110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 09/15/2026
ITEM NO: 12
DESK ITEM
DATE: September 15, 2026
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Chris Constantin, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Receive and Accept the Saratoga Police Services Transition Study and Independent Cost Review; Approve the Proposed Regional Law Enforcement Services Partnership Framework, Financial Basis, and Agreement in Substantial Form; and Authorize the Town Manager to Continue Discussions with the City of Saratoga and Return to the Town Council for Final Consideration if Requested by Saratoga.
REMARKS:
Attachment 7 contains the Regional Law Enforcement Services presentation and Attachment 8 contains public comment received before 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, September 15, 2026.
Attachments Received with the Staff Report:
1. Resolution
2. Proposed Agreement for Law Enforcement Services Between the Town of Los Gatos and the City of Saratoga.
3. Meliora Public Safety Consulting, Transition Study for Police Services in the City of Saratoga, dated August 28, 2026.
4. Matrix Consulting Group cost model review letter dated September 3, 2026, and the fiscal year 2027-28 Regional Municipal Policing Cost Allocation Methodology, Pillar Framework, and Position Schedule.
5. Public Comment
Attachment Received with the Addendum:
6. Public Comment Received Before 3:00 p.m. on Monday, September 14, 2026.
Attachment Received with this Desk Item:
7. Regional Law Enforcement Services Presentation
8. Public Comment Received Before 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, September 15, 2026. 01 LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL
Regional Law
Enforcement
Services Partnership
Local service. Regional capacity.
Public accountability.
Proposed partnership with Saratoga
September 15, 2026
LOS GATOS MONTE SERENO SARATOGA
Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department
ATTACHMENT 7
THE REGIONAL OPPORTUNITY
Why this discussion matters
02 Sustain local service
Preserve responsive municipal policing as
costs and operational complexity grow.
Build regional capacity
Add personnel and capabilities rather than
duplicate separate systems.
Keep accountability local
Serve adjoining communities while retaining
local priorities and public oversight.
The model must strengthen - not dilute
service for Los Gatos and Monte Sereno.
THE INTEGRATED MUNICIPAL MODEL
One department. Three adjoining communities.
03 LOS GATOS
Remains the employer and
operating agency.
Provides command and
organizational depth.
MONTE SERENO
Continues its existing
service relationship and
local community priorities.
SARATOGA
Joins an established municipal
police organization.
Gains local presence, access,
leadership and reporting.
ONE INTEGRATED MUNICIPAL POLICE DEPARTMENT
Patrol • Dispatch • Investigations • Technology • Support
PROTECTING EXISTING SERVICE
Add capacity before adding responsibility
04 ADD CAPACITY
+16.5
NET ADDED FTE
7 sworn
9.5 professional / Town
support
DEPLOY REGIONALLY
4 BEATS
24/7 FIELD SUPERVISION
Resources reposition as
demand changes
MEASURE & ADJUST
REVIEW
AFTER LAUNCH
Evaluate response goals
and workload, staffing,
overtime, and deployment
Threshold principle: Saratoga expansion must not diminish police service in Los Gatos or Monte Sereno.
WHAT THE REGIONAL DEPARTMENT PROVIDES
Full municipal police services - delivered as one organization 05 PATROL & 911
24/7 response • proactive patrol
• local public safety dispatch
INVESTIGATIONS &
TRAFFIC
Case follow-up • traffic enforcement
• collisions and victim support
SCHOOLS & COMMUNITY
School Resource Officer • Explorers
• Neighborhood Watch • Robust
volunteer programs
RECORDS & EVIDENCE
Reports • evidence • crime data and trends
• public access and support
TECHNOLOGY & READINESS
RTIC • drone capability • mutual aid
• EOC coordination and situational awareness
Breadth without duplication: one integrated department, with resources deployed according to need.
ADDITIONAL OPERATIONAL CAPACITY
Additional personnel create additional service capacity 06 +4
PATROL
• Geographic
coverage
• Backup
• Proactive time
+1
MOTOR
• Traffic enforcement
• Collisions
• School zone cover
+1
School Resource
Officer (SRO)
• School relationships
• Campus safety
• Readiness
+1
DETECTIVE
• Case follow-up
• Digital evidence
• Victim support
+2
Community Service
Officers (CSOs)
• Reports
• Community relations
• Traffic control
• Scene / evidence
support
These positions add capacity to the regional model; they are not a reassignment of today’s staffing.
EXISTING AND DEVELOPING LGMSPD CAPABILITIES
Technology extends the reach of personnel in the field
07 Real-Time
Information
Connects information
to field decisions
through Fusus platform.
License plate readers
& investigative
cameras
Supports investigations
and situational
awareness.
Axon &
digital evidence
Body-worn cameras /
in-car video and
evidence / translation /
Taser 10 / VR systems
Drone as
First Responder
Aerial awareness when
policy and conditions
allow.
Technology supports - not replaces - trained personnel and is deployed consistent with law, local policy, secure-data requirements and community expectations.
PARTICIPATION, VOLUNTEERS AND EMERGENCY READINESS
Community relationships are part of the service model
08 Community relationships
Neighborhood Watch
Youth programs and Community Police Academy
Volunteers in Policing, DART and Explorers
Preparedness and volunteers
Joint CERT training and coordination
Regional mutual aid and police response
EOC access
Saratoga retains its CERT and emergency management duties.
HOW THE PROPOSED SERVICE WORKS ON THE GROUND
What a resident experiences when service is needed
09 1
CALL FOR
SERVICE
Local 911 and police
dispatch receives the
call - the same local
process used in Los
Gatos and Monte
Sereno.
2 DISPATCH
The closest appropriate
resource is assigned by
geography and priority.
3 BACKUP &
SUPERVISION
Regional officers and a
field supervisor provide
backup across all
geographic beats.
4 FOLLOW-UP
Investigations, records
and specialty resources
continue follow-up as
needed.
5 LOCAL
ACCESS
Saratoga workspace,
Captain liaison and
public reporting provide
a local connection.
Resource deployment is geographic - not jurisdictional: four beats to serve Los Gatos, Monte Sereno and Saratoga.
LOCAL PRESENCE AND COMMUNITY ACCESS
A Saratoga workspace anchors local access
10 Local presence without creating another police department.
SARATOGA VILLAGE
COMMUNITY ACCESS
A visible local service point
Community meetings • reports & follow-up • neighborhood and school engagement
FIELD OPERATIONS
A place for officers to work locally
Report writing • case coordination • officer touchdown / workspace
LOCAL CONNECTION
Direct connection to Saratoga and Police Department staff Captain liaison • City coordination • service priorities and reporting SARATOGA RESPONSIBILITY: Provide reasonable access to mutually identified Saratoga facilities and space at no charge.
Final location, access, equipment, security and public-contact procedures would be established during implementation.
PATROL DEPLOYMENT
Four geographic patrol beats
11 PLANNED SWORN PERSONNEL ON DUTY
6 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Four beats + supervisor
+ daytime rover
5 7 p.m. to 7 a.m.
Four beats + supervisor
Recommended beat boundaries and
deployment adjusted with workload study.
STAFFING AND ORGANIZATIONAL READINESS
Added capacity reaches beyond patrol staffing
12 16.5
NET ADDED FTE
Police capacity
+ Town support
functions.
7.0 NET SWORN
7 4 Patrol Officers
1 Detective
1 Motor Officer
1 School Resource Officer
9.5 PROFESSIONAL / SUPPORT
9.5 Dispatch (1.5)+ Community Service
Officers (2) + Records (2)
+ PD Analyst/Tech (1.5) = 7 FTE
HR • training • fleet • IT • legal = 2.5 FTE
Captain replaces a vacant Sergeant (no net FTE).
Temporary Project Manager is separate from the 16.5 ongoing FTE.
SERVICE ASSURANCE IN EVERY COMMUNITY
Response goals guide deployment and evaluation
13 PRIORITY 1
≈5 minutes
Threat to life or significant
public safety hazard.
PRIORITY 2
≈10 minutes
Urgent incident requiring
immediate response.
PRIORITY 3
≈15 minutes
Nonemergency call
requiring police service.
Service goals - not guarantees. Actual results vary with incident conditions, geography, traffic and simultaneous calls. ≈60% Patrol workload planning threshold • preserves capacity for emergencies, backup and proactive work.
IMPLEMENTATION AND READINESS AFTER FINAL APPROVALS
One year to prepare, test, launch and measure
15 DEDICATED PROJECT MANAGER • Coordinates transition and the first operating year 1 FINAL APPROVALS
& MOBILIZE
Budget + positions
Recruitment + backgrounds
Partner agreements
2 BUILD & TRAIN
Staffing + relief + FTO
911 • radio • records • CJIS and
DOJ Security requirements
Vehicles + workspace
3 TEST READINESS
Systems + contingencies
Coverage + public access
Community / school contacts
and familiarization
4 LAUNCH & MEASURE
Response + workload
Staffing + overtime
Dispatch • investigations • finance
Proposed service start: October 1, 2027 • Readiness and performance are reviewed before and after launch ANNUALIZED FY 2027–28 FINANCIAL BASIS
What does the $9.729M annualized total fund?
16 $9.392M
ONGOING ANNUAL BASE
Personnel, readiness and the municipal public-safety
platform
+ $337K
STARTUP RECOVERY
Estimated
annual
installment
A DIRECT SERVICE
$4.949M
Personnel and direct
service capacity
attributable to Saratoga
B READINESS &
RELIEF
$2.516M
Leave relief, depth,
training, backfill and
supervision
C MUNICIPAL
PLATFORM
$1.927M
Technology, fleet,
communications, facilities
and administration
D STARTUP RECOVERY
$337K / year
Hiring before launch • project
management • consulting, legal
and labor • eligible implementation
ANNUALIZED
TOTAL
$9.729M before applicable simple interest and other authorized charges
FINANCIAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Built by staff. Independently tested by Matrix.
17 How the service plan became a tested cost model.
1 SERVICE PLAN
Meliora study +
Department needs
✓ Define added service capacity
✓ Use direct service
requirements
2 COST MODEL
Town staff translates
service into cost
✓ Direct costs only
✓ Attributable Town support
✓ No general Town overhead
3 INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Matrix tests inputs and
methodology
✓ Review direct service costs
✓ Test internal consistency
✓ Recommend model
improvements
RESULT Attributable service costs—not general Town
overhead.
Matrix tested cost inputs, consistency and supporting
references.
OCTOBER 1, 2027 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2028
First nine months: $7.381M before interest and authorized charges 18 $7.044M
9 months of ongoing Base
Rate
+ $337K
Full annual startup
installment
=
$7.381M
INITIAL PERIOD TOTAL
STARTUP FUNDING CONTROLS
1 APPROVE
before committing
Eligible costs + approved
implementation / repayment plan
2 PAY & TRACK
approved costs
Town advances and documents
approved startup spending
3 RECOVER
within initial term
Simple interest • no compounding •
target by June 30, 2037
All figures shown before applicable simple interest and other authorized charges.
ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS BEGIN JULY 1, 2028
How annual payments change after the first year
19 A bounded formula applied to the prior annual Base Rate.
PRIOR ANNUAL BASE
$9.392M
First adjustment uses the
annualized Base Rate.
ORDINARY ADJUSTMENT
3%–8%
Higher of ECI change or sworn
employer cost change, plus 2
points.
APPROVED EXTERNAL MANDATE
Up to 4%
Of the prior Base Rate; written
approval required.
COMBINED ANNUAL
LIMIT
Ordinary adjustment + approved external mandate: no more than 12% of the prior annual Base Rate
THEN ADD Startup + interest • discretionary services • other authorized amounts The 4% mandate limit applies even when the ordinary adjustment is below 8%.
FINANCIAL SAFEGUARDS FOR BOTH COMMUNITIES
Safeguards protect both communities
20 The agreement defines what can be recovered and when additional approval is required.
S FOR SARATOGA
Defined costs and joint approvals
✓ Document, allocate and mitigate mandates
✓ Written approval before mandate recovery
✓ Joint approval for material changes
✓ No duplicate recovery of the same cost
L
G
FOR LOS GATOS
Recovery of attributable costs
✓ Approved mandate balances carry forward
✓ Balances remain due at final reconciliation
✓ Separate agreement for major regional costs
✓ Documentation supports cost recovery
Annual limits affect payment timing; documentation, allocation and financial oversight remain essential.
HOW WILL LOCAL PRIORITIES SHAPE POLICE SERVICE?
Local priorities. One accountable police operator.
21 Saratoga keeps a local policy voice; Los Gatos remains the employer and operating agency.
SARATOGA COUNCIL
Identifies community
priorities
CITY MANAGER
Conveys priorities and
concerns
CAPTAIN LIAISON
Connects City to
Department leadership
CHIEF / LGMSPD
Directs deployment,
personnel and police
decisions
SARATOGA MUNICIPAL ROLE
Local laws • traffic engineering • City facilities &
technology • emergency management • CERT
LOS GATOS POLICE OPERATOR
Employer • command • deployment • personnel • police
operations across all three communities
PROPOSED LE PARTNERSHIP
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Two Councilmembers from each community • public forum at least quarterly • advisory to the Chief and Town Manager
Subject to Monte Sereno approval • Advisory only • Does not direct officers or amend the agreement HOW WILL COUNCILS KNOW THE PARTNERSHIP IS WORKING?
Three built-in ways to see performance and respond
22 Public reporting and management review keep service visible between contract renewals. 2× / YEAR
COUNCIL REPORTING
Calls • response • crime
trends
See the community’s experience
14 DAYS
MANAGEMENT REVIEW
Qualifying recurring concern
→ management meeting
Raise an issue between reports
QUARTERLY
PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP FORUM
Proposed LEPAC • Council
representatives • Chief •
managers
Discuss service, concerns and
operations
Measure performance • surface concerns • adjust when necessary Plus ongoing annual service consultation and partnership / risk review.
WHAT IF THE PARTNERSHIP ENCOUNTERS A MATERIAL PROBLEM?
Defined path for material problems - without giving up Council authority 23 Material service, workload, legal or cost issues move through an evidence-based resolution process. 1 ESTABLISH THE FACTS
Determine whether the
impact qualifies as a
Significant Matter.
Ordinary fluctuations do not.
2 SEEK A RESOLUTION
Managers confer first;
mediation and advisory
arbitration are available if
needed.
Both are nonbinding.
3 RETAIN FINAL AUTHORITY
An arbitrator cannot change
the agreement. Material
amendments require both
Councils’ written approval.
Council authority remains intact.
The process itself does not change the price, services or existing obligations.
Performance generally continues during review, subject to the agreement’s exceptions.
HOW LONG IS THE COMMITMENT, AND WHAT IF IT ENDS?
Stability up front. Flexibility over time.
24 The term supports staffing and startup investment while preserving defined exit paths.
OCT 1, 2027
SERVICE START
Initial term begins
JUN 30, 2030
STABILITY PERIOD
ENDS
Ordinary termination
cannot take effect before
this date
THEREAFTER
12-MONTH NOTICE
Either party may terminate
with at least 12 months
written notice
JUN 30, 2037
INITIAL TERM ENDS
Nine years and nine
months
OPTION
5-YEAR RENEWAL
Mutual written
approval
EARLIER EXIT REMAINS
POSSIBLE
Qualifying Significant Matter • uncured material default • mutual agreement If service ends, both parties coordinate the transition; accrued and approved unrecovered obligations remain payable.
SEPTEMBER 15 POLICY DIRECTION AND THE NEXT DECISION
Advance the framework. Reserve final authorization.
25 Tonight is a policy and framework decision - not final execution or implementation.
TONIGHT
Advance for public review
✓ Receive Meliora + Matrix reviews
✓ Approve framework, financial basis + agreement in
substantial form
✓ Authorize continued discussions with Saratoga
NOT TONIGHT
Final commitment
✓ No final execution of the agreement
✓ No service launch or new positions
✓ No new appropriations or startup commitments
NEXT SARATOGA
Public review
FINAL TERMS
Return for
consideration
BOTH COUNCILS
Decide
EXECUTE & PREPARE
If approved
Proposed service start: October 1, 2027 • Council may modify the framework, request more work, or decline to advance.
MEMORANDUM
To: Chris Constantin, Town Manager
From: Phil Koen, Finance Commission
Date: September 15, 2026
Re: Comments on the proposed Saratoga law enforcement services agreement — Council Item 12 cc: Mayor and Members of the Town Council; Gabrielle Whelan, Town Attorney; Ashby Monk, Chair, Finance Commission; Wendy Wood, Town Clerk
Encl.: Risk chart — “The Agreement Protects Us From Saratoga, Not From Ourselves” (one page) At last night’s Finance Commission meeting you asked Commission members to provide any input they had on the proposed Saratoga law enforcement services partnership. The enclosed one-page chart is my input. It is limited to the contract — Attachment 2 to tonight’s Council item — and to the question of which risks the Agreement allocates and which it leaves with the Town.
I want to be direct about the circumstances in which it is being offered.
The Commission is seeing this for the first time, the night before the Council acts Chief Field’s presentation on September 14 was the Finance Commission’s first exposure to this matter. The Commission has had no involvement in it — no briefing during the study, no review of the cost model, no opportunity to examine the financial terms before they were reduced to an executable agreement. The request for input came roughly twenty-four hours before the Council is asked to approve a partnership framework, a $9,729,000 financial basis, and the Agreement in substantial form.
Whatever one thinks of the merits, that is not a review. It is a courtesy extended after the work is finished.
What the Council is being asked to do tonight
The recommendation has four parts. Receive and accept the Meliora transition study and the Matrix cost model review. Approve the proposed regional partnership framework and the FY 2027-28 contract financial basis — an annual Base Rate of $9,392,000 for ongoing services and an estimated $337,000 annual startup cost recovery installment, for an annualized total of $9,729,000 before interest and other authorized charges. Adopt a resolution memorializing those actions and approving the Agreement for Law Enforcement Services in substantial form. And authorize the Town Manager, in consultation with the Chief and Town Attorney, to continue negotiations with Saratoga and return to the Council for final consideration if Saratoga asks the Town to proceed.
I recognize what the draft resolution reserves. Paragraph 3 provides that approval in substantial form expresses the Council’s policy support and “does not constitute final authorization to execute or implement the Agreement.” Paragraph 5 provides that nothing in the resolution authorizes execution, commencement of service, new positions, or a new appropriation. That is careful drafting and it is accurate.
What the resolution does not reserve is the number. Paragraph 2 approves the FY 2027-28 contract financial basis itself — $9,392,000, $337,000, $9,729,000 annualized, and a prorated $7,381,000 initial service period — by resolution, tonight. From the moment it passes, those figures are the Town’s adopted position in an interagency negotiation, and paragraph 4 authorizes the Town Manager to revise the Agreement in the course of that negotiation. Reopening the financial basis afterward would require the Council to reverse its ATTACHMENT 8
own resolution in the middle of a discussion with another city. As a practical matter, tonight is when the number is set.
Setting that number is a financial determination. It is the determination the Finance Commission exists to examine, and no member of the Commission saw it before last night.
This is precisely the kind of matter the Finance Commission exists to examine Consider the magnitude of what that figure commits the Town to:
• A ten-year term running from October 1, 2027 through June 30, 2037, with a possible five-year extension.
• A first-year Base Rate of $9,392,000 escalating annually by a formula with a 3 percent floor and an 8 percent cap, and up to 12 percent combined with the external mandate surcharge. • Roughly $3.4 million in startup costs fronted by the Town and recovered over a decade at the Pooled Money Investment Account yield — against an implementation budget that does not yet exist. • 16.5 new Town positions, including seven net sworn officers, hired against a single revenue source.
Across the initial term, the Base Rate alone commits the Town to somewhere between roughly $105 million and $134 million of contracted service, depending on where the escalator settles, plus startup recovery and interest. Whether that arrangement recovers the Town’s actual cost, under-recovers it and quietly subsidizes another city, or over-recovers it and creates exposure under Government Code section 54982, depends entirely on a cost model whose two largest components — $4.44 million, or 47 percent of the Base Rate — are disclosed only as factors applied to department operating costs. Neither the base nor the factor appears in the packet. Matrix Consulting’s letter states plainly that it should not be read as validating the model’s total.
A ten-year commitment of that size, resting on an unpublished allocation model, is a Finance Commission matter by any reasonable reading of the Commission’s charge under Division 3. It should have come to the Commission before it reached the Council, with enough time to do the work properly. That did not happen.
I would add one observation about last night’s agenda. The same meeting at which the Commission learned of this contract also asked the Commission to forward a revised work plan to the Council for approval. A tenyear, hundred-million-dollar arrangement arrived as an informational presentation. I do not think that ordering reflects the priorities the voters had in mind when they created this Commission.
What the enclosure is, and what it is not
The chart identifies nine risks in the Agreement and states, with section citations, whether the Agreement provides a remedy for each. It is what a few days of reading permits. It is not the financial review this transaction warrants.
The finding is a pattern rather than any single item. Every risk arising from Saratoga’s conduct — early exit, late payment, claims from services delivered there — has a drafted remedy. Five of the six risks arising from the Town’s own cost and staffing exposure have none. Where the Town is the party at risk, the Agreement offers a process rather than a remedy: Section 18 permits the Town to raise a sustained workload variance but expressly cannot change the Base Rate; there is no annual cost reconciliation and no audit right; collective bargaining outcomes are excluded from the mandate pass-through, so labor growth above the 8 percent cap falls on the Town; and no provision conditions commencement on the Town actually hiring the officers the model requires.
Two financial questions fall outside the chart because they are not risk allocation issues, but they are the kind of thing a Commission review would reach in its first sitting. Pillar A prices the sixteen and a half positions as fully burdened; Pillar B then adds $2,516,000 — 51 percent of Pillar A — for leave relief, backfill, overtime and readiness. If the Pillar A burden already carries benefits and leave, some part of Pillar B is a second charge for the same cost. Separately, the packet compares a FY 2027-28 Town price to a FY 2026-27 County price without reconciling what each covers, and the staff report concedes the contract “does not represent Saratoga’s entire public safety budget.” Neither question requires anything from Saratoga. Both are answerable from the Town’s own records, and neither appears to have been asked.
Recommendation
I am not asking that tonight’s item be relitigated. The resolution itself contemplates what I am proposing:
paragraph 2 provides that any implementation budget, amortization schedule, appropriations, and position authorizations remain subject to subsequent approvals, and paragraph 4 returns the matter to the Council for final consideration if Saratoga asks the Town to proceed. Saratoga does not discuss the partnership until tomorrow and is not expected to act before October 7. There is a window.
If this partnership gains traction, I recommend that the Council refer it to the Finance Commission for financial review before final approval, and that the Commission add it to its work plan. Consistent with your August 21 confirmation, the Commission can agendize and make recommendations on a matter within its scope whether or not it appears in an approved plan, but this is substantial enough that it should be planned and resourced rather than squeezed in. The review would focus on four things:
• the derivation of Pillars B and C, whether Pillar B duplicates burden already carried in Pillar A, and whether the model recovers the Town’s full cost without over-recovering; • whether the escalation formula keeps pace with the Town’s actual compensation costs over the term;
• the total startup cost, the Town’s peak cash exposure, and the amortization and interest terms; and • the ten-year fiscal impact under the floor, midpoint and cap of the escalation formula.
There is time to do this between now and final Council action. I would rather the Commission contribute something useful before the Town signs than explain afterward what it would have said.
I am available to discuss any of this at your convenience.
References: September 15, 2026 Council Agenda and Agenda Report, Item 12; Attachment 1 (Draft Resolution); Attachment 2 (Agreement for Law Enforcement Services, Saratoga Draft v2); Attachment 3 (Meliora Public Safety Consulting, Transition Study for Police Services, August 28, 2026); Attachment 4 (Matrix Consulting Group letter, September 3, 2026, and FY 2027-28 Cost Allocation Methodology). Term-value figures are my own calculation from the escalation formula in Section 10.7 and are not stated in the packet.
The Agreement Protects Us From Saratoga, Not From Ourselves Item 12 — Saratoga Law Enforcement Services Agreement. Every risk arising from Saratoga’s conduct has a contractual remedy. Five of the six risks arising from the Town’s own cost and staffing have none.
Risk What could go wrong Remedy What the Agreement actually provides RISKS ARISING FROM SARATOGA’S CONDUCT — all three have a contractual remedy Saratoga exits early Town left holding 16.5 new FTE and a department sized for 64,000 residents. Yes §16.2 bars exit before 6/30/30; §16.3 recovers unamortized startup; §10.8.2(e) reaches stranded sworn and civilian positions.
Saratoga pays late or disputes invoices Monthly unsecured payments against a Town that has already hired and equipped. Partial §10.5 adds a 5% late charge after 60 days; §17 gives default and termination rights. No security or acceleration.
Claims from service delivered in
Saratoga
Use-of-force, pursuit and custody claims arising in a third jurisdiction. Yes §14 allocates by fault under Gov. Code §895.4; §15 requires $30M coverage each. Residual: own claims experience excluded from §10.8.1(e).
RISKS ARISING FROM THE TOWN’S OWN COST AND STAFFING — fi ve of six have no remedy at all Actual workload exceeds the model Base Rate is priced off one year of data the Agreement itself calls materially incomplete. None §18 lets the Town raise it but expressly cannot change the Base Rate. Absorb the cost or exit the partnership.
Cost model under-recovers Pillars B and C are $4.44M — 47% of the Base Rate — shown only as undisclosed factors. None No annual reconciliation and no audit right. Under-recovery is a subsidy by Los Gatos taxpayers for ten years.
Labor cost growth above the 8% cap An MOU settlement or classification action pushes sworn compensation past the ordinary cap. None §10.8.1 excludes bargaining outcomes from pass-through, and the ordinary adjustment has no carry-forward.
Hiring shortfall Four sworn vacancies today; eleven more officers needed by Oct 1, 2027. The plan yields exactly 28 patrol sworn. None No staffing condition precedent — the commencement date is fixed whether or not the officers exist.
Los Gatos and Monte Sereno service
dilution
Combined staffing falls from 1.11 to 0.71 sworn officers per 1,000 residents. None Every service commitment runs to Saratoga. §6.4 disclaims any warranty of response or fixed service level. Monte Sereno is not a party.
Startup cost overruns About $3.4M implied by the $337,000 installment, but no total computed and no implementation budget yet. Partial §10.2.1 gates Saratoga approval but sets no not-to-exceed. Manager signoff is expressly non-binding.
The asymmetry is the finding. Where the Town is the one exposed, the Agreement offers a process, not a remedy.
Sources: Attachment 2 (Agreement for Law Enforcement Services, Saratoga Draft v2), §§6, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18; Attachment 3 (Meliora Transition Study, Aug. 28, 2026); Attachment 4 (Matrix letter, Sept. 3, 2026, and FY 2027-28 Cost Allocation Methodology). Staffing ratios calculated from Meliora Tables 3 and 4. | Prepared by Phil Koen, September 15, 2026.