Los Altos Hills council approves 13-week extension of sheriff contract amid disputed overhead charges

LOS ALTOS HILLS, Calif. — The Los Altos Hills City Council voted unanimously on June 9 to authorize Amendment No. 2 to its law-enforcement services agreement with the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office, extending the town's current contract through Sept. 30 so an independent review can examine disputed overhead charges.

The measure, moved and seconded during the special meeting, gives the city manager authority to execute the 13-week extension and to review and incorporate any relevant changes negotiated by the other two contract cities, Saratoga and Cupertino.

Mayor Batisha and staff framed the vote as a short-window, risk-limited way to buy time for an independent methodology assessment by Vasquez & Company, which the county executive agreed to for roughly 12 weeks. "We want to be able to pay for what is legally acceptable to pass along to the contract cities," the city manager said during the presentation.

The council's action follows months of negotiations after county officials told the three contract cities earlier this year that the sheriff's contracts were operating at a deficit and must move to a full cost-recovery model. Staff said the county's proposed 2026 methodology separates overhead from hourly patrol rates, removes the previous CPI-plus cap on increases and could raise the town's bill significantly year to year.

City staff presented what it described as the town's key figures under the proposed model: roughly 7,281 contract patrol hours a year, a proposed all-in cost near $3.4 million (compared with about $2.75 million under current accounting), and an estimated $1.9 million in overhead. Using the town's arithmetic, that equates to about $464 per patrol hour under the proposed structure. Staff said the county's proposed rate represents about a 23% increase starting July 1, though figures could change depending on the audit's findings and any reconciliation discussed with the county.

The extension includes a requirement that the independent assessment examine whether the county's overhead allocations conform to California Government Code §51350, which limits charges to the additive cost of providing service to contract cities. "We have to be able to rationalize those costs," a council member said during the discussion.

Assistant Sheriff Adam Oberdorfer, representing the sheriff's office, told the council the county is "aiming to provide the services to Los Altos Hills at a cost neutral for the county" and said overhead reflects supervisory, investigative, records, dispatch, fleet maintenance and other support functions. "Our dispatch center is equipped with enough call takers and dispatchers that if there is a major fire or an emergency in Los Altos Hills, they have the scalability and resources to handle those calls," he said.

Public commenters urged the council both to hold the county accountable and to preserve proactive responses to alarm calls. Resident Jill Grunewald told council members she reviewed police logs and found 137 false alarms in 2025, adding that each false alarm typically mobilizes two deputies. "It's costing a fortune," she said, and asked the town to consider stricter billing or other measures to curb unnecessary responses.

City staff also said it has directed deputies to submit alarm cards for every alarm response so the town's finance team captures full response costs going forward; that change should make the overtime and false-alarm accounting more accurate for future reconciliation with the county.

Looking beyond the immediate extension, staff and council discussed longer-term options, including forming a joint-powers authority, moving to a locally run police department, contracting with a neighboring city, or expanding volunteer patrol programs modeled on Atherton and Danville. Staff estimated a standalone police department could cost about $6 million a year and noted that funding options such as a parcel tax would require a two-thirds voter approval.

The resolution passed on a roll-call vote in which Council members Mok, Swan and Tonka, Vice Mayor Tyson and Mayor Batisha recorded "yes." The council closed the open session and moved into closed session to discuss public employment under Government Code §54957 (city attorney).