CC 04-13-2023 Item No. 6 FY 2023-24 10-Year Budget Forecast Informational Update presentation_Written CommunicationsCC 04-13-2023
Item No. 6
Consider the FY 2023-24
10-Year Budget Forecast
Informational Update
presentation
Written Communications
From:Peggy Griffin
To:City Council; Kristina Alfaro; Thomas Leung
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:23-04-13 City Council Mtg-ITEM 6 10-Yr Budget Forecast QUESTIONS
Date:Monday, April 10, 2023 4:33:22 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 in Written Communications for the above City Council Meeting agenda item.
Dear City Council and Staff,
I have the following questions regarding the document “A – Presentation.pdf”
PDF PAGE 7 of 29, 3rd bullet regarding CDTFA Audit
Q1: What does “includes a proportional reduction to County pools” mean exactly?
Does it mean a 73% reduction there, too?
Q2: What has been the typical range of the county pool in percentage and in dollars?
PDF PAGE 7 of 29, 4th bullet regarding CDTFA Audit
Q3: When will the city know for sure whether we will need to payback any revenues received?
Q3a: Did they verbally indicate this in the March 2023 phone call?
PDF PAGE 10, 3rd bullet regarding Forecast Assumptions
Q4: What does this really mean?
Does it mean you are assuming the fund is large enough to cover the year costs?
If so, how has it worked during FY 2022-23 which is about over?
PDF PAGE 19 of 29, Fund Balance Impacts – 10 Years
Q5: Why not use a portion of the $24M in the Economic Uncertainty Reserve?
Isn’t this a situation it was designed to help smooth out?
If not, what is it’s intended use?
Q6: Section 115 Pension Trust…Is the $11.8M decrease due to borrowing from this trust to use on non-
pension expenditures?
If so, will it be “paid back” or considered a permanent funds transfer?
If not, is it to cover anticipated CalPERS investment return volitivity?
PAGE 21 of 29, Budget Balancing Strategies, 3rd column “Potential Impact”
Q7: Why are the Section 115 Pension Trust and OPEB Trust numbers almost a year old?
Q7a: Why didn’t you use the latest Treasurer’s Monthly Investment Report totals?
The Treasurer’s Monthly Investment Report for Feb 2023 (Att C) has the following balances:
Section 115 Pension Trust = $18.0M
Section 115 OPEB Trust = $32.8M
Q8: What are the dates associated with the fund amount for the Capital Projects Reserve and the Economic
Uncertainty Reserve?
Q9: Has there been or will there be a Variance Analysis done to breakdown the revenue loss into components
then for each component figure out if it’s a 1-time hit or recurring?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From:Rhoda Fry
To:City Council; City Clerk
Subject:Restoring tax revenues with an employee headcount tax
Date:Tuesday, April 11, 2023 7:27:36 AM
Attachments:Staff Report July 31 2018 Head Count Tax.pdf
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,
The April 13 report explores various methods of raising City revenue through taxation, utility
tax, parcel tax, temporary occupancy tax. It even considers one-time infusions by selling our
water rights to a private company and selling our precious open-space, neither of which can be
replaced. Instead, we should reconsider the large-employer head-count tax that was first
proposed on July 31, 2018 (please see the attached staff report).
By now it is obvious that Cupertino will be losing its lucrative sales-tax-sharing arrangement
with Apple. The deal treats all online transactions of Apple products within California as
though they happened in Cupertino. For every $100 spent, Cupertino receives $1 in taxes and
gifts $0.35 of it to Apple. Consequently, Cupertino allows 35 cents from all sales-taxes on
Apple goods purchased online in California to be siphoned away from public good and denies
point-of-sale revenues to California’s other cities. This is not fair. As an example, when all
California Apple stores were closed during COVID, our State’s residents were given no other
choice than to shop online. Cities with Apple stores were denied that sales-tax revenue and
that’s not fair either.
At the same time, having Apple headquartered in Cupertino, along with other large companies,
has created a loss of available retail space, increased traffic, and raised the cost of housing, to
name a few. For example, on April 13, a new Apple office building is being proposed in an
area that is designated for ground-floor retail, which eliminates the opportunity to generate
sales-tax income. On top of that, Apple is getting a massive density-bonus for the addition of a
small ground-level store. Will the increase in size of this building cause an increase in
employees and housing demand?
A large-employer head-count tax would mitigate these impacts. On July 31, 2018, the City
Council had explored this idea, which does not appear to be on the table right now. Now is the
time to reconsider the large-employer head-count tax.
Regards,
Rhoda Fry
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212 www.cupertino.org
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-7603 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: July 31, 2018
Subject
Proposed measure to restructure Cupertino’s basic business license tax from a tax based
on square footage to a tax based on employee count.
Recommendation
Take action to approve submission to the voters of a measure to amend the Ci ty’s
business license tax or defer the measure and provide further direction to staff. Council
can take the following actions:
A. (1) Adopt draft Resolution No. 18-, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City
of Cupertino ordering the submission to the qualified electors of the City a
measure to amend the business license tax at the Tuesday, November 6, 2018
general election called by Resolution No. 18-054, and providing for written
arguments regarding the measure and directing the City Attorney to prepare an
impartial analysis”; and (2) submit to voters at the November 6, 2018 General
Municipal Election “An Ordinance of the people of the City of Cupertino
amending Chapter 5.04 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding business
license taxes, fees, and charges;” or
B. Defer placing the business license tax measure to the November 2020 election and
direct staff to undertake further study and continue working with stakeholders on
preparing a transportation spending plan and draft business license tax measure.
Background
The City’s business license tax was enacted in 1992 with minor amendments in 2001.
Rates have been increased periodically based on inflation and are estimated to generate
approximately $800,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2017-18. Council requested that staff work on
a proposal to restructure the City’s business license tax from a square footage -based tax
to an employee-based tax as part of the FY 2018-19 Work Program.
As shown in the timeline below, staff has presented information on restructuring the
City’s business license tax at three previous Council study sessions.
Date Activity
March 6, 2018 Council adopts work plan
May 23-25, 2018 Public opinion poll
June 5, 2018 Study session – Council directs staff to develop several models for
restructuring the business tax and conducting business outreach
June 18, 2018 Business outreach, including forum
June 19, 2018 Study session – Council directs staff to prepare sample resolution
and ordinance for November 2019
July 3, 2018 Study session - Council directs staff to prepare draft resolution and
ordinance for November 2018 election and conduct additional
outreach
Discussion
Per Council direction at the July 3, 2018 study session, staff has refined business tax
models previously presented to Council to generate proposed revenue targets, prepared
a draft resolution placing the business tax measure on the November 6, 2018 ballot,
prepared a draft ordinance, drafted a sample resolution for spending priorities, engaged
in community and business outreach, and conducted community polls to test the ballot
language.
Business Tax Models
Based on Council direction, staff prepared two tax models estimated to generate $8
million and $10 million in revenue. As previously presented, the models protect small
and medium size businesses from the impacts of a per employee tax rate with businesses
paying a flat fee for the first 99 employees. The employee tax rate progressively increases
as the number of employees increase. The effective tax rate summarizes the total
estimated business tax by total estimated number of employees.
Model 1: Per Employee Rates Up to $325
Employee
Range
# of
Businesses
% of
Businesses
in Tier
Estimated
#
Employees
Base
Rate
Employee
Rate Total BL Tax
Effective
Tax Rate
1-9 3,128 89.4%3,400 150$ -$ 469,200$
10-49 300 8.6%4,000 250$ -$ 75,000$
50-99 40 1.1%2,400 500$ -$ 20,000$
100-249 25 0.7%3,300 500$ 50$ 53,750$ 16$
250-499 5 0.1%1,300 500$ 100$ 45,250$ 35$
500-999 1 0.0%600 500$ 175$ 50,525$ 84$
1,000-4,999 0.0%500$ 250$ -$
5,000+1 0.0%24,000 500$ 325$ 7,295,250$ 304$
Total 3,500 100.0%39,000 8,008,975$
Draft Resolution
Staff worked with outside counsel and the City Attorney’s Office to draft a resolution
adding a measure to amend the business license tax on the November 6, 2018 election
(Attachment A). The ballot question was drafted in consultation with the Council’s ad-
hoc committee (Council Member Steven Scharf and Council Member Barry Chang),
however, no consensus was reached. The committee recommended two ballot questions
for Council consideration:
A. Shall the measure to fund priorities such as infrastructure to reduce traffic
congestion in Cupertino by imposing a yearly general business license tax of $150
to $500 per business, plus a progressively increasing per-employee rate of $50
(100+ employees) to $425 (5,000+ employees), replacing the existing square
footage-based business license tax, raising about $10 million yearly for general
fund purposes, effective until voters amend or appeal it, with annual audits, be
adopted?
B. Shall the measure to fund priorities such as infrastructure to reduce traffic
congestion in Cupertino by imposing a yearly business license tax of $8 to $392 per
employee, on average, with larger companies paying more per employee,
replacing the existing square footage-based business license tax with no changes
to provisions for particular businesses taxes, generating about $10 million yearly
for general fund purposes, until ended by voters, with independent yearly audits,
be adopted?
Option A explains the proposed tax structure, whereas option B focuses on the effective
per-employee rate of the overall tax. Both questions are legally acceptable. Outside legal
Model 2: Per Employee Rates Up to $425
Employee
Range
# of
Businesses
% of
Businesses
in Tier
Estimated
#
Employees
Base
Rate
Employee
Rate Total BL Tax
Effective
Tax Rate
1-9 3,128 89.4%3,400 150$ -$ 469,200$
10-49 300 8.6%4,000 500$ -$ 150,000$
50-99 40 1.1%2,400 500$ -$ 20,000$
100-249 25 0.7%3,300 500$ 50$ 53,750$ 16$
250-499 5 0.1%1,300 500$ 100$ 45,250$ 35$
500-999 1 0.0%600 500$ 200$ 53,050$ 88$
1,000-4,999 0.0%500$ 300$ -$
5,000+1 0.0%24,000 500$ 425$ 9,407,775$ 392$
Total 3,500 100.0%39,000 10,199,025$
counsel recommended option B, which is most similar to Mountain View’s ballot
question, however polling revealed that option A may be slightly more successful. For
this reason, staff included the option A language in the draft resolution.
Draft Ordinance
The draft ordinance (Attachment B) is modeled after Mountain View’s proposed
measure. However, staff retained some provisions from our current business license tax
code. Below is a summary of the key provisions of the draft ordinance:
Replaces the “basic license” currently calculated based on square footage with one
based on employee-count
Proposes the Model 2 structure that generates approximately $10 million per year
with an effective per employee tax rate of $17 to $392 for businesses with 100 or
more employees (basic license only).
Retains rates for specified business, including auctioneers, amusement centers,
apartments, coin operated devices, concerts/circuses/performances, contractors,
home occupations, hotels/motels/lodging houses, lumberyards/materials
yard/junkyards/nurseries, mobile vendors, private schools, rest/care
homes/childcare centers, seasonal lot sales, solicitors, taxicabs, and
theatres/shows.
Maintains a reduced rate for small income business with gross receipts of $1,000-
$5,000 of $75 (or half the flat rate fee for businesses with 1-10 employees).
Businesses with less than $1,000 in gross receipts are exempt from the business
license fee.
Requires out-of-town businesses pay the same incremental tax rate based on
number of employees, but prorated based on the average number of days working
in the City in a calendar year (similar to San Jose).
Authorizes Council to adjust the tax for CPI increases, subject to the annual fee
resolution.
Makes tax effective in 2020 for the smaller businesses subject to the flat
“registration fee” with larger companies phased in from 2020 to 2022.
New provisions not currently included in the City’s business license tax ordinance were
included based on best practices from Mountain View’s model ordinance:
Allows for the Council to establish business license application and renewal fees
to recover the cost of processing business licenses as part of the annual adoption
of the City fee schedule.
Includes a disturbance response charge for any disturbance which is directly or
indirectly caused by a violation of business license provisions.
Allows City to deny or suspend a business license for criminal convictions related
to the business, felony convictions, and convictions for acts involving dishonesty,
fraud, or deceit.
The draft ordinance currently does not include a sunset provision, which is similar to
Mountain View’s measure.
Spending Priorities
Council requested information on a resolution that would signal to voters the Council’s
commitment to use the revenue generated from the measure for transportation purposes.
Staff has included a sample resolution (Attachment D) that could serve this purpose.
Mountain View is using this approach for their ballot measure. However, it should be
noted that such resolutions are not binding and spending priorities could be changed by
subsequent Councils.
Business Outreach
Given the limited timeframe, staff targeted business outreach to the Cupertino Chamber
of Commerce and the approximately 30 businesses that would likely be impacted by the
restructuring. Email messages explaining the possibility of a business license tax
restructuring and its implications to local businesses were sent to larger employers
including Apple, Seagate, The Forum at San Antonio, Kaiser, Target, Whole Foods, and
the California Restaurant Association (CRA). The email message requested an
opportunity to meet one-on-one for a briefing on the issue. Phone messages were also left
for store managers of Safeway and Ranch 99 who do not have a working email on file.
Follow-up calls were made to and messages left for these larger employers who did not
send representatives to the Business Forum event on Monday, June 18, 2018 with a
request to meet in person or via conference call.
A second Business License Tax Forum was held on Tuesday, July 24 from 9:30am-11:00am
at Cupertino Community Hall. The Business License Tax Forum was promoted in the
City’s Economic Development Business Buzz electronic newsletter issued on July 23,
2018. Invitation emails were sent to property managers of Nineteen800, The Marketplace,
Main Street, Homestead Square, and the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, and CRA
inviting their tenants and members to attend and provide their input. Forum flyers were
distributed at the Chamber’s July 13, 2018 Legislative Action Committee Meeting.
At both Business Forums, attendees expressed that they believe it is a rushed process.
They would like more time for the City to meaningfully engage with stakeholders
(businesses and residents) in order to identify and discuss the best possible business tax
structure to fund transportation projects. They voiced that there must be a clear link
between the tax revenues raised and the intended projects. Additionally, the attendees
felt regional transportation projects would be most effective in addressing the area’s
transportation issues.
Staff also engaged one-on-one with the City’s largest employer and business groups, and
has a scheduled meeting with the City’s second largest employer. Based on one-on-one
conversations with these business leaders, including the Chamber of Commerce, there is
a recognition that traffic is a significant issue affecting both residents and businesses.
However, there continues to be concern that this measure does not provide a spending
plan that clearly articulates how this measure would provide a solution to traffic
congestion. They recommend that Council consider partnering with the business
community to study potential solutions to traffic congestion instead of pursuing the
proposed business license tax measure.
The Cupertino Chamber of Commerce has committed to partnering with the City to
explore transportation solutions and has begun meeting with staff on a weekly basis. An
Apple representative has also been in attendance and expressed support for such a
collaborative approach, but the company has not yet committed to a partnership. Both
the Chamber and Apple have expressed deep concern with the short timeline and limited
dialogue regarding a restructured business license tax. They would like more time to
explore transportation solutions and funding options with the City and are requesting
that Council consider delaying the proposed measure to 2020 if alternative funding
cannot be secured.
Community Outreach
To provide information on the proposed business license tax measure, staff created a
webpage on the City’s website (www.cupertino.org/businesstax) with background
information for residents and businesses interested in the issue.
In addition, staff used Open City Hall to conduct a short survey on support for an
employee-based business tax and funding preferences, which was promoted through
Nextdoor and our BizBuzz Newsletter. The survey had over 85 responses. The vast
majority of respondents reported that they live and/or work in Cupertino, however, only
about half are registered users that have been verified by the platform. It’s important to
note that Open Town Hall survey is a self-selected survey and not a scientific poll that is
statistically valid.
Among registered respondents, nearly 43% of respondents in the Open City Hall survey
expressed support for a restructured business license tax with 49% opposed and 8%
undecided. Including both registered and non-registered respondents, support for the
measure was only 38% with 56% opposed. Support for enhancing pedestrian/cyclist
safety, local community shuttle, and improving mass transit in the West Valley all
received 35-37% support.
Scientific Voter Polling
Staff also conducted three scientific polls with a third-party polling firm, Voxolca. In May,
nearly 71% of likely November voters said they would support an increase in the business
license tax with large business paying more than small businesses. The poll also showed
63% support for an increase in the business license tax for general purposes. However,
when polled on the specific ballot questions in July, support eroded.
Voxloca conducted two polls of 300 likely November voters testing the two ballot
question options the week of July 16-23, 2018 (Attachment E). In addition to a ballot
question, the polls presented two arguments for and two arguments against the measure
to determine the impact of messaging on support for the measure. Respondents were also
asked what the most important factor was in considering the proposed business license
tax measure.
Overall, the polling results show less support for this specific proposal compared to initial
polling results. Both polls show initial support of 49% with 7-8% undecided. After
presenting arguments for and against the measure, support increased to 51% in one poll
and 55% in the other. Respondents indicated that the most important factor in
considering the ballot measure was a well-designed spending plan and long-term
stability and growth.
While a solid majority of respondents believe that it is fair for businesses to pay more to
fund transportation improvements in Cupertino, a super majority agree with the “blank
check” argument that this is a general tax measure with no transit solution. Given these
polling results, staff is not confident that the proposed measure would be successful if
placed on the November 2018 ballot.
Implementation Considerations
Implementing a revised ordinance will require some internal analysis of business license
processing related to the City’s current business license application as well as the policies
and procedures regarding the administration and collection of business license taxes and
processing fees, respectively.
Additional resources will be vital in order to remain operationally efficient and compliant
as we transition to a new collection structure . If the measure is implemented, the new
collection structure will require additional staffing and/or outside consultant support to
ensure compliance with the new fees. Most significantly, the number of employees (full-
time and part-time) will need to be obtained and recorded, information which has never
been requested of applicants. Upon receiving head-count information from applicants,
staff will need to verify this information via form DE -9C, submitted to the Employment
Development Department. Ongoing staffing and/or consultant help may be required to
monitor and ensure that all business are in compliance with the City’s new business
license fees.
Additionally, there will be a financial and staffing cost to reconfigure, adjust, and test the
City’s enterprise system from a fee based on square footage to a fee based on employee
count, which is anticipated to take at least six months’ time. Staff will also need 6-12
months to notify businesses of the change.
Staff Recommendation
Options for Council to consider, include:
1. Approving the draft resolution and draft ordinance to place the measure on the
ballot for November 2018, authorize the subcommittee to prepare arguments and
rebuttals for the proposal, and consider adopting a resolution on spending
priorities at a future meeting.
2. Defer placing the measure on the ballot until 2020 and direct staff to continue
working with business partners, including the Chamber of Commerce, on
transportation solutions with the goal of developing a spending and funding plan
by December 2019. This timeline would allow for more robust community and
business engagement for a potential revenue measure in November 2020, if
alternative funding is not identified.
Given that polling data does not show a clear majority of residents would support the
proposal currently being considered by Council and the busines s community has been
unsupportive for moving forward in November 2018, staff recommends that Council
consider deferring the ballot measure to 2020. This would give staff time to meaningfully
engage with all stakeholders to develop an infrastructure spending plan and work with
the Chamber of Commerce and large businesses to consider a partnership for alternative
funding, while working on the restructuring of the business license tax.
A November 2020 target, would also provide staff with ample time to prepare an internal
transition plan and external communication plan. This may shorten the lead time needed
to implement the tax and still allow full implementation by 2022, instead of the proposed
phase in starting in 2020 with full implementation in 2022.
Sustainability Impact
To the extent that revenue measures support transportation infrastructure that reduces
single vehicle miles traveled in Cupertino, there would be a reduction in greenhouse
gases.
Fiscal Impact
If approved by voters, the proposed business license tax measure could increase revenues
by millions of dollars and provide a consistent source of revenue for infrastructure
projects. However, it is also anticipated that additional staffing, consultant, and system
reconfiguration costs will be incurred to implement and monitor the new fee structure.
The two business license models proposed will be more than adequate to support the
additional resources required.
Prepared by: Jaqui Guzmán, Deputy City Manager
Reviewed by: Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager
Approved for Submission by: Amy Chan, Interim City Manager
Attachments:
A – Draft resolution
B – Draft ordinance
C – Redlined draft ordinance
D – Sample resolution on spending priorities
E – Scientific voter polls
From:Rhoda Fry
To:City Clerk
Cc:Kristina Alfaro; Thomas Leung
Subject:Public Comment 4/13 Agenda Item #6 budget shortfall
Date:Tuesday, April 11, 2023 8:14:48 AM
Attachments:Budget Shortfall 4-13-23 City Council item 6.pdf
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 Clerk,
Please include the text of the attachment for Public Comment 4/13 Agenda Item #6 budget shortfall
Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
1 of 5
PLEASE INCLUDE THE TEXT OF THIS ATTACHMENT IN WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
RE: 4/13/2023 Agenda #6 CDTFA Audit - Questions, Comments, & Revenue Generation and Savings Ideas
From: Rhoda Fry (40-year resident, recipient of 2022 CREST award for public safety)
Dear City Council, City Clerk, Finance Team,
1. When in March did the City get the call from CDTFA? City Council has been asked to make various
financial commitments, even though the staff knew that the CDTFA audit was coming in December 2021 (and
finally revealed it in May 2023). We only learned how bad it was on April 4 during oral communications when
the Shakespeare in the Park organization announced the risk of cancellation by the Parks Dept. on March 30.
2. What is the status of the Apple (and Insight) tax-sharing agreement?
Excerpt of Apple Agreement (emphasis added)
If, for any fiscal year during the term covered by this Agreement, new local tax revenue exceeds Two Hundred
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000), then Consultant shall receive the sum of Sixty Two Thousand Five Hundred
Dollars ($62,500) plus an amount equal to thirty-five percent (35%) of all such new local tax revenue in
excess of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000).” The Tax Consulting Agreement shall also include
provisions that require payments, refunds and deposits into escrow so that the compensation paid by the City
thereunder shall accurately reflect the tax revenues allocated to and retained by the City. Apple represents
that it has not entered into a tax consulting agreement, similar to the existing Tax Consulting Agreement, with
any other city and/or county in California, and Apple agrees not to do so during the term of this Agreement.
The amendment to the Tax Consulting Agreement shall be effective no later than thirty-one (31) days after
the expiration of all applicable challenge periods to the Project Approvals, without the filing of litigation. Apple
will assist City at Apple’s sole expense in defending against any administrative proceedings instituted by the
State Board of Equalization relating to whether the City is the proper point -of-sale location.
cupertino.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=18&clip_id=1551&meta_id=85282
3. How did staff arrive at the 73% reduction in sales/use tax calculation? Also, this is 73% reduction of
what number? One would expect an asynchronous relationship between sales outside of Cupertino for
Apple/Insight products and general sales within Cupertino. Notice how sales/use tax i ncome has varied greatly
and increased substantially in 2020. The graphs below were created from data extracted from cdtfa.gov.
4. When will we know whether the City will have to pay back revenues already received?
Can staff please create a chart that illustrates the worst case scenario of pay backs?
5. If there are pay backs, will Apple and Insight refund their 35% share that the City paid them?
You can learn more about tax-sharing agreements by reading these articles:
bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-23/e-commerce-sales-tax-deals-flow-to-only-some-california-cities
news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report-state/apple-taps-covid-shopping-boom-for-record-tax-haul-in-hometown
news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report-state/apples-hometown-pays-70-million-and-counting-to-keep-hq
news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-tax-report-state/apples-22-year-tax-break-part-of-billions-in-california-bounty
6. What has the City done to dispute the CDTFA audit?
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
Cupertino Sales Tax Per Capita Income in $
0
5
10
15
20
25
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
20
2
0
20
2
1
20
2
2
20
2
3
Deposits by Fiscal Quarter in $M
q3 q4 q1 q2
2 of 5
7. What is the reason for the significant decline in sales/use tax revenue in calendar quarters Q4 2022 and
Q1 2023 and what are those projections? We will not know what the true-up (reconciliation of estimates vs
actual) for Q1 until May 24, 2023.
8. Please explain more about the County tax pool and how it worked in the past and how it will work in the
future? How is it connected with the audit? The tax share had been 7.6% (5/21/2019 council packet page 278).
9. Regarding staffing payroll, how competitive are Cupertino salaries as compared with neighboring cities?
If we cut pay, are we at risk of losing our most experienced employees? How do the wage-reduction
strategies compare with what was proposed in August 2022? (See the 23rd page, Expenditure Reduction
Strategies) The 8/16/2022 City Council Agenda Packet (page 1175) predicted a potential salary impact due to the
CDTFA audit; it is unclear as to how this statement maps onto the slide presentation: Effective the first full pay
period after July 1, 2022, a 5.0% salary increase will be added to the salary range of each classification in this
bargaining unit. The parties further agree to reopen wage negotiations for FY23-24 and FY24-25 upon the
California Department of Tax and Fee Administration’s (CDTFA) completion of the sales tax review, but in no
event later than March 1, 2023. The union may propose changes to salary steps, deferred compensation and
special skills compensation as part of the wage reopener discussion.
10. The June 7 2022 final budget shows impacts of the CDTFA audit; these slides were not shown again in
subsequent budget discussions (agenda item #38 Staff Report page 8). Other predictions were provided on
05/17/2022, shown later in this document. Why are the April 2023 impacts different? Please also create new
slides that go back to 2013 to provide better context (as has been done with staffing).
CDTFA Anticipated Impact on Revenues and Expenses
June 7 2022 – Blue line on top April 4 2023 – Red line on top
CDTFA Anticipated Impact on General Fund
June 7 2022 – Minor Impact April 4 2023 – Major Impact
3 of 5
11. What is being done to make sure that we have the right jobs filled and less critical jobs reduced? With
respect to staffing levels, freezing vacant positions might not get us the right mix of staffing needs.
12. Will this situation affect our bond rating? How is the bond rating determined?
13. On the 19th page, Fund Balance Impacts, why isn’t the Economic Uncertainty Reserve being used?
14. On the 19th page, is the suggestion to borrow or to appropriate the Section 115 Pension Trust?
15. On the 19th page, use (or non-use) of the OPEB trust is not mentioned but it is on the 21st page, Budget
Balancing Strategies. Why?
16. No assets should be sold aside from Byrne. The Byrne house had been well-maintained. Since the City
purchased it, it has been vacant and is causing blight in the neighborhood. It should be sold. We cannot replace
open space, our water, or even easily replace the City annex building.
REVENUE GENERATION IDEAS
1. Institute a large-company head-count tax as had been previously proposed at City Council July 31, 2018
agenda item #5: Proposed measure to restructure Cupertino’s basic business license tax from a tax based on
square footage to a tax based on employee count.
cupertino.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6034631&GUID=D5F90545-7ACB-43C8-9C52-
A230702D6E15&Options=&Search=
2. Attract high sales-tax generating businesses to Cupertino.
3. Increase room rental fees and only 501c3 organizations get reduced rates (not membership organizations).
4. Ensure that all subcontractors have current business licenses (as other cities do)
5. Reduce/eliminate subsidies on festivals run by organizations that profit from them (note Ikebana does not
make money). Work on public/private support strategies for July 4 fireworks, Shakespeare, etc.…
6. Create a grass-roots “Buy-Cupertino” initiative – put on website and newsletter
SAVINGS IDEAS
1. Consider CIPs or ongoing contracts that can be removed/modified
2. Lower thresholds on expenses to be approved without City Council approval
3. Restore Audit Committee to monthly
4. Make sure that expenses are assigned to the proper budget line items (too many items are being assigned to
the General Fund)
5. Track amenities that run like businesses such as the Senior Center and Blackberry Farm pool/picnic (these
were previously tracked as enterprise funds and are no more - - - and by the way, money was taken out of the
Golf fund that should not have been, such as numerous studies) and make appropriate adjustments of fees
6. Increase non-resident fees (and resident fees) – that and others can be done pre-emptively before the Matrix
report becomes available
7. Does the Parks and Rec catalog need to be mailed to all residents – can a postcard be sent out to mention that
it is available online? At least offer an opt-out for the catalog and send only postcard reminder.
8. Stop replacing vehicles so quickly (I had my car for 27 years until it was totaled last year in a head-on
accident while I was stopped at a stop sign).
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
12/??/21: City staff first becomes aware of the CDTFA audit by letter
01/03/2022: City Manager Jim Throop installed as City Manager
03/20/2022: Staff salary negotiations (would the outcome have been different had we been notified?)
4 of 5
05/??/2022: Second letter received by City staff regarding the CDTFA audit
05/17/2022: In the City Council Proposed Budget (agenda item #41), Council was finally made aware of the
CDTFA audit. Only the medium impact (Forecast B) is shown. Staff salaries and health benefits are up by 5%
and 7%, respectively. The Proposed Budget slides on 5/17/2022 do not resemble the Adopted Budget slides
on 06/07/2022. And now, the CDTFA audit prediction outlook is again different. Why?
Proposed Budget Slides Shown on 05/17/2022 differ from Adopted Budget Slides Shown on 06/07/22
Proposed Budget Slides Shown on 05/17/2022 (agenda #41)
Adopted Budget Slide Shown on 06/07/2022 does not resemble the 05/17/2022 slides above
(agenda item #38, staff report page 8)
06/21/2022: City Manager Jim Throop resigns. In the FY 2022-23 Budget at a Glance, he stated: The City is
currently in the midst of a sales tax audit by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration
(CDTFA). The impact of this audit is unknown but it has the potential to have a significant impact on the
City’s sales tax revenue. Once more information is known, staff will provide updates to City Council. The
proposed budget does take into consideration a potential reduction in sales tax revenue, as the City does
take a conservative stance in financial matters . . . Our City has a strong financial foundation to build
upon for the successful future of Cupertino. And it will be more incredible than any of us can
possibly imagine. Jim Throop, City Manager
link: cupertino.org/our-city/departments/finance/budget-at-a-
glance#:~:text=The%20City%20is%20on%20solid,funded%20by%20%24130%2C244%2C157%20in%20revenue.
5 of 5
11/15/2022 City Council Agenda Packet (page 599): Due to the uncertainty around a California Department
of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) sales tax audit of one of the City’s taxpayers, City staff is not
recommending any transfers to reserves currently. The impact of this audit is unknown but has the
potential to significantly affect the City’s sales tax revenues. Staff anticipates bringing recommendations on
the use of fund balance to the City Council at mid-year in March 2023 once more information regarding the
sales tax audit is available. The Financial Report (item #23) does not show the CDTFA audit impact that was
predicted in May and June and does not mention potential impact on employee salaries.
12/13/2022 The staff report mentions an Administrative Key Project that will: Lead, plan, and strategize
impacts of California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) audit. Where is that project?
02/08/23 Councilmember Chao requests a future agenda item: Fee Administration (CDTFA) and upcoming
legislation. This idea is deferred. (City Council packet page 44).
02/21/2023 The City Hall Subcommittee reports back that the CDTFA Audit has the potential for short- and
long-term funding impacts. (City Council Agenda item #5 page 3).
03/7/2023 City Council Agenda Packet (pages 33 and 34): As of mid-year, all priority areas have been fully
funded. Per the City’s Fund Balance policy, it has been the City’s practice to recommend the transfer of
unassigned fund policy, it has been the City’s practice to recommend the transfer of unassigned fund
recommending the use of unassigned fund balance at mid-year due to the uncertainty recommending the
use of unassigned fund balance at mid-year due to the uncertainty Department of Tax and Fee
Administration (CDTFA). While the impact of this audit is unknown, it has the potential to significantly affect
the City's sales tax revenues.
records.cupertino.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1012592&page=34&dbid=0&repo=CityofCupertino&searc
hid=e2b5033f-8c39-40d4-83db-d0d488fa0243
Mid-Year Financial Report: Shows sales tax income down by 28% between mid-year 2022 and mid-year 2023
and other reductions (TOT is up). Staff does not make any recommendations as to appropriations or revenues at
mid-year. The City will continue to monitor its expenditure and revenue trends. There is mention of a staffing
addition for a limited-term special project executive (did this happen?) A slide mentions a CDTFA audit update
but there is no further detail.
03/??/2023 City staff receives a phone call about the CDTFA audit from the State.
04/04/2023 City Council Oral Communications - Residents mention zero sales tax income for February and
concerns about CDTFA audit. Shakespeare in the Park executive director reports potential cancellation by
Parks and Rec due to lack of funds.
04/13/2023 City Council Agenda #6 Catastrophic change in budget outlook due to CDTFA audit and
City Council Closed Session 54957.6 Conference with labor negotiators.
From:Peggy Griffin
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:2023-04-13 City Council Mtg-ITEM6 FY 2023-24 Budget Forecast - CIP and WORK PLAN ITEMS
Date:Tuesday, April 11, 2023 11:23:07 PM
Attachments:CC 02-21-23 Item #1 City Hall Renovation Responses to Councilmember Questions Attachment CIP Projects
List.pdf
P16of29 2023-03-01 Presentation Work Plan-existing funding Qtr2 FY 22-23.pdf
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 AND BOTH ATTACHMENTS AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
FOR THE 4-13-2023 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #6 FY 2023-24 BUDGET FORECAST.
Dear City Council,
I’ve attached the following 2 documents I thought might be helpful to you:
latest CIP Projects list provided in the 2-21-2023 Written Communications
Work Plan Items as of FY 2022-23 Qtr2. City Manager Wu stated Qtr3 would be on the
website at the end of April 2023.
As you can see, there are several big ticket items that can be postponed or significantly reduced in
scope to help mitigate this budget situation.
Do a complete review of all CIP and Work Plan projects
Projects can be brought to a close/postpone state.
Q: What contracts can be paused, discontinued or not signed?
Stop the subsidies, fee waivers, free use of facilities all over the city
Lower the contract approval amount for staff.
Lower/significantly reduce the spending accounts/contingency accounts.
Add an opt in for electronic receipt of the Parks and Rec brochures and the Cupertino Scene
to reduce printing costs. Use cheaper paper.
REQUEST: DO NOT SELL ASSETS, except the Byrne property. It does not solve the problem of living
within our means. Solve the problem! Every bit of savings helps.
You are all bright, creative people. PLEASE work together on this. You each bring skills to the table.
Peggy Griffin
ATTACHMENT A
List of Proposed FY22-23 CIP Projects
PROJECT TITLE PROJECT TYPE/
COMMISSION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FY22-23
budget
FY24-27 (w/o
escalation)
CATEGORY 1 - NEW PROJECTS - FISCAL YEAR 2022 -2023
Blackberry Farms Pools Splash Pad Parks &
Recreation
Design and construct a splash pad to replace the slide
feature at the Blackberry Farm Pools.
500,000$
City Hall Renovation/ Replacement
and Library Parking Garage: Design
and Construction
Facilities The full project includes Construction of both buildings,
but the proposal for this fiscal year includes only the
design and consulting services for the Library Parking
Garage, and Conceptual Design services for the City
Hall project. Phasing the work will address Civic Center
parking needs first, with a completed evaluation and
decision on options for City Hall Renovation/
Replacement to be prepared for discussion in early
2023 in advance of the next CIP budget cycle.
The City Hall scope which includes structural upgrades,
renovation of mechanical/ electrical and life-safety
infrastructure, improvements to workplace and
accessibility, and purposeful construction of the
emergency operations center (EOC). The Library
Parking garage will be a 3-story above-ground structure
in the SE corner of the existing parking lot.
4,000,000$ $75.6M
City Lighting - LED Lighting Streets &
Grounds
Implement the transition of City's streetlight
infrastructure from induction and other fixtures to LED
fixtures to meet the "Dark Sky" Ordinance
requirements and reduce light pollution and energy
cost.
1,300,000$
De Anza Boulevard Buffered Bike
Lanes
Transportation/
Bike & Ped
Restripe De Anza Blvd to include a painted buffered
zone between the existing bike lane and the vehicle
lanes.
525,000$
Jollyman All Inclusive Play Area:
Adult-Assistive Bathroom Facilities
Parks &
Recreation
Design and construct a new adult-assistive bathroom
facility adjacent to the All-Inclusive Play Area.
850,000$
Major Recreation Facilities: Use and
Market Analysis
Parks &
Recreation
Commission a report to study the possible locations for
new major recreation facilities: Aquatic, Fine Arts/
Performance and/or Recreation Facilities. Existing
recreational and arts facilities, both public and private,
will be reviewed and a recommendation based on
need, available locations, and financial investments
required. The Market Analysis and Business Plan will be
the first phase in the potential development of
additional recreation facilities in the City.
350,000$
Stocklmeir, Bryne and Blesch:
Inspection Reports and Analysis
Facilities Instigate property inspection reports and work with
outside consultants to develop initial use and business
strategies appropriate for the three residential
properties owned by the City.
50,000$
Page 1 of 3
ATTACHMENT A
List of Proposed FY22-23 CIP Projects
PROJECT TITLE PROJECT TYPE/
COMMISSION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FY22-23
budget
FY24-27 (w/o
escalation)
CATEGORY 1 - NEW PROJECTS FOR CONSIDERATION - FISCAL YEARS 2023 - 2027
ADA 2015 report
Update/Dashboard
Facilities Update the findings of the 2015 ADA self evaluation
report.
200,000$
Blackberry Farms Golf Course
Improvements
Parks &
Recreation
BBF Golf Course Use feasibility Study is currently
underway. This project proposes to secure funding for
the outcome of that Study, to continue the work as
directed by City Council and the Community.
2,500,000$
Stevens Creek Blvd Separated
Bikeway, Phase 3 - Design
Transportation/
Bike & Ped
Construct a separated Class IV bike lane along Stevens
Creek Blvd, between Highway 85 and Foothill Blvd. The
scope is for design funding only.
225,000$
Regnart Road Improvements: Ph. 3 -
6
Streets &
Grounds
This project continues the stabilization efforts along
Regnart Road and compliments the 2017 Outfall Repair
and Slope Stabilization project and the Retaining wall
project. The 2017 Regnart Road Slope Stability Study
identified several areas along Regnart Road that exhibit
poor drainage characteristics, slope stability concerns
that require partial road reconstruction in order to
avoid costly road or slope failures and lengthy road
closures. Proposed improvements include additional
drainage structures, regrading/repaving the road to
drain towards the creek, slope stabilization and erosion
control measures and retaining walls.
2,200,000$
Bollinger Road Bike Improvements Transportation/
Bike & Ped
Implement improvements as proposed in the 2021
Bollinger Road Corridor Safety Study.
1,500,000$
Carmen Road Bridge - Design Transportation/
Bike & Ped
Design a bicycle/pedestrian bridge across Stevens
Creek Blvd at Carmen Road.
750,000$
Carmen Road Bridge - Construction Transportation/
Bike & Ped
Construct a bicycle pedestrian bridge across Stevens
Creek Blvd at Carmen Road.
4,500,000$
Don Burnett Bridge LED Lighting
Upgrade
Streets &
Grounds
Upgrade the existing 16 architectural light fixtures to
LED.
150,000$
Memorial Park Softball Field LED
Lighting Upgrade
Streets &
Grounds
Upgrade the existing 38 light fixtures to LED. Existing
light fixtures are 4K 1000W Metal Halide bulbs.
150,000$
Blackberry Farm Bocce Ball Shade
Structure
Parks &
Recreation
Design and construct a new shade structure over the
player areas at the Blackberry Farm Bocce Ball Courts.
125,000$
Linda Vista Park Picnic Area Shade
Structure
Parks &
Recreation
Design and construct a shade structure over the
barbecue in the picnic area at Linda Vista Park.
125,000$
Portal Park Picnic Area Shade
Structure
Parks &
Recreation
Design and construct a shade structure over the
barbecue in the picnic area at Portal Park.
125,000$
Page 2 of 3
ATTACHMENT A
List of Proposed FY22-23 CIP Projects
PROJECT TITLE PROJECT TYPE/
COMMISSION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FY22-23
budget
FY24-27 (w/o
escalation)
CATEGORY 1 - NEW PROJECTS FOR CONSIDERATION - FISCAL YEARS 2023 - 2027
Jollyman Park Dog Off-Leash Area
(DOLA) Pathway
Parks &
Recreation
Design and construct a paved pathway to provide
access to the DOLA at Jollyman Park along the south
side of the park.
111,000$
QCC skylight renovation Facilities Replace the aging skylight with like panels and frame. 350,000$
Memorial Park - Design &
Construction
Parks &
Recreation
Design and Construction project[s] resulting from FY22-
23 Specific Design project
TBD
Lawrence Mitty Park - Design &
Construction
Parks &
Recreation
Design and Construction project[s] resulting from FY22-
23 Master Plan project
TBD
Community Hall Improvements Facilities Design and Construction project[s] resulting from IT/AV
operational upgrades required
TBD
Major Facilities [Results] -
Programming and Design
Parks &
Recreation
Major project result from the Fy22-23 study TBD
CATEGORY 2 - EXISTING PROJECTS - MULTI-YEAR FUNDING
ADA Improvements Facilities This is an ongoing program funded annually to improve
accessibility at all public facilities throughout the City.
95,000$ 100,000$
Annual Playground Replacement
(FY22-23: Creekside Tot Lot)
Parks &
Recreation
Replacement of older playground equipment that is
dated and worn, starting with Creekside (1998) and
Varian (2002) (Year 3 of 5)
300,000$ 300,000$
Park Amenity Improvements Parks &
Recreation
Funding for various park amenities such as benches,
hydration stations, outdoor table tennis, cornhole,
shade (structures and/or trees), dog-off-leash,
pickleball striping, etc. (Year 3 of 5)
200,000$ 200,000$
Street Light Installation - Annual
Infill
Streets &
Grounds
This is an ongoing program funded annually to Sesign
and install street lights on an as-needed basis.
75,000$ 75,000$
Page 3 of 3
Existing City Work Program
15
Source: www.cupertino.org/cityworkprogram
From:Rhoda Fry
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:4/13/2023 Agenda Item #6 - Rhoda Fry Presentation
Date:Wednesday, April 12, 2023 10:37:04 AM
Attachments:Presentation1 - 2023 Budget 4-14-2023.pdf
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.
Hi City Clerk,
Can you please include this presentation in the comment packet inline (rather than just a link).
Also, I would appreciate it if you could show it during my public comments on this item on Thursday.
Thank You very much,
Rhoda Fry
Projected Decline in Sales/Use Tax Revenue
Comments / Questions / Solutions
(our neighbor cities get by with less –we can too –where’d all the money go?)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Per Capita Sales Tax Income per Year by City
Cupertino San Jose Los Altos Mountain View Saratoga Sunnyvale
Why a Variety of Predictions –Which one is Right?
December 2021, Staff Notified of Audit –May 2022 Council/Public Notified with 3 Scenarios
June 9, 2022
Report Looks Good
Anticipates minor impact and
assures that “Our City has a
strong financial foundation to build
upon for the successful future of
Cupertino. And it will be more
incredible than any of us can
possibly imagine. Jim Throop, City
Manager”
June 21, 2022
City Manager Resigns
No Update until April 4, 2022. We continue
spending. Why is new outlook so bad? No
scenario for potential payback.
August 16, 2022
Potential salary impact due to CDTFA -tbd no later than March 1 2023
CDTFA Audit Anticipated Impact on Revenues and Expenses
June 7 2022 –Minor Impact
(blue line on top)
April 4 2023 –Major Impact
(blue line on bottom)
… without worst-case scenario
How to Make Up for Lost Revenue Moving Forward?
DO NOT SELL IRREPLACABLE ASSETS LIKE
WATER and OPEN SPACE
WATER –Selling our water rights to a separate company over which we have no control is not okay.
San Jose Water is owned by SJW Group, a publicly-traded company that also owns Connecticut Water
Company in CT; Maine Water Company in Maine; and Texas Water Company in Texas .
OPEN SPACE –You can’t replace it. We voted for the Utility Users Tax (UUT) in order to
purchase the Blackberry Farm property from the Nelson Family to prevent development. The Golf Course
offers a unique recreational area for our residents and provides for a riparian habitat wildlife buffer –at
night, there are coyotes. We do not want to push wildlife into neighborhoods.
CITY HALL ANNEX –Perfect home for our Emergency Response Team (ERT) that saves
money on the City Hall renovation. ERC building standards need to be higher than those of other
municipal buildings, so it is best to have it in a separate smaller building. It also provides space for staff
during City Hall renovation.
Revenue Side Opportunity not Mentioned in Presentation
Large-Company Head-Count Tax
Discussed in 2018 when Cupertino was receiving $0.65 in sales tax per $100 for all online purchases in
California of Apple goods . It looks like this arrangement is going away. Cupertino large companies include:
Apple, The Forum at San Antonio, Kaiser, Target, and Whole Foods. This tax provides a way to mitigate City
costs in loss of revenue from retail (newly proposed Apple building is zoned for all ground floor retail), traffic,
increased housing cost (we need permanent affordable housing –developer agreements are temporary).
Neighbor Cities have Large-Company Head-Count Tax
Mountain View, City of Santa Clara, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale . . .
(East Palo Alto has a commercial office-space tax)
No Increases in UUT, Parcel Taxes, Hotel Taxes
•Utility costs are going up,City will naturally get more revenue
(and it was originally put in place to buy Blackberry Farm)
•Parcel Tax, no recent success on school tax, already have parcel taxes
•TOT (Transient Occupancy Tax) already in place and burden would be mainly on hotels
---Please Read Rhoda Fry’s 5-page response for more ideas ---
SAVINGS IDEAS (from Rhoda Fry written comments)
1.Consider CIPs or ongoing contracts that can be removed/modified
2.Lower thresholds on expenses to be approved without City Council approval
3.Restore Audit Committee to monthly
4.Make sure that expenses are assigned to the proper budget line items (too many items assigned to General Fund)
5.Track amenities that run like businesses such as the Senior Center and Blackberry Farm pool/picnic (these were
previously tracked as enterprise funds and are no more ---and by the way, money was taken out of the Golf fund that
should not have been, such as numerous studies) and make appropriate adjustments of fees
6.Reduce Subsidies by increasing non-resident fees (and resident fees)
can be done pre-emptively before the Matrix report becomes available
7.Does the Parks and Rec catalog need to be mailed to all residents –can a postcard be sent out to mention that it is
available online? At least offer an opt-out for the catalog and send only postcard reminder.
8.Stop replacing vehicles so quickly
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Per Capita Sales Tax Income per Year by City
Cupertino San Jose Los Altos
Mountain View Saratoga Sunnyvale
Work Smarter
other Cities manage with
less sales-tax revenue per
person than we have
Dear Honorable Mayor Wei, City Council, and City Manager:
It's extremely shortsighted to try to balance the Cupertino budget with one-time sales of City assets like the Blackberry Farm golf course, the new building for the Emergency Operations
Center, or the Monta Vista city-owned water system.
Cupertino needs to make cuts that will reduce ongoing expenditures and implement revenue enhancement measures. Some of these will be unpopular and painful but the long term outlook
for revenue is not likely to improve.
Suggested Budget Cuts
1. No more fee waivers for use of city facilities
2. Reduce road paving and let pavement condition fall to "good" from "very good." Cupertino presently has the best pavement condition in the entire Bay Area and there is no reason to
continue spending so much money on road paving.
3. Eliminate City-paid maintenance of sidewalks, requiring property owners to pay for repairs, like in San Jose and San Francisco.
4. Eliminate City subsidy for extended library hours. This will be very unpopular but the City can put a tax measure on the ballot to raise money to restore extended hours.
5. Eliminate City-funded tree replacement in front of houses.
6. Eliminate non-essential travel, i.e. Sister-City trips, including the trip up for approval on April 13th.
7. Extend time between computer and phone replacement.
8. Extend time between city vehicle replacement.
9. No new unnecessary capital projects like a new City Hall.
10. 15% budget cut across departments.
11. Eliminate deputy or assistant city manager position.
12. Do not fill empty FTE openings.
13. Eliminate City payments to Cupertino Chamber of Commerce.
14. Eliminate City subsidies to non-profit groups.
15. Eliminate the VIA shuttle once grant funding is used up.
16. Make the Cupertino Scene online-only.
Revenue Enhancement (voter approval required)
1. Increase Transient Occupancy Tax to 14% (same as Palo Alto).
2. Implement employee head tax like Mountain View. Mountain View’s tax is $150 per employee over 5000, but Cupertino could go higher, maybe $250 or $300. This would partially offset
the loss of sales tax revenue from Apple.
3. Try for a parcel tax to fund specific infrastructure: library hours, parks, streets.
Revenue Enhancement (no voter approval required)
1. Raise impact fees to what nexus studies justify (stop subsidizing private developers with impact fees that do not properly mitigate impacts).
Please do not reduce spending on public safety.
Sincerely
Ram Kumar
Cupertino Resident
RamBKumar95014@gmail.com
Reply Forward
From:Ram Kumar
To:Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk; City Council
Subject:Written communications for April 13 2023 City Council Meeting
Date:Wednesday, April 12, 2023 12:35:33 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.