Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution No. 26-100 authorizing the City Manager to execute a Law Enforcement Services Agreement with the County of Santa ClaraRESOLUTION NO. 26-100 A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AND EXPRESSLY RESERVING THE CITY'S RIGHTS REGARDING THE COUNTY'S COST ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino ("City") has for many years contracted with the County of Santa Clara ("County"), through the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office ("Sheriff"), for law enforcement services within the City; and WHEREAS, the City's current law enforcement services agreement with the County is scheduled to expire, and the City and County have been engaged in negotiations concerning a successor agreement; and WHEREAS, the City values its longstanding relationship with the Sheriff and desires to maintain continuity of law enforcement services and avoid any interruption in public safety services to the City's residents, businesses, and visitors; and WHEREAS, the County provided the City with a proposed successor agreement and cost methodology that would materially increase the City's cost for law enforcement services; and WHEREAS, the City has raised substantial concerns regarding the County's proposed cost allocation methodology, including whether certain costs proposed to be charged to the City constitute costs that the County is legally permitted to charge under California Government Code section 51350; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 51350 provides, among other things, that a county providing services to a city pursuant to contract shall charge the city costs incurred in providing the contracted services, but shall not charge the city, either directly or indirectly, for certain costs attributable to services made available to all portions of the county or for general overhead costs of county government; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 51350 further provides that "[g]eneral overhead costs" are costs that a county would incur regardless of whether it provided a service under contract to a city and expressly provides that Resolution No. 26-100 Page 2 any determination of general overhead costs is subject to court review as to the reasonableness of that determination; and WHEREAS, in order to assist the City in evaluating the County's proposed cost methodology, the City, together with other contract cities, commissioned an independent assessment by Vasquez & Company LLP concerning the County's cost allocation methodology and compliance with Government Code section 51350; and WHEREAS, the City's independent assessment identified substantial concerns regarding the allocation of certain costs to the City and provided information relevant to the City's continuing discussions with the County concerning an appropriate and legally compliant cost methodology; and WHEREAS, the City has communicated its concerns regarding the County's cost methodology to the County and has continued to seek a mutually acceptable resolution of the City's legal and financial concerns; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding those unresolved concerns, the County has required the City to enter into the successor agreement in order to continue receiving dedicated law enforcement services without interruption; and WHEREAS, the City Council determines that continued law enforcement services are necessary to protect public safety and that execution of the successor agreement is warranted to avoid an interruption in those services; and WHEREAS, the City's execution of the successor agreement is not intended to constitute, and shall not be construed as, an admission, concession, waiver, release, ratification, or agreement by the City that the County's proposed cost allocation methodology complies with Government Code section 51350 or any other applicable law; and WHEREAS, the City Council further determines that it is in the City's interest to expressly reserve all rights, claims, defenses, remedies, and causes of action concerning the County's cost methodology and the amounts charged to the City under the successor agreement. Resolution No. 26-100 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino as follows: SECTION 1. Authorization of Agreement. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager or designee to negotiate and execute, on behalf of the City, the Law Enforcement Services Agreement with the County of Santa Clara, substantially in the form presented to the City Council, including provisions expressly reserving the City’s rights under Government Code section 51350 to challenge the Agreement’s cost methodology and seek to ensure compliance with Government Code section 51350, subject to such final modifications as may be approved by the City Attorney. SECTION 2. No Approval or Ratification of Disputed Cost Methodology. The City's execution of the Law Enforcement Services Agreement is solely for the purpose of maintaining continuity of law enforcement services and shall not constitute or be construed as: A. an acknowledgment or admission that the County's cost allocation methodology complies with Government Code section 51350; B. an acknowledgment or admission that any particular cost or category of costs is properly chargeable to the City; C. a waiver, release, relinquishment, compromise, settlement, or abandonment of any claim, defense, objection, or remedy available to the City concerning the County's cost methodology or charges; D. a ratification of any prior County methodology, calculation, allocation, invoice, or charge disputed by the City; or E. an agreement that the amounts charged or to be charged under the Agreement constitute the City's final or legally correct obligation to the County. SECTION 3. Express Reservation of Rights. The City expressly reserves all rights, claims, defenses, objections, remedies, and causes of action, whether known or unknown, arising out of or relating to the County's cost allocation methodology, the allocation or charging of costs to the City, and the amounts invoiced or paid by the City under the Agreement. Without limiting the foregoing, the City expressly reserves its rights under Government Code section 51350 as set forth in section 3(A) of the Agreement, Resolution No. 26-100 Page 4 including the right to challenge the reasonableness and legality of the County's determination and allocation of costs and to seek appropriate judicial or other relief. The City further expressly reserves the right to seek reimbursement, credit, adjustment, offset, or other appropriate relief with respect to any amounts that the City determines, or a court or other tribunal determines, were improperly charged to or paid by the City. SECTION 4. Payments Under Protest. To the extent the City pays amounts pursuant to the Agreement that are subject to the City's unresolved objections concerning the County's cost methodology, such payments shall not constitute a waiver or release of the City's rights or claims and may be made under protest and with a continuing reservation of rights. The City Manager and City Attorney are authorized to take reasonable administrative and legal measures necessary to preserve the City's rights concerning such payments, including providing written notice to the County that particular payments are disputed and are made under protest. SECTION 5. Continuing Negotiations. Nothing in this Resolution shall prevent the City Manager, City Attorney, or their designees from continuing to negotiate with the County concerning the County's cost allocation methodology, the amount of charges to be paid by the City, or any other provision of the Agreement. The City Council encourages continued efforts to reach a mutually acceptable and legally compliant cost methodology that appropriately allocates to the City only those costs that may lawfully be charged to the City. SECTION 6. No Waiver by Continued Performance. The City's continued receipt of law enforcement services, continued performance under the Agreement, or payment of amounts invoiced by the County shall not constitute a waiver of any right or claim expressly reserved by this Resolution. SECTION 7. Authority to Take Further Action. Resolution No. 26-100 Page 5 The City Manager, City Attorney, and their respective designees are authorized to take all actions reasonably necessary to implement this Resolution and preserve the City's rights, including communicating the City's reservations to the County, reviewing and disputing invoices, pursuing adjustments or credits, and taking such further legal or administrative action as may be authorized by law and by the City Council. SECTION 8. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of the Resolution that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are severable. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15th day of September, 2026, by the following vote: Members of the City Council AYES: Moore, Chao, Fruen, Mohan, Wang NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ___________ Kitty Moore, Mayor City of Cupertino ________________________ Date _____________ Lauren Sapudar, City Clerk ________________________ Date 9/21/2026 9/21/2026