CC 01-17-2024 Item No. 1 Potential service -level reductions FY 2024-25_Written Communications_2CC 1-17-2024
Item No. 1
Potential service-level
reductions for the FY 2024-25
Proposed and Final Budgets
Written Communications
From:Jennifer Griffin
To:City Clerk
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject:Fwd: City Council Study Session Item Number 5, 1/17/24 City Council Meeting
Date:Wednesday, January 17, 2024 1:56:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
FYI. Please include these comments in the Public Record for the Study Session,
Item 5 for the City Council meeting on 1/17/24. Thank you.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: City Council Study Session Number 5, 1/17/24
From: Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2024, 1:53 PM
To: citycouncil@cupertino.org,cityclerk@cupertino.org
CC: grenna5000@yahoo.com
Dear City Council:
1. If Cupertino is trying to deal with Budget problems, please consider asking HCD and
The state to reimburse Cupertino for the millions of dollars it has spent trying to get
HCD to certify its Housing Element. Is this money coming from the General Fund?
2. Please have Cupertino ask the state for reconsideration of the Apple Tax Revenue.
It looks like the state is picking on Cupertino and Apple for some reason. I think it is
Because the state has tried to make Cupertino a target for some reason and the state is
Also picking on Apple.
3. Please do not stop maintaining the sidewalks. This is not a good plan. Many years ago it
Was proposed The City stop maintaining the sidewalks to pay for the library to stay open.
When the city stops maintaining its sidewalks there goes the city. The City will stop
Paving its roads and the city will go downhill.
4. Please start having more study sessions if the city is going to do things like stop
Paving its roads and taking care of its sidewalks. The public needs to know what is
Happening.
5. Consider breaking up long marathon City Council meetings like the one
Will be into two meetings. It is more efficient moneywise. All the Planning Commission
Meetings are cancelled most of the time as well as other City Council meetings
So all the city business is lumped into one marathon City Council meeting.
6. Please consider bringing back the Design Review Committee and the Environmental
Review
Committee because it seems like the state is going to persecute Cupertino further with
Hundreds of Builders Remedy projects. HCD said Cupertino had to get rid of these two
committees
And now we know why. Builders Remedy does not care about Environmental Review or
Architectural Design. People will take advantage of Cupertino and try to circumvent good
Building design and environmental concerns.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From:Tracy Kosolcharoen
To:City Council; City Clerk
Subject:Public Comment - 01/17 Meeting Agenda Item #5
Date:Wednesday, January 17, 2024 11:48:29 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Cupertino City Council & Staff,
As you evaluate Cupertino's budget, please kindly consider the following:
1. If Cupertino is cutting so many city services, shouldn't its headcount decrease
accordingly? The exact dollar savings from proposed headcount reductions is unclear because
some of line items commingle staff cuts with other costs (like recruitment advertising).
Regardless, the amount appears to be less than $630K. If Cupertino is in such dire need of
revenue that it is not only contemplating burdening taxpayers with more taxes but also cutting
millions in services, shouldn't it be considering more than a few hundred thousand in staff
cuts?
2. If a service is cut, why would the reduction in associated staff be gradual via attrition,
rather than immediate? What if a service is cut, but the associated staff never attrites or
takes decades to do so? Are Cupertino taxpayers funding headcounts that are not performing
any services?
3. Putting sidewalk maintenance back on the residents means our sidewalks will
deteriorate. Many residents will not want to pay for it or spend the time to hire for and
oversee sidewalk maintenance. Doesn't Cupertino pride itself on its well-kept streets? What
other cities are we comparing ourselves to that don't fund sidewalk maintenance? I would
exclude cities that don't have a large number of sidewalks to begin with/are mostly in the
hillsides from this comparison.
4. Why is Cupertino's unassigned fund balance $48M or 45% of its ending fund balance?
That is a very large ratio compared to neighboring cities. Some of this budget should be freed
up rather than carried over year over year, for some purpose unclear to residents.
Thanks,
Tracy
From:Peggy Griffin
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:2024-01-17 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 1 - Potential Service-Level Reductions KEEP CROSSING GUARDS
Date:Wednesday, January 17, 2024 3:50:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FOR THE ABOVE AGENDA
ITEM.
Dear Mayor Mohan, City Council Members and Staff,
Please do not eliminate/reduce the school crossing guards. They safe lives and help both
pedestrians, cyclists and motorists get through critical school intersections safely. In addition, the
city is focusing on Vision Zero which involves no lives lost!
There are other portions of the Safe Routes to School program that can be cut that do not have a
direct impact on lives saved such as:
Frequency of the meetings
Newsletters
Combine bike fests with Earth Day and get a non-profit to fund/sponsor this.
These are just some ideas. Keep all the crossing guards, please.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From:Rhoda Fry
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:1/17/2024 City Council Agenda Item #1, Service Level Reductions
Date:Wednesday, January 17, 2024 3:40:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
There are a number of items in this mash-up list that should have already been considered years ago
and I’m confident that there are others missing. I am saddened to see that many items on the
chopping block relate to resident quality of life.
I think that the City needs to maintain sidewalks and street trees – this is a public safety issue.
Also, when you look at the costs for the Golf Course, please consider that some of those costs
are not directly related to the golf course. For example, studies to turn the golf course into
something else have been charged to the golf course fund. Also, there is a new fence on the golf
course to protect pedestrians on the trail – that should go under the trail expense, not golf (I
don’t know whether it did).
Please also make sure that dangerous trees are removed timely. There is a very dead one near
the volleyball courts at Blackberry Farm.
We need to invest $70K in the internal audit projects. These are INVESTMENTS, not
COSTS. We do need to stop doing studies for projects that we know won’t be built.
Please check the agreements made for the park rangers at blackberry farm. The area is isolated and
having rangers contributes to public safety.
The pre-school program is already making money for the City. While reduce part-time staff for the
preschool program and reduce its quality?
Charging extra for credit cards is a good idea as long as it does not cost the city to handle a lot more
paper checks and put in a system (if it doesn’t have one already) for online bank transfers.
Reducing the scene to quarterly is a good idea. Maybe it could remain monthly online and then print
quarterly by mail. Also provide residents to opt out of receiving paper and receive it via email.
City should pay for staff to get educated if it makes them better at their jobs. That is an investment.
Why hasn’t the sheriff budget been re-aligned in past budgets. Being off by $1M is significant. Why
hasn’t this come up during the budgeting process?
Please explain the consolidation of the Learn to Swim Program. Keep in mind that running short-
duration programs at the Blackberry Farm creates a public safety hazard. Historically, the driveway
was essentially one way in at the beginning of the day and one way out at the end of the day. I have
seen motorists rushing in there to get there on time and it could create a public safety problem.
I am disappointed by how the numbers are being presented in the staff report. 73% decline - $30M
decrease. Compared with what? During the COVID years, the City received a huge bump in sales-
tax income thanks to all California sales-tax collected from online Apple sales being directed to
Cupertino. Cupertino, in turn rebates 35% of the tax collected to Apple. The State wants this
lucrative deal to come to an end. And by the way, if have truly been looking at a 73% on Apple
sales-tax money, that should have been revealed in the ACFR, the City’s annual report. The ACFR
does mention that around a quarter (from my memory) of property-tax revenue comes from Apple.
And it is possible that Apple also leases building, so Apple’s contribution to our property taxes
could even be higher.
So first, let’s look at the facts. Pre-COVID, Cupertino’s net sales-tax revenue as reported (or should
have been reported) in the ACFR, was $26.65M in FY 2019/20 and $24.90M in FY 2018/19. We’ve
heard various numbers thrown about for net sales-tax income dipping to about $9.4 or $11M. So
really we’re looking at closer to a 60% or so decline. Below is a table for your reference. I’d also
like the City to go back and reconcile the sales-tax income numbers for 2019/2020 as there is a
significant discrepancy between what was reported during the City’s refinance of debt and the
ACFR (see below).
YEAR
CDTFA 1%
Sales-Tax
Revenue (a)
ACFR
Reported
Sales-Tax(b)
CDTFA
minus ACFR
should equal
rebate(c)
Rebate
Payment to
BAZ(d)
(Apple)
Rebate
Payment to
Insight(e)
Rebate
Payments to
BAZ +
Insight(f)
22/23 $41,252,088 TBD TBD
21/22 $57,475,110 $43,647,000 $13,828,110 $13,105,289 $578,427 $13,683,716
20/21 $58,225,876 $42,581,000 $16,355,876 $13,280,388 $988,340 $14,268,728
19/20 $35,468,863 $35,657,214 -$188,137 $8,247,674 $922,677 $9,170,351
18/19 $31,799,696 $24,902,000 $6,897,917 $5,697,816 $1,024,262 $6,722,078
a. This column shows the sales-tax revenue paid from the California Department of Tax and
Fee Administration (CDTFA) to Cupertino. The data comes from the State of California.
Numbers have been rounded to the nearest dollar.
https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/dataportal/dataset.htm?url=MonthlyLocalAllocationCities
b. This column shows Cupertino’s sales-tax revenue as reported in its ACFR. This column
should be the same as the first column but the amounts are much smaller. This is explained
in the ACFR that buries the statement, “Sales tax consultant payments which are contingent
on revenues collected are netted against the related revenues.”
See https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/finance/budget-reports
c. This is the difference between the two first columns and equals the “sales tax consulting
payments.” The ACFR makes no mention that these are actually sales-tax rebates to two
corporations. This should be approximately what was paid to Apple and Insight.
d. BAZ is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Apple that receives the rebate money from Cupertino.
This data was compiled through the City’s accounts payable data.
e. Insight is the other company that Cupertino shares sales-tax with. This data was compiled
through the City’s accounts payable data.
f. This is the sum of the previous two columns and should add up to column (c)
NOTE 1 – For 2019/2020 the ACFR shows $35,657,214 sales-tax income. This looks like the
gross tax even though the ACFR states it is the net tax. The Certificate of Participation Official
Statement states the unaudited result of $26,651,250, which is appears to be more accurate. That
would indicate a sales-tax rebate of about $9M which is confirmed by the “Payments to Baz +
Insight” data.
NOTE 2 – there is a discrepancy between the ACFRs. The 2022 report listed the sales-tax income
as $41,870,000 for 2021. However, the 2021 reported the sales-tax income as $42,581,000.
Further not quite showing how things really are is the “elimination” of 14 vacant positions. This has
happened when budgeted headcount is at an all-time high (in spite of a declining population).
Reading further, I am worried about defunding the weed-abatement subsidy. If a resident is unable
to care for weeds and poses a fire hazard, what will happen?
With respect to field use – we need to get the whole picture. If the city charges more for the fields
used at schools, then maybe we should continue doing the maintenance. Can we please get the
whole picture before to decide to turn it over to the schools? I just wonder whether our parks and rec
uses any school fields and that if we turn over maintenance to the schools whether the fees to
residents might go up. Also, we maintain our own parks as well – will the per-unit cost go up if we
are maintaining fewer fields overall?
There was a mash-up of items listed and it makes it very confusing. We know that there has been an
excess in the Library funding for years that was covered by the county. It was essentially a duplicate
entry from the city. This is not a service-level issue.
I had heard that Earth Day actually makes money for the City? Why cut it?
Councilmember Moore asked about removing AI from McClellan. If it can’t be removed, can it be
reduced?
Councilmember Moore asked about transparency for Blackberry Farm and the Sports Center and
Councilmember Chao asked for the Senior Center. What I see is the golf course but not the pool /
picnics. Can you please provide a report on pool/picnics?
Thanks,
Rhoda