s) to anyone other than City staff, the employees who are to attend the orientation, LAMEA, or a vendor that is contracted to provide a service for purposes of orientation.

4.3 New Employee Orientation

4.3.1 The City shall allow two (2) bargaining unit representatives designated by LAMEA to meet with the new employee(s) during new employee orientation to provide information about the MOU and related matters. It is anticipated that this meeting would require approximately thirty (30) minutes. Management representatives will excuse themselves during LAMEA portion of the orientation.

4.3.2 Employees attending an orientation as LAMEA representatives shall be given paid release time sufficient to cover LAMEA’s presentation and travel time to and from the orientation site.

4.4 Employee Contact Information
Within thirty (30) days from the date of hire, promotion, or appointment of an employee into a classification represented by LAMEA, the City will provide LAMEA with the below information for such an employee:

(a) Employee name
(b) Job title
(c) Department
(d) Work location
(e) Work phone number
(f) Personal/cell phone number
(g) Home address
(h) Personal email address (if on file with the City)
The City will provide LAMEA with the above-listed information for all employees working in classifications represented by LAMEA every one hundred and twenty (120) calendar days, which will be established as every September, January, and May. If an employee’s contact information has changed since the City last provided LAMEA with employee contact information, the City will provide the updated information to LAMEA at the next scheduled submission date.

4.5 Disclosure of Employee Contact Information to Third Party The City shall not disclose employee contact information to a third party other than LAMEA unless required by law. The City shall provide LAMEA with reasonably immediate notice of any third party request for such information prior to disclosing the information to the third party.

Upon written request by an employee, the City shall not disclose the employee’s home address, personal/cell phone number, or personal email address to LAMEA.

4.6 Bulletin Board
The City provides bulletin board space for Association postings at Building A – Development Services, Building B – Administrative Services, Building C- Police Station, Los Altos Community Center and the Maintenance Service Center. LAMEA postings shall only be for the following: a) LAMEA election materials and election results; b) LAMEA official business reports of the Board of Directors or Committees, or Stewards’ reports and notices; c) LAMEA news bulletins and meeting notices; d) LAMEA membership benefits and programs; and e) other written materials approved for posting by the City of Los Altos.

LAMEA may not post material on the bulletin boards that contains derogatory, defamatory, or inflammatory statements concerning the City or City employees, volunteers, or contractors, nor any material that disrupts the operations of the City. Forty-eight hours prior to posting of any notice on the designated bulletin board, LAMEA shall file one (1) copy of said notice or material with the Human Resources Director or designee.

4.7 City Communications to Unit Members Concerning Association Rights If the City chooses to disseminate a communication to unit members or applicants to be unit members concerning public employees’ rights to join or support an employee organization, or to refrain from joining or supporting an employee organization, the City shall meet and confer with LAMEA concerning the content of the communication before dissemination.

If the City and LAMEA cannot reach agreement and the City elects to proceed with its proposed mass communication, the City must also distribute, at the City’s expense and in the same format and manner of delivery as utilized for the City’s communication, a communication of reasonable length provided by LAMEA.

The City will remain neutral in all communications to unit members about whether to join or support the Association and will not discourage or deter Association membership or support.

4.8 Access to Association Representatives
Membership meetings, organizing activities, membership campaigns, or dues collecting by Association or their representative on City premises or at work locations/sites during regular hours of work shall not be permitted.

LAMEA representatives shall be granted reasonable access to employee work locations/sites to investigate matters relating to employer-employee relations, unless such access would constitute a safety hazard or would interfere with the operations of the City. Access to work locations/sites shall not constitute a safety hazard or interfere with operations of the City, as determined by the City. Association representatives shall not enter a work location/site without advance notification to the Human Resources Director or designee.

4.9 Steward
LAMEA shall have the right to certify one (1) steward to represent other employees in disciplinary or grievance matters. The Steward may have one (1) alternate steward whose sole purpose shall be to serve in the absence of the steward.

LAMEA shall notify the City in writing of the name of the steward. Stewards shall conduct their representation activities on their own time and on the employee’s own time, unless prior approval has been received from the appropriate supervisor, or manager in order to leave the job site. Time off without loss of compensation shall be allowed for management approved meetings

4.10 Representatives for Disciplinary or Grievance Matters LAMEA shall have the right to designate members to represent other members in disciplinary or grievance matters. Each such representative may have one (1) alternate whose sole purpose shall be to serve in the absence of the representative.

LAMEA shall notify the City in writing of the name of such representatives. The representatives shall conduct their representation activities on their own time and on the employee’s own time, unless prior approval has been received from the Department Head or designee. Time off without loss of compensation shall be allowed for management-approved meetings.

4.11 Meeting Places
During regular work hours, LAMEA shall have the same right as any other city staff member to reserve City meeting rooms.

During non-working hours, LAMEA shall have the same right as any other private organization to reserve City meeting rooms and facilities. Use of such meeting rooms and facilities shall be subject to established City policies and procedures for rental of such facilities.

ARTICLE 5. MANAGEMENT RIGHTS

5.1 Rights Retained
The City reserves all rights with respect to matters of general legislative, managerial and financial policy including, among others: the exclusive right to determine the mission of its constituent departments, commissions and boards; set standards and the levels of service; determine the procedure and standards of selection for employment; direct and schedule its employees; establish and enforce performance standards; take disciplinary action; relieve its employees of duties because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons; maintain the efficiency of government operations; determine the methods, means and personnel by which governmental operations are to be conducted; require overtime; take all necessary actions to carry out its mission in emergencies; and exercise complete control and discretion over its organization and technology of performing its work. These rights shall be limited only as specified in the Agreement.

Nothing in this Article shall be construed to limit, amend, decrease, revoke or otherwise modify the rights vested in the City by any law regulating, authorizing or empowering the City to act or refrain from acting.

5.2 Impact on Bargaining Unit
The exercise of such rights shall not preclude LAMEA from meeting and conferring with City representatives about the impact that decisions on these matters may have on wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment within the scope of representation.

5.3 Emergency
Except in an emergency, City decisions shall not supersede the provisions of this Agreement.

Emergency shall mean the actual or threatened existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the City caused by such conditions as air pollution, fire, flood, storm, epidemic, riot, earthquake, or other conditions, including conditions resulting from war or imminent threat of war. Action taken by the City to meet such emergency that are not in compliance with this Agreement shall be in effect only for the duration of the emergency.

ARTICLE 6. LAYOFF AND RECALL

6.1 Definition of Layoff
Layoff means the elimination of an employee’s classification or position.

6.2 Reason for Layoff
The City in its discretion shall determine whether layoffs are necessary. Although not limited to the following, layoffs shall ordinarily be for lack of work, material change in duties or organization, and/or lack of funds.

6.3 Notification of Layoff
Employees laid off due to the above reasons will be given written notice, either by certified mail or hand delivery, at least thirty (30) calendar days before the effective date of the layoff.

A copy of such notice will be given to LAMEA.

6.4 Order of Layoff
An employee with permanent seniority in a classification shall have the right to displace an employee with less permanent seniority in the same classification in any department.

If it is determined that layoffs are necessary, employees in the affected classifications will be laid off in the following order:
a) Temporary employees;
b) Probationary employees;
c) In the event of further reductions in force are necessary, an employee with permanent seniority in a classification shall have the right to displace an employee with less permanent seniority in the same classification in any department, if the employee is able to perform the remaining work available without further training.

All bumping and displacement shall first occur within the department that affected the layoff in question prior to City-wide bumping.

6.5 Seniority
For purposes of this section, Seniority means an employee’s length of continuous full-time service for the City since his / her last date of hire, less any approved leaves of absence greater than thirty (30) days, unless otherwise required by law.

6.6 Application for Seniority Reassignment
In all applications of seniority under this Agreement the ability of the employee shall mean having at least a satisfactory rating or better from the employees last performance review, the qualifications and ability (including physical fitness) of an employee to perform the required work. Where the last performance review is satisfactory or better, ability and qualifications to perform the required work are, among the employees concerned, relatively equal seniority as defined above shall govern.

6.7 Reassignment
In lieu of layoff, the City may at its discretion (after consulting with the department head concerned) offer the employee(s) whose position is subject to elimination, the opportunity to transfer to a current vacant position. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or supersede an employee’s seniority based displacement or retreat rights under the Order of Layoffs section of this Article.

6.8 Reemployment Rights
Employees who are laid off and whose last performance review was satisfactory or better shall be placed on a recall list for a period of one (1) year. An employee’s name will remain on the

list for one (1) year, or until the employee is offered an equal or comparable position in the laid off class, whichever comes first. If there is a recall, employees who are still on the recall list shall be recalled, in the inverse order of their layoff, provided the employee is presently qualified to perform the work in the job classification to which the employee is recalled without further training.

If an employee is recalled to a position in a lower rated job classification, the employee shall have the right to return to the job classification the employee held prior to being laid off in the event it subsequently becomes available. If an employee is recalled to a lower rated job classification, the employee shall have the right to refuse the recall without forfeiting recall rights. The City shall not hire new employees in bargaining unit positions so long as there are still employees on the recall list who are presently qualified to perform the work in the affected job classification and are willing to be recalled to said classification.

6.8.1 Employees, who accepted demotions in lieu of layoff, will be granted the same reemployment right as laid off employees.

6.8.2 Employees on reemployment lists shall have the right to apply for promotional positions.

6.8.3 Employees on reemployment lists eligible for recall shall be given written notice of recall. The notice may be hand-delivered or sent by certified mail or registered mail with a copy to LAMEA, provided that the employee must notify the City of his/her/their intention to return within five (5) business days after receiving notice of recall. The City shall be deemed to have fulfilled its obligations by mailing the recall notice by registered mail, return receipt requested, to the mailing address provided by the employee, it being the obligation and responsibility of the employee to provide the City with his/her/their latest mailing address.

6.9 Full Rights
Employees who are laid off and are subsequently rehired within the one (1) year reemployment period will have their vacation accrual rate, and accumulated sick leave balance restored to the level they were upon separation.

ARTICLE 7. PROBATIONARY PERIODS

7.1 Probationary Periods for Newly Hired Employees:

The probationary period for all newly hired employees to the City shall be two thousand eighty (2,080) hours actually worked.

Paid or unpaid leave, including but not limited to vacation, sick leave, or other absences, shall not count toward completion of the probationary period, and the probationary period shall be extended accordingly.

All newly hired employees to the City may be dismissed during the probationary period at any time without right of appeal.

7.2 Probationary Periods for Newly Promoted Employees:

The probationary period for all newly promoted employees shall be one thousand forty (1,040) hours actually worked.

Paid or unpaid leave, including but not limited to vacation, sick leave, or other absences, shall not count toward completion of the probationary period, and the probationary period shall be extended accordingly.

An employee rejected during promotional probation shall be reinstated to the position from which employee was promoted, unless the employee is dismissed for cause or the position is no longer vacant.

7.3 Probationary Period Extension:

The probationary period may be extended by the City Manager, upon recommendation of the department head, for not more than one thousand forty (1,040) hours actually worked.

ARTICLE 8. BASE SALARY

8.1 Salary Increases

8.1.1 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%).

8.1.2 Effective the pay period that includes July 1, 2027, base salary for all classifications shall be increased by the April 2027 year-over-year (CPI) for the San Francisco Bay Area, from the DOL BLS with a minimum increase of three (3%) percent and a maximum increase of four percent (4%).

8.1.3 Effective the pay period that includes July 1, 2028, a market adjustment shall be applied to represented classifications identified in the market survey, completed pursuant to Section 8.2, as below market.

The Market adjustment shall be determined by comparing the City of Los Altos maximum annual pay rate for a classification to the fiftieth (50th) percentile of the maximum annual pay rate for equivalent classifications in the identified peer cities. The resulting difference shall be expressed as a percentage above or below the current maximum annual pay rate for the represented classification.

If a represented classification is determined to be below market, the salary range shall be increased by the percentage necessary to bring the classification to the 50th percentile of the market. Such adjustment shall be applied proportionally to all steps within the salary range, and the incumbent employee(s) shall receive a

corresponding increase to their base salary equal to the market adjustment, effective the same pay period.

However, no represented classification shall receive a pay increase of less than the amount determined by the April 2028 year over year CPI for the San Francisco Bay Area, as published by the DOL BLS, with a maximum increase of three percent (3%).

The market survey shall not be used to reduce compensation, decrease salary ranges, alter an incumbent employee’s step placement, or place an employee at a lower step than held immediately prior to the adjustment, nor eliminate the guaranteed minimum General Salary Increase provided in this Section.

8.1.4 Effective the pay period that includes July 1, 2029, base salary for all classifications shall be increased by the April 2029 year-over-year (CPI) for the San Francisco Bay Area, from the DOL BLS with a minimum increase of two and one half (2.5%) percent and a maximum increase of three and one half percent (3.5%).

8.1.5 Effective the pay period that includes July 1, 2030, Market Range Adjustments will be applied to classification salary ranges based on the results of the market survey completed pursuant to Section 8.2 .

A Market Range Adjustment shall increase the salary range for the represented classification based on the fiftieth (50th) percentile of the maximum annual pay rates for equivalent classifications in the identified peer cities. Such adjustments shall apply to the salary range only and shall not result in an automatic increase to incumbent employee salaries.

Incumbent employees shall remain eligible for step increases based on merit, in accordance with this Agreement, up to the revised maximum of the salary range, effective on the employee’s regular salary review date.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit the City from granting off-cycle salary adjustments based on performance, internal equity, or other operational considerations consistent with the Agreement.

Market Range adjustments shall be applied in a manner necessary to ensure compliance with applicable CalPERS compensation and public pay schedule requirements.

Salaries for all represented classifications during the term of this MOU are listed in Appendix A.

8.2 Market Survey
The City will conduct a market salary survey to inform successor Memorandum of Understanding negotiations and to support the evaluation and implementation of compensation adjustments during the term of this Agreement, including market adjustments

and market range adjustments as set forth in Section 8.1.

The City will utilize the top six (6) highest-ranked comparator agencies, based on cumulative scores, for purposes of evaluating market compensation. In the event of a tie in cumulative scoring affecting inclusion in the top six (6), the City will consider the comparator agency with the higher-paid comparable classification. If a comparator agency does not have a comparable classification, the City may utilize the next highest-ranked comparator agency with a comparable classification.

Effective March 1 of each MOU year, the City shall provide LAMEA with the list of comparator agencies used for the market survey, including the likeness factors and scoring applied.

The survey may evaluate total compensation, including base salary, salary ranges, and employer-paid benefits. The City will make a good faith effort to include classifications represented by LAMEA, including the use of benchmark classifications where appropriate.

The City will endeavor to share the results of the market salary survey with LAMEA in advance of successor negotiations, subject to data availability, timing, and operational considerations. The survey is intended to inform discussions and does not limit the parties’ ability to negotiate compensation adjustments, including general wage increases and other salary-related provisions.

8.3 Step Increases
Step increases within the established salary range are intended to recognize satisfactory job performance and continued service. Step increases are not automatic but will be based on an employee’s overall performance and length of service.

Employees who receive an overall performance rating of “Meets Expectations” or higher on their performance evaluation shall be eligible for a step increase, subject to completion of the required service period at each step.

The first [A] step is the minimum rate and is typically the hiring rate for the classification.

The City Manager or designee may approve appointment at a higher step based on qualifications, labor market conditions, or other factors determined to be in the best interest of the City.

Employees shall be eligible for step advancement as follows:
• Step B: After six (6) months of continuous service at Step A • Step C: After one (1) year of continuous service at Step B • Step D: After one (1) year of continuous service at Step C • Step E: After one (1) year of continuous service at Step D Step increases shall be effective upon recommendation of the department head and approval of the City Manager or designee, based on documented satisfactory performance.

Step increases shall be effective beginning of the pay period that includes the employee’s anniversary date, upon meeting the required service and performance criteria. If the

performance evaluation is completed after the anniversary date, the step increase shall be applied retroactively to the beginning of the pay period that includes the employee’s anniversary date.

If an employee does not meet performance expectations, the step increase may be delayed.

The employee shall be informed of the reasons for the delay and the expectations required to become eligible for a future step increase.

8.4 Salary Review
An employee's salary rate shall be reviewed on the employee’s salary review date for purposes of determining eligibility for step advancement in accordance with Section 8.3.

If an employee is appointed at the first [A] step, the employee’s initial salary review date shall be the date of completion of six (6) months of continuous full-time service at the first [A] step.

If an employee is appointed at the second [B] step or higher, the employee’s initial salary review date shall be the date of completion of twelve (12) months of continuous full-time service.

Following advancement from Step A to Step B, the employee’s salary review date shall be adjusted to reflect eligibility for the next step increase after completion of one (1) year of continuous service at Step B. Thereafter, the salary review date shall continue to reflect the completion of the required service period at each subsequent step.

An employee’s salary review date shall change under the following conditions:
a) Transfer. The salary review date of an employee transferred to a position of similar duties, responsibilities and salary range shall not be altered. b) Promotion. The salary review date of an employee promoted to a position, which involves either an increase in responsibilities or a change in duties and an increase in salary range, shall be altered to coincide with the effective date of such promotion.
c) Demotion. The salary review date of an employee demoted to a position, which involves either a reduction in responsibilities or a change in duties and a reduction in salary range shall be altered to coincide with the effective date of such demotion.
d) Leave of Absence. The salary review date of an employee whose service is interrupted by a leave of absence without pay, for whatever reason, for more than thirty (30) calendar days shall be adjusted by the total number of days, unless otherwise required by law.

8.5 Promotion (Non Flexibly-Staffed Positions)
Promotion is the appointment of an employee to a position in another classification with a higher top step base salary. Upon promotion, an employee shall be placed at the step within the salary range of the higher classification that provides at least a five percent (5%) increase

to the employee’s base salary.

If the five percent (5%) increase falls between two steps, the employee shall be placed at the next higher step. In no case shall the promotional increase exceed the top step of the higherpaid classification.

8.6 Flexibly Staffed Positions
Certain positions in LAMEA will be flexibly staffed to promote qualified incumbents from lower classifications to higher classifications without conducting a competitive recruitment process. Flexibly staffed positions also provide managers the flexibility to make appointments at either the lower or higher classification, depending on the needs of the department and the candidates’ qualifications.

8.6.1 The flexibly staffed Association positions are as follows:

Accounting Technician I/II
Assistant Planner / Associate Planner
Information Technology Analyst I/II
Junior Engineer /Assistant Engineer /Associate Engineer Office Assistant I/II

8.6.2 Flexibly Staffed Promotion- Criteria
To be eligible for promotion within a flexibly staffed position, the incumbent must demonstrate sustained satisfactory performance in the lower classification, must meet the minimum qualifications of the higher classification, and perform duties consistent with the higher classification on a regular and ongoing basis.

Employees who satisfy the criteria will be promoted to the higher classification upon recommendation of the Department Head.

8.6.3 Flexibly Staffed Promotion - Pay Rate
An employee promoted to a higher classification within a flexibly staffed classification series shall be placed at the step within the salary range of the higher classification that provides at least a five percent (5%) increase to the employee’s base salary.

If the five percent (5%) increase falls between two steps, the employee shall be placed at the next higher step. In no case shall the employee’s salary exceed the top step of the higher classification.

Higher step placement may be approved by the City Manager or designee based on qualifications, internal equity, or other factors determined to be in the best interest of the City.

8.6.4 Flexibly Staffed Promotion - Probationary Period
Employees promoted within a flexibly staffed position shall serve a promotional probationary period of one thousand forty (1,040) hours of

actual hours worked in the higher classification. Paid leave and other absences shall not count toward completion of the probationary period.

The promotional probationary period may be extended an additional one thousand forty (1,040) hours at the discretion of the City Manager or designee.

An employee rejected during the probationary period from the higher classification will be reinstated to his or her previous lower classification unless the employee is dismissed for cause.

8.6.5 Flexibly Staffed Promotion - Effective Date
Flexibly staffed promotions shall begin on the first full pay period after the employee has submitted documentation to the department head or designee that shows the requisite criteria have been attained. Each employee is singularly responsible for submitting all documentation to qualify for a Flexibly Staffed Promotion
ARTICLE 9. WORK PERFORMED IN A HIGHER CLASSIFICATION
If an employee is assigned by the Department Head or designee to temporarily perform duties of another classification with a higher salary range due to a temporary vacancy resulting from leave, separation, or other temporary absence of the incumbent, and the assignment is for a minimum duration of forty (40) consecutive work hours, the employee’s salary shall be adjusted to the first [A] step of the higher classification or will be increased by 5%, whichever is greater.

Compensation for work in the higher classification shall be effective at the outset of the assignment and shall cease upon conclusion of the assignment.

The Parties agree that to the extent permitted by law, pay for work performed in a higher classification is special compensation for Classic members only and shall be reported as such pursuant to Title 2 CCR Section 571(a)(3) Temporary Upgrade Pay.

The Parties agree that this provision does not provide employees with an entitlement to temporary assignment pay that would violate Government Code section 20480.

ARTICLE 10.BILINGUAL PREMIUM PAY
The City shall pay fifty-nine dollars and sixty-two cents ($59.62) per pay period to employees approved to receive bilingual pay.

To receive this pay, employees must demonstrate the ability to both understand and effectively communicate in a language other than English that the Department Head has determined is necessary for the effective or efficient operation of the City. Approval of both the Department Head and the City Manager or designee is required for an employee to receive bilingual pay. The Department Head and City Manager or designee maintain the right to determine the number of employees eligible to receive this pay.

Employees receiving this pay are required to utilize the second language in the course and scope of their employment when necessary and may be asked to assist in translating.

Eligibility for bilingual premium pay shall become effective on the first full pay period following submission and approval of the required certification to Human Resources. Bilingual premium pay shall not be applied retroactively.

Employees receiving bilingual premium pay shall be required to recertify their language proficiency at least once every three (3) years, in a manner determined by the City.

Employees shall have one (1) year from the effective date of this Memorandum of Understanding to complete the initial recertification requirement. Failure to maintain certification may result in discontinuation of bilingual premium pay.

The Parties agree that to the extent permitted by law, bilingual premium pay is special compensation and shall be reported as such pursuant to Title 2 CCR Sections 571(a)(4) and 571.1(b)(3).

ARTICLE 11. WORK SCHEDULES, OVERTIME, CALL-OUT PAY

11.1 Work Schedule
Employees shall be assigned to regularly-scheduled work shifts with standard daily start and stop times. Should it be necessary, in the interest of efficient operations, or due to a special event or circumstances, to modify an employee’s regular work schedule, the City shall give at least five (5) working days notice of such change to the affected employee(s), unless such notice is not feasible.

The City will notify LAMEA of any permanent work schedule changes in advance, consistent with applicable law.

Nothing herein shall prohibit the City from adjusting an employee’s work hours or days as needed. Work schedules shall not be unjustly changed.

11.2 Ten Hour Rest Period
If an employee’s supervisor requires the employee to work more than fourteen (14) hours in one work day (measured from the time the employee begins their shift on that workday), upon the employee’s request, the employee’s supervisor shall adjust the employee’s schedule on the following day so the employee has at least a ten hour off-duty period before beginning their next shift, except in the event of an emergency or if the schedule adjustment will unduly disrupt City operations.

11.3 Alternative Work Schedules
Upon written request by an employee, the Department Head or designee and the employee’s immediate supervisor/manager shall consider allowing the employee to work an alternative work schedule. This schedule will only be approved if it maintains established levels of service and is transparent to the public. In addition, this scheduling will be subject to the conditions, limitations and procedures outlined in the City’s Administrative Policies.

Work schedules have been and will continue to be determined by the Department Head based upon the need to provide service to the public. These schedules will continue to be administered by the Department Head. The Department Head or designee will work with the

employee’s immediate supervisor/manager and the employee to determine the appropriate alternative work schedule and break time(s).

11.3.1 Alternative Work Schedule Options
(a) 4/10 Work Schedule
A 4/10 work schedule consists of four (4) workdays of ten (10) hours within a seven (7) day work week. For this schedule, the workweek begins Sunday at 12:00 AM and ends Saturday at 11:59 PM.
(b) 9/80 Work Schedule
A 9/80 is a work schedule of eighty (80) work hours, scheduled over the course of nine (9) workdays during a single biweekly pay period. The typical 9/80 schedule consists of eight (8) work days of nine (9)-hours, Monday through Thursday of each week, with one eight (8)-hour day on one of the Fridays. For this schedule, the workweek shall begin exactly four (4) hours after the start time of the day of the week that the employee’s eight (8) hour work day is scheduled.

11.3.2 Alternative Work Schedule Procedure
(a) An employee scheduled to work an alternative work schedule or an employee requesting to work an alternative work schedule shall submit an “Alternative Work Schedule Form” to his or her immediate supervisor and to the Department Head for approval. Human Resources must receive a copy of the approved form.
(b) Upon receipt of an employee’s written request to work an alternative schedule, the Department Head will work with the employee’s immediate supervisor/manager to determine whether the department can approve the employee’s alternative work request.

1. In determining whether the department can approve the request, the department shall first consider its obligation to the public.

2. If the department head determines that the alternative work schedule will not cause harm to the public service, he or she shall next consider whether the department can adequately manage the requested alternative schedule.

3. Finally, the Department Head will consider and allow the requested alternative schedules as long as it does not diminish the quality of the employee’s work, the availability of City services, or result in increased costs.
(c) In certain circumstances, and depending on workload and department initiatives, the department head or designee may take the employee off their alternative work schedule unless an employee’s labor agreement specifies otherwise. This may occur due to public service needs, the

department’s ability to manage the employee, the employee’s performance or productivity, or for any other lawful reasons. In such instances, the department head or designee will make an effort to notify the employee ahead of time of any scheduling change.
(d) Employees working an alternative work schedule cannot move their regular day off or “flex” or adjust work hours forward or backward on the alternating regular work day without written approval by their supervisor. (e) Starting and ending times for the work day for an employee working an alternative work schedule continue to be subject to approval by the employee’s supervisor / manager. The supervisor/manager may adjust the employee’s start and end times from time to time, as necessary to provide adequate staffing and coverage.

11.4 Meal Periods
Employees shall be entitled to a one (1) hour unpaid, duty-free meal period per shift.

The meal period shall be either thirty (30) minutes or one (1) hour in duration. Whenever possible, the meal period shall be scheduled at the mid-point of each shift.

Employees are relieved of responsibilities and restrictions during their meal period. If an employee is assigned to work an on-duty meal period, the work time will be paid time.

11.5 Rest Periods
Employees shall be entitled to a paid fifteen (15) minute rest period during each four (4) hours of work.

Rest periods shall be taken near the midpoint of each work period of the day whenever feasible. Rest periods shall not be taken at the beginning or end of the workday and may not be combined with the meal period or accumulated for a longer break. Rest periods not taken shall be waived.

11.6 Overtime
Employees may work overtime hours only with prior approval from the department head or designee. Paid time off due is included as “time worked” for purposes of computing contractual overtime.

Overtime shall be defined as follows:
a) 8-hour shift employees – Employees assigned to an 8-hour shift shall receive 1.5 rate overtime compensation for all hours worked more than 8 hours per workday or 40 hours per workweek.
b) 9-hour shift employees – Employees assigned to work a 9-hour shift shall receive 1.5 rate overtime compensation for all hours worked more than 9 hours per workday or 40 hours per workweek.

c) 10-hour shift employees – Unit employees assigned to work a 10-hour shift shall receive 1.5 rate overtime compensation for all hours worked more than 10 hours per workday or 40 hours per workweek.
d) Non-exempt employees who are required to work on a recognized holiday shall receive compensation for all hours worked at one and one-half (1.5) times their regular rate of pay, in addition to the holiday pay provided for that day.

Employees who receive compensation for working on a holiday shall not be eligible to observe the holiday on an alternate day or otherwise adjust their schedule to receive additional holiday benefit.

11.7 Compensatory Time Off

11.7.1 In lieu of overtime pay in cash, an employee may request to accrue compensatory time off (CTO), which will accrue at the rate of one and onehalf (1 ½) times each overtime hour worked. The Department Head or designee has sole discretion to grant a request for CTO in lieu of cash overtime. The maximum hours of CTO an employee may accrue is 80. Once an employee has reached the CTO cap of 80 hours, overtime shall be compensated in cash.

11.7.2 All earned and unused CTO will be cashed out in the first pay period in December of every year. CTO will be cashed out at the employee’s regular rate of pay at the time of the cash out.

11.7.3 An employee wanting to use his/her/their CTO shall provide his/her/their Department Head with reasonable notice of such request. Reasonable notice is defined as at least ten (10) calendar days in advance. If reasonable notice is provided, the employee’s request may not be denied unless it is unduly disruptive to the department. A request to use CTO without reasonable notice may still be granted within the discretion of the Department Head or designee responsible for considering the request.

11.7.4 At separation, any accrued and unused CTO will be cashed out at the employee’s regular rate at time of separation, or as otherwise required by law.

11.7.5 Upon promotion to a higher classification, any accrued and unused compensatory time off (CTO) shall be cashed out at the employee’s regular rate of pay in effect immediately prior to the promotion.

11.8 Call-Out Pay
Call back compensation shall be a minimum of three (3) hours at 1.5 rate overtime compensation. Callbacks between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. will be compensated at a minimum of four (4) hours at 1.5 rate overtime compensation.

ARTICLE 12. UNIFORMS, SAFETY EQUIPMENT, AND MILEAGE

REIMBURSEMENT

12.1 Uniforms
The City shall be responsible for provision and maintenance of all required uniforms and safety equipment.

12.2 Safety Equipment
The City shall provide safety equipment as follows. This safety equipment shall remain the property of the City.

12.2.1 Building Division
The City will provide high quality, non-steel-toed safety/work boots to Building Inspectors, Senior Building Inspectors, Construction Inspectors, and other individuals in classifications in the Building Division that visit construction sites. Safety/work boots will be replaced at the City's expense when they are unserviceable, not more than twice per employee per year. Total cost to the City shall not exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250) per pair of safety/work boots.

12.2.2 Engineering Department
The City will provide non-steel-toed safety/work boots and rain coats to GIS Technicians, Junior Civil Engineers, Assistant Civil Engineers, Associate Civil Engineers, Senior Engineers, and other individuals in classifications in the Engineering Department that visit construction sites. Safety/Work boots and/or raincoats will be replaced at the City's expense when they are unserviceable, not more than twice per employee per year. Total cost to the City shall not exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250) per pair of work boots and raincoat.

12.2.3 Planning Division
The City will provide non-steel-toed safety/work boots for Assistant Planners, Associate Planners, Senior Planners and other individuals in classifications in the Planning Division that visit construction sites. Safety/work boots will be replaced at the City's expense when they are unserviceable, not more than once per employee per year. Total cost to the City shall not exceed two hundred and fifty dollars ($250) per fiscal year.

12.2.4 Maintenance Service Center
The City will provide high quality, steel-toed safety/work boots for Maintenance Supervisors. Safety/work boots will be replaced at the City's expense when they are unserviceable, not more than twice per employee per year. Total cost to the City shall not exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250) per pair of work boots.

12.3 Appearance
Employees shall be responsible for ensuring that uniforms are maintained and work in a neat and professional manner. Supervisors shall be responsible for ensuring that employees maintain a proper appearance and take appropriate actions as required.

12.4 Mileage Reimbursement
Employees required to travel on City business shall either be provided with a City vehicle or reimbursed for transportation expenses. City business does not include travel from home to work.

Employees required to use their private automobiles for City related business shall be reimbursed for all such authorized travel at the current IRS rate. Employees using their private vehicles must maintain appropriate automobile insurance coverage.

ARTICLE 13. HOLIDAYS

13.1 Observed Holidays
The following are City-observed holidays:

New Year’s Day January 1
Martin Luther King Day Third Monday in January
Cesar Chavez Day March 31
President’s Day Third Monday in February
Juneteenth June 19
Memorial Day Last Monday in May
Independence Day July 4
Labor Day First Monday in September
Indigenous Peoples’ Day October 10
Veterans Day November 11
Thanksgiving Day Fourth Thursday in November
Day After Thanksgiving Friday after Thanksgiving Day
Christmas Eve December 24
Christmas Day December 25
The City will observe a Holiday Closure on the working days which fall between the Christmas Day holiday and New Year’s Day holiday. Employees shall receive paid holiday leave for the closure based on their regularly scheduled work hours for each day of the closure.

Additional holidays declared by the City Council shall be observed consistent with this section.

Holidays that fall on Saturday will be observed the Friday before. Holidays that fall on Sunday will be observed the following Monday.

If a holiday falls on an employee’s regularly scheduled day off due to an alternative work schedule, the City shall provide an alternate day of holiday leave based on the employee’s regularly scheduled work hours.

13.2 Paid Time Off for Holidays

13.2.1 When an observed holiday falls on an employee's regularly scheduled ten (10) hour work day, the employee shall receive nine (9) hours of paid holiday.

When an observed holiday falls on an employee’s regularly scheduled nine (9) hour work day, the employee shall receive nine (9) hours of paid holiday.

When a holiday falls on an employee’s regularly scheduled eight (8) hour work day, the employee shall receive eight (8) hours of paid holiday.

13.2.2 If a holiday falls on a non-working Friday and the Thursday before is also a holiday, the employee shall receive holiday pay the Wednesday before the holiday in accordance with the employee’s regularly scheduled hours for those days. (For example, if a non-working Friday falls on the day after Thanksgiving, employees would maintain their non-working Friday and receive nine (9) hours of holiday pay on Wednesday and Thursday instead of receiving holiday pay on Thursday and Friday).

13.2.3 Employees on a 4/10 Schedule will need to use either floating holiday, vacation or compensatory time to cover the difference between their regularly scheduled hours and the compensated time received for holidays.

Employees who take a full day off on a ten (10) hour workday will be charged ten (10) hours of leave. Employees who take a full day off on a nine (9) hour workday will be charged nine (9) hours of leave. Employees who take a full day off on an eight (8) hour workday will be charged eight (8) hours of leave.

13.3 Floating Holidays

13.3.1 Employees are entitled to one (1) nine (9)-hour floating holiday that accrues on July 1.

13.3.2 Floating holidays may be taken at any time upon approval of the Department Head or designee.

13.3.3 Unused floating holiday shall carry over from year to year without limitation and shall not be subject to a maximum accrual cap.

ARTICLE 14. VACATIONS

14.1 Vacation Accrual
Full-time employees shall accrue vacation hours up to a maximum as follows:

Months of Continuous Service “MOS” Annual Vacation Accrual Maximum Accrual
0 – 47 MOS 112 hours 264 hours

48-59 MOS 152 hours 384 hours
60-83 MOS 160 hours 408 hours
84-107 MOS 168 hours 432 hours
108-131 MOS 176 hours 456 hours
132-155 MOS 184 hours 480 hours
156-227 MOS 192 hours 504 hours
228+ MOS 212 hours 564 hours
For the purposes of this section, years of continuous service shall mean an employee’s length of continuous full-time service for the City since his/her/their most recent date of hire, less any adjustments due to layoff or approved leaves of absence greater than (30) days, unless otherwise required by law.

Vacation accrual changes will begin the first full pay period following the employee’s anniversary date.

14.2 Vacation Eligibility Requirements
An employee shall be eligible to take paid vacation after six (6) months employment with the City, not to exceed the amount of vacation leave earned up to that time. However, employees shall accumulate vacation upon employment with the City.

Employees shall not accrue vacation leave for any pay period during which they are on leaves of absence without pay.

14.3 Scheduling Vacations
The times during a calendar year at which an employee may take his/her/their vacation shall be determined by the department head with due regard for the wishes of the employee and particular regard for the needs of the service.

14.4 Maximum Vacation Accumulation
No vacation shall be earned or accrued above the maximum. Exceptions to the accrual maximum, in extraordinary circumstances, may be granted with written approval of the City Manager. Any such decision shall not be subject to the grievance procedure.

14.5 Holiday Falling During Vacation
In the event a City-observed holiday falls during an employee’s vacation, the employee shall not be charged a vacation day for the holiday.

14.6 Illness During Vacation
If an employee becomes ill while on vacation and wishes to use sick leave instead of approved vacation leave, the employee must immediately notify their supervisor. The City reserves the right to request a certification from a physician or other health provider.

14.7 Vacation Cash Out
Any employee who separates from the service of the City, shall receive pay for all accrued vacation upon their separation from employment with the City. Payment for all unused vacation hours shall be at the employee’s base hourly rate at the time of separation.

14.8 Voluntary Vacation Cash Out
2027 Vacation Cash-Out #1:

Employees may make a written, irrevocable election to cash out accrued vacation leave for payment on July 10, 2027. Elections must be submitted to Human Resources no later than December 15, 2026.

Eligibility: Employees must maintain a minimum vacation balance of 40 hours after the cash-out to be eligible.

Maximum Cash-Out by Years of Service:
· 0–4 years: up to 40 hours
· 5+ years: up to 80 hours
2027 Vacation Cash-Out #2:

Employees may make a written, irrevocable election to cash out accrued vacation leave for payment on October 30, 2027. Elections must be submitted to Human Resources no later than December 15, 2026.

Eligibility: Employees must maintain a minimum vacation balance of 40 hours after the cash-out to be eligible.

Maximum Cash-Out by Years of Service:
· 10 – 15 years: up to 40 hours
· 15+ years: up to 80 hours
ARTICLE 15. LEAVE PROVISIONS

15.1 Time Off to Vote
If an employee does not have sufficient time outside of working hours to vote at a state-wide election, the employee may, without loss of pay, take off enough working time which, when added to the voting time available outside of working hours, will enable the employee to vote.

No more than two (2) hours of the time taken off for voting shall be without loss of pay. The time off for voting shall be only at the beginning or end of the regular working shift whichever allows the most free time for voting and the least time off from the regular working shift, unless otherwise mutually agreed.

If the employee on the third working day prior to the day of election, knows or has reason to believe that time off will be necessary to be able to vote on Election Day, the employee shall give the City at least two working days’ notice that time off for voting is desired, in accordance with the provisions of this section.

Employees who need time off to vote should make arrangements with their immediate supervisor.

This section applies to employees who are registered voters.

15.2 Bereavement Leave
In the event of the death of a family member, an employee will be entitled to up to five (5) days of paid bereavement leave. For purposes of this Article, “family member” is defined as spouse, domestic partner, parent, stepparent, parent-in-law, sibling, sibling-in-law, child, stepchild, stepsibling, child-in-law, grandparent, grandparent-in-law, grandchild, and grandchild-in-law. Special circumstances beyond this policy may be considered on a case-bycase basis and must be approved by the City Manager.

Days of bereavement leave need not be consecutive but shall be completed within three months of the date of death of the family member. The City may require the employee, within thirty (30) days of the first day of leave, to provide documentation of the death of the family member. As used in this section, "documentation" includes, is not limited to, a death certificate, a published obituary, or written verification of death, burial, or memorial services from a mortuary, funeral home, burial society, crematorium, religious institution, or governmental agency.

15.3 Leave of Absence Without Pay
Upon written request by an employee, the City Manager may grant an employee up to one (1) year of leave without pay if the City Manager or designee determines such leave is in the best interest of the City.

Failure of an employee on leave without pay to report to work promptly at the expiration of the leave, or within reasonable time after notice to return to duty, shall be cause for discharge.

15.4 Family Medical Leave
Family care, medical, and pregnancy disability leave shall be provided according to applicable law.

15.5 Sick Leave
Employees accrue sick leave at a rate of 3.69 hours per bi-weekly pay period in paid status.

Use of sick leave is governed by the City’s Personnel Regulations for Sick Leave for Regular Full-Time Employees
Accrued sick leave carries over from year to year. No accrual limit applies.

Unused sick leave may be converted to retirement service credit as permitted by the City’s contract with CalPERS and applicable CalPERS laws and regulations.

15.6 Limited Personal Use of Sick Leave
Each employee may use up to twenty (20) hours of accrued sick leave per calendar year for personal purposes, provided the employee maintains a minimum sick leave balance of eighty

(80) hours. Any use in excess of twenty (20) hours per calendar year shall be charged to the employee’s available vacation leave balance.

Personal leave may be used for any personal purpose; however, it shall not be used to supplement paid holiday hours for employees on alternative work schedules.

Employees shall indicate at the time of submitting a leave request that the sick leave is being used for personal purposes.

Personal leave shall not carry over from year to year and must be used within the calendar year.

15.7 Sick Leave Pay Out at Honorable Separation
Upon honorable separation from the City (death, or resignation with no accompanying investigation or disciplinary matter), employees with five (5) or more years of continuous service with the City shall receive cash payment of their accumulated and unused sick leave hours, up to 100 hours. Each hour of cashed-out sick leave will be paid at the employee’s base hourly rate at the time of separation.

Upon retirement from the City, accumulated and unused sick leave hours shall be reported to CalPERS for sick leave credit.

15.8 Management Leave
Management Leave for FLSA-exempt employees shall be administered in accordance with the City of Los Altos Personnel Rules and Regulations section titled Management Leave.

ARTICLE 16. BENEFIT PROGRAMS

16.1 Workers’ Compensation Insurance / Industrial Temporary Disability:

Any employee incurring an injury or disability in the course and scope of his/her/their employment shall be entitled to injury leave to the extent provided by the State Workers’ Compensation and Insurance Act. Any employee on Workers’ Compensation injury leave shall receive full salary for up to ninety (90) calendar days after the injury, provided medical documentation substantiates the disability. After 90 days, if the employee is still disabled the employee may opt to continue receiving the difference between full salary and Workers’ Compensation benefits to the extent earned vacation leave and/or sick leave is available.

16.2 Quality Of Life / Wellness Employee Reimbursement Program Effective October 16, 2022, the City implemented a Quality-of-Life Employee Reimbursement Plan that may be used towards reimbursement for the following allowable categories:
• Mental/Emotional Wellness
• Health/Physical Wellness
• Financial/Retirement Wellness

Employees may be reimbursed up to $1,300 per calendar year ($50 per pay period) for the qualifying wellness activities outlined in detail within the City’s Quality of Life / Wellness Employee Reimbursement policy.

16.3 Long Term Disability Insurance
To the extent that long-term disability (LTD) programs continue to be available, the City will continue to provide the kinds and types of coverage currently offered. The employee shall pay the full premium for this insurance with a post-tax deduction, which means the employee will pay for coverage out of their post-tax earnings. The current coverage provides for income protection up to sixty-six and two-thirds per cent (66 2/3%) of monthly salary up to $10,000 maximum per month following a ninety (90) day elimination period, which begins on the date of illness or injury.

The City maintains the right to select or change carriers, and also to modify the long-term disability plans so long as the level of benefits shall remain substantially the same. Employees should refer to the plan documents for a complete description of benefits, coverage and limitations. If, during the term of this Agreement a change in insurance plans or coverage is necessary, the City shall provide notice and, upon request, meet with representatives of LAMEA.

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

16.4 Tuition Reimbursement Program
Tuition Reimbursement Program shall be consistent with the City’s Professional Certification Reimbursement Program, as set forth in the Personnel Regulations.

16.5 Health and Medical Benefits:

16.5.1 Active Employees – PEMHCA Contribution
The City currently provides medical benefits through the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) Health Program under the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA). Employees must comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the CalPERS Health Benefits Program and PEMHCA.

The City will contribute the minimum monthly amount required by PEMHCA for medical insurance benefits (PEMHCA Minimum Contribution). The City pays this contribution directly to CalPERS. This amount is established annually by CalPERS and is the minimum amount the City must pay on behalf of employees for medical insurance. This contribution is required only to the extent mandated by law and only as long as the City participates in the PEMHCA plan.

16.5.2 Section 125 Cafeteria Plan and Administrative Fees The City will maintain a cafeteria plan pursuant to Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code, for the purpose of providing members with access to various health benefits.