CC 06-04-2024 Item No. 7 County of Santa Clara Law Enforcement Contract ExtensionCC 06-04-2024
#7
Law Enforcement Contract
Extension with the County of
Santa Clara Sheriff's Office
Written Communications
From:Rhoda Fry
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:Cupertino City Council 6/4/2024 Sheriff Contract Agenda #7
Date:Tuesday, June 4, 2024 11:24:02 AM
Attachments:A - Donation Agreement.pdf
C - Amended FY19 Exhibit A Proposed Costs (redlined).pdf
FY 2023-24 Cupertino Proposed Budget Law Enforcement.pdf
SARATOGA Attachment_A___Santa_Clara_County_Sheriff_Office_FY_202122_Proposed_Costs.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,
I would like to remind you that Assistant City Manager Matt Morley said that the Sheriff
contract with respect to the Apple agreement would be amended in a council meeting held in
Community Hall.
Now that the contract is getting renewed, please fix the contract to resolve the Apple issue.
Background: As you may know, Apple has an unusual agreement with Cupertino / County
Sheriff.
It is similar to the controversial agreement that the City of Menlo Park has Facebook.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/d3akm7/how-facebook-bought-a-police-force.)
The Apple/Cupertino agreement was mentioned in the news as part of the concealed-gun-
permit case as highlighted below.
In 2018, Apple “donated” about $560K to Cupertino to spend on enhanced sheriff services
(first attachment).
Cupertino amended its contract with the sheriff to increase sheriff services (second
attachment).
This amount is now at over $1M and shows up in the budget as miscellaneous income (third
attachment).
The question of fairness: For years, we have been underspending on our Sheriff hours. Is this
because the Sheriff’s department is unable to allocate enough hours? If this is the case, is it
fair to the community for Apple to carve out its own hours?
The Foothill Patrol Car: I have heard that the Foothill patrol car is no longer happening. I
haven’t seen a car up there in years. Please make sure that our allocations make sense.
Separately, Are businesses paying their fair share? When comparing Cupertino to other
Cities, it seems that Cupertino has a lot more Sheriff per capita. And that makes me wonder
whether businesses are paying their fair share of the Sheriff cost or are the residents
shouldering most of the burden. See the third and fourth attachments have some interesting
statistics in comparing the expenditures for sheriff in the 3 cities that contract with Santa Clara
County. Cupertino spends 1.9X more on patrol than Saratoga - - - but 3X more on
investigative hours, why? (see page 17, the 18th page of the 4th attachment). Similarly,
Cupertino spends 5.8X more on patrol than Los Altos Hills - - - but 12X more on investigative
hours, why? Why does Cupertino need so many investigative hours?
I get why we’re doing some updates with the County portion but I think we need to do some
more work on the rest of the contract.
Thank You,
Rhoda Fry
40-year Cupertino resident and recipient of 2022 City of Cupertino Public Safety award
Gun bribery probe: Santa Clara County Sheriff acted to obscure use of donor’s Sharks suite,
according to testimony
Robert Salonga
PUBLISHED: January 12, 2021 at 3:34 p.m. | UPDATED: January 13, 2021 at 4:02 p.m.
Categories:California News, California Politics, City Politics, Crime and Public Safety, Latest
Headlines, Local News, Local Politics, News, Politics
Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith bought nose-bleed seats to avoid disclosing her use
of a donor’s luxury box at a San Jose Sharks game two years ago, an event scrutinized in a
bribery indictment against her second-in-command, according to newly released grand-jury
transcripts.
Management analyst Lara McCabe testified Nov. 16 that Smith had her buy the cheap tickets
specifically to skirt gift-reporting obligations for the penthouse suite that hosted her re-election
celebration in February 2019.
The testimony was contained in a 1,300-page transcript of criminal grand jury hearings that
would lead to charges alleging favor-trading for coveted concealed-gun permits involving
Undersheriff Rick Sung, a top Apple security executive, a prominent supporter, and a sheriff’s
captain who doubled as a close adviser.
Other testimony reaffirmed suspicion of a fast-and-loose policy for issuing concealed-carry
weapons licenses by her office, in which political allegiance was paramount, with Sung
serving as a loyal enforcer who leveraged the licenses to secure that support.
On Monday, Sung, Apple’s global security director Thomas Moyer, businessman Harpreet
Chadha, and sheriff’s Capt. James Jensen were arraigned remotely by Judge Eric Geffon, and
pleaded not guilty to bribery charges first announced in November. Geffon denied a defense
motion to seal the transcripts of the grand jury proceedings.
According to the indictment, Sung and Jensen are accused of extracting a donation of 200
iPads from Moyer to hasten the release of concealed gun permits for four executive security
agents protecting Apple CEO Tim Cook. Sung is separately charged with holding up a gun
license for Chadha so he would donate his wife’s company’s suite.
Even though the sheriff was a listed guest in the suite, McCabe says Smith handed her a credit
card to purchase three of the cheapest seats for the Feb. 14, 2019 game for Smith, Sung and
Jensen costing $147. None of the tickets were used, and McCabe testified Smith asked for this
expressly as a way to circumvent California Fair Political Practices Commission reporting
requirements for gifts valued over $50. One seat in the luxury suite was valued at more than
seven times that amount.
When asked by Deputy District Attorney Matt Braker to affirm that contention, she said, “I
believe, yes this was a way to get around reporting a gift,” and “The sheriff wanted to avoid
putting this on her Form 700.”
Braker followed up: “She said that to you?”
McCabe answered, “Yes.”
The statement stands as the most direct claim of wrongdoing against the sheriff in a case that
has mostly tainted her by virtue of her position leading the agency.
Deputy District Attorney John Chase, head of his office’s public integrity unit, and Braker
shepherded the two-week grand jury session. Unlike an earlier related indictment, which
characterized Jensen as the linchpin in a narrative where nearly $90,000 in political donations
were discussed in a direct trade for the gun permits, the latest charges portray Sung as the
engine, with Jensen on the periphery.
“Make no mistake about it,” Braker said in his closing statements to jurors. “It is Rick Sung
who is the driving force in both instances.”
The prosecutors presented a more circumstantial case than in the first indictment last
August — in which a co-conspirator who cooperated with authorities literally recorded the
words “quid pro quo” being said — and keyed in on testimony from sheriff staff and high-
level employees for Apple and Chadha depicting Sung making the “unusual” move of holding
up their CCW permits. The prosecutors also drew jurors’ attention to how the licenses became
quickly available after the iPad donation promise and Chadha’s donation of his $365-a-head
Sharks suite.
Smith has not been charged with any crimes. In the first grand-jury hearings, Smith and
Sung invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination in refusing to testify.
The personal attorneys for Smith and Sung could not be reached Tuesday.
The Apple allegations
Tuesday, a statement released on behalf of Moyer attorney Ed Swanson said, “There is no
evidence to be found in these transcripts – or anywhere else – that Tom Moyer committed a
crime … Tom Moyer is innocent, and he never should have been dragged into this case.”
Swanson also restated his November contention that his client is collateral damage in a rivalry
between Sheriff Smith and District Attorney Jeff Rosen. An appellate motion by defense
attorneys in the first indictment, to disqualify Rosen’s office, continues to progress, with the
Sixth District Court of Appeal scheduling oral arguments for later this month.
Still, the transcripts depict some internal conflict at Apple centered on Moyer’s authorization
to donate 200 iPads, valued at upward of $80,000, with the described aim of helping the
sheriff’s office with training.
In 2017, Moyer, Eric Mueller, senior director of security operations at Apple, and James
Neidig, executive protection director, began looking into obtaining CCW licenses for its team
that protects CEO Tim Cook, according to testimony from Mueller and Neidig, both of whom
were granted immunity from criminal prosecution.
Dave Gullo, a former Campbell police chief who served as a senior director in global security
for Apple, accompanied Mueller to a lunch with Sung, where they said the then-assistant
sheriff brought up the prospect of political donations to support Smith’s upcoming bid for a
sixth term.
Gullo testified that he thought his involvement in the CCW pursuit would be a hindrance
because of his support for John Hirokawa, a former undersheriff opposing Smith. He added
that Apple security managers Scott Vermeer, a former Mountain View chief, and Greg Finch,
another former Campbell chief, would only inflame that, given their past tepid relationships
with Smith.
Mueller recalled that a year later, after Smith handily won re-election after a contentious
primary, Sung berated him after Gullo and Finch were listed as Hirokawa endorsers during the
campaign. Testimony from Mueller, affirmed by Braker, stated that Moyer made clear that
Finch and Gullo were free to endorse whoever they wanted, and that “we will not give money
or anything of value in exchange for CCW.”
But months after three executive protection agents and Neidig applied for CCW licenses
seemingly with the sheriff’s blessing, there was no movement, according to the testimony.
That led to a subsequent series of “nudge” emails to the sheriff and her office.
In October 2018, a month before Election Day, Moyer and Mueller each donated $1,000 to
Smith’s campaign, though neither live in the county. Mueller testified it was a gesture to
express how his “experience working with the sheriff’s office has been great.”
It was at a Feb. 8, 2019 meeting at Apple Park between Sung, Jensen and Moyer, in which the
iPad donation idea is said to have first been mentioned. In later interviews, as testified by DA
investigators, Sung and Jensen gave opposing accounts of what the meetup discussed: Sung
said it was about CCW’s and the iPads were not mentioned; Jensen said it was vice-versa.
A March 7, 2019 forwarded email, from Moyer to Jensen then passed along to Sung and
Assistant Sheriff Michael Doty, included the phrase “Curious if you need iPads at your new
facility,” referencing a training project. On March 26, 2019, Neidig and three agents picked up
their CCW licenses at the sheriff’s office.
Records show that the permits had actually been approved two months earlier.
There was some consternation in the sheriff’s office and at Apple about the iPad donation.
Doty expressed surprise and confusion, testifying that “we don’t really have a specific need
for iPads that would have prompted this.” He also noted that to accept the donation, it would
have to be presented before the Board of Supervisors with its value being more than $10,000.
Doty said he was under the impression the prospective donation was part of a law-enforcement
support program at Apple. But testimony by Apple finance managers indicate they did not
know such a program existed, and presumed it was associated with the allocation of two
dedicated deputies around Apple Park, a proposal that was discussed around the same time
Moyer and Mueller pushed for CCW permits, and was later funded by a $558,969 donation to
Cupertino. Those same managers also scrutinized this deputy arrangement, in part because it
was paid through a city donation avenue but by their own accounting classifications was a
business expense.
When similar questions arose about the iPads, those finance officials said Moyer assured them
the donation was not for any reciprocal benefit.
In August 2019, DA investigators served search warrants at the sheriff’s office, with Jensen
being one of the subjects. Three months later, Sung’s office would be searched. Not long after,
both Moyer and Sung, independently of each other, scuttled the iPad arrangement.
The Sharks suite allegation
Chadha’s attorney said in November that his indictment was “a grave miscarriage of justice”
and retaliation for objecting to prosecutors’ insistence that his donation to the sheriff’s office
of a penthouse suite at the SAP Center for a Feb. 14, 2019 Sharks game was a “quid pro quo.”
The transcripts describe a protracted renewal process for Chadha that started in 2017 and
wasn’t resolved until two days before that hockey game. There is copious correspondence
between Chadha’s executive assistant and sheriff’s office staff processing CCW licenses, in
this case then-public information officer Sgt. Reginald Cooks.
Chadha’s application process came up in the earlier grand jury, also during Cooks’ testimony.
As prosecutors were looking to establish the amount of control Sung had over the licensing
process, Cooks recalled that on Feb. 12, 2019, he was abruptly ordered to fast-track Chadha’s
permit, even though compulsory fingerprint scanning hadn’t been completed.
Other testimony, by former PIO Sgt. Richard Glennon, seemingly reaffirmed accusations of
political favoritism in the CCW approval process, describing his commanders’ orders that
unless he was instructed otherwise, applications from people lacking political connections or
prominence “were put into that filing cabinet and never touched again.”
Nearly two years into Chadha’s efforts to renew his permit, and after Smith had already
secured re-election, Braker argued to jurors that it was “remarkable” that his permit was issued
two days before the Sharks game.
Virus-free.www.avg.com
City of Cupertino
Standard Donation Form
The City of Cupertino acknowledges and thanks individuals arid institutions who wish to donate
funds, goods/property, and their voluntary time to help the City achieve its public goals and
objectives for the betterment of the community. This Donation Form is intended to memorialize
the understanding between the City and the Donor. The undersigned Donor wishes to make a
donation to the City of Cupertino as described in more detail below.
The Donor is ( check and complete all that apply): l ,/ I Donating $ 558m9 in a lump sum.
D Donating$ __________ in----------(monthly, quarterly,
etc.) contributions of$ ___________ in ____ installments.
D Donating the following ( describe products, services, investment securities, real property,
etc.) valued at$ __________ _
Donor wishes to have this donation used as follows (check one): [_J For a general purpose consistent with the City's adopted goals and objectives, based on
the City's discretion.
By the-----------(Department/Division) for a general purpose at
their discretion. l.�J By the· Law Enforcement Division
specific purposes:
(City/Department/Division) for the following
Enhanced law enforcement services for the CS beat that encompasses Apple Park,
equivalent to two Santa Clara County deputies with patrol vehicles. These services shall be
provided from October 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. Annually, Apple intends to make a
similar donation to support two deputies based on established rates.
Except as provided above, the City may use the donation in any manner at its sole discretion and
the Donor has no right or obligation to control the City's use of the donation.
Donor understands that the City will endeavor to meet the use conditions of restricted donations,
in accordance with the wishes of the donor. If, however, the City is unable to meet the Donor's
restrictions, the City will make reasonable attempts to contact the Donor or the representative
identified by Donor in the Form/Agreement to discuss alternative uses or to return the Donation.
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED COSTS
FISCAL YEAR 2018‐2019
LOS ALTOS UNINCORP.
RATES CUPERTINO HILLS SARATOGA CITIES
GENERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
Proposed Hours ‐ Activity
Proposed Hours ‐ Patrol
Total Hours 38,248.0 5,421.0 20,060.0 14,696.0
Capped Rates/Costs FY 2018‐2019 @ $205.13 $7,845,709 $1,111,995 $4,114,854 $3,014,551
TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT ‐ DAYS:
Proposed Hours 9,015.0 1,859.5 4,195.4 0.0
Capped Rates/Costs FY 2018‐2019 @ $200.93 $8,640 $842,960 $0
Motor @ $199.89 $1,801,977 $363,094
TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT ‐ NIGHTS:
Proposed Hours 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Capped Rates/Costs FY 2018‐2019 @ $207.31 $0 $0 $0
Motor @ $206.27 $0
INVESTIGATIVE HOURS:
Proposed Hours 7,200.0 600.0 2,400.0 0.0
Capped Rates/Costs FY 2018‐2019 @ $202.48 $1,457,856 $121,488 $485,952 $0
FY19 Contract Cities_Proposed Costs add 2 FTE 08‐15‐2018 A ‐ 36 DSA=3%
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED COSTS
FISCAL YEAR 2018‐2019
LOS ALTOS UNINCORP.
RATES CUPERTINO HILLS SARATOGA CITIES
RESERVES ACTIVITY HOURS:
Proposed Hours 1,650.0 22.0 340.0 0.0
Capped Rates/Costs FY 2018‐2019 @ $56.00 $92,403 $1,232 $19,041 $0
OPERATING COSTS OF WEST VALLEY SUBSTATION:
Proj Hours FY 2018‐2019 47,263 7,281 24,255 14,696
93,495
Percentage 50.5514% 7.7876% 25.9426% 15.7185%
Proj Costs July 2018 ‐ Nov 2018 @ $448,510 yr $94,470 $14,553 $48,481 $29,375
Proj Costs Dec 2018 ‐ Jun 2019 @ $458,974 yr $135,344 $20,850 $69,457 $42,084
Total Proj Costs of Substation = $454,614 $229,814 $35,403 $117,938 $71,459
SUBTOTAL COSTS:
Proj Costs FY 2018‐2019 $11,427,759 1,641,852 $5,580,745 $3,086,010
PROJECTED SPECIAL SERVICES
Projected Hours FY 2018‐2019 1,816.5000
Cupertino Traffic Sergeant $247,233 $0 $0 $0
Saratoga School Resource Officer $0 $0 $100,000 $0
SCHOOLS RESOURCE OFFICER
Capped Rates/Costs FY 2018‐2019 @ $172.09 $500,162 $0 $0 $0
(1 SRO @ 85% and 1 SRO @ 75%)
TOTAL SHERIFF LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS
$12,175,154 $1,641,852 $5,680,745 $3,086,010
$12,199,580 $1,642,408 $5,689,948 $0
($24,426)($556)($9,203)$0
$12,175,154 $1,552,603 $5,680,745 $0
89,249
$12,175,154 $1,641,852 $5,680,745 $0
$558,979
Proposed Capped Rates/Costs FY 2018‐2019
TOTAL CAPPED COSTS 2018‐2019
Proj Costs Capped @ 5.128% (CPI+2%) Increase
AMOUNTS OVER/(BELOW) CAP OF 5.128%
Supplemental Information:
Current Level of Services
Added Services in FY19
Added Services effective October 1st 2018:
2 General Law Enforcement Deputies for 2,725 hrs
Proposed Capped Rates/Costs FY 2018‐2019 $12,734,133
FY19 Contract Cities_Proposed Costs add 2 FTE 08‐15‐2018 A ‐ 37 DSA=3%
Page | 0
County of Santa Clara
SHERIFF’S OFFICE | 55 WEST YOUNGER AVENUE, SAN JOSE, CA 95110
Law Enforcement Contract - Saratoga
FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 PROPOSED COSTS
Page | 1
This page intentionally left blank
Page | 2
Table of Contents
The Sheriff’s Office ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Organizational Chart ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Law Enforcement Contract – Background .................................................................................................... 9
Benefits to Cities of Contracting for Services ............................................................................................. 11
Local Public Safety Budget and Statistics .................................................................................................... 13
Contract Costing Model .............................................................................................................................. 15
Cost Calculation Methodology .................................................................................................................... 16
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Proposed Hours ...................................................................................................... 17
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Summary of Proposed Costs ................................................................................... 18
Fiscal Years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 Costs Comparison ........................................................................ 19
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Proposed Hourly Rates ........................................................................................... 20
Proposed and Capped Rate Comparison .................................................................................................... 21
Contract Cities’ Statistical Data ................................................................................................................... 22
Statistical Data - City of Saratoga ................................................................................................................ 27
Page | 3
The Sheriff’s Office
The Sheriff's Office is divided into 4 major bureaus: Administrative Services, Enforcement, Custody, and
Support Services.
I. Administrative Services
The Administrative Services Director manages Information Systems, Legislative, Contracts and
Analysis Unit, Fiscal Division and Sheriff’s Identification Unit. The Administrative Services Director
also oversees all administrative and support staff for all the bureaus. Together they work with a
team approach to effectively manage this large organization.
II. Enforcement - comprised of the following divisions
Headquarters Patrol
Headquarters Patrol provides 24-hour uniformed law enforcement patrol services for most
county buildings and all Central, East and South unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. The
unincorporated areas of the Mount Hamilton Range, including Mount Hamilton, San Antonio
Valley, Isabel Valley, San Felipe Valley, and Hall's Valley are patrolled from this station. The
unincorporated south county communities of San Martin, Rucker, and Uvas Canyon as well as the
unincorporated areas surrounding Morgan Hill and Gilroy are patrolled by units from the South
County Station.
The Sheriff’s Office is also responsible for the Parks Patrol Unit that provides law enforcement
services for the 27 parks and lakes managed by the Santa Clara County Parks Department. The
Rural Crimes Unit was formed in 1992 and specializes in crimes associated with rural farming
businesses. The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office also enjoys great collaboration with Gavilan
College to provide an additional layer of safety and security for students on campus and the Gilroy
Early College Academy (GECA) which is located on the property.
West Valley Patrol
The West Valley (WV) Patrol Division of the Sheriff’s Office proudly serves the Cities of Saratoga,
Cupertino, Town of Los Altos Hills, as well as the Western Unincorporated areas of the county
from Summit Road to Moffett Field. The WV Patrol Division is committed to providing progressive
law enforcement services and maintaining healthy community partnerships. Deputies are
routinely involved in community events across all cities. There are 83 sworn positions and 7
professional support staff assigned to the West Valley Patrol Division. Deputies provide a full
range of law enforcement responsibilities to include Patrol, Traffic Enforcement, Investigative
Services, School Resource Officers, Neighborhood Resource Officers, K-9 Services and Special
Enforcement assignments.
The Division employs modern strategies such as community oriented policing and predictive
policing, as well as innovative and progressive initiatives geared toward enhancing quality of life
measures. A full time analyst works directly with patrol deputies and detectives to identify crime
trends. Deputies perform daily enforcement duties with the goal of making neighborhoods safe
by bringing criminals to justice. The Division is managed by Captain Rich Urena, who serves as
Commander and works closely with each city and the various communities.
Page | 4
Transit Patrol
The Sheriff Transit Patrol Division provides contracted supplemental general law enforcement
services for the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) with the primary goal of safety for VTA
patrons, employees, and the security of VTA vehicles and properties. VTA’s mass transit system
of bus and light rail operations includes a 346 square mile service area which transcends through
15 municipalities and unincorporated Santa Clara County. Law Enforcement responsibilities in
the Sheriff Transit Patrol Division include 24-hour uniformed patrol, explosives detection K-9s,
motorcycle patrol, bicycle patrol, detectives, and 2 special teams focused on transit related crime
suppression.
The Sheriff’s Office Transit Patrol Division also provides supplemental law enforcement services
for Valley Transportation Authority property and assets located at the Milpitas BART Station.
Investigative Services
The Investigative Services Division operates out of three primary locations: Headquarters, West
Valley Station, and South County Station. To accomplish the mission of the Investigative Services
Division, investigators are trained for general investigation and receive additional training for
specific areas of expertise. In order to ensure that each crime is properly investigated by a
detective with skill and experience, the following units are each dedicated to a particular type of
crime.
• Homicide / Major Crimes
• Sexual Assault
• Property Crimes
• Missing Persons / Juvenile Crimes / Child Abuse
• Domestic Violence
• Hate Crime
• Court Liaison
• West Valley Detectives
• South County Investigations
• Jail and Gang Investigations
• Notario Fraud Investigation
• Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement (SAFE) Task Force
• Law Enforcement to Investigate Human Trafficking (LEIHT) Task Force
• Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team (REACT) Task Force
• Santa Clara County Regional Auto Theft Task Force ( R.A.T.T.F)
• Crime Scene Investigation
Special Operations
The Special Operations Division encompasses the Air Support Unit, California Multi-Jurisdictional
Methamphetamine Enforcement Team (Cal-MMET), Intelligence Unit, and Marijuana Eradication
Team (MET). We strive to establish a wide, collaborative, consistent and coordinated approach
to abating criminal activity and narcotics trafficking with an emphasis on enforcement,
intelligence gathering, investigation, prosecution, intervention and prevention.
Page | 5
Special Operation also oversees all specialized teams in the Office of the Sheriff. Deputies assigned
to this teams are trained in the following areas:
• Bomb Squad
• Sheriff's Emergency Response Team - S.E.R.T.
• Crisis Negotiation Team (CNT)
• Canine Unit K9
• Underwater Search Unit (USU)
• Sheriff's Off-Road Enforcement (SORE)
• Search and Rescue (SAR)
• Crowd Control Unit (CCU)
Civil/Warrants
The Civil Warrants Division serves Civil process in the manner prescribed by law. Civil process
includes restraining orders, bench warrants, arrest warrants, evictions and any other notice or
order from the courts. We also levy on wages, bank accounts, vehicles or any asset of the
judgment debtor.
III. Custody
The Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office Custody Division is the fifth largest jail system in California,
and among the 20 largest systems in the United States. Our jail is among the 100 systems
nationwide with an inmate population of more than 1,000. Currently, the average daily
population for the Santa Clara County Correctional facilities was approximately 2,160 inmates a
day. Approximately 48,000 arrestees are booked annually with an average length of stay of about
206 days.
The Custody Bureau consists of several divisions: Main Jail Facility, Elmwood Correctional Facility,
Custody Administrative Services, Jail Reforms, Support Services, and Compliance.
IV. Support Services
Support Services are comprised of the following services:
Personnel/Recruiting/Backgrounds/Reserves
The Sheriff’s Office Personnel Division is a full functioning Service Center that provides all aspects
of Human Resource support to every employee and retiree of our office. It is responsible for the
Backgrounds and Recruiting unit, Health and Injury Prevention Unit, and the Reserve and Youth
Cadet Programs.
Training & Compliance Division
The Training and Compliance Division oversees all aspects of professional growth and
development for Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office personnel. The mission of the Training and
Compliance Division is to provide creative and collaborative training resources and opportunities
to employees of the Sheriff’s Office; to ensure state and agency specific mandated training is
tracked efficiently to ensure compliance, update agency policies and procedures as needed, and
facilitate the Regional Justice Training Academies of the Sheriff’s Office. The division is composed
of five distinct training programs encompassing a wide variety of training:
• The Santa Clara County Justice Training Center
Page | 6
• Field and Jail Training Program
• In-Service Training
• Regional Driver Training Center
• The Regional Firearms Training Facility
All Sheriff's Office personnel must complete either the California Peace Officer Standards or
Training Basic Academy Course or the California Standards and Training for Corrections Core
Course. These basic academy training courses are administered by certified instructors and
Sheriff's Office Recruit Training Officers (RTO).
Once the new peace officer graduates from the Basic Academy, they will go through an extensive
Field Training Program or Jail Training Program. Well qualified peace officers instruct new
deputies on the day-to-day responsibilities of a peace officer.
The Training & Compliance Division also puts on several annual in-service trainings. These courses
include De-Escalation, Tactical Communication, Crisis Intervention, Use of Force, Defensive
Tactics, Driving, First Aid/CPR, Implicit Bias, Blue Courage, Mindfulness, etc. All of these courses
are regulated by the California POST and STC for the Enforcement and Custody Bureaus,
respectively.
Court Security
Court Security division provides security to the seven State of California Superior Courts located
within Santa Clara County on a contract basis. There are more than 220 sworn and professional
staff assigned to the Court Security Contract.
There are many specialized assignments within the Court Security Division to include
Judicial/Dignitary Protection, Felony and Misdemeanor Court Trial Bailiffs, Risk Assessment Unit,
CIT trained Dual Diagnosis Court Bailiffs, Juvenile Dependency Bailiffs, Juvenile Court Bailiffs
Holding Cell Operations and Court Movement Deputies.
More than 1,250,000 people pass through our security screening stations each year. Deputies and
Sheriff’s Technicians operate security screening stations at the entrance of each court facility.
Their primary job is to ensure no illegal or dangerous items enter a court facility.
Valley Medical Center Security
Valley Medical Center Security division provides oversight of all security and law enforcement
services for Santa Clara County’s Health and Hospital System, 24-hours a day/7-days per week.
Valley Medical Hospital system includes 13 Medical/Urgent Care Clinics, O’Connor, St. Louise
Hospitals and De Paul Health Center. Santa Clara Valley Medical Center is the county’s main
trauma center and located in San Jose. Santa Clara County Health and Hospital System employs
approximately 10,000 employees, two thirds of which are assigned to the Valley Medical Campus.
Stanford University
Stanford University division provides oversight and operational authority to Stanford Department
of Public Safety through direct supervision of the assigned Captain. The Sheriff’s Captain acts at
the direction of the Sheriff in policy matters. The Sheriff’s Captain will coordinate cases involving
death and serious felonies to ensure coordination and control with the Sheriff’s Office. The
Page | 7
assigned Captain further reviews policy and procedures to safeguard adherence to the standards
set by the Sheriff.
Currently, the Sheriff’s Office has 1,797 employees. Of those employees, 1,402 of them are sworn law
enforcement officers and 395 of them are non-sworn, civilian staff who provide support to the entire
operation. In addition to the full-time badge staff, the Sheriff’s Office has numerous Reserve Deputy
Sheriffs.
Pa
g
e
|
8
Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
h
a
r
t
·-
Office
Of the Sh,
Clf1ilnll«10nlll ( . .,..,
.., _ _,_ ---~-
••MJA-DWelt Aepcwt to
OSIU: MSD/PRWLO
Off1ce of the Shenff
Sheriff Laurie Smith
I -; Corrc>lianoo I II lh-
Undenherllf Public ln~b 0111oer Lt. David Roberts Ken ~nder S&t .... lOw
I Deputy~ Gabaldon
~ "
Admin is.trati \le ~Mces Director Enforcement :.tant Sheriff Custody ,.;r.,.., Sheflff su_..5eN~-.antSilenn
luk~ung Mtchael Ooty Timot~ Davis Dalla ~nguez
/.>. ~ J ,.........J J
lnveatjfltlve Se~Jall Crimea Ma~Joll v v
capt Den Rodr1(uez Capt. James Kirkland
"fcrmation S)'Sklma U. Jtm., ~-• AOC u.~r.t'\IIIICiei·AOC f-Stanbd Onl~
WesleyChonC U. Brenctan omotl • MCU U ._blt CIMC)UIO T ... C$pt. Nuno Ribeiro ISOI,_ u. Jatnet c:.nan. RAnF U.IICIItU.Siac!M ·CT-
....
LLIIIIIIRIDIII.:·~f .. m
.....
v ~ -Vo lley,. ... v
Capt. Ricardo Urena Ca pt. Malil Padget v
_ ..... eon..-end Anelylla U. T~hlton · AOC Court S.W:.arlty Unit U. Nel Yatentue&l • A.OC LLWN ~·Cbli
Michelle Oov11TUbl11 .... U~Oullll ·.vlfM m r-Clp l James Helm• u~.,., .. ,.ct•m Lt. Steven Hern andez Proe"&m Manater 111 U.NIIIUI till~· 0 lte~~t ..... .... v U,TfC1$1'111111...;.!,r.~
BucWet Mln.,.rr:.t end ~tin
~-t'lf-tlnrul v CApt. El bert Rivera ..,
Thuyet ztyalan .... Pnllcy VMC
,IMfltltl~tllwtiM ,.....,. Capt Frank Zacharlsen r-Capt. Erldt 8ourasu
IItvin ZltiCfWOOC) .., .... S&t DeMit O...na
OtpiM-IAI.:--1 Mllnl .... OMVW•,..,ntJ.
Content"-.....
Lt. Kelvin Mah ...
.... u .. McCabe ~fW/AN\~tl'll'l~,_ ldentlbtlon Unit ProCJ11m .... Manacer Clpt Quit Grumbol
Tlmfayto .., r-Lt. Mlctletle Albin Stu Dtteotor Tn~~ntilt P.tn'll ~ JanTransltlnn ctwlttlnt Goodaon -HR Manaftr
.... Copt. llevld l.t<l Jell Refofml ....
U. -Cotdoze • ADC CHSUoloon
.... ~ O.MCI ...... ...cl• v
u.~H'r ·Or~ Tn.tNnc
Cl pt. Adam Obttdorfe r
HQ""~"'""trol
""""""~-
L-Lt. fHch t t d Allnit
Capt Roberl Curt
~lluiWr HI~ • ADO Capt Thom11 Our1n
~I.IIJI~t~t~ W.cneoo-U.N~•m-...~
u, lt-,~ C..OciiiMl lLOifpt.-CI•·"'oar~!U u,.._, ·WMtiiCDIMI
In"*:;~.,.~~~ ··u•,.,. •-~u lloci--T-T
Cluolocl!""
fleet a nd eomn.tnlcatlont . ..;;....
Q/COml)lltnot C&p\, AOO.rt Ourr ~htllt Ccwerl'\lblt t
,....,,m~n...,lll
Page | 9
Law Enforcement Contract – Background
I. SERVICES
City of Cupertino, City of Saratoga, and Town of Los Altos Hills entered into an agreement with the County
of Santa Clara, Sheriff’s Office for the following law enforcement services:
A. Law Enforcement Services - include patrol of established beats, responses to emergency calls,
investigative services and other law enforcement services.
B. Supplemental Services – as requested by the City which may include traffic law enforcement
beyond the basic services, crime prevention patrols, and other law enforcement services that are
acceptable of being scheduled and within the capability of the Sheriff to provide.
C. Supplemental Reserve Services – services provided by reserve sheriff deputies such as
transportation of arrestees from the arrest location to the appropriate jail facility and additional
services as requested by City and approved by the Sheriff’s Office.
D. Booking and Processing Services – include booking and processing services to those arrested
persons within the corporate limits of City and who are brought to County jail for booking or
detention.
E. Communication Services – emergency communication services in support of the Sheriff’s Office
and City’s operations. Services include 24 hour per day 9-1-1 telephone answering and radio
dispatching of Sheriff’s personnel.
II. COMPENSATION
Law Enforcement Services
FY 2014-2015 base rate. Annual increase limited to the lesser of (a) percentage increase in total
compensation and annual PERS cost increase or (b) annual CPI/W plus 2% and annual PERS cost increase.
Supplemental/Reserve Services
a. Primary Rate – average full cost of a single Deputy with patrol vehicle
b. Supplemental Day Rate – cost of a single Deputy with patrol vehicle during periods when the
night shift differential salary increment is not payable
c. Supplemental Night Rate – cost of a single Deputy with patrol vehicle during periods when the
night shift differential salary increment is payable
d. Supplemental Reserve Rate – cost of two Reserve Deputy Sheriff with patrol vehicle
e. Investigative Service Rate – average full cost per hour of an investigator’s time.
Base Rent and Operating Costs of Westside Substation
The cities’ share of the base rent and operating cost will be based upon the lease agreement between the
County and Dollinger Properties, LLC. The monthly base rent will increase 2.5% each year. The cities shall
be responsible for the base rent increase and any increase in operating expenses and real estate taxes
allocated to the building to the extent that such expenses exceed costs incurred in the FY2014-2015 base
year. Yearly controllable operating costs shall be capped at 5%. The cities’ share of the operating cost
and base rent will be a prorated amount based upon the actual billable hours as indicated in the COPANA
reports.
Page | 10
III. TERM OF AGREEMENT – July 1, 2014 to July 1, 2024.
The agreement may be terminated without cause upon giving 180 days written notice of such termination
to the other party. At the expiration of this ten (10) year contract, this contract can be renewed for an
additional five (5) year period upon written notice of renewal by City and the County to other parties upon
180 days advance notice.
IV. ANNUAL CONTRACT USAGE HISTORY
Saratoga FY15-16 FY16-17 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21
Services
General Law
Enforcement Hours
20,060.0 20,060.0 20,060.0 20,060.0 20,060.0 20,060.0
Traffic Enforcement
– Days - Hours
4,195.4 4,195.4 4,195.4 4,195.4 4,195.4 4,195.4
Investigative Hours 2,400.0 2,400.0 2,400.0 2,400.0 2,400.0 2,400.0
Reserve Activity
Hours
340.0 340.0 340.0 340.0 340.0 340.0
Special Services –
Traffic Sergeant
- - - - - -
School Resources
Officer
$100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Projected Costs $4,973,080 $5,176,173 $5,420,767 $5,680,745 $6,057,371 $6,417,203
Actual Costs $4,981,030 $5,170,962 $5,200,757 $5,678,842 $5,958,047
Page | 11
Benefits to Cities of Contracting for Services
Contracting for police services may help a community enhance its level and quality of service delivered,
providing an array of services that can be revised as needs change and at a cost less than that for
supporting an independent law-enforcement organization.
Cost Savings
Communities may contract for police services for many reasons, most of which are related to resources.
Contracting for police services most often resulted in significant cost savings. Savings may result from
reducing administrative and command staff positions with consolidation, pooling of resources, and lower
capital costs. Contracting may also provide economies of scale, as larger organizations may be more
efficient and provide services at lower cost than smaller ones.
Enhanced Quality and Level of Service
Since the policing system is highly fragmented and leads to a significant duplication of local services that
consolidation through contracting can mitigate, a city contracting for services may find it can provide
equivalent services with fewer staff than in a stand-alone entity. A city may, for example, provide capacity
for rare events that far exceeds its true needs. By contracting with a larger agency with specialized
capabilities as needed, a city can better focus its resources on base law-enforcement services.
Contracting for police services may provide an opportunity to enhance both the level and quality of service
delivered. By contracting, a community can receive not only the benefits of the contract deputies assigned
to it, but also has access to more specialized areas such as investigations, forensics, crime-analysis services
of the Sheriff’s Office and much more. The breadth and experience in the Sheriff’s Office far exceed those
in smaller cities’ police departments.
Cost savings
Staffing
flexibility
Efficient
use of
resources
Appropriate
staffing
level
Enhanced
level of
service
Enhanced
quality of
service
Breadth &
depth of
experience
Page | 12
Efficient Use of Staffing Resources
Contracting can make more efficient use of staffing resources, especially in communities with local law-
enforcement agencies governed by minimum staffing levels. Such levels may be defined by collective
bargaining but more often are driven by policy and practice. Such levels assume departments are
autonomous and cannot rely on nearby agencies for resources. This may lead to communities setting
staffing levels at an unnecessarily high level. The Sheriff’s Office has resources in the other areas, which
allows basic staffing level for the city to be at a lower level but backup and supervision from others can
provide additional resources when needed.
Page | 13
Local Public Safety Budget and Statistics
County of Santa Clara, Office of the Sheriff Average Cost Per Resident for Police Services and
Percent of City Budget Allocated to Law Enforcement Services
2020-2021 Police Operating Budgets
# City Land
Area in
Square
Miles
(1)
Population/
Square
Mile
Population
(1)
Police
Budget
Budget per
Capita
Total City
Budget
Percent of
City
Budget
1 Los Altos Hills (2) 8.8 957.2 8,423 $2,065,245 $204.77 $13,181,131 15.7%
2 Cupertino (2) 11.3 5,245.7 59,276 $14,792,330 $233.97 $82,287,295 18.0%
3 Palo Alto 23.9 2,734.9 65,364 $47,110,074 $670.00 $238,801,000 19.7%
4 Saratoga (2) 12.4 2,431.7 30,153 $6,408,958 $205.36 $26,641,745 24.1%
5 Santa Clara 18.4 7,085.1 130,365 $77,593,819 $570.64 $269,399,009 28.8%
6 San Jose 176.5 5,789.2 1,021,795 $455,188,814 $531.95 $1,547,689,229 29.4%
7 Los Altos 6.5 4,629.1 30,089 $12,836,225 $382.92 $43,318,880 29.6%
8 Monte Sereno (3) 1.7 2,046.5 3,479 $1,020,157 $273.80 $3,221,326 31.7%
9 Mountain View 12.0 6,894.9 82,739 $46,152,014 $528.79 $144,021,218 32.0%
10 Sunnyvale (4) 22.0 6,941.0 152,703 $114,306,055 $222.36 $354,913,330 32.2%
11 Milpitas 13.6 6,190.9 84,196 $38,367,020 $453.01 $116,831,532 32.8%
12 Los Gatos 11.1 2,722.7 30,222 $17,587,825 $552.18 $53,180,454 33.1%
13 Campbell 5.8 7,205.7 41,793 $20,229,929 $675.90 $54,559,148 37.1%
14 Morgan Hill 12.9 3,562.2 45,952 $17,697,892 $377.34 $43,763,247 40.4%
15 Gilroy 16.2 3,644.0 59,032 $25,380,854 $407.38 $57,711,594 44.0%
Incorporated Cities 353.1 5,226.8 1,845,581
Unincorporated Areas 937.0 87.8 82,271
County Total 1,290.1 1,494.3 1,927,852 1 US Census estimates on 3/24/21 at "http://www.census.gov/quickfacts"
2 Law enforcement services in Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, and Saratoga are provided under contract by the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office.
3 Monte Sereno's contract for police services is for 105 hours per week only. The police budget noted above is the flat rate for 105 hours.
4 The City of Sunnyvale includes both police and fire protection costs in the department's public safety budget.
Page | 14
Annual Crime Rate
Number of Annual Crimes1
Crime Rate1
(per 1,000 residents)
Name FY 2021 Public
Safety
Budget*
Budget
per Capita
Crime Index1
(100 is
Safest)
Violent Property Total Violent Property Total
Los Altos Hills2 $2,065,245 $205 67 3 68 71 0.36 8.07 8.43
Cupertino2 $14,792,330 $234 32 58 1,027 1,085 0.98 17.33 18.31
Palo Alto $47,110,074 $670 13 89 1,993 2,082 1.36 30.49 31.85
Saratoga2 $6,408,958 $205 66 18 244 262 0.60 8.09 8.69
Santa Clara $77,593,819 $571 9 221 4,766 4,987 1.70 36.56 38.26
San Jose $455,188,814 $532 15 4,633 25,592 30,225 4.53 25.05 29.58
Los Altos $12,836,225 $383 55 23 314 337 0.76 10.44 11.20
Monte Sereno3 $1,020,157 $274 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Mountain View $46,152,014 $529 13 169 2,474 2,643 2.04 29.90 31.94
Sunnyvale4 $114,306,055 $222 22 266 3,401 3,667 1.74 22.27 24.01
Milpitas $38,367,020 $453 17 106 2,204 2,310 1.26 26.18 27.44
Los Gatos $17,587,825 $552 43 16 423 439 0.53 14.00 14.53
Campbell $20,229,929 $676 11 91 1,362 1,453 2.18 32.59 34.77
Morgan Hill $17,697,892 $377 36 54 709 763 1.18 15.43 16.61
Gilroy $25,380,854 $407 15 254 1,488 1,742 4.30 25.21 29.51
California 174,331 921,114 1,095,445 4.41 23.31 27.72
United States 1,245,410 6,925,677 8,171,087 3.80 21.11 24.91
1 US Census estimates on 3/24/21 at "http://www.census.gov/quickfacts"
2 Law enforcement services in Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, and Saratoga are provided under contract by the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office.
3 Monte Sereno's contract for police services is for 105 hours per week only. The police budget noted above is the flat rate for 105 hours.
4 The City of Sunnyvale includes both police and fire protection costs in the department's public safety budget.
Page | 15
Contract Costing Model
The Sheriff’s Office (SO), Fiscal Division annually develops a cost estimate for the contracting cities based
upon the Contract Costing Model. The model has been developed in-house and takes into account a
variety of cost factors, which are updated annually. It is important to note that not all cost factors in use
within the costing model are developed by the SO. Some of the cost factors are dictated by other County
departments to the SO, and the cost is just passed along to the contracting agencies. The following points
outline the overall approach utilized to calculate the baseline estimates for the contracted cities.
1. Salaries and Benefits – based on Countywide salary table, applicable benefit rates developed by
County Office of Budget and Analysis, and annual salary increases and allowances specified by
labor agreements.
The salaries and benefits section of the contract is where the costs are captured for not only the
direct staff that are assigned to each city, but also the regional and shared staff among the
contracted cities.
2. Services and Supplies – the direct services and supplies include the projected expenditures for
any supplies, materials, or services associated with the direct or shared staff.
3. Indirect Costs
For all services provided, there are direct costs associated (salaries, benefits, services, and
supplies) and indirect costs such as training, countywide support, divisional overhead, and
departmental overhead. To truly capture the full cost of any service, both direct and indirect cost
components must be captured. SO captures all indirect costs associated with the provision of its
law enforcement services.
• Overhead is calculated on a per position and is developed by taking the costs associated
with those services that primarily provide support to the entire SO. The overhead
calculation consists of the Personnel and Training Division, Information Systems Division,
Records and Fiscal Division. For each of these areas, the cost per employee is generated
by estimating the total administrative costs related to these activities and divided it by
the total number of employees that are supported by those activities. The costs are then
allocated to the division providing contract services based on number of staff assigned to
the contract services or annual percentage of time spent on the activities (Records) . The
total costs for these divisions included the applicable division’s share of the Countywide
overhead.
Page | 16
Cost Calculation Methodology
Page | 17
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Proposed Hours
Cupertino Los Altos Hills Saratoga
Unincorporated
Areas
General Law Enforcement Services
Proposed Hours 41,881 7,256 * 20,060 14,696
Supplemental Services - Traffic Enforcement - Day
Enforcement Vehicle 3,639 ** - - -
Motorcycle 7,212 1,860 4,195 -
Proposed Hours 10,851 1,860 4,195 -
Investigative Services
Proposed Hours 7,200 600 2,400 -
Supplemental Reserve Services
Proposed Hours 1,650 22 340 -
Total Proposed Hours 61,582 9,738 26,995 14,696
School Resources Officer (SRO)
Number of SRO 2 - 1 -
* Includes additional hours equivalent to productive hours of one full-time deputy
** Includes 1 Traffic Sergeant
Page | 18
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Summary of Proposed Costs
Cupertino Los Altos Hills Saratoga
Unincorporated
Areas
General Law Enforcement Services
Proposed Costs $10,168,707 $1,761,757 $4,870,568 $3,568,189
Supplemental Services - Traffic Enforcement - Day
Enforcement Vehicle* $918,336 $0 $0 $0
Motorcycle $1,718,475 $443,082 $999,668 $0
Proposed Costs $2,636,811 $443,082 $999,668 $0
Investigative Services
Proposed Costs $1,742,544 $145,212 $580,848 $0
Supplemental Reserve Services
Proposed Costs $107,778 $1,437 $22,209 $0
School Resources Officer (SRO)
Proposed Costs $574,732 $0 $251,445 $0
Operating Costs Of West Valley Substation
Proposed Costs $254,915 $44,068 $117,252 $71,043
Total Proposed Costs $15,485,487 $2,395,556 $6,841,990 $3,639,232
Total Capped Costs** $15,485,487 $2,395,556 $6,841,990
Amount Over/(Below) Capped Costs $0 $0 $0
* Includes 1 Traffic Sergeant
** Increase in costs capped at CPI + 2% (3.53%) and PERS Increase
Page | 19
Fiscal Years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 Costs Comparison
Cupe rtino Los Altos Hill s
Gene ra l law Enforce ment Services
Budget e d Costs FY 2020-2021 $9,734,401 $1,26Q003
Pro posed Costs FY 2021-2022 $10,168,707 $1,761,757
Ch a nge ($) $4 34,306 $501,754
Ch a nge (%) 4 .5% 39.8%.
Suppleme ntal Services-Traffic Enforce ment-Day
Budgeted Costs FY 2020-2021 $2,307,678 $421,190
Pro posed Costs FY 2021-2022 $2,636,8 11 $443,082
Ch a n ee (S) $329,133 $2 1.892
Ch a nge (%) 14.3% .. 5.2%
lnve.stigativ e Services
Budgeted Costs FY 2020-2021 $1,653,4 80 $137,790
Pro posed Costs FY 2021-2022 $1,7 42,5 44 $145,2 12
Ch a nge ($) $83,064 $7,422
Ch a nge (%) 5 .4% 5.4%
Suppleme ntal Reserve Services
Budgeted Costs FY 2020-2021 $108,4 88 $1,380
Pro posed Costs FY 2021-2022 $107,778 $1,437
Ch a nge ($) $4,2 90 $57
Ch a nge (%) 4 .1% 4.1%
Sl:l nHJI 1\oouu.:t:.::.. O((i t.:t:t (SRO)
Budgeted Costs FY 2020-2021 $5 42,2 90 $0
Pro posed Costs FY 2021-2022 $574,732 $0
Ch a nge ($) $32,442 $0
Ch a nge (%) 6 .0% 0%
Operating Costs Of W e.st Va lley Substation• u •
Budgeted Costs FY 2020-2021 $2 49,4 93 $35,692
Pro posed Costs FY 2021-2022 $254,9 15 $44,068
Ch a nge ($) $5,4 22 $8,376
Ch a nge (%) 2 .2% 23.5%
To ta l Budgeted Costs FY 2020-2021 $14,59Q830 $1,856,0 55
TotJ I Proposed Costs FY 2021-2022 $15,485,487 $2,395,556
Ch a nge ($) $894,657 •• $539,5 01
Ch a nge (%) 6 .1% 29.1%
• ln <ludes aclcl i tion al hours equival ent to productive hou ~of one fu ll -t im e deputy
•• I nc ludes cost adj ustment for T r aff ic Sergeant
••• l n cl udescost adjustment fo r School Resou r ces Officer
•
Uni ncorporate d
Saratoga Are a-s
$4,662,546 $3,415,791
$4,870,568 $3,568,189
$208,022 $15 2,398
4 .5% 4 .5%
$955,02 9 $0
$999,668 $0
$44,639 so
4 .7% 0%
$551,16 0 $0
$580,848 $0
$29,688 $0
5 .4% 0%
$21,325 $0
$22,209 $0
$884 $0
4 .1% 0%
$100,000 $0
$251,445 $0
$15 1,445 $0
15 1.4% ... 0%
$118,898 $72,040
$117 ,252 $71,043
($1,646) ($997)
-1.4% -1.4%
$6,408,958 $3,4 87,831
$6,841,990 $3,639,232
$4 33,082 ••• $15 1,401
6 .8% 4 .3%
•••• Costs f or operati rc: th e W est V all ey Substation v ar ie s each month dependent upon Gener al la\v En forcem:nt H ours and
Sup5=l emental Hou r s u sed b y each city.
Page | 20
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Proposed Hourly Rates
General Law Enforcement Services - Deputy
Sheriff
Supplemental Services - Day - Motorcycle Unit
FY 2021-2022 $242.80
FY 2021-2022 $238.28 FY 2020-2021 $232.43
FY 2020-2021 $226.48 Increase $10.37 4.4616%
Increase $11.80 5.2102%
Supplemental Services - Day - Patrol Car FY 2021-2022 $239.49
FY 2021-2022 $246.38 FY 2020-2021 $227.64
FY 2020-2021 $233.76 Increase $11.85 5.2056%
Increase $12.62 5.3987%
Supplemental Services - Swing - Patrol Car FY 2021-2022 $243.19
FY 2021-2022 $242.02 FY 2020-2021 $234.92
FY 2020-2021 $229.65 Increase $8.27 3.5203%
Increase $12.37 5.3865%
Supplemental Services - Night - Patrol Car
FY 2021-2022 $246.38
FY 2021-2022 $65.32 FY 2020-2021 $234.92
FY 2020-2021 $62.72 Increase $11.46 4.8783%
Increase $2.60 4.1454%
Supplemental Services - Traffic Sergeant
FY 2021-2022 $265.07
FY 2021-2022 $195.70 FY 2020-2021 $251.63
FY 2020-2021 $185.35 Increase $13.44 5.3412%
Increase $10.35 5.5840%
Page | 21
Proposed and Capped Rate Comparison
For FY 2020-2021 and FY 2021-2022
a b c = a - b d e f = e + d g
Rate Category FY22 Rates FY21 Rates
Increase/
(Decrease)
PERS
Increase
FY21 Rate
w/Increase
of 3.53%
FY22 CAP at
FY21 +
3.53% (=
CPI + 2%) +
PERS
FY22
Proposed
Rates
General Law Enforcement Services - Deputy Sheriff $242.80 $232.43 $10.37 $3.89 $240.63 $244.52 $242.80
Supplemental Services - Day - Patrol Car $239.99 $227.64 $12.35 $3.81 $235.68 $239.49 $239.49
Supplemental Services - Swing - Patrol Car $243.19 $234.92 $8.27 $3.90 $243.21 $247.11 $243.19
Supplemental Services - Night - Patrol Car $246.38 $234.92 $11.46 $3.98 $243.21 $247.19 $246.38
Supplemental Services - Traffic Sergeant $268.09 $251.63 $16.46 $4.56 $260.51 $265.07 $265.07
Supplemental Services - Day - Motorcycle Unit $245.41 $226.48 $18.93 $3.81 $234.47 $238.28 $238.28
Supplemental Services - Swing - Motorcycle Unit $248.61 $233.76 $14.85 $3.90 $242.01 $245.91 $245.91
Supplemental Services - Night - Motorcycle Unit $251.80 $233.76 $18.04 $3.98 $242.01 $245.99 $245.99
Law Enforcement Services - Detective $259.98 $229.65 $30.33 $4.26 $237.76 $242.02 $242.02
Supplemental Reserve Services $80.34 $62.72 $17.62 $0.39 $64.93 $65.32 $65.32
School Resources Officer $196.11 $185.35 $10.76 $3.81 $191.89 $195.70 $195.70
Page | 22
Contract Cities’ Statistical Data
2020
Arrests
Totals and Averages
66
Total
Number
Average Per
Deputy
262 3.97
312 4.73
63 0.95
248 3.76
885 13.41
Misdemeanor On View Arrests
Felony Warrant Arrests
Misdemeanor Warrant Arrests (Includes Cite & Release)
Total Arrests
Number of Field Enforcement Deputies
Assigned to West Valley Patrol Division
Felony On View Arrests
Page | 23
2020
Citations
Totals and Averages
66
780 11.82
1296 19.64
3706 56.15
5782 87.61
Speeding Citations
Moving Violation Citations
Number of Field Enforcement Deputies
Assigned to West Valley Patrol Division
All Other Traffic Citations
Total Citations
Page | 24
2020
Reports
Totals and Averages
66
3203 48.53
450 6.82
3653 55.35
Number of Field Enforcement Deputies
Assigned to West Valley Patrol Division
Reports (Felony / Misdemeanor / Other)
Accident Reports
Total Reports
Page | 25
2020
Calls
Totals and Averages
66
29288 443.76
94807 1436.47
124095 1880.23
Number of Field Enforcement Deputies
Assigned to West Valley Patrol Division
Self-Initiated Calls
Total Incidents / Contacts
Radio Generated Calls
Page | 26
2020
Priority Calls by District
Totals
Priority Level C H L S W
1 37 1 1 15 4
2 3244 229 634 1996 364
3 4431 406 647 2065 461
C = Cupertino S = Saratoga
H = Unincorporated Santa Cruz Mountains W = Unincorporated West Valley
L = Los Altos Hills
Page | 27
Statistical Data - City of Saratoga
City o f Saratoga
Selected Crimes
Code Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
Robbery 2110 2115 2018 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 5
2019 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
2020 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3
Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
Burglary, 2018 5 10 8 3 4 0 3 5 10 4 8 12 7 2
Residential 4590 10 5 7 2 13 7 2 5 7 2 8 10 78 2019
2020 8 11 4 0 2 2 1 3 5 6 1 6 49
Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
Burglary, 4591 4592 2018 1 1 0 0 1 1 4 1 3 3 2 0 17
Commercial 2019 3 3 2 2 1 2 0 1 4 0 1 2 21
2020 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 17
Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
Burglary, 4593 2018 2 0 2 2 2 3 1 7 5 6 1 3 3 4
Vehicle 2019 3 0 2 1 0 5 3 1 8 2 4 5 34
2020 3 1 1 0 1 2 7 2 2 1 0 2 22
Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J lil J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
Grand Theft 4870 2018 1 0 3 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 0 3 23
2019 0 9 3 2 2 1 2 1 6 3 1 1 3 1
2020 2 2 3 2 2 6 2 1 2 8 4 10 44
Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
Auto The ft 4703 2018 1 0 0 0 1 3 2 3 2 2 0 0 14
2019 2 0 4 0 0 2 1 1 2 3 3 2 20
2020 0 0 4 3 3 3 4 2 1 2 3 1 2 6
Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
Vandalism 5940 5941 2018 4 1 1 0 0 3 1 0 4 6 0 0 20
2019 1 2 3 1 3 2 5 0 3 2 3 2 27
2020 2 0 3 1 1 5 6 3 2 0 3 4 30
Identity Theft Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
2018 4 6 6 6 3 8 12 3 7 5 8 8 76 Forgery 4700 4702 2019 15 11 12 2 6 4 4 2 4 1 1 5 6 7
Fraud 2020 5 8 7 5 12 6 3 5 7 10 3 5 76
Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
Domestic 2018 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 4 3 0 2 3 21
Violence
2430 2730 1 1 2 2 4 2 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 5 2019
2020 2 5 0 3 2 3 2 0 1 2 0 1 21
Simple& Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
2400 2401 2018 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 7 Aggravated 2402 2403 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 0
Assaults 2404 2405 2019
2020 2 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 3 14
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
2610 2615 2018 0 0 1 0 3 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 Sex Crimes 2880 2885
2890 2895 2019 2 1 1 2 3 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 14
2020 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 5
Page | 28
Saratoga Crime Totals 2018-2020
5
Robbery Iii 2
liiil 3 r ~
t 72
Residential Burglary 78
49
I I
17
Commercial Burglary 21
17
I I
t--j 34
Vehicle Burglary 34
22
I I
-J 23
Grand Theft 31
44
I I -I 14
Auto Theft 20
26
I I
I j 20
Vandalism 27
30
I I !
J 76
ID Theft, Forgery Fra ud 67
76
I I I
J 21
Domestic Violence 25
21
b 7
Assault 10
14
r
J 10
Sex Crimes 14
iiiiiil s
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
"2018 11 2019 11 2020
Page | 29
Saratoga Crime Index
2019-2020 VARIANCES
2019 2020 % Difference
Commercial Burglary 21 17 -19% Jl
Residential Burglary 78 49 -37% l
Vehicle Burglary 34 22 -35% Jl
Auto Theft 20 26 30% t
Grand Theft 31 44 42% t
Identity Theft 67 76 13% t
Robbery 2 3 SO % t
Assaults 10 14 40% t
Domestic Violence 25 21 -16% i
Sex Crimes 14 5 -64% l
Page | 30
In 15 of the reported cases, known time frame of burglary occurred over course
of multiple days, day of week unknown.
SARATOGA RESIDENTIAL BURGLARIES
Page | 31
SARATOGA AUTO THEFT
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58
2011 2012 2013 2014
59
2015 2016 2017
~ 50% -Key was left l inside/with the vehicle
)
42%-Vehicle was left
unlocked
27%-Vehicle stolen from
contractor, landscaper or
other service provider during
scope of employment
2018 2019 2020
Page | 32
SARATOGA GRAND THEFT
r--
ED
--
-----
-
---
:
1-
-r--r--
-E1 E1 E\ -I I I I
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 • Cat a lytic Converter • Other
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Page | 33
City of Saratoga
Traffic Related Activity-Patrol and Traffic Units Combined
Code Year Ja n Feb Ma r Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
Moving 2018 124 102 80 120 90 103 84 103 88 105 109 8 1 1189 8 300
Violations 2019 102 81 67 62 68 80 93 131 123 113 73 52 104 5
2020 66 69 38 8 14 9 29 10 23 27 23 21 337
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
Speeding 2018 25 55 40 42 44 52 56 36 45 42 19 6 462
Citations 8305
2019 14 27 13 23 14 13 25 22 12 34 24 14 2 3 5
2020 4 9 8 3 11 9 11 8 10 25 14 16 128
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
Other 83 10 831 5 83 20 2018 89 134 127 144 85 204 140 117 110 157 153 128 1588
Citations 8325 8330 8335 2019 199 157 139 162 123 134 185 197 135 242 166 133 1972
2020 219 234 184 so 115 42 51 42 43 74 68 80 1202
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
2018 0 3 6 1 5 2 2 1 2 0 3 4 29 DUis 8500 8505 85 10
2019 2 4 3 0 4 4 1 2 1 3 0 1 25
2020 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
Accidents, 8000 8 00 5 80 30 2018 6 4 2 4 3 4 5 2 4 9 3 2 48
Injury 8 035 2019 3 3 6 2 3 1 3 5 4 5 7 3 45
2020 2 6 0 2 7 3 2 5 2 6 2 5 42
Accidents, Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
Property 8010 8015 8020 2018 9 14 17 12 16 9 12 11 10 13 9 7 1 3 9
8025 8 04 0 8045 2019 16 7 10 11 7 4 14 8 10 10 8 7 112 Damage 2020 12 8 8 5 8 7 3 7 7 12 5 5 87
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
Accidents, DUI 8050 8055 8060
2018 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
2 019 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
2020 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
Citations
2500
2 000
1500
1000
500
0
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
• M oving Vi o latio n • Speed i ng Citat ions • Ot her Citations
Page | 34
Saratoga Accidents 2020
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
Injury (8000, 8005)2 6 0 2 7 3 2 5 2 6 2 5 42
Property Damage (8010)10 5 6 4 6 5 2 5 6 8 3 3 63
Accident, No Details (8015)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Bike / Pedestrian (8020, 8025)0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 2 0 8
Hit & Run - Injury (8030, 8035)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hit & Run - Property Damage (8040)2 4 2 1 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 17
Hit & Run - No Details (8045)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DUI - Injury (8050, 8055)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DUI - Property Damage (8060)0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
TOTAL ACCIDENTS 14 16 8 7 17 10 5 13 9 18 7 10 134
11.2
Revenues and Expenditures
The following table details revenues, expenditures, changes in fund balance and General Fund costs by category.
It includes actuals for two prior fiscal years, the Adopted Budget for the prior fiscal year, and the Proposed
Budget for the current fiscal year.
Category 2021 Actual 2022 Actual 2023 Adopted Budget 2024 Proposed Budget
Revenues
Intergovernmental Revenue $ 156,727 $ 161,285 $ 156,000 $ 161,094
Charges for Services $ 410,824 $ 558,777 $ 61,000 $ 115,000
Fines and Forfeitures $ 102,396 $ 188,053 $ 202,000 $ 180,000
Miscellaneous Revenue $ 837,329 $ 887,259 $ 948,721 $ 1,006,552
Transfers In $ -$ 972,987 $ -$ -
Total Revenues $ 1,507,276 $ 2,768,361 $ 1,367,721 $ 1,462,646
Expenditures
Materials $ 158 $ 222 $ 53,891 $ 408
Contract Services $ 14,652,520 $ 15,547,160 $ 16,558,198 $ 17,667,516
Cost Allocation $ 123,003 $ 167,594 $ 153,007 $ 144,684
Total Expenditures $ 14,775,681 $ 15,714,976 $ 16,765,096 $ 17,812,608
Fund Balance $ -$ -$ -$ -
General Fund Costs $ 13,268,406 $ 12,946,615 $ 15,397,375 $ 16,349,962
Staffing
There is no staffing associated with this program.
FY 2023-24 Proposed Budget Law Enforcement 276