City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. It is 545 and I call this June 16th, 2026 special meeting of the Cupertino City Council to order. Madam City Clerk, will you please call the roll? Council Member Fruin? Here.

Council Member Mohan? Here. Vice Mayor Chau? Here. Mayor Moore?

Present. Thank you. Our first item is a study session to consider existing designations, zoning corrections, and state law protections for recreational facilities and parkland sites. Madam City Manager, do we have a presentation? Pardon, we might have a housekeeping matter. Has Council Member Fruin indicated his location?

Thank you for the reminder, Mayor. Council Member Furwan, I have a series of questions to ask you, and I will again ask you later at the regular meeting, so thank you for your patience. Council Member Furwan, are you in the lobby, hotel lobby business center of the Fairfield by Marriott Inn and Suites in Salt Lake City, Utah, and can you confirm your location is open and available to the public?

Yes, I can, and I am in the lobby, and it is open and available to the public. I have also provided proof of posting to the city manager.

Thank you. That was my next question. And are there any individuals over the age of 18 with you? And has anyone indicated to you that they intend to make public comment or address the council?

No.

Okay. And I'll rely on you to notify me if any member of the public wishes to speak from your location. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam City Clerk. Madam City Manager, do we have a presentation for study session item one? And for the clerk to note that Council Member Wong is here. All right, thank you. Present. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. This is a study session which is following direction from the City Council at its March 3rd meeting to return to consider existing land use designations, zoning corrections, and relevant state laws. Staff will present survey results for the... staff will present survey results for the potential november 2026 parkland rezoning measure on july 7th and with that i will turn it over to community development staff john martier senior planner and luke connolly assistant director of cdd

Thank you, Tina. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council. Again, John Martyr, Senior Planner. Yeah, I'm here to present this item for the study session discussion. And as the city manager already read this subject, I'll go right into the presentation. So background recommendation, and again, this is a follow-up from the March 3rd, 2026 study session and the direction from Council to come back with recommendations A deeper analysis in the land use designation zoning and he's own Corrections and protections for public open spaces with city-owned properties Throughout the the community and the recommendations to receive the staff presentation provides specific direction regarding potential zoning cleanups So really quick Kind of an overview of how land use works in this community. We have the general plan community vision, which in our land use chapters establishes broad development patterns and long-term policies. NOT NECESSARILY SPECIFIC RULES AND REGULATIONS SUCH AS FARS AND SETBACK AND WHATNOT THAT GOES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH HAS THE MORE SPECIFIC GUIDELINES SUCH AS BUILDING FORMS AND PERMITTED ACTIVITIES IN THIS CASE YOU KNOW WHAT TYPE OF PUBLIC PARK LAND WHAT CAN YOU DO IN THOSE PARK LAND ZONED AREAS AS WELL AS PUBLIC FACILITIES ZONED AREAS AND WHATNOT So this chart mirrors what was in the staff report in terms of the general plan land use and its corresponding zoning designation. You see that there's three general plan land uses that govern city facilities, such as parks and open space, public facilities, and transportation. Within the parks and open space general plan land use designation, you have open space, park recreation as well as private recreation fp within the the city of cupertino i believe there's only one um one area that has an fp designation that's deep cliff golf course and that's a private facility um open spaces are or there's not a single city facility that has an os zone designation but you know the majority of our parks already have a pr designation uh public facilities um ba um would be such as City Hall as well as the Mary Avenue Corp Yard. Those are public facilities as well. And transportation, typically those transportation are streets and roads and other type of anything used to accommodate infrastructure or corridors. The staff report identified all city-owned properties. There's 40 plus on there. So this is a brief selection from that table. As we see that, you know, Much of what was listed is conforming. Um, and so such as portal park or variant park, the current zone is PR as well as this general plan, um, destination lanes as parks and open space. So. You know, the status recommendation from staff is that they're those are aligned. There's really no action intended with that 1. Creekside parks, particularly the soccer field portion of it that was brought up in March 3rd correctly. So that the general plan land use for the whole park, including the soccer field is parks and open space. However, that soccer field portion. Has a BA zoning to it, which, you know. is currently inconsistent you typically want your zoning again to be consistent with the general plan does land use designation so that would probably require some type of zoning cleanup uh quinlan community center um interesting one it's it's got general plan for public facilities but the current zoning is is park um which again is inconsistent and this is something that council can give direction to staff whether they want to have quinlan community center be uh have a general plan land use of a public facility or have a something as parks or an open space memorial park entrance is one that's kind of one of those leftover parcels right at the entrance off mary avenue just just adjacent to the senior center that has a general plan land use of transportation but a current zoning of r3 so this is something that's outdated you know staff thinks that if we're going through this exercise of you know kind of making consistent zoning designation with the general plan you know let's just go through that and and redesignate that something more consistent with the memorial park land use as well as zoning um state law protections um the staff report from march 3rd that was dated february 19th this discussed in detail the current state laws that protect parks and open spaces within communities and our city attorney can probably answer answer any questions you might have about this better than i could So next steps is, you know, should City Council direct staff will initiate formal zoning cleanups to bring public facilities and parkland to full conformity with the adult general plan, which include, but not limited to rezoning soccer field at Creekside Park from. Public buildings to to a park destination, such as PR, uh, reason the senior set parking lot entrance as discussed before. Um. Reconciled with the Quinlan Community Center and that's kind of what we asked in a couple slides ago whether council's directions to maintain that as a public facility land use or Make that into a parks and open space land use and one that wasn't listed in the staff report is to the rezoning of library field at Civic Center from public buildings BA and To a park destination as pr because that was another one of the at the march 3rd study session that was brought up by a member of the community as well And again, this list is not exhaustive. Neither was the list For for next steps in the staff reports being exhausted as well. There's a number of other parcels that are identified in table two of the staff report that will probably need some adjustments to their land use and or zoning designations to Conform with council direction as well and that complete concludes my presentation Okay, thank you John for the presentation and the staff report do we have any clarifying questions from the council at this time I

Vice mayor?

Yeah. So I think we do have buildings in like Creekside Park has the Creekside Community Building. Monta Vista Park also has a community building. Portal Park too. So the PR zoning does allow to have a community space, right? So which means the Queensland Center is not really inconsistent with PR zoning.

Correct. Recreational facilities are allowed within the PR zone. It is permitted. So yes, I mean, Quinlan is interesting because it's both a public facility as well as a recreational facility. So I think that it would, I think staff could recommend that land use could be changed to a parks and open space rather than a public facility.

Right now it's a park and open space.

You I saw the suggestion is to recently to be a. I think it was public facilities, yes, general plan, but the zoning is parks and recreation.

So the zoning public facilities. Oh excuse me the general plan is public facilities, the zoning is parks and recreation.

So that those 2 are inconsistent correct.

I see yeah, and I think there's always some overlap between the 2 because they both describe publicly owned facilities.

So for sports center, it would be if that lot is zoned parks and open space, sports center is consistent with that zoning too, or BA?

Yeah, it's currently parks and rec right now. So it's currently the land use as well as the zoning is consistent with each other and with the use on site.

Oh, so sports center is already parks and open space.

Correct, yes.

Okay, one more question is I think there is a residential building that's at the entrance of Blackberry Farm that's currently used by the Parks and Rec as a meeting room. Is that still zoned residential?

That's not zone residential. The the entrance to Blackberry is literally a 1000 square foot leftover parcel right at the entrance. So that would be part of like a like a cleanup. That building is, I believe, within the the the correct zoning currently.

So that has the same zoning as Blackberry. Yes. Okay. And then we have just so we can consider the Fitch property as part of this cleanup to rezone the Fitch property to an open space, right?

Well, it's not owned by the city currently. So I think this is a little bit of city-owned facilities.

I think the city can rezone a parcel whether it's owned by us or not.

Vice Mayor, I think that the Finch property will be a topic for another meeting. And we do currently have a member of the council who is conflicted on the item. So if we're going to have a conversation about Finch, we probably should.

Okay. But maybe that's, let me just ask, can the city rezone a property even though we don't own them? I believe we can, right?

Yes question.

Yes, if we I think the city has done that before if a property the city doesn't home yet, but we perceive the future use. We can raise on them. Okay, so not talking about specific property just on thank you. Council member one.

Thanks. Thanks. I do want to delve a little bit deeper into the Cupertino Sports Center. You said it's part of the Memorial Park Hub. So the designation comes across for PR only. I just want to make sure that that's clarified properly. Because I've seen in some places, I'm looking at the interactive map, but I've seen some places it's listed as public, quasi-public. But I'm also seeing on our map for the Cupertino zoning map, the interactive one that you guys put together, that it's PR. So I just want to make sure if we've got clarification on that. Yeah, getting the TV crew to share my screen.

So, yeah, so this is the general plan designations, parks and open space for the Cupertino Sports Center and the zonings on the right.

So it's definitely PR that's going to be protected by parks and. Correct. So make sure. Yeah, there's been a lot of questions about that. So thank you very much.

Council Member Mohan. Just a quick clarification from staff. In the original staff report, you did not, in the next step section, you did not talk about the library field, but in your presentation you did. So is that an additional item that you included?

correct so the next that list is not exhaustive that's just i think the high level list um you know i i believe that the library field is intended to be part of that and some other parks as well there's two parks within the oak valley subdivision that are owned by the city and that includes little rancho park as well as canyon oak park those parks have a parks and open space general plan land use but have a Zoning of plan a residential. So I think that would be part of a list to to To to fix to have those be as a parks and rec zoning as well So again, I apologize if that was a source of confusion for the council, you know that again The next steps list was was not meant to be exhaustive. There's about I would say probably 10 to 15 properties on this list that probably need to be rezoned or Have a change of land use designation

Okay, so we're talking about the next steps in the staff report. You're saying that that's not comprehensive?

That's correct. Thank you.

Vice Mayor? So you mentioned one of the ones you identified was a residential that you proposed to consider zoning for PR. So would we get into any trouble by rezoning a residential to other zoning with the state?

I don't know if you have a slide. I believe the property that the John was referring to is more like a remnant that is not really a buildable site on its own. But yeah, you are correct that if you change a residential designation, you have to compensate for the loss of potential residential development. I think if you had a remnant parcel that could not actually accommodate a unit unit, then I don't think you would face that issue because you couldn't build anything on it.

But if we have a potential one like the one I cannot mention, that part likely we need to consider with other rezoning.

That is correct. If you had a buildable parcel that could accommodate one or more units, then you would need to look at offsetting that

loss of potential units somewhere else in the city okay i believe we have other remnant parcels like that that's left over property over development property um like the one that has been contentious that someone has been trying to build a trail through I think that's also some of the steel residential because it's a leftover of a previous development. So I think we probably have multiple of those in the city.

If you're talking about the the one adjacent to deep cliff golf course that

No, I think it's the one across from the entrance to Blackberry Farm Golf Course.

It's APN 35607059, I believe, the 2,400 square foot parcel. Correct, correct, yes. It's that triangle there.

I think that probably should be zone, the riparian zone, because it's right next to a creek.

I think that's one that we would look at as well. As well as the zoning, FP is typically a private open space as well too. So it's inconsistent between the zoning as well as the land use.

So if we zone the property to riparian zoning versus not, what kind of additional protection is there for parcels that are close to our water resources?

I don't believe we have a riparian zoning or land use.

That's riparian. I believe in the Cupertino property information some parcel I did see riparian corridor. I'm not sure if it's a land use or zoning but I did see that designation somewhere.

It usually refers to proximity to a Creek. So you could be say a 100 feet away, but it's not a zoning designation in and of itself. It could affect how you develop the possible parcel in the future though, like having a further setback from the Creek or other restrictions on that even landscaping restrictions. So you wouldn't have invasive plants next to a Creek corridor, but it's not a zoning designation.

I see. So do we have our does our mini code to have more strict standards for those repairing corridors.

Typically do I don't know what they're off the top my head, but normally you're trying to protect that corridor so you would generally have larger setbacks and want to reduce impacts similar to like building on hillside so it's still important to designate them.

It is such OK, thank you. Council member Wong.

Thanks. Why can we not create a riparian zone? We could do that as well. That's something that we should be doing, especially for that particular parcel. It's sitting right next to the water area.

I didn't say you couldn't create a zone. I'd be saying that we don't have an existing designation. Yes, but so creating a zoning district We created a new zoning district doing the housing element r4. Yeah and townhome overlay So we created two two years ago, so it could be done if there was a desire to do that See if there's any interest in adding that to the list

Okay, thank you.

And Vice Mayor? Just to follow up on that, is there a difference though in practice whether it's a specific zoning versus it's special designation as long as we have a definition of what need to be done for that zoning? Maybe it's still PR, but then we identify it as such. In practice, how would that be different for planning in terms of enforcing the setback?

I'm not sure I follow the question if it had to do with creating a new zoning district.

I'm just wondering is creating a new zoning district adding more administrative hurdle or the current status, maybe it's PR zoning, but you have a designation that's a riparian corridor. Is that sufficient for planning purposes or enforcement purpose?

Typically, if you're going to do a riparian corridor, it's only going to be on those parcels that are within a certain distance, say like a top of bank of a creek. So the portion of a property that would be within that area would be affected by it. If it were a larger parcel, the area outside that would not be. That's typically how you handle riparian designations in other cities I've worked in. You may have different development standards the closer you get to the creek. But I think just the parks and recreation designation has a lot of protections because it's really intended for parks and recreation. It's not something a developer could acquire and really do anything with. You would have to rezone the property and change the general plan.

I guess I imagine it could be the part that's close to a creek is only a portion of a parcel. So it's not practical to really have two different zoning for that parcel. So it might be better to just have a... certain.

Yes, typically you could have policy saying your general plan about if you're within that court or how that would affect developing or how you can use the site that that's a more typical way to do it because again the corridors are narrow and run through a city and they usually affect portions of parcels and rather than having 2 different zoning designations on all of the land. that's an easier, clearer way to do it.

Thank you.

So I was looking at the Berkeley Creek's ordinance and their creek protection instructions. I don't know if you've had a chance to look at that at this time, but I think considering that some people have been building really close to the creeks, and there was a situation a couple of years ago where an individual had built double retaining walls and redirected the I'm trying to remember what this was. I think it was Stevens Creek. Redirected it and undermined an old oak tree which fell into the creek, but Valley Water didn't own to the center the creek property in this area. The center line of their property was the middle of the creek. So it may be that looking at what Berkeley's doing is something that we want to consider in the future. or actually probably be starting that now. So I really appreciate hearing the suggestion of this riparian zone, but we might call it something slightly different. Council Member Wang.

Yeah, I'm thinking this is something we should send to the Planning Commission to look at and do some more work with in the long run, especially for the riparian zone portion, just that portion. I also wanted to check if this is also in a FEMA flood zone as well, because if it is, that also serves two purposes.

it is yeah yeah it's all all along the creek it you'd have that issue okay so did you have a another question or comment okay so I think we're ready unless councilmember through and I haven't heard any questions at this point okay madam city clerk do we have any members of the public that would like to comment on this item

Mayor, I don't have any requests in person here at Community Hall, and at this time I do not see any hands raised virtually.

Okay. So I look at this agenda item as having kind of two parts. One is dealing with the number of different properties that have some zoning designations that are inconsistent with our land use designation, and we need to have some cleanups there. There was a list within the table that you referenced, table two in the agenda packet. And in the first part, the sites are designated by APN. So I went through each one of those with the same interactive land use map because I did not know where each one of these properties were. Like the first one, APN 32601051, that's a very unusual little parcel there. And it almost looked, and I don't know if it was not mapped correctly, or if it is mapped correctly, we're owning part of the exit for the shopping center, because the arrow to turn right was showing up as being within the parcel that we own, and I was wondering how that happened. So I think it would help if we had the map for each one of these APNs. I think most of us already know each one of the named parks, except for I would like to see Somerset Square, that one's not ringing a bell. So did you want us to go through each one of these? individually at this time, like APN, like the very first one, I'm not sure what your recommendation would be, that thousand square foot next to Homestead Road.

It could be do nothing at this time, or it could be just have it consistent with the adjacent public right-of-way, if it's part of that as well.

So if we were to remove, it's got a commercial residential designation. I would personally be removing that. And in this one, I think we'd have to look at it and have a discussion about it. So we would need the map and come up with a plan. So I don't feel like we're ready on this first one to make the call on it.

Well, I think if I can, you know, if we're not ready on the smaller sliver parcels and whatnot, you know, the focus could just be direct staff to look at what's usable park space and in city facilities and focus on that.

Okay, so if we're going to take the first part, which is the issue with the land use designation and zoning, and perhaps we can break this item that way. Personally, I'd like to see if it's a recreational facility that... that we not change it to public facilities like Quinlan I think should remain. What are our options there that would still fit with parks and open space designation work there.

We believe so as well.

Okay. So parks and open space can have recreational structures there. No problem. Okay. So and also the ones that the path from Stevens Creek to Creston, I looked at that and also on Street View. And it's clearly a path. It shouldn't have this low density designation. Correct. if you could make a recommendation for that. Both the zoning and the land use are incorrect. Parks and open space? we believe so okay so that that seems fairly easy um and uh the we are we're questionable on the three five six oh seven oh five nine simply because well i mean we could make that one parks and open space at this time that's the little triangle next to the stevens creek bridge adjacent to the creek. So we could make it parks and open space at this time and then once we figured out if we're gonna do a creek ordinance to further protect it, we could then do that. Because we are seeing people that are near the creeks that are trying to encroach a little bit on there and I think we need to set a firm rule about that so that they're not building concrete structures because some, In some areas of the city, the property owner owns to the center of the creek. In some areas of the city, they just own to the edge of the creek. And if they own to the center, there's some belief that they can build right up as close as they want, which we want to discourage that in these areas. Okay, so the next 37047, that path, okay, we were just talking about that, so that could be Parks and Open Space. The Linda Vista, this is basically the Linda Vista Trail, the 35605005. And the problem there is the FPO designation for zoning, which would need to change to PR, okay. And so the next one, the 32617004, PR, Parks and Open Space, that one's fine? lot adjacent to the Stevens Creek. The utility structure at Countrywood Development. What is that?

It's really just this little tiny Countrywood Development right on De Anza Boulevard.

It's on De Anza Boulevard on the northwest corner of De Anza and Homestead.

Okay.

So if I could pull up a map.

Wasn't there a gas station there that burned or something?

Yeah, so it's, yes. But so you have this townhome development and it's right in this corner right there. And actually, if I pull up the city, shoot, I don't have, do we have access to the city map on here?

Okay, so this, And you seem to be indicating that the city owns this.

It does. So if you look over here, it's this little tiny corner parcel right there. It's a little utility structure that the city owns in the middle of this residential development.

And about how many square feet is it?

It's probably not even 200, 300, maybe somewhere between 500 to 1,000.

Okay. And is there a problem with the designation, the zoning, and the land use?

The land use is probably consistent with the use. It's a utility structure. Okay.

So we'll just move on to the next one then. It sounds like this one's okay. The sliver parcel at the San Fernando entrance to Blackberry Farm, so that... is that the little piece of land that we kept after burn or is this different it's just right it's adjacent to a single family home san fernando um is this the one that we it is yeah okay it we kept it for a sidewalk so it shouldn't be residential anymore so um pr parks and open space would be fine for that as well okay um Let's see. So we're good with Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Blackberry Farm Golf, Canyon Oak Park. I think you mentioned this one already. That one should be PR.

Correct.

Okay. City Hall Annex. It's public facilities. That's correct. Okay. So it's going to be BA public facilities. Correct. Correct. Okay. Civic Center. Okay, this one needs to be broken out.

Yeah, so what I'll do is let me share my, I do have this, I don't have it broken in half, but I do have the, if you want to share my screen really quick. There we go. So here's the overview. And you can see where library field is. So it is possible to, without having to create a new lot, you could actually split an existing lot just by zoning and general plan land use. So our suggestion would be to keep where the driveway is north as public facilities and the driveway south as parks and recreation.

Or alternatively, we could say community hall and the library are really recreational spaces, perhaps. I don't know, because it is used kind of for recreation, and move the boundary up closer. Or we could actually take the whole lot and make it all PR, which might be easier and less work.

think it's the same amount I would say it's the same amount of work I mean I think it's I think library and where we are right now is more of a public facility rather than parks and recreational I mean that's I think that's our recommendation but you know okay so is there a way well okay so if we could go

take the library, move the library to library field as a parks rec, and then can we get the Civic Center Plaza included with that parks and recreation parks and open space?

I think I mean, I would think I would say, yes, you can. You just need to have a description that delineates what the boundary is that you want. It would be almost like subdividing where you're not creating a second parcel, but just applying the zoning to that portion. You want PR. So clearly the field would be PR and then how much more than the field you want to make PR. You'd have to get a meets and bounds description, plot that and that would all become PR and the offices would remain B.A.

and just have the footprint of the buildings be- You could do that as well.

I mean you- That seems easy.

Okay. Yeah. Okay. That seems captured well enough. The corporation yard, leave it as BA public facilities. Creekside Park, make it all PR parks and open space. Cupertino Sports Center is fine as it is. Franco Park. I don't agree to change the traffic building area to parks and open space. So I think Franco's fine.

I think that's our recommendation as well.

Okay, Hoover Park is fine, Jollyman's fine, Lawrence Middy's fine, Linda Vista's fine. Little Rancho Park would need to go PR and then it's fine with Parks and Open Space. Mary Avenue Village is fine, McClellan Ranch is fine, Memorial Park. You wanted to change the, is this new?

or that's that's current this transportation part correct so let's if we share my screen i can show you what we're talking about yes so um okay so on the left is a general plan it's a transportation so you see a little triangle portion right there that's zone t um and that's really the entrance in front of the parking lot for the senior center um and then the zoning is r3 i believe correct yeah r3 10 to 20. and you recommend that it become just pr pr okay um so it'll be pr transportation or just just pr open space and parks and open space understood

Okay, Monta Vista Rec Center, PR, that's fine, and it encompasses the buildings there, municipal water tanks, that seems reasonable, BA public facilities, Nathan Hall Tank House. This is right next to Blue Pheasant? Correct. Okay, so yes, PR parks and open space because it's kind of a historical facility that they put there, okay. PORTAL PARK IS FINE. QUINLAND IS FINE. SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY, NO.

CAN WE GO BACK TO QUINLAND? YOU DO HAVE CONFLICTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN LAND USE. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND LAND USE. I'M SORRY.

MAKE IT PARKS AND OPEN SPACE. I skipped a line, thank you for catching that. And San Jose Water Company, is this a tank or something?

Tanks, correct.

Okay, so not R1, not low density. It's some kind of a public facility. Is it a BA public facility?

If you were going to, I would choose BA.

Okay. And public facility? Correct. Okay, so it's not going to be overlaid with residential. Somerset Square Park. Can we see where that is?

Where's 10-450-MAN? Sure. Okay.

Okay and it is it's 625 so we want to so that that's essentially my motion unless we have a change with this last one. Okay.

That's not it.

I kept getting outside. That's why I look right here. Yeah, there it is. It's going to the wrong spot on this map.

Thank you. Got it. I was looking at a house. I was wondering what was going on.

It was going the wrong spot. I don't know why.

No, it did that for me as well. That's why it does on my list.

Is there a yeah, that's is it is does it incorporate anything is it just the circle.

Yes, and that in that building right there so it's in the building it mirrors the pretty much the proportions of the neighboring are one lots with the exception that you have a sounds a water building as well as a tank.

Okay. Do we have to go through any other steps with the Little Rancho Park and Canyon Oak Park because they're residential and we're switching it to PR? Is that a housing element issue at all?

I would need to look at the lots to see if they're just remnant pieces where you couldn't build on them. I think that's different than if some of these are large enough. Like I don't know, Memorial Park, it says over 16,000 square feet. If that's accurate, that could create an issue because it's enough area to build residences.

And not be able to drive into the park.

I mean, I realize none of these are really buildable in a practical sense, but if they were large enough, I'd want to at least take a look before I say, no, there's no issue at all. Because I know this state is very adamant about not eliminating residential land use without offsetting its loss elsewhere.

Okay, so for breaking this item into two parts, my motion is that the changes that I just suggested would come back with maps so that we know more precisely what these sites are and to make those zoning and land use designation changes and if there's any others that did not make it on this list that you would provide and provide those other parcels as well.

Can we vote on a study session item?

I second the motion.

You actually can. If you want to have it as direction instead. City Attorney?

We can vote on a study session item so long as we're giving direction to staff but not officially approving something.

Just want to double check.

So we're asking for this to come back with the maps and all and these are the suggestions. Do you have some other suggestions?

I'm happy to second the motion. And can we also include the size of each lot? And for example, the Canyon Oak, I don't know if it's the entire park or just a part of the park. So it would be nice to include that when it comes back. And then I do have a quick question. So some of them has P parenthesis BA, some of them has BA. What difference does that make? Should we move all the PBA to BA?

The plan, the plan designation just gives flexibility in zoning standards. So either certain setbacks, depending upon how flexible the decision maker wants to be, you know, depending on the law configuration, whatnot. I mean, that's really the only difference when you add a P before zoning district.

I would take them off where you can. It's too much flexibility these days.

I could when you come back could there be a little bit more information about that the PBA versus EPA because we might be voting one way or the other on that and So I I did not catch who was my seconder I

Vice mayor was.

Vice mayor, okay. Would you like to add that added?

Yeah, please. Okay. And also, so the San Jose Water Company parcel is as large as a single family home. So that might also has some issue with rezoning. So that should be looked into also.

Okay. So I'm not seeing any further hands raised. I believe we're ready to do a roll call vote since we have one remote attendee.

And let's include, but we cannot vote on that. To include the parcel we are going to, yeah, we can do that later. We cannot include that in the motion, yeah, okay.

You can suggest any other parcels and I can reduce. Staff can suggest when it comes back.

Sure. I mean, yeah. I mean, these are all the city-owned parcels. There's no, I don't think there's any further parcels to add to this list.

At this time. Okay. Madam City Clerk. Okay. Council Member Furrin. Aye.

Aye.

Council Member Mohan? Aye. Council Member Wong?

Aye.

Vice Mayor Chau? Aye. Mayor Moore? Aye. Motion carries unanimously.

Okay, thank you. Wonderful. So the next part is with regards to the ballot measure, and is anyone prepared to make a motion on having a parkland ballot measure?

I'd be happy to. So let's try to find a text. Is that on the agenda?

You're asking? I'm unsure. This is not on the agenda.

Yeah.

No? The Parkland. It's not in the staff report? I think it was referenced in the staff report just because the two go hand in hand, but today we're just talking about the zoning changes.

We are moving forward with that and it will come before the deadline.

Before the August deadline.

All right.

Good evening honorable mayor and council members. Yes currently we are in the process of a polling. It is set to conclude at the end of this week and based off of those results we'll return back to council on July 7th at which point council will provide direction to staff whether to pursue not just the parkland ballot measure but also the UUT ballot measure.

Wonderful, okay, so in this agenda item, we've clarified the zoning and land use designations and at our next meeting, we're going to be discussing whether or not we will be protecting those same parcels. Okay, looks like I've jumped an agenda ahead. Getting a little too efficient. Okay, and with that, any other further comments from the council members? then we are adjourned. Thank you very much.

Thank you. you

Good evening, it is 6.47 and I call this June 16th, 2026 regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council to order. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Madam City Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Council Member Furman?

Here.

Council Member Mohan? Here. Council Member Wong?

Here.

vice mayor chow here mayor moore present and madam city clerk will you please provide the location information yes thank you mayor um so mayor vice mayor and council members and members of the public as a reminder council member fruin is participating remotely this evening we have not heard from any members of the public that they plan to participate in tonight's meeting from council member fruin's remote location council member fruin Are you in the hotel lobby business center of the Fairfield by Marriott Inn and Suites in Salt Lake City, Utah? And can you confirm your location is open and available to the public?

So confirm.

Thank you. And can you confirm that you posted the agenda at your location as well? I know I asked you this in the earlier session.

I can also confirm that I have posted the agenda and provided photographic evidence.

Thank you. And are there any individuals over the age of 18 with you? And has anyone indicated to you that they intend to make public comment or address the council this evening?

No.

Thank you. I'll rely on you to notify me if any member of the public wishes to speak from your location. Thank you. Thank you.

Madam City Attorney, do we have a closed session report?

We do. Yesterday evening, the council met in closed session. They discussed the item on the agenda, and there's no reportable action that was taken. Thank you.

All right, thank you. We have no ceremonial items. Next, are there any postponements and orders of the day? I would like to request a move in order of the day item that we hear item seven prior to item six. Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you. I don't believe we have any deliberation on this, Madam City Attorney. We just go straight to a vote. Yes, that's fine. Okay, thank you. Madam City Clerk, will you please conduct the roll call vote?

Council Member Fruin.

Aye.

Council Member Mohan. Aye. Council Member Wong.

Aye.

Vice Mayor Chau. Aye. Mayor Moore.

Aye. Motion carries unanimously. All right, now we move on to oral communications. How many speaker cards do we have for oral communications?

mayor at this moment um i believe we have two requests to speak in person and i currently see one hand raised virtually okay madam city clerk will you please provide the instructions and conduct oral communications Certainly. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter within the jurisdiction of the council and not on the agenda for discussion. Rural communication shall be limited to 30 minutes. Additional speakers wishing to comment on non-agenda items may be given time to speak at the end of the agenda after the city manager's report. Individual speakers are limited to three minutes. As necessary, the chair may further limit the time allowed to individual speakers or reschedule remaining comments to the end of the meeting on a first-come, first-served basis with priority given to students. In most cases, state law will prohibit the council from discussing or making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. A council member may, however, briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by speakers. A council member may also ask a question for clarification, provide a reference for factual information, request staff to report back concerning a matter, or request that an item be added to a future city council agenda in response to public comment. And members of the public wishing to speak regarding oral communications shall submit a request to speak hard or raise their hand virtually within the first nine minutes of the start of the public comment period or before the public comment period is closed, whichever comes first. So I believe this is for oral communications. Jennifer Chen. Noise. Is this for oral communications or is this for the budget CIP discussion?

For instance, if it's regarding Pickleball or the Sheriff's Contract SROs, that would need to be heard for that particular agenda item.

Okay, so that'll be heard at the next, or the budget item number six. Okay, so next we have a group, Mayor Elder, Ade, and DePauley, welcome. And so the video was not able to get reviewed in time since we just received it, so I apologize, we're not able to view that and play that for you at this time. But since you're representing a group, you'll have up to four minutes to speak, correct, Mayor? Are we?

I did not reduce it, there were too few speakers for this item.

Okay, thank you. So you'll have four minutes to speak this evening.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Deepali and I represent an app that we have made called Elder Aid. Elder Aid is an app which connects seniors in the community with the local volunteers. So if there are senior citizens who need help, they can use the app to list the tasks they need help with, local volunteers who are registered on the app can see the task listed and hence pick up and if they are interested they can pick up the task and go help the senior. So thanks to the city of Cupertino for its support and the grant that we received which because of this we were able to make a lot of improvements in the app. Now the app can actually, for the seniors they can just talk to the app in any language that they want and the app helps them to create the task and everything. The video was going to show that and unfortunately we did not plan it so we can't show the video. But we have added new features to make it easier for seniors to request help and for volunteers to find meaningful opportunities to serve. Our goal remains simple, connect seniors who need assistance with trusted volunteers who are willing to help. One thing we have learned is that the biggest challenge is not building the technology, it's reaching the people who can benefit from it. Seniors often learn about Eldorade through trusted community organizations, while volunteers learn about opportunities through word of mouth and local networks. We are planning to increase our outreach efforts through the senior center and other community organizations, but we would greatly appreciate city's help in that. We would welcome any opportunities to connect with seniors and potential volunteers through city communication channels, community events, newsletters, volunteer programs, or any other outreach efforts that you think may be appropriate. Specifically, if the city could help us share information about elder aid through the senior center newsletter, city newsletter, any volunteer programs, community events, or other city outreach channels, it would make a tremendous difference. We would also appreciate any guidance or introduction to organizations that serve seniors and community-minded volunteers throughout Cupertino. Eldorade is a local nonprofit built here in Cupertino, and our mission is to help neighbors support neighbors. With the city's partnership, we believe we can reach many more seniors who need assistance and volunteers who are eager to give back. We would welcome the opportunity to work more closely with the city as Eldorade continues to grow. If any council member or city staff member would like to discuss Eldorade in more detail or share ideas how we can better reach seniors and volunteers in our community, we can be contacted at eldoradeteam at gmail.com. We would love to continue this conversation. And thank you for city's continued support and for helping us strengthen connections with our community. Thank you.

So we will actually send an email because we could not show the YouTube video. So we will appreciate if you can go through it and take a look at it. It's just two minute videos. It will speak loud and it will show you the features that are supported in it with AI. And actually, we also have language support now. So people can talk in their own language. So thank you so much for your time. Thank you.

Thank you. Mayor, at this time, we will move to the request to speak virtually. We have one hand raised. So at this time, we will go ahead and welcome Connie.

Good evening. Thank you. Can you hear me? We can hear you. okay thank you um good evening honorable mayor moore vice mayor and council members i'm connie cunningham 39 year resident housing commissioner speaking for myself only we live in a beautiful city with beautiful weather and many amenities for community use along with community gatherings places we are in santa clara county within the state of california Just 39 miles south in Santa Clara County is Gilroy, the garlic capital of the world. People come from all over to visit there to taste garlic ice cream and to have a good time. Lauren, could you at this time please share the screen of the photo that I sent? Yes, it is. I'm sharing screen now. Okay, thank you, Lauren. I appreciate that. Soon, Gilroy will be famous for something horrific. Inhumane. Part of a growing number of locations for detention camps for immigrants before they are quickly and illegally sent out of the country without being allowed to argue their case before a judge. Deportation without due process is kidnapping. As other cities are considering, I exhort City Council to join Cupertino Voices with Santa Clara County and the State of California to block an ICE facility near Gilroy. On Wednesday, June 10th, six days ago, Santa Clara County joined forces with California Attorney General Rob Bonta to file a lawsuit to block the illegal development of an ice facility near Gilroy. Earlier, I forwarded the county's email. Included are links to an article by San Jose Spotlight, also the full 175-page report by Attorney General Bonta, also the county's full press release of the five distinct federal and state laws being violated, and the full news conference that you can watch. I so deeply appreciate the words of Tony Lopresig, County Council of Santa Clara County. He says, we are ready, we are willing, and we are able to hold the federal government accountable in the courts. The planned detention facility will be 20,000 square feet and can hold 150 people. The property is not zoned for this. It is zoned for agricultural use. You can email the county at district5 at bos.sccgov.org about this stand that they have taken. I exhort City Council to join Cupertino Voices with Santa Clara County and the State of California to block an ice facility near Gilroy. We are stronger together. Thank you so much for this time to speak.

Thank you, Connie. Mayor, I do not see any further hands raised virtually.

All right, thank you. Our next item is the consent calendar items one through five. Madam City Clerk, have any items been pulled? No, Mayor. Okay. Are there any requests to pull an item from the council at this time? I'm not seeing any hands raised. Madam City Clerk, do we have any members of the public who would like to comment on the consent calendar?

No request to speak in person and no hands raised virtually, Mayor. Okay.

Do I have a motion to approve the consent calendar?

Motion to approve the consent calendar.

And a second? Second. Thank you. So moved by Council Member Wong and seconded by Council Member Mohan. Any comments from the Council on this item? Vice Mayor, your hand is raised. Is that a relic? Okay. Madam City Clerk, will you please conduct the roll call vote?

Council Member Fruin?

Aye.

Council Member Mohan? Aye. Council Member Wong?

Aye.

Vice Mayor Chau? Aye. Mayor Moore?

Aye. Motion carries unanimously. Great, thank you. Next, because we have changed the order, we're moving to the action calendar. Item seven, to amend the existing agreement with Santa Clara County for law enforcement services. Madam City Manager, do we have a presentation?

Thank you, Mayor. This is the proposed amendment to the city's agreement with the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office for law enforcement services. I will provide a brief introduction and before we turn over to staff for presentation. So public safety remains our highest priority and for decades, Cupertino has partnered with the Sheriff's Office to provide law enforcement services to our community. The current agreement, which expires on June 30th, we have been negotiating over the past year, Cupertino staff, in collaboration with our partner cities of Saratoga and Los Altos Hills, to engage in negotiations with the county regarding a successor agreement. The county's proposal includes significant changes to both the cost structure and the methodology, which results in a significant cost increase, greatly impacting the city's long-term financial outlook. We are undertaking a thorough review of this proposal and have partnered with the other contract cities to seek additional information to negotiate reasonable terms, including an independent assessment and review of the county's cost allocation methodology to evaluate compliance and applicable state law. The recommendation before you tonight is not the approval of a long-term agreement. Rather, it's authorization for staff to continue negotiations and execute a short-term extension through September 30th of this year, which is intended to ensure continuity of services, law enforcement services in the city while negotiations and analysis continue. Staff remains committed in negotiating in the best interest of Cupertino, maintaining transparency with the council and community, and ensuring that decisions are grounded in service needs, fiscal responsibility, and the safety of our residents. I also want to acknowledge and thank Mayor Moore for all your work serving on the ad hoc committee with the two other contract cities of Saratoga and Los Altos Hills, and also want to thank Jonathan Orozco and Michael Wu who've been assisting me in this effort. With that, we will begin with the staff presentation, after which council will have an opportunity to ask questions, hear public comment, and provide direction. Jonathan.

Thank you, City Manager Kapoor. And good evening, Honorable Mayor Moore and council members. Council is aware the city's current agreement with Santa Clara County for law enforcement services expires on June 30th 2026 Recognizing that the negotiation of a new contract for such critical services would last Would take time the West Valley cities Cupertino Saratoga and Los Altos Hills began requesting information from the county as early as July 2025 Over the following six months, the cities repeatedly requested a formal proposal in order to begin meaningful negotiations and evaluate the potential fiscal impacts. While discussions occurred during that period, there were little indication of the magnitude of the increase that would ultimately be proposed. The county's first proposal was received on December 31st, 2025. Since that time, city staff, legal council, city council, ad hoc committee, and the representatives from other contract cities have participated in numerous meetings with the county staff and sheriff's office personnel to better understand the proposal and negotiate revisions. Those efforts resulted in revised proposals issued on April 10th and April 13th. Negotiations remain ongoing today and extensions before council is intended to provide additional time to complete those discussions while ensuring uninterrupted law enforcement services. This slide illustrates the county's proposal, how it has evolved since it was first presented. Under the current agreement, Cupertino pays approximately $19 million annually for law enforcement services. The county's initial proposal received on December 35th would have increased the amount by approximately 7.5 million, representing a 39.6% increase beginning July 1st, 2026. Following the extensive negotiations by the three contract cities, the county provided revised proposals culminating in the April 13 proposal. While the revised proposal reduced Cupertino's cost by approximately $1.1 million, the proposed increase remains significant and continues to raise questions regarding the methodology used to allocate certain administrative and support costs. It is important to note that the cities recognize the impact of the salary and benefit increases negotiated by the county and understand that contract costs will increase over time. The remaining concern is not whether the costs have increased, but rather how certain costs are being allocated to the contract cities. Throughout negotiations, the cities have constantly focused on one primary issue, ensuring that the costs allocated to the contract cities are appropriate, transparent, and consistent with state law. Specifically, government code section 51-350 requires that counties charge contract cities for cost incurred in providing the contracted service, while prohibiting counties from allocating certain general governmental overhead costs that would exist regardless whether the services were provided to a city. the cities have requested additional information regarding several categories of costs included in the county's proposal and have worked collaboratively with the county staff to better understand the allocation methodology. While progress has been made, the cities believe that an independent review is the most appropriate way to objectively evaluate the methodology and provide confidence to all parties moving forward. In response to those concerns, the cities jointly pursued an independent third party assessment of the county's cost allocation methodology. Following a procurement process, Vasquez and Company was selected to perform a review. The assessment is expected to begin no later this month and conclude, or no later this week, and conclude in late July or early August. The purpose of the assessment is not to evaluate deputy performance, staffing levels, or service quality. Rather, it is intended to determine whether the methodology used to allocate costs to the contract studies is consistent with the applicable law and whether the charges are appropriately attributed to services provided to the cities. Staff believe an independent assessment will provide valuable information to both the cities and the county and help establish a common understanding as negotiations continue. On May 26, sorry. Went a little too far. On May 26th, representatives from the three counties, or from the three cities, met with the county executive, James Williams, and county staff to discuss a path forward. During that meeting, county indicated a willingness to consider a short-term extension of approximately 12 weeks. The county further indicated that the extension pricing would generally be based on the April 13th proposal, subject to any service level changes requested by the participating cities. The parties also discussed including a mechanism that would allow the results of the Vasquez assessment to be considered as part of future negotiations. Staff used the extension as an opportunity to complete the assessment, continue negotiations in good faith, and avoid making a long-term commitment before all parties have the benefit of an independent review. As part of the negotiations, council may wish to consider whether any service level adjustment should be incorporated into the extension period. Under the current agreement, the city contracts for two school resource officers, approximately 4.4 traffic enforcement officers, and about 25.5 general law enforcement officers. One option discussed during negotiations is the temporary reduction of two school resources officers, or SROs. Because schools are closed during a significant portion of the proposed extension period, staff believes the option results in consideration of the potential cost savings measure. However, as of the latest proposal, the county did not extend a proposed extension period THE ABILITY TO REDUCE ANY SERVICE LEVELS DURING THE EXTENSION PERIOD. NO RECOMMENDATION IS BEING MADE TONIGHT REGARDING THE PERMANENT SERVICE LEVEL REDUCTIONS, RATHER COUNCIL AND STAFF IS SEEKING COUNCIL DIRECTION REGARDING OF WHAT LEVEL SERVICE LEVEL REACTIONS SHOULD BE INCLUDED DURING THE ONGOING NEGOTIATIONS WITH COUNTY. One of the reasons staff wanted to include these forecasted slides is to illustrate that this discussion is larger than a 12-week extension. The decisions made regarding law enforcement services will have long-term implications to the city's financial outlook and understanding the context is important as council considers the available options. This slide shows the 10-year general fund forecast that was presented to council as part of last year's adopted budget. At this time, the city's financial outlook was relatively stable. Revenues and expenditures generally remained in balance throughout the forecast period, with only modest deficits appearing in the final years of projection. Importantly, those deficits were relatively small. Even in the final years of the forecast, the projected shortfall was less than $1 million. The forecast indicated the city could largely maintain existing service levels while preserving a healthy fund balance. This forecast was prepared before the county's December 31st proposal and therefore reflects assumptions that did not include the significant increase of law enforcement costs currently under discussion. As a result, it provides a useful baseline for understanding how the city's financial outlook has changed over the last six months. This slide shows the updated 10-year forecast included in the proposed fiscal year 26-27 budget, which will be discussed later tonight. While the city continues to project modest surpluses in the first several years, primarily due to anticipated vacancy savings and conservative expenditure assumptions, the long-term picture changes significantly. Beginning later in the forecast period, expenditures begin to outpace revenues, resulting in recurring structural deficits. By the final year of the forecast, the projected annual deficit exceeds $10 million. There are several contributing factors, including normal growth in personnel and operating costs, an eventual expiration of the UUT, or user utility tax, or utility user tax, and the increased cost of law enforcement services. It is important to note that the forecast assumes the annual increase in the service contract of approximately CPI plus two. 2%. This assumption was selected as it is part of the current contract. However, in fact, the county's current proposal does not include an annual cap on future increases. As a result, if future contract increases exceed the assumptions used in the forecast, the city's long-term financial outlook could be materially worse than what is shown here. But these two slides demonstrate the city's fiscal outlook has shifted considerably over the last year. Last year's forecast reflects a largely structurally balanced budget, whereas today's forecast reflects recurring deficit much more often in the 10-year forecast. This does not mean the city faces an immediate financial challenge. The city maintains healthy reserves and significant financial flexibility. However, it does underscore the importance of ensuring that the city fully understands the long-term financial implications of a new law enforcement agreement before entering a long-term commitment. For that reason, staff believes it is prudent to complete the independent assessment and continue negotiations before finalizing with a successor contract. At this time, staff is requesting council to authorize the city manager to continue negotiating and execute a law enforcement contract amendment with the county to extend the terms to September 30th, 2026 with a not to exceed amount of 64.4, 6.4 million. Additionally, staff is requesting direction on service level reductions. That with this, that ends my presentation and we, staff is available for any questions.

I thank you very much, Jonathan, for that presentation. I was wondering, I'm not sure everyone understands what it means to have a Gonzales Act compliant contract and how that differs from how fees are being paid. FEES ARE DETERMINED THAT THE CITY WOULD CHARGE OR THE COUNTY WOULD CHARGE. SO COULD YOU EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GONZALVES ACT AND HOW CITIES AND COUNTIES ARE ALLOWED TO CHARGE FEES?

YEAH. SO THE SHORT IS AS FAR AS WHAT, FOR INSTANCE, CUPERTINO. WE, IN 2023, PERFORMED A COST ALLOCATION PROGRAM THAT COVERED what is the total cost for each individual employee, which includes overhead and administering support, and incorporates that as part of its fee schedule. So allowing the city to issue a fee or provide a fee that would be cost neutral to the city, completely cost neutral. So for that service, if it were to cost the city $100, the city can charge $100. Whereas with government code section 51-350, it does not consider any overhead that this county would otherwise incur should the contract with the cities, the contract cities, excuse me, cannot pass that on to the overall fee, for instance. And this was adjusted as part of that period between the December 31st meeting and the April 13th proposal. They had removed the sheriff from the allocation that's being, or the total cost to the city. And that was part of that $1.1 million that was decreased along with other adjustments. And so during that period, those, refinements were made to the proposals however council nor the assessment will further evaluate whether there are other expenses that the county would incur should the uh the cities not um contract with them to perform law enforcement services

So, Mayor, just to add to what was just said, I think it's a good explanation. The Gonzales Act, or Government Code Section 51350, in short, says that when a county provides services to a city, that while they can pass through their costs, those costs must be directly attributed to those contracts. So to the extent that there's any direct or indirect cost that arises from those contracts that they would still have but for those contracts, they cannot pass those costs on. Whereas for the city, based on the explanation here, some of the costs can be passed on for food recovery.

Okay, this might be getting too far into the weeds, but would it make sense for the county to take their cost allocation plan that they have for the entire county and then just kind of figure out a way to prorate the sheriff's department onto the city? I'm sorry, can you say that one more time? Would it be like a Gonzales Act compliant method to take the cost allocation plan and say the sheriff's department, so everything that's allocated into the sheriff's department and then just prorate that onto the three cities?

The short answer, it depends, right? And I'm sorry to not give you a certain, there are certain overhead costs that can be built into their cost allocation plan that the county can allocate to the sheriff's contract. And it's ultimately, and this is what the assessment will evaluate whether, let's say a payroll technician, they could hire an additional payroll technician that oversees the county-wide allocation, but is specific for the law enforcement. And that technician otherwise should not be the contract cities, would not be employed. And so really, that assessment needs to be performed by the Vasquez and company to determine whether or not that payroll technician would otherwise be employed.

Okay thank you. And have we ever had the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors provide the Gonzales Act required resolution. Has that ever happened. It's mentioned in 51 350.

Not that we're aware of, Mayor.

Okay. And our neighboring county is San Mateo, and their contracted cities mention the Gonsalves Act. Has the Santa Clara County ever referenced the Gonsalves Act in their contracts in the past?

Not from my understanding.

Okay. And how is it that they came to find out that this 40-plus-year-old law was in existence?

We pointed that out to the county mayor.

Okay. And could we, I'd like to hear a little bit more about the Gonsalves Act with regards to double billing. Because I know we have property tax and sales tax which goes to the county to the tune of over $100 million annually. So what does that mean where we can read that you're not allowed to double bill a city?

We would have to discuss this with Vasquez and company to see whether or not we would be able to incorporate that as part of the assessment. From my understanding, the government code refers strictly to what's being passed on directly as a cost. and does not consider other revenues. However, again, we would have to address that with Vasquez and Company and see if they can incorporate that as part of their assessment.

Okay. Now, if we lived in the unincorporated county, we would still have sheriff's services, but we wouldn't have a contract. So are we basically subsidizing the unincorporated areas like the rest of the cities which are incorporated? Is that one way of looking at it?

I'm sorry, can you?

Well, the unincorporated areas of the county, they receive sheriff's services, but they don't have a contract.

Correct.

So they're getting their property tax covers their sheriff, whereas our property tax is being not used to cover overhead.

An argument could be made for that statement.

I THINK, MAYOR, IF I MAY, SO THE THREE-MONTH EXTENSION AND THE MUTUALLY AGREED-UPON ASSESSMENT WILL HELP US LOOK INTO THE COSTS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED RIGHT NOW. ALTHOUGH SOME OF THESE CONVERSATIONS AND THE QUESTIONS YOU'RE ASKING WE'RE ALSO ASKING, RIGHT? SO WE WILL HAVE MORE INFORMATION After the assessments done after we are continue to analyze these costs and proposals were receiving And when we bring the longer term, you know contract forward, I think these need to be answered by then but for the three-month extension there You know We also tried to ask some questions to incorporate some of those in the three-month extension which the county has not agreed to and So what's in front of council tonight is the short extension in order for us to make sure that law enforcement services can continue in Cupertino and in tandem the assessment can be completed over the summer.

Okay, thank you. And with regards to eliminating the two SROs, one traffic and one general law enforcement officer, that is off the table. It's not negotiable.

So that is something that we had asked county to help us provide an estimate because we felt that with the proposal and with the negotiation conversations, there were, you know, cities really had no input and our suggestions were not taken into consideration. So we felt like we were in a box in order to bring the cost down. the only place we could look at is potentially reducing service levels. So what you heard tonight is one of the strategies that we unfortunately is the only strategy that we could consider. And we did not receive any estimation from county in order for us to even build a budget with the service level reduction. So for the three month contract, the county did not agree to any changes.

Okay, thank you. And with regards to the school resource officers, they work at FUHSD and CUSD. And is it true that some districts will pay for their school resource officers through their own budgets? They'll contract directly?

Yeah, that's a good question, and I've been looking into that information. So my understanding, and I'll still need to confirm all of this, and I'll issue an info memo in the coming weeks. My understanding is that the SROs are primarily in the high schools, and of that primarily in three high schools that are in Cupertino, they may also serve the other two. And a small portion of their time is spent in the CUSD schools. And to answer your next question, there are different models that we have found. I didn't have a whole lot of time to research, so I'm still getting information, but there are different models where either it's within the police department budgets or there is some portion that the school districts will pay for. They all look different to me, so I'm going to look into it a little bit more, like I said, and I'll issue an informational memo for you. for the council and the public.

Okay, so we're not deciding tonight a long-term, we're not making a long-term decision regarding the SROs and traffic and general law enforcement because that's not an option for us to even discuss. Vice Mayor, your hand's raised.

So in the staff report to the budget for this 3 month extension is 6.4 million times for that's 25.6 million so that means this 3 months extension is using exactly what the county has proposed nothing reduced.

That is correct.

So that is three months extension is not really extension of the current contract. It's a three months of the new proposed contract rate.

It's essentially an extension of our current contract using the new proposed rates.

Okay. And then my understanding is our contract actually usually was 10 years extension and it was expired two years ago and then there was, there were a two year extension, right? And so supposedly the county should be working with us on any cost structure restructuring. But my understanding from the city manager is the county did not share any information with the city until December 31st, 2025 at 8 p.m. And before that, even though CD has been asking, no information has been shared. And then after they share the information, they have been not willing to even share their cost structure so we can understand how all this cost increase, is that accurate description?

That's for the most part accurate, Vice Mayor. We began negotiations in June of last year, and the two-year extension originally was provided by the county because there was a change in methodology, that's all we were told. We did not have any indication on what the, increased that we would be staring down in a few months, right? And then the proposal in December that we received increased our rate to almost 40%. And we began again, or not began, we continued negotiating and trying to understand and analyze these numbers. The disconnect right now is we do have the proposal that shows the cost methodology. It's just that we don't know if it complies with the government code section that governs these kinds of contracts. And of course, we have, as you heard, The proposal has changed a couple times and the cost has gone down, which is a direct result of us asking questions and negotiating. However, we do need to do that assessment to make sure whatever is being charged, that the Cupertino is paying what we are legally required to pay.

So the 25.4.6 is already reduced from what's originally proposed.

That's correct, so Jonathan can get into the numbers a little bit for us if we need, if you can pull up that slide.

So as you can see on the PowerPoint presentation, the initial proposal that was received by this, I see a title here, it's December 31st, 2025, was for 26.5 million. The most recent proposal, which was received by the city on April 13th, 2026, was for 25.4 million, a reduction of $1.1 million. And as City Manager Kapoor stated, this is due to the efforts from the contract cities and their negotiations. And as Senior Assistant City Attorney indicated earlier, it was due to us pointing out that Government Code Section 51-350 dictates what cost can be passed on to the cities.

Okay, so I would like to share this, I think this slide. Okay, this is a slide I think Los Altos Hills mayor has shared at their council meeting. And so it shows the dollars per hour. I know this might not be accurate, but I think there is a drastic difference between Cupertino dollar per patrol hour over San Mateo County, Portola and Woodside, they are also serviced by San Mateo County. So, are seeing almost It's a drastic difference there and then the amount of overhead for Cupertino Saratoga is the overhead is over 100% of the actual direct cost and that's the kind of contract that the county is proposing right now. So are these kind of accurate? or the staff needs to verify those. I think the direct or indirect cost likely is pretty accurate.

A lot of this, it depends. These numbers are certainly an interpretation of the contract. however i would probably reserve on making any statements until the assessment's been performed because there could be some costs baked into their overhead or our overhead that are allowable whereas uh with uh woodside portella valley or danville maybe those costs are built into their direct policing cost and so the the contract structure may be a bit different so we may be comparing apples to oranges in this situation. But again, I'd probably reserve until that assessment's been done.

Yeah, thank you.

Council Member Mohan?

Thank you for the explanation and the reports, Jonathan, Michael, and city manager. So our task today is to approve the three-month extension. And the three-month extension includes the elimination, temporary elimination of the two SROs?

No, the current, what's being requested today is for the city manager to continue negotiating with the county and authorize the city manager to execute a three month extension with a not to exceed amount of 6.4 million and provide direction on whether to reduce service levels in the interim or in the future, the more long term contract.

Okay, but our task is not to look at the long term contract. Today's task is to look at the three month extension.

That's correct. And just to add on to what Jonathan said, we did try to bring the cost down even for the three month extension, but the county did not agree to to that. So right now in front of you is a three month, although it's called an extension, extension would be of the current terms of the current contract. It's extension of law enforcement services, but the cost is based on the proposal we received from the county that we're still looking into.

Okay, so then if we present it exactly as you've described it, city manager, there is no dispute between the city and the county, if we go with this three month, because we are agreeing to everything that they've asked for, right?

I think there is a disagreement on terms. However, there is no time to negotiate further because the current contract does end on June 30th. And we are told by the county that if there is no agreement slash extension signed by June 30th, that they will remove law enforcement contracts from their budgets.

Right. So if you could quickly describe, what is the three-month contract then? We are extending the term. We're saying that the contract amount cannot exceed 6.4. It could go below that. And in terms of the traffic officers, that's not an issue, or the school resource officers. Is that... Is that one of the sticking points or not anymore?

The SROs and the service level reductions is a broader conversation for us because we're also bringing the budget tonight. However, for the three-month contract, we did try to ask for estimation from county, since it is the summer months, what it might look like. what the city's cost might look like if we did not have SROs. We did not receive that information from counties, so we don't have that included in the three-month extension.

So the assumption then in the three-month contract is that everything stays the same in terms of SROs. That is right. Correct. Thank you very much.

Council Member Wong?

Yeah, I just want to go through some assumptions so the public knows how we got here. Many of you know that we did a Measure A funding bill that added 5 eighths cents to your sales tax. That's 337 million to the county budget to cover for shortfalls for the hospitals that they acquired. And we are still 500 million short in the budget, is that correct? I just want to double check from the county. Anyone have that? So we're 500 million short on a county budget and now the costs are being passed on to us indirectly and directly in many ways. So that's how we got here. So I just want the public to understand that. It's because the county has a huge budget deficit because of the hospitals they purchased and the federal funding that went away from Medicaid, Medicare for those hospitals. That's why we're here. All the decisions that stem from here is a question of whether our city can actually maintain a budget. We're supposed to balance a budget and keep a budget and keep up service levels. And so we really need your help in terms of reaching out to the county and making sure that they keep their budgets in line because if they don't, we end up paying for it.

Vice Mayor?

Yeah. So I understand for this extension, we are in no position to cut anything. But I just want to get more information about SRO because so many people did write to us. So it's not really a matter of how important it is. Definitely we need them on school campus. But I think what's at issue is who should be paying for that since the school districts are not under the jurisdiction of the city. For example, De Anza College pays for their own share of service. And then I hear different things about the two SROs. Do they serve only three schools who are physically located in Cupertino, or do they serve all five campuses? Because I heard they actually serve all five campuses for Fremont Union High.

So from my understanding, they primarily service Cupertino High, Homestead High, and Monta Vista. However, if Fremont or Linbrook need assistance, they will respond.

What kind of assistant? Because Sunnyvale also respond when they have need assistance. San Jose police also respond. So what kind of service they provide?

We can provide that level of detail with the information memo.

And also Homestead is located in Cupertino, but the attendance area is mostly in Sunnyvale. So that's also a question of who should be really bear the major cost of these services. And my understanding is they provide, not only assist when there were incidents, which I think is something that is definitely the city police should provide. They also provide training for students, some regular things that usually a school district is educating their students about. So, Those are important things to definitely provide our students, but the question is, should the city cover that cost or the school district? So I think if we can get more understanding of exactly what do they do, that will be helpful. Okay.

Thank you for bringing that up, Vice Mayor, and also Council Member Wong with regards to the very large hospital and healthcare network that the county took on. It's out of alignment with other counties. Ordinarily, it would be 25 to 30% of the budget would be for hospitals and hospital networks. Our county is around 53 to 55% of their entire budget, and the state... mandate is to care for the poor and indigent of the community not to grow this massive hospital network which they did also with regards to our support for the schools we are in our budget 2.3 million dollars is going to help CUSD between the approximately 1.4 million for the field use sharing agreement and us doing maintenance for CUSD. Then we also have safe routes to school and we're providing nearly all of the crossing guard funding as well. And then when you add in their share of portion, you end up around two and a half million dollars going to CSD alone and the rest of the contract. So out of about nearly 700,000, 530,000 is going to FUHSD supporting that agency as well. Council Member Wong, your hand is still raised. Okay. Council Member Fruin, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. To pick up a bit where the Vice Mayor left off, I think it's certainly good for us to have these conversations with our partners about who's best suited to bear the cost of providing various services. i'm thinking specifically here of the sros however i'm i'm also very anxious to not repeat what is being done to us if we are upset that the county is wanting to get money out of us in order to deal with its budgets shortfall i don't really want to make our problem their problem that is the the school districts for the sros so um i think that to the extent that we go down any discussion of of this specific question that we really look at who's best suited to bear the cost and to the extent that we can continue to support our school districts i would prefer that we do that thank you and i do think it's important that we ask the difficult questions and we don't cower from them um madam city clerk how many speaker cards do we have on this item

mayor at this time i have one request to speak in person which is a group of i believe about four people so that's eight minutes and at this time i have um i see two hands raised virtually okay okay um so at this time we will go ahead and welcome graham clark and your group

Actually, we just had a fifth member join us, the principal of Monta Vista. Would he be able to speak to?

Yes, that is okay. So we will have ten minutes on the clock for you and your group.

Okay, thanks. We'll start with our board member, Danny Choi.

Okay.

Thank you. Council members, I'd like to begin by thanking you for your service in helping to support our public schools. In these polarized times, one thing I consistently hear people speak of is the glowing reputation of Cupertino schools, of their desirability to families, and of their high quality. This is not a lucky accident, but the result of a confluence of geography, economic factors, and careful stewardship and planning. Our students don't just happen to be amazing, they also happen to be incredibly hardworking and dedicated young people who represent the best of what our future offers. They face challenges and stresses that you and I could not have imagined when we were in high school. My colleagues will go into more detail regarding the importance of the relationships cultivated between SROs and the students and staff, but I would like you to consider another factor. Three of FUHSD's campuses sit within Cupertino's boundaries. High schools are large plots. They consistently require orientations and guidance for the hundreds of new students that they welcome each year. So in addition to those above benefits, funding SROs also helps to cultivate a familiarity with the lay of the land. In an emergency, minutes and even seconds matter. I'd like you to view this funding issue not as an expensive and low probability insurance premium in the event of the unthinkable, but as a continued commitment to an investment in the city of Cupertino's renowned public schools, thank you.

Good evening. My name is Janice Chen. I'm a Cupertino homeowner, a resident, and I grew up in Cupertino, attended Cupertino schools from kindergarten to 12th grade, and I worked in Cupertino as an assistant principal at Monta Vista High School. I've personally witnessed the value of the SRO program from multiple perspectives, and I'm speaking tonight in strong support of continuing the school resource officer program, serving our Cupertino schools and community members. I currently am the principal at Lindbrook High School in San Jose, and I have experienced the difference between having an accessible SRO and not having one. At Lindbrook, when we need law enforcement assistance, we call 911 for SJPD since our campus is in San Jose. While SJPD officers are professional and dedicated, San Jose covers a very large area and response times can sometimes be lengthy with limited communication while waiting for assistance. In situations involving student safety, mental health concerns, or urgent incidents, those delays can be challenging. In contrast, during my time working at Monta Vista High School with a dedicated SRO, we had a trusted partner who was familiar with our campus, our students, staff, families, and community. The SRO was not only available during emergencies, but also worked proactively alongside school administrators to support a positive school climate, built relationships with students, provided guidance to families, addressed concerns before they escalated, and built trust necessary for long-term community safety. That partnership was invaluable and demonstrated the unique role SROs play in creating safe, supportive school environments, which in turn positively impacts the broader Cupertino community. Their presence allows them to understand the unique needs of our schools and respond in ways that general patrol officers just simply can't replicate. Cupertino is known for its outstanding schools and its commitment to education, which makes our city a safe and highly desirable place to live. Families choose to move here because of our schools and our reputation for safety, and both contribute significantly to the strength of our city and the value of our homes. I respectfully ask the council to continue supporting the SRO program. School safety is not solely a school district issue. It is a community responsibility, and the SRO program is an important investment in that shared commitment. Eliminating the SRO program may provide short-term budget relief, but it risks creating long-term impacts on school safety, prevention efforts, and community trust. Thank you.

Good evening, my name is Ben Klausnitzer. I have the honor of being principal at Monta Vista High School now for, I guess this is the eighth year, next year will be the ninth year. I am speaking in support of continuing the SRO program for the city of Cupertino. And I'm gonna take a little bit different angle than maybe you've heard. And there's SROs and the sheriffs in the context of a response, right, to schools and enforcement that might occur. What you might not know is what the SROs do for our families, for our students in regards to a resource. And what I mean by that is our students are the City of Cupertino students. Our families are the City of Cupertino's families. Our families often talk to me more and more as the years go on in the context that their community is the Monta Vista community. I would imagine that same conversation happens at Lincoln, at Kennedy Middle, and so forth. But as a resource, when students, when families contact us, and they might be in crisis, And it might not be related to school, but they're going to a trusted adult, a trusted institution. Monta Vista High School could be a counselor, could be assistant principal, could be a principal, school-based therapist, right? And it isn't always that we're calling 911. It isn't always that we're calling other phone calls that we can make. But we might call our SRO as a resource. And it might be the SRO who goes out as a resource, maybe not to the school, but to the student, to the family's home. And that happens more than you might think. The other piece of that might be that we get phone calls. It can be a Saturday at 9 p.m. from an SRO, something that's happened in the community, something to do with our family, again, maybe a family in crisis, right? And they're looking to partner with us to support, not for enforcement, right, but as a resource to support our families. So I'm speaking to support, and I hope you support SRO program moving forward. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. My name is Dr. Danae Nurnberg, and I'm entering my 20th year as a school administrator within the City of Cupertino and my third year as the principal of Homestead High School. During the past two decades, I've worked alongside many dedicated educators, counselors, and community partners. Through all of these years, school resource officers have been a vital part of our team, and I'm strongly advocating for them to be retained in the City of Cupertino budget. Schools are tasked with an incredible number of responsibilities and maintaining safety is only part of that role. School resource officers are often our first call when needing a consult about student behavior or an incident in the local community. Our SROs are hired into this role due to their ability to maintain compassion, empathy, and treat children with a warm yet firm approach. They understand the nuance of helping a teenager learn from their mistakes without overly penalizing them for poor adolescent decisions that kids invariably make year over year. Our SROs are far more than law enforcement officers assigned to a campus. They attend games, support school events, listen to students during difficult times, and often become the bridge between young people, their families, and the broader community. The impact of their work cannot always be measured in statistics. or time on task as was earlier mentioned in this conversation, or annual reports. It shows up in the student who makes a better choice because of a conversation with a school resource officer. It shows up in the trust a family develops with public safety. It shows up in the confidence students feel knowing there's a caring adult in law enforcement who knows their name and genuinely wants them to succeed. over time these relationships create safer schools stronger communities and deeper trust between young people and the law enforcement that serve them these are dividends that pay out not over months but over years and even generations reducing school resource resource officers may seem like a budget decision today but it risks weakening relationships and supports that have taken years to build Once that trust is lost, it is not easily replaced. I respectfully ask you to consider the long-term impact on our students, schools and community before reducing this important program. Our school resource officers are not simply part of campus security. They are part of the fabric of our school and city communities. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Graham Clark. I'm the superintendent of the Fremont Union High School District. And I'm here to speak in support of the school resource officer program. And I want to let you know that I've been in communication with the city manager, Tina, and we've been talking about this. So I recognize it's a very hard budget challenge. And I just want to let you know that the Fremont district is willing to give more. We haven't given as much. as some school districts have, but we can give more to help in this situation. But I want to say, as a former principal of Homestead High School, an assistant principal at Cupertino High School, and a teacher in the district, I've called on the SRO many times. And I have a story here. I don't have much time, but I was going to tell you the story of October 5th of 2011. I was the principal at Homestead High School doing the Cupertino Quarry shooting and I will say it was, we felt very supported by the SRO programs on that day as the shooter was coming down the street of Homestead and Homestead neighborhoods. They had a presence patrol in front of the school and it was very comforting to have them here with us that day. What I want to let you know is we are aware that some cities do not support SRO programs in the same way that Cupertino has. And we understand the differences in the impacts, as Principal Chen has said. But I'll say those systems are not better. And our system is working well. And I don't think we should break it because I don't think our schools.

Thank you, Graham.

Thank you.

That is your time. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor, at this time, we will move to the request to speak virtually. We have three hands raised that were raised within the nine-minute cutoff. So we will welcome in this order San Rao, followed by Vinay Myler, followed by Suikala Thotta. Welcome, San.

Vinay Myler.

My name is Vinay Myler. on behalf of myself and the rest of the people, I'm going to be blunt and direct in my case. When staff tell you that the SROs are commonly used in FHST and not in CST, they are either lying, being ignorant, for being unaware or uninformed. And none of those are acceptable options. And when the city manager approves the staff report, she needs to take accountability for what has been said. How many CSD board members did we call? Did we call the CSD superintendent? How many CSD principals did we call? Did we call any CSD parents? We are absolutely, totally misinformed. SROs are out at CSD elementary schools in Cupertino every single day. They are the first on scene when there is an issue at the schools. They are the first on scene when there is a lockdown. And when we have student issues involving any sort of family matters, they are the first on scene providing a few names to correct. When you talk about making cuts involving CUSD and FHSD, you talk in the abstract, but we forget that these are families from Cupertino that take public taxes in Cupertino. My own daughter has been in two lockdowns in Monta Vista High in the past two years. My own daughter in Monta Vista High has received gruesome and violent photographs sent to her that were sourced thanks to the deputies that have been come from overseas. My own son has been in three lock-downs in Faria Elementary in the past six months. I'm a corporate investor, I pay your taxes, and you're talking like CSD and the FHSD is some obstacle that you don't care for and that isn't your jurisdiction? Do you forget who against these things? You could very easily solve this problem. This is a solvable problem. You could be cutting costs in places that are non-essential. Cut all staff working on bike lanes now. Cut all projects on bike lanes now. Cut the Safe Roads to School, which is really an anti-car for making, or an anti-car back channel up. You could cut all staff working on ATP-9, and yet you put our kids at risk. Let's call this what this is. What this is is staff protecting yourselves because parents are uninformed, disengaged, and won't speak up for their kids. That's what this is. And the city manager needs to take total accountability for what has happened tonight. And if there is a law enforcement episode that impacts any of our schools, in one of the families because of toxic reinforcement or they have a traffic accident because of reduction in traffic enforcement. You people that make for this and the city manager is accountable for this. Stop pushing your problem. Thank you, Sam.

Thank you, Sam. That is your time. Next, we will welcome Vinay Myler. Welcome.

Hey, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Okay, thank you. Thank you for so much giving me your time. I want to speak with respect to an SRO. the public safety is not a line item right so cutting a law enforcement in the city with 30 000 plus resident and multiple schools is not a budget solution in my opinion and it's a liability schools kids and families should be the first so these sros and petrol coverage near cupertino schools are a direct safety net for our children's any cat there is felt immediately and visible by every family in this city and i'm being a child i'm being a father of a child who goes to william faria is directly impacted by this and in in that response i i think crime prevention is cheaper than the crime response so law enforcement presence is not a reactive approach it should be preventive every petrol every sro every visible officer is a deterrent We don't wait for a fire to defund the fire department, right? So don't wait for an incident at a school or in the neighborhood, for that matter, to wish we had kept officers on the street. Prevention costs less than a tragedy. So safety is what make Cupertino worth living. Personally speaking, off of my experience, I came to Cupertino from Sacramento thinking that this is the city to be in. It is more safer than being in Sacramento, right? So the city's reputation would cost the people from different destination. I'm being the prime example of that. So for a good school, safety streets and strong property values is an inseparable form of public safety. So the moment you keep cutting this, that is going to be immediately felt in other shape and form. so that reputation attracts families business and investment right so cut the law enforcement and you're going to cut the very thing that makes the cooperating or inviting that is not the place to find the savings so I mean I'm not going to propose where and all you can find it but there are ways you can work on the non-resident fees argument could be the one that can be bought up and other other sorts of it so color for a staff will naturally protect the staff right the council needs to hear to prioritize the community safety over an integral budget comfort. So do not cut the law enforcement, direct staff to bring the back to reverse proposal that finds equivalent savings through consultants, contractor, or non-essential projects, or non-resident fee adjustments. Our kids and our neighbors cannot wait for this. So please don't cut the SRO. That's my humble request to the city.

Thank you, Vinay. And at this time, I do not see the hand raised anymore by Sri Kalathota. So, Mayor, that concludes the request to speak on this item.

All right. Thank you. For purposes of deliberation, do I have a motion? Council Member Wong?

Yeah, I'll make the motion to approve the three-month contract as is.

And do you have a recommendation with regards to the SROs? We're supposed to provide some direction regarding that. And please consider Supervisor Clark's message.

I would say that for deliberation, so I'll get the second.

Okay, more second? And your hand is still raised. Did you want to start?

Yeah, I just want to put some facts there. I think everybody here believes public safety is important. And I think that it is important in the context of budgets and safety. I mean, there are priorities. Just to give you some facts for consideration, 60% of high schools don't have SROs. The Cupertino, the FUHC budget is $233 million. The city's budget is $136 million. You're all being taxed for the same services. Just something to keep into consideration.

Thank you. I was wondering if you would entertain that direction would be to have our city manager contact both the, I should say superintendents, I think I said supervisor, the superintendents of FUHSD and CUSD to provide some guidance direction there to negotiate that they pay a fair share of the SRO contract rather than us taking on the entire amount.

I think it'd be important to lead that exploration with the city manager and the superintendents that are here and the people that came out. I think it's an important conversation. I mean, FSRs are that important. It's a question of where it fits within our mandate and where it fits with other areas. So I would entertain that.

right and i i really did appreciate that um superintendent clark uh recognized that fuhsd has not been contributing um enough and i'd like to find out what they are able to to provide because it does we're not saying that the schools if they want to have the sros that's great we're not saying no to that, it's who should most appropriately be paying for it, especially since it's working for those other agencies. It's kind of like when I brought up that we're taking care of field maintenance, well that's now grown to 1.4 million. We're doing the crossing guards, we're doing bicycle education at the schools, we're paying actually to have their students educated and we have our staff members who are are providing these services and contracted employees. So we're doing a lot and I think we need to consider that. It was one thing when we had the revenue sales tax sharing agreement in place and we had this revenue, now we're having to look everywhere and find out what we can do in order to get our budget balanced. So did you want to...

You want the friendly amendment?

Why don't you try to frame it?

Okay, I would like to make the proposal to support the existing recommendation along with adding a direction to the city manager to engage with the superintendents and FUHSD to look at alternatives in terms of cost-sharing going forward that are more representative of what's available in other districts.

Moore second. I accept that. I see a hand raised from Council Member .

Thank you. First point, I just wanted to emphasize again so that it's clear for everyone in the public that the approval of this item today does not eliminate SROs. It does not eliminate a general service officer. It does not eliminate a traffic enforcement officer. what we are seeing instead is simply an increase in our cost so i just want to underscore that first second as to the friendly amendment i would hope that the city manager and the superintendents would perhaps examine the possibility of a formula that would provide for who pays what going forward. Our fortunes will shift over time as public agencies, and it would be good for us to not have to re-examine who pays what all of the time. If we can figure out what we think is fair on an ongoing basis, I think that that's a better place to be.

I see hands raised from Council Member Wong and the Vice Mayor.

I was just going to add to Council Member Froon's point is that when our fortunes are good, we supported the schools a little bit more. When our fortunes are poor, we have to look at different alternatives, and I think that's just important to know. I mean, there is a mutual benefit here, and there is collaboration.

Right, and the schools do take the lion's share of our property tax, and we generate a great deal of property tax, but Cupertino is a low tax city, and we only get to retain the 6.51%. The county gets 13.68%, and the schools, it's even higher. Vice Mayor.

Yeah, follow up on that. This is a chart. I think the mayor had created a chart. This is a chart created by CHET-GPT. Hopefully it's accurate. For Cupertino, we get only 6.71% of the 1% of the property tax, while somehow the other cities in Santa Clara County, some of them get almost twice of what we get. And the reason seems to be that before Prop 13, Cupertino had almost no property tax. So we are being penalized for being responsible economically in the past, and now it seems to be very hard to be equal to others. And Oakland, the city gets 40% of their property tax. I heard that San Francisco gets 80%. so there is a huge inequality between cities. And like Council Member Wang said, we used to be able to afford more because we did get more from sales tax, but due to the CDTFA audit, we are getting about 10 to 20 million less in sales tax, and we have cut a lot of services as a result, and now we have to deal with this increase in sheriff contest. For the motion, I would like maybe when the staff can bring more information later, I do wonder if the SROs only serve three schools that's physically located in Cupertino. I think 75% of the time and 25 is for the K to A schools. what's the workload so that they would need two full-time SROs, so I'm trying to still understand what do they do, so we need two full-time SROs for mostly just three high schools. Maybe I don't fully understand the scope of what they do, so some more information would be helpful later.

Vice Mayor, I'll include that when we do the info memo on SROs, but there's some information as a desk item that we just issued right before the meeting that describes, and this information I received from the Sheriff's Office, thank you, in terms of what the SRO's duties look like.

It was pretty general, so it doesn't tell me why couldn't one full-time sheriff does it? Because incident, when responding to incident, that's, yeah, so maybe I don't fully comprehend the scope.

We can bring more information.

Thank you. Council Member Mohan.

Listening to the motion, I appreciate the clause included which suggests that the city manager continue negotiations with the FUHSD and CUSD superintendents. So that's the way to go. But I do want to make it clear that there's no talk about eliminating SROs in this current three month extension. and likely not in the long term either. So we've heard members of the public saying why are we cutting SROs? The question really is not eliminating the positions but figuring out maybe a cost sharing partnership or a relationship with probably schools to just help our situation and the schools. So am I correct in my assumption?

You're absolutely correct, Council Member Mohan. And when we say elimination, it's elimination from our budget. So we're just trying to estimate what our budget will look like if our share goes down or the SROs were not in our budget. There's never been a conversation for Cupertino to try and eliminate the positions itself. Yeah, thank you.

Vice Mayor?

Just one more idea. I think when I received the CPR training at the city, one of the officers was a volunteer firefighter. So he volunteer, a retired volunteer firefighter. I'm not sure if he was even firefighter before, but then It seems a lot of the service provided by SRO are mostly training and information education. So maybe a potential option would be engage with retired sheriff so that they can help provide those because you probably don't need an active sheriff to provide some of those services that might help reduce the cost but provide the same benefit to the students for the school district. So I want to bring that up for consideration.

May we call a question?

Hold on. I want to try to share my screen, but I'm having difficulty. Let's go back. Oh, shoot. I'm not sharing screen, am I?

No.

Hmm. Cancel that. So are you using share window or share entire screen? Share window. OK. So let me get there. OK. I'm trying to share a window. Let's see if it's working. Share this window. Yay, okay. All right, so Vice Mayor was talking about the property tax distribution. So I've been researching this for a while. Here we'll see, while you'll see in the budget it'll say 35 million estimate for our property tax, there's actually VLF and ERAF in there, so you have to remove that to get to what is specifically just the property tax. So our property tax is $24.1 million. And then you can see the county, they get 13.68%. That's $50.7 million. Fire protection is $56.2. That's because these values are based on 1978 and AB8 agreements that were made a long time ago. They're getting over $100 million from Cupertino combined sales tax and property tax. And then when we're looking at our school districts, and I'll put this into the written record, Cupertino Union Elementary, their share of our property tax is $24.75, so that amounts to almost $92 million. And the high school district, 16.71%, about $62 million. And then here's a chart where you can see the sections that the education is receiving. It's all the blue area. Fire is the red section. County in gray. And there's Cupertino at 6.5. So some of the cities receive quite a bit more. I don't know if I've got that up here. These are old charts. Let's see if I can find that. Might not be able to. No, sorry, I won't be able to pull it up fast enough, but we're at 6.51%. If you were in Milpitas, you were gonna get over, what is it, 16% for Milpitas? 16 or 13, I can't recall that one off the top of my head. 16? Closer to 16. Closer to 16. And then some counties in the state back with AB8 managed to negotiate like 40% of their property tax would be retained. So we got a really unfortunate deal. And back then our property wasn't worth as much. And since it's increased, these percentages become more shocking. So when you're looking at fire, this... 56 million for fire. We directly pay out of our property taxes, whereas Campbell also uses county fire. $11 million is what their contract is for the city of Campbell, whereas we're providing $56 million. So I'll stop sharing the screen, and like I said, I'll put this into the chat. Vice Mayor?

So since you brought up the $56 million paid for county fire, so that's right out of our property tax, and we don't have any contract with them, which means we don't have a say on how this $56 million is spent. And we don't even have a say that this $50 million will be spent in Cupertino or not. Is that correct?

Yes. so it can be leaving the city. Yeah. Council Member Wong?

I think before we go to vote, and this is gonna be also on the other agenda item, just know that there's a lot going on with budgets. There's a lot of issues that are happening. Everybody here has been working really hard to understand what we pay for, what we get, what we're getting back, what the value is, and really what is this for every person here that's a taxpayer. It's really important that you understand that there are a lot of hard decisions that are out there. But the staff here is working really hard, along with the city council, to make sure that we use our money wisely. But just understand everything is proportionate in context of what we're getting. Just know that our budget is almost half the size of the school district's budget. And then a lot of our budget and most of our budget is going to the county, which we have very little say in. And that's why we're here. So please understand that.

Vice Mayor, is this current? Okay. I'm not seeing any further hands raised.

Mayor, before you take the vote, I just wanted to make sure in your motion that you're also giving me direction to continue negotiating the longer-term agreement with the county.

I think that's what was in the original agreement, but yes, I would like to confirm that and affirm that as well.

Okay. Madam City Clerk, will you please conduct the roll call vote? Council Member Furwan?

Aye.

Council Member Mohan. Aye. Council Member Wong.

Aye.

Vice Mayor Chau. Aye. Mayor Moore. Aye. Motion carries unanimously.

All right. Thank you. And we're going to take a five minute break.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

do so so

Thank you.

Six is a consideration of the operating and capital improvement budgets, appropriation limit, and related actions. If you need to continue your conversations, please do so in the lobby. Thank you very much. Okay. Madam City Manager, do we have a presentation?

Thank you, Mayor. This item is, as you said, to consider the recommended operating and capital improvement program budgets for fiscal year 26-27, adoption of the operating and capital improvement program budgets for the same year, and establishment of the appropriation limit and related actions. This item will discuss changes from the proposed to the final budget. And before presenting the item, I will just briefly frame the discussion that is before you tonight. The budget reflects staff's efforts to maintain core services, respond to rising costs, and preserve the city's long-term financial sustainability. Our budget currently shows a small deficit that you will hear from staff. As part of the work that we do, To bring the budget forward to you, staff evaluated a range of budget balancing strategies across departments and service areas as options available for you to help address the projected fiscal pressures. And with that, I will now turn it over to Tony OSA Anderson, our budget manager, and Jonathan Orozco, acting director of administrative services, to present this item. And staff will be available for questions after.

Good evening, honorable mayor and city council. Thank you for joining us today as we present the fiscal year 2026, 27 final budget. Before we begin tonight's presentation, we'd like to take a brief moment to recognize all who have helped to build this budget together. It has involved many months of hard work and we appreciate staff from across all city departments who had dedicated long hours to getting this budget to the end of the road here. Also thank you to the community members for attending our community meetings and also for your valuable input. Lastly, thank you to council for your leadership and oversight throughout this process. In this presentation, we will discuss the changes to the budget since it was printed on May 4th. We will also be providing some additional information based on council questions and outline the next steps in the budget cycle. Please note that tonight's presentation has been revised since it was published yesterday and it will be posted online for the public tomorrow. As this roadmap illustrates, just about a month ago we presented the proposed budget and now we have reached final budget adoption as our final stop in our budget roadmap. Next I will cover all changes being recommended to the budget by fund after it was printed on May 4th. This slide here shows all the changes recommended to the budget after it was printed on May 4th. Please note that I'll cover these in high level for now and we'll discuss in greater detail in future slides. So here in the general fund, changes include the reallocation of $200,000 in RISE housing funds from the special revenue to the general fund. Also $25,000 for a council approved city work program item related to strategic communication strategy. YOU'LL ALSO SEE $13,000 FOR RISE HOUSING SOLUTIONS AND APPROXIMATELY $34,000 FOR THE COUNCIL APPROVED SALARY ALIGNMENT OF THE SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. THE GENERAL FUND REVENUE SIDE INCLUDES $15,000 FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE FEES a $47,000 reduction of Chamber of Commerce funding, a $224,320 reduction of property tax related to ERAF. And also upon final review of the staff report, or upon review of the staff report, staff had identified that the $60,000 reduction for the automated license plate reader proposal was inadvertently excluded from the itemized recommendations and therefore does not flow through the staff report charts that was provided. HOWEVER, IT IS HIGHLIGHTED HERE IN RED TO REFLECT THOSE CHANGES WHICH HAVE AN IMPACT TO THE TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES AND GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCE. ULTIMATELY RESULTING IN A REVISED USE OF FUND BALANCE AS SHOWN HERE OF $374,439. THE CHANGES REFLECTED IN THIS SLIDE WILL FLOW THROUGH THE REMAINDER OF TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION AND AGAIN WILL BE PUBLISHED TO THE PUBLIC TOMORROW. In the special revenue fund, there is a $200,000 reduction in expenditures for the council-approved reallocation to the general fund. Changes to estimated fund balance in special revenue is $200,000. Overall, staff is recommending $150,378,779 in revenues across all funds. The negative $209,320 in total operating changes reflect the increases and decreases as discussed in the previous slide. Overall staff is recommending a budget across all funds for operating capital of $155,493,264. The negative $34,881 in total operating changes since the proposed budget study session reflect the increases and decreases as discussed in the earlier slide. So here, when reviewing both revenues and appropriations with the recommended changes included, again, across all funds for both operating capital budgets, revenues are recommended at $150,378,779, and appropriations recommended at $155,493,264, resulting in a use of fund balance of $5 million. $5,114,485. Next, diving a little deeper into the revenues, this table compares general fund revenue categories compared to last year's adopted budget. All changes to recommended revenues for fiscal year 27 reflect recommended changes discussed in a previous slide, and the impacts are shown here in red. Overall revenues are up $12.3 million or 12.6% compared to last year. Sales tax revenue increases are driven primarily by strong performance from a small number of businesses, increases in licenses and permits due to development related activity and updated fee assumptions. There are increases in use of money in property revenues and this is primarily due to higher investment earnings. Now looking at expenditures, expenditures are up $10.7 million, or 10.8% compared to last year. All changes to the recommended expenditures for fiscal year 27 reflect recommended changes discussed, and the impacts are shown in red. The major drivers include the following. Personnel costs, which have increased due to projected cost of benefits for the upcoming year, such as retirement and health plans, as well as negotiated increases. CONTRACT SERVICES INCREASES ARE PRIMARILY DRIVEN BY OUTSOURCING LEGAL SERVICES, LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT COSTS AND COMMUNITY SHUTTLE RATE INCREASES AND INCREASED RIDERSHIP. This here is the fund balance chart reflective of changes that were presented as part of the proposed budget study session. The unassigned fund balance year end projection for fiscal year 2026 was updated to reflect recent budget adjustments, which also impact the final fiscal year 2027 projected fund balance. It's important to note that in this chart, the 224,320 is currently classified as assigned fund balance. However, it will be moved to unassigned fund balance as part of final budget. These next few slides will cover all budget requests by department. And at this time, I will cover only the items in red, which reflect changes made to the budget since the proposed budget was printed on May 4th. In the administration department, $25,000 is requested for a special project for strategic communication strategy. Council had approved this project as part of the fiscal year 2025 to 2027 city work program in December of 2025. Staff is requesting $25,000 to establish citywide standards to embed meaningful engagement into every city project. Funds will be used to secure a contractor to administer a citywide survey targeting residents' responses about public outreach standards. And staff will utilize the survey results to present a report to council about outreach strategies and recommended policy implementation. Additionally, there is a request for $34,119. This is for the senior assistant city attorney salary adjustment. At the May 19, 2026 city council meeting, council had approved an increase to salary and benefits to align the salary of the senior assistant city attorney. And also for $60,000 is the automated license plate reader as mentioned earlier. And this is to remove $60,000 which was previously allocated annually to fund the automated license plate reader contract with flock safety. Also, there is a request of $47,000 to remove that amount per council direction due to cost reduction of the annual Cupertino Chamber of Commerce contract. It was previously budgeted at $52,000 per year, and the contract terms are now at a maximum of $5,000 per year. In the Community Development Department, there is a request to, there was a, City Council approved a three-year contract through the RISE Housing Solutions for administration of the below market rate program. Staff originally budgeted $20,000. However, the exact total for the contract is $213,000. Therefore, we are, staff is requesting additional appropriations of $13,000. In the IT department, staff is requesting recurring costs of $62,000 to cover ongoing costs beyond fiscal year 2027. These ongoing costs are highlighted here. They were inadvertently excluded from the study session presentation. And these are a, they were originally a one-time expense and now we are identifying them as a recurring expense. In the Public Works Department, there are no changes since the proposed budget was published. And again, no changes to Public Works Department. Next, we will cover community funding. In April, the Parks and Recreation Commission approved the following proposed list of organizations to recommend city council for funding, totaling $32,500. If there is additional funding available, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended to first fund Fremont Union High School's foundation and the remaining organization's requested amount in rank order at the council's discretion as shown in these next two slides. NOW, WE WILL HIGHLIGHT THESE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. THE PROPOSED CIP BUDGET IS 7.5 MILLION ALONG WITH $175,000 OF ONGOING ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT. THE CHART BELOW The chart below includes the ongoing cost of $175,000 for CIP preliminary planning and design and capital project support, which are part of the base budget. Now we'll briefly cover the 10-year forecast. This has remained largely unchanged from when presented during the May proposed budget study session. In the out years, the deficit is primarily driven by a few factors, a recession scenario modeled in fiscal year 2027-28, the sunset of the utility user's tax in fiscal year 2030-31, and uncertainty surrounding the long-term growth of the sheriff's contract. ADDITIONALLY, IT INCORPORATES THE REMOVAL OF AT-RISK ERAF AND INCLUSION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF BMR HOUSING UNITS. THIS CHART ALSO HAS REMAINED LARGELY UNCHANGED. HOWEVER, YEAR 10 NOW SHOWS THAT THE UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE IS ZERO IN THE LAST YEAR OF THE FORECAST. Unassigned is the pool of spendable money in the general fund that has not been restricted or committed or assigned for a specific purpose. There are no changes in request to staffing. Tonight's recommendations are to approve recommended actions one through three as identified in the staff report, including the $60,000 reduction of the automated license plate readers and also approval of any other council recommended changes that you may have this evening. And as for next steps, again, this budget represents months of collaboration, so I want to thank all involved in preparing this document. Staff respectfully recommends adoption of tonight's budget, and our staff is now available for any questions that you may have.

All right. Thank you very much, Toni, for the presentation. Do we have more?

I forgot to move the slide over. This concludes tonight's presentation.

Okay, all right. Thank you, Tony. Thank you, Jonathan, for all of the hard work on this and moving over to the OpenGov format. So there was a lot going on behind the scenes and that'll continue to be worked on even after we approve the budget. Do we have any clarifying questions at this time from the council? Council Member Wong.

Thanks a lot. I know that we spent a lot of time on expenses. I just wanted to get some quick overview on the revenues. It looks like we're back at 2023 levels in terms of the revenues, and that shows a 12.6% interest. But I do have two areas that I do want to go deep on. I just want to understand license and permits. We're up 53.2%, and it's up compared to even three to four years ago. What's driving that? And is it durable? Is it durable is the more important question.

This short is, in 2023-24, Council, there was a cost allocation plan that was conducted by Matrix that reassessed all of the city's fees, which the city's stance, once presented, was to go into a full cost recovery model. And so the fees were updated, and there was a handful of fees that took several years to come into full cost recovery. And at this point, I do believe that that number that we have included there is sustainable. That is not a one-time increase in revenue.

Okay, and we've also taken a huge, we've managed to get a better increase in sales tax revenue, but compared to 2023, it is almost like 40, 50% reduction from that level. We're at 30.9 million in 2023. We are coming in about 16.9 million today. What's driving the sales tax revenue?

We have seen a strong growth in sales taxes than initially anticipated, even for fiscal year 25, 26. It's 5 million more. Yes. And so some of the information, unfortunately, is confidential and I can't disclose as to what's driving it. However, it is that the short is there's been some strong performance by a few companies and businesses within the city.

Okay. All right. So. okay so even though we're 12.6 percent up we're still down from 115 million in revenues from 2024 um it's but it's showing signs of improvement on the revenue side is that correct correct okay thank you vice mayor

Hi, so I see that there is $25,000 request for the community engagement or city work program item. And we haven't seen that item since we, this year. So I am just curious what is that amount? So we, usually when we adopt the work program we do to provide some budgets. So there was no zero dollar allocated for this last year.

Vice Mayor, I can take that question. So this was an item that was added in December when we did the revision of the work program, but this was just a slight oversight that the 25,000 didn't get allocated when we brought the proposed budget, so we're bringing it now.

Okay, so what are we expecting to spend that on?

So the $25,000, and we may need to check the title of the project that's listed in the presentation, but this is for bringing uniformity and some expectation for departments to use as a guide when there is a project that may require Public engagement, currently there's nothing in place. So we're doing some, we're hoping to look at models and incorporate that within our city's engagement strategy. This is different than the work program item that has to do with the radius. This is just a small project that we think would benefit overall engagement with the community.

So the work program item that we are looking at notification radius, I think we somehow reduced that over the years. And then we have community members who want to increase that to 1,000, which other cities are doing. So that's still being worked.

That's still ongoing. That's slated to go to Planning Commission, I believe, in July, and then it will come to Council in fall.

And then also I think it will also look at the notification for citywide rezoning, right? Many people said they were not notified, but when citywide there was only a newspaper publication, many people didn't see it.

Yeah, so there are legal notification standards that we must follow, but with the work program that talks about broadening that radius and with this engagement strategy, we are aiming to go above and beyond what's legally required to make sure that we can notify the public appropriately.

Okay, great. There was another question I forgot. Council Member Mohan?

Is your microphone on, Councilman?

Sorry, sorry. My question was about the law enforcement ALPR. We eliminated that. I know the controversies in other cities and so on and there was, the sheriff was involved in the oversight of this. Does it have anything to do with the sheriff's contract or is this independent or why are we eliminating that? Because it seemed like it was a popular program.

Yeah, I can provide some clarity. So the this is the $60,000 per year was tied to the flock cameras that the city had contracted directly with the data that flock company gathered through these cameras was only accessible by the sheriff sheriff's office, who is our local LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. SO THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TOOK ACTION TO, SO THEY DECIDED THAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO WORK WITH FLOCK DUE TO SOME PRIVACY CONCERNS. SO BECAUSE THE COUNTY no longer works with flock cameras or flock safety. The data, even if we continue to pay for these cameras in this contract and collect data, the sheriff's office can no longer access the data or work with them. So it does not work or benefit Cupertino to continue paying 60,000 to this vendor that the county no longer works with. through the ongoing negotiations related to the sheriff's contract and law enforcement, we have brought this up to the county's attention that there's an interest that this is absorbed through the law enforcement contract, but those are ongoing negotiations, so I don't have an answer yet, but currently as we stand, the county is not able to, or sheriff's office is not able to use flock cameras, and so it does not make sense for Cupertino to continue paying flock cameras for this service. okay because there was equipment that was installed that belonged to flock safety so they have taken place no that they have been removed because they're no longer usable for cupertino because we're under the county jurisdiction for law enforcement okay thank you vice mayor

I remembered my question. I think last time I did ask for historical staffing level chart, which I usually was able to find in the adopted budget. And then I couldn't find that anymore. If you can bring up that chart, because I remember when we were having the budget reduction talk back in 2023, I remember there was, because our headcount increased a lot in 2021, and there was a promise to bring it down to a pre-COVID level by 2030. But then I see that there is no staffing change this year. So I'm just wondering are we still on target or we still have a plan to go down to the pre-2019 level at some year? Do we have data on that?

As far as providing that table, we can incorporate it as part of the final budget. Shortly after this meeting, we can put that together and provide it as an informational memo. In terms of the staffing, from my understanding, this was largely driven by the CDTFA audit due to the loss of that sales tax revenue. And a lot of the positions that were supposed to be limited were going to be through attrition. And from my understanding, there was a change in that strategy a year or so ago that was possibly put on pause. But we can have a conversation internally as far as if that is still the desire to move forward with that staffing reduction or to continue at status quo.

We made a decision to, because my understanding is even with the settlement, we did not have to return some of the back tax that we had to return. So we were able to return those. However, going forward, it doesn't really change the outlook for Cupertino. So why are we changing that strategy? Because we are still looking at a pretty significant drop in sales tax.

We'll have that conversation, valid questions. We'll have to have a conversation with Human Resources and City Manager's Office to discuss that strategy and we can include that as part of the information.

So at this point, we are not, we don't have a plan to job headcount to pre-2019 level. That is not my understanding. Okay. Because there was a big spike for our sales tax revenue during COVID because a lot of online sales, I think. And then our headcount also went up. But now we are back doing our revenue. Okay. Thank you.

I was just wondering, Jonathan, if you could bring up the chart showing the unassigned fund balance. It had the bands. Yes, that one. In this chart, where would we find funds that we would be using if we were to, for instance, build a new city hall?

So it's that bottom blue band, and it's called the Future Use Reserve. And currently, it's at $62 million. And would you like me to go into the history of that?

No, I'm looking more ahead. If we decide to be spending that money down, have you looked into what that impact is going to be with regards to use of money and property for outer years?

Yes. So we've ran some models. If we the city were to use these funds to, let's say, renovate City Hall or retrofit it, we can expect about a $1 million decrease in interest earnings in the out years.

Okay. All right. Thank you. And Council Member Foon, I see your hands up.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Going back to the property tax projections, I appreciate the desk item. I am still a little curious, though, even taking out the potential of the ERAF figures being reduced, We were originally only in this proposed budget, looking at roughly, I think, 1.4% increase in property taxes. Historically, it's been considerably higher. It was something like 4% from fiscal year 23-24 to fiscal year 24-25 so can you explain to us a little bit more about sort of what the methodology was and the approach to this what seems to me very conservative estimate

This budget off of HDL, who is the city's industry expert. The initial, how we built the budget assumed your secured and unsecured amounts in addition to your VLF. ERAF, as part of our general ledger, is included as one item in our general ledger. So it consolidates secured and unsecured. And so there is about, the city collects about a million dollars in ERAF funding. And so when we budgeted this, there was no consideration for that amount. Now, yes, it is conservative in what we have there. There is an opportunity to update that, but I would like to wait until October 1 or until Q1 to assess the amounts. Now, it is certainly within council that they would like to increase that by approximately, I think the amount we were initially estimating was near a million dollars that we could collect, but that is an option by the council. Okay.

Okay, I guess the question that I'm really getting to is the nature of the proposed 26-27 budget versus what was adopted in 25-26, that that particular increase is relatively small. So were you already building into your assumptions the notion that we would have EREF being rated? Is that the idea? Because my understanding from the desk item and the responses to the prior questions is that that's what's accounting for the difference between the final and the proposed.

Correct. The 224 is the at-risk amount, and there's an apportion. It was a staff or a site as far as not budging the full eRAF amount that would be expected that's built into the secured, unsecured GL account line.

Okay, so you're saying then that this number would just go back up by roughly the $200,000 that you were describing?

Correct. No, in addition to that. Or not in addition. Give me a brief moment. Excuse me, we're pulling up a chart now, so I can give you exact numbers as to what we were looking at.

So maybe I'll rephrase sort of the focus of my question, which is that from 23-24 to 24-25, we saw roughly 4% increase in property tax revenues. In the year following that, roughly 2.8. And then what was in the expected budget, the one that was proposed for this year, it looked like we were only expecting about 1.4, which is a pretty significant drop. So I'm just curious as to why it was already looking quite sober.

So the short is the eRAF itself was not originally built into the original proposal, which based off HDL's supplemental addendum, they believe it's about $1 million that the city could expect. And so if we were to build that, that would bring us up closer to the 3% increase. We can certainly build that. Got it.

Okay, that that makes a lot more sense to me. So in the course of developing this budget, and knowing that the utility users tax is going to expire on the horizon, did you do a projection that includes a renewal of that tax?

We did. Let me brief moment, we can pull up the informational memo that include that included that projection. Can you give us a brief moment? We'll pull that up shortly. Absolutely. In the interim, do you have any other questions?

Those are the major ones for my colleagues. I just wanted to underscore and I'll ask your forgiveness. Madam mayor. That this may sound slightly off topic, but I will bring it back to the point. Um, there is a written communication that I submitted. Which results from a lengthy discussion that council member Wong and I had with respect to, um. Fire safety measures after our last discussion of the health and safety element, that discussion produced a number of items that seem like they would appropriately fit into either the council work program or elsewhere into the budget because they would require some expenditure of resources on the part of the city. And I have included some supplemental direction there that we could give staff today, either for the TBD list or for an update at the Q1 update later on in the year. And I would appreciate if the rest of you had the chance to examine it and see if you would like to include it in tonight's direction.

If there's any other questions from Council, we can still circle back as we're pulling that up.

OK, Vice Mayor.

Okay, so I found the chart in the last year's ACFR, the staffing chart for full-time equivalent for city employee, and you can see the total in this line, the chart is below, but the total it shows 2019 is 196, and last year is 212. Zoom up a little. Zoom up on the table where you can see the numbers. So I think we are still more than 2019 number. I kind of remember there was an intention to try and reduce to pre-COVID number. So it seems we should still look at... the headcount. That may be a future agenda item for this council to consider.

Thank you. Are you located. Yes. Great.

Video can please display what is included in the, on the, okay.

Video team, we added another document, not the PowerPoint presentation. Oh, yeah. Thank you.

Perfect. Just so that we circle back, this is the 10-year forecast that we had included as part of the study session in May. So we can reference that as an initial baseline. Now, as you can see, beginning in fiscal year 2030, we start going into a deficit. And then in 2031, it increases. Eventually, in 2036, we have a $9.5 million deficit. Now, that's changed since then. We have 10.2 with some of the changes. However, if you were to compare that and just assume that the UUT is renewed ongoing, you would go from a deficit of $9.5 million in fiscal year 2036 to to a deficit of 4.5 million in 2036. And so at that point, you'll see about a $5 million swing in terms of revenues that are being collected.

Thank you very much.

It still has a vice mayor on here. Oh, okay. And council member Wong.

yeah i just want to sorry i just wanted to reiterate the uh point that council member made there's some items here on the desk memo they're really about wildfire safety uh to be added in the future for the cip program something included when we talk about that later so council member mohan um

This is for Jonathan and staff. Aside from the unassigned reserves or the assigned reserves, we also have a fund balance, a healthy fund balance, right? And I'm not seeing that in today's staff report, but it's in the budget book. Is it possible for you to pull that up?

I think that gets back to the chart that Mayor had requested earlier. Let us pull that back up. So what the mayor had focused in earlier was the future use reserve, which is that blue bar at the bottom.

Right. No, I wasn't talking about this. I was talking about the difference between the expenditures and the revenues, which had a number something like $177 million.

Give us a brief moment. We'll pull that one up.

And I think when I asked you this question, Jonathan, a couple of months ago. Yeah, OK. THE FUND BALANCE BASICALLY REPRESENTS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES AND INDICATES THAT THE REVENUES ARE HIGHER THAN OUR EXPENDITURES. WE'VE BEEN CUTTING BACK ON EXPENDITURES WHICH LEADS TO A FUND BALANCE. 76 million or 140 million. This is the result. This basically is the difference between budgeted revenues and actual expenditures.

I'd say it's a culmination of years worth of revenues exceeding expenditures.

Okay.

Okay, so on this chart then, the 62 million I understand is reserved for future use, probably the city hall project. But where are the other big numbers which we could use? Unassigned, the 59 million, for example.

Yeah, so that is essentially, I hate to use the term plug, but essentially that's what it is. So restricted funds, I'll start with the classification types. Restricted funds are funds that are restricted by outside agencies. And then committed our council or the governing bodies elected or commitment to a specific purpose. So we have an economic uncertainty reserve of $26.5 million. And that is a formula driven, which is two months worth of expenditures and one and a half months of revenue. The reserve for future use. Again, this is just money set aside and with the intention of using it in the future for a specific purpose. Discussions have been around surrounding the use of this specifically for the City Hall renovations. The sustainability reserve, these are just funds that have been collected and they've essentially remained static over the last few years. Assigned, this is, you see 224 here, but this is what we could expect to be at risk at the end of next fiscal year, or ERAF, at the end of next year. Unassigned, this is essentially what is left over And that's your $59 million.

Right. And so what is the – does it just sit there? What is the plan for the $59 million?

Currently, there is no specific plan for it. As you saw with the forecast, we'll be whittling away at that over the next 10 years unless the city – negotiates more favorable terms or let's say the assessment for the sheriff's contract comes back and we're able to pay less or what is legally bound for the city, which is what that assessment is going to address. I think that's comparing last year's budget to this year's forecast. That's really the primary driver of the decrease in our unassigned fund balance between now and fiscal year 2035-36.

Right, and I know your projection showed that at some point the unassigned would be zero.

Yeah.

But that's assuming that things stay static. Now, every year we're gonna have an unassigned amount, right? Because if we continue to be cautious and careful in our expenditures, and if the revenues come in as they're expected to come in, we will be building up a fund balance every year.

That is assuming our budget revenues exceed our expenditures. However, in a couple years, our expenditures are going to exceed our revenues at a current level of expenditure level and a revenue level. Assumptions, so if our expenditures continue to grow at their current level and our revenues grow the expenditures outpace our revenues and it will eventually out exceed our collected revenues at which point our revenue or unassigned fund balance will decrease and

And your expectation that expenditures will increase is because of salary increases mainly?

It's largely driven by two factors. One main topic earlier today is the sheriff's contract. The second one is the sunset of our user utility tax or utility user tax.

just want to add a little bit to uh what jonathan's saying so regarding the sheriff's contract uh councilman mohan we currently don't have a cap in terms of the cost right so we can't even project what the cost will be for the city um ongoing if we sign an agreement i know we're still negotiating but that is a big question mark right now is what that methodology looks like, what is it going to be our cost, if all terms stay the same as is today, the county's able to push down whatever costs they have for law enforcement onto cities, and we just don't have any visibility on that currently.

As another visual. So as you can see here for the first 3 years you see blue bars. Those blue bars indicate that the city will have revenues exceeding. Our expenditures in this factors in a vacancy rate which our budget does not but beginning fiscal year 2030 will have a deficit at which point those deficits will eat away at her on a sign fund balance.

And does this include the sheriff's contract projections?

That is correct.

This charge does. Okay. Thank you for now.

You're very welcome.

At this time, I'm not seeing any further hands raised from the council. Madam City Clerk, how many speaker cards do we have?

Mayor at this time I have 5 requests to speak here in person in community Hall, these are all 5 groups totaling 34 minutes. And at this time. I don't see any hands raised virtually.

Okay, are these a single topic?

It appears they are all the same topic.

Okay, so we're going to go to 90 seconds per individual or one minute if they're in a group per person. Okay, great.

And as a reminder, members of the public wishing to speak regarding this item shall submit a request to speak, card, or raise their hand virtually within the nine minutes of the start of public comment or before the public comment period is closed, whichever comes first. So at this time, we will welcome Jennifer Chen's group, followed by Marshall's group, followed by Mary's group. Welcome, Jennifer Chen and your group. Is your group here in person representing? Do you have a group of people? Dina and Megan with you?

I'm sorry? The group has to be present in order to see time, so. I am not Jennifer Chen. She had to leave, so. Okay. My name is Dina Horeb. Okay, perfect. And I'm gonna be reading what she had said.

Okay.

Okay. Sounds great, thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I appreciate being heard, and I would like to note that this is not mine, but her first time addressing. Pull the microphone. get the microphone I gotta repeat that thank you for the opportunity to speak today can you hear me now we can I appreciate being heard and I would like to note that this is not mine but her first time addressing the council I would just like to have everybody here who's in support of Memorial Park Pickleball to please raise their hands. Just so you can see how many people have stuck it out tonight. Jennifer has been a resident of Cupertino for 25 years and a member of our local pickleball club. I support the noise screen on the budget. While our courts attract players from other cities, the noise affects only our residents. This is a $150,000 project and it costs our city only $2.50 per resident. It's a small price to pay to protect the quality of life for our neighbors. It allows us to keep the facility open while keeping our homes quiet. Furthermore, these players bring economic activity to our city as many visit our local businesses for meals and shopping after they play. This project is a practical way to support our local economy while being a good neighbor.

Thank you. Thank you, Dina. Next, we will welcome Marshall's group, followed by Mary's group, followed by Tom's group, followed by Bianca's group. Welcome, Marshall and your group. You have three people, so three minutes.

Okay, thank you for listening to us. My name's Marshall Maple. I moved to Cupertino in 94. I moved to California in 1981. I came here for the schools. Both my kids went K through 12, graduated from Monta Vista, and I can proudly say that both of them said high school was harder than the UCs they got into. So great job on the school system. They were ready. I chose to stay here for the weather and the outdoor activities from volleyball, skiing, and currently pickleball. I started with lessons at the Cupertino Sports Center. I played regularly at Cupertino Memorial Park probably for the last three years. I watched it transition from temporary lines on one tennis court to two tennis courts with permanent lines and a whole cast of people. And the big differentiator for it is the bench on the side. The bench allows people to congregate in between games, meet people, and socialize. I started playing pickleball for the physical fitness aspect of it, but I think it's the social aspect that has kept me there all this time. The people behind me are a testament to that. One of the things that's neat about it is it's open play. There's a single cue and the bench, you know, it's really not there. If you look at the other areas like Mitchell Park, Ragnar or Rengstorf, mckenzie they don't have that one thing mckenzie has done they've installed the sound barriers they're effective in handling the noise you can talk to them and see the effectiveness of that we as the pickleball group have proactively talked to the neighbors and voluntarily implemented rules to have quiet paddles in the morning just to help them because there is a distinct noise of pickleball It's it's disturbing but you know they appreciate that and the sound barriers are the solution we were kind of caught off guard This was this temporary rule that was being proposed no pickleball on Monday quiet paddles all day It really changes the dynamic of that they never meaning the neighbors never heard about it We didn't we asked that if you're gonna make changes, please involve us in the discussion We will work actively with you in all parties but I saw that the

sound barrier was in the approved budget i hope it's going through i hope we can count on it getting installed soon and thank you again for your time thank you marshall and your group next we will welcome mary's group followed by tom cunningham's group followed by bianca's group

Good evening, honorable mayor, vice mayor, and members of the city council. My name is Mary Hansel. I am a resident of Cupertino, and I am speaking on behalf of the Pickleball community in support of the proposed sound wall. The Pickleball courts are a great example of Cupertino's commitment to health and wellness and their strategic vision to improve the quality of life here. This helps residents stay active, create social connections, and reduces isolation, benefits that become even more important as our population ages. As the Blue Zone research and longevity shows, if someone lives in a community that is structured to encourage physical activity and socialization, people embrace it and live longer and happier lives. At the same time, we want to be good neighbors. We understand and respect the concerns of nearby residents. Our community has already taken steps, as he just said, to reduce noise, encouraging use of soft paddles during the early morning hours, yet behavioral changes can only go so far. A sound wall provides a long-term solution that benefits everyone. This project solves a real neighborhood concern while preserving a self-sustaining community that's already developed significant health, wellness, and social benefits. I also know this from my own personal experience. The pickleball community welcomed me, taught me the game, and when I suffered a hamstring injury on the court, people I barely knew immediately stopped playing to help me, offer advice, and make sure I got medical care. That experience showed me that this is much more than a recreational activity. It's a genuine community. Few city investments have such a broad impact for such a modest cost, and we continue to try to partner with the city to reduce staff time. This is a win for nearby residents, a win for public health, and a win for community building in Cupertino. I respectfully ask for your support on the sound wall budget item. Thank you.

Thank you, Mary. Next, we will welcome Tom Cunningham's group. followed by Bianca's group.

Good evening. Thank you so much for allowing us to speak today. I'm here on behalf of the Pickleball Club. My name is Tom Cunningham. I'm a Cupertino resident. I want to talk about impact because that's what the pickleball community is having. On a regular basis, we have some 80 people that are playing per hour or even less participating in this event. It is engaging the community in a huge way. And I know that you're constantly searching for a better way to engage the community, to provide inclusion, and to make an impact. Again, you're doing that here. But it's important to note that pickleball is an enormously growing popular sport. They estimate that 24 million people throughout the country are playing pickleball, and in the last few years, it's grown 175%. Now, Commissioner Wang, you said when you were talking about the budget, proportionate to what we are getting, right? You have to assess things based upon what you are getting. Well, if you talk about the number of people that you're involving in the community, it's astronomical. You've got a group that has over a thousand members. You have people that are not only engaging in an event that takes place locally, it was mentioned that they had stands, they have basically bleachers where people can interact as well as participate in the sport itself. But you're talking about engaging people and in an organization that's aligned with Cupertino's strategic vision of improving quality of life through recreation and community building. We are the embodiment of that pledge. You're talking about multigenerational impact involving the elderly that are facing loneliness and overcoming that, involving students that are dealing with stress and overcoming that. making children feel more comfortable, more safe in their community. So you've got a social connection, you've got a mental health connection. Kitty, I know that you're involved with Move More. This embodies that completely. You know, you've got an initiative that gets residents to be more physically active and create and join communities. You couldn't ask for a better solution. I'm just amazed because I spoke to somebody recently and said they were on a cruise, and they had pickleball courts on the cruise. I went to church on Sunday, and the priest said, you know, my triglycerides were going through the roof, but somebody in the community here talked to me about playing this game pickleball, and I started doing it, and I had dangerous levels of triglycerides, and now they're down. I don't want to sound like a snake oil salesman, but my goodness gracious, when you talk about the number of things that this particular sport is addressing in the community that are hitting the goals that we're trying to achieve, it's there. It's already there. I can guarantee you, and especially with Councilman Wang's point, you're getting bang for your buck. The Soundwall is an excellent solution. I've done a lot of background research on my own. I've spoken to Chad about this. I think it's a great solution. It's a relatively small cost in the grand scheme of things, $2.50 per resident if you want to apply that to it. But nonetheless, it's an excellent solution. And it can help to overcome any hesitation that you might have in terms of adopting the sport, but I can guarantee you it's gonna grow whether we like it or not. Thank you for your help.

Thank you, Tom. Next, we have Bianca and your group.

Can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Okay, thank you. Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. On behalf of our local pickleball community, I want to express our sincere appreciation for your thoughtful consideration of the CIP noise attenuation project. We recognize the challenge of balancing the concerns of neighboring residents with the need for vibrant public recreation and appreciate your commitment to listening to all perspectives before making your decision. I will not take more of your time repeating the well-known benefits of pickleball. You are already familiar with the positive impact this sport has on the physical health, mental wellbeing, and social connections of our residents. Our club's efforts have always been aligned with the city's strategic vision, promoting health, community connection, and free, inclusive recreation for all residents. We are also committed to building trust and continuing to work with Parks and Recreation to help reduce staff time and support practical long-term solutions. As you deliver it, we trust in your commitment to serve the best interest of the entire community. We respectfully ask that you approve the CIP Noise Attenuation Project which preserves both neighborhood quality of life without compromising access to this valuable community recreation resource. Thank you for your ongoing service, your dedication to our community, and for taking the time to listen to us. The pickleball community wants to move more with major getting more.

Thank you, Bianca. And that concludes the request to speak in person in Community Hall. We do have one hand raised virtually. At this time, we will go ahead and welcome San Rao.

Good evening, Mayor Moore and council members. Speaking on behalf of myself only as a resident, I will say that I have followed budget discussions for many years now, and this year is probably the least transparent And the least amount of exposure that residents have had on the actual year over year variances on revenue line items on expense line items on department line items. I I'm appalled that we spent all the community outreach talking about some feature of OpenGAU, OpenGAU stories, which at the very onset, I had warned that this is a distraction and has nothing to do with the specifics of actual budgetary line items. Today, there has been not a single mention of OpenGov Stories, and yet multiple community outreach sessions were held on OpenGov Stories, which has had no relevance to the discussion today. In reality, this was just a ruse. It was a ruse to distract the public from the real conversations. For the first time today, there is a budget report that does not show year over year for past five years. I want to thank Vice Mayor Chao for asking the questions that need to be asked about 2019. You actually need to go back to 2014. Cupertino's population has declined and our staffing has increased and we're seeing abhorrent cuts that are being proposed to kid safety, disguising it as CUST and FUHSD, when in reality, the occupants of- Thank you, Sam, that is your time.

Thank you. Mayor, that concludes the request to speak on this item.

All right, I see a one hand raised, Council Member Wong.

Yeah, I wasn't going to talk about Pickleball Sound Walls, but given how many people showed up here, I want to know how many people in this room are actually from Cupertino? Raise your hands. You're all Cupertino residents? Okay. And when we go to the Pickleball course, how many people are percentage are actual Pickleball residents? It's a very small number. You guys know that. I'm not going to go there. We're not against Pickleball.

Council Member Wong, try not to engage the...

Okay, I will do that.

Thank you.

So when we talk about proportionate, right, it's an issue, it's very important to know that. And the issue really is, I mean, when you're looking at resident versus non-resident fees, Cupertino does not charge resident versus non-resident fees. That's why everybody's there. And so...

Pardon, pardon.

I'm not trying to create a fight with you guys. We're not against pickleball.

Excuse me. Excuse me. Members of the public, do not shout out. Council Member Wong has the floor. Your time to speak has already passed. Thank you.

So I'm not against the sound wall either. I think it's important. Right now we have a proposal for a sound wall that's three times the cost of a normal sound wall. When I'm down in Naples at the Professional Center with 60 courts, I mean, they've got sound walls, and they've got really good sound walls. That's not the point. The point is we have a very expensive proposal out there that should be one-third the cost for what it is. If you look in the letter that was sent into comments to the public, a contractor actually proposed to actually do it for us for one-third the cost that was proposed. It's not about having a sound or not having a sound wall, it's a question of are we paying too much for a sound wall? I think it's really important to look at that and if we're going to put $150,000 on a sound wall that's really worth 50,000 and even then it was $30,000 quote. I mean, that's already too much. So I think we should be looking at how much it should be. And I think that's an important piece. So no one's against it, pickleball. But I think the way it's being organized, the ways, are you a resident, not a resident? Can you talk with a resident? Can you speak with a resident? The way you guys organize makes it seem very antagonistic. That's not the point. I mean, people want different activities. People want quality of life, but not at $150,000. And I encourage staff to go back and find a better proposal, not at $150,000 for a sound wall, when it really costs $30,000. And I'd be happy to approve $50,000.

All right, thank you, Council Member Hwang. I think at this time we should probably parse out the pickleball item and separate the vote on that. Vice Mayor? Pardon, so what I'm looking for is a motion simply on the pickleball item.

Do that first.

Well, I would make a motion to approve the pickleball sound wall at $50,000, not at $150,000. Is there a second for that?

I have an alternative motion.

Oh, you got an alternative motion? Go for it.

Would you like to move? Okay. So I wouldn't. personally spend money or allocate money for a sound wall without having any idea if it could even possibly work. So some other options we can do would be to continue the pilot program, provide a three month update on the pilot program, particularly with information on enforcement. Send the pickleball noise issue to the Parks and Recreation Commission to, along with staff, come up with an array of options, including municipal code restrictions on the placement of further pickleball courts near sensitive receptors. allocate a funding of $10,000 for professional noise study to determine if a sound wall at Memorial Park would or could reduce the noise levels from both the bleachers and pickleball courts to meet the municipal code noise ordinance and remove the wall funding until we have more information and direction. The noise study results would go to the Parks and Recreation Commission for their discussion, and they would study also the impact of the sound frequency. Do I have a second?

I'll second that, but I don't agree completely. That's fine, we can modify. Okay, so I think $150,000 for the sound wall is really not a lot to spend if it has does reduce the noise impact to the neighbors. So I agree that we should do a study so that we know what's the current noise level including not only just the regular decibel but also really major the impact of frequencies of sound. So the actual impact to the human ear. and then what will be expected of sound after we have the barrier. I understand from staff, I think one of my main concern was I don't want to see an opaque barrier that I've seen in other cities. It's not only aesthetically not good, but also I think that I do concern about safety. when you can't really see anything within a space. But I understand from the staff on transparent panel actually the cost is about the same as opaque panel. But the noise reduction level might be not as good. That's why I think we need to do study. And where I disagree is I hope Because the pilot, the process of designing, I appreciate the staff for taking the effort to start a pilot. But I feel the process of deriving that program didn't really have a public process. And I appreciate that staff wants to reduce the early morning hours so that because as a neighbor, being subject to early morning noise 24 seven days a week is a lot. So I appreciate that. However, I don't, we need to have a Monday off. Specifically, So I'm hoping maybe that's delay the pilot, just send this to the Parks and Rec Commission to decide the parameters of a pilot. Then we implement a pilot for three months. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I talked to the immediate neighbor also. What they are saying is because of the summer, some people are starting to play since like 6.30 a.m. And that's really too early. And I actually looked around to the other, I used Google Maps to look at all the other Peek-A-Boo courts that's next to single family home neighbors. None of them is as close as the one that's in Memorial Park. And the one at Calabasas Park is close second. However, their hours don't start until 9 o'clock or 4. So hours really is very... I understand that we will have to provide more pick-up ball court as a city because this is a growing sport, that need is there. But then I think it's important that we make the first experience enjoyable for the players and the neighbors so that we pave the path for more pickable courts. It's similar to how we did the dog off leash pilot. It was very contentious in the city. For many years, there were opposition to that. But we started a pilot, and then I think because the community and the city staff was very careful in implementing that pilot, and that relieved a lot of people's concern about potentially aggressive dogs and then eventually we were able to implement that in more parks. So that's what I would like to see and let's be careful and implement it really well so that we find the best solution for pickleball. So I'm hoping maybe let's have the Parks and Rec come up with a pilot in a month. So we, that's, do you, you don't accept that?

No, and the reason why is that even somewhat quieter sports like soccer, They don't have Sunday play and the reason why that was enacted was so that the neighbors around the field would get a rest from having the soccer games going on throughout the weekend. And so they would have Sunday off and there's other sports within the city that aren't allowed Sunday play. And it's specifically for the neighbors to have that rest time. This in particular, I've been out in around 10, around 2, and then also in the evenings. We are violating our own noise ordinance currently. And the residents have the right to enjoy their peaceful existence and use of their own property. And this makes it so that you're going to be listening to noise all day long. And it isn't just the pickleball noise of the sport. It's also, particularly in the evening, it's the fans. And I have a great concern that while individuals are talking about how great those bleachers are, In order to block sound, you need to be about 13 feet above where the sound is being generated from. So if you have individuals sitting up in the bleachers, they're saying you've got 80 people out there, so that means all the levels of the bleachers will be taken up. That sound wall would then have to be higher than the individuals in the bleachers who are who are making noise. So it becomes quite a challenge. So I would not personally, I think having a day off is very kind for those neighbors. And it's a shame that the city has actually kind of done this to them without any consideration or care asking them what they think.

Yes. So you remind me a point. I think if when we consider some barrier, we probably also want to put barrier next to the bleachers because I spoke to some of the immediate neighbors. They are intimidated by the group that they are afraid to speak up, many of them. Some of them, it's right in front of their home. They love to play pickleball, they love to join the community, but they were intimidated and even be excluded from the group. That really is not very neighborly on some of the behavior. So I hope the group can consider that if you want really this is going to be a welcoming community. We need to really be friendly to the neighbors who actually are suffering the noise every day. And also, I think what you remind me is if we are looking at some barrier, I think one thing they mention is not only the noise from the pickleball, it's also the shouting of people from the bleachers that's creating noise. So maybe we should consider barrier that will go over the bleacher area also if that's something maybe that's when we do the study that could be considered also.

Council Member Mohan.

So the Pickleball Sound Wall is part of a new CIP project that staff is proposing. And we have gone through many, many hours of discussion about pros, cons about Pickleball. resident use and non-resident use and so on. And staff came up with a pilot project proposal and our understanding was that that would take effect if the sound wall did not happen. Is that right? That it was either going to be the sound wall or the pilot project.

I think if the sound wall which wasn't approved, the trial was brought forward when the sound was not approved yet?

Correct. And the conversation was that if the sound wall was built, that would be a solution to the problem of noise and so on. And then the pilot project that staff had proposed would not be needed if the sound wall was successful. Regardless, the $150,000 is just a budgeted amount. Now, if we, and I'm assuming Chad, and I think I spoke to Chad some weeks ago, the plan is that we would go out, get bids, go with the lowest bid or the most expensive bid, the most efficient bid that we receive and so on. So the 150,000 is not that we're going to go out and spend 150,000. If we get a proposal for 30,000, of course we'll spend 30,000. And then the 120,000 will be part of the fund balance for next year. I mean, going back to my earlier talk about the fund balance. So the $150,000 doesn't mean we're going to go out and spend $150,000. So let's keep it in the budget. Let's see what Public Works and Parks and Recreation and whoever else wants to get involved look into the convenience or the efficiency or the success of the sound wall. Let's not just dismiss it out of hand because we think we have better solutions. We are not the pickleball experts. We have staff who will do it for us and my position is that we leave the sound wall as is in a CIP project, and leave the $150,000 as a place marker.

Councilwoman Mohan, is that a motion that you're making now?

Oh, no, I don't know where we are on the motion.

We have two motions. We had the first motion, Councilmember Wong's motion, which did not get a second, and we had Mayor Moore's motion, which received a second, but it was sort of a second with extra items, and so that second was rejected.

So can this be a friendly amendment?

um as a point of order i think it's a substitute motion um thank you councilman do i do i have a different second on my motion sorry i did second mayor moore it's just i would like i proposed an amendment that wasn't accepted but i do second mayor's um Okay, very well. So it's just my proposed amendment wasn't accepted. Okay, so you second Mayor Moore's motion.

Okay, so I'm up. Director Mosley, thank you.

We also have a council member from.

Yes, good. Okay, so good evening. So if we were to do a noise study, what kind of information would we get out of that? And about how much would it cost?

For a noise study, we would analyze existing noise levels and I would have a noise consultant evaluate if the sound panels would be adequate to address the noise levels that we're looking at. In this situation, we'd probably be looking to make sure that we could bring those noise levels down to something that's consistent with the existing tennis courts. And the approximate cost for that's about $13,000.

13,000, okay. So I need to, so probably 15,000 would probably be a more sensible funding allocation to have a study conducted.

I have currently a proposal for $13,100.

Okay, so I'll take that as a yes. Okay, okay. And then they would determine also if they would be able to reduce the sound from the bleachers area as well?

And we could have them look at that when we have them evaluate that area.

Okay. And then alternatively, if there is no way to bring that sound level down, you would need to perhaps move the pickleball courts to the other end or another area of that tennis court.

We'd be looking at alternatives besides the sound walls. I'm not going to spend any more money on sound walls if it's not going to work.

Okay. That's really my point here as well is to don't allocate money and start just going shopping for something if you don't know if it's even going to work in the end and then we're going to look rather ridiculous for having spent a bunch of money on something that doesn't work and now the neighbors will have to look at something that they might not like the look of. It's gonna be blocking their view, because right now you can see through all of the light material there, and you can see the rest of the park. So I'm concerned about impacting their view that they've enjoyed. So now they've had the noise impacted on them, and then they're gonna have this this structure put in front of them. And so I certainly hope that there would be outreach to the neighbors who are going to be needing to look at whatever is put there if that's how it turns out. Thank you. Council Member Wong and then Vice Mayor. Thank you. Thank you for the reminder. Council Member Fruin.

No, I just wasn't clear on whether Council Member Mohan wanted to offer her substitute motion or not.

Go for it if you want.

He's asking you.

Oh, substitute motion.

Council Member Froon, did you say something?

Yes. No, it sounded like you were trying to offer a substitute motion for the CIP item as it appears in the budget presently.

Yes, I was.

Okay. Are you making that motion?

I am making that motion.

Very well.

Then I will second it.

Okay. So we have a motion and a second. We could deliberate on that unless we're ready to go for a vote. I will not be supporting it, as you understand, coming from an engineering background, you do a noise study, determine if something is going to work, you don't just start building.

A question. So this sound barrier, how tall would that be? How do we know how effective would that be? Because from the neighbors, I think the main concern also is for second floor bedroom window that's facing the pickleball. And those are the people who are mostly affected from early morning noise. But then they are higher up. So I do wonder if we do a barrier sound study for the effectiveness. Are we going to look at how tall the sound world would be, how effective they would be at different height? I assume we can look at that.

Hello, okay, we're looking at putting in the sound panels on the existing fence, which is 12 feet high.

So, okay, so that means we might not be able to reduce noise to the second floor window.

As I look to the north, I think there's just one house that has a second floor, and it doesn't seem to have windows that are focused towards the courts, but that will be something that the sound engineer will evaluate.

Mm-hmm. Okay. And likely it won't bounce the sound so the sound actually will be louder elsewhere?

Again, I'll have an acoustic engineer look at this, but currently the concept is to have some absorptive panels and then potentially some that will reflect. So it may reflect some of that sound south towards the park.

Oh, okay. Okay. So if we approve the sound barrier budget, are you still going to do a study?

Yeah, I mean, if we get a sound barrier, OUR FIRST STEP IS TO PERFORM THE SOUND ANALYSIS AND WE'LL EVALUATE IF IT'S GOING TO KIND OF MEET EXPECTATIONS. AT THAT POINT IN TIME WE COULD SHARE THAT REPORT. BUT IF IT'S NOT GOING TO MEET EXPECTATIONS, I AM NOT SPENDING ANOTHER DIME AND WE'LL FIGURE OUT WHAT OTHER OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE. But if it does look like it's going to work, the next step would be having a structural analysis done on that existing fence because it needs to be structurally shored up because it's not stable enough to handle the additional panels.

You will still do a study, and if it turns out that we cannot reduce the noise to the level of the tennis court, you will come to the council to report that this is not going to work, and then maybe we... have to find other solution and then we can remove that allocation from the budget.

Yeah, we can definitely report back. If it's not gonna work, I will let you guys know.

Would that be acceptable for the mayor?

Ordinarily, we do design. You have a design phase, and then staff comes back and requests for the funding for the build. So here, you're trying to lump everything all together, which isn't how the CIP projects ordinarily work. And so I would still keep it doing the normal process where you're going to do the... design essentially get the noise study get the design see what has to be built especially with regards to the bleachers because i don't think you're going to be able to reduce the noise out of them at all. And I also think you're gonna have sound coming up over this wall since you're using the existing height panels as well. And you need to be 13 feet above the source of the noise in order to block it. So if you have a person standing that's facing the house, hooting and hollering, it's gonna go over the fence and they're going to hear it. It won't block it. So that's why I say do the study first and then follow the process. Do the design and then come back for the funding if that works. It may be that the pilot study, actually the neighbors really like it and that works and that's a solution moving forward and then the city doesn't have to spend MORE MONEY ON THIS PROJECT. BUT THAT WOULD BE REALLY, TO ME, IDEAL. COUNCILMEMBER WONG.

ACTUALLY, SORRY ABOUT THAT. I'LL TAKE THAT OFF. BUT I'M WILLING TO SUPPORT YOUR MOTION.

All right, so we have a substitute motion, and then the main motion, the substitute motion is to fund the whole thing now and see what happens. Okay.

So the substitute motion, what's your thought on the pilot program? You would stop the pilot?

Yes, if the sound wall is effective.

But we don't know if it's effective now. So you'll stop the pilot anyway?

When is the pilot taking effect? It hasn't started now.