CC 04-16-2026 Item No. 4. Accounts Payable_Supplemental Report1
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL 1
Meeting: April 16, 2024
Agenda Item #4
Subject
Ratifying Accounts Payable for the periods ending March 1, 2024; March 8, 2024; March 15,
2024; March 22, 2024; and March 29, 2024
Recommended Action
A. Adopt Resolution no. 24-XXX ratifying Accounts Payable for the Period ending March 1,
2024;
B. Adopt Resolution no. 24-XXX ratifying Accounts Payable for the Period ending March 8,
2024;
C. Adopt Resolution no. 24-XXX ratifying Accounts Payable for the Period ending March 15,
2024;
D. Adopt Resolution no. 24-XXX ratifying Accounts Payable for the Period ending March 22,
2024; and
E. Adopt Resolution no. 24-XXX ratifying Accounts Payable for the Period ending March 29,
2024
Background:
Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmembers are shown in italics.
Q1: Page 4 of 23 #734253 Billing for July-Dec 23 Clean Water & Storm Protection Fees
$10,500.76. The Accounts payable is listed as "City of Cupertino". Was the amount an
internal transfer? It was paid to the City of Cupertino from the City of Cupertino. Please
advise. Thanks. (Council member Wei)
Staff Response: The transaction pertains to billings from the special fund Environmental
Management/Clean Creek/Storm Drain (Fund 230) to the General Fund (Fund 100), as well as the
enterprise funds Blackberry Farm (Fund 560), Sports Center (Fund 570), and Recreation Program
(Fund 580) for the Clean Water and Storm Protection Fees spanning from July to December 2023.
These fees are traditionally collected via the tax roll for residential and commercial properties.
2
However, given that the City is exempt from property taxes, the Special Revenue Fund manages
these fees by invoicing the General Fund and enterprise funds for their respective allocations. The
Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee passed in 2019 is a Proposition 218 fee, and therefore, no
properties are exempt, not even federal, state, or city-owned properties. The 1992 Storm Drainage
Fee was not passed under Proposition 218, and thus, certain entities are exempt, including the City.
Q2: With regards to the payment register itself, could someone explain why we appear to
be paying for Apple retail store burglary prevention security? (Council member Moore)
Staff Response: These are supplemental law enforcement payments. The City acts as an intermediary
as the City contracts services with the County for law enforcement services. The City receives
payment from Apple for 100% of the costs plus a 15% admin fee (included in Fee Schedule A). This
works as pass-through expenses since the County cannot take direct payment from Apple.
Q3: What is the difference between a disbursement as opposed to a payment? (Council
member Moore)
Staff Response: Disbursements typically relate to the release of funds to a recipient or vendor. The
transaction stems from an obligation to the receiving individual/entity. The payment is a broader
term, encompassing disbursements and other forms of settling financial obligations. Although
having distinct characteristics, the terms are often used synonymously.
Q4: Ca. Gov. Code 32708[2] indicates that budgeted payroll will also be brought to the City
Council, however the City Council has not been given this information in several years, is
there a reason for this? Should the Council be provided this information? (Council
member Moore)
Staff Response: Budgeted payroll is approved as part of the Final Adopted budget on an annual basis.
Q5: Resolution 5939 states that “All checks so issued shall be serially numbered and a
report thereof as to date, payee, amount and purpose shall be presented to the City Council
not less often than once a month for ratification.” In order to ratify the payments we might
need more information, including payroll costs, it may be that a new resolution could
incorporate the City of Dublin[3]’s method to bring the payments to Council monthly, and
rely on the ACFR for ratification. Is the Council really just receiving the payment
information, not ratifying it for correctness? (Council member Moore)
Staff Response: Payments issued by the City are presented to the City Council on a monthly basis
for ratification, consistent with Resolution No. 5939.
Q6: Does the ACFR[4] audit all of the payments in accordance with the requirements of Ca.
Gov. Code 32708 (c) regarding payment ratification and make a statement to that effect,
taking care of that duty rather than the City Council? (Council member Moore)
Staff Response: While the City’s external auditors ensure the accuracy of financial statements
(ACFR), they typically sample transactions rather than reviewing each one individually. This
3
sampling approach helps ensure compliance with regulations while balancing time and resources.
Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:
A – Draft Resolution 3.1.24
B – Weekly AP Payment Register for the Period Ending 3.1.24
C – Draft Resolution 3.8.24
D – Weekly AP Payment Register for the Period Ending 3.8.24
E – Draft Resolution 3.15.24
F – Weekly AP Payment Register for the Period Ending 3.15.24
G – Draft Resolution 3.22.24
H – Weekly AP Payment Register for the Period Ending 3.22.24
I – Draft Resolution 3.29.24
J – Weekly AP Payment Register for the Period Ending 3.29.24