Posts made by long

Some comments from the survey:

• DEI has been misused to penalize Aisian and Indian kids. DEI focusses only on race and never looks at diversity of ideas and financial situation
• Democratic party uses race baiting to win election. DEI is not helping but hindering progress of Blacks and Latinos
• DEI is important. white people have built-in advantages in this society and we need to do as much as possible to level the playing field. this might feel unfair now but it is how we can root out privilege.
• DEI is absolutely essential to ensure diversity in workplaces. Its important that thoughts are ideas are shared from different backgrounds to ensure great/universsaly acceptable products
• DEI, such as race or gender equality has gone way too far. It is pushing competent people out. At this time, it is best NOT to have DEI, because it is really confusing and unfair to implement.
• This is social engineering. emphasizing representation at enxpense of merit is a bad idea and will lead to erosion of quality. I belong to the medical field and merit trumps all. Insufficient skills or abilities is dangerous to patient care.
• Abolish DEI. It’s discriminatory
• I think there needs to be a balanced approach to everything rather than a strict all or nothing interpretation.
• My belief is that balancing merit-based policies with other “community “ factors allows for a more well rounded educational community that more closely resembles our full society.
• merit-based is the only fair and honest method
• DEI policies are an indication that Americans need more open but respectful discussions about our common civil society and NOT social justice initiatives enacted by businesses or educational institutions.
• DEI is necessary and allows for a better representation of race, gender, ethnicities and backgrounds in the candidate pool whether it comes to colleges or workplaces. My own college and workplace experience has been a lot more fulfilling due to the diversity of people I have had a chance to study and work with.
• I find the backlash against DEI initiative morally reprehensible. They appear to stem from the flawed idea that everyone had the same opportunities in this country, when the data clearly shows that not to be true.
• DEI initiatives are unconstitutional & racist. When merit (ability) matters, there can be no justification for using criteria other than ability. Nobody wants to get on a plane piloted by a pilot who was hired for any reason other than being the best pilot. Nobody wants to drive a car designed by an engineer who was qualified by their race rather than by their car engineering ability. There is simply no justification for race conscious policies in any situation where the required criterion is merit.
• In my opinion, any privileges based on race, nationality, sex, religion are discriminatory and racist in nature and should be considered extremely harmful to our society and should be prohibited at the federal level. Any DEI program is dangerous to our society. All people are equal and no one should receive any advantages because of the color of their skin or sex.
• You are obviously engaging in bad faith. I am embarrassed by your inclusion on the school board.
• Teach common sense in school. Not political crap like DEI.
• Equity should be established early in education by helping students and families succeed in their education and not at the time of College admission or job hiring where merit should be the only consideration.
• DEI initiatives are vague and ill-defined. I've seen them rolled out at work, and they were top-down. There was no organic problem they were solving. Rather, after George Floyd in 2020, every institution started DEI to virtue signal. In my experience, DEI appears to serve as cover for institutions to discriminate by race/sex/etc. while denying they're doing so. The effort to bring these "initiatives" to schools, especially with young kids, is completely age-inappropriate indoctrination.
• Instead of using race or ethnicity the system should use economic-hardship and help those people who come from hard economic circumstances instead of helping people based on color of their skin or ethnicity or religion.

In a recent directive, the Trump Administration has mandated that all U.S. schools and universities eliminate their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, threatening the loss of federal funding for noncompliance. Additionally, the administration has launched investigations into the admissions policies of Stanford University, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UC Irvine, targeting what it describes as "race-based preferences" in an effort to enforce anti-DEI policies.

What is DEI?

DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. These initiatives aim to promote opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups by addressing systemic barriers in education, employment, and other sectors. Proponents argue that DEI fosters fairness and broadens access, while critics contend that it can lead to preferential treatment for some groups and disadvantage others.

DEI and California Law

California’s stance on race and equity in public institutions is shaped by Proposition 209, passed in 1996. This measure amended the state constitution to prohibit public entities—including schools, universities, and government agencies—from considering race, sex, or ethnicity in public employment, contracting, and education. In 2020, Proposition 16 sought to repeal Prop 209 and restore the ability to use such factors, but voters rejected it. As a result, California’s public institutions remain legally barred from implementing race-, sex-, or ethnicity-based preferences.

The Trump Administration’s recent investigations into Stanford, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UC Irvine signal a determined effort to uncover whether these universities are quietly defying California’s strict ban on race-based preferences in admissions. Despite the state constitution—via Proposition 209—explicitly prohibiting such practices, the administration suspects these institutions may be secretly favoring certain racial groups, and it has threatened to cut federal funding if evidence of these hidden “race-based preferences” comes to light.

Cupertino Union School District’s Position

The Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) does not currently operate formal DEI programs. Given this, and California’s existing legal framework under Prop 209, CUSD appears unlikely to be directly impacted by the administration’s anti-DEI measures or funding threats.

DEI in College Admissions and Workplace Hiring

The debate over DEI extends to college admissions and workplace hiring, where DEI initiatives can sometimes conflict with purely merit-based approaches. DEI-focused policies often aim to balance representation across factors like gender, race, or other identities, emphasizing systemic equity. In contrast, merit-based systems prioritize individual qualifications, such as academic achievements or professional skills, without regard to demographic characteristics. Both approaches spark discussion: DEI advocates highlight the need to address historical inequities, while merit-based proponents argue for evaluating candidates solely on their abilities.

These approaches reflect distinct philosophies. DEI policies often group individuals by identity categories to achieve balanced representation across diverse groups. Merit-based policies, however, focus on treating each candidate as an individual, emphasizing their unique qualifications and contributions without reference to group identity. Both perspectives fuel ongoing discussions about fairness, opportunity, and the best path to equitable outcomes.

Cupertino Mayor Liang Chao made comment below in WhatsApp.

In my opinion, it’s a bit misleading to attribute the transition to district based election to potential attorney letters. As you might have known, FUHSD Board just decided to transition because some people were pushing for it.

The intent of CVRA was that in case there is racialized voting (people voting according to racial lines), district based election might help minorities, assuming that minorities concentrate in one district.

But that’s not the case for a racially diverse area like Silicon Valley. People here don’t congregate by race in where they live.

Splitting FUHSD into 5 districts, in fact, split up Chinese votes since there is not enough Chinese votes in any one district, similarly to ethnic groups.

Chinese voters might not all support Chinese candidates but they might support candidates who share their values on education. Splitting them up into districts, splitting up their voting power.

The California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) of 2001 aims to prevent the dilution of minority voting power in at-large election systems. Unlike federal voting rights laws, the CVRA lowers the bar for minority groups to challenge governments using at-large elections, often prompting cities and school districts to switch to by-trustee-area elections to avoid costly litigation.

At-Large vs. By-Trustee-Area Elections

• At-Large Elections: All voters in a district elect every trustee, regardless of where they live within the district. The Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) currently uses this system.
• By-Trustee-Area Elections: The district is divided into separate geographic areas, each electing its own trustee. Voters cast ballots only for the trustee representing their specific area.

Recent Transitions in Neighboring Districts

• In 2024, the Fremont Union High School District, which encompasses the entire area of CUSD, shifted from at-large to by-trustee-area elections, sparking lively debate among local residents.
• Similarly, the Mountain View Los Altos High School District began transitioning to by-trustee-area elections in 2024, with the process still underway as of February 2025.

These changes highlight a growing trend in the region.

What Triggers a Transition

The shift to by-trustee-area elections often begins with a demand letter from an attorney citing the CVRA. Under the law, plaintiffs don't need to prove that a minority group is concentrated enough in a specific area to form a majority, giving them a legal edge. However, districts can resist the change if they demonstrate that no such concentration exists. For instance, the Palo Alto Unified School District received a demand letter but successfully argued that its minority populations were not sufficiently concentrated to justify by-trustee-areas, allowing it to retain at-large elections.

Potential Benefits and Drawbacks of By-Trustee-Area Elections

Benefits:

• Candidates campaign in smaller areas, making it easier to connect with voters.
• Campaign costs are typically lower due to the reduced geographic scope.
• Each major area of the district gains its own representative, which some view as fairer geographic representation.

Drawbacks

• CUSD might lack strong evidence that a minority group's voting power is significantly diminished by at-large elections, weakening the legal case for a change.
• Voter influence is reduced: In a five-trustee district with four-year terms, voters currently elect all five trustees over four years under at-large elections, but with by-trustee-area elections, they'd vote for only one trustee in that time.
• Trustees might prioritize their area's needs over the district's broader interests, potentially fragmenting decision-making.

Looking Ahead

By-trustee-area elections offer a potential path toward localized representation, but they also raise questions about voter influence and district unity. As CUSD considers its options -- possibly in response to a future attorney letter -- the trade-offs between these systems remain a critical topic for community discussion.

District staff presented on CUSD property matters at the board advance meeting on January 23, 2025. The presentation can be found here.

Current Property Conditions

Below is the screenshot for property current conditions.

Options for Meyerholz and Finch

Meyerholz Elementary School:

• Meyerholz Elementary School, which was closed (see here for more detail), currently houses Cuperdoodle, a district-run preschool, utilizing the portable structures of Meyerholz. For more details, see here.

Finch Property:

• The Finch property is a 1.48-acre vacant lot purchased by the district around 2017. The house on the property was removed, and the contaminated soil was cleaned up. It is currently zoned R1-6, indicating single-family homes with a minimum 6,000-square-foot lot.

Finch Property Options
During the meeting, several options for the Finch property were discussed:

• Central Kitchen
• District Educational or Recreation needs
• City needs
• Revenue generation

The first two options were briefly mentioned with high cost/maintenance. The option for city needs remains undecided due to a lack of formal communication with the City of Cupertino.

Potential revenue options: The consultant presented three potential revenue generation options.

• Senior Project:. Estimated value range is $5.5M - $6.5M, but this option was ruled out due to the site's unsuitability for a senior project.
• Single Family Project: Estimated value range is $9M - $10M.
• Townhome Project. Estimated value range is $10M - 11M. Please notice it would be up to developer to change the zoning.

The consultant advised that the district should not act as the developer. The recommended approach involves:

• Selling the property to a developer with a plan
• Purchasing another commercial property to generate rental revenue.

These steps can be combined to appear as an "exchange" to the district.

However, several questions require further exploration:

• Do we need to sell the Finch property? Keeping it vacant incurs maintenance costs, and the government might begin charging property taxes.
• If we sell the Finch property, should we exchange it for a commercial property?

(Disclaimer: this article is NOT investment advice.) According to investopedia, the S&P 500 index has significantly outperformed real estate over the last 50 years. Also,

• The index comprises 500 top companies, offering more diversification and lower risk than specific real estate investments.
• The index ETF also provides quarterly dividends, offering the district a cash flow as well.
• Additionally, the index ETF is a "buy and hold" investment, eliminating the need for property management, tenant acquisition, and concerns about natural disasters.

If we do it right, CUSD probably might never need to issue more bonds 50 years later.

Meyerholz Options

Currently, Cuperdoodle occupies the portables at Meyerholz. There are two rental options for Meyerholz: with or without the portables. Renting all buildings would generate more rental income, but the district would need to find a new site for Cuperdoodle if all buildings are rended out.

Another resident replied at https://pastebin.com/KD1ZUXVz. Below is the content.

The response from resident James not only lacks proper nuance, but is evidence of the lack of education relating to this subject.

Yes, trans people do represent a small portion of the population. But in the real world, chances are, more likely than not, that your child will interact with a person who identifies as such. Exposing this topic to them so they have a better understanding of the world around them is crucial for their success as they grow up.

Characterizing the increased visibility of transgender people as a 'social contagion' fundamentally misunderstands what we're observing. Consider the following analogy: Imagine if left-handedness was stigmatized and forcibly suppressed. In this situation, left-handed people didn't cease to exist—they simply hid their natural inclination. As society's acceptance grew, the recorded number of left-handed people rose dramatically, not because being left-handed was 'contagious,' but because people finally felt safe being themselves. By the time acceptance was widespread, the percentage of left-handed people stabilized at its natural rate of about 10%.
What may look like a 'sudden increase' to some is actually the unveiling of what was always present, just hidden from view. We aren't seeing more transgender people being created—we're seeing more transgender people who feel safe enough to live authentically.

The last claim is just straight up moronic. Bathroom signs are not stopping rapists and perverts. Please cite sources when making claims as bold as “rapes are clearly correlated with trans women using the women’s bathroom”.

CUSD Measure Z Approved with $347M Bond

Measure Z, a bond measure for Cupertino Union School District (CUSD), has been approved with a 61.07% approval rate. This bond, amounting to $347 million, will be funded through a property tax rate of approximately $21 per $100,000 of assessed valuation, generating $23,300,000 annually. Importantly, Measure Z extends the current tax rate without any increase.

Next Steps: Allocating the Funds

With the bond approved, it's now crucial to determine how to allocate the funds to maximize benefits for the community and the school district. A Citizens' Bond Oversight Committee will be formed, appointed by the school board, to ensure transparency and effective use of the bond money. For more information about Measure Z, please see here.

Partial Project List

The district hired a third party conducted a survey about priorities of the projects.

Hiring Contractors for Measure Z Projects

There is a discussion on the best approach to hiring contractors. One perspective advocates for exclusively hiring unionized contractors to ensure better quality work and suggests using a Project Labor Agreement (PLA). According to sources, PLAs can have various impacts:

• Impact on Cost: PLAs may increase the overall cost of the projects
• Impact on Competition: PLAs could discourage or prevent non-unionized contractors from competing for construction projects.
• Impact on Minority Contractors: PLAs might disproportionately impact small businesses, particularly those owned by women and minorities.
• Local Impact: PLAs can be used by public project owners like school boards or city councils to set goals for creating local jobs and achieving social welfare goals.

This issue was visited at the Board Winter Advance on January 23, 2025..

Use Measure Z to Reimburse Previous Project?

There was a tentative resolution proposed at the board meeting on December 9, 2024. The tentative resolution stated, "the District will reimburse the District’s Building Fund 21 the balance of the debt lease financing for the District solar project costs from the bond proceeds from Measure Z".

The resolution was for discussion only and didn't appear at subsequent board meetings.

The solar project was approved on November 2, 2023. According to the presentation, the project is funded with a debt that can be paid off through savings on utility bills. The district starts to save money even with the debt in place. The debt is like a mortgage. If not paid off, the 19 year total payment would be more than $61M.

Pros and Cons of Using Measure Z to Pay Off the Solar Project
Pros:

• The district won't need to pay for the solar debt in the future, which will reduce the expenditure from the general fund (about $1.8M per year).

Cons:

• It will impact the number of new projects Measure Z can support.
• The community may not anticipate or agree with this usage of funds.

Response from resident James:

In general, trans issues probably shouldn't be taught to children, unless proper context is provided. Although there are people who are actually born trans, they tend to be less than 1% of the population.

The massive increase in "trans people" (mental, not genetic or physical) over the last decade or two, is in part due to a "social contagion" aspect, which appears to be bolstered by such widespread media surrounding it.

There are plenty of reasons why people might feel like they "don't fit in," especially, again, in the last decade or two, where the amount of "ways to live" is higher than ever. This doesn't mean that they should be incentivized to pursue life-changing hormones/surgeries with a relatively high incidence of life-long pain/discomfort, both physical and mental.

Also, with regards to the safety of "biological women," "trans women" probably shouldn't be allowed in women's prisons, sports, etc., and perhaps even restrooms, as the increased amount of rapes and injuries is clearly correlated.

Since the beginning of the 2024-25 school year, the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) has faced several controversial issues, attracting significant media attention. You can find some media reports here and here.

Long Jiao mentioned adoption of BP 6144 at the Board Meeting on September 26, 2024, a request also made by a group of CUSD parents at CurriculumIntegrity.org. Board members Jerry Liu, Phyllis Vogal, Sylvia Leong, and Satheeth Madhathil requested to add BP 6144 to future agenda items during the September 24, 2024, board meeting.

BP 6144 appeared in the Board Advance on October 17, 2024, and will be revisited in the future.

BP 6144 is a board policy regarding instructions related to controversial issues.

Some of the guidelines for instructions related to controversial issues are:

• The topic shall be age-appropriate.
• Instruction shall be presented in a balanced manner without bias and without promoting any particular point of view.
• In the classroom, teachers act on behalf of the District and are expected to follow the adopted curriculum, meaning they have limited freedom of speech in the classroom.
• Students have the freedom of speech without jeopardizing their grades or being subject to discrimination, retaliation, or discipline.

Below are the full list of guidelines.

A group of CUSD parents supported BP 6144. And some members of the Cupertino Educators Association (CEA), or the Teachers' Union, opposed it.

BP 6144 has been adopted by numerous California school districts, including the Fremont Union High School District, which encompasses the entire CUSD area.

CUSD adopted BP 6144 at the board meeting on 11/21. See here and here for details.

During the board meeting on 10/14/2021, CUSD Board voted (with 3:2 simple majority) to close Meryerholz and Regnart Elementary Schools. This decision had profound consequences to the community.

But this is not the end of it. According to the Board Meeting on 9/23/2021, the district might evaluate another possible school closure in FY2025-26.

It's important to revisit what happened in 2021 to understand the process and the reason leading to the schools' closure, as well as what can be improved.

The Timeline

• CUSD failed to pass parcel tax Measure O in March 2020.

• CUSD created a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) in the Spring of 2020 to consider options for school closures and consolidations.

• The CAC presented the final report on 10/22/2020 after five meetings.

• In November 2020, right after the election, the community was informed about possible school closures.

• CUSD failed to pass another parcel tax Measure A in May 2021. According to [the report]
  (https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/cusdk8/Board.nsf/files/C78SEY0492B6/$file/Cupertino Union School District - Final Report.pdf), "The Parcel Tax revenue would allow the district to delay the decision of closing schools."

• The district resumed school closure process after the failure of Measure A.

• The board voted 3:2 to close Meyerholz and Regnart at the Board Meeting at 10/14/2021.

The Reason

The district mentioned two reasons for school closures:

• Declining enrollment
• State funding affecting the district budget

The district expected the enrollment to continue to drop.

The district expected the budget to be in a deficit for many years.

Several years have passed, and I collected the actual data and compared with the prediction below. The enrollment prediction was relatively accurate, but the financial predictions were way off.

Notably, the budget in FY 2023-24 is in a deficit again even though the actual revenue is $42M more than the predicted revenue and $34M more than the predicted expense.

One of the reasons for school closures was to reduce the expense, but the expense was not affected by the school closures at all.

Enrollment Rules
The district proposed two enrollment rules during the school closures in 2021.

• Each elementary school should be staffed with at least two Kindergarten classes.
  
• Each middle school should be more than 700 students. (see above)

According to publicschoolreview.com, average school size in California is 588 students.

What Can Be Better?

Since the CUSD school closures in 2021, possible future school closures have become nightmares among local residents, such as the dispute related to the FUHSD Trustee Area transition.

To restore residents' confidence to the district, I think there are at least two things the district can improve on

• Critical district issues (like school closures, reconfiguration, selling school sites, etc,) should require super-majority (or 4 out of 5) votes from the board.
• If schools are going to be closed due to low enrollment, they need to have opportunity of open enrollment programs across the district.

Note

Someone asked for the voting record for the school closures. You can find the information from the record for the 10/14/2021 board meeting at Agenda - Cupertino Union School District BoardDocs Plus. They don't have a direct link and you have to manually find the meeting on that day. It was agenda item 13.1. Below is a screenshot.

Please notice Sylvia Leong and Phyllis Vogel's current term end at the end of 2024. Sylvia is seeking for re-election while Phyllis hasn't pulled any paper yet (up to 7/25/2024).

At the Board meeting on 4/25/2024, the Board discussed the plan to relocate the District Administrative Office from its current location at S. Mary Avenue, Sunnyvale to the Meyerholz campus. which was closed by the district in 2021.

The district plans to use Certificates of Participation (COP) debt to finance the new office building. Unlike bonds, which need to be approved by voters, COP comes from the district's operating budget and doesn't need voter approval. The district is currently in a budget deficit.

Since CUSD is renting its current Administrative Office, after moving into the new office, the district needs to pay the COP, but not the current rent. The current rent is about $471K per year. The COP payment would be about $686K per year, an increase of about $215K per year. I assume the district would pay both current rent and the COP while the new office building is in construction. But the district needs to pay neither after COP is paid off (30 years later).

This district is planning to convert Meyerholz Elementary School to new district office, but is this the best location? I assume once Meyerholz is converted to district office, it wouldn't be suitable to be a school anymore. Should we keep Meyerholz as a potential school site and build the new district office somewhere else?

Southwest corner of Lawson Middle School could be a good alternative place. The corner is currently occupied by a lot of school buses and other district facilities. It looks like below.

The Finch site is a 1.5 acres empty lot next to Sedgwich Elementary School. It should be a suitable alternative site if it's large enough.

CUSD Board discussed a potential bond measure at the 4/25/2024 Board meeting. The list of projects can be found here.

Why bonds?

As you can see in CUSD FY2023-24 Budget, CUSD budget were spent on

• Employee Salaries and Benefits (83%)
• Books and Supplies (7%)
• Services and Operating Expenditures (9%)
• Misc expenses

Only part of "Services and Operating Expenditures" can be used for facility repairs and improvements. But that's not enough. CUSD depends on bonds for facility repairs and improvements as a "tradition".

What are current bonds?

You can find all CUSD bonds on EMMA.

Residents are currently paying two CUSD bonds right now (you can check at Santa Clara County Tax Allocation).

The 2001 bond should be paid off in 2027.
The 2012 bond (Measure H) ran out of money in FY2022-23, but will be paid off around 2040.

What's the difference between bonds and parcel taxes?

Please see this article for more information.

How bonds work?

According to Bond measure at the 4/25/2024 Board meeting,

• The district raises the money (bond) in three series
• The residents pay back the bond based on assessed property value in about 30 years (probably faster since the assessed property value should increase)
• The district uses the bond money on projects (normally last shorter than payback time, previous 2001 and 2012 bonds lasted around 10 years each)

The Official Bond Measure:
On 06/13/2024, the board voted to put modified tax rate extension on November ballot. The total bond amount is $347M. The tax rate looks like below with longer term and lower average tax rate.

The project list for the bond is mostly generic with emphasis on new classrooms, labs for Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Math (STEAM). The keywords for the usage are "repair", "modernize", "renovate", "upgrade", "expand", "construct", etc. Below are the full list.

If passed, the bond will have an oversight committee and report the usage every year.

Scenarios for new bonds (obsolete)

The district proposed three scenarios. Below are the screenshots where you can see residents' burden and the bond amount.

Please notice the tax rate is per $100,000 assessed value (not market value). If you property is assessed to be $2M, your burden for this bond will be 20 times the proposed tax rate per year.

Tax rate: $30 per $100,000 assessed value, total bond value: $444M.

Tax rate: $24 per $100,000 assessed value, total bond value: $350M.

Tax rate extension. Total bond value: $306M.

CUSD is about to transition from LCFF (Local Control Funding Formula) to Basic Aid in 2024-25.

California K-12 public schools have two funding models: LCFF and Basic Aid, with California setting an entitlement per ADA (Average Daily Attendance). If the school district revenue from property taxes and other sources is less than the entitlement, the district will be funded by LCFF via state funds. Otherwise, the school district will be funded by Basic Aid via property taxes.

If school district is funded by LCFF, the total revenue will be related to enrollment. The more enrollment (ADA) there is, the more revenue the district receives. If the school district is funded by Basic Aid, its total revenue will be based on the total amount of local property tax, and not related to enrollment anymore.

From Santa Clara County Tax Allocation, CUSD should receive 24.75% of the property tax (FUHSD receives 16.71% of the property tax). The total property tax rate is about 1% of accessed value.

CUSD also has two active bonds which are at 0.0357% in total. For $100K accessed value, CUSD should receive $247.50 from the 1% property tax plus $35.70 from active bonds. As a comparison, FUHSD receives $167.10 from the 1% property tax plus $44.10 from bonds.

From CUSD 2023-24 budget, the revenue for CUSD is $207M in FY 2023-24, a 12% (or $28M) decrease compared to that in FY 2022-23 due to reduction in Federal, State (other than LCFF) and local revenues. But the total expenditures are $223M. So CUSD has a $16M deficit in FY 2023-24.

Within the $223M expenditures, about $185M are for employee (teachers and administration positions) salaries and benefits.

Compared to FY 2022-23, the enrollment in FY 2023-24 decreased 1.5% (from about 13,700 to about 13,500).

But the total budgeted FTE (Full Time Employee) in FY 2023-24 is 1502.540, an increase of 53.491 (3.7%) compared to FY 2022-23 (1438.174).

Budget for FY 2024-25

CUSD passed a stunning budget for FY 2024-25 with more than $33M deficit. The expense is more than 10% compared to previous year. Below is a summary of the budget.

Cupertino City staff proposed new Capital Improvement Programs for FY 2024-25 at 3/19/2024 Council Meeting. Six (6) new projects were proposed with total cost about $19.5M.

At the same time, there are seventeen (17) existing projects with remaining funds more than $25.8M, 6 nearly completed projects, and 5 completed projects. See here for a complete list.

Because Cupertino is in a budget crisis right now, the city's capital reserve is expected to drain out in two years.

Weeks later, city staff proposed City Work Program (CWP) for FY 2024-25 at 4/3/2024 Council Meeting.

Comparing with proposed CWP staff proposed one year ago (4/4/2023), the new proposed CWP staff proposed on 4/3/2024 has a noticeable change: the new CWP didn't include any budget information. Some of the CWPs appeared in the 2023 CWP list which contains budget information. But there are some new CWPs (like "Speed Limit Lowing") totally missing budget information.

The list of new CIPs can be found here. Below are the screenshots for each of them.

Which CIP do you support?

Bollinger Road is the boundary between Cupertino and San Jose.

In July 2021 (during Covid-19 pandemic), the City of Cupertino generated Bollinger Road Corridor Safety Study. The report provided many safety suggestions and two alternatives.

• Alternative A includes a lane reduction on Bollinger Road, from two travel lanes in each direction to one travel lane in each direction and a two-way left-turn lane.
• Alternative B maintains the existing lane configuration of two travel lanes in each direction.

You can also see related information here.

San Jose Spotlight reported on 01/22/2024 that the project is set to start this (2024) summer.

Cupertino received external funding for this project. Cupertino needs to pay 20% of the cost for design.

This project appeared as Low priority item on 03/19/2024 City Council study session.

According to Bollinger Road Corridor Safety Study, the total cost for Alternative A is $11.7M, and the total cost for Alternative B is $10.5M in 2021. The project will be a five-year project. And total cost for Cupertino is estimated to be $4M.

During the public comment time, residents were split into two groups with one group supported Alternative A (lane reduction), while another group supported Alternative B (maintain lanes). Which alternative do you support?

Below are more details about Bollinger Road Corridor Safety Study.

The study is a safety study with goals to "identify improvements to create a safer and more accessible corridor". According to the report, seems all the collisions happened at intersections.

The study performed two surveys in March 2021 and May 2021, respectively. The March survey received 247 responses. While the survey in May had 139 unique users "VIEW" the maps. The report didn't mention how many responses received for the survey in May. The survey in May was about the two alternatives of reducing lanes and maintaining current lanes. Some residents reported they were aware of the survey in March, but they were not aware of the survey in May.

The results for the survey in March 2021 were:

The results for the survey in May 2021 were:

California cities are expected to update their Housing Element every eight years. The Housing Element serves as the local government's blueprint for how the city will grow and develop.

The Housing Element must be approved by HCD (California Department of Housing and Community Development). HCD adopted RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) in 2021. HCD uses the RHNA methodology to specify housing allocation goals. The allocation numbers that Cupertino and other cities must now meet are generally much higher than previous cycles. An audit by the California State Auditor has outlined several weaknesses in the RHNA methodology. Here is a good article regarding the controversy regarding this issue.

California also passed many laws recently to encourage housing. Those new laws and HCD's high RHNA allocations changed cities' Housing Element dramatically. Cupertino has no exception. Cupertino's RHNA allocation is 4,588 new units from 2023 to 2031.

Cupertino has its third draft of Housing Element. To achieve the RHNA allocation, Cupertino rezoned many sites and setup many ways to increase density.

One interesting part of the Housing Element is HE-1.3.6 (page H-17 of the Housing Element third draft). The first bullet says "Allowing corner lots in R1 zoning districts to develop as multi-family rental housing using R3 zoning regulations to encourage missing-middle developments." R1 means single family house. R2 means duplex. R3 is not triplex, but multi-family housing. All apartments in Cupertino so far are R3. This means all the corner lots can become apartments without additional parking requirements.

The second bullet says "Allowing lots zoned for single-family residential uses that abut (either shares a property line or is directly across the street from) property that fronts an arterial or major collector, and is zoned and used for commercial or mixed-use development, to develop with rental multi-family housing using R3 zoning regulations to encourage missing middle housing. "

This means properties located behind or around a shopping center can become apartments. Probably many people live there didn't realize they are impacted.

Arterials:

• Homestead Rd
• Stevens Creek Blvd
• De Anza Blvd
• Wolfe Rd

Major collectors:

• N. Tantau
• Miller Ave
• N. Stelling
• Bubb Rd
• N. Foothill Expressway

Below is an incomplete list of impacted streets:

• Near Homestead
  ** Shady Oak Ln
  ** Firethorn Dr
• Near Stevens Creek Blvd
  ** Norwich Ave - all of east side
  ** Amherst Dr-east end
  ** Denison Ave-south end
  ** Wheaton Dr-all of south side
  ** Stern Ave-north end
  ** Bret Ave-north end
  ** Judy Ave-north end
  ** S Tantau Ave-north end
  ** E. Estates Dr-north end
  ** Richwood Dr-north end
  ** Bixby Dr-all of north side
  ** Brenda Ct-north and east end
  ** Mello Place-north end
  ** Deeprose Pl-north end (possibly)
  ** Randy Lane-south end close to Stevens Creek Blvd
  ** Miner Place-north end, south end
  ** Partlett Place-north end, south end and by Donut Wheel
  ** Scofield Dr – all of it
  ** Alves Dr-between Sachi Way and Stelling
  ** Peninsula Ave-south end
  ** Santa Clara Ave-south end
  ** Adrian Ave-south end
  ** Eaton Place-east end
  ** Ramona Ct-north end
  ** Northeast side of Stevens Creek Blvd near N. Foothill Expressway
  ** Cupertino Rd-west end
• De Anza Blvd
  ** Sunrise Dr-east end (possibly)
  ** Rodrigues Ave-behind XLB Kitchen shopping center
  ** Terry Way-east side
  ** Paradise Dr-east side
  ** McClellan Rd-northeast and southeast end
  ** Felton Way-east side
  ** Blossom Ln-east end
  ** Kirwin Ln-east end
  ** Westlynn Way- east side (possibly)
  ** Jamestown Dr-east side
  ** Clifden Way – west end
  ** Clay St – west end
  ** Silverado Ave – west end
• Bollinger
  ** Clifden Way-west side
  ** La Roda Dr-south end
  ** S Blaney Ave-southwest end

Due to a state audit, Cupertino lost about $30M online sales tax per year.

For FY 2023-24, Cupertino reduced the spending to $120M (the spending was $130M for FY 2022-23), a $10M reduction compared to previous fiscal year. The $10M reduction was mainly Service-Level Reductions.

Below is a screenshot for FY 2023-24 budget.

According to staff report on 01/17/2024 (snapshot on 1/23/2024, the original link is here which will download a file to your computer), even with budget cutting made in FY 2023-24, Cupertino is still facing $10M budget deficit. And the gap will grow up to $15M in ten years.

To reduce the budget deficit, the City Council is seeking to

• Increase revenue with new taxes and increasing fees for city services
• Reduce spending with potential service-level reductions (snapshot on 1/21/2024. The original link is here which will download a file to your computer).

At the same time, Cupertino Voice performed some budget related surveys. One promising suggestion for reducing the budget, endorsed by a majority of respondents to Survey #2, was to “Scaling back the Staff Per 1,000 Residents to FY 2014-15 level". This measure alone could save the city about $9M per year. The results of Survey #2 were shared with the City Council with both oral and written communications.

City staff proposed a list of 32 potential service-level reductions (SLR). Most of them will affect residents everyday life.

Cupertino Facts also had a nice article covers this topic.

Below are sceenshots for those SLRs

On 11/14/2023, the Planning Commission of Cupertino made significant changes about Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) policies. The changes include:

• Allow up to three ADUs on a single family lot (page 19 of the redline)
  ** Old rule: only one ADU in general, two ADUs with conditions
• Increase the height limitation of ADUs (page 20 of the redline)
  ** Detached, new rule: 18 feet, old rule: 16 feet
  ** Attached, new rule: 25 feet, old rule: N/A
• Two-story ADU allowed (page 20 of the redline)
  ** Old rule: Only conversion of existing two story part of primary dwelling unit allowed
• Two-story permit is eliminated for primary dwelling unit (page 13 of the redline)

No new parking requirement was added for ADUs.

The maximum three ADUs per lot could be in any combination of the following, taking into consideration other existing zoning standards:

• One attached ADU
• One conversion of existing space ADU (whether in principal dwelling unit or existing accessory structure)
• One detached ADU, or
• One Junior ADU

The redline of the changes can be found here. Note: the document was downloaded from City Council item on 12/06/2023. It was uploaded to Google Drive so you don't have to download a pdf file for every click.

The minutes of the meeting can be found here.

According to Bloomberg Tax, Cupertino City Council weighs four tax options to fill in Apple revenue loss. The council must decide by June to make the options appear on the November 2024 ballot.

City of Cupertino published a survey for business community at here.

The four tax options are:

• A 0.25% local transaction and use tax, which would be added to the 9.125% sales tax. It would be levied on purchases made in Cupertino and allocated to the city. The city expects this tax would raise $5.4 million annually.
• An increase from 12% to 15% in the city's transient occupancy tax on lodging, which would raise $1.9 million per year.
• A parcel tax levied at a flat rate or several progressive rates on homes and businesses, which would raise $3.7 million per year.
• A business operations tax levied at progressive rates based on some measurable aspect of the business operations, such as: gross receipts/payroll, number of employees, square footage of business, etc. BOT would raise $4.1 million per year.

Transaction and Use Tax is different from sales tax. Sales tax is based on Point of Sale, while TUT is based on Point of Delivery. Cupertino residents should pay TUT when they shop online since TUT applies to delivery address. Anyone shopping in Cupertino businesses also should pay the increased TUT.

Cupertino's current sales tax is 9.125%. With 0.25% hike, the new tax rate will be 9.375%. As comparison, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Los Altos have sales tax rate at 9.125%. While sales tax in San Jose is 9.375%.

The city's survey suggested the Business Operation Tax being considered is employee head tax. Many businesses, including Apple, expressed they oppose such tax before. But that happened before Apple sales tax loss. Apple mentioned they would stop any future growth in Cupertino if employee head tax is levied.

The parcel tax applies to each home and business. It can be either flat rate or per square foot. Flat rate has more impact for individual home owners than large landlords since they would pay the same amount regardless the size of the property. The city's survey suggested flat rate Parcel Tax is being considered. Bloomberg has an article A Progressive Parcel Tax Could Solve Cupertino’s Budget Woes.

Transient Occupancy Tax applies to lodgers in Cupertino hotels. It doesn't affect residents directly, but may affect hotel business.

Below is a copy of this article on Bloomberg Tax by Laura Mahoney

Cupertino Weighs Four Tax Options to Fill in Apple Revenue Loss
December 5, 2023, 7:47 PM PST

o City council faces June deadline to decide
o Revenue loss tied to state’s review of Apple sales tax agreement
By Laura Mahoney / December 5, 2023 10:47PM ET / Bloomberg Law
Leaders in Apple Inc.'s hometown of Cupertino are considering a menu of four tax increases to make up for the loss of revenue from the company’s online sales.
The Cupertino City Council voted 4-1 on Tuesday to direct its staff to ask businesses in the city for their input on the tax ideas and report back in January, when the council will also be considering budget cuts to help close a $15 million deficit due to the state’s actions. Next, the council could consider narrowing the options for possible placement on the November 2024 ballot after polling residents to gauge support. The council must decide by June.
The four tax options are:
• A 0.25% local transaction and use tax, which would be added to the 9.125% currently levied in Cupertino that includes statewide sales tax and six different county or regional special taxes. It would be levied on purchases made in Cupertino and allocated to the city, and would raise $5.4 million annually.
• An increase from 12% to 15% in the city’s transient occupancy tax on lodging, which would raise $1.9 million per year.
• A parcel tax levied either at a flat rate or several progressive rates on homes and businesses, which would raise $3.7 million per year.
• A business operations tax, or employee tax, levied at progressive rates based on the number of employees, which would raise $4.1 million per year.
Cupertino is facing the choices because the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration is scrutinizing whether Apple improperly designated the city as the location of online transactions for iPhones, MacBooks, Airpods, and other products sold in California. The city has an agreement with Apple to give 35 cents of every dollar to the company, and has paid Apple $107.7 million since 1998.
The council has already set aside $56.5 million to repay the department for sales tax it has received since April 2021 and expects future sales tax revenue could drop by 73%.
The city is appealing the department’s determination, but that process is expected to take months or years and could end up in state court.
Council members, who did not name Apple during the hearing, opted to ask the business community for input first instead of taking recommendations from its staff and a consulting firm that analyzed options to begin polling residents on their support for the transaction and use tax. That option, which would require a majority of voters’ approval, would keep the city’s tax rate competitive with its neighbors’ and be spread across residents, businesses, and visitors.
Even if the city enacts a tax increase, it will still face an annual budget shortfall of at least $10 million, said Kristina Alfaro, director of administrative services.
To contact the reporter on this story: Laura Mahoney in Sacramento, Calif. at lmahoney@bloombergindustry.com
Link to story: https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report-state/cupertino-weighs-four-tax-options-to-fill-in-apple-revenue-loss

Don’t make me wrong. I like the idea of Democracy. But I don’t like our current practices of Democracy.

Our current practice is the Trustee Model of Representation. Voters vote for a candidate based on the belief that the candidate will represent them properly. Once elected, the representative works on their own for two, four or six years based on the length of the term. But voters basically lose control of their representative.

This model fails in both theory and reality.

There are only four ways of spending money.

• You spend your own money on yourself. Our everyday life works on this model. Fortunately it is also the most efficient way of spending money — you always try to spend your own money in a way that serves you the best.
• You spend your own money on someone else. Thinking of giving gifts for a coworker’s baby shower. You tend to not care about the gift, with staying under the budget being your main concern.
• You spend someone else’s money on yourself. One legal case is that if you are on a business trip your company can compensate for meals. You tend to spend as close to the limit as possible.
• You spend someone else’s money on someone else. You tend to not care about how much you spend and how the money is spent. Unfortunately, our Government falls in this model.

The case is not only limited to money, but to everything, like natural resources and even the safety of the society. Even worse, most representatives are trying to convert some resources from Model 4 to Model 3, which is they can benefit from the resources they control for all the people. That’s why most people think their representatives are out of touch and even corrupted. Representatives who wholeheartedly work for the people are rare. You should cherish them if you are lucky enough to have some.

Is there any solution? Fortunately, the answer is yes. With the help of modern technology, we can convert representatives to the Delegate Model of Representation. In this way, people as a whole controls how to spend their own money on themselves. Suddenly we return to the model 1 of spending, which is also the most efficient way.

It will also be the first time to fulfill an American dream: the Government should be of the people, for the people and by the people.