“Our mission is to maintain the character of our “small town” community while striking an appropriate balance between economic development and preservation of our quality of life. We help create a dynamic and vital City by providing quality, cost-effective municipal services and by forming partnerships with residents and organizations in the constant pursuit of excellence.”
Page Item STANDING AGENDA ITEMS
1. Call to Order and Flag Salute
2. Roll call
3. Special Presentations & Announcements
4. Public Comment:
This time is set aside for citizens to address the City Council on matters listed on the Consent Agenda as well as other items not included on the Regular Agenda. If your comments concern an agenda item noted on the regular agenda, please address the Council when that item is open for public comment. Each speaker is allocated three (3) minutes to speak. Speakers may not cede their time. Comments should be limited to matters within the jurisdiction of the City. Council discussion or action cannot be taken on items not listed on the agenda other than to receive comments. If you have documents to present to members of Council, please provide a minimum of seven (7) copies to the Deputy City Clerk.
5. Council and Staff Comments
6. Committee Updates:
a) Downtown Enhancement Advisory Committee
b) Library Tax Advisory Committee
c) Beautification Committee
d) Active Transportation Committee
There are currently several vacancies on advisory committees: one vacancy on the Planning Commission, two vacancies on the Beautification Committee, and one vacancy on the Downtown Enhancement Advisory Committee.
Mt. Shasta City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
Mt. Shasta City Park Upper Lodge, 1315 Nixon Rd.
Monday, Feb ru ary 23, 20 26, 5:30 p.m.
The meeting can also be viewed online at the
following link: MountShasta.22Ave.tv
CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS
7. Consent Agenda - The City Manager recommends approval of the following Consent Agenda items. All Resolutions and Ordinances on this agenda, or added hereto, shall be introduced or adopted, as applicable, by title only, and the full reading thereof is hereby waived. a. Approval of Minutes: February 9, 2026 regular City Council meeting b. Approval of Disbursements: Accounts Payable 1/22/2026 and 2/5/2026; Total Gross Payroll and Taxes: For the Periods Ending 2/5/2026 and 2/19/2026. c. Monthly Investment Report
d. Resolution Approving CDBG Application
8. Lake Street For All Plan Presentation
Background: In 2024, The City of Mt Shasta was awarded funds from Caltrans to complete the Lake Street Complete Streets Plan (LSCSP). The preliminary final report was presented to Council by Green DOT Transportation last November. Jeff Schwein of Green DOT will now present the final report.
Report By: Ken Kellogg, Public Works Director
Recommended Council Action: Review and approve the Lake Street for All final report.
9. Mobile Home Park Rent Control: Report and Council Direction Background: On November 24, 2025, the Council reviewed rent increase-related documents submitted by residents of the Shasta Horizon Mobile Home and RV Park. Since then, staff has further researched the issue.
Report By: Kim Fowler, Planning Director
Recommended Council Action: Review report and provide staff direction.
10. Quarterly Budget Update
Background: Staff has prepared a quarterly budget report.
Report By: Malisa Dodd, Finance Director
Recommended Council Action: Receive report.
Packet
Packet
Page
32 Packet
Page
105
Packet
Page
108
11. Letter of Support: AB 1708
Background: Assembly Bill 1708 would create a new pathway for cities with populations under 300,000 to access existing state homelessness funding.
Report By: Todd Juhasz, City Manager
Recommended Council Action: Approve a letter of support for AB 1708.
CITY COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTING PERIOD
12. Council Reports on Attendance at Appointed/Outside Meetings
13. Future Agenda Items (Appearing on the agenda within 60-90 days): None a. Master Fee Schedule Review
b. Combination of Wastewater and Drainage Funds
c. Mobile Home Rent Stabilization
d. 2026 Sales Tax Ballot Measure
Future Agenda Items Over 90 Days: None
14. Adjourn
Availability of Public Records: All public records related to an open session item on this agenda, which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, that are distributed to a majority of the legislative body will be available for public inspection at City Hall located at 305 North Mt. Shasta Blvd., Mt. Shasta, CA at the same time the public records are distributed or made available to the members of the legislative body. Agenda related writings or documents provided to a majority of the legislative body after distribution of the Agenda packet will be available for public review within a separate binder at City Hall at the same time as they are made available to the members of the legislative body.
The City of Mt. Shasta does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, religion, age or disability in employment or provision of services. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons requiring accommodations for a disability at a public meeting should notify the City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk at least 48 hours prior to the meeting at
(530) 926-7516 in order to allow the City sufficient time to make reasonable arrangements to accommodate participation in this meeting.
Packet
Page
113
Contents
Consent Agenda………………………………………………………………….………5
Approval of Minutes: February 9, 2026 Regular Meeting……………….…..……………5 Disbursements…………………..………………...………………………………10
Monthly Investment Report…………………….……………………………………22
Resolution Approving CDBG Application…………………………………………….30 Lake Street for All Plan Presentation……………….…………………………………..32 Staff Report…………………………………….………..……………………....32
Lake Street for All Plan……..…………………………………….……….………33
Mobile Home Park Rent Control……………….……………………………………..105 Staff Report……………………………………………………………..………..105
Quarterly Budget Update………...……….………………………………………..….108 Staff Report……………………………………………………………………...108
Budget Update……………..………………………………………………….…109
Letter of Support: AB 1708…………………………………………………………....113 Letter of Support………………………………………………………………….113
Sponsor Support Letter…………………………………………………………....115
Fact Sheet…………………………………………………………………….....116
4 Page Item STANDING AGENDA ITEMS
1. Call to Order and Flag Salute: At the hour of 5:31pm, Mayor Glaubman called the meeting to order and led the audience in the flag salute.
2. Roll call
Council Members Present: Collings, Clure, Stackfleth, Glaubman Council Members Absent: Redmond
3. Special Presentations & Announcements: None
4. Public Comment:
Terez Swenson – Requests that the Council reconsider outdoor dining parklets; comments regarding broken clock downtown.
Anastasia Sprout – Informs Council and Public that she has started a local newspaper.
Mayor Glaubman – Thanks Anastasia Sprout.
Arrea – Invites community to Yes to Expedite Affordable Housing community dinner.
Afa – Comments regarding affordable housing efforts in Mount Shasta and surrounding jurisdictions, invites community to Yes to Expedite Affordable Housing dinner and affordable housing efforts.
5. Council and Staff Comments
Todd Juhasz, City Manager – Comments regarding possibility of combining waste and drainage funds; library expansion project; meetings with Tom Hesseldenz.
Cory Burns, Fire Chief – Comments regarding consent agenda item 7c: Vegetation Management Agreement.
Councilmember Stackfleth – Comments regarding broken downtown clock and thermometer.
Ken Kellogg, Public Works Director – Comments regarding broken downtown clock and thermometer.
Councilmember Stackfleth – Comments regarding funding sources for various projects.
Todd Juhasz, City Manager – Answers Council questions.
Mt. Shasta City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
Mt. Shasta City Park Upper Lodge, 1315 Nixon Rd.
Monday, Feb ru ary 9, 2026, 5:30 p.m.
The meeting can also be viewed online at the
following link: MountShasta.22Ave.tv
5 6. Committee Updates:
a) Downtown Enhancement Advisory Committee
b) Library Tax Advisory Committee
c) Beautification Committee
d) Active Transportation Committee
Todd Juhasz, City Manager – Comments regarding previous DEAC meeting and fundraising options, 250th anniversary of the nation and 101st anniversary of the naming of Mount Shasta; Committee applicants.
CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS
Mayor Glaubman – Notes staff request to consider Consent Agenda Item C separately.
7. Consent Agenda - The City Manager recommends approval of the following Consent Agenda items. All Resolutions and Ordinances on this agenda, or added hereto, shall be introduced or adopted, as applicable, by title only, and the full reading thereof is hereby waived. a. Approval of Minutes: January 26, 2026 regular meeting b. Police Department Monthly Report
c. Vegetation Management Agreement
MOTION TO APPROVE: Councilmember Stackfleth moves to approve consent agenda Items A and B by title only
SECOND: Clure
AYES: Collings, Clure, Stackfleth, Glaubman
NOES: None
ABSENT: Redmond
ABSTAIN: None
Todd Juhasz, City Manager – Comments regarding Consent Agenda Item C: Vegetation Management Agreement, answers clarifying questions.
Mayor Glaubman – Comments regarding Vegetation Management bid.
Todd Juhasz, City Manager – Answers clarifying questions.
Public Comment:
Member of the Public – Asks clarifying question.
MOTION: Councilmember Stackfleth moves to approve Agenda Item 7c: Vegetation Management by title only
SECOND: Clure
AYES: Collings, Clure, Stackfleth, Glaubman
NOES: None
ABSENT: Redmond
ABSTAIN: None
6 8. Committee Appointments
Todd Juhasz, City Manager – Comments regarding committee application process.
Lorie Oliver – Comments regarding Beautification Committee application, landscape experience.
Maria Miller – Comments regarding Downtown Enhancement Advisory Committee application, answers Council question.
Tim Stearns – Comments regarding Planning Commission application, answers Council question.
Public Comment:
Nicholas Riley – Asks question regarding project proposed by committee applicant.
Afa – Thanks committee applicants.
Council Comment:
MOTION: Councilmember Stackfleth moves to appoint Lorie Oliver to the Beautification Committee, Maria Miller to Downtown Enhancement Advisory Committee, and Tim Stearns to the Planning Commission
SECOND: Clure
AYES: Collings, Clure, Stackfleth, Glaubman
NOES: None
ABSENT: Redmond
ABSTAIN: None
7 9. Sub-Recipient Agreement with Great Northern Services to Apply for CDBG Funding Todd Juhasz, City Manager – Comments regarding City ineligibility for Senior Snow Removal application, applications for other CDBG funds, notes public community meeting to take place after Council meeting.
Alysia Garcia, Great Northern Services – Comments regarding Senior Snow Removal grant eligibility, Mount Shasta Master Plan application status, Microenterprise Assistance Program and change to awarding procedures, answers Council question.
Public Comment:
Nicholas Riley – Comments in opposition to Lake Street for All project.
Nancy Swift, JEDI – Comments regarding Microenterprise Assistance Program, community involvement.
Mayor Glaubman – Thanks Nancy for work at JEDI.
Council Comment:
Councilmember Stackfleth – Asks clarifying question.
MOTION: Councilmember Stackfleth moves to approve the submission of grant application to the state Community Development Block Grant program for this Mount Shasta Boulevard Master Plan (not Lake Street), and the microenterprise assistance program.
SECOND: Clure
AYES: Collings, Clure, Stackfleth, Glaubman
NOES: None
ABSENT: Redmond
ABSTAIN: None
10. Public Hearing: Military Equipment Report
Sargeant Priddy – Comments regarding legal requirement for military equipment report, provides report.
Todd Juhasz, City Manager – Comments regarding cost of disposing of military equipment.
CITY COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTING PERIOD
11. Council Reports on Attendance at Appointed/Outside Meetings Councilmember Stackfleth – Reports on Collier Interpretive Information Center meeting and operating funds
Councilmember Clure – Reports on Business Networking Institute meeting in Redding Mayor Glaubman – Reports on Coffee With The Mayor meeting, invites the public to attend the next Coffee With The Mayor event.
8 12. Future Agenda Items (Appearing on the agenda within 60-90 days): None a. Master Fee Schedule Review
b. Combination of Wastewater and Drainage Funds
c. Mobile Home Rent Stabilization
d. Finalization of date for ballot measure
Future Agenda Items Over 90 Days: None
13. Adjourn: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:40pm. 9 City Council Agenda Item #7b
Staff Report
Meeting Date: February 23, 2026
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Malisa Dodd, Finance Director
Subject: Approval of Warrants and Payroll
Recommendation:
Staff requests the Mayor and City Council Approve warrants paid including payroll benefits and withholding, and payroll distribution, in the amount of $1,239,891.74 Background & Summary:
Approval of Check Numbers 54693- 54800 $ 936,475.45
Total Payroll Distribution $ 174,075.07
Total EFTPS – CalPERS, Nationwide $ 55,179.15
Total Payroll EFTPS Taxes $ 74,162.07
$ 1,239,891.74
Financial Impacts:
Expenditures are consistent with current level spending as reviewed with City Council.
Attachments:
1.) Check Registers – 1/22/26, 2/5/26
2.) ACH Payroll Distribution – 2/5/26, 2/19/26
3.) EFTPS Reports – Payroll/CalPERS – 2/5/26, 2/19/26
Regular
x Consent
Closed
Presentation
10 Accounts Payable
User:
Printed:
[email protected]
2/19/2026 9:49 AM
Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number
Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
54693 15194 22ND AVENUE ENTERTAINMENT LOGISTICS 01/22/2026 2,250.00 54694 10229 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 01/22/2026 314.57
54695 300168 American Water Works Association 01/22/2026 539.00 54696 10404 AT&T 01/22/2026 480.18
54697 11156 YOLANDE DIEDRE BELL 01/22/2026 256.56
54698 11252 BLUE STAR GAS 01/22/2026 627.64
54699 12200 CALIFORNIA SAFETY COMPANY 01/22/2026 236.25 54700 12260 CASCADE FIRE EQUIPMENT 01/22/2026 268.00
54701 12640 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INSUR 01/22/2026 58.00 54702 14140 DON ERICKSON OIL INC 01/22/2026 446.19
54703 13224 DRY CREEK LANDFILL INC 01/22/2026 1,760.38
54704 300104 EXPRESS SERVICES INC 01/22/2026 1,978.22
54705 15030 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC. #1423 01/22/2026 693.51 54706 15221 FRIENDS OF THE MT SHASTA LIBRARY01/22/2026 11,307.91 54707 300139 The Good Year Tire & Rubber Company 01/22/2026 2,082.47 54708 16140 GRAINGER INC 01/22/2026 12.53
54709 16180 GREAT NORTHERN CORPORATION 01/22/2026 2,135.20 54710 300132 Green DOT Transportation Solutions 01/22/2026 5,500.00 54711 17037 HARDY DIAGNOSTICS 01/22/2026 1,972.25
54712 18063 INTERSTATE BATTERY 01/22/2026 219.80
54713 22071 MENDES SUPPLY COMPANY 01/22/2026 176.46
54714 22059 MERCY MEDICAL CENTER - CASHIER 01/22/2026 84.00 54715 22133 MEYERS POLICE K-9 TRAINING LLC 01/22/2026 800.00 54716 28120 NAPA AUTO PARTS 01/22/2026 281.32
54717 11140 PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES LLC 01/22/2026 726.60 54718 25020 PACE ENGINEERING INC 01/22/2026 3,540.00
54719 25121 PITNEY BOWES INC 01/22/2026 98.14
54720 300204 PROGRESSION ENGINEERING 01/22/2026 17,448.50 54721 27000 RAMSHAW'S ACE HARDWARE INC 01/22/2026 103.18 54722 28338 SISKIYOU COUNTY AIR POLLUTION 01/22/2026 149.15 54723 28372 SISKIYOU COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 01/22/2026 3,000.00 54724 32060 SOLANOS INC 01/22/2026 63.30
54725 28640 SOUSA READY MIX LLC 01/22/2026 967.48
54726 300230 Sheriff's Office Stanislaus County 01/22/2026 115.00 54727 29169 STATEWIDE TRAFFIC SAFETY & SIGNS DBA AWP SAFETY 01/22/2026 692.32 54728 30069 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYS 01/22/2026 9,968.91 54729 31023 VALLEY PACIFIC PETROLEUM 01/22/2026 4,779.04 54730 31031 VESTIS 01/22/2026 217.34
54731 300131 AceK9 02/05/2026 168.00
54732 10229 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 02/05/2026 171.08
54733 10338 APEX TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT 02/05/2026 9,888.86 54734 10402 AT&T MOBILITY FIRSTNET 02/05/2026 1,751.20
54735 10429 AXON ENTERPRISE INC 02/05/2026 2,765.80
54736 300091 TIM BARNETT 02/05/2026 38.66
54737 11156 YOLANDE DIEDRE BELL 02/05/2026 328.68
54738 300187 WILLIAM J. BERRY, JR. 02/05/2026 11,100.00 54739 11328 BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER SHASTA 02/05/2026 22,778.74 AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number (2/19/2026 9:49 AM) Page 1 11 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount 54740 12152 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION 02/05/2026 73.00 54741 12198 CALIFORNIA RURAL WATER ASSOC. 02/05/2026 1,042.00 54742 12200 CALIFORNIA SAFETY COMPANY 02/05/2026 539.72 54743 12213 CAL-ORE COMMUNICATIONS 02/05/2026 1,586.57
54744 12520 CITY OF DUNSMUIR 02/05/2026 17,616.75
54745 12640 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INSUR 02/05/2026 58.00 54746 12269 COMCAST BUSINESS 02/05/2026 420.07
54747 12749 CORE PSYCHOLOGICAL CORPORATION02/05/2026 1,000.00 54748 13059 DAY MANAGEMENT CORP DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS 02/05/2026 540.00 54749 13071 DELTA HEALTH SYSTEMS 02/05/2026 49,989.00
54750 13200 DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 02/05/2026 348.57
54751 13198 DIVISION OF THE STATE ARCHITECT 02/05/2026 15.20 54752 13241 DOWN RANGE 02/05/2026 2,512.71
54753 13224 DRY CREEK LANDFILL INC 02/05/2026 1,749.05
54754 300233 Employment Risk Management Authority ERMA 02/05/2026 1,502.00 54755 300104 EXPRESS SERVICES INC 02/05/2026 1,820.10
54756 15020 FEDERAL EXPRESS 02/05/2026 67.52
54757 15030 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC. #1423 02/05/2026 1,425.22 54758 15221 FRIENDS OF THE MT SHASTA LIBRARY02/05/2026 7,339.00 54759 300234 G3 Engineering Inc 02/05/2026 630.51
54760 16030 GANNETT CALIFORNIA LOCALIQ 02/05/2026 799.72 54761 34040 GOLD NUGGET PRINTING 02/05/2026 291.76
54762 300139 The Good Year Tire & Rubber Company 02/05/2026 561.70 54763 17000 HACH COMPANY 02/05/2026 102.98
54764 300235 Insite Instrumentation Group, Inc 02/05/2026 1,671.00 54765 18063 INTERSTATE BATTERY 02/05/2026 56.33
54766 20003 JONES CARPET CLEANING & JANITORIAL LLC 02/05/2026 800.00 54767 300107 Laboratory Corporation of American Holdings02/05/2026 81.00 54768 21095 LIDDELL CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY 02/05/2026 114.11 54769 22071 MENDES SUPPLY COMPANY 02/05/2026 103.47
54770 22059 MERCY MEDICAL CENTER - CASHIER 02/05/2026 42.00 54771 22133 MEYERS POLICE K-9 TRAINING LLC 02/05/2026 400.00 54772 300236 MISCOwater 02/05/2026 419.25
54773 22111 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INC 02/05/2026 2,184.00
54774 22298 MT. SHASTA HIGH SCHOOL 02/05/2026 24,575.00 54775 22353 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQUIP. 02/05/2026 249.36 54776 28120 NAPA AUTO PARTS 02/05/2026 658.00
54777 300194 NORTH STATE LAND SURVEYING 02/05/2026 2,795.00 54778 24000 OFFICE DEPOT 02/05/2026 15.50
54779 11140 PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES LLC 02/05/2026 2,119.25 54780 25080 PACIFIC POWER & LIGHT 02/05/2026 31,006.57
54781 25120 PERSONNEL PREFERENCE INC 02/05/2026 120.00
54782 25198 CHARLES W PILLON 02/05/2026 5,568.75
54783 27000 RAMSHAW'S ACE HARDWARE INC 02/05/2026 114.94 54784 27040 RAY-MAC MECHANICAL INC 02/05/2026 438.75
54785 27094 REXEL 02/05/2026 4,087.42
54786 27078 RIVERVIEW INTERNATIONAL 02/05/2026 55.71
54787 300197 S.T. RHOADES CONSTRUCTION 02/05/2026 34,100.00 54788 28340 SISKIYOU COUNTY AUDITOR 02/05/2026 705.00
54789 28466 SISKIYOU COUNTY TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 02/05/2026 10,766.26 54790 32060 SOLANOS INC 02/05/2026 384.35
54791 28640 SOUSA READY MIX LLC 02/05/2026 650.52
54792 29011 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 137 02/05/2026 1,542.94
54793 29140 TIMBERWORKS 02/05/2026 567,599.66
54794 30004 U.S. BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE 02/05/2026 614.24 54795 30069 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYS 02/05/2026 9,473.00 54796 31023 VALLEY PACIFIC PETROLEUM 02/05/2026 4,235.92 AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number (2/19/2026 9:49 AM) Page 2 12 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount 54797 31031 VESTIS 02/05/2026 368.60
54798 31040 VWR SCIENTIFIC 02/05/2026 537.98
54799 32066 WEIST LAW 02/05/2026 5,850.00
54800 34055 YREKA TRANSFER, LLC 02/05/2026 4,600.00
Report Total (108 checks): 936,475.45
AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number (2/19/2026 9:49 AM) Page 3 13 From: Tri Counties Bank
To: Malisa Dodd
Subject: Tri Counties Bank - ACH Payment Status Change Notification Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 3:05:30 PM
ACH Notification
Report Date/Time 02/18/26 15:05:16 PST
This transaction has been successfully completed.
Transaction Number: ACH-01969088
ACH Company: City Mt Shasta
Company Entry Description: PAYROLL
Payment Date: 02/19/2026
Total Credits: $88,851.18 (46)
Total Debits: $0.00 (0)
Status: Completed
14 From: Tri Counties Bank
To: Malisa Dodd
Subject: Tri Counties Bank - ACH Payment Status Change Notification Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2026 1:05:26 PM
ACH Notification
Report Date/Time 02/04/26 13:05:11 PST
This transaction has been successfully completed.
Transaction Number: ACH-01953255
ACH Company: City Mt Shasta
Company Entry Description: PAYROLL
Payment Date: 02/05/2026
Total Credits: $85,223.89 (44)
Total Debits: $0.00 (0)
Status: Completed
15 To Be Paid Proof List
02/06/2026 - 8:15AM
[email protected]
Printed:
User:
Accounts Payable
Batch: 00001.02.2026 - Payroll 1.19.26-2.1.26
Invoice Number Invoice Date Amount Quantity Payment Date Description Reference
Task Label Type PO # Close PO Line #
Account Number
CalPERS
300160
2/4/2026 267.39 0.00 02/04/2026 No 0
10-000-2150 PERS Payable Witheld PR Batch 00001.02.2026 PERS Fire Classic PR Batch 00001.02.2026 PERS Fire Classic 2/4/2026 611.05 0.00 02/04/2026 No 0
10-000-2150 PERS Payable Witheld PR Batch 00001.02.2026 PERS Fire Classic PR Batch 00001.02.2026 PERS Fire Classic 2/4/2026 5,419.98 0.00 02/04/2026 No 0
10-000-2150 PERS Payable Witheld PR Batch 00001.02.2026 PERS Miscellaneous PEPRA PR Batch 00001.02.2026 PERS Miscellaneous PEPRA 2/4/2026 5,420.94 0.00 02/04/2026 No 0
10-000-2150 PERS Payable Witheld PR Batch 00001.02.2026 PERS Miscellaneous PEPRA PR Batch 00001.02.2026 PERS Miscellaneous PEPRA 2/4/2026 901.36 0.00 02/04/2026 No 0
10-000-2155 Deferred Compensation Witheld PR Batch 00001.02.2026 Deferred Comp PERS PR Batch 00001.02.2026 Deferred Comp PERS 2/4/2026 1,533.73 0.00 02/04/2026 No 0
10-000-2150 PERS Payable Witheld PR Batch 00001.02.2026 PERS FIre PEPRA PR Batch 00001.02.2026 PERS FIre PEPRA 2/4/2026 1,560.51 0.00 02/04/2026 No 0
10-000-2150 PERS Payable Witheld PR Batch 00001.02.2026 PERS Fire PEPRA PR Batch 00001.02.2026 PERS Fire PEPRA 2/4/2026 2,502.97 0.00 02/04/2026 No 0
10-000-2150 PERS Payable Witheld PR Batch 00001.02.2026 PERS Police PEPRA PR Batch 00001.02.2026 PERS Police PEPRA 2/4/2026 2,546.64 0.00 02/04/2026 No 0
10-000-2150 PERS Payable Witheld PR Batch 00001.02.2026 PERS Police PEPRA PR Batch 00001.02.2026 PERS Police PEPRA 2/4/2026 447.80 0.00 02/04/2026 No 0
10-000-2150 PERS Payable Witheld PR Batch 00001.02.2026 PERS Miscellaneous Classic PR Batch 00001.02.2026 PERS Miscellaneous Classic 2/4/2026 778.51 0.00 02/04/2026 No 0
10-000-2150 PERS Payable Witheld PR Batch 00001.02.2026 PERS Miscellaneous Classic PR Batch 00001.02.2026 PERS Miscellaneous Classic 2/4/2026 1,670.18 0.00 02/04/2026 No 0
10-000-2150 PERS Payable Witheld PR Batch 00001.02.2026 PERS Police Classic PR Batch 00001.02.2026 PERS Police Classic 2/4/2026 734.90 0.00 02/04/2026 No 0
10-000-2150 PERS Payable Witheld PR Batch 00001.02.2026 PERS Police Classic PR Batch 00001.02.2026 PERS Police Classic AP-To Be Paid Proof List (02/06/2026 - 8:15 AM) Page 1
*** means this invoice number is a duplicate.
16 Invoice Number Invoice Date Amount Quantity Payment Date Description Reference
Task Label Type PO # Close PO Line #
Account Number
Total: 24,395.96
CalPERS Total: 24,395.96
EDD ACH
300177
2/4/2026 1,524.00 0.00 02/04/2026 No 0
10-000-2140 State Disability Ins Witheld PR Batch 00001.02.2026 State Disability Insurance PR Batch 00001.02.2026 State Disability Insurance 2/4/2026 4,329.18 0.00 02/04/2026 No 0
10-000-2130 State Income Tax Witheld PR Batch 00001.02.2026 State Income Tax PR Batch 00001.02.2026 State Income Tax Total: 5,853.18
EDD ACH Total: 5,853.18
IRS
300158
2/4/2026 11,111.01 0.00 02/04/2026 No 0
10-000-2120 Fed Income Tax Witheld PR Batch 00001.02.2026 Federal Income Tax PR Batch 00001.02.2026 Federal Income Tax 2/4/2026 7,840.35 0.00 02/04/2026 No 0
10-000-2110 FICA Witheld PR Batch 00001.02.2026 FICA Employee Portion PR Batch 00001.02.2026 FICA Employee Portion 2/4/2026 7,723.52 0.00 02/04/2026 No 0
10-000-2110 FICA Witheld PR Batch 00001.02.2026 FICA Employer Portion PR Batch 00001.02.2026 FICA Employer Portion 2/4/2026 1,833.60 0.00 02/04/2026 No 0
10-000-2110 FICA Witheld PR Batch 00001.02.2026 Medicare Employee Portion PR Batch 00001.02.2026 Medicare Employee Portion 2/4/2026 1,806.28 0.00 02/04/2026 No 0
10-000-2110 FICA Witheld PR Batch 00001.02.2026 Medicare Employer Portion PR Batch 00001.02.2026 Medicare Employer Portion Total: 30,314.76
IRS Total: 30,314.76
Nationwide
300161
2/4/2026 600.00 0.00 02/04/2026 No 0
AP-To Be Paid Proof List (02/06/2026 - 8:15 AM) Page 2
*** means this invoice number is a duplicate.
17 Invoice Number Invoice Date Amount Quantity Payment Date Description Reference
Task Label Type PO # Close PO Line #
Account Number
10-000-2155 Deferred Compensation Witheld PR Batch 00001.02.2026 Deferred Comp Nationwide PR Batch 00001.02.2026 Deferred Comp Nationwide 2/4/2026 1,300.00 0.00 02/04/2026 No 0
10-000-2155 Deferred Compensation Witheld PR Batch 00001.02.2026 Deferred Comp Nationwide 50 PR Batch 00001.02.2026 Deferred Comp Nationwide 50 Total: 1,900.00
Nationwide Total: 1,900.00
STERLING HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
28815
2/4/2026 215.00 0.00 02/04/2026 No 0
10-000-2161 Flexible Spending Plan Payable PR Batch 00001.02.2026 HSA Deduction PR Batch 00001.02.2026 HSA Deduction Total: 215.00
STERLING HEALTH AD 215.00
Report Total: 62,678.90
AP-To Be Paid Proof List (02/06/2026 - 8:15 AM) Page 3
*** means this invoice number is a duplicate.
18 To Be Paid Proof List
02/19/2026 - 9:57AM
[email protected]
Printed:
User:
Accounts Payable
Batch: 00007.02.2026 - 02/01/26-02/15/26 Payroll
Invoice Number Invoice Date Amount Quantity Payment Date Description Reference
Task Label Type PO # Close PO Line #
Account Number
CalPERS
300160
2/18/2026 5,355.57 0.00 02/18/2026 No 0
10-000-2150 PERS Payable Witheld PR Batch 00002.02.2026 PERS Miscellaneous PEPRA PR Batch 00002.02.2026 PERS Miscellaneous PEPRA 2/18/2026 5,500.69 0.00 02/18/2026 No 0
10-000-2150 PERS Payable Witheld PR Batch 00002.02.2026 PERS Miscellaneous PEPRA PR Batch 00002.02.2026 PERS Miscellaneous PEPRA 2/18/2026 901.36 0.00 02/18/2026 No 0
10-000-2155 Deferred Compensation Witheld PR Batch 00002.02.2026 Deferred Comp PERS PR Batch 00002.02.2026 Deferred Comp PERS 2/18/2026 3,379.93 0.00 02/18/2026 No 0
10-000-2150 PERS Payable Witheld PR Batch 00002.02.2026 PERS Police PEPRA PR Batch 00002.02.2026 PERS Police PEPRA 2/18/2026 3,438.91 0.00 02/18/2026 No 0
10-000-2150 PERS Payable Witheld PR Batch 00002.02.2026 PERS Police PEPRA PR Batch 00002.02.2026 PERS Police PEPRA 2/18/2026 1,670.18 0.00 02/18/2026 No 0
10-000-2150 PERS Payable Witheld PR Batch 00002.02.2026 PERS Police Classic PR Batch 00002.02.2026 PERS Police Classic 2/18/2026 734.91 0.00 02/18/2026 No 0
10-000-2150 PERS Payable Witheld PR Batch 00002.02.2026 PERS Police Classic PR Batch 00002.02.2026 PERS Police Classic 2/18/2026 1,546.82 0.00 02/18/2026 No 0
10-000-2150 PERS Payable Witheld PR Batch 00002.02.2026 PERS FIre PEPRA PR Batch 00002.02.2026 PERS FIre PEPRA 2/18/2026 1,573.82 0.00 02/18/2026 No 0
10-000-2150 PERS Payable Witheld PR Batch 00002.02.2026 PERS Fire PEPRA PR Batch 00002.02.2026 PERS Fire PEPRA 2/18/2026 429.36 0.00 02/18/2026 No 0
10-000-2150 PERS Payable Witheld PR Batch 00002.02.2026 PERS Miscellaneous Classic PR Batch 00002.02.2026 PERS Miscellaneous Classic 2/18/2026 747.05 0.00 02/18/2026 No 0
10-000-2150 PERS Payable Witheld PR Batch 00002.02.2026 PERS Miscellaneous Classic PR Batch 00002.02.2026 PERS Miscellaneous Classic 2/18/2026 267.39 0.00 02/18/2026 No 0
10-000-2150 PERS Payable Witheld PR Batch 00002.02.2026 PERS Fire Classic PR Batch 00002.02.2026 PERS Fire Classic 2/18/2026 611.05 0.00 02/18/2026 No 0
10-000-2150 PERS Payable Witheld PR Batch 00002.02.2026 PERS Fire Classic PR Batch 00002.02.2026 PERS Fire Classic AP-To Be Paid Proof List (02/19/2026 - 9:57 AM) Page 1
*** means this invoice number is a duplicate.
19 Invoice Number Invoice Date Amount Quantity Payment Date Description Reference
Task Label Type PO # Close PO Line #
Account Number
Total: 26,157.04
CalPERS Total: 26,157.04
EDD ACH
300177
2/18/2026 1,597.70 0.00 02/18/2026 No 0
10-000-2140 State Disability Ins Witheld PR Batch 00002.02.2026 State Disability Insurance PR Batch 00002.02.2026 State Disability Insurance 2/18/2026 4,546.47 0.00 02/18/2026 No 0
10-000-2130 State Income Tax Witheld PR Batch 00002.02.2026 State Income Tax PR Batch 00002.02.2026 State Income Tax Total: 6,144.17
EDD ACH Total: 6,144.17
Expertpay
300159
2/18/2026 346.15 0.00 02/18/2026 No 0
10-000-2184 Court Ordered Witheld PR Batch 00002.02.2026 Garnishment PR Batch 00002.02.2026 Garnishment Total: 346.15
Expertpay Total: 346.15
IRS
300158
2/18/2026 11,691.95 0.00 02/18/2026 No 0
10-000-2120 Fed Income Tax Witheld PR Batch 00002.02.2026 Federal Income Tax PR Batch 00002.02.2026 Federal Income Tax 2/18/2026 8,225.41 0.00 02/18/2026 No 0
10-000-2110 FICA Witheld PR Batch 00002.02.2026 FICA Employee Portion PR Batch 00002.02.2026 FICA Employee Portion 2/18/2026 1,923.70 0.00 02/18/2026 No 0
10-000-2110 FICA Witheld PR Batch 00002.02.2026 Medicare Employee Portion PR Batch 00002.02.2026 Medicare Employee Portion 2/18/2026 8,111.78 0.00 02/18/2026 No 0
10-000-2110 FICA Witheld PR Batch 00002.02.2026 FICA Employer Portion PR Batch 00002.02.2026 FICA Employer Portion 2/18/2026 1,897.12 0.00 02/18/2026 No 0
AP-To Be Paid Proof List (02/19/2026 - 9:57 AM) Page 2
*** means this invoice number is a duplicate.
20 Invoice Number Invoice Date Amount Quantity Payment Date Description Reference
Task Label Type PO # Close PO Line #
Account Number
10-000-2110 FICA Witheld PR Batch 00002.02.2026 Medicare Employer Portion PR Batch 00002.02.2026 Medicare Employer Portion Total: 31,849.96
IRS Total: 31,849.96
Nationwide
300161
2/18/2026 600.00 0.00 02/18/2026 No 0
10-000-2155 Deferred Compensation Witheld PR Batch 00002.02.2026 Deferred Comp Nationwide PR Batch 00002.02.2026 Deferred Comp Nationwide 2/18/2026 1,300.00 0.00 02/18/2026 No 0
10-000-2155 Deferred Compensation Witheld PR Batch 00002.02.2026 Deferred Comp Nationwide 50 PR Batch 00002.02.2026 Deferred Comp Nationwide 50 Total: 1,900.00
Nationwide Total: 1,900.00
STERLING HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
28815
2/18/2026 265.00 0.00 02/18/2026 No 0
10-000-2161 Flexible Spending Plan Payable PR Batch 00002.02.2026 HSA Deduction PR Batch 00002.02.2026 HSA Deduction Total: 265.00
STERLING HEALTH AD 265.00
Report Total: 66,662.32
AP-To Be Paid Proof List (02/19/2026 - 9:57 AM) Page 3
*** means this invoice number is a duplicate.
21 City Council Agenda Item # 7c
Staff Report
Meeting Date: February 23, 2026
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Malisa Dodd, Director of Finance
Subject: Revenue Status Update, Monthly Investment and Financial Report Recommendation:
Staff respectfully request the City Council review the provided information regarding the City’s revenue and investments.
Background & Summary:
Sales Tax Revenue:
The city sales tax receipts total $758,038 through December 2025 for fiscal year 25-26. The budgeted amount for fiscal year 25-26 is $1,500,000 with 50.54% collected, while 50% of the way through the year. For the first six months of the fiscal year, we are at 97.21% compared to the same time in the prior year. At this point I would revise the projection to $1,460,000 or $40,000 less than the adopted amount.
Current Year 25-26 Sales Tax Information
Budget Projection Jul-Dec Expected Jul-Dec Received 25-26 Deficit $1,500,000 $795,000 $758,038 ($36,962)
Prior Year 24-25 Sales Tax Information
YTD Received Jul-Dec Received CY vs PY difference
$1,522,870 $781,418 ($23,379)
Transient Occupancy Tax:
The city started collecting TOT revenue monthly in July of 2025 and receipts through December 2025 are $855,515 for fiscal year 25-26 with 52.98% of the budget collected. The budgeted amount for fiscal year 25-26 is $1,614,800.
Current Year 25-26 Transient Occupancy Tax Information
Budget Projection Jul-Dec Received Jan-Jun Needed
$1,614,800 $855,515 759,285
Prior Year 24-25 Transient Occupancy Tax Information
YTD Received July-Dec Received CY vs PY difference Jan-Jun Received $1,596,668 $807,394 $48,121 $789,274
Regular
X Consent
Closed
Presentation
22 2
Property Tax and Vehicle License Fees:
The city property tax receipts total $479,704 through January 2026 for fiscal year 25-26. The budgeted amount for fiscal year 25-26 is $849,745 with 58.35% collected. Although the current property tax received is higher than the prior year, we will not likely receive the budget projection. At this point I would revise the projection to $818,446 or $31,299 less than the adopted amount.
Current Year 25-26 Property Tax Information
Budget Projection Jul-Jan Expected Jul-Jan Received Excess /(Deficit) Property Tax $849,745 $492,852 $479,704 ($13,148)
License Fees $442,828 $0 $5,839
Prior Year 24-25 Property Tax Information
YTD Received Jul-Jan Received CY vs PY difference
Property Tax $783,591 $457,191 $22,513
As of January 31, 2026, the combined funds the City of Mt. Shasta had invested in the Local Agency Investment Fund (L.A.I.F.) totaled $277,670.85. The statement is attached, along with the performance data as of February 18, 2026. Most surplus funds over which the City has control are currently invested in Concourse with a balance of $1,164,204.80. A money market account was set up with Tri Counties Bank for the Housing and Community Development funds received for the funding of the Mountain Townhomes project with DANCO and has a balance of $5,005,851.28. The balance of the City’s cash funds are held in a pooled account with Tri Counties Bank with a balance as of $5,194,769.91.
Current investment rates are:
L.A.I.F. January 31, 2025 3.931%
Treasury Note – 3 month December 31, 2025 3.63%
Treasury Note – 2 Yr. December 31, 2025 3.48%
Treasury Note – 5 Yr. December 31, 2025 3.73%
Treasury Note – 10 Yr. December 31, 2025 4.17%
Treasury Note – 30 Yr. December 31, 2025 4.85%
Bloomberg as reported by Chandler Asset Management
The LAIF average decreased slightly from last month; most notes had a decrease. We continue to anticipate the LAIF rate staying just above 4%. The LAIF rate remains the best available rate that meets the City’s requirement for liquidity and safety.
23 3
Financial Impact:
The investments are in compliance with the City’s investment policy and provides for meeting the City’s cash flow needs for the next month and 6 month periods.
Attachments:
• LAIF Monthly Statement
• LAIF Performance Report
• LAIF Monthly Balances
• Chandler Asset Management
24 Local Agency Investment Fund
P.O. Box 942809
Sacramento, CA 94209-0001
(916) 653-3001
February 19, 2026
LAIF Home
PMIA Average Monthly
Yields
CITY OF MT SHASTA
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
305 NORTH MT SHASTA BLVD
MT SHASTA, CA 96067
Account Number: 98-47-572
January 2026 Statement
Tran Type Definitions
Effective
Date
Transaction
Date
Tran
Type Confirm
Number
Web
Confirm
Number Authorized Caller Amount
1/15/2026 1/15/2026 QRD 1793528 N/A SYSTEM 2,905.27
Account Summary
Total Deposit: 2,905.27 Beginning Balance: 274,765.58
Total Withdrawal: 0.00 Ending Balance: 277,670.85
25 January 3.931
December 4.025
November 4.096
October 4.150
September 4.212
August 4.251
PMIA Average Life(1): 244
LAIF Fair Value Factor(1): 1.002181483
PMIA Daily(1): 3.97
PMIA Quarter to Date(1): 4.09
LAIF Apportionment Rate(2): 4.20
LAIF Earnings Ratio(2): 0.00011512010685708
LAIF Administrative Cost(1)*: 0.27
Treasuries
57.45%
Agencies
23.67%
Certificates of
Deposit/Bank Notes
9.52%
Time
Deposits
3.15%
Commercial
Paper
5.50%
Corporate
Bonds
0.56%
Loans
0.15%
Notes: The apportionment rate includes interest earned on the CalPERS Supplemental Pension Payment pursuant to Government Code 20825 (c)(1) .
*The percentage of administrative cost equals the total administrative cost divided by the quarterly interest earnings. The law provides that administrative costs are not to exceed 5% of quarterly EARNINGS of the fund. However, if the 13-week Daily Treasury Bill Rate on the last day of the fiscal year is below 1%, then administrative costs shall not exceed 8% of quarterly EARNINGS of the fund for the subsequent fiscal year.
Source:
(1) State of California, Office of the Treasurer
(2) State of California, Office of the Controller
PMIA Average Monthly
Effective Yields(1)
PMIA/LAIF Performance Report
as of 02/18/26
Daily rates are now available here. View PMIA Daily Rates Quarterly Performance
Quarter Ended 12/31/25
Chart does not include $882,000.00 in mortgages, which equates to 0.001%. Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
Pooled Money Investment Account
Monthly Portfolio Composition (1)
1/31/26
$170.9 billion
26 State of California
Pooled Money Investment Account
Market Valuation
1/31/2026
Carrying Cost Plus
Description Accrued Interest Purch. Fair Value Accrued Interest United States Treasury:
Bills $ 51,799,914,348.32 $ 52,213,105,650.00 NA
Notes $ 45,465,589,677.12 $ 45,668,690,350.00 $ 458,219,329.50 Federal Agency:
SBA $ 265,888,072.99 $ 262,838,882.60 $ 1,003,292.16
MBS-REMICs $ 881,835.22 $ 890,042.46 $ 3,846.93
Debentures $ 4,571,257,842.07 $ 4,585,927,730.00 $ 50,061,695.40 Debentures FR $ - $ - $ -
Debentures CL $ 3,000,000,000.00 $ 3,009,120,850.00 $ 31,953,476.50 Discount Notes $ 28,281,433,868.04 $ 28,568,972,500.00 NA Supranational Debentures $ 4,337,631,978.20 $ 4,352,940,700.00 $ 46,470,793.30 Supranational Debentures FR $ - $ - $ -
CDs and YCDs FR $ - $ - $ -
Bank Notes $ 200,000,000.00 $ 199,872,514.73 $ 1,660,694.44 CDs and YCDs $ 16,050,000,000.00 $ 16,051,759,635.81 $ 173,077,694.49 Commercial Paper $ 9,399,377,736.03 $ 9,485,305,694.54 NA Corporate:
Bonds FR $ - $ - $ -
Bonds $ 962,752,856.04 $ 964,454,544.00 $ 9,505,199.42
Repurchase Agreements $ - $ - $ -
Reverse Repurchase $ - $ - $ -
Time Deposits $ 5,392,000,000.00 $ 5,392,000,000.00 NA
PMIA & GF Loans $ 263,795,740.00 $ 263,795,740.00 NA
TOTAL $ 169,990,523,954.03 $ 171,019,674,834.14 $ 771,956,022.14 Fair Value Including Accrued Interest $ 171,791,630,856.28 Repurchase Agreements, Time Deposits, PMIA & General Fund loans, and Reverse Repurchase agreements are carried at portfolio book value (carrying cost). 27 Source: Bloomberg
DAX
FTSE (UK)
Nikkei
S&P 500
NASDAQ
Hang Seng
DOW JONES
World Stock Market Indices
December economic data signaled moderating inflation alongside a continued rebalancing in labor market conditions, with price pressures still running modestly above the Federal Reserve’s longer‑run objective and the unemployment rate dropping to 4.4%. As the data flow normalizes, the Chandler team anticipates additional yield curve steepening as the Federal Reserve gradually guides the policy rate toward a more neutral range. One additional 25 basis point rate cut is likely in the first half of 2026, while U.S. trade and fiscal policy continue to represent important sources of elevated market uncertainty. 2025 concluded with the Federal Reserve’s December FOMC meeting providing a third consecutive 25‑basis‑point rate cut, bringing the target range down to 3.50%–3.75%.
Policymakers remain divided on the next steps: four officials project one additional 25‑basis‑point cut in 2026, another four see no further easing, eight anticipate multiple cuts, while three call for a possible rate hike. Chair Jerome Powell emphasized that the Fed is now “well placed to wait and see” how labor market conditions and inflation evolve before making further adjustments.
The US Treasury yield curve steepened in December, as the 2-year Treasury yield dropped 2 basis points to 3.48%, the 5-year Treasury was up 13 basis points to 3.73%, and the 10-year Treasury yield was 15 basis points higher at 4.17%. The spread between the 2-year and 10-year Treasury yield points on the curve was 17 basis points wider from November at +69 basis points at December month-end. The spread between the 2-year Treasury and 10-year Treasury yield one year ago was +33 basis points. The spread between the 3-month and 10-year Treasury yield points on the curve was +54 basis points in December versus +21 basis points in November.
After the FOMC ultimately delivered its third cut of the year at the December meeting, markets are priced in at least one additional 25‑basis‑point cut in the first half of 2026.
To finish out the year, the Federal Reserve lowered the federal funds target range to
3.50%–3.75% in 2025. In total, three moves reduced the policy rate by 75 basis points and were followed by a notable steepening of the yield curve. These developments have been consistent with the Chandler team’s view that lower short‑term rates would contribute to a steeper yield curve, and the team expects this steepening trend to persist into the first half of 2026, albeit at a more moderate pace.
Market Summary
BOND MARKET REVIEW
A M o n t h l y R e v i e w o f F i x e d I n c o m e M a r k e t s January 2026
(Japan) - as of 12/30/2025
(Germany) - as of 12/30/2025
(Hong Kong)
TREASURY YIELDS Trend 12/31/2025 11/28/2025 Change
Chandler Asset Management | 800.317.4747 | chandlerasset.com | Page 1 6,845.50
9,931.38
23,241.99
48,063.29
24,490.41
25,630.54
(3.59) 210.87 (228.35) (123.70) 709.66 346.87 data as of 12/31/2025 unless otherwise noted.
Change
(0.05%) 2.17% (0.29%) Source: Bloomberg. Please see
descriptions of indices on Page 2.
0.73% (0.53%) %CHG (0.88%) 3-Month
2-Year
3-Year
5-Year
7-Year
10-Year
30-Year
3.80 3.49
3.49 3.60
3.79 4.02
4.66 (0.17)
(0.02)
0.05 0.13
0.16 0.15
0.18 Source: Bloomberg
Market Data
Toll Free: 800.317.4747
[email protected]
chandlerasset.com
(▲/▼)
▼
U.S. Treasury Yields
50,339.48
85.57 0.002% ▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
(11/28/2025) 3.63
3.48 3.54
3.73 3.94
4.17 4.85
28 Economic Roundup
ECONOMIC INDICATOR
Trade Balance
Gross Domestic Product
Unemployment Rate
Prime Rate
Refinitiv/CoreCommodity CRB Index
Oil (West Texas Int.)
Consumer Price Index (y/o/y)
Producer Price Index (y/o/y)
Euro/Dollar
(74.25) $B OCT. 31
3.30% SEP. 30
4.10% DEC. 31
7.50% DEC. 31
296.72 DEC. 31
$71.72 DEC. 31
2.70% DEC. 31
2.00% NOV. 30
1.04 DEC. 31
Crude oil prices decreased in December
Credit spreads were tighter in December
CREDIT SPREADS
3-month top rated commercial paper
2-year A corporate note
5-year A corporate note
5-year Agency note
Spread to Treasuries
0.03 0.36
0.51 0.03
One Month Ago
0.07 0.37
0.57 0.04
Change
(0.03)
(0.01)
(0.06)
(0.01)
Chandler Asset Management | 800.317.4747 | chandlerasset.com | Page 2 Housing Starts
The S&P Cotality Case-Shiller 20-City Composite Home Price Index rose 1.3% year over year in October, slightly down from a 1.4% gain in September and marking the slowest annual increase since mid‑2023. Short-term momentum also weakened, with 80 percent of the 20 tracked markets recording month-over-month price declines on a non-seasonally adjusted basis. Housing starts declined in October to an annualized rate of 1.25 million units, down from 1.29 million in September. Existing home sales inched higher in November to a 4.13 million-unit pace, indicating only modest improvement despite some relief in mortgage rates. The Freddie Mac 30‑year fixed mortgage rate fell throughout 2025 and averaged 6.18% at the end of December.
Labor Market
The December Nonfarm Payrolls report showed weaker-than-expected job growth, with payrolls rising by 50,000 compared with the consensus estimate of 70,000. This follows a downwardly revised gain of 56,000 in November. Employment declines were most pronounced in retail trade and construction, while leisure and hospitality posted the strongest gains. Notably, the unemployment rate edged down to 4.4% after increasing to 4.6% in November.
Retail Sales
November Retail Sales rose 0.6% from October and 3.3% from a year earlier, while the control group measure which feeds into GDP rose a solid 0.4% on the month after an even stronger 0.8% gain in October. This confirms that underlying goods spending excluding the most volatile categories remained resilient into the start of the holiday season. The government shutdown may have weighed on consumer confidence regarding jobs, incomes, and overall financial conditions, both current and in the future. The Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index declined to 89.1 in December from an upwardly revised 92.9 in November, marking its fifth consecutive monthly drop. Consumers remained pessimistic about both business conditions and the labor market.
Consumer Prices
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) showed that inflation remained relatively subdued in December, with headline CPI and core CPI holding at 2.7% and 2.6% respectively year-over-year. Shelter has continued to play a central but gradually moderating role in services inflation.
December data keeps inflation close to the prior month’s pace and consistent with a trend of easing price pressures. The Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) Index for September, released on December 5, showed headline inflation up 0.3% from August and
2.8% year over year. Core PCE rose 0.2% on the month and 2.8% on an annual basis.
BOND MARKET REVIEW
World Stock Market Index Descriptions
S&P 500–The S&P 500 is a market value-weighted index of 500 large-capitalization stocks. The 500 companies included in the index capture approximately 80% of available US market capitalization.
NASDAQ–The NASDAQ Composite Index is the market capitalization-weighted index of over 3.300 common stocks listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange. Dow Jones–The Dow Jones Industrial Average is an index that tracks 30 large, publicly-owned companies trading on the New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ. The Financial Times Stock Exchange Group (FTSE)–The FTSE is a share index of the 100 companies listed on the London Stock Exchange with the highest market capitalization. DAX–The Deutscher Aktienindex (DAX) is a blue chip stock market index consisting of the 30 major German companies trading on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. Hang Seng–The Hang Seng Index is a freefloat-adjusted market-capitalization- weighted stock market index in Hong Kong.
It is used to record and monitor daily changes of the largest companies of the Hong Kong stock market and is the main indicator of overall market performance in Hong Kong. Nikkei–Japan's Nikkei 225 Stock Average is a price-weighted index composed of Japan's top 225 blue-chip companies traded on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. © 2026 Chandler Asset Management, Inc. An independent, SEC-registered investment adviser. Data source: Bloomberg, Federal Reserve, and the US Department of Labor. This report is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as specific investment or legal advice. The information contained herein was obtained from sources believed to be reliable as of the date of publication, but may become outdated or superseded at any time without notice. Any opinions or views expressed are based on current market conditions and are subject to change. This report may contain forecasts and forward-looking statements which are inherently limited and should not be relied upon as an indicator of future results. Past performance is not indicative of future results. This report is not intended to constitute an offer, solicitation, recommendation, or advice regarding any securities or investment strategy and should not be regarded by recipients as a substitute for the exercise of their own judgment. Fixed income investments are subject to interest rate, credit, and market risk. Interest rate risk: The value of fixed income investments will decline as interest rates rise.
Credit risk: the possibility that the borrower may not be able to repay interest and principal. Low-rated bonds generally have to pay higher interest rates to attract investors willing to take on greater risk.
Market risk: the bond market, in general, could decline due to economic conditions, especially during periods of rising interest rates. The S&P Corelogic Case-Shiller home price index tracks monthly changes in the value of residential real estate in 20 metropolitan regions across the nation.
Source: Bloomberg
Source: Bloomberg
Data as of 12/31/2025
Since 1988, Chandler
Asset Management
has specialized in
providing fixed
income investment
solutions to risk-averse
public agencies and
institutions. Chandler’s
mission is to provide
fully customizable clientcentered portfolio
management that
preserves principal,
mitigates risk, and
generates income in
our clients’ portfolios.
Current Release Prior Release
(48.14) $B SEP. 30
4.30% SEP. 30
4.50% NOV. 30
7.00% NOV. 28
301.49 NOV. 28
$58.58 NOV. 28
2.70% NOV. 28
2.50% OCT. 31
1.16 NOV. 28
One Year Ago
(29.35) $B OCT. 31
4.30% SEP. 30
4.40% DEC. 31
6.75% DEC. 31
298.78 DEC. 31
$57.42 DEC. 31
2.70% DEC. 31
2.90% NOV. 30
1.17 DEC. 31
29 Department of Housing and Community Development
Resolution Form Revised 3/18/2025 2025 CDBG NOFA
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Mt. Shasta RESOLUTION NO. CCR-26-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MT. SHASTA
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR FUNDING AND THE EXECUTION OF A GRANT AGREEMENT AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO FROM THE 2025
FUNDING YEAR OF THE STATE CDBG PROGRAM
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mt. Shasta as follows:
SECTION 1:
The City Council has reviewed and hereby approves the submission to the State of California of one or more application(s) in the aggregate amount, not to exceed, of $860,000.00 for the following CDBG activities, pursuant to the and 2025 CDBG NOFA:
List activities and amounts
Activity (e.g. Public Services,
Infrastructure, etc.)
Dollar Amount Being Requested for the
Activity
Economic Development-Microenterprise Assistance
Program
$ 540,000
Planning-Mt. Shasta Blvd. Master Plan $ 290,000
General Administration $ 30,000
$
$
SECTION 2:
The City Council hereby approves the use of Program Income in an amount not to exceed $0.00 for the CDBG activities described in Section 1.
SECTION 3:
The City Council acknowledges compliance with all state and federal public participation requirements in the development of its application(s).
SECTION 4:
The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Finance Director or designee*, to execute and deliver all applications and act on the City’s behalf in all matters pertaining to all such applications.
SECTION 5:
If an application is approved, the Mayor or designee*, is authorized to enter into, execute and deliver the grant agreement (i.e., Standard Agreement), any recordable or 30 nonrecordable contract documents, and any and all subsequent amendments thereto with the State of California for the purposes of the grant.
SECTION 6:
If an application is approved, the Finance Director or designee*, is authorized to sign and submit Funds Requests and all required reporting forms and other documentation as may be required by the State of California from time to time in connection with the grant.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Mt.
Shasta held on 2/23/2026 by the following vote:
AYES: Enter # of votes
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Casey Glaubman, Mayor
City Council
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
City of Mt. Shasta
I, Rachel Agron, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Mt. Shasta, State of California, hereby certify the above and foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by said City Council on this 23rd day of February, 2026 and that said resolution has not been amended, modified, repealed, or rescinded since its date of adoption and is in full force and effect as of the date hereof.
Mt. Shasta, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Mt. Shasta, State of California
______________________________________
By: Rachel Agron, Deputy City Clerk
31 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM #8
MEETING DATE: February 23, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Ken Kellogg, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Presentation from Green Dot Transportation – Final Report on the Lake Street for All (LS4A) Active Transportation Improvements Recommendation:
Staff respectfully recommend the City Council review and approve the Lake Street for All (LS4A) final report.
Background:
The City of Mt Shasta was awarded a $156,577 Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant from Caltrans on February 14, 2024, to complete the Lake Street Complete Streets Plan (LSCSP).
The goal of the LSCSP is to provide a framework of strategies and implementation actions to improve safety and mobility along the 1.2-mile corridor of Lake Street.
The preliminary final report was presented to Council by Green DOT Transportation on 11/10/2025. Jeff Schwein, the owner of Green DOT is presenting the final report. • Examination of traffic volumes and historical crash data. • Field observations.
• Stakeholder meetings to gain insight.
• Conceptual designs for improvements along the Lake Street corridor.
The completion and adoption of this report will support our work seeking grant funding for the production of Plans, Specification, and Engineering the proposed improvements along the roadway.
X Regular Session
Special Session
Emergency
Session
Closed Session
32 Lake Street for All
Complete Streets Plan
Final Report
February 2026
Prepared by: Green DOT Transportation Solutions
Prepared for: City of Mt. Shasta
33 Lake Street for All | Admin Draft for Review i
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................................1
1.1. THE PLAN ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1
2. Community Context ........................................................................................................................................................3
2.1. AGE ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3
2.2. INCOME.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3
2.3. ACCESS TO CARS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3
2.4. HEALTH METRICS.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.4.1. CALENVIROSCREEN.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4
2.4.2. CALIFORNIA HEALTHY PLACES INDEX.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4
3. Existing Conditions.........................................................................................................................................................6
3.1. ROADWAY CHARACTER AND USES ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................6
3.1.1. INTERSTATE 5 ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6
3.1.2. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.................................................................................................................................................................................................................6
3.1.3. DOWNTOWN MT. SHASTA........................................................................................................................................................................................................................6
3.1.4. RESIDENTIAL.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6
3.1.5. PUBLIC LAND AND PARKS........................................................................................................................................................................................................................7
3.2. KEY DESTINATIONS........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7
3.2.1. BUSINESSES..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7
3.2.2. SCHOOLS...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
3.2.3. COMMUNITY AMENITIES........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
3.3. EMPLOYMENT TRAVEL PATTERNS ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................10
3.4. EXISTING PLANNING FRAMEWORK ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................11
4. Existing Street Configuration ......................................................................................................................................14
4.1. ROADWAY SEGMENTS ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................14
4.2. INTERSECTIONS AND CROSSINGS.............................................................................................................................................................................................................18
4.3. ADDITIONAL FEATURES ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................19
4.4. MULTIMODAL FACILITIES........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
4.4.1. BICYCLE FACILITIES ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 22
4.4.2. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................24 34 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
Lake Street for All | Admin Draft for Review ii
4.4.3. TRANSIT FACILITIES.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 25
4.5. CONNECTING ROADWAY NETWORK...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27
4.6. BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS ......................................................................................................................................................................................................28
4.7. SAFETY ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................30
4.7.1. BICYCLE COLLISIONS ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................30
4.7.2. PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................30
4.7.3. COMMUNITY CONCERNS........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 32
4.7.4. INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS AND BARRIERS............................................................................................................................................................................................ 32
4.8. MULTIMODAL CONNECTIVITY...................................................................................................................................................................................................................34
5. Community Experience ................................................................................................................................................35
5.1. PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 35
5.1.1. WEBSITE..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35
5.1.2. FLYERING.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35
5.1.3. CITY NEWSLETTER ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................36
5.2. SURVEY RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................36
5.3. STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SAC) .....................................................................................................................................................................................38
5.3.1. BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................38
5.3.2. SAC MEETING #1.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................38
5.3.3. SAC MEETING #2....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................39
5.4. WORKSHOPS................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................39
5.4.1. WORKSHOP #1.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................39
5.4.2. WORKSHOP #2.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................41
6. Corridor Design .............................................................................................................................................................43
6.1. BEST PRACTICES..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................43
6.1.1. BICYCLE FACILITIES .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................43
6.1.2. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................45
6.1.3. TREES AND LANDSCAPING ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................46
6.1.4. PLACEMAKING ELEMENTS.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................46
6.2. SEGMENT IMPROVEMENTS .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................49
6.2.1. COMMERCIAL ZONE – BUFFERED BIKEWAY....................................................................................................................................................................................50 35 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
Lake Street for All | Admin Draft for Review iii
6.2.2. COMMUNITY CORE – PARKING PROTECTED BIKEWAY..................................................................................................................................................................50
6.2.3. RESIDENTIAL CONNECTOR –PROTECTED BIKEWAY........................................................................................................................................................................ 51
6.3. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 51
6.3.1. PINE STREET INTERSECTION- CONCEPTUAL OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS......................................................................................................................... 52
7. Wayfinding.....................................................................................................................................................................54
7.1. WHAT WE HEARD........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................54
7.2. WAYFINDING PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................54
7.3. RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 55
7.3.1. COLOR PALETTE AND SEASONALITY................................................................................................................................................................................................... 55
7.3.2. GATEWAY SIGNAGE.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................58
7.3.3. INFORMATIONAL KIOSK..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................59
7.3.4. DISTANCE, DIRECTIONAL, AND ENCOURAGEMENT SIGNAGE........................................................................................................................................................61
7.4. WAYFINDING NEXT STEPS........................................................................................................................................................................................................................63
8. Implementation.............................................................................................................................................................64
8.1. PROJECT COSTS...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................64
8.1.1. COMMERCIAL ZONE................................................................................................................................................................................................................................64
8.1.2. COMMUNITY CORE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................64
8.1.3. RESIDENTIAL CONNECTOR ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................65
8.2. FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................65 36 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
Lake Street for All | Admin Draft for Review iv
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Project Location 2
Figure 2. Key Destinations 9
Figure 3. Inflow and Outflow of Mt. Shasta Employees and Residents 11 Figure 4 Residential Connector - Existing Configuration 16 Figure 5 Community Core - Existing Configuration 17
Figure 6 Commercial Zone - Existing Configuration 18
Figure 7. Sidewalks and Intersections 21
Figure 8 Transit Service along Lake Street 26
Figure 9. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress 29
Figure 10 Project Area Collisions (2013 - 2022) 31
Figure 11. Infrastructure Deficiencies 33
Figure 12 Lake Street Segments 49
Figure 13 Commercial Zone – Buffered Bikeway 50
Figure 14 Community Core – Parking Protected Bikeway 50 Figure 15 Residential Connector – Protected Bikeway 51
Figure 16 Intersection Plan View Concepts 52
Figure 17 Intersection Plan View Concepts 53
Table of Tables
Table 1. Age 3
37 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
1 1.INTRODUCTION
Lake Street is the City of Mt. Shasta’s main east-west
corridor, situated centrally within the city. Local schools, including Shasta Head Start, Mt. Shasta Elementary
School, Sisson Middle School, and Mt. Shasta High
School, are situated in close proximity to Lake Street, making the corridor a prime thoroughfare for students
and their parents to travel to school. Lake Street is the central exit for Mt. Shasta from I-5, making it a primary gateway for visitors, residents, and goods to enter and exit the city. The eastern end of the corridor is aligned with residential housing and connects the city to parks and schools. Mt. Shasta’s downtown core is bisected by
Lake Street, connecting the community to local shops,
dining, banks, pharmacies, and grocery stores.
Functioning as a critical connection between the
freeway, downtown, residential neighborhoods, schools,
and other destinations, Lake Street serves many
different users that access many different types of
destinations. The corridor also faces challenges such as steep gradients, wide lanes, and limited visibility of
bicyclists and pedestrians, and high traffic speeds that hinder access to local destinations. During the
development of the City of Mt. Shasta’s Walk, Bike, Ride Plan in 2022, the residents expressed that it is a priority to create better connections between downtown and
surrounding neighborhoods and trailheads, as well as
improving access to walking and bicycling, public art,
green infrastructure, and other pedestrian scale
beautification improvements.
1.1. THE PLAN
The Lake Street for All (LS4A) Plan is a blueprint to
transform the corridor into a complete street that
enhances safety, connectivity, and accessibility for all users, regardless of age, ability, or mode of travel. The project area defined in this plan spans 1.2 miles from I-5 at the western end and extending northeast,
connecting to a small segment of North Washington
Drive, and terminating on the eastern end of the
corridor at Rockfellow Drive. The Existing Conditions
chapter provides an overview of the strengths and
challenges of the existing corridor. This detailed analysis informs future phases of the LS4A Plan and ensures that concepts for revitalizing Lake Street are data-informed, context sensitive, and address the identified challenges and opportunities.
38 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
2 Figure 1 Project Location
39 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
3 2. COMMUNITY CONTEXT
2.1. AGE
According to the 2023 American Community Survey
(ACS) 5-year estimates, Mt. Shasta has a higher
proportion of older adults compared to the State of
California. Mt. Shasta residents who are 65 years and
older make up 34.5 percent of the population, which is
more than double the State’s makeup of individuals 65
and older (15.3 percent). Individuals who are 75 years and older account for 12.1 percent of the city’s population.
The population under the age of 18, most of who are not yet able to drive, make up 14.3 percent of the city’s
population. Younger and older residents who are unable
or do not wish to drive a vehicle need access to streets that are safe and comfortable to walk and bicycle.
Table 1. Age
Age Mt. Shasta California
Under 18 14.3% 22.2%
18 to 24 years 7.7% 9.1%
25 to 44 years 17.3% 28.6%
45 to 64 years 26.2% 24.7%
65 years and over 34.5% 15.3%
75 years and over 12.1% 6.3%
2.2.INCOME
Households with lower incomes have unique
transportation challenges related to the costs of vehicle ownership and maintenance. The presence of lowincome populations in a community is one factor that is considered in the evaluation of applications for state
and federal funding for transportation projects. For
example, for a project to score in the income category of California’s highly competitive Active Transportation
Program, the median household income (MHI) must be
less than 80 percent of the statewide MHI.
According to the 2023 American Community Survey
(ACS) 5-year estimates, Mt. Shasta has 1,745 households with an MHI of $48,157, slightly exceeding Siskiyou
County’s MHI of $44,242 but falling well below
California’s MHI of $80,440. The city’s MHI is 59.8 percent of the State’s MHI, exceeding the 80 percent threshold
for the Active Transportation Grant program which
could make improvements presented in this plan
competitive for grant funding.
2.3. ACCESS TO CARS
Households with limited vehicle access face a greater
need for alternative transportation options such as
walking, bicycling, and public transit. According to the 2023 ACS 5-year estimates, 5.3 percent of households in 40 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
4 Mt. Shasta do not have access to a vehicle, and 18.5
percent of households are considered “car-light,” with
access to only one vehicle. Additionally, 47.6 percent of households have access to two vehicles, while 28.5
percent have three or more vehicles.
2.4. HEALTH METRICS
2.4.1. CalEnviroScreen
CalEnviroScreen is an online mapping tool that uses
environmental, health, and socioeconomic information
to produce comparative scores to identify
disadvantaged communities in California at the census
tract level. CalEnviroScreen reports score as percentiles, where a CalEnviroScreen1 score of 100 percent would
mean a particular location has the worst conditions in
the State and a score of one percent would be the best
conditions in the State.
The overall CalEnviroScreen score for the census tract
encompassing Mt. Shasta is 40 percent, meaning the
city has better environmental conditions than 60
percent of other California census tracts. Mt. Shasta
experiences some of the best air quality in the State,
ranking in the 8th percentile for diesel particulate matter and in the highest percentile for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5). Slightly lower is the city’s ranking for Ozone, falling in the 45th percentile with better conditions than 1 To learn more about CalEnviroScreen, visit:
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen40 55 percent of the State. Mt. Shasta also ranks in the 12th percentile for traffic, with better traffic conditions than 88 percent of the State. The city’s relatively good air quality, combined with access to impeccable scenery
and ample outdoor recreation, makes it a great place for active forms of transportation such as walking and
bicycling.
2.4.2. California Healthy Places Index
The California Healthy Places Index (HPI) combines 25
community characteristics to calculate an overall score for conditions related to health and well-being for
communities across the State. Similar to
CalEnviroScreen, HPI also reports scores as percentiles at the census tract level, but it is important to note that the rankings for low and high performing communities
are the opposite of the ranking system used by
CalEnviroScreen. An HPI score of 100 percent means
that particular location has the best conditions in the State (whereas a CalEnviroScreen score of 100 percent
would correspond with the worst conditions in the
State). HPI scores are determined by several metrics
under eight community characteristic categories,
including:
• Economic
• Education
• Social
41 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
5 • Transportation
• Neighborhood,
• Housing
• Clean Environment
• Healthcare Access.
2 The overall HPI score for Mt. Shasta is 55.3 percent, meaning the city has healthier community conditions
than 55.3 percent of all California cities and towns. The city’s overall transportation score is 53.5 percent, ranking approximately in the middle compared to the rest of the State accounting for the city’s overall transportation
score, the active commuting rate falls in the 67th
percentile, with 6.2 percent of the community
reportedly commuting to work by transit, walking, or
bicycling. Although 94.9 percent of the city’s households have access to a vehicle, the city still falls in the bottom half of the State for automobile access (40th percentile). 2 To learn more about the California Healthy Places Index, visit: https://www.healthyplacesindex.org/
42 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
6 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1. ROADWAY CHARACTER AND
USES
Lake Street serves multiple different types of roadway
users and connects residents, visitors, and employees to many different destinations. From an interstate on the
western end, to quiet residences and schools at the
eastern end, and the downtown district in the middle,
Lake Street serves many different purposes.
3.1.1. Interstate 5
Interstate 5 (I-5) is situated at the western end of the Lake Street for All project area. While the interstate itself is not a destination, it connects the city to regional
employers, hospitals, and other goods and services. I-5 extends north through Oregon and Washington to the
Canadian border and south to the Mexican border. The
interstate is important to the local economy, moving
goods, employees, and tourists into and out of the city.
3.1.2. Commercial Development
Moving east from I-5, West Lake Street is aligned with
gas stations, hotels, fast food restaurants, and access to the Mt. Shasta Shopping Center with a transit stop
about 200 feet south of Lake Street. The Shopping
Center houses a movie theater, grocery store, bank,
pharmacy, the DMV office, and other shops and
destinations.
3.1.3. Downtown Mt. Shasta
Moving east, after crossing the railroad, Lake Street
bisects downtown Mt. Shasta, which primarily runs
along the corridors of North Mt. Shasta Boulevard and
Chestnut Street. West Lake Street becomes East Lake
Street at North Mount Shasta Boulevard. Some of the
downtown businesses and community amenities on
Lake Street include the Mt. Shasta Fire and Police
Departments, a sporting goods store, a boutique hotel,
a pharmacy, a thrift store, a real estate business, and the Mt. Shasta Community Resource Center. Because the
corridor bisects downtown Mt. Shasta, crossings on
Lake Street have a high volume of both vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffic. Three key crossings in the
downtown area include the intersections of:
• Lake Street / Maple Street
• Lake Street / North Mt. Shasta Boulevard
• Lake Street / Chestnut Street
Some conflicts and visibility challenges between drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists are related to the existing
wide configuration of the road and a limited number of
crosswalk markings and limited roadway features that
enhance pedestrian visibility.
3.1.4. Residential
East Lake Street is primarily designated as Low-Density Residential (LDR), consisting of single-family homes on 43 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
7 individual parcels. This area follows the traditional development pattern of Mt. Shasta, with residential
neighborhoods extending outward from the city center.
Homes along East Lake Street typically have access to
community water and sewer services, and lot sizes
reflect the suburban character of the corridor. The
residential development in this area maintains a lower
density compared to the more central parts of the city, providing a quieter, more spacious living environment.
3.1.5. Public Land and Parks
Sisson Meadow, a 7.5-acre public nature sanctuary, is
located at the eastern end of Lake Street, behind the
houses that line the north side of the corridor. The
nature sanctuary includes a protected wetland area
with boardwalks, benches, picnic tables, and public art installations. As designated public land, the meadow
provides valuable ecological and recreational space
within Mt. Shasta. It is easily accessible from East Castle Street, Alder Street, and the Rotary Trail, which connects behind the Mt. Shasta Library.
The Youth Sports Field, located at Lake Street and
Washington Drive, is another important public space
designated for recreational use. Situated adjacent to
Sisson Elementary School, the field hosts multiple
playing fields for organized youth sports programs,
which run throughout the year. As a public park, this
space supports the active lifestyle of the community,
providing recreational opportunities for residents,
especially those in proximity to Lake Street. These public lands enhance the area's accessibility to nature and
outdoor activities, benefiting both the local community and visitors.
3.2.KEY DESTINATIONS
3.2.1. Businesses
The businesses along the Lake Street corridor are
integral to the economic vitality of Mt. Shasta,
contributing significantly to the local economy while
supporting the region’s focus on outdoor recreation and tourism. These businesses and offices help foster a
strong connection between residents, visitors, and the
natural environment. The following businesses provide
context for the existing character of the corridor, but the following list is not exhaustive and will evolve in future years when this Plan is reviewed after its adoption.
Outdoor Recreational Businesses
• Shasta Mountain Guides
• Mt. Shasta Trail Association
• The Fifth Season Outdoor Store
• Bike Shasta
Local Commercial Businesses
• Lake Street Mini Mart
• Mt. Shasta Vacation Rentals
• Starlight Massage and Energy Healing
• Summit Lofts Boutique Hotel
• Mt. Shasta Bottling and Distributing
• J. Harris Real Estate
• Siskiyou Humane Society Thrift Store
44 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
8 • Mt. Shasta Bottling and Distributing Co.
Government Offices
• Mt. Shasta City Hall
• Mt. Shasta Police Department
• Mt. Shasta Fire
• Mt. Shasta Resource Center
• Mount Shasta Chamber of Commerce and
Visitors Center
Restaurants
• Black Bear Diner
• Pipeline Craft Taps & Kitchen
• Say Cheese Pizza
• Andaman Thai
• Sparky’s Landing
• Bistro 107
Commercial Businesses Serving Travelers on I-5 and
Mt. Shasta Residents:
• Starbucks
• Burger King
• Black Bear Diner
• Mt. Shasta Valero
• 76 Gas Station
• Chevron Gas Station
3.2.2. Schools
Although none of the City’s schools are situated directly on Lake Street, the corridor is the central east-west
route in the city, making it a part of many students’ and parents’ commutes to schools in the area. Schools in
close proximity to Lake Street include:
• Head Start School
• Sisson Middle School
• Mount Shasta Elementary School
• Mount Shasta High School
3.2.3. Community Amenities
Community amenities are businesses and public
resources that provide essential services to residents
and visitors. Access to these resources is vital for
maintaining a thriving community, and a wellconnected transportation network ensures that people can reach them easily. Along Lake Street are:
• Mt. Shasta Police Department
• Mount Shasta Chamber of Commerce and
Visitors Center
• Mt. Shasta Community Resource Center
• Mt. Shasta Fire
• Tri Counties Bank
• Youth Sports Park
• Siskiyou Humane Society Thrift Store
• Rite Aid Pharmacy
• CVS Pharmacy
45 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
9 Figure 2 Key Destinations
46 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
10 3.3.EMPLOYMENT TRAVEL
PATTERNS
Lake Street serves as a key route to connect employees
to Mt. Shasta employers and Mt. Shasta residents to
employers in the greater region. This section provides a detailed analysis of worker inflows and outflows, local employment dynamics, industry composition, and
commuting distances based on recent data. These
insights help identify opportunities to improve
transportation infrastructure, promote sustainable
mobility, and support local economic development.
Mt. Shasta’s commute patterns reveal a dynamic
interplay between local employment and regional
travel. According to the Longitudinal EmployerHousehold Dynamics program from the US Census, in 2022 the city hosted 2,025 jobs, with a striking 80.2% of workers commuting in to work in Mt. Shasta from
outside the city limits. This reliance on external labor highlights the city’s role as a regional employment hub.
At the same time, only 401 employees both lived and
worked within Mt. Shasta. Roughly 65% of employed Mt.
Shasta residents commute to jobs outside the city,
reflecting a significant job–housing imbalance. The high rate of commuting is largely tied to limited availability of affordable and workforce housing within city limits.
While housing affordability challenges are widespread
across Siskiyou County, the shortage is particularly
acute in Mt. Shasta, where demand for local housing far exceeds supply.
Further analysis of commuting distances reveals that
over half (57.2%) of those employed in Mt. Shasta lived within 10 miles of the city, suggesting that many
workers come from nearby communities. However,
nearly a quarter of workers traveled more than 50 miles, demonstrating the city’s attraction to a geographically diverse labor pool. This pattern underscores the
importance of enhancing transportation infrastructure
to accommodate both local and regional connectivity.
47 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
11 Figure 3 Inflow and Outflow of Mt. Shasta Employees and Residents
Mt. Shasta’s economic landscape is shaped by key
industries such as retail trade, healthcare and social
assistance, and accommodation and food services.
These three sectors alone accounted for nearly 60% of
the city’s jobs in 2022, emphasizing the city’s reliance on tourism, service-based industries, and local commerce.
The income distribution among workers also reflects
this economic structure, with 42.3% of jobs paying more than $3,333 per month and 24.5% paying $1,250 or less.
This mix of high-earning and entry-level positions
illustrates the diverse economic opportunities available within the city, while also pointing to potential
challenges in housing and transportation affordability
for lower-income workers and a need for diverse
transportation options that meet the needs of all the
city’s residents and employees.
The travel patterns of the workforce further emphasize
the significance of short-distance commutes. Most local jobs are held by workers who travel less than 10 miles, making active transportation modes such as biking and
walking viable for many. However, the notable share of
regional commutes highlights the need for reliable
intercity transportation options to support the broader labor market.
This analysis paints a picture of Mt. Shasta as both a local and regional employment center, with distinct
opportunities to improve transportation options to
meet the needs of the diverse workforce.
3.4. EXISTING PLANNING
FRAMEWORK
The Lake Street for All Complete Streets Plan builds on previous plans and studies that help to illustrate the
existing conditions and previous work that has been
conducted on Lake Street and in the city. Some of the
48 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
12 plans and studies that informed the planning process for the LS4A Plan are described in more detail below.
2022 City of Mount Shasta Walk Bike Ride Mobility
Plan
The City’s 2022 Mobility Plan establishes a vision and
goals for Mt. Shasta’s multimodal transportation future and includes infrastructure and programmatic
recommendations to improve walking and bicycling in
the city.
• Across the city, the Plan documents 133 sidewalk
obstructions (cracks or objects) that limit
pedestrian mobility. Sidewalk obstructions are
heavily concentrated along the entire North Mt.
Shasta Boulevard, but Lake Street also has a high
concentration of sidewalk obstructions.
• Most intersections within the downtown
commercial core and across Lake Street have
marked crosswalks with continental crosswalk
markings.
• Lake Street also lacks traffic calming measures
that could improve visibility and comfort for
people crossing the street, walking and bicycling.
• The Plan’s collision analysis found that downtown
Mt. Shasta, in the area surrounding the
intersection of Lake Street and North Mt. Shasta
Boulevard, has a notably high collision intensity
compared to other areas within the study area.
• The Mobility Plan outlines several crossing
improvements, sidewalk improvements, and
bicycle improvements for Lake Street.
2007 Mt. Shasta General Plan
The General Plan for the City of Mt. Shasta includes
comprehensive written policies providing performance
standards and guidance for land use decisions by the
Planning Commission and the City Council. The plan
indicates future land uses and the location of future
roads, density and intensity standards for existing
neighborhoods, and the policies and criteria by which
land use and development proposals will be considered.
2024 Siskiyou County Active Transportation Plan
The plan focuses on identifying and prioritizing active transportation infrastructure projects, programs, and
policies to meet the needs of the community. The plan
will focus on identifying opportunities to make it easier for people to walk, bicycle, and use mobility devices to get around. These facilities connect residents and
visitors with schools, parks, businesses, health care,
transit, and other important destinations.
2021 Siskiyou County Regional Transportation Plan
The purpose of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
is to provide a vision for the region, supported by
transportation goals, for ten-year (2031) and twenty-year (2041) planning horizons. The RTP documents the policy
direction, actions, and funding strategies designed to
maintain and improve the regional transportation
system using the following methods:
• Assessing the current modes of transportation
and the potential of new travel options within the
region.
49 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
13 • Identifying projected growth corridors and
predicting the future improvements and needs
for travel and goods movement.
• Identifying and documenting specific actions
necessary to address the region’s mobility and
accessibility needs, and establishing short and
long-term goals to facilitate these actions.
• Identifying and integrating public policy
decisions made by local, regional, State, and
Federal officials regarding transportation
expenditures and financing
2021 Siskiyou County Short Range Transit Plan
This plan aims to align transit services with current and future needs, considering factors like demographics,
Siskiyou Transit and General Express (STAGE) public
transit program operating history, and related services.
The plan evaluates services, capital, funding, and
institutional alternatives, providing a plan based on
public input, to guide regional transit decisions and
ensure resources effectively address mobility needs.
2023 State Highway System Management Plan
(SHSMP)
The SHSMP presents a performance-driven and
integrated management plan for the State Highway
System (SHS) in California.
The SHSMP integrates the maintenance, rehabilitation,
and operation of the SHS into a single management
plan which implements a number of state and federal
asset management requirements with new resources
from California Senate Bill 1 (SB 1).
The SHSMP utilizes objective analysis to focus
investments on measured condition and performance
objectives. The historic asset-based funding approach
has been replaced by a performance-driven
methodology that provides greater local flexibility to
achieve multiple objectives within a single project.
2020-2024 Strategic Highway Safety Plan
The 2020-2024 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan
(SHSP) was developed using data and input from
regional outreach events to determine effective
strategies to reduce roadway fatalities and serious
injuries. The SHSP Implementation Plan identifies the
specific actions that were determined to implement the
strategies based on the framework of the SHSP.
2021 California Transportation Plan
The California Transportation Plan (2050) is a long-range plan that provides a collective vision and a set of goals, policies, and recommendations to help guide
transportation decisions and investments in the 21st
century that meet our future multimodal mobility
needs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The goals
of the plan include:
• Safety: Provide a safe and secure transportation
system.
• Climate: Achieve statewide GHG emissions
reduction targets and increase resilience to
climate change.
• Equity: Eliminate transportation burdens for lowincome communities, communities of color, 50 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
14 people with disabilities, and other disadvantaged
groups.
• Accessibility: Improve multimodal mobility and
access destination for all users.
• Quality of Life & Public Health: Enable healthy,
vibrant communities.
• Economy: Support a vibrant, resilient economy.
• Environment: Enhance environmental health
and reduce negative transportation impacts.
• Infrastructure: Maintain a high quality, resilient
transportation system.
2022 State Highway Active Transportation Plan
The State Highway Active Transportation Plan aims to
increase the proportion of trips accomplished by
walking and biking, increase safety and mobility of nonmotorized users, advance efforts of regional agencies to achieve greenhouse gas reductions, enhance public
health, and provide diverse projects to benefit many
types of users including disadvantaged communities.
4. EXISTING STREET CONFIGURATION
Lake Street serves as the city’s primary east-west
connector with a configuration that varies along the 1.2 mile stretch of the project area. Generally, the corridor consists of at least one travel lane in each direction, with street parking on both sides of the street, Class II bicycle lanes, and sidewalks.
4.1. ROADWAY SEGMENTS
The configuration of the existing roadway is described
in three different segments (from north to south) in
detail in the following section. The figure below
illustrates the three segments along Lake Street.
51 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
15 Lake Street Segments
Residential Connector
The Residential Connector segment encompasses the
northern portion of North Washington Drive – from East
Lake Street to Rockfellow Drive – and Lake Street
between Chestnut and North Washington Drive.
Including sidewalks, the city’s right-of-way varies from approximately 68 to 74 feet in width. The intersection of East Lake Street and North Washington Drive features a
wide curve and a southbound left-turn lane, while the
North Washington Drive segment includes two-way
turn lanes, each about 18 feet wide, with adjacent
striping accommodating shared bicycle and parking
lanes. Along the Lake Street portion, the two-way turn
lanes narrow slightly to 15-16 feet. The corridor is
primarily residential in character, with inconsistent
sidewalk conditions, including gaps in the network and
areas where overgrown vegetation encroaches on the
pedestrian zone. Figure 4 illustrates a typical cross
section within the Residential Connector; however,
exact dimensions vary throughout the segment.
52 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
16 Figure 4 Residential Connector - Existing Configuration Northeastern Project Area Terminus - North Washington
Drive at Rockfellow Drive
53 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
17 Community Core
The community core segment extends through the
city’s downtown district, serving as a central connector within the roadway network. Including sidewalks, the
right-of-way is approximately 80 feet wide. The
segment includes one through lane in each direction,
with dedicated left-turn lanes provided at the
eastbound and westbound approaches to the Lake
Street and North Mount Shasta Boulevard intersection.
The through lanes are generally 15 feet wide, narrowing to approximately 11 feet near the turn pockets. Striped bicycle lanes and crosshatch markings for on-street
parking align the vehicular lanes. Sidewalks within this portion of Lake Street are wider than in other segments, though they are frequently interrupted by trees,
signage, driveways, and utility poles. Figure 5 illustrates a typical cross section within the Community Core;
exact dimensions vary throughout the segment.
Figure 5 Community Core - Existing Configuration
Commercial Zone
After passing through the downtown corridor, Lake
Street crosses the railroad and widens to approximately 100 feet to accommodate traffic approaching the I-5
intersection. In this segment, there are two travel lanes in each direction, ranging from 12 to 14 feet in width.
Street parking is not provided along this portion of the corridor. The dedicated Class II bicycle lane does not
share space with parked vehicles but is relatively
narrow, measuring about 5 feet wide in total, with only 3 feet of clearance adjacent to the curb and gutter. The roadway also includes raised center medians with
landscaping, left-turn lanes, and merge lanes on the
westbound approach to the Morgan Way intersection
and the eastbound approach to the railroad crossing.
54 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
18 East of Morgan Way, this segment is aligned with wide sidewalks approximately 10 feet in width. The
intersection of Pine and Lake St will be further evaluated at a later phase.
Figure 6 Commercial Zone - Existing Configuration
Pine Street intersection in the Commercial Zone segment
4.2. INTERSECTIONS AND
CROSSINGS
Transverse Crosswalks
Parallel crosswalks consist of two painted parallel lines and are one of the most common types of crosswalk
markings. Continental crosswalks are located at:
• Commercial Avenue – east and south legs
• Maple Street – north, east, and south legs
• North Mt. Shasta Boulevard – all legs
• North Washington Drive at Hercules Drive –
(yellow) north leg
• North Washington Drive at Rockfellow Drive –
(yellow) north, east, and south legs
55 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
19 Continental Crosswalks
Continental crosswalks are high visibility crosswalk
markings with longitudinal bars. The thick stripes are
more easily seen from a distance and improve visibility of pedestrians in the crosswalk. Lake Street has only a few intersections with continental crosswalks:
• Chestnut Street – north and south leg, but
notably not the east and west legs across Lake
Street
• Birch Street – west leg
• Youth Sports Park – at the southern end of the
Youth Sports Park across from Scout Hall
Faded transverse crosswalk markings at the intersection of Lake Street and Commercial Avenue
Curb Extensions
Curb extensions or bulb-outs are extensions of the
sidewalk at crossing locations. They shorten the
crossing distance and increase visibility of pedestrians preparing to enter a crosswalk. Curb extensions
currently exist along with the continental crosswalks on the north and south legs of the Lake Street and
Chestnut Street intersection.
Bicycle Movement
Bicycle lane markings can be designed to highlight the
presence of bicycles in an intersection, often with green longitudinal dashed bars. Safety enhancements for
bicycles at intersections can also include bicycle boxes, which allow bicyclists to move to the front of a
signalized intersection to make a left-turn. There are no existing bicycle lane markings or visibility
enhancements through the intersections along Lake
Street.
4.3. ADDITIONAL FEATURES
In addition to the linear multimodal facilities, driveways along Lake Street provide access to residential and
commercial properties, creating frequent entry points
that influence traffic flow and create gaps and conflict points in the sidewalk and bicycle network.
Wayfinding signs are limited but present in select areas, guiding visitors, pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers to key commercial destinations and residential
neighborhoods. Existing signage on Lake Street
56 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
20 includes indicators for the visitor center, lodging, camping, crosswalks, and bicycle lanes. Expanding and
improving wayfinding signage could enhance
navigation for residents and visitors and enhance the
experience of people walking and bicycling in Mt.
Shasta.
Curb extensions and a continental crosswalk enhance
visibility of pedestrians crossing Chestnut Street
57 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
21 Figure 7 Sidewalks and Intersections
58 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
22 4.4. MULTIMODAL FACILITIES
Lake Street connects the community to local schools,
parks, community services, and other shops, dining and
community destinations. Today, the corridor has some
existing features that support safe and comfortable
travel for bicyclists and pedestrians. This plan presents recommendations to enhance and expand multimodal
facilities to improve walking and bicycling along Lake
Street.
4.4.1. Bicycle Facilities
The 1.2-mile stretch of the project area includes Class II striped bicycle lanes on the north and south sides of the corridor that serve as a shared shoulder for parallel
parked vehicles and bicycle movements. Bicycle
facilities are generally striped with solid white lines but have dashed lines for right-turn movements at
intersections.
Bicycle lanes are marked with bicycle lane pavement
markings after movement through the intersections.
Bicycle route signs exist at only a couple locations.
Through the downtown corridor, parking spots are
demarcated with individual cross-hatching at the
corners of parking spaces. Extending east from Alder
Street, the shoulder space is shared between bicyclists and parked cars, without additional striping or
demarcation to illustrate the separation of bicyclists and parked vehicles. With respect to bicycle movements
through intersections, there are no bicycle lane
markings or striping to indicate the presence of
bicyclists.
Parking lane approaching Chestnut Street, with dashed
shoulder lines for right turns through the intersection. 59 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
23 Shared shoulder with bicycle lane and marked parking Bicycle route signage
Bicycle route pavement markings and crumbling asphalt
Narrow bicycle lanes and driveway conflicts
60 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
24 4.4.2. Pedestrian Facilities
Sidewalks are present along most of the corridor except for two gaps along the south side on East Lake Street.
Sidewalk continuity is also disrupted by uneven
surfaces, cracked pavement, overgrown vegetation and
occasionally snow in the winter months. Sidewalks vary
in width throughout the project corridor, with the
widest widths at the western end spanning six to ten
feet wide, to approximately four to six feet wide in the downtown corridor, and approximately four to six feet
wide, where present on the eastern end of the project
area. Utility infrastructure, including water, sewer, and electricity lines, run parallel to the roadway in certain areas, interrupting the navigable width of the sidewalk and constraining future roadway modifications.
Sidewalk partially obstructed with snow
61 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
25 Uneven crossing to snow covered curb presents barriers to pedestrians and people in wheelchairs
Sidewalks near the downtown corridor are cracked and
lifted with various obstructions
4.4.3. Transit Facilities
Figure 8 highlights key transit facilities and the project area within Mt. Shasta. The Siskiyou Transit and General Express (STAGE) routes are shown in green,
representing public transit connections that serve
important destinations, including Mercy Hospital,
Dignity Health, Cold Creek Inn, and the Mt. Shasta
Shopping Center. Transit stops along the route are
marked with bus icons, indicating key locations where
riders can access the service.
Lake Street serves as a key transit corridor in Mount
Shasta, with two essential transit stops at Mount Shasta Shopping Center and Mount Shasta High School. These
stops are equipped with benches and shaded awnings,
strategically located near high-value amenities to
enhance accessibility for students, shoppers, and
residents. The design and placement of these stops
prioritize convenience and improve overall transit
efficiency in the area. Movement of buses and safe
movement of bicyclists and pedestrians accessing the
bus stop are important considerations to enhance the
roadway to serve all users.
62 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
26 Figure 8 Transit Service along Lake Street
63 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
27 4.5. CONNECTING ROADWAY
NETWORK
Mt. Shasta’s roadway network consists of arterials,
collectors, and local streets that provide essential
connections for residents, visitors, and businesses.
These roads facilitate access to commercial areas,
neighborhoods, and key destinations while ensuring
efficient traffic flow throughout the city.
Interstate 5 (I-5)
I-5 is a principal arterial highway that serves as a major north-south transportation corridor through Mt. Shasta, providing regional connectivity, long-distance travel,
and freight movement throughout California, Oregon
and Washington. Lake Street is the central entrance and exit ramp for I-5 in Mt. Shasta.
Arterials
Arterial roads serve as primary routes for moving traffic across the city, linking major destinations and
connecting to regional transportation corridors.
• Pine Street: Connects Lake Street to Alma Street
and, further west, providing access to Mercy
Medical Center and eventually becoming Lassen
Way.
• Chestnut Street: Provides north-south access to
Mt. Shasta commercial businesses.
• North Mount Shasta Boulevard: Also provides
north-south access to Mt. Shasta commercial
businesses and extends north and south, running
the length of the City and connecting to
additional I-5 ramps to the north and south of the
Lake Street ramp.
Collectors
Collector roads help distribute traffic between arterial roads and local streets, providing access to residential areas and other key destinations.
• Rockfellow Drive: A two lane east-west local
collector. Rockfellow Drive connects the
residences located on either side of Everitt
Memorial Highway, and conveys traffic west to
North Mt. Shasta Boulevard via Alma or Ivy Street.
• North Washington Drive: A local collector that
connects to schools and parks in east Mt. Shasta.
Local Streets
Several smaller streets branch off Lake Street, providing access to residential areas, public land and parks, and commercial areas:
• Maple Street
• Magnolia Street
• Spruce Street
• Birch Street
• Commercial Avenue
• Morgan Way
• Maple Street
• Alder Street
64 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
28 4.6. BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC
STRESS
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) is a measurement of the relative comfort of a roadway or transportation
network for bicycling. LTS 1 is the ranking with the
lowest stress and the most comfortable for bicyclists of all ages and abilities. LTS 4 is the most stressful and these routes are typically only traveled by the most
comfortable and experienced bicyclists.
LTS is determined using the worst-case principle,
meaning that the highest stress score from the
evaluated criteria dictates the overall LTS classification for a roadway segment. To assign an LTS score, the
methodology evaluates several roadway infrastructure
characteristics, such as:
• Bicycle separation from vehicular traffic
• Street width, including the number of lanes and
daily traffic volumes
• Presence and width of bicycle lanes, parking
lanes, medians, or turn lanes
• Frequency of bicycle lane blockage
• Speed limits or prevailing travel speeds
• Intersection control types
The Bicycle LTS for Lake Street is illustrated in Figure 9.
From Alder Street to North Washington Drive and up to
Rockfellow Drive, the eastbound/northbound side of the
corridor is LTS 2, with low to moderate stress for
bicyclists. Increased separation from vehicles could
improve the street to an LTS 1 to serve as an “all ages and abilities” route. The entire westbound side of the
corridor and the eastbound side of the corridor from I-5 to Alder Street are LTS 3, moderate to high stress.
Corridor enhancements to improve the LTS score and
improve comfort and safety for Lake Street would
include greater vehicle separation from moving and
parked vehicles, visibility enhancements, and traffic
calming to lower vehicular speeds, especially on the
downhill slope.
65 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
29 Figure 9 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
66 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
30 4.7. SAFETY
Between 2013 and 2022, there were a total of 64 crashes in Mt. Shasta, resulting in 86 injuries and no fatalities. Of these, 16 crashes (25%) occurred on state highways. The remaining crashes were scattered across various
locations and included four pedestrian-involved
incidents (6.3%), five bicycle-related crashes (7.8%), and three motorcycle crashes (4.7%).
Thirteen (13) of the 64 total crashes in Mt. Shasta
occurred at intersections along Lake Street. The
distribution of these collisions during the study period were:
• Morgan Way & Lake Street – 1 crash
• Commercial Ave & Lake Street – 1 crash
• Pine & Lake Street – 3 crashes
• Maple & Lake Street – 1 crash
• N Mount Shasta Blvd & Lake Street – 3 crashes
• Chestnut & Lake Street – 4 crashes
Additionally, during the five-year period from 2019 to
2023, two (2) of the four (4) severe injury crashes that occurred within the Mt. Shasta city limits were along
Lake Street, within the project area. Collision data was gathered from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records
System (SWITRS) and is illustrated in Figure 10.
4.7.1. Bicycle Collisions
Out of the 64 total crashes in Mt. Shasta between 2013
and 2022, five (7.8%) involved bicycles. One of these
crashes is not displayed on the map as it was a collision with a utility pole and the location was unspecified. The number of collisions involving bicycles highlights the
importance of addressing cyclist safety, particularly
around areas like Lake Street where shared road spaces, such as bicycle lanes, may be inadequate for safe
cycling.
4.7.2. Pedestrian Collisions
There were four (4) pedestrian-related crashes (6.3%) in Mt. Shasta between 2013 and 2022. While this is a
relatively low percentage compared to other crash
types, it still indicates a need for ongoing attention to pedestrian safety, especially in areas with high foot
traffic or near major intersections such as those along Lake Street.
Collisions between 2013 and 2022 within the project area and across the city are shown below.
67 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
31 Figure 10 Project Area Collisions (2013 - 2022)
68 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
32 4.7.3. Community Concerns
Feedback gathered from the survey and during
community workshops identified several safety
concerns on Lake Street. Nearly 60% of survey
respondents identified excessive vehicle speeds as a
common issue on Lake Street. Vehicle speeds were
identified as a widespread problem all along Lake Street during Workshop #1 as well. Survey respondents and
workshop attendees also identified sidewalk and bicycle lane obstructions as a significant safety issue, especially in the winter, with snow and ice creating hazardous
conditions for active transportation users. Furthermore, driver yielding behavior at crosswalks was noted as an
issue along Lake Street during outreach efforts, with
community members highlighting the need for flashing
beacons and high visibility crosswalks along Lake Street.
Safety concerns on Lake Street have also been identified in previous plans. In the 2022 Mount Shasta Mobility
Plan, a high concentration of sidewalk obstructions was identified on Lake Street. The Mobility Plan identified a higher concentration of crashes at the Lake Street / N.
Mt Shasta Boulevard intersection than other areas in
Mount Shasta during the five-year period between 2019
and 2023. This crash concentration is consistent with the 10-year crash trends examined in this study.
In the 2025 Mount Shasta Safe Streets for All Plan, Lake Street was identified as a priority corridor based on its elevated crash risk relative to other locations in the city.
Network screening and intersection analysis
highlighted Lake Street segments and intersections as
exhibiting crash patterns associated with higher-risk
conditions, particularly related to intersection conflicts and aggressive driving behaviors. As a result, multiple Lake Street segments and the Lake Street / Mount
Shasta Boulevard intersection were selected as case
study locations, reinforcing the corridor’s consistent
safety concerns observed in both the five-year (2019–
2023) and longer-term crash trend analyses.
4.7.4. Infrastructure Gaps and Barriers
Site visits and community feedback identified
infrastructure deficiencies along Lake Street, as shown in the figure below.
69 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
33 Figure 11 Infrastructure Deficiencies
70 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
34 4.8. MULTIMODAL CONNECTIVITY
Connectivity is defined as the measure of the ease with which bicyclists and pedestrians are able to access their destinations without gaps and barriers along their
route. A key finding of the City’s 2022 Mobility Plan was that east-west connectivity is limited within the city
limits. As a central east-west route in the city, Lake
Street is important to the city’s overall connectivity. By enhancing the separation between vulnerable roadway
users (bicycles and pedestrians) and vehicular traffic, improving crossings, and increasing the overall safety
and comfort, Lake Street will become more inviting for
multimodal travel and active transportation
connectivity across the city will benefit from the
improvements presented in this plan.
71 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
35 5. COMMUNITY EXPERIENCE
5.1. PROJECT INFORMATION
A variety of outreach tools were used throughout the
Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan planning
process to ensure feedback and valuable local insights
were gathered from across the Mount Shasta
community. To advertise outreach efforts, the project
team utilized several communication channels to notify
the community of upcoming workshops and meetings.
5.1.1. Website
A dedicated project website was created to share all
documents, events, and important project information
related to the Lake Street for All Plan. The website
features comprehensive details on the project’s scope,
the planning process, and timelines. It also provided
information on community outreach meetings events,
project documents, Complete Streets information, and
direct links to the online survey.
The website was updated throughout the development
of the Plan to reflect the latest progress and to
encourage continuous community engagement. Key
features designed to facilitate public participation
included a public survey, invitations to outreach events, a feedback form, and promoting alternative methods of
providing input.
For further details the project website is accessible at:
www.lakestreet4all.com
5.1.2. Flyering
To complement digital outreach efforts, the project
team utilized traditional engagement methods through
the distribution of physical flyers throughout the
community. Flyers were posted around the city, along
the Mt. Shasta Avenue and Lake Street corridors in
various businesses, restaurants and cafes, City offices, gas stations, and pharmacies. Flyers were placed at
these popular community locations a minimum of ten
days in advance of outreach events. This widespread
physical flyering effort ensured that community
members were notified of outreach efforts with ample
time to plan ahead and attend the events. Additionally, the physical flyers helped to reach members of the
community that have limited access to internet
resources, such as the project website.
72 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
36 Workshop #1 Flyer
5.1.3. City Newsletter
Outreach events were also advertised on the City’s
website and in the City’s virtual newsletter, which has 421 email subscribers (equivalent to nearly 1/6th of the City’s population).
City of Mt. Shasta Newsletter
5.2.SURVEY RESULTS
To gather robust stakeholder and public input on the
Lake Street for All project, a user-friendly survey was developed and distributed. The survey was aimed at
gathering data on how people travel along Lake Street,
existing safety concerns, and desired improvements
that would encourage walking and biking throughout
the corridor.
To encourage participation through convenience and
easy access, the survey was hosted online. The survey
was accessible on the project website from January to
May 2025 from the project website and during
Workshop #1. A total of 49 survey responses were
received. The survey results revealed valuable insights into the local perceptions and experiences along Lake
Street.
73 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
37 Lake Street for All Survey
Safety and maintenance concerns emerged as a
common theme in the survey responses. When asked to
rate their perception of safety when traveling along
Lake Street, nearly 50% of respondents indicated feeling somewhat unsafe or very unsafe. Respondents
indicated that high traffic speeds, insufficient bicycle lanes, and cars failing to yield to pedestrians were some of the more notable issues of concern. Insufficient
infrastructure, such as poorly marked or unmarked
crosswalks and drainage / pavement issues in the
bicycle lanes were noted most frequently as barriers to walking and biking along Lake Street. Furthermore,
several respondents identified snow plowing along Lake
Street often leaves sidewalks and bicycle lanes in
unusable condition.
“Biking is challenging or
uncomfortable for the average rider”
- Survey Respondent
When asked what improvements they would like to see
on Lake Street, nearly 75% of respondents identified
marked high-visibility crosswalks and 64% noted
beautification elements such as landscaping, benches,
murals, or others that suit the character of Mt. Shasta.
Over 50% of respondents indicated that they would be
more likely to bicycle on Lake Street if protected bicycle lanes were added. More than 60% of respondents would
be more likely to walk if sidewalks were maintained and crosswalks were better marked and clearly visible.
“All groups will benefit from Lake
Street safety improvements!”
- Survey Respondent
74 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
38 5.3.STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY
COMMITTEE (SAC)
5.3.1. Background
The Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) was formed
to gather feedback at various stages throughout the
Plan development process. The SAC was developed in
collaboration with City of Mt. Shasta staff and invitees included representatives from the following agencies,
organizations, and underserved communities:
• Mt. Shasta Enhanced Infrastructure Financing
District
• Mt. Shasta Recreation and Parks District
• Mt. Shasta Trail Association
• Shasta-Trinity National Forest
• Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors, District 2
• Siskiyou County General Services
• Siskiyou Land Trust
• Siskiyou Local Transportation Commission
• Siskiyou Outdoor Recreation Alliance (SORA)
• Summit Lofts Boutique Hotel
• The Fifth Season Outdoor Store
• Mt. Shasta Chamber of Commerce
• Mt. Shasta Union School District
• Mt. Shasta Elementary School
• Sisson Middle School
• Mt. Shasta High School
• Mt. Shasta Community Resource Center
• Caltrans
5.3.2. SAC Meeting #1
A SAC meeting was held on May 8th, 2025 to gather input on the existing conditions and design preferences along Lake Street. In addition to the project team, there were five attendees.
Meeting attendees identified intersections of concern
and design challenges along Lake Street. At the Lake
Street / Morgan Way intersection, attendees noted that
the existing striping on Lake Street directs eastbound
drivers towards the center median, which creates a
safety hazard. This is especially concerning for drivers who are not familiar with the roadway. At the Lake
Street / Pine Street intersection, the SAC identified
visibility issues for drivers making left turns onto Lake Street, due to the geometry of the intersection.
Furthermore, this intersection has a raised median
divider and merging lanes. Meeting attendees noted
that these elements make navigating this intersection
difficult for all roadway users. At the Lake Street / Maple Street intersection, issues of inconsistent driver yielding behavior at the crosswalk were identified, resulting in concerns for pedestrian safety.
The Lake Street / North Mt. Shasta Boulevard
intersection generated significant discussion about
potentially replacing the existing signal with a
roundabout. While a roundabout could reduce
unpermitted truck traffic and improve safety in icy
conditions, attendees noted concerns regarding the
substantial right-of-way acquisition costs, pedestrian
safety impacts, and potential disruption to downtown
traffic. Multiple attendees identified The Lake Street / 75 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
39 Chestnut Street intersection as lacking marked
crosswalks which creates unsafe conditions for
pedestrians crossing Lake Street. One attendee noted
that this is particularly an issue for guests staying at the Summit Loft. Guests have stated that they feel
threatened by high-speed traffic when crossing Lake
Street.
Meeting attendees agreed that excessive speeding
remains a critical concern throughout the corridor, with recorded speeds exceeding 80 mph on the north end of
Lake Street. The group supported multimodal
improvements that emphasize safety for cyclists and
pedestrians and envision a community where children
and seniors can safely travel by bicycle or foot. For the downtown core between Maple and Chestnut Streets,
they supported retaining on-street parking while
adding parking-protected bicycle lanes. Many agreed
that the bicycle lanes should be clearly marked with
green paint. Furthermore, stamped crosswalks were
suggested to reflect Mt. Shasta's outdoor recreation
focus.
The SAC expressed interest in block-by-block design
variations that respond to unique local needs, with
features like vibrational lane markers to alert drivers when they approach bicycle lanes. In the residential
segment east of Chestnut Street, meeting attendees
showed interest in parking islands that would maintain
some on-street spaces. The group agreed that the
overarching goal is to transform Lake Street into a
thriving and safe community corridor that
accommodates all transportation modes while
supporting local businesses and economic
development.
5.3.3. SAC Meeting #2
The SAC meeting #2 was planned for the Wednesday,
November 5th at 9:00 AM. The meeting date and time
were set based on poll responses from the SAC on
availability. The project team was present during
scheduled meeting time. However, none of the SAC
members attended the meeting.
5.4. WORKSHOPS
5.4.1. Workshop #1
Workshop #1 was held on May 15th, 2025 from 5:00 to
8:00 PM at Theory Coffee. There were 22 attendees who
signed in and stayed for the duration of the event with 10 additional people contributing valuable feedback
before they had to leave early.
Staff posted flyers for Workshop #1 in various public
locations around the city 10 days prior to the workshop.
Flyers were posted around the city in approximately 15
locations along the Mt Shasta Avenue and Lake Street
corridors. Additionally, the flyers were advertised on the city website and in the city newsletter. The flyer was also reposted to the following community Facebook pages:
• City of Mt. Shasta Police Department
• Mount Shasta Neighborhood Watch
• Mount Shasta Conscious Community
• Mt. Shasta Connect
76 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
40 This workshop was held to discuss project alternatives and to allow community members to express concerns.
The survey link was available to attendees in the
workshop materials. Additionally, a variety of exhibits allowed community members to provide their input on
possible bicycle, pedestrian, and streetscape
improvements along Lake Street.
Workshop #1 – Presentation
During the workshop, attendees discussed potential
treatments for Lake Street and Maple Street. Pedestrian safety emerged as a common priority among the group.
Pedestrian safety concerns were identified at the Lake
Street / Birch Street intersection, where a community
member reported poor driver yielding behavior at the
midblock crosswalk. A significant concern was raised
about the areas in front of the schools not being
designated as a school zone and drivers traveling at
excessive speeds. Community members strongly
advocated for pedestrian-activated beacons to improve
safety, and there was general agreement that speeding
was a widespread problem throughout the area.
The discussion then moved to the Lake Street / North Mt Shasta Boulevard intersection, where brick pavers were
proposed for crosswalks to enhance visibility and
aesthetics. On Chestnut Street, officials noted that curb extensions already existed, which helped shorten
crosswalks and increase pedestrian safety.
Vehicular traffic safety emerged as another major
concern, particularly at the two-way stop intersection of Chestnut and Lake Streets, where participants stated
that multiple near-misses between vehicles had
occurred during the snow season. Additionally, the
area's scenic nature created unexpected traffic hazards, as people often stopped in the middle of the road to
take photographs, leading to rear-end collisions. The
possibility of creating designated pull-out areas was
suggested to address this problem.
During the open discussion portion, several critical
issues were raised. Community members stressed the
need for designs that could accommodate snow
removal equipment. Residents highlighted the
importance of maintaining safe, smooth sidewalks that
were navigable for wheelchair users year-round.
Participants inquired about the phasing of proposed
improvements and how the city would prioritize
competing concerns such as safety, aesthetics, and
wayfinding. The project team explained that funding
was already available for road repaving, and they were
working to determine the most effective use of these
resources.
77 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
41 Workshop #1 – Engagement Activity
5.4.2. Workshop #2
Workshop #2 took place on Wednesday, November 19th,
2025 from 5:30 to 7:00 PM at Theory Coffee. There were
a total of 19 attendees who signed in and attended the
workshop. Workshop #2 was advertised on the Lake
Street for All website and through the City’s website and newsletter.
The workshop was held to discuss the proposed designs
along Lake Street and gather feedback to incorporate
into the final plan. The project team gave a presentation on the proposed designs for Lake Street. Exhibits were
provided for each of the three segments: Commercial
Zone, Community Core, and the Residential Connector.
Additionally, an intersection plan view was provided to show the Community Core design and the transition to
the Residential Connector design. These exhibits
allowed attendees to interact directly with the designs and provide comments and feedback on the exhibits.
Workshop – #2 Exhibits
During the workshop, attendees reviewed and
discussed the proposed concepts. A common theme
throughout the workshop was the desire for protected
bike lanes with separation from vehicles instead of
standard bike lanes throughout the corridor. Attendees
expressed concerns about snow removal and how the
proposed facilities would be cleared during winter
months. The City stated that they intend to purchase a
sidewalk plow that will be used to plow proposed
facilities. The idea of elevated crosswalks through the 78 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
42 Community Core was discussed as opportunity to
provide traffic calming as well. Desires were raised for additional secure bike parking. Attendees discussed the idea of adding bike racks that are also local art
installations. Many noted that the art needs to fit the context and character of Mt. Shasta and that the City
should go through a submission process to select the
most appropriate design.
Workshop #2 – Presentation
79 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
43 6. CORRIDOR DESIGN
The purpose of the corridor design is to make Lake
Street safer, more accessible, and more enjoyable for all residents and visitors. The corridor design is based on Complete Streets principles, which focus on safety,
accessibility, and mobility for all ages and abilities.
Complete Streets may feature sidewalks, bicycle lanes,
dedicated bus lanes, accessible public transit stops,
frequent and safe crosswalks, median islands,
pedestrian signals, curb extensions, roundabouts, traffic calming, and other safety features. All of these features create a Complete Street that is safe and enjoyable for those biking, rolling, walking, driving, or catching the bus.
6.1. BEST PRACTICES
6.1.1. Bicycle Facilities
Class I – Multi-Use Path
A Class I Multi-Use Bicycle Path is paved path that can be used by those who cycle, walk, and roll. They are
completely separated from the street and allow for twoway travel. Due to the complete separation from vehicle traffic, Class I facilities are comfortable for all ages and abilities.
Class I Multi-Use Path
Class II – Bicycle Lanes
Class II bicycle lanes are a striped portion of the road that is dedicated to bicyclists. Bicycle lanes are designed for one-way traffic, aligned with the direction of travel of the vehicle lane they are adjacent to. Bicycle lanes may include a striped buffer to increase driver awareness
and separation between cyclists and traveling vehicles
or parked cars with doors that may open into the bicycle lane.
80 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
44 Class II Green Painted Bicycle Lanes
Class III – Bicycle Routes
Bicycle routes are designated roadways where bicycles
and vehicles share the travel lane. These routes include markings on the roadway, often accompanied by
signage, and typically connect to Class II bicycle lanes. 3 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/yourgovernment/departmentsoffices/transportation/walking-biking/types-of-bikeways Class III Shared Route
Source: City of San Jose3.
Class IV – Separated Bikeways
Class IV facilities are separated bikeways that are on the roadway and physically separated from vehicle traffic by bollards, curb, barriers, or parked vehicles. Class IV
facilities can be two-way or one-way, on one side or both sides of the street.
81 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
45 Class IV Separated Bikeway with Bollards
6.1.2. Pedestrian Facilities
Sidewalks, Trails, and Paths
Sidewalks, trails, and multi-use paths make up a
pedestrian infrastructure network. These can vary in
width but must be a minimum of 4 feet in width to meet
accessibility requirements.
High visibility crosswalks
High visibility crosswalks utilize parallel markings which are more visible to drivers than traditional perpendicular 4https://www.transportation.gov/grants/dotnavigator/crosswalk-marking-selection-guide markings. There are several styles of high visibility
crosswalk markings including Double-Paired,
Longitudinal Bar, Diagonal, and Perpendicular Bar.
High-Visibility Crosswalk Types
Source: FHWA Crosswalk Marking Selection Guide4
82 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
46 Curb Extensions
Curb extensions are used at pedestrian crossing
locations to reduce the crossing distance and increase
driver awareness of pedestrians by extending the
sidewalk into the parking aisle. Additionally, curb
extensions can increase space for street furnishings
while also providing traffic calming benefits by visually narrowing the street.
Existing Curb Extensions in Mt. Shasta
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) are
flashing lights that accompany pedestrian crossing
warning signs. The lights flash when a pedestrian has
pressed the button. RRFBs can increase driver yielding
behavior.
5https://www.slocity.org/government/departmentdirectory/public-works Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Crossing
Source: City of San Luis Obispo Public Works5
6.1.3. Trees and Landscaping
Trees and landscaping can increase shade, reduce
stormwater runoff, and help with increased
temperatures in urban areas. Greenery also adds to the
aesthetic appeal of the built environment.
6.1.4. Placemaking Elements
Hardscape Elements (Crosswalk Pavers)
Hardscape elements include different colors and
textures of pavement, concrete, bricks, or gravel. These can help add local character to the roadway designs.
83 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
47 Stamped concrete pedestrian crossings are a common
hardscape element that increases pedestrian visibility
while contributing to beautification.
Textured Crosswalk
Source: Pavement Impressions Inc.6
Seating Options
Seating options can add to the aesthetics of the built
environment as well. Seating should be adaptable and
movable so that people can personalize the space to fit their needs.
6https://pavementimpressionsinc.com/portfolio/corlelementary-school-state-college-pa Changeable Seating Option
Source: Arch Daily7
Bicycle Racks
Bicycle racks should be consistently available and near popular destinations. Bicycle racks could also provide an opportunity to incorporate public art into essential
infrastructure elements.
7 https://www.archdaily.com/926865/10-innovative-outdoorbenches-shaping-public-spaces 84 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
48 Bicycle Racks
Source: Modular Technique8
Public art
Public art helps foster a sense of place and ownership
among a community. Public art can be in the form of
murals, sculptures, and installations among other
formats. Public art can be interactive and/or convey
messages about community values, character, history,
or culture among others.
Shade structures
Shade structures are important features in a downtown
setting that experiences hot summer temperatures.
8 https://www.modulartechnique.com/mdt-bike-rack/
They provide refuge for those walking and biking in all weather conditions.
Shade Structure
Source: Landezine Architecture9
9 https://landezine.com/nola-recommendation-smallstructures-big-impact/ 85 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
49 Snow Removal
Maintaining feasible snow removal is a critical need
when considering the design treatments mentioned in
the previous section. The city can experience upwards
of 70 inches of snow annually. This snow accumulation
can significantly impact active transportation facilities if not properly managed. Concerns about snow storage
and removal were repeatedly mentioned throughout
the public outreach process. Maintenance and regular
snow removal for both bike facilities and sidewalks will need to be considered when moving forward with
design and construction of the Lake Street corridor.
6.2.SEGMENT IMPROVEMENTS
Figure 12 Lake Street Segments
This section provides the proposed design concepts for
the three segments of Lake Street: Commercial Zone,
Community Core, and Residential Connector. These
design concepts are the result of extensive community
engagement, discussions with key stakeholders,
86 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
50 coordination with City staff, observations during inperson field visits, and in-depth analyses of the corridor.
6.2.1. Commercial Zone – Buffered Bikeway
Figure 13 Commercial Zone – Buffered Bikeway
The Buffered Bikeway design for the Commercial Zone
(I-5 to just north of the train tracks) provides 6-foot marked bicycle lanes in both directions with a 2-foot
buffer adjacent to the existing two vehicle travel lanes in each direction. This design includes 10-foot sidewalks on both sides.
6.2.2. Community Core – Parking Protected Bikeway
Figure 14 Community Core – Parking Protected Bikeway
This Community Core design alternative blends
parking, cycling, and walking facilities through
Downtown Mt. Shasta. The design includes 7-foot
bicycle lanes in both directions and protected by 8-foot on-street parking on both sides of the roadway.
Sidewalks would be expanded to 12-14-feet in width to
support pedestrian activity adjacent to local businesses downtown.
87 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
51 6.2.3. Residential Connector –Protected Bikeway
Figure 15 Residential Connector – Protected Bikeway
The Residential Connector design incorporates a Dutchstyle elevated cycle track that provides a high level of separation between bicyclists and vehicular traffic. The bikeway consists of a raised, one-way facility in each
direction that is elevated approximately three inches
above the roadway and located between the on-street
parking lane and the sidewalk. This vertical separation enhances visibility and comfort for bicyclists while
maintaining clear delineation between travel modes.
The cycle track is separated from parking and travel
lanes by rolled curb transitions and mountable edges,
allowing for emergency access and maintenance
activities. Five-foot sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway, preserving pedestrian circulation and
accessibility. The raised cycle track is designed to
maintain driveway access and does not impede
residential or commercial ingress and egress. This
configuration improves safety for all users while
maintaining the residential character of the corridor.
6.3.INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Plan view concepts were developed to show the
transition between the Community Core design and the
Residential Connector design. The two intersections
shown in the figure below are Lake Street / N. Mt. Shasta Boulevard and Lake Street / Chestnut Street. At
Chestnut Street, the bike lanes transition from inside
the parking lanes and adjacent to the sidewalk to
outside the parking lanes and adjacent to the travel
lanes. On-street parking is provided on both sides of the roadway when possible in the Community Core design.
Parking is retained on the east side of the roadway in
the Residential Connector design.
88 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
52 Figure 16 Intersection Plan View Concepts
6.3.1. Pine Street Intersection- Conceptual Operational Improvements Figure 17 illustrates a conceptual operational
improvement at the Lake Street and Pine Street
intersection that responds to documented visibility and safety concerns identified through field observations
and stakeholder input. In particular, limited sight
distance for southbound vehicles on Pine Street has
been noted as a contributing factor to turning conflicts and driver uncertainty at this location.
Due to budget constraints, a detailed intersection plan view and engineering-level design were not developed
as part of this planning effort. However, the concept
highlights key issues and potential strategies to
improve safety and operations in this area. One primary recommendation is to shift Lake Street from two travel
lanes to a single lane in each direction through this
segment. This lane reduction would simplify traffic
movements, reduce vehicle speeds, and improve driver
awareness at the intersection.
The proposed configuration would also allow additional
space to be reallocated for bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, consistent with the corridor’s Complete Streets objectives. Excess roadway width could be repurposed
N. Mt. Shasta Blvd
Chestnut St.
Lake St.
N
N
N
89 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
53 for wider sidewalks, improved buffering, and enhanced visibility at intersection approaches. Reducing the
number of travel lanes would also improve sight lines for vehicles entering Lake Street from Pine Street by
minimizing conflicts and shortening crossing distances.
This concept is intended to serve as a planning-level
framework to guide future engineering analysis and
design. Further evaluation, including detailed traffic
operations, sight distance analysis, and coordination
with Caltrans and City staff, would be required during
subsequent project phases to refine the design and
confirm feasibility.
Figure 17 Intersection Plan View Concepts
90 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
54 7. WAYFINDING
A robust wayfinding strategy can help residents and
tourists alike navigate a community efficiently while
encouraging active transportation options and
highlighting the character and unique destinations a
city has to offer. The following chapter documents
community feedback related to wayfinding as well as
recommendations that should be considered when
implementing wayfinding elements on Lake Street.
7.1. WHAT WE HEARD
Through the survey and public outreach events, the
project team gathered input to guide the development
of a wayfinding strategy. A variety of comments were
made regarding the desire for reduced vehicle speeds,
beautification, and improved pedestrian safety.
Several comments gathered in the survey and during
the public workshops identified that traffic speeds
throughout the Lake Street corridor are excessive. There were specific concerns relating to excessive speeds of
vehicles exiting I-5 and traveling on Lake Street. Signage that notifies drivers that they are entering a zone of high pedestrian activity could help reduce speeds and
increase driver awareness.
The survey results indicated that over 30% of
respondents believe wayfinding signage would make
Lake Street feel safer and/or encourage biking and
walking.
Furthermore, several community members indicated
that they enjoy the gateway landscaping/vegetation
improvements the city has implemented thus far, and
that they would like to see additional beautification and wayfinding improvements. Aesthetically appealing
wayfinding elements that match the character of Mt.
Shasta should be prioritized in the wayfinding strategy.
7.2. WAYFINDING PRINCIPLES
While there are many types of wayfinding strategies in
practice, it is important to understand the basic
principles of wayfinding and identify elements that will best serve the needs of the Mt. Shasta community.
Below are five principles that summarize established
wayfinding best practices:
Comprehensive
The wayfinding strategy should connect users to
destinations beyond Lake Street. The strategy should be consistent regionally, allowing for navigation
throughout the city and surrounding areas.
Accessible
All elements in the wayfinding system should be
understandable by users of all ages and abilities.
Utilizing imagery and colors along with text can help
individuals better understand wayfinding messages.
91 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
55 Predictable
Wayfinding elements should be predictable with
consistent colors and styles throughout the system. For example, if different colored signs are used for different destination types, this pattern should be utilized
throughout the entire wayfinding system.
Simple
Messages communicated on wayfinding elements
should be simple. Users should not have to stop and
read through extensive travel information in order to
understand which route to take. Critical travel
information should be clearly and concisely
communicated so that cyclists and walkers can
continue moving while navigating.
Networked
Informational kiosks should combine information about
destinations, routes, transit options, and activities into a single communication element. This allows users to
access all the information they need to plan their travel in a single location.
7.3.RECOMMENDATIONS
7.3.1. Color Palette and Seasonality
A consistent color palette can help create a predictable wayfinding network and ensure the elements match
the character of Mt. Shasta. Using a consistent color
palette allows those traveling to quickly and easily
recognize wayfinding elements. This will ensure that
cyclists and pedestrians can maintain motion while
navigating along Lake Street, a critical principle of a strong wayfinding strategy. Furthermore, a uniform
color palette will help define the different zones of Lake Street: Commercial, Community Core, and Residential.
By utilizing consistent color branding across all
wayfinding elements, visitors and community members
will be able to recognize how far they are from popular destinations, where they can access different dining and shopping options, and when they are within the
community core.
Incorporating seasonality into the wayfinding strategy
could help those traveling on and around Lake Street
reach their destinations year-round. The project team
received extensive community feedback regarding the
challenges of walking and biking when there is snow on
the ground. Many survey respondents and attendees at
the outreach events stated that the sidewalks and
bicycle lanes are not cleared of snow, making active
travel by bicycle or foot a challenge.
A comprehensive wayfinding strategy should be
adaptable depending on the time of year and allow for
alternate route information when there is snow.
Changeable signage should be considered for routes
that may change throughout the year depending on
weather. The public works department should be
consulted during the wayfinding strategy development
process to determine which routes can be cleared for
pedestrians and cyclists and to develop a maintenance
strategy to ensure that wayfinding information is
updated when snow requires alternate route usage.
92 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
56 Furthermore, signage should be visible year-round. For example, utilizing kiosks with a shade component can
prevent snow from accumulating on the signage while
also providing sun protection for users reading
wayfinding information in the summer.
Bicycle Trail Signage
Source: Local News10
Trailhead Open Sign
Source: East Rim Trail11
10 https://fox11online.com/news/local/snow-bike-trails-openat-new-zoo-adventure-park-in-suamico-matt-kriesenathaniel-wagner-fat-tire-brown-county-outdoors11 https://eastrimtrail.com/open-closed-call 93 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
57 Mission Oaks Wayfinding Signage
Source: Mission Oaks Wayfinding Strategy
94 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
58 Butte County Wayfinding Signage
Source: Butte County Wayfinding
7.3.2. Gateway Signage
Gateway signage is typically used to communicate to
residents and visitors that they are entering a distinct downtown area, neighborhood, or community. This
form of signage can act as a point of pride for residents with unique designs and elements that represent the
distinct culture and values of the community. Gateway
signage at both ends of the Community Core on Lake
Street could help to define the downtown and establish
a sense of place for Mt. Shasta.
95 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
59 Yuba City Gateway Signage
Source: Caltrans Gateway Monuments12.
12https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscapearchitecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-d-gatewaymonuments Willits Gateway Signage
Source: Visit Willits Website13
7.3.3. Informational Kiosk
An informational kiosk could help inform visitors and
community members traveling on Lake Street of
surrounding destinations while orienting them within
the city. The kiosk should be located centrally within the community core in a location that is easy to access for both cyclists and pedestrians. The kiosk could include a map orienting users to their surroundings, displaying
their current location, popular community destinations, dining and shopping establishments, and services.
13 https://visitwillits.com/events-calendar/bluegrass-stringjam-6-405/ 96 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
60 Informational Kiosk
Source: Wayfinding Sign Program Best Practices14
14montgomeryplanningboard.org/wpcontent/uploads/2023/05/Attachment-C-Wayfinding-SignProgram-Best-Practices_5-18-23.pdf 97 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
61 Tahoe Trail System Sign
Source: Camino Wayfinding Plan
Pedestrian Kiosk
7.3.4. Distance, Directional, and Encouragement
Signage
Distance and directional signage can help users
navigate quickly and easily without having to stop and
consult a map or their phones. Signage can include
destination name, direction, and distance (to 0.1 of a
mile). These signs could also include estimated travel
time by foot and by bicycle to encourage using active
transportation modes for travel. For example, noting on a sign how long it takes to walk to each destination
makes trip planning simple and illustrates to users that 98 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
62 walking and biking is a viable alternative to driving.
These signs should be placed in advance of critical turns to ensure users have ample time for decision-making.
Each individual sign should not include more than three (3) destinations, with the nearest destination at the top of the sign and the furthest destination at the bottom.
In order to maintain the predictability of the system,
these signs should be place before critical turns in
routes or at intersections.
Distance and Directional Sign
Source: Walk Bike Grand Rapids15
15 https://walkbike.info/grandrapids/
Tahoe City Distance and Directional Signage
99 Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
63 Butte County Distance Signage
Source: Butte County Wayfinding Master Plan
Sample Signage Design
Source: Butte County Wayfinding Master Plan
7.4. WAYFINDING NEXT STEPS
While this plan lays the groundwork for a wayfinding
strategy and provides specific recommendations for
Wayfinding along Lake Street, it is recommended that a
comprehensive wayfinding strategy is developed for the
entire city.
This comprehensive wayfinding strategy should be
developed in coordination with the Downtown
Enhancement Advisory Committee, the Downtown
Beautification Committee, local organizations,
businesses, and City staff. Community feedback should
also be gathered as part of the comprehensive
wayfinding effort.
100
Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
64 8. IMPLEMENTATION
This chapter presents the Implementation Strategy for
the Lake Street for All design concepts. The
Implementation Strategy illustrates the project costs for each segment design alternative and provides an
outline of the federal, state, regional, and local programs that could provide funding for the recommendations
set forth in this plan. Furthermore, this chapter provides next steps for wayfinding along Lake Street.
8.1. PROJECT COSTS
The planning-level cost estimates are presented for
each of the segments along Lake Street: Commercial
Zone (I-5 to Maple Street), Community Core (Maple
Street to Chestnut Street), and Residential Connector
(Chestnut Street to Rockfellow Drive). Cost estimate
values are per 500-foot blocks. It is important to note that block lengths and widths vary throughout the
corridor. The cost estimates presented in this chapter
are for a typical 500-foot block and are subject to
change depending on the alternative selected and the
exact dimensions and Right of Way at any given
location. In addition to specific cost estimate breakdown tables for each segment, a cost estimate range is also provided to show the possible variances in costs. All below costs represent 2025 estimates and are not yet
escalated to year of anticipated construction.
8.1.1. Commercial Zone
Cost estimate ranges were presented for each segment.
Depending on the final design, the cost per 500-foot
block length for the Commercial Zone could be
$383,000 to $584,000. This includes the costs of
sidewalks, curb and gutter, bicycle lanes, vehicular
lanes, street trees, and striping and signage. The table below shows the cost breakdown for the Bicycle
Emphasis design, which is on the high-end of the cost
estimate range at approximately $551,500.
Commercial Zone – Cost Estimate
8.1.2. Community Core
The cost estimate ranges per 500-foot block for the
Community Core segment could be $487,000 to
$736,000, depending on the final design. The cost
estimates include sidewalks, curb and gutter, parking
lanes with special paving, bicycle lanes, vehicular lanes, street trees, and striping and signage. The table below shows the cost breakdown for the design alternative:
On-Street Parking Emphasis.
101
Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
65 Community Core – Cost Estimate
8.1.3. Residential Connector
The cost estimate ranges per 500-foot block for the
Residential Connector segment could be $216,800 to
$481,000, depending on the final design. The cost
estimates include sidewalks, curb and gutter, concrete
or asphalt cycle track, stamped on-street parking,
vehicular lanes, and striping and signage. The table
below shows the cost breakdown for the ParkingProtected Buffered Bikeway alternative.
Residential Connector – Cost Estimate
8.2. FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
There are various funding programs at the federal, state, regional, and local levels targeted at helping agencies plan and construct multimodal transportation facilities.
The following table outlines several funding programs
that the city could consider when planning for the next phases of the Lake Street for All project. It is important to note that each of these programs have different
funding criteria and application requirements.
Furthermore, the city should research these specific
programs at the time of application as each cycle may
have different amounts funding available and funding
programs are subject to change.
102
Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
66 Funding Program Adiministration Agency Description
Active Transportation Program (ATP) Caltrans
The ATP was created by SB 99 to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as walking and biking. ATP consolidated various transportation programs into a single program and was originally funded at about $123 million a year from a combination of state and federal funds. Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) directed an additional $100 million annually to the ATP (see SB 1 – Road Repair and Accountability Act, below). The goals of the ATP include, but are not limited to, increasing the proportion of trips accomplished by walking and biking, increasing the safety and mobility of non-motorized users, advancing efforts of regional agencies to achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals, enhancing public health, and providing a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of users including disadvantaged communities. Application cycles occur approximately every two years, typically in late spring or summer. Funding is awarded at the state level though the California Transportation Commission (CTC).
Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) DOT
The SS4A funding program was established following the passage of the BIL in 2021, with the first competitive application cycle in 2022. Local government agencies may directly apply to the program, with funding being provided in three categories: Action Plans, Supplemental Planning, and Implementation Grants. Applications for all three categories must be focused on implementing complete streets which will ultimately reduce serious injuries and fatalities for roadway users. Action Plan grants fund development of a qualifying Plan to support complete streets and reduction of roadway fatalities/serious injuries. Supplemental Planning activities include follow-up efforts to further the existing Action Plans. Implementation Grants, which implement activities from existing action plans, including constructing roadway safety treatments, systemic safety fixes, complete streets facilities such as walking and bicycling facilities, and noninfrastructure program activities to support the infrastructure investments Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage
Development (BUILD) Grant Program
DOT
BUILD Grants are awarded on a competitive basis by the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) for investments in surface transportation infrastructure that will have a significant local or regional impact. Formerly known as RAISE and TIGER grants, BUILD Grant Funds were authorized under the Local and Regional Assistance Program in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). Eligible grantees include public or government agencies or authorities, units of local government, special purpose districts, transit agencies, federally recognized Indian Tribes, and multi-state or multijurisdictional groups of entities. The Federal share grant may fund up to 80 percent of the costs of projects located in an urban area and up to 100 percent of the costs of a project located in a rural area, a historically disadvantaged community, or an area of persistent poverty.
Reconnecting Communities Grant Program DOT
The RCN Program combines two Federal funding opportunities: the Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP) and the Neighborhood Access and Equity (NAE) Program. Both programs address transportation barriers that have negatively impacted connectivity and access to resources in disadvantaged communities. The RCN program distributes funding through three grant types: Capital Construction projects, Community Planning activities, and Regional Partnership Challenges.
Funding supports planning grants and capital construction grants, as well as technical assistance, to restore community connectivity through the removal, retrofit, mitigation, or replacement of eligible transportation infrastructure facilities, including active transportation improvements. Eligible applicants include state, units of local government, federal recognized Tribal governments, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), non-profit organizations.
Funding Program Matrix
103
Lake Street for All: Complete Streets Plan
67 End of Report.
104
City Council Agenda Item #9
Staff Report
MEETING DATE: February 23, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Todd Juhasz, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Kim Fowler, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Mobile Home Parks Rent Stabilization
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend that the City Council review the merits of mobile home rent stabilization regulation, receive public input, and provide directions on whether to prepare a Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance.
POLICY DIRECTION
Based on the background information below and subsequent discussion, staff is seeking direction. At this juncture, the Council has several options:
1. Recommend staff further investigate the feasibility of overseeing a lease agreement between mobile homeowners and the Shasta Horizons Mobile Home and RV Park owner.
2. Allow current state regulations to continue to dictate rent policy for mobile home parks, or:
3. Provide alternate directions to staff.
BACKGROUND
On November 24, 2025, Staff reviewed rent
increase documentation submitted by residents
within the Shasta Horizon Mobile Home and RV
Park (704 S. Old Stage Road) and discussed with
Council the legality of such rental rate increases.
It was determined at this meeting that since
rental increases did not exceed the cap
stipulated under the California Tenant
Protection Act, a rent stabilization ordinance
was not immediately necessary in Mt. Shasta.
X Regular
Consent
Closed
Presentation
105
2 Following this meeting, Staff again met with residents of the Shasta Horizon Mobile Home and RV Park to better understand the implications of not having rent stabilization measures in place and further researched how an ordinance could benefit the community.
DISCUSSION
The State of California has recognized, by adoption of special legislation regulating tenancies of mobile homeowners in mobile home parks, that there is a significant distinction between homeowners in mobile home parks and other dwelling units, and the state likewise has recognized that homeowners in mobile home parks, unlike apartment tenant or residents of other rental stock, are in the unique position of having made a substantial investment in a residence, the space for which is rented or leased as distinguished from owned.
Mobile homes are not, in fact, mobile. The cost of moving and setting up a mobile home in a park is substantial. Mobile homes are therefore rarely moved after they are placed in mobile home parks; when mobile home park residents move, they sell their mobile homes ‘in place’ on rented space.
When mobile homes are sold, the economic relationship between the ownership of underlying land and the unit itself creates a balance of transferable value between the assets. Higher rents depress home value, transferring value from the unit to the park, and also force long-standing residents, including seniors, from their homes. Conversely, lower rents increase unit value, transferring the value from the park to the unit. Uncontrolled rents could result in the transfer of asset value to the park.
Mobile home Park Rent Stabilization regulations are generally established to protect mobile homeowners from unreasonable rent adjustments while enabling mobile home park owners to earn a fair and reasonable return on their investments. Parameters typically include the establishment of:
• Current occupant base rents, annual rent increases, utility increases • New occupant base rents (following a vacancy)
• Park owner fair return calculations and pass-through capital improvement cost recovery • Procedures and guidelines, enforcement, fines, remedies There are currently 106 ordinances documented for 95 cities and 11 counties, including 265 unincorporated communities in the State of California that are protected by some form of Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance (source: Mobile Home Park Home Owners Allegiance). This includes the cities of Arcata, San Leandro, Mountain View, and the counties of Humboldt, Sonoma, Tuolumne, and Santa Clara.
Alternatively, a number of cities (San Dimas, Vista, Rancho Cucamonga, and Sunnyvale) have opted into management of long-term lease agreements between mobile homeowners and mobile home park owners. Unlike an ordinance, a long-term lease agreement would be voluntary between the park owners and the City of Mt. Shasta and would require collaboration 106
3 from the homeowners within the Shasta Horizons Mobile Home and RV Park community. City staff would need to be involved in administering such an agreement, including providing needed mediation services to resolve any disputes. Staff does not recommend opting into a long-term lease agreement as an alternative to an ordinance since City staff is limited in capacity to administer such agreements.
Mobile home rent increases at the Shasta Horizons Mobile Home and RV Park, without rent stabilization regulation, have historically tracked closely with the United States Housing and Urban Development low-income rent rates and rates of change in Consumer Price Index (CPI) with regulation. A rent stabilization measure would proactively preserve the long-established value balance in the City’s current mobile home market.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA does not apply where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA, Article 5, Section 15061(b)(3)).
107
City Council Agenda Item #10
Staff Report
Meeting Date: February 23, 2026
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Malisa Dodd, Finance Director
Subject: Review FY25-26 Budget Report
Recommendation: Receive report, no action
Background & Summary: The Finance Director will review the current status of the FY25-26 budget.
Financial Impact: N/A
Attachments: Budget Review report
X Regular
Consent
Closed
Presentation
108
General Fund Revenue
26-26 Adj
Budget
25-26 Proj
Oct 25
25-26 Proj
Feb 26
Difference
Oct to Feb FTE Notes
Sales and Use Taxes (4050 $ (1,500,000) $ (1,425,000) $ (1,460,000) $ (35,000) Transient Occupancy Tax (4120) $ (1,614,800) $ (1,614,800) $ (1,614,800) Secured/Unsecured Property Tax $ (849,745) $ (849,745) $ (818,446) $ 31,299 Vehicle License Fees $ (438,875) $ (438,875) $ (438,875) Business License Tax $ (90,000) $ (90,000) $ (95,000) $ (5,000) Cannabis Fees $ (116,598) $ (116,598) $ (112,961) $ 3,637 Franchise Fees $ (105,000) $ (165,000) $ (175,108) $ (10,108) Short Term Rentals $ (20,200) $ (20,200) $ (10,032) $ 10,168 Other $ (34,800) $ (34,800) $ (35,093) $ (293)
Total General Fund Revenue $ (4,770,018) $ (4,755,018) $ (4,760,315) $ (5,297) 26-26 Adj
Budget
25-26 Proj
Oct 25
25-26 Proj
Feb 26
Difference Notes
General Fund Revenue $ (4,770,018) $ (4,755,018) $ (4,760,315) Admin Alloc prior $ (363,000) $ (195,000)
Total GF Revenue $ (5,133,018) $ (4,950,018) $ (4,760,315) Long Term Expenses $ 63,587 $ 63,587 $ 63,587
PERS Unfunded Liab-CY $ 461,255 $ 447,947 $ 416,240 $ (31,707) Reassessed alloc Total Long Term Expenses $ 524,842 $ 511,534 $ 479,827
GF available after LTE $ (4,608,176) $ (4,438,484) $ (4,280,488) Elected Officials $ 32,621 $ 32,621 $ 31,590 $ (1,031)
Elected allocated to EF $ - $ (12,000) 37.99%
Total Elected Official GF Exp $ 32,621 $ 32,621 $ 19,590 GF available after EO $ (4,575,555) $ (4,405,863) $ (4,260,898) Siskiyou Economic Develop Council $ 36,000 $ 36,000 $ 36,000 Visit Mt Shasta Mktg - Ascension $ 38,400 $ 38,400 $ 38,400 Siskiyou Outdoor Rec Alliance $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Mt Shasta Museum Assoc $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Visitor's Bureau Allocation $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000
CommEnhance Exp-Collier $ - $ 1,000 $ 1,000
Community Proj Alloc-SisCo Homeless $ 1,440 $ 1,440 $ 1,500 $ 60 City Operating Exp -740 $ 20,000 $ 35,000 $ 37,775 $ 2,775 Total Community Supports $ 180,840 $ 195,840 $ 199,675
GF available after Comm Sup $ (4,394,715) $ (4,210,023) $ (4,061,223) 109
General Fund Revenue
26-26 Adj
Budget
25-26 Proj
Oct 25
25-26 Proj
Feb 26
Difference
Oct to Feb FTE Notes
Building Inspector Services $ 105,000 $ 65,000 $ 38,000 Building Official Services $ 15,000 $ 15,000
Building Inspector Position $ - $ 25,000 $ 52,000 0.60
Building Permit Revenue $ (95,000) $ (95,000) $ (95,000) Misc Services $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ (5,000)
Siskiyou Humane Society $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000
City Attorney Contract $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000
IT Support Services - Apex $ 110,000 $ 110,000 $ 110,000 Meeting Services/Support - 22nd Ave $ 25,500 $ 26,250 $ 26,750 $ 500 Auditing and Acctng Services $ 46,750 $ 46,750 $ 46,750 Cont Serv Alloc to EF $ (75,000) 40.87%
Total Contracted Services $ 272,250 $ 273,000 $ 193,500 GF available after Cont Serv $ (4,122,465) $ (3,937,023) $ (3,867,723) City Building & Grounds - 770 $ 90,945 $ 90,945 $ 92,500 $ 1,555 Non-Dept Ops - 700 (postage/copiers) $ - $ 7,637 $ 46,000 $ 38,363 City Op Exp Alloc to EF $ - $ (45,000) 32.49%
Total City Hall Op Expenses $ 90,945 $ 98,582 $ 93,500
SCORE Insurance Exp - 530 $ 354,535 $ 434,499 $ 526,000 $ 91,501 Insurnace Alloc to EF $ - $ (224,875) 42.75%
Total Insurance GF Exp $ 354,535 $ 434,499 $ 301,125 Reassessed alloc Civic Plus - City Website $ 4,996 $ 4,996 $ 4,996
GovOS - STR software $ 32,252 $ 32,252 $ 32,252
GovInvest - Pension/Labor Modules $ 12,915 $ 12,485 $ 12,485 Springbrook $ 36,666 $ 36,666 $ 36,666
Amazon Web - RDS Servers $ 36,656 $ 42,000 $ 35,000 $ (7,000) Misc Other $ 14,697 $ 16,458 $ 20,945 $ 4,487
IT Allocation to EF $ - $ (50,000) 35.13%
Total Software Expenses $ 138,182 $ 144,857 $ 92,344
Total Operating Expenses $ 583,662 $ 677,938 $ 486,969
GF available after Operating Exp $ (3,538,803) $ (3,259,085) $ (3,380,754) City Administration - 510 $ 304,387 $ 304,387 $ 308,000 $ 3,613 2.00 Finance & Personnel - 520 $ 528,408 $ 487,771 $ 382,000 $ (105,771) 3.00 Reduced FTE 5 to 4 moved 1.0 to Bld/EF Central Services Alloc to EF $ - $ (275,000) 39.86%
Total Central Services $ 832,795 $ 792,158 $ 415,000
GF available after Central Services $ (2,706,008) $ (2,466,927) $ (2,965,754) 110
General Fund Revenue
26-26 Adj
Budget
25-26 Proj
Oct 25
25-26 Proj
Feb 26
Difference
Oct to Feb FTE Notes
Law Enforcement - 600 $ 920,403 $ 920,403 $ 1,015,000 $ 94,597 6.00 10 total 6 to GF, 3 to Prop 64, 1 to COPS Law Enforcement Revenue $ (61,304) $ (61,304) $ (32,304) $ 29,000 Total Law Enforcement $ 859,099 $ 859,099 $ 982,696
Dispatch -613 $ 532,415 $ 532,415 $ 545,700 $ 13,285 5.00 Dispatch Revenue $ (5,000) $ (5,000) $ (5,000)
Total Dispatch $ 527,415 $ 527,415 $ 540,700
Fire Department - 650 $ 698,273 $ 698,273 $ 699,220 $ 947 5.00 Fire Department Revenue $ (218,070) $ (218,070) $ (218,590) $ (520) Total Fire Department $ 480,203 $ 480,203 $ 480,630
Planning Department - 730 $ 185,672 $ 185,672 $ 191,025 $ 5,353 1.00 Plan/Build Admin Support $ - $ 33,000 $ 33,000 0.50
Planning Revenue $ (18,000) $ (18,000) $ (7,400) $ 10,600 Total Planning Department $ 167,672 $ 200,672 $ 216,625 Public Works GF Programs $ 621,530 $ 621,530 $ 715,200 $ 93,670 6.00 10 Total 6 to GF and 4 to EF PW Revenue $ (5,000) $ (5,000) $ (5,000)
Snow Removal - 890 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 50,000 $ (50,000) Snow Removal Revenue $ (40,000) $ (40,000) $ (21,225) $ 18,775 Total PW GF Programs $ 676,530 $ 676,530 $ 738,975
Total City Services $ 2,710,919 $ 2,743,919 $ 2,959,626 Total GF after City Services - Deficit $ 4,911 $ 276,992 $ (6,128) 29.10 Total Allocations $ (363,000) $ (195,000) $ (681,875) Posted to each dept for tracking Total Revenues $ (5,212,392) $ (5,197,392) $ (5,144,834) Total Expenses $ 5,580,303 $ 5,669,384 $ 5,820,581
23-24 Audited Fund Balance $ 1,482,364 $ 1,482,364 $ 1,482,364 24-25 Expected Deficit $ (712,563) $ (712,563) $ (712,563) 24-25 One Time Funds - closing funds $ 427,807 $ 427,807 $ 427,807 24-25 Expected Fund Balance $ 1,197,608 $ 1,197,608 $ 1,197,608 25-26 Projection Deficit/(Excess) prior to one time $ (4,911) $ (276,992) $ 6,128 25-26 Projected Fund Balance $ 1,192,697 $ 920,616 $ 1,203,736 Projected Fund Balance as % of GF Expenses 21.37% 16.24% 20.68% 111
General Fund Revenue
26-26 Adj
Budget
25-26 Proj
Oct 25
25-26 Proj
Feb 26
Difference
Oct to Feb FTE Notes
25-26 One Time Items
Springbrook Implementation exp $ 10,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Sales Tax Contract Services-WBC $ 39,000 $ 13,000 $ 40,947 $ 27,947 Planning Services - Tom H $ 7,500
Hiring Bonuses $ 5,000
Total One Time Expenses $ 49,000 $ 33,000 $ 73,447
GF after One Time Expenses $ 53,911 $ 309,992 $ 67,319
DANCO - Building Permit Rev $ (110,000) $ (110,000)
Gas Tax Transfer to Keep PW FTE $ (50,000) $ (50,000) $ (50,000) Fire District Additional Revenue $ (63,000) $ (63,000) Additional Revenue Jan-June Misc Rev-Legal Recoveries/Ins Reimb $ (69,925)
Total One Time Revenues $ (50,000) $ (160,000) $ (292,925) Total Deficit/(Excess) $ 3,911 $ 149,992 $ (225,606)
25-26 Projected Fund Balance after one time $ 1,193,697 $ 1,047,616 $ 1,423,214 % of GF Expenses 21.39% 18.48% 24.45%
112
City of Mt. Shasta
305 N. Mt. Shasta Blvd.
Mt Shasta, CA. 96067
530-926-7510
February 18th, 2026
The Honorable José Luis Solache
California State Assembly
1020 N St. Rm. 5110
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 1708 (Solache) HHAP Pathways for Cities Act.
Notice of SUPPORT (As Introduced 2/4/2026)
Dear Assembly Member Solache,
The City of Mt Shasta is pleased to support AB 1708 (Solache), which would create a new pathway for cities with populations under 300,000 to access state homelessness funding.
Since 2019, the state’s flagship homelessness grant program, the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention (HHAP) Grant program, has provided direct funding to cities with populations over 300,000, all 58 counties, and the 44 Continuums of Care (CoC) across California.
This structure has left most cities without a consistent pathway to access HHAP funding, despite investing significant General Fund resources to prevent and reduce homelessness in their communities. AB 1708 would address this by creating a new opportunity for the 469 California cities with populations under 300,000 to apply for HHAP funding through their CoC.
Specifically, AB 1708 would require CoCs, before allocating funding to other subrecipients in their region, to accept applications for 30 days only from cities with populations under 300,000. This measure would strike a reasonable balance between access and accountability, requiring interested cities to commit to regionally coordinated action plans and adhere to state housing and encampment policies.
AB 1708 would also require CoCs to prioritize applications from cities that have existing partnerships with non-profits, other cities, or have already leveraged state and local funding for existing projects in their communities. This would ensure that limited state resources are deployed efficiently and deliver measurable results in reducing homelessness.
113
As the Governor and the Legislature consider future investments in the HHAP program, it is important to ensure the program is structured to maximize its reach and impact.
Providing all cities with a pathway to participate in HHAP would strengthen regional collaboration and ensure state resources are deployed where they can most effectively serve unhoused Californians.
Local governments are best positioned to identify the programs and partnerships that will have the greatest impact in our communities. AB 1708 recognizes this, creating a clearly defined opportunity for all cities to compete for state resources, so that communities of all sizes can have a meaningful role in the State’s homelessness response efforts.
For these reasons, the City of Mt Shasta is pleased to support AB 1708 (Solache).
Sincerely,
Todd Juhasz
City Manager
Mt Shasta, CA 96067
(530) 926-7519
cc. Senator Dahle & Assembly Member Hadwick
Charles Anderson, [email protected]
League of California Cities, [email protected]
114
AB 1708, Homeless, Housing Assistance, and Prevention Program (HHAP) Pathway for Cities
SUMMARY
AB 1708 would create a new pathway for cities with
populations under 300,000 to access existing state
homelessness funding while requiring clear
accountability metrics aligned with the state’s goals.
BACKGROUND
Since 2019, the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and
Prevention Grant Program (HHAP) has provided direct
and flexible state-funded grants to cities with populations over 300,000, all 58 counties, and the 44 Continuums of Care (CoCs) across California.
The California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) oversees the HHAP program.
Funding is awarded to eligible jurisdictions through an annual application process and is allocated based on
point-in-time counts.
42% of HHAP funding is distributed amongst the 14 cities with populations over 300,000. 28% of HHAP funding is
distributed to California’s 58 counties. The remaining
30% of HHAP funding is allocated to CoCs.
A CoC is a regional or local planning body that
coordinates housing and services funding for homeless
families and individuals, specific to the geographic needs of a region. There are 44 CoCs recognized by the US
Department of Housing and Urban Development in
California.
To be eligible for HHAP funding, CoCs, big cities and
counties must submit a regionally coordinated action plan to HCD that identifies the specific roles and
responsibilities of each jurisdiction in addressing
homelessness. The plans are reflected in a memorandum
of understanding (MOU) that commits each signatory to
participate in and comply with the plans. Cities with
populations under 300,000 may also sign the MOU and
commit to complying with the plan. Counties are
encouraged to allocate resources to smaller cities that elect to participate in the plan.
HHAP recipients, including CoCs, may expend HHAP
funds directly or enter into agreements with subrecipients, such as nonprofit organizations or service providers, to carry out eligible HHAP activities.
Subrecipients operate programs or provide services using HHAP funds, and direct recipients are expected to oversee them to ensure compliance with HHAP program funding
requirements.
SB 131 (Chapter 24, Statutes of 2025) provides a onetime $500 million General Fund allocation for HHAP in the 2026-27 fiscal year. This planned funding will
represent round seven of the program. With this funding, state General Fund support for HHAP since 2019-20 will
total about $5 billion.
SB 131 also requires that round seven funding be
contingent on the enactment of future legislation that
enhances accountability requirements for grantees, such as requiring local encampment policies consistent with
administration guidance and demonstrating progress on
housing-related performance metrics.
PROBLEM
Currently, only 14 of the state’s 483 cities can access HHAP funding directly. There is no statutory requirement for direct HHAP recipients to equitably or meaningfully allocate funds to smaller cities in their region. As a result, many small and mid-sized cities lack a clear pathway to HHAP resources, even as they invest their own limited
local dollars to address homelessness.
A 2024 League of California Cities survey of 205 cities across the state found that 60% of cities have been unable to access HHAP funding as subrecipients. 87% of cities
have invested their own general fund revenues to address homelessness. 93% of cities are concerned about
sustaining existing homelessness services over the long term, and 81% say inconsistent state funding has hindered their ability to address homelessness.
As the state continues to demand meaningful results in
addressing homelessness across California, there needs
115
AB 1708, Homeless, Housing Assistance, and Prevention Program (HHAP) Pathway for Cities to be a pathway for cities of all sizes to access state funding to supplement the work they are already doing
to support their unhoused residents.
SOLUTION
AB 1708 would require CoCs, prior to allocating funding to other subrecipients, to accept applications for a period of 30 days only from cities in their region with
populations under 300,000.
To be eligible to apply, interested cities must adopt a resolution committing to comply with their region's
regionally coordinated action plan, have a compliant
housing element, and have an encampment policy
consistent with administration guidance.
Additionally, CoCs must prioritize applications from
cities that have existing partnerships with non-profits, other cities or have already leveraged state and local
funding for existing projects in their communities.
Local governments can be trusted to identify which
programs and projects would have the most meaningful
impact in their communities, ensuring that state funding continues to have the greatest impact in our communities.
SUPPORT
League of California Cities (sponsor)
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Aurora Saldivar, Legislative Director
(916)319-2062 | [email protected]
Updated: 2/4/26
116