Services will be provided through June 30, 2031 on a time and materials basis up to the not-toexceed fee stated in the “Fees” section of this proposal.
PROJECT TEAM
To provide the best, most transparent services, RSG dedicates at least one Principal and a Project Manager to each project and creates a core group of people that works with each client on a consistent basis throughout all stages of the assignment. We employ a passionate and talented team of associates and analysts, who blend an understanding of each client’s situation with our expertise in researching, analyzing, modeling, and ultimately developing recommendations and results.
Jim Simon will assume the role of Principal-in-Charge for this engagement. Mr. Simon will be assisted by Jillian Glickman, Senior Analyst. Other RSG staff may be assigned as needed. Staff resumes can be found on our company website under the following link:
https://rsgsolutions.com/meet-our-team/.
FEES
Successor Agency services may be paid from the administrative cost allowance. For Fiscal Year 2026-27 through 2029-30, RSG is proposing an annual budget of $10,000 for our consulting services. For Fiscal Year 2030-31, RSG is proposing an annual budget of $5,000. Any services in excess of the budgeted amounts will be conducted with City staff’s authorization and may require a contract amendment.
HOURLY BILLING RATES
Our services for this engagement would be charged on a time-and-materials basis using the following billing rates.
Fee Schedule
RSG does not charge clients for mileage (except direct costs related to field surveys), parking, standard telephone/fax expenses, general postage or incidental copies. However, we do charge for messenger services, overnight shipping/express mail costs, and teleconferencing services. We also charge for copies of reports, documents, notices, and support material in excess of five (5) copies. These costs are charged back at the actual expense plus a 10% surcharge.
Principal $305
Director $295
Senior Associate $250
Associate $205
Senior Analyst $185
Analyst $170
Research Assistant $145
Technician $120
Clerical $100
Reimbursable Expenses Cost plus 10%
Sean Brewer, City Manager
COALINGA SUCCESSOR AGENCY
December 5, 2025
RSG issues monthly invoices payable upon receipt, unless otherwise agreed upon in advance.
Invoices identify tasks completed to date, hours expended, and the hourly rate. Our Federal Tax ID is 95-3435849.
If this proposal is acceptable as written, please sign below and return a signed copy to [email protected] or forward a contract in the City’s preferred format. Thank you for the opportunity to assist the City. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Simon at 714-316-2120.
Sincerely,
RSG, INC.
Jim Simon
Principal
APPROVED AND AUTHORIZED TO PROCEED:
Signature:
Printed
Name:
Title:
Date:
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Authorize City Manager to Execute an Agreement with RJP Latchkey LLC for the Donation of a Pumper Jack Monument
Meeting Date: Thursday, March 19 2026
From: Sean Brewer, City Manager
Prepared by: Jesse Barron, Assistant City Manager
I. RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with RJP Latchkey LLC for the donation, removal, rehabilitation, and relocation of the Pumper Jack monument currently located on RJP Latchkey property in front of the former Clairemont Custody Center.
II. BACKGROUND:
The Pumper Jack monument located at the former Clairemont Custody Center represents an important symbol of the region’s historic oil production industry, which has played a significant role in the economic and cultural development of the City of Coalinga.
The City has expressed a long-term interest in preserving and showcasing rehabilitated oil field equipment in prominent public locations as a way to recognize and celebrate this history. The monument presents an opportunity to further that vision.
III. DISCUSSION:
City staff contacted RJP Latchkey LLC to request donation of the monument to the City for the purpose of preservation, rehabilitation, and eventual installation at a City-owned location to be determined.
RJP Latchkey LLC has expressed support for this effort and has agreed in principle to donate the monument to the City. As part of the agreement, the City will be responsible for removing the monument from the current site and restoring the existing site to a stable and naturalcondition following removal.
RJP Latchkey LLC has also requested that appropriate recognition be given for the donation of the monument. City staff intends to ensure that proper acknowledgement is provided when the monument is rehabilitated and installed.
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
Approve the City Manager to execute the agreement and accept the donation of the monument.(Recommended)
Do not approve the agreement. (Not Recommended)
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
The monument is being donated to the City at no cost. The scope and cost associated with removal, rehabilitation, and installation of the monument will be evaluated and budgeted as part of a future capital improvement or beautification project.
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
Pumper_Jack_Monument_Donation_Acceptance_SB.pdf Pumper Jack DonationAcceptanceAgreement To: RJP
From: Office of the City Manager, City of Coalinga
Sean Brewer, City Manager
Date: March 19, 2026
Subject: Removal, Rehabilitation, and Relocation of The Pumper Jack Monument at the Former Clairemont Custody Center
Dear John O’Rourke,
The City of Coalinga acknowledges and appreciates the opportunity to accept the Pumper Jack Monument currently located in front of the former Clairemont Custody Center as a donation to the City. This memorandum confirms the following:
1. Removal at City Expense
The City of Coalinga will remove the Pumper Jack Monument from its current location at the City’s sole cost and expense. Removal operations will be conducted in a safe, professional manner and in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and safety standards.
2. Site Restoration
Following removal, the City will restore the site to a natural and stable condition consistent with surrounding improvements. Restoration will include removal of the monument foundation (as necessary), grading, and surface treatment sufficient to return the area to a safe and visually neutral state.
3. Rehabilitation and Relocation
Upon removal, the City will undertake appropriate rehabilitation of the Pumper Jack Monument to preserve its structural integrity and historical character.
The City Manager will designate a prominent public location within the City of Coalinga Right of Way (ROW) for permanent placement of the monument. The selected site will be consistent with public safety, accessibility, and community visibility considerations.
4. Donor Recognition
The City will provide appropriate and permanent recognition to RJP for its donation. Recognition may include, but is not limited to:
• Installation of a commemorative plaque
• Public acknowledgment at the time of dedication
• Inclusion in City communications or historical materials The specific form of recognition can be coordinated with RJP to ensure accuracy and appropriateness.
5. Additional Considerations
To facilitate this donation and transition, the City welcomes discussion regarding:
• Documentation of the monument’s provenance and historical background • Transfer documentation necessary to formalize the donation • Insurance, indemnification, or liability clarification during removal and transport • Scheduling coordination to align with donor operational needs If there are additional conditions, preferences, or considerations RJP would like the City to evaluate in connection with this donation, we respectfully invite that discussion. The City of Coalinga values the historical and cultural significance of this monument and is committed to ensuring its preservation and prominent public display for the benefit of the community.
Please feel free to contact my office directly to coordinate next steps or to formalize the transfer documentation.
Respectfully,
Sean Brewer
City Manager
City of Coalinga
CC: Jesse Barron, Assistant City Manager
City Council, City of Coalinga
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Direction and PotentialAction regarding Employee Permit and Background Check Requirements in the City’s Cannabis Regulations
Meeting Date: Thursday, March 19, 2026
From: Sean Brewer, City Manager
Prepared by: Sean Brewer, City Manager
I. RECOMMENDATION:
Provide policy direction to the City Manager regarding revisions to the employee permit and background check provisions contained within the City’s cannabis regulations to guide preparation of the comprehensive cannabis ordinance update currently underway.
Council may provide direction on one of the following policy options:
OptionA– Live Scan for Employees; Full Investigation for Owners Retain Live Scan fingerprinting for cannabis employees but eliminate the City-conducted full background investigation for employees. Continue requiring Live Scan fingerprinting and a full background investigation for owners and individuals with a financial interest or operationalcontrol of cannabis businesses.
Option B – Owners Only Background Checks
Eliminate allemployee permit and background check requirements for cannabis employees. Continue requiring Live Scan fingerprinting and a full background investigation only for owners and individuals with a financial interest or operationalcontrol.
Option C – Default to State Law
Eliminate all local background check requirements and the employee permit system and rely entirely on State licensing requirements administered through the California Department of Cannabis Control.
II. BACKGROUND:
The City of Coalinga has adopted a comprehensive regulatory framework governing cannabis businesses operating within the City. As part of these regulations, the City established an employee permit system administered by the Coalinga Police Department that requires individuals working in cannabis operations to obtain an employee permit prior to beginning employment.
Under the current Municipal Code, the employee permit process includes:
Submission of an application to the Police Department
Live Scan fingerprinting through the California Department of Justice A City-conducted background investigation
Finalapproval of the employee permit by the Chief of Police In addition, cannabis business owners and individuals with financial interests or operationalcontrolare subject to fingerprinting and background investigation requirements as part of the City’s cannabis regulatory permit process.
As part of the City’s ongoing comprehensive update to the cannabis ordinance, the City Council directed staff to evaluate the employee permit provisions to determine whether adjustments could be made to maintain appropriate public safety safeguards while reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens, particularly for seasonal and entry-levelemployees working within the industry.
To assist the City with this effort, SCI Consulting Group was retained to provide policy analysis and assist with preparation of the ordinance amendments.
III. DISCUSSION:
State Cannabis Regulatory Framework
Under California law, cannabis businesses are regulated by the California Department of Cannabis Control (DCC). The State requires criminal history background checks for owners and individuals with financial or operationalcontrol of licensed cannabis businesses.
As part of the State licensing process:
Owners must submit fingerprints through the California Department of Justice using Live Scan.
Fingerprints are transmitted to both the California Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for review of criminal history records.
The State evaluates criminalconvictions that may be substantially related to cannabis business operations.
Importantly, State law does not require background checks or fingerprinting for employees working at licensed cannabis businesses. Employee eligibility is generally handled through the hiring practices of the cannabis business itself rather than through the State licensing process.
General Employment Law Requirements
The City Attorney has also reviewed whether any State laws require additional background check standards for employees working in the cannabis industry. The review determined that no heightened employment background check requirements exist under State cannabis regulations.
Cannabis businesses are subject to the same employment laws that apply to other industries, including the California Fair Chance Act, which governs the use of criminal background checks in hiring.
The Fair Chance Act requires that:
Employers must wait untilafter a conditional job offer has been extended before conducting a criminal background check.
If an applicant has a criminalconviction record, the employer must conduct an individualized assessment before making a decision not to hire the applicant.
The assessment must consider:
The nature and gravity of the offense
The amount of time that has passed since the offense occurred or the sentence was completed The nature of the job being sought
Employers must also provide notice and an opportunity for the applicant to respond before making a final decision based on criminal history.
Because the Fair Chance Act applies broadly to allemployers in California and does not provide exemptions specific to cannabis businesses, it further demonstrates that the State does not require enhanced background investigations for cannabis employees.
The City’s Municipal Code currently establishes regulatory requirements that exceed the minimum standards imposed by State law.
Policy Considerations
As part of the comprehensive cannabis ordinance update, the City Councilexpressed interest in reviewing these provisions to determine whether the current system appropriately balances regulatory oversight with operationalefficiency for licensed businesses.
Key considerations include:
Maintaining appropriate safeguards for cannabis operations within the community Ensuring oversight of individuals who own or controlcannabis businesses Reducing unnecessary regulatory barriers for entry-leveland seasonalemployees Efficient use of Police Department staff resources
Aligning local regulations more closely with the State regulatory framework SCI Consulting Group has provided several policy options for Councilconsideration in the attached executive summary and mentioned in the recommendation section of this report.
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
Following Council direction, staff will work with SCI Consulting Group and the City’s planning consultants to incorporate the selected policy framework into the comprehensive cannabis ordinance update.
The ordinance amendments will then proceed through the Planning Commission and City Council public hearing process as part of the zoning text amendment currently under preparation.
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
Changes to the employee permit program may result in a modest reduction in permit-related fee revenue.
However, these changes would also reduce staff time associated with processing applications and conducting background investigations.
Any fiscal impacts will be evaluated further during preparation of the full ordinance amendments.
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
Executive_Memorandum_-_Cannabis_Background_Checks.pdf Executive Memorandum - Cannabis Background Checks Executive Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, City of Coalinga FROM: SCI Consulting Group
DATE: March 6,2026
SUBJECT: Cannabis Background Check Requirements: State vs. Municipal Code Comparison and Policy Options
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council previously directed staff to evaluate alignment of Coalinga's cannabis background check requirements with the State's regulatory framework, while retaining heightened review standards at the ownership level. This memorandum provides a detailed comparison of State and City requirements, identifies the key distinctions, and presents three policy options for Council consideration.
Notably, Coalinga's current regulations are more stringent than the State in two respects:
1) The City requires background investigations for employees, whereas the State imposes no such requirement.
2) Both owners and employees are subject to a City-conducted full investigation, whereas the State's fingerprinting requirement applies only to owners.
II. WHAT THE STATE REQUIRES:
Owner Background Checks (Business and Professions Code §26051.5(a)(1)) The State requires that each owner of a commercial cannabis business electronically submit fingerprint images to the California Department of Justice (DOJ). Fingerprint images are transmitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for a federal criminal history check. The DOJ then compiles and returns results to the relevant state licensing authority (the Department of Cannabis Control, or DCC).
Key provisions of the State's owner fingerprinting requirement:
• Applies to owners as defined in BPC §26001(aq)(1)-(3) and further detailed in CCR Title 4 §15003.
• The DOJ charges applicants a fee to cover processing costs. • Subsequent notification service is requested from DOJ for ongoing monitoring. • If an owner previously submitted fingerprints for a valid state license, re-submission is not required for subsequent applications (one-time fingerprint exemption). • Local and state agencies may share certified records of arrests, convictions, probation, and related documentation with the licensing authority upon request.
Who Qualifies as an "Owner" Under State Regulations (CCR §15003) Under California regulations, the term "owner" is broadly defined to capture persons with real control or financial interest in the business:
• Any person with an aggregate ownership interest of 20% or more (unless the interest is solely a security, lien, or encumbrance).
• Any individual who manages, directs, or controls operations, including: board members of nonprofits, general partners, managing members of LLCs, trustees, and executive officers (CEO, President, VP, General Manager, or equivalent).
• If a business is owned by an entity, individuals within that entity who manage or control operations must also be disclosed.
Criminal History Evaluation (BPC §26057(b)(4)-(5))
The State identifies the following conviction types as substantially related to cannabis business qualifications:
• Violent felony convictions (Penal Code §667.5(c)).
• Serious felony convictions (Penal Code §1192.7(c)).
• Felony convictions involving fraud, deceit, or embezzlement. • Felony convictions for employing minors in controlled substance activities. • Felony convictions for drug trafficking with certain enhancements (Health and Safety Code §§11370.4 or 11379.8).
Significantly, under State law, prior convictions for cannabis-related offenses (possession, sale, manufacture, transport, cultivation) where the sentence is completed are NOT considered substantially related and cannot be the sole basis for denial. This reflects the State's broader cannabis equity framework.
Where a conviction is found to be substantially related, the State requires a thorough review of the nature of the crime, circumstances, and evidence of rehabilitation before reaching a determination rather than automatic disqualification.
Important: The State does NOT require background checks for employees of licensed cannabis businesses.
III. WHAT THE CITY OF COALINGA REQUIRES:
Coalinga Municipal Code Section 9-5.128(h) establishes a comprehensive employee permit system administered by the Coalinga Police Department. This system applies to all employees and independent contractors working at commercial cannabis operations.
Employee Permit Requirement
Every employee and independent contractor must obtain an employee permit from the Police Department before commencing work. Operators are responsible for ensuring compliance. Persons listed as a business owner on a regulatory permit and who also serve as an employee or contractor are exempt from the employee permit requirement; however, all other responsible parties must obtain a permit.
Application Requirements for Employees
Each employee/contractor applicant must provide, under penalty of perjury:
• Full name, current address, and telephone number.
• Date of birth.
• Tax identification number.
• Physical descriptors (height, weight, eye color, hair color). • Photographs (taken by the Police Department).
• Fingerprints (taken by the Police Department — Live Scan). • Authorization for the City to verify all application information. • Name of the permit-holding business owner and operator. • Any additional information deemed necessary by the Police Chief.
Investigation Process
Upon receipt of a completed application and payment of the required fee:
1. The Police Chief conducts a full background investigation of all applicants, employees, and independent contractors. All applicants for both regulatory permits and employee permits must submit to a fingerprint-based criminal history records check conducted by the Coalinga Police Department.
2. For regulatory permits (owners/operators): the Police Chief approves or denies the permit following completion of the background investigation, and may impose conditions to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
3. For employee permits: the Police Chief approves or denies the permit. At the Police Chief's discretion, employee permits may be conditionally approved pending completion of the background investigation.
IV. HOW COALINGA MUNICIPAL CODE DIFFERS FROM STATE REQUIREMENTS:
The table below summarizes the key distinctions between State and City requirements:
Requirement State of California City of Coalinga
Background Check —
Employees
Not required Required: full investigation +
fingerprinting (Live Scan)
Background Check —
Owners/Operators
Fingerprinting via DOJ/FBI required
(Live Scan)
Required: full investigation +
fingerprinting (Live Scan)
Disqualifying Convictions Violent felonies, serious felonies, fraud/embezzlement, drug
trafficking (with enhancements),
crimes involving minors
Background investigation outcome
per Police Chief discretion
Prior Cannabis Convictions Completed sentences for cannabis offenses NOT automatically
disqualifying (except
minors/trafficking enhancements)
Subject to full background review;
no express exemption
Employee Permit Required? No separate employee permit
requirement
Yes — required before
commencing work
IV. OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
The following three options are presented for Council deliberation. Each reflects a different balance between regulatory burden, public safety, alignment with State law, and administrative resources. Option A: Retain Live Scan for Employees; Eliminate City-Conducted Full Investigation; Retain Full Review for Owners
This option reflects the direction provided by Council: align employee-level requirements more closely with State law while retaining stronger review standards for ownership and control positions.
Under this option:
• Employees and independent contractors: Continue to require Live Scan fingerprinting (submitted to DOJ/FBI) but eliminate the City-conducted full background investigation and the employee permit requirement.
• Owners and persons with a financial interest: Continue to require both Live Scan fingerprinting AND the City-conducted full background investigation.
• This approach creates a tiered system: streamlined fingerprint-only review for employees, comprehensive investigation for those who own or control the business.
Advantages:
• Reduces the regulatory burden on the cannabis workforce, which can be a significant barrier to employment in the industry.
• Maintains meaningful local oversight at the ownership and control level — where the City's interest in preventing bad actors from gaining control of a licensed business is greatest. • Employees still undergo fingerprint-based criminal history review through the DOJ/FBI, preserving a baseline safety screen.
Considerations:
Coalinga's current code is actually more stringent than the State with respect to owners, as the State does not independently require a full local background investigation, only fingerprinting through the DOJ.
Option B: Conduct Live Scan and Full Investigation for Owners Only — Eliminate All Employee Requirements
Under this option, the City would eliminate the employee permit requirement and all background check obligations for employees and independent contractors entirely. Live Scan fingerprinting and the City-conducted full background investigation would be required only for owners.
What this means in practice:
• Employees and independent contractors: No employee permit, no fingerprinting, and no background investigation required by the City.
• Owners and persons with a financial interest or operational control: Continue to require both Live Scan fingerprinting AND the City-conducted full background investigation. • This approach concentrates all local background review at the ownership level and removes the City entirely from the screening of cannabis employees.
Advantages:
• Reduces the regulatory and administrative burden on cannabis employees and operators; fully eliminates the employee permit process.
• Retains the City's strongest oversight where it matters most: those who own, fund, and control the licensed business.
• Frees Police Department resources currently dedicated to employee permit processing and investigation.
• Aligns employee-level treatment with State law while exceeding State standards at the ownership level.
Considerations:
• Removes all City-level criminal history screening for employees. The City would have no independent visibility into the background of individuals working in cannabis operations. • Unlike Option A, employees would not be subject to even a baseline Live Scan fingerprint check at the City level.
Option C: Default to State Regulations
Under this option, the City would align its cannabis background check requirements fully with State law, eliminating the City's independent employee and owner background investigation and employee permit system.
What this means in practice:
• The City would no longer require employee permits or conduct independent background checks on employees or independent contractors.
• Owner fingerprinting would be governed by State DOJ/FBI processes; the City would rely on State licensing background checks rather than conducting its own. • Cannabis operators would face a reduced local compliance burden, consistent with the State's intent to streamline licensing.
Advantages:
• Reduces administrative burden on operators and the Police Department. • Full alignment with State law minimizes risk of inconsistency or legal challenge. • May improve operator recruitment and business climate.
Considerations:
• Eliminates the City's independent review of individuals working directly in cannabis operations, a layer of local oversight that may be valued by the community. • The City would rely entirely on the State's licensing process for criminal history screening.
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Outdoor Food Court Concept Plan – Request for Direction to Proceed with Final Design and Cost Estimating
Meeting Date: Thursday, March 19, 2026
From: Sean Brewer, City Manager
Prepared by: Sean Brewer, City Manager
I. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council review the Outdoor Food Court Concept Plan and provide direction to the City Manager on whether to proceed with final design development and preparation of detailed cost estimates for the project.
II. BACKGROUND:
As part of the City’s continued efforts to enhance downtown activation, support local businesses, and create additionalcommunity gathering spaces, staff has been exploring the concept of establishing an Outdoor Food Court within the downtown area. The concept is intended to create a vibrant public space that can support food vendors, small local businesses, and community events while encouraging increased foot traffic in the downtown corridor.
Outdoor food courts have become increasingly popular in communities across California as a way to activate underutilized spaces, provide opportunities for smalland emerging food vendors, and create welcoming public gathering areas for residents and visitors.
Staff has worked with consultants to prepare an initialconcept plan that illustrates how such a space could function within the City. The concept plan is intended to show potential layout, amenities, and programming opportunities. At this stage, the plan is conceptual only and is presented to Council to receive policy direction before additional design work and cost estimating is undertaken.
III. DISCUSSION:
The Outdoor Food Court concept is envisioned as a flexible, family-friendly gathering space designed to support food vendors, community events, and daily activity in the downtown area. The design focuses on creating a welcoming, walkable environment where residents and visitors can gather, dine, and enjoy community programming.
Key amenities included in the concept plan include:
Vendor Spaces
Designated areas for food trucks, food trailers, or vendor kiosks that may include utility connections such as electricity and water to support rotating food vendors and small local businesses.
Central Dining and Gathering Area
A shared seating area with a mix of communal tables, picnic seating, and shaded areas where visitors can gather and enjoy food from multiple vendors.
Shade and Landscaping
Shade structures, trees, and landscaping elements intended to provide comfort during warmer months while enhancing the visualappeal of the space.
Stage or Performance Area
A small stage designed to accommodate live music, performances, and community programming that can activate the space during evenings and specialevents.
Lighting and Safety Features
Decorative and pedestrian lighting designed to create a safe and inviting atmosphere during evening hours.
Family-FriendlyActivityArea
A small play or activity area intended to make the space welcoming for families and encourage longer visits.
Restroom Facilities
The concept contemplates restroom facilities either through a permanent structure or nearby access depending on final design considerations.
Flexible Event Space
Open areas designed to accommodate pop-up markets, community gatherings, and other events that support downtown activity.
If the City Council provides direction to proceed, staff will move forward with the following steps:
1. Refinement of the conceptual plan into a detailed preliminary design.
2. Preparation of construction cost estimates.
3. Evaluation of potential funding sources and phasing options.
4. Development of an operationalconcept for vendor use and event programming.
5. Return to the City Council with final design recommendations and project budget for consideration.
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
None at this time.
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
The City budgeted $100,000.00 for design of the food court project and as cost estimates are developed, staff will propose a FY2027 budget for the construction and activation of the project.
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
260304_COALINGA_CONCEPT_UPDATE.pdf Outdoor Food Court Concept Design CITY OF COALINGA - FOOD COURT MARCH 04, 2026
CONCEPT IMAGES
SITE PLAN
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Washington DC Advocacy Trip Update
Meeting Date: Thursday, March 19, 2026
From: Sean Brewer, City Manager
Prepared by: Sean Brewer, City Manager
I. RECOMMENDATION:
Receive an informational update regarding the City’s recent federaladvocacy trip to Washington, D.C.
II. BACKGROUND:
City representatives recently traveled to Washington, D.C. as part of the City’s federaladvocacy efforts coordinated through Townsend Public Affairs. The purpose of the trip was to meet with federalagencies and congressional offices to discuss issues impacting the City of Coalinga and to advocate for federal funding opportunities.
Meetings were held with several federalagencies and congressional offices, including the FederalAviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), U.S. Department of Justice (COPS Office), Bureau of Reclamation, and members of the Central Valley congressional delegation.
Discussions focused on several City priorities including airport infrastructure improvements, water and infrastructure challenges facing ruralcommunities, transportation funding opportunities, public safety resources, and economic development initiatives.
III. DISCUSSION:
Overall, the meetings were productive and helped strengthen relationships with federalagencies and congressional staff while positioning the City for potential future funding opportunities.
Severalagencies indicated that funding opportunities related to public safety, water infrastructure, aviation, and transportation may be available in the coming months. Staff willcontinue monitoring these opportunities and coordinating internally on potentialapplications where appropriate.
Staff will provide additional details and discussion during the City Council meeting.
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
None at this time.
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
AT
TACHMENTS: File Name
Description
NoAttachmentsAvailable