City Council and Authorities Concurrent
June 9, 2026

1. Question: On Slide 25, technology is mentioned. Reading through parks master plan, technology is missing from the report. Specifically, GIS asset management system and software to track maintenance and performance of equipment (e.g., replacing filters). What are we doing to track these? Do we need more investment?
Response: The Parks and Recreation Department has been working with the IT Department and third-party GIS Administrator to build the City’s Park “asset management” system (Lucity).

Lucity is a comprehensive Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) and work order system designed for local governments and utilities to track, maintain, and optimize infrastructure like roads, water systems, and fleet vehicles. It features strong GIS integration, mobile capabilities, and proactive maintenance tracking to reduce operating costs and improve safety.

As part of the budget, the Parks and Recreation Department is proposing key park management positions to help manage Lucity and the parks asset management program. The IT Department is currently working with the third-party administrator and will be conducting a software upgrade in the next few months – after which time, the software will be rolled out at every level of the Parks Maintenance Division for learning and best practice implementation. The goal will be to fully update and integrate Lucity maintenance asset management program by the end of FY 2026/27. Once the software is fully integrated and assets are logged and tracked, staff will have a better understanding of the funding gaps relative to the on-going maintenance management of the entire Santa Clara park system, bringing forward any funding requests as part of the two-year operating budget cycle for FY 2027/28 and FY 2028/29.

Key Features and Capabilities
• Comprehensive Asset Tracking: Manage detailed records for equipment, infrastructure, etc. • Work Order Management: Track maintenance history, labor, materials, and equipment costs • GIS Integration: Utilizes GIS system to visualize assets and work orders on a map • Preventive Maintenance: Automates maintenance schedules based on calendared time inputs • Mobile App: Empowers field crews to access data, complete tasks, and manage inventory • Public Portal: Offers a citizen-facing interface for submitting requests/reports Key Benefits
• Improved Efficiency: Reduces work order processing time and streamlines data management • Reduced Risk: Helps identify and maintain critical infrastructure to prevent failures • Data-Driven Decisions: Provides analytics on asset performance, remaining life, and repair costs
Attachment 6
FY 2026/27 and FY 2027/28 Biennial Capital Budget
Responses to Questions from the May 5, 2026 Budget Study Session

2. Question: How are we funding the capital expenditures for SVP? How much is funded by debt and what is the plan to pay it off? How much is funded by Load Development Fees? What is the impact if SVP does not generate the demand from data centers and development? Response: In the 5-Year CIP, capital expenditures are funded by a combination of customer revenue (79%), anticipated debt funding (14%), developer contributions (4% for customer specific projects), load development fees (2%), and restricted Public Benefits funds (1%). Annual debt service payments are funded by net revenues of the Electric Utility and have been included in the Electric Utility's longrange financial plan and rate structure. The FY 2026/27 Amended Budget includes $89.0 million in the Rate Stabilization Reserve, $375.0 million in the Operation and Maintenance Reserve, and $73.0 million in the Infrastructure Reserve that could be utilized to buffer any shortfalls encountered, such as a reduction in demand. SVP will be conducting a cost-of-service study with a consultant later this year to analyze and update rates to mitigate this type of risk.

It should be noted that 94% of customer rate revenue comes from large industrial and commercial customers. Only 5.6% are from residential customers.

3. Question: There is $50 million available for Public Benefits. Beyond the adding of two positions, please explain how we plan to use and prioritize these funds.

Response: In addition to the two positions in the Proposed Budget, SVP plans to add more positions funded by the Public Benefits Charge (PBC) as part of future budget cycles. SVP designs expenditures around the California Energy Commission (CEC) guidelines and current best utility practice of PBC expenditures that other municipal utilities are implementing. There is a focus on education and outreach, efficient electrification, affordability, low-income, and research and development. Every four years as per AB 2021, SVP sets annual targets for energy efficiency saving and demand reductions over a ten-year period. SVP brought the targets to council on August 26, 2025 (RTC 25-592).

In addition to positions, SVP has been drawing down the PBC restricted reserves through the budget process for larger residential rebates, advanced metering infrastructure and renewable contract affordability. The money can be utilized by the customer classes that contributed to it, per Council Resolution 6425 and now may be subject to Proposition 26. For example, residential customers have contributed approximately 5.5% to 6% to PBC funds, so approximately $3 million of the $50 million can be used to benefit residential customers.

4. Question: Since implementing Green Button Connect for SVP’s billing system requires an upgrade first, can we prioritize upgrading the billing system so we can move forward with Green Button Connect? Please provide a status update.

Response: Moving forward with Green Button Connect is complicated and dependent on several interconnected systems being upgraded, including the NorthStar billing system. Based on the current Attachment 6
FY 2026/27 and FY 2027/28 Biennial Capital Budget
Responses to Questions from the May 5, 2026 Budget Study Session

timeline, NorthStar is planned to be upgraded starting in Q3-2027 and finished in Q1-2028. Assuming testing and integration with the other systems related to the Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) can be completed in the same timeframe, Green Button Connect would be available at the earliest in Q2-2028.

5. Question: How can we continue community events, such as the night market and Lunar New Year celebration, on an ongoing basis?
Response: To continue community events such as the Night Market and Lunar New Year celebration on an ongoing basis, the City would need to identify a sustainable funding source, cost recovery strategy, and/or operational model to support recurring annual events.

Using the Night Market as an example, for budgetary planning purposes, the City estimates that approximately $700,000 annually would be needed to support four seasonal (2-night) Night Marketstyle events per year. This estimate includes staffing and operational support from multiple City departments, including Parks & Recreation, Police, and Public Works, as well as costs associated with event production, entertainment and sound, booths and equipment, marketing, permits, and other logistical needs.

Continuation of these events on a long-term basis would depend on available funding, City priorities, sponsorship opportunities, partnerships, grant funding, and the desired level of service for future events.

6. Question: The Berryessa Adobe porch and the Morse Mansion paint are in need of repairs.

What is the strategy to fund repairs for these facilities? Response: The Bond Program currently has $3 million set aside for a future tranche under the Renovations to Historic Buildings line item. The Department of Public Works (DPW) will be working with a consultant to review the needs of the historic buildings, identify projects, establish budgets, and then prioritize those for implementation. DPW will also be exploring opportunities to advance smaller projects, like the porch, ahead of future tranche issuances.

7. Question: What is the plan to spend the proceeds from the sale of the Loyalton property? Response: One-time proceeds from the sale of the Loyalton property of $5.6 million are anticipated to be used to partially offset one-time capital needs in FY 2025/26 associated with major engine overhaul and repairs at the Donald Von Raesfeld (DVR) power plant. Actions will be brought forward to Council prior to the close of the fiscal year to recognize the revenue from the sale and appropriate funding for engine overhaul work which was identified during the DVR planned outage earlier this year.

Attachment 6
FY 2026/27 and FY 2027/28 Biennial Capital Budget
Responses to Questions from the May 5, 2026 Budget Study Session

8. Question: With a few cycles completed, is the biennial budget process that alternates between a capital budget and operating budget working?
Response: The biennial budget process allows for a more in-depth review of the capital budget or operating budget during its cycle, while also including amendments to the budget that is off cycle. In addition, there are certain elements of the budget that are presented every year, including the TenYear General Fund Forecast, all capital and operating source and use statements, and the annual appropriations.

The two-year budget cycle reduces the administrative staff time for all departments to prepare the budget, provides more funding stability for departments, and allows for better long-range planning and strategic focus. The potential drawbacks of this process are less flexibility during economic downturns and emergencies, the need to revise the plan mid-cycle if there are significant changes to revenues and/or expenditures, and additional time needed to respond to changing priorities. Weighing these benefits and drawbacks, the Administration believes the biennial operating budget process is working.

9. Question: How is the unfunded capital project list prioritized so that infrastructure does not reach a critical point, and ensure that compliance with legal mandates and health and safety issues are addressed?
Response: As part of each biennial budget process, departments present capital funding needs to the City Manager’s Office, the Finance Department and the Public Works Department for evaluation.

The highest priority needs are funded with the resources available taking into consideration health and safety issues, legal mandates, the condition of the infrastructure, community needs, and departmental feedback/prioritization. There are a number of master plans and studies that also inform the prioritization of projects.

Starting with the FY 2019/20 and FY 2020/21 Capital Budget, the document was restructured to provide additional information on the City’s unfunded projects. This was an important step to focus the discussion on this issue. Since that time, the City has pursued funding strategies to address this issues, including bringing forward the General Obligation Bond Measure for voter approval and the set aside of ongoing capital funding in the budget.

10. Question: How are enterprise funds defined and why are the operations associated with the water treatment plant included in this category? How are the funds structured to only cover costs?
Response: As part of governmental accounting, Enterprise funds are used to account for operations and activities performed by specific departments in the City; these funds account for City operations financed and operated in a manner similar to a private business enterprise. The costs of providing Attachment 6
FY 2026/27 and FY 2027/28 Biennial Capital Budget
Responses to Questions from the May 5, 2026 Budget Study Session

goods and services are funded primarily through charges to customers for services. The Sewer Utility Fund operates as an enterprise fund, with the operation and maintenance of the Regional Wastewater Facility as one of the primary operating expenses. These costs, along with the other operating expenses for the Sewer Utility (e.g., personnel costs, materials, services, and supplies), are all funded by user charges for sewer services. Any funding surplus is set aside in various reserves, including Rate Stabilization, Operations and Maintenance and Infrastructure. These reserves are set up to cover shortfalls in operating revenues, address unforeseen operating and capital expenditures, cover day-to-day operating costs during emergency situations, maintain strong bond ratings, and ease the burden on ratepayers associated with large rate increases.

11. Question. As gas prices go up, are we anticipating revenue to go up or down? Are we thinking through that potential impact?
Response: The City receives gas tax revenue from the State that is recorded in the Gas Tax Fund.

Gas Tax is imposed by the State as a per-gallon excise tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. Cities and counties receive an allocation from the State based on population and the proportion of registered vehicles. Given the tax is a fixed amount per gallon, the gas tax receipts will not be impacted by increasing gas prices unless drivers begin to drive less due to those increases. The increasing gas prices may also encourage consumers to switch to electric or hybrid vehicles, which would reduce gas consumption.

Increasing gas prices may reduce disposable income for residents and visitors and increase costs for businesses, potentially impacting sales tax and transient occupancy tax receipts. The City would, however, collect higher sales tax receipts from gas stations.

12. Question: The City Auditor position is currently frozen/vacant. Is this position a priority? Response: The City Auditor position, along with other frozen positions, is a priority to restore prior service levels. The FY 2026/27 Proposed Budget adds a Position Restoration Reserve in the General Fund to support the restoration of previously frozen positions, including the City Auditor position. The plan is to bring forward these positions during FY 2026/27 or during the development of the Proposed FY 2027/28 and FY 2028/29 Operating Budget in conjunction with departmental organizational reviews.

13. Question: There is interest in the completion of the El Camino bike lane. Would these projects be funded by the City or the State? Is there an impact on business parking with the bike lane? Response: Completion of bike facilities along El Camino Real (State right-of-way) requires both City and State funding. In the proposed CIP, the El Camino Real Bike Lane project will install Class IV Separated bicycle facilities along El Camino Real and will be implemented in three phases.

Attachment 6
FY 2026/27 and FY 2027/28 Biennial Capital Budget
Responses to Questions from the May 5, 2026 Budget Study Session

Phase I, which is City funded, will include the design and construction of a Class IV Separated Bikeway, from the Santa Clara/Sunnyvale City limit to Pomeroy Avenue. In Phase II, Caltrans has a planned state-funded project to install Class IV bicycle facilities and construct various intersection pedestrian improvements from Pomeroy Avenue to Lincoln Street. Phase III from Lincoln Street to Portola Avenue at the Santa Clara/San Jose City Limit) is currently unfunded.

To implement bike facilities on El Camino Real, street parking is required to be removed. In 2022, Council approved Resolution 22-9047 to remove parking on El Camino Real in Santa Clara. This approval was based on the property outreach and a parking study completed during the El Camino Real Specific Plan process that determined that approximately 31% of parking on El Camino Real is utilized. The action allows the City to remove parking if a project to build the bike lanes is funded. Of note is that there are five properties along El Camino Real that lack sufficient onsite parking so the Resolution does not include removing parking along those property frontages.

14. Question: Is the 3% funding level for the new Capital Infrastructure Fund based on an analysis of funding needs/best practices or does it represent available funding? How could this be increased to 5% similar to the school district?
Response: The addition of an annual General Fund transfer to a new Capital Infrastructure Fund is set at 3% of General Fund expenditures based on the available funding. As part of the fiscal sustainability efforts, staff will work towards increasing these annual contributions.

15. Question: The Proposed Budget sets aside 18% of the Property Tax revenue from the excess Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) as the County of Santa Clara has indicated that this amount is at risk due to a legal challenge. In FY 2026/27, the contribution to the ERAF Reserve totals $1.4 million. What will happen to this revenue? Response: Secured Property Tax receipts include excess ERAF funds (under Proposition 98, a portion of property tax receipts are allocated to the ERAF beginning in 1992 and once there are sufficient funds in ERAF to fulfill the obligation to the school districts, excess funds are returned to the taxing entities that contributed the funding). The excess ERAF funds are projected at $8.0 million in FY 2026/27. The County of Santa Clara has indicated that approximately 18% of the ERAF receipts are at risk due to legal challenges regarding the allocation of these funds. Given this risk, the ERAF funds in dispute are set aside in a Property Tax ERAF Reserve in the General Fund. In FY 2026/27, the contribution to this reserve totals $1.4 million, bringing the reserve balance to $9.4 million.

Depending on the outcome of the legal challenge, the funds in reserve would either be freed up for General Fund use or would be used to cover the City’s portion of the liability. The funds will remain in reserve until the legal challenge is resolved.

16. Question: Sales Tax revenues for the City are at record levels and are highly volatile. The forecast assumes growth of 3% annual growth from the FY 2026/27 starting point. Is this Attachment 6
FY 2026/27 and FY 2027/28 Biennial Capital Budget
Responses to Questions from the May 5, 2026 Budget Study Session

revenue level sustainable? Is this growth realistic to maintain the ongoing costs of all of the new positions being proposed?
Response: While the sales tax category is very difficult to project, staff set the sales tax revenue estimate at a level that is expected to be sustainable. The City’s General Fund revenue estimates in total are projected to be sufficient to support the positions included in the Proposed Budget.

Staff evaluates the sales tax receipts on a quarterly basis by business sector and also considers the forecast provided by the City’s sales tax consultant in the development of the revenue estimates. The sales tax consultant developed conservative, most likely, and optimistic revenue estimates through FY 2031/32. In its most recent forecast, the consultant’s conservative estimate totals $74.9 million, the most likely estimate totals $80.5 million, and the optimistic estimate totals $86.2 million for FY 2026/27. The City’s general sales tax revenue estimate (excluding proposition 172 sales tax) for FY 2026/27 totals $75.0 million, which aligns closely to the consultant’s conservate estimate. The FY 2026/27 estimate is below the FY 2024/25 actual receipts of $78.5 million because it is assumed that a portion of the high collections in FY 2024/25 was one-time in nature. The 3% annual growth factor from FY 2026/27 is conservatively below the City’s actual long-term growth. From FY 2011/12 through FY 2023/24, the annual sales tax percent growth averaged 3.8%; this excludes the extremely strong growth of 28.8% in FY 2024/25. The 3% annual growth rate is also below the annual growth projections provided by the sales tax consultant that averaged 4.1% from FY 2026/27 through FY 2031/32.

Following are the quarterly revenue estimates provided by the City’s sales tax consultant Neumo/MuniServices:

Attachment 6
FY 2026/27 and FY 2027/28 Biennial Capital Budget
Responses to Questions from the May 5, 2026 Budget Study Session

17. Question: The SV Hopper is funded as a pilot program. Is this pilot going to sunset or is it anticipated to be funded ongoing. If so, how will it be funded? Response: On June 6, 2023, City Council approved the SV Hopper pilot program and service in Santa Clara launched in November 2023. The pilot will run for four years and is expected to end in November 2027. The pilot program is currently funded by both grant funds and Silicon Valley Power Electric Operating Grant Trust Funds (Low Carbon Fuel Program). Staff is evaluating the program to determine if the program will continue due to potential funding constraints.

18. Question: Are there opportunities to remove/revise center dividers for certain streets, resulting in water savings and improved traffic flow?
Response: There are currently two projects proposed in the budget under the Transportation theme, and also money in the Bond Program related to water savings and median islands. The Bond Program currently has $4 million set aside for a future tranche under the Street/Median Island Beautifications line item. The other proposed projects in the budget include:
• FY 27 Temp 18 – Water Conservation and Drought Tolerant Landscaping - The intent of this project is to remove existing decorative turf and irrigation and convert to water efficient and drought-tolerant alternatives, such as native plants, drip irrigation, and ground cover.

Several areas around City Hall have already been converted, and staff is reviewing other $ 120,000,000
$ 100,000,000
$80,000,000
$60,000,000
$40,000,000
$20,000,000
Benchmark Year Ne t Cash
.... .. . .

City of Santa Clara Annual Sales Tax Revenue
.................••••
Neumo / MuniServices
Attachment 6
FY 2026/27 and FY 2027/28 Biennial Capital Budget
Responses to Questions from the May 5, 2026 Budget Study Session

areas around the campus as well. Staff has been working with Valley Water to leverage grant opportunities to assist with the funding.
• FY27 TEMP19 – Median Island Water Conservation and Drought Tolerant Landscape Improvements - The intent of this project is to develop water conservation and drought tolerant landscape standards for medians and other public right of way areas that are in need of renovation. Once these standards are developed, then projects can be established that will remove existing turf/shrubs/plants/irrigation and replace them with things such as native plants, ground cover, and drip irrigation where necessary. Initial areas that have been identified in the proposed budget include medians along Winchester Blvd. and Lafayette Street.

There are currently no stand-alone projects budgeted that will be removing/significantly modifying median islands. These types of improvements are typically reviewed when performing significant roadway modifications like what was recently completed for the Great America Parkway/Mission College Intersection Improvements Project.

19. Question: Bike Lane Delineators were temporarily added around Levi’s Stadium as a safety precaution for the Superbowl and have since been removed. Can these be added back for bicycle safety?
Response: As part of the Superbowl LX operations and regional security planning, the Bay Area Host Committee and NFL installed temporary bike lane delineators along Lafayette Street from Agnew Road to Great America Way to support the bicycle detour associated with the temporary closure of the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail (STACT) and Stars and Stripes Drive.

For the upcoming FIFA World Cup matches in June and July 2026, these bike delineators will be temporarily installed again by the Bay Area Hose Committee and there are discussions about them remaining permanent after the matches.

20. Question: Which schools have the 15 MPH zones implemented? Are there plans to expand to other schools?
Response: In June 2025, City Council approved an initiative to reduce speed limits on certain streets around schools from 25 to 15 miles per hour (mph) when children are present. Under the California Vehicle Code (CVC), this is allowable for streets that are posted 30 mph or less within a school zone.

The reduced 15 mph speed limit supports the City’s goal of creating safer streets for children walking and biking to school, as lowering speeds in school zones can reduce both the likelihood and severity of collisions for all road users. Installation of 15 mph speed limit signs was completed in late 2025 around the following 28 schools that complied with the CVC speed limit requirements:

1. Bowers Elementary School

2. Bracher Elementary School
Attachment 6
FY 2026/27 and FY 2027/28 Biennial Capital Budget
Responses to Questions from the May 5, 2026 Budget Study Session

3. Briarwood Elementary School

4. Buchser Middle School

5. Cabrillo Middle School

6. Central Park Elementary School

7. Don Callejon Arts and Design School

8. Eisenhower Elementary School

9. Haman Elementary School

10. Hughes Elementary School

11. Laurelwood Elementary School

12. Milikin Elementary School

13. Montague Elementary School

14. Monticello Academy

15. Pomeroy Elementary School

16. Santa Clara Christian School - Monticello Academy

17. Santa Clara Community Day School

18. Scott Lane Elementary School

19. St. Clare School

20. St. Lawrence Elementary & Middle School

21. Stratford School – Pomeroy Avenue

22. Stratford School - Dolores Avenue

23. Sutter Elementary School

24. Washington Open Elementary School

25. New Valley High School

26. Westwood Elementary School

27. Wilcox High School and Santa Clara Adult Education

28. Wilson High School
Staff is not aware of any other schools that meet the CVC speed limit requirements for 15 mph school zones. If there are any other schools City Council would like staff to check, please let us know.

21. Question: How do we prioritize the Downtown? How do we allocate additional funding? Response: The City will be releasing a two phase RFQ/RFP for development on the city owned property in Downtown. In order to best evaluate the development proposals received, staff will be utilizing consultants, some of whom would be selected through a new RFP for Downtown consultants.

In addition, more support is needed to coordinate and provide strategic direction on the multifaceted Downtown implementation work efforts. The budget need for these added support efforts to prioritize Downtown is $400,000 in FY 2026/27.

22. Question: If the City consolidated its offices for utilities/enterprise funds, would it result in any cost savings to the General Fund?
Response: If the City consolidates its offices to include the utility and enterprise funds, those funds will pay their fair share of the cost of the building(s), the tenant improvements, and the ongoing Attachment 6
FY 2026/27 and FY 2027/28 Biennial Capital Budget
Responses to Questions from the May 5, 2026 Budget Study Session

operating and maintenance costs. By combining resources, it may be cost effective for both the General Fund and the enterprise funds.

23. Question: Will the recent Supreme Court ruling result in tariff savings for SVP? Response: While the recent Supreme Court ruling invalidated certain previously imposed reciprocal tariffs, the ruling does not eliminate all tariffs impacting utility-related equipment and materials.

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 is currently being used to authorize tariffs based on national security concerns.

On April 2, 2026, a Proclamation was issued strengthening Section 232 tariffs on imported steel, aluminum, and copper products. Under the current Section 232 framework:
o Articles made entirely or almost entirely of aluminum, steel, or copper are generally subject to a 50% tariff on the full product value.
o Derivative articles substantially made of steel, aluminum, or copper are generally subject to a 25% tariff on the full product value.
o Certain metal-intensive industrial equipment and electrical grid equipment are subject to a reduced 15% tariff through 2027 to support industrial base buildout currently underway across the United States.
o Products made abroad but entirely with American steel, aluminum, and copper will be subject to lower tariffs of 10%.
o Products made of 15% or less steel, aluminum, or copper are no longer be subject to Section 232 metals tariffs.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruling is not expected to result in broad tariff savings for SVP at this time. Many utility-related materials used by SVP, including transformers, conductors, switchgear, substation components, poles, and other electrical infrastructure equipment, may continue to experience tariff-related cost impacts due to the steel, aluminum, and copper content.

24. Question: At the Study Session, there was interest in fast tracking technology implementation.

What is the City’s approach and opportunities in this area? Response: The City’s approach to fast-tracking technology implementation is to focus on solutions that deliver clear operational, service, and compliance benefits and can be implemented quickly without sacrificing security, accessibility, or long-term support.

Over the past year, the IT Department completed 10 projects as well as over 30 system and application upgrades, demonstrating that the City is moving forward at a strong pace. We have also been deploying advanced tools at an accelerated rate when there is a strong opportunity. For example, DocAccess moved from concept to implementation in less than two months, helping address a large majority of the City’s website ADA compliance concerns in a short timeframe.

Attachment 6
FY 2026/27 and FY 2027/28 Biennial Capital Budget
Responses to Questions from the May 5, 2026 Budget Study Session

Looking ahead, we are continuing to identify opportunities to accelerate implementation where solutions are well-defined, practical to deploy, and provide immediate value. We are also evaluating how AI can play a role in every project and solution going forward, where it can improve efficiency, service delivery, analysis, or user experience in a responsible and effective way.

25. Question: Are there public private partnership opportunities? Response: Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are used to deliver public projects, services or infrastructure, such as public transportation networks (e.g., toll roads), airports, convention centers, and wastewater facilities. These partnerships typically share financial, construction, and operational risks. While these partnerships can be used as a financing mechanism and can leverage privatesector innovation, there are potential disadvantages, including higher long-term costs, reduced public control, and inadequate service delivery. The City does partner with a third-party for the operation of the City’s convention center. Any other potential PPP would have to be carefully analyzed to determine if the potential benefits outweigh the risks.

26. Question: There are material variances between the revenues and expenditures that are budgeted and the actuals at year-end, resulting in additional year-end funds being available.

This impacts the ability of the City Council to allocate those funds as part of the annual budget process. How does the administration plan to address this issue? Response: It is projected that FY 2025/26 will end with additional General Fund balance from excess revenues and expenditure savings. In anticipation of additional fund balance, the FY 2026/27 Proposed Budget incorporates an estimate for beginning fund balance equivalent to 2% of revenues and 2% of expenditures totaling $13.9 million. This amount is a funding source in the proposed budget. It is expected that an additional $25 million will be available at the end of FY 2025/26, primarily due to higher revenues. Staff plans to bring forward actions in June 2026 to allocate approximately $7 million of those additional funds to the Infrastructure Replacement Capital Fund, bringing the funding level to 5% of General Fund expenditures, and to allocate a portion of the additional funding to the Capital Projects Reserve.

Given the higher revenue collections, the FY 2026/27 revenue estimates have also been adjusted, with notable increases in the sales tax, transient occupancy tax, interest earnings, and the SVP transfer from the FY 2026/27 estimates included in the FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27 Adopted Operating Budget adopted in June 2025.

27. Question: How are the revenue estimates for sales tax, property tax, transient occupancy tax, and SVP transfer calculated?
Attachment 6
FY 2026/27 and FY 2027/28 Biennial Capital Budget
Responses to Questions from the May 5, 2026 Budget Study Session

Response: These revenue estimates take into account historical collection patterns, economic conditions and other factors that may impact current and future collections, rate/tax adjustments, and feedback from consultants.
• Sales Tax – As discussed in question #15 above, the sales tax revenue estimate is based on an analysis of actual performance by economic sector, historical collection levels, the revenue estimates from the City’s sales tax consultant, and the overall economic outlook. • Property Tax – The property tax category includes estimates for secured and unsecured property tax. The County of Santa Clara Office of the Assessor and the Controller-Treasurer Department meet quarterly with cities to review property tax revenue allocated to Santa Clara County cities. The Controller-Treasurer Department provides projections on the current year property tax receipts, including updates on the assessed valuation and estimates on anticipated adjustments made from property tax appeals. The current year estimate is used as the starting point in the development of the FY 2026/27 revenue estimate. The County Assessor’s Office also provides information to cities on a monthly basis on the status of the assessment roll for the upcoming year. In addition, the City’s property tax consultant provides a forecasting tool to assist in the development of the property tax revenue estimate. • Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) – The TOT revenue estimate takes into consideration actual collection patterns, the rate increases implemented in recent years, and growth assumptions post Covid-19. This category was the most impacted by the pandemic, with revenues dropping from $22.5 million pre-pandemic in FY 2018/19 to a low of $2.9 million in FY 2020/21. • SVP Transfer - In accordance with the City’s charter, Silicon Valley Power pays 5.0% of gross revenues to the General Fund. Growth in this category is primarily driven by market projections for electric consumption, resources costs, and projected rate increases for the Electric Utility.

28. Question: Are vacant positions or frozen positions funded? Response: All filled and vacant positions are funded in the budget. To account for vacancies, the budget includes a vacancy factor that reduces the personnel budget by 3% for departments with a total FTE count of over 11, with the exception of the Police Department. As part of the FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27 Adopted Operating Budget, the Police Department vacancy factor was set at 5.5%, effective through FY 2028/29. The factor is set to revert back to 3% ongoing, beginning in FY 2029/30.

Frozen positions are unfunded in the budget. However, there is a Position Restoration Reserve in the General Fund that would be used to restore those positions.

29. Question: There was interest in developing a basic income pilot program. What would be the options for the City to establish this program? Are CDBDG or HOME funds eligible to be allocated to this type of program?
Attachment 6
FY 2026/27 and FY 2027/28 Biennial Capital Budget
Responses to Questions from the May 5, 2026 Budget Study Session

Response: Universal Basic Income (UBI) is not a viable use for CDBG and HOME funds because there are significant limitations on how these funds can be used. CDBG funds can pay for short-term emergency assistance for up to three months of rent and utility payments. These funds are typically paid to a landlord or utility provider on behalf of the individual whereas UBI programs pay funds directly to program participants. CDBG funds do not provide flexibility or the ~1 year timeline that UBI programs typically require. If CDBG funds were to be used for rental and utility assistance, the City could only use funds set aside for public services which is capped at just over $150,000 in FY 2026/27. This amount is insufficient and would require a reallocation of funds that were approved in the FY 2026/27 Annual Action Plan on May 5, 2026. HOME funds are restricted to eligible affordable housing production or assistance.

It is important to remember that the City already provides deposit and rental assistance through the Tenant Based Rental Assistance program using HOME and local funds. The City is developing a companion rental assistance program using HOME ARP funds that will focus on assisting people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. While these programs are not as flexible as UBI, they greatly reduce costs for households allowing program participants to spend money on other basic necessities. If a philanthropic or other flexible funding source were identified, it could leverage the City’s rental assistance programs by providing income for non-housing expenses.

The City of Mountain View had a basic income pilot program, which ran between December 2022 through December 2024. The Mountain View City Council approved the use of ARPA Funds ($1.0 million in FY 2021/22 and $1.3 million in FY 2022/23) for this program along with $580,500 in local funds. A comprehensive report with results of this pilot is expected to be available in 2026. For more information, please see the 2/22/2022 Mountain View City Council Agenda Item #201401: City of Mountain View - File #: 201401.

30. Question (Public): Is there going to be a time when seniors in the community do not have to pay fees (Senior Center)?
Response: At this time, the Senior Center charges membership and recreation activity fees to help offset a portion of the costs associated with operating the facility and providing programs and services to the community. Based on historical trends, Senior Center fee revenue is projected at approximately $356,000 in FY 2025/26, while FY 2026/27 revenue is projected to be approximately $363,000, depending on future fee adjustments.

In comparison, the annual cost to operate the Senior Center and its programs exceeds $1 million.

While the current fees are intended to support cost recovery, the revenue generated does not fully cover the operational costs of the facility and programs. As a result, eliminating Senior Center fees would create an additional funding gap and would likely require the identification of an alternative ongoing funding source, such as additional General Fund support, to maintain current service levels and programming.

Attachment 7
FY 2026/27 and FY 2027/28 Biennial Capital Budget
Responses to Questions from the May 19, 2026 Budget Study Session

1. Question: What is the planned use for the $3.8 million budgeted in the Related Santa Clara Developer Fund in the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP)? Response: There are two active projects for Related Santa Clara: 1) General Administration Project and 2) Other Development Services Project. The General Administration Project totals $0.5 million over the five-year CIP and reflects funds to support the project. The Other Development Services Project totals $3.3 million over the five-year CIP and reflects third-party contract costs for development related items including entitlements and permit processing. Both allocations are reimbursed by Related.

2. Question: How are the major SVP capital projects funded? In the responses to the May 5 th
Study Session, staff broke down the combination of funding for SVP capital projects, including 79% from customer revenue and 2% from load development fees. Why is only 2% coming from load development fees? Do we have Take or Pay provisions that will fund these in case a data center goes out of business?
Response: The table below breaks out the funding sources weighted by customer class and shows large industrial and commercial customers fund a majority of SVP’s FY 2026/27 Proposed 5-Year CIP. Load Development Fees reflect the system-wide impact for increased load, and the fees intend to capture infrastructure investments to increase capacity, which is typically driven and paid for by the larger customers.

Table: SVP FY 2026/27 5-Year CIP Funding Sources by Customer Class Funding Type
Industrial /
Commercial Residential Other Total
Customer Service Revenue 75% 4% < 1% 79%
Debt Funding 13% 1% < 1% 14%
Developer Contributions 4% 0% 0% 4%
Load Development Fee 2% 0% 0% 2%
Public Benefits Charge 1% < 1% < 1% 1%
Total 94% 5% < 1% 100%
SVP does not have Take or Pay provisions in its substation agreements, but SVP is working to develop a rate structure to capture stranded capacity. The data centers located in Santa Clara serve diverse purposes, from cloud services to research and development and some AI. This diversification helps reduce financial risk to SVP, and SVP has weathered fluctuations of technology cycles in the past and maintains reserves to adapt to changing financial conditions.

Attachment 7
FY 2026/27 and FY 2027/28 Biennial Capital Budget
Responses to Questions from the May 19, 2026 Budget Study Session

3. Question: The General Fund Pension Stabilization Reserve is going from $42.1 million to $49.2 million. What percentage of the entire pension liability is the $49.2 million? Response: The net pension liability as reported in the City’s FY 2024/25 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) was $669 million. Of this amount, $527 million was attributed to the General Fund. The $49.2 million in the General Fund Pension Stabilization Reserve is 7.4% of the total liability and 9.3% of the General Fund liability.

4. Question: When are we going to get the fiscal impact regarding the Super Bowl, including additional hotel Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and sales tax from restaurants? Response: The Transient Occupancy Tax revenue for the month of February 2026 of $3.27 million was up 47% from the $2.22 million collected for the month of January 2026. This February 2026 collection level was also up 43% from the average monthly collection level of $2.29 million from July 2025 through January 2026.

The sales tax collections for the first quarter of 2026 totaled $20.67 million, which is up 0.6% from the $20.54 million collected in the first quarter of 2025. The gross sales tax data for the first quarter of 2026 was posted on the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration website on May 20th.

The City does not yet have details on the performance by sector for that quarter. Detailed information is not expected from the City’s sales tax consultant until July-August 2026. Staff will report on the first quarter 2026 sales tax receipts once the information is received from the City’s consultant. It is important to note that the majority of the City’s sales tax revenue is generated from business-tobusiness activity. In the first quarter of 2025, business-to-business accounted for 59% of the sales tax revenue, with the food products sector, which includes restaurants, accounting for 11% and retail accounting for 7%.

5. Question: In the Responses to the Questions from the May 5th Study Session (Question 30), staff indicated that Senior Center fee revenue is projected at $356,000 in FY 2025/26. What is the breakdown of the revenue?
Response: Of the projected $356,000 in Senior Center fee revenue for FY 2025/26, approximately $87,000 is anticipated to come from basic and premium membership fees, representing approximately 24% of the fee revenue. Memberships provide access to a variety of amenities and activities at the Senior Center, such as the billiard/game room, computer lab, table tennis, and other available activities. The premium membership also adds access to the fitness center, natatorium, recreation and lap swim, and Senior tennis. In addition, the Senior Center offers a variety of free services and resources that do not require a membership, including health and wellness programs, the Health Insurance Counseling & Advocacy Program (HICAP), Senior Adult Legal Assistance (SALA), nutrition services, and other support services.

Attachment 7
FY 2026/27 and FY 2027/28 Biennial Capital Budget
Responses to Questions from the May 19, 2026 Budget Study Session

The remaining $269,000 is primarily generated through recreation classes, programs, and activities; these activities generate approximately 76% of the Senior Center fee revenue.

The table below details the projected FY 2025/26 Senior Center revenues.

Recreation Category
FY 2025/26
Estimated Revenue
Membership Fees
Basic and Premium Memberships $87,000
Sub-Total Membership Fees $87,000
Senior Recreation Activities/Classes
Fitness $200,500
Art/Other (e.g., Bingo, games) $35,100
Adventure to Go $33,400
Sub-total Senior Recreation Activities/Classes 269,000
Total: $356,000
In comparison, the FY 2025/26 General Fund budget to operate the Senior Center and its programs totals $1.87 million, resulting in a budgeted cost recovery rate of approximately 19%.

Staff also benchmarked the membership fees to surrounding cities as detailed in the table below.

SENIOR CENTER ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEES
City Resident Rate Non-Resident Rate Premium Resident Rate Santa Clara $12 $37 $37
Campbell $25 $35 NA
Cupertino $25 $35 NA
Sunnyvale $40 $60 NA
Milpitas $15 $35 NA
Los Gatos $45 $45 NA
Saratoga $45 $45 NA

SENIOR CENTERS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY WITH FREE ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP Mountain View Los Altos Morgan Hill San Jose
Palo Alto Gilroy

6. Question: Since the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for the Agnews Office Park and historic site property (RTC 26-566) was not approved, what is the anticipated cost for a needs assessment for City Hall? What are capital investments that can be made to the existing City Attachment 7
FY 2026/27 and FY 2027/28 Biennial Capital Budget
Responses to Questions from the May 19, 2026 Budget Study Session

Hall to improve conditions given that this facility will be in use for a number of years regardless of any potential option to move? What amount of funding should be allocated for those improvements?
Response: The estimated cost of a needs assessment is $150,000 for the City Hall East Wing, West Wing, Old Court House and Berman building. The results of that assessment could then be used as the basis for identifying projects that should move forward. The determination of projects to move forward would also be dependent on the decisions and timeframes for a potential new City Hall.

Given the uncertainty regarding the long-term disposition of the City Hall facility, there have not been major investments in the facility for many years. The approach has been to fix critical items as necessary rather than proactively investing in the facility. In the CIP, the unfunded projects list includes the City Hall HVAC Rehabilitation Project ($5.3 million) as well as the Public Buildings Parking Lot Improvements ($5.6 million) that includes approximately $1.5 million for the City Hall parking lots.

There is $20.3 million in the Civic Center Campus Future Needs project in the Public Buildings Capital Fund that is recommended to be carried over from FY 2025/26 to FY 2026/27. These funds would be available for the needs assessment as well as City Hall improvements.

7. Question: For the recommended use of the sale proceeds from the Loyalton Ranch property on the SVP turbine repairs, should other funds have been set aside for those repairs? Response: The one-time funding from the sale of the Loyalton Ranch property is recommended to be used for one-time priority needs related to the maintenance and repair of the City’s Gianera and Donald Von Raesfeld (DVR) power plants. Funding is budgeted annually in the Major Engine Overhaul and Repair Project (CIP 2127) to anticipate costs associated with this work; however, there was additional unanticipated work needed that caused the costs to exceed the project budget.

An action to recognize the revenue from the sale of the Loyalton Ranch property ($5.6 million) to partially offset the necessary increase to the Major Engine Overhaul and Repair Project appropriation ($9.8 million) for maintenance and repair costs is anticipated to be brought forward to the City Council in June as part of the April Monthly Financial Status Report. Funding to offset the increase in the project budget could also be recommended to come from the Electric Utility Fund Ending Fund Balance. Under this scenario, the revenue from the sale of the Loyalton Ranch property would be added to the Electric Utility Fund Ending Fund Balance to be used for other one-time needs in the future.

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
26-530 Agenda Date: 6/9/2026

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action Establishing the City's Fiscal Year 2026/27 Appropriations Limit of $753,285,224 Pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California State Constitution

BACKGROUND
Annually, the City of Santa Clara (City) is required to calculate the expenditure appropriation limit from tax proceeds to determine compliance with Proposition 4 (Gann Initiative) and Proposition 111 (Spending Limitation Act of 1990). On November 6, 1979, the California electorate passed Proposition 4, which created Article XIIIB of the State Constitution, which placed limits on the amount of revenue that can be spent by governmental agencies. This constitutional amendment, also known as the Gann Initiative, placed limits on the growth of expenditures for publicly funded programs by restricting the amount of revenue that the City can appropriate in any fiscal year. Not all revenues are restricted by the limit, only those that are categorized as proceeds of taxes.

The City's limit has been based on actual appropriations during FY 1978/79, increased annually by an adjustment factor. On June 5, 1990, the California electorate approved Proposition 111, which modified the method of adjusting the annual appropriations limit. Beginning with the FY 1990/91 appropriations limit, the City may choose from the following indices when arriving at an adjustment factor:

1. The annual growth in the City's population or the annual growth in the County's population as provided by the State Department of Finance; and

2. The annual growth in the California Per Capita Income or the growth in the nonresidential assessed valuation due to new construction within the City.

DISCUSSION
The City is responsible for dividing citywide revenues between tax and non-tax revenue and applying the formula to the cumulative appropriation limit. For FY 2026/27, the appropriations limit was computed using the annual population growth of the City of Santa Clara (2.93%) and the annual growth in California Per Capita Income (4.95%). Applying these adjustment factors, the appropriations limit for the City of Santa Clara in FY 2026/27 is $753,285,224 (Schedule 1). As a result, this calculation limits the City from receiving more than $753,285,224 in tax-based revenues in FY 2026/27. An analysis of the revenues generated from tax proceeds minus any exempted expenditures (such as debt service, capital outlay and federal mandates) resulted in total revenue subject to the appropriation limit of $281,044,551 or 37.31% of the limit. The City’s appropriations subject to the limit are $472,240,673 below the FY 2026/27 appropriations limit. Therefore, the City is in compliance with Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.

Schedule 1 provides the history of the City's appropriations limits as adopted by the Council for FY City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 2 Printed on 6/5/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-530 Agenda Date: 6/9/2026
2017/18 through FY 2025/26 and the appropriations limit recommended for adoption for FY 2026/27.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to section 15378(b)(4) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in that it is a fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in potentially significant physical impacts on the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to this report. By adopting the Resolution establishing the appropriations limit for FY 2026/27 the City will be in compliance with Propositions 4 and 111.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution Establishing the City's Fiscal Year 2026/27 Appropriations Limit of $753,285,224 Pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California State Constitution.

Reviewed by: Kenn Lee, Director of Finance
Approved by: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Schedule 1

2. Resolution for Appropriations Limit
City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 2 Printed on 6/5/2026
powered by Legistar™
Schedule 1
Fiscal Year
Beginning
Appropriations
Limit
Price
Factor
Population
Factor
Adjustment
Factor
Ending
Appropriations
Limit
Revenue
Subject to
Appropriations
% of
Appropriation
Limit
(1) (2) (3) (4) = (2) X (3) (5) = (1) X (4) (6) (6) / (5) 2026/27 697,292,626 1.0495 1.0293 1.0803 753,285,224 281,044,551 37.31% 2025/26 651,370,972 1.0644 1.0057 1.0705 697,292,626 254,040,417 36.43% 2024/25 628,493,798 1.0362 1.0002 1.0364 651,370,972 235,373,936 36.14% 2023/24 592,639,131 1.0444 1.0154 1.0605 628,493,798 217,487,082 34.60% 2022/23 546,765,505 1.0755 1.0078 1.0839 592,639,131 185,230,550 31.26% 2021/22 503,467,316 1.0573 1.0271 1.0860 546,765,505 174,200,673 31.86% 2020/21 478,945,316 1.0373 1.0134 1.0512 503,467,316 177,031,551 35.16% 2019/20 459,684,534 1.0385 1.0033 1.0419 478,945,316 184,097,298 38.44% 2018/19 429,451,171 1.0367 1.0325 1.0704 459,684,534 175,246,540 38.12% 2017/18 410,840,550 1.0369 1.0081 1.0453 429,451,171 160,838,861 37.45% City of Santa Clara
Proposition 4 Appropriations Limit
FY 2017/18 Through FY 2026/27
On June 5, 1990, the California electorate passed Proposition 111 which modified the method of adjusting the annual appropriations limit. Beginning with the 1990/91 Appropriations Limit, the City may choose from one of the following indices when determining the adjustment factor:

The annual growth in the City's population or the annual growth in the County's population as provided by the State Department of Finance;
and
The annual growth in the California Per Capita Income or the growth in the non-residential assessed valuation due to new construction within the City.

The 1990/91 Appropriations Limit was revised by applying the new growth factors to the appropriations limits for 1986/87 and each subsequent year. In computing the FY 2026/27 Appropriations Limit, the population growth of the City of Santa Clara and the annual growth in California Per Capita Income were used.

Resolution/Appropriations Limit Page 1 of 2
Rev: 05-16-2024
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
ESTABLISHING FISCAL YEAR 2026/27 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT

PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
CONSTITUTION AS IMPLEMENTED BY TITLE 1, DIVISION 9
(ENTITLED “EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS” – SECTION 7900 ET
SEQ.) OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
WHEREAS, Proposition 4, commonly known as the Gann Initiative, was adopted by voters on November 6, 1979;
WHEREAS, the Proposition created Article XIIIB of the California State Constitution placing limits on the amount of revenue which can be spent by all entities of government; WHEREAS, the limit based on the Proposition 4 formula is updated annually using growth data supplied by the State Department of Finance; and,
WHEREAS, the appropriation limit is required to be adopted by the legislative body of each government entity.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. Appropriations Limit. The City’s appropriations limit for fiscal year 2026/27 is Seven Hundred Fifty-Three Million Two Hundred Eighty-Five Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty-four Dollars ($753,285,224).

2. Calculation Factors. Pursuant to Section 8 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, the City Council determines that for fiscal year 2026/27 the change in the cost of living shall be measured by the percentage change in California per capita personal income or the growth in the non-residential assessed valuation due to new construction within the City and the change in population shall be measured by the annual growth in the County or the City's population as provided by the State Department of Finance, whichever is higher.

Resolution/Appropriations Limit Page 2 of 2
Rev: 05-16-2024

3. Factors for 2026/27. For purposes of computing the appropriations limit for fiscal year 2026/27, the annual growth in the California Per Capita Income is 4.95% and the annual percent change in City population as provided by the State Department of Finance is 2.93%.

4. Notice of Action to be Taken. Pursuant to Government Code Section 7910, no judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the action of the City Council in establishing the appropriations limit for fiscal year 2026/27 shall be brought unless such action or proceeding shall have been commenced within forty-five (45) days of the date of adoption of this resolution.

5. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 9
th DAY OF JUNE 2026, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: ______________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
26-165 Agenda Date: 6/9/2026

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Public Hearing: Action on a Resolution Approving the Levy of Benefit Assessment upon the City of Santa Clara Parking Maintenance District No. 122 - Franklin Square

BACKGROUND
Parking Maintenance District No. 122 (PMD 122) was formed in 1965 for the parking lots, arcades, fountains, sidewalks, landscaping, irrigation, lights, and utilities within Franklin Square, which is bounded by Benton Street, Homestead Road (formerly known as Liberty Street), Monroe Street, and Jackson Street. There have been several changes in how maintenance and operation costs have been collected over the years. In 2002, the City Council passed a motion at a public hearing in which the City assumed all future costs for operation and maintenance, and in May 2003 adopted Resolution 7026. Under the collection method contained in Resolution 7026, the property owners contribute annually to pay for capital repairs of items such as the parking lot and associated walkways. The fixed annual contribution from the property owners totals $14,200, less the earned interest on the accumulating balance. The City, through the General Fund, is responsible for covering the costs for annual maintenance and operations of PMD 122 and that has continued to be the arrangement through the present day. The City Council approved a Resolution Approving the Levy of Benefit Assessment upon the City of Santa Clara Parking Maintenance District No. 122 - Franklin Square in FY 2025/26, so contributions from the property owners were collected.

On April 21, 2026, Council adopted a Resolution of Intention (Resolution No. 26-9547) related to the proposed maintenance assessments for PMD 122. In addition, the Resolution established June 9, 2026 as the date that City Council would hear testimony and act upon the attached Resolution (Attachment 1) and Director’s Report (Attachment 2).

DISCUSSION
The proposed FY 2026/27 assessment to property owners will be $7,329. Per the terms of PMD 122, accrued interest earned in FY 2024/25 in the amount of $6,871 will be used to reach the $14,200 annual requirement. These funds are placed into an account that generates interest income and are used to pay for capital repair projects as needs arise. At the end of FY 2024/25 the interest-bearing account contained $178,181.

The final recommended operating budget for PMD 122 routine maintenance and operation is $143,012, which is $3,022 above the FY 2025/26 expenditure budget of $139,990. The full-time equivalent (FTE) position allocated to PMD remains unchanged at 0.50 FTE. The 2.2% increase in the expenditure budget in FY 2026/27 is due to small cost of living adjustments for labor, contractual services, and operating supplies, as well as adjustments to the City’s Cost Allocation Plan (CAP).

The operating budget includes funding for routine maintenance and operations performed by the City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 3 Printed on 6/5/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-165 Agenda Date: 6/9/2026
Department of Public Works, as well as contractors. This includes regular maintenance for landscaping, trees, public litter cans, and parking lot/walkway sweeping. These routine maintenance and operation costs for PMD 122 are funded by the General Fund. In FY 2025/26 staff made repairs to several lighting fixtures that were out of service within the parking lots and associated walkway areas.

In FY 2026/27, staff will be updating parking lot and associated walkway lighting to LED. The final FY 2026/27 expenditure budget includes $87,000 for exceptional maintenance and improvements. The total FY 2026/27 budget of $230,012 includes both routine maintenance and exceptional maintenance and improvement costs. These capital repairs will be funded by property owner contributions via the interest-bearing account. Concurrently, DPW is exploring SVP rebates and loan opportunities that could help reduce costs if the project meets eligibility requirements.

Proposition 218 requires a majority protest opportunity and voter approval of new or increased fees.

Since the proposed assessments of $7,329 ($14,200 minus $6,871 in interest) for FY 2026/27 are less than the greatest previously approved assessments, such proposed fees do not qualify as new or increased fees. Therefore, the City is not required to undergo a protest process or obtain voter approval from the property owners. The assessments to the property owners cannot be sent out until the Director’s Report is approved at a public hearing.

Staff has previously provided responses to Council questions about the procedures for modifying and dissolving PMD 122 as well as paid parking. Those reports are included as Attachments 4 and 5.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) in that it is a fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potential significant impact on the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of the assessment maintains the funding source for future capital repairs to parking lots and walkways located within Franklin Square. The City’s General Fund remains as the funding source for routine maintenance and operating costs for the Downtown Parking Maintenance District (PMD). The proposed FY 2026/27 expenditure budget for PMD No. 122 is $230,012, which is inclusive of the $87,000 of capital repairs funded by property owner assessments and subject to appropriation of funds. If the City Council does not approve charging property owners their portion of the proposed FY 2026/27 assessment of $7,329 as per PMD 122, the property owners will be relieved of this requirement for the fiscal year and will not make any contributions towards future capital repairs.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Finance Department and the City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 3 Printed on 6/5/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-165 Agenda Date: 6/9/2026
Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

On May 6, 2026, the Notice of Public Hearing for the June 19, 2026, Council meeting was published in the Santa Clara Weekly. In addition, the notice was posted at the City Clerk’s Office, as well as at the public information desk at each City of Santa Clara public library and mailed to all property owners within the District.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Adopt a Resolution approving the levy of benefit assessment upon the City of Santa Clara Parking Maintenance District No. 122 and approving, confirming, and adopting the Director’s Report for FY 2026/27.

2. Do not adopt a Resolution to move forward with collecting the property owner assessments for FY 2026/27.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the levy of benefit assessment upon the City of Santa Clara Parking Maintenance District No. 122 and approving, confirming, and adopting the Director’s Report for FY 2026/27.

Reviewed by: Craig Mobeck, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Jovan Grogan, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Director’s Report FY 2026/27

3. Notice of Public Hearing

4. Agenda Report 22-1672 from January 25, 2022

5. Agenda Report 22-713 from June 21, 2022
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 3 Printed on 6/5/2026
powered by Legistar™
Resolution/PMD 122 Page 1 of 6
Rev: 7/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA

APPROVING THE LEVY OF BENEFIT ASSESSMENT UPON

THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA PARKING MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT NO. 122 AND APPROVING, CONFIRMING AND
ADOPTING DIRECTOR’S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026/27
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 16.10, Article VI, Sections 16.10.490 and 16.10.500 of the Santa Clara City Code (“City Code”), on May 6, 2003, Council adopted Resolution No. 7026, “A Resolution of Intention to Order that the Alternative Method for the Levy of Benefit Assessment be made Applicable to City of Santa Clara Parking Maintenance District No. 122, Providing for Notice of Hearing Thereon, Approving Director's Report and Providing for Notice of Hearing on Director's Report;”
WHEREAS, the Council did declare in Resolution No. 26-9547 its intention to order that the amount necessary to pay the costs and expenses of the maintenance and operation of the public automobile parking places, covered pedestrian lanes and walkways, fountains and landscaping in the District be raised by an annual special benefit assessment apportioned according to benefits among the several lots or parcels of property within the City of Santa Clara Parking Maintenance District (“District”) in accordance with the formula therefore, and more particularly set forth in the Resolution of Intention in accordance with and pursuant to the City Code;
WHEREAS, notice of hearing any and all protests in relation to the levy of benefit assessments and the formula and Report was given by causing a copy of the Resolution of Intention to be duly posted, published and mailed in the time, form and manner provided by in the Code all as more particularly appears from the certificates and affidavits thereof on file in the office of the City Clerk; whereupon the hearing thereon was duly and regularly held at the time and place advertised in the Resolution of Intention;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 10107 and 10108 of Chapter 2, Division 12 of the Streets and Resolution/PMD 122 Page 2 of 6
Rev: 7/27/2023
Highways Code of the State of California, and Chapter 26 of Part 3 of Division 7 of said Code, all as provided in Chapter 16.10 of the Code of the City of Santa Clara, on the 30th day of March, 1965, this Council adopted its Resolution No. 1581, a Resolution creating "City of Santa Clara Parking Maintenance District No. 122" (“Parking Maintenance District”) in the City for the purpose of paying the costs and expenses of acquiring, constructing, reconstructing, installing, extending, enlarging, repairing, improving, maintaining and operating public automobile parking places, covered pedestrian lanes and walkways, fountains, and landscaping therein then existing or thereafter to be constructed in and for the Parking Maintenance District, and of benefit to said maintenance district, but not of benefit to the City of Santa Clara as a whole, including the cost of necessary repairs, replacements, water, fuel, power, gas, electric current, care, supervision and any and all other items necessary for the proper maintenance and operation thereof, and all additions, improvements and enlargements thereto which may thereafter be made;
WHEREAS, said proceedings provided that this Council shall, in addition to all other taxes, annually fix and levy a special assessment tax upon the real property (land and improvements) within the Parking Maintenance District as therein provided, sufficient to raise a determined amount of money to pay all or part of said costs of maintenance and operation; WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works (“Director”) did cause a written report (“Report”) to be prepared and filed with the City Clerk of the City, which provides the basis for the levy of benefit assessments for the cost and expenses of maintenance and operation on all lots or parcels of property within the District which the Report sets forth the amounts to be provided in the budget for maintenance and operation, a description of each lot or parcel of property by a legal description, assessor's parcel number or other description sufficient to identify the same, and the amount of the assessment to be levied for the fiscal year 2026/27 against each lot or parcel of property;
WHEREAS, Proposition 218 passed on November 5, 1996, added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to Resolution/PMD 122 Page 3 of 6
Rev: 7/27/2023
the State of California Constitution which requires the property owners within a Maintenance District to approve the continuation of the Maintenance District, and annually approve any increase in assessments. On June 24, 1997, a sufficient vote of ballots was received as revised in order to approve the continuation of the Maintenance District; WHEREAS, procedures of approval require the preparation of a report on how the assessments were prepared and based, but this year a written ballot need not be returned to the Director’s Office in order to determine the approval of the proposed assessment for the Maintenance District because this year’s assessment is not greater than the greatest previously approved assessment amount;
WHEREAS, persons interested, objecting thereto, filed written protests with the Director at or before the time set for hearing, and all persons interested, desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard and all matters and things pertaining thereto were fully heard and considered by the Council;
WHEREAS, the Council has remedied and corrected any errors or informalities in the Director's Report and has revised and corrected any of the acts or determinations of the various City officials as contained therein, and is fully informed of the contents; and, WHEREAS, said Council is fully informed in the matter.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. That a weighted vote, based on the assessment to each property, was not needed to approve the proposed annual assessments for said District because this year’s assessment is less than the greatest previously approved assessment.

2. That all written protests, objections and other written communications regarding the amount of the assessment, the formula for the assessment levy, and the Director’s Report were read at a noticed public hearing and all persons desiring to be heard were fully heard, and each of them are hereby overruled.

3. That the public interest and convenience require that the cost and expenses of Resolution/PMD 122 Page 4 of 6
Rev: 7/27/2023
acquiring, constructing, reconstructing, installing, extending, enlarging, repairing, improving, maintaining, and operating public automobile parking places, covered pedestrian lanes and walkways, fountains and landscaping therein now existing or hereafter to be constructed in and for the District and of benefit to the District, but not of benefit to the City as a whole, including the cost of necessary repairs, replacements, water, fuel, power, gas, electric current, care, supervision and any and all other items necessary for the proper maintenance and operation thereof, and of all additions, improvements and enlargements thereto which may hereafter be made, be raised by an annual special benefit assessment in accordance with and pursuant to the provisions for the alternative method for the levy of benefit assessments in maintenance districts in said City as provided in Chapter 16.10, Article VI, of the Code on all lots or parcels of property within the District.

4. That the costs and expenses of capital repairs to the parking lots and internal walkways within the District shall annually be assessed either partly or wholly upon the several lots and parcels of property within the District benefited thereby by apportioning the costs and expenses according to benefits among the several lots or parcels of property within the District in accordance with the following formula:

A. Each assessment shall be determined on the basis of the gross floor area of the building located upon the lot or parcel of property assessed.

B. For the purposes of the formula herein, gross floor area shall mean that area computed from the outside dimensions of the building, including all and not excluding corridors and other design features, and aggregated for each additional story or mezzanine floor and any basement area.

5. That the formula for the apportionment of benefits in the annual assessment levies be, and it is hereby, finally approved, confirmed, and adopted by this Council.

6. That the Director's Report and assessment roll, and each of the assessments therein as duly revised and corrected be, and they are hereby, approved, confirmed, and adopted.

Resolution/PMD 122 Page 5 of 6
Rev: 7/27/2023

7. That the special benefit assessments shall be levied and collected annually upon the last equalized secured and utility tax rolls upon which ad valorem property taxes are collected. They shall be in addition to all other ad valorem property taxes levied, and shall be collected together with, and not separate therefrom, and enforced in the same manner and by the same person and at the same time and with the same penalties and interest as are said ad valorem property taxes. All laws applicable to the collection and enforcement of ad valorem property taxes shall be applicable to the special benefit assessment levy, and the assessed lot or parcel of property, if sold for taxes, shall be subject to redemption in the same manner as such real property is redeemed from the sale for ad valorem property taxes, and if not redeemed, shall in like manner pass to the purchaser.

8. That the Report together with the certificate of the City Clerk as to the fact and date of approval, confirmation and adoption by this Council, shall forthwith be delivered to the Director of Finance of this City who shall thereafter deliver the Report to the officer of the County of Santa Clara designated by law to extend ad valorem property taxes upon the tax roll, and the proper County officer shall cause to be posted to the tax rolls, in the column provided therefor, the amount of each of the special benefit assessments proposed to be levied and collected for said fiscal year as set forth in said Report as confirmed.

9. That the City Clerk shall forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the Director of Finance of the City and to the officer designated by law to extend ad valorem property taxes upon the tax roll on which they are collected.

10. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately. ///
///
///
///
///
Resolution/PMD 122 Page 6 of 6
Rev: 7/27/2023

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE ___ DAY OF _________, 2026, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: ______________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments incorporated by reference:

1. Director’s Report FY 2026/27

DIRECTOR'S REPORT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
PARKING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 122
FISCAL YEAR 2026/27
June 9, 2026

ASSESSMENT FORMULA
Fiscal Year 2026/27
City of Santa Clara, California
Parking Maintenance District No. 122
The formula upon which the annual assessment levy, for the payment of the costs and expenses of maintaining and operating the improvements, and providing funds for future parking lots and associated walkways, exceptional maintenance and improvements, within Parking Maintenance District No. 122, including the costs and expenses incidental thereto, will be apportioned according to benefits among the several lots or parcels of property within the Maintenance District for the Fiscal Year 2026/27 is as follows:
- Costs and expenses are to be shared between the City and property owners as below:
a. City shall pay for the operation and maintenance cost on a 100% basis. b. Property owners shall pay $14,200 annually, less interest from prior years' property owners operation and maintenance assessments as of June 30, 2002, to be kept in a fund to be used towards future exceptional maintenance and improvements of parking lots and associated walkways and appurtenances.
- Each assessment shall be determined on the basis of the gross floor area of the building located upon the lot or parcel of property assessed. - For the purposes of the formula herein, gross floor area shall mean that area computed from the outside dimensions of the building and not excluding corridors and other design features and aggregated for each additional story or mezzanine floor and any basement area.

DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ASSESSMENT for Fiscal Year 2026/27 City of Santa Clara, California Parking Maintenance District No. 122
I, Craig Mobeck, Director of Public Works for the City of Santa Clara, California, pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.10.490 of the Code of the City of Santa Clara, hereby make this report and following benefit assessment to cover the costs and expenses of maintaining and operating the improvement within Parking Maintenance District No. 122 of said City, including the costs and expenses incidental thereto, to be paid by said Maintenance District.

The amount to be paid therefor by said Maintenance District for the Fiscal Year 2026/27 is as follows:

Expenditures
As
Preliminarily
Approved
As Finally
Approved
Routine Maintenance & Operation $143,012.00 $143,012.00 Exceptional Maintenance and Repairs $87,000.00 $87,000.00 TOTAL COST $230,012.00 $230,012.00
Funding for FY 2026/27 Expenditures
Exceptional Maintenance & Improvement
From Fund Balance Reserve $87,000.00 $87,000.00
Contribution from City General Fund (001) $143,012.00 $143,012.00 TOTAL $230,012.00 $230,012.00
Property Owner Assessment
Owner's Annual Assessment $14,200.00 $14,200.00
Less Accrued Interest of Owner’s Fund
Balance [$6,871.00]

[$6,871.00]
TOTAL NET ASSESSMENT $7,329.00 $7,329.00
(Goes to Fund Balance Reserve)
And I do hereby assess and apportion the amount said costs and expenses, including the costs and expenses incidental thereto, upon the several lots or parcels of property liable therefor and benefited thereby, in proportion to the benefits to be received by such lots or parcels of property, from the maintenance and operation thereof and more particularly set forth in the list hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof.

Each lot or parcel of land is described in the assessment list by reference to its parcel number as shown on the assessor's maps of the County of Santa Clara for the Fiscal Year 2026/27 to the right of the parcel numbers and include all of such parcel.

Dated:_______________ ________________________________
Craig Mobeck, Director of Public Works
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2026/27
City of Santa Clara, California
Parking Maintenance District No. 122
Expenditures
As
Preliminarily
Approved
As Finally
Approved
Maintenance & Operation: $143,012.00 $143,012.00 Labor, materials, supplies, and equipment to maintain Parking
Maintenance District No. 122
including, but not limited to water,
sewer, and electrical costs,
sweeping of parking lots and mall
area, maintenance of pavement,
striping, landscaping, mall fountains,
City supervision (50% of labor and
fringe benefits of Street Maintenance
Worker I).

Exceptional Maintenance and
Improvements of Parking Lots
and Associated Walkways
$87,000.00 $87,000.00 LED upgrades to lighting within
parking lots and associated
walkways.

TOTAL COST $230,012.00 $230,012.00
Funding for FY 2026/27 Expenditure
Owner's Reserve for
Exceptional Maintenance &
Improvement Fund Balance:
[$87,000.00] [$87,000.00]
Contribution from City
General Fund (001): [$143,012.00] [$143,012.00]
Owner's Annual
Assessment $14,200.00 $14,200.00
Less Accrued Interest on
Owners' Fund Balance: [$6,871.00] [$6,871.00]
Total Net Assessment: $7,329.00 $7,329.00

ASSESSMENT
Fiscal Year 2026/27
City of Santa Clara, California
Parking Maintenance District No. 122
Name & Address of Owner
Assessor's
Parcel
Number
(2) As
Finally
Confirmed
(1) As
Preliminarily
Approved
Gross Floor
Area (sq. ft.)
% of Total
Floor Area
Green Valley Corporation
777 N. First Street, 5
th Floor
San Jose, CA 95112
269-22-111 $ 1,532.28 $ 1,532.28 13,305.22 20.907
Ramiro Hermosillo Trust
3121 Riddle Rd.

San Jose, CA 95117
269-22-110 $ 810.07 $ 810.07 7,034.13 11.053
John DeMartini Trustee & Et al.

P.O. Box 3460
Los Altos, CA 94024
269-22-108 $ 980.47 $ 980.47 8,513.76 13.378
David DeLozier Trustee
1162 Carmel Way
Santa Clara, CA 95050
269-22-098 $ 857.49 $ 857.49 7,445.88 11.700
Thomas Hui and Yifeng Teng Trustee Et al.
5719 Dimas Court
Pleasanton, CA 94566
269-22-103 $ 159.77 $ 159.77 1,387.35 2.180
Alice May-Wan Chan
20015 Bella Vista
Saratoga, CA 95070
269-22-102 $ 92.20 $ 92.20 800.59 1.258
Ross L. Peterson Et al.
822 Comstock Drive
Folsom, CA 95630
269-22-105 $ 230.79 $ 230.79 2,004.02 3.149

ASSESSMENT
Fiscal Year 2026/27
City of Santa Clara, California
Parking Maintenance District No. 122
Name & Address of Owner
Assessor's
Parcel
Number
(2) As Finally
Confirmed
(1) As
Preliminarily
Approved
Gross Floor
Area (sq. ft.)
% of Total
Floor Area
Robert Freitas Et al.
255 Washington Street
Milpitas, CA 95035
269-22-104 $ 191.73 $ 191.73 1,664.82 2.616
Gillmor Properties LLC
1201 Franklin Mall
Santa Clara, CA 95050
269-22-113 $ 247.80 $ 247.80 2,151.67 3.381
Mitchell-Ruffo LLC
16200 Greenwood Lane
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
269-22-106 $ 918.54 $ 918.54 7,976.00 12.533
Vitarelli Family LP
925 Circle Drive
Santa Clara, CA 95050
269-22-101 $ 253.95 $ 253.95 2,205.13 3.465
Vitarelli Family LP
925 Circle Drive
Santa Clara, CA 95050
269-22-100 $ 142.04 $ 142.04 1,233.34 1.938
Gillmor Properties LLC
1201 Franklin Mall
Santa Clara, CA 95050
269-22-115 $ 693.98 $ 693.98 6,026.07 9.469
Gillmor Properties LLC
1201 Franklin Mall
Santa Clara, CA 95050
269-22-114 $ 217.89 $ 217.89 1,892.02 2.973
TOTAL $ 7,329.00 $ 7,329.00 63,640.00 100%
I, the Assistant City Clerk of the City of Santa Clara, hereby certify that the foregoing assessment in the amounts set forth in Column (2) unless Column (2) is blank, in which event the amounts in Column (1) apply, was approved and confirmed by the City Council of said City on , 2026.
__
Nora Pimentel, MMC
Assistant City Clerk
City of Santa Clara
City of Santa Clara
Notice of Public Hearing Regarding the Levy of Benefit Assessment Applicable to the Santa Clara Parking Maintenance District No. 122, and Approval of Distribution of Director’s Report Fiscal Year 2026/27 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Director of Public Works has requested a report, in writing, to be prepared and filed with the City Clerk, which provides the basis for the levy of benefit assessments for the costs of maintenance and operation on all lots or parcels of property within said maintenance district. Said report sets forth the amounts to be provided in the budget for maintenance and operation; a description of each lot or parcel of property in the maintenance district, by a legal description, assessor's parcel number or other description sufficient to identify the same; and the amount of assessment to be levied for the fiscal year 2026/27 against each lot or parcel of property. Said report is open to public inspection.

Said report will be heard by the City Council at its regularly scheduled meeting to be held on Tuesday, June 9, 2026, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in chambers and virtually as the location, at which time said Council will examine said report and hear all persons interested therein. Any interested owner, objecting to the amount of the assessment on any lot or parcel of property owned by him, may file with the City Clerk at or before the hour fixed for hearing a protest, in writing, signed by him, describing the lot or parcel of property so that it may be identified, and stating the grounds of his/her protest, and may appear at said hearing and be heard in regard thereto.

The City of Santa Clara is conducting City Council meetings in a hybrid manner (in-person and continues to have methods for the public to participate remotely).
• Via Zoom:
o https://santaclaraca.zoom.us/j/99706759306
Meeting ID: 997-0675-9306
o Phone 1(669) 900-6833
How to Submit Written Public Comment Before City Council Meeting:

1. Use the eComment tab located on the City Council Agenda page https://santaclara.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx. eComments are directly sent to the iLegislate application used by City Council and staff and become part of the public record. eComment closes 15 minutes before the start of a meeting.

2. By email to [email protected] by 12 p.m. the day of the meeting. Those emails will be forwarded to the Council and will be uploaded to the City Council Agenda as supplemental meeting material. Emails received after the 12 p.m. cutoff time up through the end of the meeting will form part of the meeting record. Please identify the Agenda Item Number in the subject line of your email. NOTE: Please note eComments and Emails received as public comment will not be read aloud during the meeting.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): In accordance with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), the City of Santa Clara will not discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability in its services, programs, or activities, and will ensure that all existing facilities will be made accessible to the maximum extent feasible. The City of Santa Clara will generally, upon request, provide appropriate aids and services leading to effective communication for qualified persons with disabilities including those with speech, hearing, or vision impairments so they can participate equally in the City’s programs, services, and activities. The City of Santa Clara will make all reasonable modifications to policies and programs to ensure that people with disabilities have an equal opportunity to enjoy all of its programs, services, and activities.

Agendas and other written materials distributed during a public meeting that are public record will be made available by the City in an appropriate alternative format. Contact the City Clerk’s Office at 1-408-615-2220 with your request for an alternative format copy of the agenda or other written materials.

Individuals who require an auxiliary aid or service for effective communication, or any other disabilityrelated modification of policies or procedures, or other accommodation, in order to participate in a program, service, or activity of the City of Santa Clara, should contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at 408-615-3000 as soon as possible but no later than 48 hours before the scheduled event.

Please see the above-mentioned options citizens may participate in the upcoming hearing. Submit written and/or oral comments directly to the City Clerk, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California, 95050; telephone 408-615-2220.

Nora Pimentel, Assistant City Clerk
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-1672 Agenda Date: 1/25/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Update on Discussions with Parking Maintenance District No. 122 - Franklin Square (PMD 122) Property Owners Regarding Council’s Request to Explore Increased Contributions for Operations and Maintenance Costs

COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND
Parking Maintenance District No. 122 (PMD 122) was formed in 1965 for the parking lots, arcades, fountains, sidewalks, landscaping, irrigation, lights, and utilities within Franklin Square, which is bounded by Benton Street, Homestead Road (formerly known as Liberty Street), Monroe Street, and Jackson Street. There have been several changes in how maintenance and operations costs have been collected over the years and in 2002 the City Council passed a motion at a public hearing in which the City assumed all future costs for operation and maintenance and in May 2003 adopted Resolution 7026. Under the collection method contained in Resolution 7026, the property owners contribute annually to pay for capital repairs of the parking lot and associated walkways. The fixed annual contribution from the property owners totals $14,200, less the earned interest on the accumulating balance. The accumulated balance in the account is $144,887 as of October 2021.

The City, through the General Fund, is responsible for covering the costs for annual maintenance and operations of PMD 122 and that has continued to be the arrangement through the present day. In FY 2021/22, the City budgeted $138,163 to cover the day-to-day maintenance of PMD 122.

On several occasions Council has discussed the allocation of PMD 122 costs because the City pays for all of the day-to-day maintenance and there was sentiment by some members of the Council that the property owners should pay some of these costs, similar to how PMD 122 was funded prior to 2003. On May 4, 2021, Council directed staff to engage PMD 122 property owners and discuss opportunities for reallocating operations and maintenance costs more equitably between the City and property owners since costs have increased since 2003. Later in this report, the State law process for administering PMD 122 is provided but, in short, any change requires a favorable voter outcome of those impacted by the assessment. It should be noted that regardless of changes to the funding allocations in the PMD, the City is responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the City-owned improvements at Franklin Square. Absent changes to the funding allocations, only changes to the level of service of upkeep and maintenance could reduce the City’s share of the annual maintenance cost.

DISCUSSION
Staff developed a plan to implement this request which included property owner coordination and City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 4 Printed on 6/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-1672 Agenda Date: 1/25/2022
engagement, a survey, and follow up with Council.

Property Owner Engagement July 2021
All PMD 122 property owners were contacted and invited to a virtual meeting on July 12, 2021. At this meeting, staff summarized the background of the past and current PMD 122 cost sharing arrangements and the direction from the Council to engage property owners to see if they are amenable to paying a portion of the operations and maintenance costs which have risen over the last 19 years. The property owners conveyed some of their concerns about PMD 122 and were encouraged to propose funding alternatives for consideration and ask questions. A copy of the minutes from the July 12 meeting was distributed to all the property owners following the meeting and can be viewed in Attachment 1.

Survey
Following the meeting, staff developed a series of survey questions designed to gauge property owners’ amenability to contributing to the annual maintenance. In general, the purpose of the survey was to gauge the property owners’ willingness to shift a portion of the PMD 122 operations and maintenance costs to the property owners. A virtual meeting was scheduled for October 21, 2021 to review the draft survey questions with the property owners to ensure that everyone understood the questions and to receive suggestions prior to finalizing the survey and sending it out. Prior to the meeting, the City was contacted by David DeLozier who indicated that the property owners had been discussing this item and were not in support of changing the current cost allocations included in PMD 122. Mr. DeLozier indicated that the property owners would be submitting a petition that would also include the merchants.

Property Owner and Merchant Petition
The property owners and merchants circulated a petition for no changes to PMD 122, which was signed by all the property owners and most of the merchants. The signed petition (Attachment 2) was submitted to staff on October 19, 2021 which made it clear that a survey was not necessary to gauge PMD property owners’ interest in financially contributing to operations and maintenance.

Property Owner Engagement October 2021
All PMD 122 property owners were contacted and invited to a virtual meeting on October 21, 2021.

The initial purpose of the meeting was to review proposed survey questions developed by staff to ensure that the property owners understood the questions and to get their input to see if any of the language needed to be modified to make the questions more clear. At the end of the meeting it was determined that due to the petition from the property owners, there was no need to proceed with the survey. Staff discussed next steps with the property owners in attendance and indicated a report would be prepared for Council at a meeting to take place in early 2022. A copy of the minutes from the October 21 meeting can be viewed in Attachment 3.

During prior meetings, Council had raised questions about the procedures for modifying and dissolving PMD 122. Staff has included the information on both of those processes below.

Process for Modifications to PMD 122
Any decision by the Council to increase the assessment (e.g., to increase the property owners’ share of operation, maintenance, and capital costs or to modify the formula used to calculate the amount of the assessment levied on any individual parcel) must follow the assessment balloting procedure required by Proposition 218. That procedure consists of three basic steps:

City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 4 Printed on 6/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-1672 Agenda Date: 1/25/2022
(1) Notice to Property Owners - Mailed notice of the proposed modification to the 11 property owners within PMD 122. The notice must contain the following information: the total amount to be assessed across PMD 122; the amount chargeable to each parcel individually; the duration of the payments; the basis upon which the assessment was calculated; the date, time, and location of the public hearing on the proposed modification; and a ballot on which the owner can indicate support for or opposition to the proposed modification. (2) Public Hearing - At least 45 days after the date of the mailed notice, the Council must hold a public hearing to consider protests and tabulate the ballots on the proposed assessment. (3) Ballot Tabulation - Ballots are weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property. For PMD 122, the assessments are calculated based on the gross floor area of the building(s) on each parcel and therefore the ballots would be weighted accordingly.

If the ballots submitted in opposition exceed the ballots submitted in support, then the City may not impose the modified assessment.

Process for Dissolving PMD 122
Proposition 218 does not govern the dissolution of PMD 122 because dissolution has the effect of eliminating, rather than increasing, the assessment. Therefore, only the City Code and Streets and Highways Code would apply. Under those laws, dissolution is not subject to the approval of property owners within the district. The Council can dissolve the maintenance district by: (1) adopting a resolution of intention to dissolve the district; (2) between 10 and 30 days later, conducting a public hearing on the dissolution; and, (3) adopting a resolution dissolving the district. A resolution dissolving the district would only need a simple Council majority to pass. If Council votes to dissolve PMD 122, extraordinary maintenance activities can continue to utilize PMD 122 assessment funds until the balance is exhausted. After the funds are exhausted the City would be required to fund the extraordinary maintenance in its entirety.

Staff notes that as a practical matter, dissolution would merely eliminate the property owners’ assessments as a funding source for capital improvement costs. Dissolution would not relieve the City’s responsibility for upkeep and maintenance of the City-owned improvements at the Franklin Square Mall. As such, the Council direction to determine how property owners pay more for services offered through PMD 122 would not be achieved.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(a) as it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 4 Printed on 6/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-1672 Agenda Date: 1/25/2022
and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>.

RECOMMENDATION
Note and file this informational report.

Reviewed by: Craig Mobeck, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Deanna J. Santana, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. July 12, 2021 minutes from meeting with PMD 122 property owners

2. Signed petition

3. October 21, 2021 minutes for meeting with PMD 122 property owners City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 4 Printed on 6/8/2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-713 Agenda Date: 6/21/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Informational Report Regarding Council’s Request to Explore Alternatives to Fund Operations and Maintenance Costs for Parking Maintenance District No. 122 - Franklin Square

COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND
Parking Maintenance District No. 122 (PMD 122) was formed in 1965 for the parking lots, arcades, fountains, sidewalks, landscaping, irrigation, lights, and utilities within Franklin Square, which is bounded by Benton Street, Homestead Road (formerly known as Liberty Street), Monroe Street, and Jackson Street. There have been several changes in how maintenance and operations costs have been collected over the years and in 2002 the City Council passed a motion at a public hearing in which the City assumed all future costs for operation and maintenance and in May 2003 adopted Resolution 7026. Under the collection method contained in Resolution 7026, the property owners contribute annually to pay for capital repairs of the parking lot and associated walkways. The fixed annual contribution from the property owners totals $14,200, less the earned interest on the accumulating balance. As of December 31, 2021, the interest-bearing account contained $145,305.

The City, through the General Fund, is responsible for covering the costs for annual maintenance and operations of PMD 122 and that has continued to be the arrangement through the present day. In FY 2022/23, the City proposed a budget of $137,521 to cover the day-to-day maintenance of PMD 122.

On several occasions Council has discussed the allocation of PMD 122 costs because the City pays for all of the day-to-day maintenance and there was sentiment by some members of the Council that the property owners should pay some of these costs, similar to how PMD 122 was funded prior to 2003. On May 4, 2021, Council directed staff to engage PMD 122 property owners and discuss opportunities for reallocating operations and maintenance costs more equitably between the City and property owners since costs have increased since 2003. Staff completed that request and on January 25, 2022, a summary report was provided to Council, (RTC 22-1672, Attachment 1), explaining that the property owners were not in favor of changing the cost allocations of PMD 122.

DISCUSSION
At the Council Meeting on April 19, 2022, there was additional discussion on the topic of increasing PMD 122 costs, so the property owners contribute towards the annual operation and maintenance costs of Franklin Square. Council requested that staff explore alternative funding mechanisms that may assist the City in recovering money for annual maintenance and operations and return to Council with that information. As discussed in the background section staff already spent time working with the property owners over the course of several months. There are no additional options City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 3 Printed on 1/30/2023
powered by Legistar™
22-713 Agenda Date: 6/21/2022
to increase contributions since the property owners already expressed to the City that they are not interested in an increase, and increases cannot be assessed unless the property owners agree by ballot. One other option that came up during the April 19, 2022 Council meeting involved the concept of implementing paid parking at Franklin Square.

Currently, the City of Santa Clara does not operate paid parking areas and any consideration of changing to paid parking at Franklin Square would require a study that includes items such as:
· Evaluating on street parking and parking lots that are part of Franklin Square · Obtaining parking counts
· Conducting outreach events with business owners, tenants, adjacent neighborhoods and public
· Evaluating different paid parking strategies and cost ranges · Analyzing options for designing, installing, and maintaining paid parking equipment · Reviewing enforcement strategies and potential costs
· Preparing a financial analysis of improvement costs, maintenance costs, paid parking revenues and potential profits
· Assessing potential impacts to on street parking in adjacent neighborhoods Staff estimates a study like the effort described above could cost up to $150,000 and could take approximately 18 months to complete. The funding source for this effort would be the General Fund so if there is a Council desire to move forward with this type of study then it should be discussed and prioritized during the City’s Priority Setting Session.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(a) as it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION
Note and file this informational report.

City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 3 Printed on 1/30/2023
powered by Legistar™
22-713 Agenda Date: 6/21/2022
Reviewed by: Craig Mobeck, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Agenda Report 22-1672 from January 25, 2022
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 3 Printed on 1/30/2023
powered by Legistar™
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
26-166 Agenda Date: 6/9/2026

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Public Hearing: Action on a Resolution Approving the Levy of Benefit Assessment Upon Maintenance District No. 183 - Santa Clara Convention Center Complex

BACKGROUND
The original lease agreements between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Clara, Santa Clara Convention Hotel Limited Partnership (Hotel) and SCCC Associates II (Techmart) provided for the formation of Maintenance District No. 183 (MD 183) - the Santa Clara Convention Center Complex. These agreements also served to apportion the funds necessary to maintain and operate the common improvements serving the Convention Center, Hotel, and Techmart. Hudson Techmart Commerce Center LLC currently owns Techmart, Hyatt Regency Santa Clara is the current Hotel owner, and the Convention Center building is owned by the City of Santa Clara. Each of these three parties is responsible for a share of the maintenance assessment, which is set by the annual budget.

In June 1986, Council Adopted Resolution 5081 that formed MD 183 and established the mechanism for funding maintenance and operations on an annual basis. There are three components of this annual funding. The first component is the overall cost of maintaining and operating the general infrastructure consisting of things such as pavement, sidewalks, walkways, covered walkways, signs, landscaping, etc. In addition to the cost of maintaining and operating the common areas, the proposed total cost includes expenses relating to the City's cost to administer MD 183, insurance, and utilities. The cost for these items is split by 39.64 percent to the City of Santa Clara (City), 22.94 percent to the Hyatt Regency Hotel (Hyatt), and 37.42 percent to Hudson Techmart Commerce Center LLC (Techmart). The second component includes the cost of maintaining and operating permanent parking controls such as fixed signage, electronic signage, and other parking-related equipment. The costs for these items are allocated 30.04 percent to the City, 22.12 percent to the Hyatt, and 47.84 percent to Techmart. The third and final component includes the costs for maintaining and operating temporary parking controls such as moveable barriers, temporary parking attendants and guards, adjustable gates, and signage. The costs for these items are allocated by

78.72 percent to the City, 10.64 percent to the Hyatt, and 10.64 percent to Techmart.

A Director’s Report for each maintenance district is required to be prepared each fiscal year by the Director of Public Works, setting forth the budget for the ensuing year, the formula for the annual assessment levy, and a description of each property, including the amount of assessment to be levied against each lot. A copy of the Director’s Report for the District for FY 2026/27 has been prepared and is attached (Attachment 1). This Report has also been filed with the City Clerk.

Proposition 218, passed by the voters of California in November 1996, made significant changes to the method and manner of approving assessments for maintenance districts. Proposition 218 requires that written ballots be sent and returned if there are proposed increases greater than any City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 3 Printed on 6/5/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-166 Agenda Date: 6/9/2026
previously approved assessments. A written majority of ballots need to be received to approve any proposed annual increase. Copies of the Director’s Report were mailed to each of the owners in Maintenance District No. 183 apprising them of the proposed formula, including the amount of the individual assessment. Staff notified property owners and any interested tenants about scheduled meetings on March 3, 2026 and April 7, 2026 to discuss the Director’s Report and the assessment district procedures.

DISCUSSION
On April 21, 2026, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention (Resolution No. 26-9548, Attachment 2) related to the proposed FY 2026/27 special benefit assessments for MD 183, which is bounded by Tasman Drive, Great America Parkway, and San Tomas Aquino Creek. In addition, the Resolution of Intention established June 9, 2026 as the date that City Council would hear testimony and act upon the attached report prepared by the Director of Public Works.

Per Proposition 218 requirements, since the proposed FY 2026/27 operational and maintenance costs of $2,543,225 are approximately $550,000 more than the greatest previously approved assessments, a weighted majority of ballots of the voting members of MD 183 in favor of the increase must be received for the increase to be approved. This increase is due to fund Phase 1 of the 3rd level of the Garage coating maintenance project.

Ballots for the proposed assessment increase were sent via email to the voting members on April 7, 2026. Each ballot required the voting member to indicate whether they approved or disapproved the proposed budgetary increase. The results of the vote will be reported at the conclusion of the public hearing. If a majority of voting members approve the assessment, the Council may proceed with deliberation and action on the proposed assessment.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) in that it is a fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potential significant impact on the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
The total expenditure budget in the Proposed FY 2026/27 Operating Budget for the Convention Center Maintenance District Fund is $2,543,225. The budget of $2,543,225 reflects an increase of $550,000 over last year’s budget for a specific coating project, vendor increases, and ongoing deferred maintenance repairs.

The proposed assessments by property owner are as follows: $1,163,014 from the City of Santa Clara (Santa Clara Convention Center); $534,093 from the Hyatt Regency Hotel; and $846,118 from the Hudson Techmart Commerce Center. The funds to pay for the proposed assessment for the City’s portion (formerly that of the Redevelopment Agency) are budgeted as a transfer from the General Fund.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Finance Department and City Attorney’s Office.

City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 3 Printed on 6/5/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-166 Agenda Date: 6/9/2026

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected].

Copies of the Director’s Report were mailed to each of the owners in Maintenance District No. 183 apprising them of the proposed formula, including the amount of the individual assessment. Staff notified property owners and any interested tenants about scheduled meetings on March 3, 2026 and April 7, 2026, to discuss the Director’s Report and the assessment district procedures.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Declare that all the ballots sent to property owners within Maintenance District No. 183 have been received and counted in accordance with Proposition 218, and declare the results of the election; and

2. If a majority of property owners have approved the proposed levy of benefit assessment, adopt a resolution approving the levy of benefit assessment upon the Santa Clara Convention Center Complex - Maintenance District No. 183, and approving, confirming, and adopting the Director’s Report for FY 2026/27.

Reviewed by: Craig Mobeck, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Director’s Report FY 2026-27

2. Resolution of Intention 26-9548

3. Notice of Public Hearing

4. Resolution
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 3 Printed on 6/5/2026
powered by Legistar™

DIRECTOR’S REPORT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SANTA CLARA CONVENTION CENTER COMPLEX
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 183
FISCAL YEAR 2026/2027
4/21/26
COUNCIL APPROVED: (proposed June 9, 2026)
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
2 SANTA CLARA CONVENTION CENTER COMPLEX
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 183
City of Santa Clara, California
SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT for Fiscal Year 2026/2027

DIRECTOR'S REPORT
The Director of Public Works/City Engineer of the City of Santa Clara, California, pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.10.490 of the Code of the City of Santa Clara, hereby makes this report and the following special benefit assessment to cover the costs and expenses of maintaining and operating the improvements within Santa Clara Convention Center Complex Maintenance District No. 183 of said City, including the costs and expenses incidental thereto, to be paid by said Maintenance District.

The amount to be paid therefore by said Maintenance District for the Fiscal Year 2026-27 is as follows:

As Finally Confirmed
Maintenance and Operations $2,128,225
Permanent Parking Controls $15,000
Reserve for Dynamic Parking Controls $400,000
Exceptional Improvements $0

Funds Advanced by and to be Repaid to City $0
TOTAL COST $2,543,225
Less Amount of Surplus From Prior Years:

Convention Center $0
Hyatt Corporation - A Delaware Limited Liability Corporation $0 Hudson Techmart Commerce Center L.L.C $0
Amount of Reserves: $0
Amount of Contribution: $0

BALANCE OF ASSESSMENT $2,543,225
And I do thereby assess and apportion the amount of said costs and expenses, including the costs and expenses incidental thereto, upon the several lots or parcels of property liable therefore and specially benefited thereby, in proportion to the benefits to be received by each lot or parcel of property, from the maintenance and operation thereof and more particularly set forth in the list hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof.

Each lot or parcel of land is described in the assessment list by reference to its parcel number as shown on the assessor's maps of the County of Santa Clara for Effective Roll Year 2026-27 to the right of the parcel numbers and include all of such parcel.

I hereby certify to the best of my professional knowledge and experience that each of the identified benefiting properties located within the District receives a special benefit over and above the benefits conferred to the public at large and that the amount of the assessment is proportional to the benefits specially received or enjoyed by each parcel or property within the District.

Date: ___________________________ _____________________________________________ Director of Public Works
City of Santa Clara
3 SANTA CLARA CONVENTION CENTER COMPLEX
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 183
City of Santa Clara, California
SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT for Fiscal Year 2026-27

DIRECTOR'S REPORT
TABLE 1. BUDGET
Category Estimated
Cost Description Of Category
Maintenance and
Operation
$2,128,225 Labor, materials, supplies and equipment to maintain and operate Maintenance District No. 183 including,
but not limited to water, sewer, electrical and other
utility costs, sweeping of parking lots, maintenance of pavement and sidewalks, pavement striping, signs,
fountains, landscaping, storm drains, lighting, space
frames, parking structure, bridges, other common
improvements, City supervision and management of
maintenance district, insurance, contingencies, and
incidental expenses.

Permanent Parking
Controls
$15,000 Labor, materials, supplies and equipment to maintain and operate fixed directional signs, electronic signs,
automatic vehicle counting devices, cashiering
stations, ticket printer, dispensers, card readers, cashier booths, including regularly scheduled parking
attendants and guards.

Dynamic Parking
Controls
$400,000 Labor, materials, supplies and equipment to maintain and operate movable barriers and barrier placement,
special parking attendants and guards, implementation
of adjustable gates, special directional signs, and
implementation of electronic signs.

Exceptional
Improvements
$0 Special improvement project benefiting special parcel.

Funds Advanced by
and to be Repaid to
City
$0 For deficits which occurred in prior years
TOTAL COST $2,543,225
Less Amount of Surplus From Prior Years:

City of Santa Clara $0
Hyatt Regency Hotel Santa Clara $0
Hudson Techmart Commerce Center L.L.C $0
Amount of Reserves: $0
Amount of Contribution: $0
BALANCE OF ASSESSMENT $2,543,225
4 SANTA CLARA CONVENTION CENTER COMPLEX
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 183
City of Santa Clara, California
SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT for Fiscal Year 2026-27

DIRECTOR'S REPORT
TABLE 2. PROPERTY OWNERS TO BE ASSESSED
Name & Address of Owner
Assessor's
Parcel
Number
As
Preliminarily
Approved
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Santa Clara Convention Center (Convention
Center)
104-55-017 $1,163,014
Hyatt Corporation as agent of IA Lodging Santa
Clara TRS, L.L.C dba Hyatt Regency Santa Clara
Erin Henry – General Manager
5101 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, CA 95054
(Hotel)
104-55-005
104-55-012
$534,093
Hudson Techmart Commerce Center L.L.C
Rebecca Agbuya, Senior Director
2055 Gateway Place, Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95110
(Techmart)
104-55-013 $846,118
TOTAL $2,543,225
Also Send Copy of Director’s Report To:

Hyatt Regency Santa Clara
Erin Henry – General Manager
5101 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Hudson Techmart Commerce Center L.L.C
Rebecca Agbuya, Senior Director
2055 Gateway Place, Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95110
5 SANTA CLARA CONVENTION CENTER COMPLEX
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 183
City of Santa Clara, California
SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT for Fiscal Year 2026-2027

DIRECTOR'S REPORT
TABLE 3. BUDGET/ASSESSMENT COMPARISON
Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Budget for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Total
Assessment
Reduced by
Proportion
From Prior
Year’s Surplus
Net Assessment Total
Assessment
Reduced by
Proportion
From Prior
Year’s Surplus
Net Assessment
City of Santa Clara
(Convention Center)
$940,109 $0 $940,109 $1,163,014 $0 $1,163,014
Hyatt Regency Hotel
Santa Clara
$409,460 $0 $409,460 $534,093 $0 $534,093
Hudson Techmart Commerce
Center L.L.C
$643,656 $0 $643,656 $846,118 $0 $846,118
TOTAL $1,993,225 $0 $1,993,225 $2,543,225 $0 $2,543,225 6 SANTA CLARA CONVENTION CENTER COMPLEX
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 183
City of Santa Clara, California
SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT for Fiscal Year 2026-2027

DIRECTOR'S REPORT
TABLE 4. FORMULA FOR ASSESSMENT LEVY
Category Estimated
Expenditure
City of Santa Clara
(Conv. Center)
Hyatt Regency
Hotel Santa Clara
Hudson Techmart
Commerce Center

39.64% 22.94% 37.42%
I. Maintenance and Operations $2,128,225 $843,628 $488,215 $796,382

30.04% 22.12% 47.84%
II. Permanent Parking Controls $15,000 $4,506 $3,318 $7,176

78.72% 10.64% 10.64%
III. Dynamic Parking Controls $400,000 $314,880 $42,560 $42,560 IV. Exceptional Improvements $0 $0 $0 $0
V. Funds Advanced by/to be Repaid to City $0 $0 $0 $0
VI. Surplus Funds from Prior Year $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL ASSESSMENT $2,543,225 $1,163,014 $543,093 $846,118 4I:\MD #183 Convention Center\Assessments\2026April\MD#183 Director's Report 26-27Apr.doc Resolution of Intention for MD No. 183 for FY 2026-27 and Set Public Hearing for June 9, 2026 Page 1 of 5 Rev: 7/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 26-9548

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,

OF INTENTION TO ORDER THAT THE ALTERNATIVE METHOD

FOR THE LEVY OF BENEFIT ASSESSMENT BE MADE

APPLICABLE TO CITY OF SANTA CLARA CONVENTION
CENTER COMPLEX MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 183,

PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF HEARING THEREON,
APPROVING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE DIRECTOR’S

REPORT, AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF HEARING ON
DIRECTOR’S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 16.10 of "The Code of the City of Santa Clara, California” ("City Code"), the City Council of the City of Santa Clara, California ("Council") adopted Resolution No. 5081 on June 3, 1986, creating "City of Santa Clara Convention Center Complex Maintenance District No. 183" ("District") in the City of Santa Clara, California ("City").

Resolution No. 5081 also ordered that the costs and expenses of maintaining and operating the on-site public improvements ("Public Improvements") on the property within the District, including the cost of necessary repairs, replacements, fuel, power, electrical current, care, supervision and any and all other items necessary for the proper maintenance and operation of the Public Improvements be raised by the levy of an annual special benefit assessment apportioned according to special benefits conferred among the parcels of property within the District in accordance with a formula set forth in Resolution No. 5081, and in accordance with and pursuant to the provisions for the alternative method for the levy of benefit assessments in maintenance districts in the City as provided in the City Code; WHEREAS, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 1401 on April 8, 1980, which provided for an alternative method for annually fixing and levying a special benefit assessment within maintenance districts located in the City for said purpose; WHEREAS, in the opinion of this Council, the annual costs of maintenance and operation of the Public Improvements shall be appropriately financed pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance No. 1401 and Resolution No. 5081 and related provisions of the City Code; //
Resolution of Intention for MD No. 183 for FY 2026-27 and Set Public Hearing for June 9, 2026 Page 2 of 5 Rev: 7/27/2023
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Resolution No. 5081, the City's Director of Public Works has made and filed with the City Clerk a written report ("Director’s Report") setting forth the budget, the formula for the annual assessment levy, a description of each lot or parcel of property to be assessed and the amount of the assessment to be levied against each lot or parcel of property in accordance with said formula for Fiscal Year 2026-27. The costs of operation, maintenance, and servicing of improvements to be funded by the District are apportioned to each parcel in proportion to the special benefit it receives; WHEREAS, City Staff met with the affected property owners on March 3 and April 7, 2026 to discuss the Director’s Report;
WHEREAS, Articles XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution (Proposition 218) requires majority approval of the property owners within the District for any increase in the rate used to calculate the assessment or changes in the methodology by which the assessment is calculated, if that change increases the amount of the assessment imposed on any person or parcel;
WHEREAS, the Director’s Report, Ballot, and public hearing notice are to be sent out at least 45 days in advance of the public hearing to all property owners, and any tenants within the District who are responsible for paying each assessment;
WHEREAS, in the event of an assessment that is greater than any previous assessment, a majority weighted vote of the Ballots (weighting determined by an amount of assessment paid), must be received in order to approve any proposed increase in assessment; WHEREAS, for Fiscal Year 2026-27, the assessments are increasing and therefore, Proposition 218 requirements do apply; and
WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered the Director’s Report and finds that it is sufficient and does not require modification.
//
//
Resolution of Intention for MD No. 183 for FY 2026-27 and Set Public Hearing for June 9, 2026 Page 3 of 5 Rev: 7/27/2023
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the recitals set forth above are true and correct and by this reference, the Council makes them a part hereof.

2. That the public interest and convenience require and this Council hereby orders that the costs and expenses of acquiring, constructing, reconstructing, installing, extending, enlarging, repairing, improving, maintaining and operating the Public Improvements now existing or hereafter to be constructed in and for the District which benefit the District as a whole, including the cost of necessary repairs, replacements, water, fuel, power, gas, electric current, care, supervision and any and all other items necessary for the proper maintenance and operation thereof, and of all additions, improvements and enlargements thereto which may hereafter be made, be raised by an annual special benefit assessment in accordance with and pursuant to the provisions for the alternative method for the levy of benefit assessments in maintenance districts in the City, as provided in Section 16.10.490 and Section 16.10.500 of the City Code, on all lots or parcels of property within the District.

3. That the costs and expenses of maintaining and operating the Public Improvements within the District shall annually be assessed, either partly or wholly, upon the benefited lots and parcels of property within the District by apportioning the costs and expenses according to benefits in proportion to the special benefits received by each lot or parcel of property within the District in accordance with the formula set forth in EXHIBIT "B" of Resolution No. 5081.

4. That the City Manager caused a budget to be prepared for the costs of the expenses of maintaining and operating the Public Improvements during fiscal year 2026-27 and the Director of Public Works prepared and filed a Director’s Report with the City Clerk which provides the basis for the levy of benefit assessments for the cost of maintenance and operation on all lots or parcels of property within the District.
//
//
Resolution of Intention for MD No. 183 for FY 2026-27 and Set Public Hearing for June 9, 2026 Page 4 of 5 Rev: 7/27/2023

5. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, June 9, 2026 at 7:00 p.m., at its regular meeting place in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California, the Council will hold a public hearing during which it will hear any and all evidence and protests relating to said alternative method for the levy of benefit assessments and said formula for the District, and if the assessment is greater than any previous assessment, certify any ballots received and determine any weighted vote necessary, examine said Director’s Report and hear all persons interested therein. Any interested property owner, who objects to the alternative method for the levy of benefit assessments, the formula, or to the amount of the assessment on any lot or parcel of property owned by him/her, may file a signed written protest with the City Clerk before the commencement of the Council meeting during which the public hearing will be held, describing the lot or parcel of property owned by him/her so that it may be identified and stating the grounds of his/her protest. The property owner may appear at the hearing and be heard with regard to his/her protest.

6. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to a) post a copy of notice of hearing on or near the Council Chamber door or any bulletin board in or adjacent to the City Hall and b) publish a copy of notice of hearing at least once in a newspaper of general circulation, pursuant to City Code Section 16.10.490(p).

7. The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of said hearing by mailing a copy of this Resolution of Intention and Director's Report, postage prepaid to record owners of any lot or parcel of property subject to a benefit assessment to pay said costs of maintenance and operation, as determined by the last assessment roll. This Resolution will be available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office; and said mailing shall be done at least forty-five (45) days, and posting and publication shall be completed not less than ten (10) days, prior to the date fixed (June 9, 2026) for the hearing. //
//

8. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 21sr DAY OF APRIL, 2026, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

Attachments incorporated by reference:

1. Director's Report FY 2026/27
Cox, Gonzalez, Hardy, Jain, and Park, and Mayor
Gillmor
None
Chahal
None
~/-4/J
ATTEST:~ ""' N'"""o ..... RA_..P .... 1=M'--"E-=-N-T~E"-' L=-t:;,--t--- -- AssIsTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Resolution of Intention for MD No. 183 for FY 2026-27 and Set Public Hearing for June 9, 2026 Rev: 7/27/2023

DIRECTOR’S REPORT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SANTA CLARA CONVENTION CENTER COMPLEX
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 183
FISCAL YEAR 2026/2027
4/21/26
COUNCIL APPROVED: (proposed June 9, 2026)
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
2 SANTA CLARA CONVENTION CENTER COMPLEX
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 183
City of Santa Clara, California
SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT for Fiscal Year 2026/2027

DIRECTOR'S REPORT
The Director of Public Works/City Engineer of the City of Santa Clara, California, pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.10.490 of the Code of the City of Santa Clara, hereby makes this report and the following special benefit assessment to cover the costs and expenses of maintaining and operating the improvements within Santa Clara Convention Center Complex Maintenance District No. 183 of said City, including the costs and expenses incidental thereto, to be paid by said Maintenance District.

The amount to be paid therefore by said Maintenance District for the Fiscal Year 2026-27 is as follows:

As Finally Confirmed
Maintenance and Operations $2,128,225
Permanent Parking Controls $15,000
Reserve for Dynamic Parking Controls $400,000
Exceptional Improvements $0
Funds Advanced by and to be Repaid to City $0
TOTAL COST $2,543,225
Less Amount of Surplus From Prior Years:

Convention Center $0
Hyatt Corporation - A Delaware Limited Liability Corporation $0 Hudson Techmart Commerce Center L.L.C $0
Amount of Reserves: $0
Amount of Contribution: $0 BALANCE OF ASSESSMENT $2,543,225 And I do thereby assess and apportion the amount of said costs and expenses, including the costs and expenses incidental thereto, upon the several lots or parcels of property liable therefore and specially benefited thereby, in proportion to the benefits to be received by each lot or parcel of property, from the maintenance and operation thereof and more particularly set forth in the list hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof.

Each lot or parcel of land is described in the assessment list by reference to its parcel number as shown on the assessor's maps of the County of Santa Clara for Effective Roll Year 2026-27 to the right of the parcel numbers and include all of such parcel.

I hereby certify to the best of my professional knowledge and experience that each of the identified benefiting properties located within the District receives a special benefit over and above the benefits conferred to the public at large and that the amount of the assessment is proportional to the benefits specially received or enjoyed by each parcel or property within the District.

Date: ___________________________ _____________________________________________ Director of Public Works City of Santa Clara
3 SANTA CLARA CONVENTION CENTER COMPLEX
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 183
City of Santa Clara, California
SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT for Fiscal Year 2026-27

DIRECTOR'S REPORT
TABLE 1. BUDGET
Category Estimated
Cost Description Of Category
Maintenance and
Operation
$2,128,225 Labor, materials, supplies and equipment to maintain and operate Maintenance District No. 183 including,
but not limited to water, sewer, electrical and other
utility costs, sweeping of parking lots, maintenance of pavement and sidewalks, pavement striping, signs,
fountains, landscaping, storm drains, lighting, space
frames, parking structure, bridges, other common
improvements, City supervision and management of
maintenance district, insurance, contingencies, and
incidental expenses.

Permanent Parking
Controls
$15,000 Labor, materials, supplies and equipment to maintain and operate fixed directional signs, electronic signs,
automatic vehicle counting devices, cashiering
stations, ticket printer, dispensers, card readers, cashier booths, including regularly scheduled parking
attendants and guards.

Dynamic Parking
Controls
$400,000 Labor, materials, supplies and equipment to maintain and operate movable barriers and barrier placement,
special parking attendants and guards, implementation
of adjustable gates, special directional signs, and
implementation of electronic signs.

Exceptional
Improvements
$0 Special improvement project benefiting special parcel.

Funds Advanced by
and to be Repaid to
City
$0 For deficits which occurred in prior years
TOTAL COST 0B$2,543,225
Less Amount of Surplus From Prior Years:

City of Santa Clara $0
Hyatt Regency Hotel Santa Clara $0
Hudson Techmart Commerce Center L.L.C $0
Amount of Reserves: $0
Amount of Contribution: $0
BALANCE OF ASSESSMENT 1B$2,543,225
4 SANTA CLARA CONVENTION CENTER COMPLEX
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 183
City of Santa Clara, California
SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT for Fiscal Year 2026-27

DIRECTOR'S REPORT
TABLE 2. PROPERTY OWNERS TO BE ASSESSED
Name & Address of Owner
Assessor's
Parcel
Number
As
Preliminarily
Approved
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Santa Clara Convention Center (Convention
Center)
104-55-017 $1,163,014
Hyatt Corporation as agent of IA Lodging Santa
Clara TRS, L.L.C dba Hyatt Regency Santa Clara
Erin Henry – General Manager
5101 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, CA 95054
(Hotel)
104-55-005
104-55-012
$534,093
Hudson Techmart Commerce Center L.L.C
Rebecca Agbuya, Senior Director
2055 Gateway Place, Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95110
(Techmart)
104-55-013 $846,118
TOTAL $2,543,225
Also Send Copy of Director’s Report To:

Hyatt Regency Santa Clara
Erin Henry – General Manager
5101 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Hudson Techmart Commerce Center L.L.C
Rebecca Agbuya, Senior Director
2055 Gateway Place, Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95110
5 SANTA CLARA CONVENTION CENTER COMPLEX
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 183
City of Santa Clara, California
SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT for Fiscal Year 2026-2027

DIRECTOR'S REPORT
TABLE 3. BUDGET/ASSESSMENT COMPARISON
Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Budget for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Total
Assessment
Reduced by
Proportion
From Prior
Year’s Surplus
Net Assessment Total
Assessment
Reduced by
Proportion
From Prior
Year’s Surplus
Net Assessment
City of Santa Clara
(Convention Center)
$940,109 $0 $940,109 $1,163,014 $0 $1,163,014
Hyatt Regency Hotel
Santa Clara
$409,460 $0 $409,460 $534,093 $0 $534,093
Hudson Techmart Commerce
Center L.L.C
$643,656 $0 $643,656 $846,118 $0 $846,118
TOTAL $1,993,225 $0 $1,993,225 $2,543,225 $0 $2,543,225 6 SANTA CLARA CONVENTION CENTER COMPLEX
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 183
City of Santa Clara, California
SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT for Fiscal Year 2026-2027

DIRECTOR'S REPORT
TABLE 4. FORMULA FOR ASSESSMENT LEVY
Category Estimated
Expenditure
City of Santa Clara
(Conv. Center)
Hyatt Regency
Hotel Santa Clara
Hudson Techmart
Commerce Center

39.64% 22.94% 37.42%
I. Maintenance and Operations $2,128,225 $843,628 $488,215 $796,382

30.04% 22.12% 47.84%
II. Permanent Parking Controls $15,000 $4,506 $3,318 $7,176

78.72% 10.64% 10.64%
III. Dynamic Parking Controls $400,000 $314,880 $42,560 $42,560 IV. Exceptional Improvements $0 $0 $0 $0
V. Funds Advanced by/to be Repaid to City $0 $0 $0 $0
VI. Surplus Funds from Prior Year $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL ASSESSMENT 2B$2,543,225 $1,163,014 $543,093 $846,118 4I:\MD #183 Convention Center\Assessments\2026April\MD#183 Director's Report 26-27Apr.doc Notice of Public Hearing #183 2026.doc
City of Santa Clara
Notice of Public Hearing Regarding the Levy of Benefit Assessments Applicable to the Santa Clara Convention Center Maintenance District No. 183, and Approval of Distribution of Director's Report Fiscal Year 2026-27
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Santa Clara has determined and fixed its regularly scheduled meeting of June 9, 2026 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in chambers and virtually as the location, date and time to conduct a public hearing to consider the passage of a resolution as follows: "a Resolution of the City of Santa Clara, California, approving the levy of benefit assessment upon the Santa Clara Convention Center Complex Maintenance District No. 183, and approving, confirming and adopting Director’s Report for Fiscal Year 2026-2027.”
The purpose of the public hearing is to provide City staff with an opportunity to present the City Council and the public with information concerning the proposed assessments ($1,380,211 total) to the property operators, to pay towards maintenance repairs of the Santa Clara Convention Maintenance District No. 183 and the proposed determination of the City to pay all of the remaining costs ($1,163,014) for routine maintenance and operation of the property and improvements of the Santa Clara Maintenance District No. 183. A total of 3 operators pay for the assessments. The public may submit written comments prior to, or make oral presentations, at the public meeting.

The City of Santa Clara is conducting City Council meetings in a hybrid manner (in-person and continues to have methods for the public to participate remotely).
• Via Zoom:
o https://santaclaraca.zoom.us/j/99706759306
Meeting ID: 997-0675-9306
o Phone 1(669) 900-6833
How to Submit Written Public Comment Before City Council Meeting:

1. Use the eComment tab located on the City Council Agenda page https://santaclara.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx). eComments are directly sent to the iLegislate application used by City Council and staff, and become part of the public record. eComment closes 15 minutes before the start of a meeting.

2. By email to [email protected] by 12 p.m. the day of the meeting. Those emails will be forwarded to the Council and will be uploaded to the City Council Agenda as supplemental meeting material. Emails received after the 12 p.m. cutoff time up through the end of the meeting will form part of the meeting record. Please identify the Agenda Item Number in the subject line of your email. NOTE: Please note eComments and Emails received as public comment will not be read aloud during the meeting.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): In accordance with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), the City of Santa Clara will not discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability in its services, programs, or activities, and will ensure that all existing facilities will be made accessible to the maximum extent feasible. The City of Santa Clara will generally, upon request, provide appropriate aids and services leading to effective communication for qualified persons with disabilities including those with speech, hearing, or vision impairments so they can participate equally in the City’s programs, services, and activities. The City of Santa Clara will make all reasonable modifications to policies and programs to ensure that people with disabilities have an equal opportunity to enjoy all of its programs, services, and activities.

Agendas and other written materials distributed during a public meeting that are public record will be made available by the City in an appropriate alternative format. Contact the City Clerk’s Office at 1-408-615-2220 with your request for an alternative format copy of the agenda or other written materials.

Individuals who require an auxiliary aid or service for effective communication, or any other disabilityrelated modification of policies or procedures, or other accommodation, in order to participate in a program, service, or activity of the City of Santa Clara, should contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at 408-615-3000 as soon as possible but no later than 48 hours before the scheduled event.

Please see the above-mentioned options citizens may participate in the upcoming hearing. Submit written and/or oral comments directly to the City Clerk, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California, 95050; telephone 408-615-2220.

Nora Pimentel, Assistant City Clerk
Resolution/Assessment Dist 183 Page 1 of 5
Rev: 7/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 26-________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,

APPROVING THE LEVY OF BENEFIT ASSESSMENT UPON THE

SANTA CLARA CONVENTION CENTER COMPLEX
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 183, AND APPROVING,
CONFIRMING, AND ADOPTING DIRECTOR’S REPORT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 16, Article II, Division 5.1 of the Santa Clara City Code (“City Code”) on May 13, 1986, Council adopted Resolution No. 5068, “A Resolution of Intention to Form Santa Clara Convention Center Complex Maintenance District No. 183 and to Order that the Alternative Method for the Levy of Benefit Assessments be Made Applicable Thereto;” WHEREAS, after proceedings to that end duly held on June 3, 1986, the Council adopted Resolution No. 5081, “A Resolution of Intention to Order that the Alternative Method for the Levy of Benefit Assessments be Made Applicable to City of Santa Clara Convention Center Complex Maintenance District No. 183, Providing for Notice of Hearing Thereon, Approving Director’s Report, and Providing for Notice of Hearing on Director’s Report;” WHEREAS, pursuant to Article VI of Chapter 16.10 of the City Code), the City Manager or designee has caused to be prepared a budget for the costs and expenses of maintaining and operating within the City of Santa Clara Convention Center Complex Maintenance District No. 183 (“District”) the local public improvements for the fiscal year 2026-27, including (a) the gross amount required for the costs and expenses of maintaining and operating the improvements; (b) the surplus balance available at the end of the preceding fiscal year for such purposes; (c) the amount, if any, to be contributed to pay any part of the costs and expenses; (d) the amount, if any, to be repaid to the City for funds advanced by it to pay deficiencies which occurred in prior years; and (e) the balance of the amount necessary to pay the costs and expenses;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 26-9548 and the City Code, the Director of Public Works has made and filed with the City Clerk a written report (“Director’s Report”) for fiscal year 2026-27, which provides the basis for the levy of benefit assessments for the cost of maintenance and Resolution/Assessment Dist 183 Page 2 of 5
Rev: 7/27/2023
operation on all lots or parcels of property within the District, and the Director’s Report sets forth the budget, the formula or formulae for the annual assessment levy, a description of each lot or parcel of property in the District, Assessor's Parcel Number or other description sufficient to identify the same, the amount of assessment to be levied for fiscal year 2026-27 against each lot or parcel of property, and such other information as will be necessary or useful in applying the formula or formulae;
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2026 this Council duly considered the Director’s Report and found that each and every part thereof was sufficient and that neither the Director’s Report nor any part thereof required modification, and ordered that the Director’s Report shall be open to public inspection; WHEREAS, Proposition 218 passed on November 5, 1996, added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the State of California Constitution which requires property owners within the District to annually approve any assessment increase that is more than any previous assessment; WHEREAS, procedures of approval required the preparation of a Director’s Report on how the assessments were prepared and based;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 26-9548 and the provisions of the City Code, notice of hearing any and all protests in relation to the Director’s Report and any of the matters contained therein was given by causing notice of public hearing to be posted at Santa Clara City Hall on April 22, 2026, published in the Santa Clara Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation, on April 22, 2026, and mailed to all property owners in the Maintenance District on April 24, 2026, as provided by the City Code, all as more particularly appears from the certificates and affidavits thereof on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City, whereupon the hearing on the Report was duly and regularly held at the time and place advertised in the notice and in Resolution No. 26-9548; WHEREAS, the Director’s Report, and public hearing meeting notice were timely provided to the entities within the District who are responsible for paying the assessments; WHEREAS, for Fiscal Year 2026-27, the assessments are increasing and therefore, Proposition 218 ballot requirements does apply;
Resolution/Assessment Dist 183 Page 3 of 5
Rev: 7/27/2023
WHEREAS, persons interested, objecting thereto, filed written protests with the City at or before the time set for hearing, and all persons interested, desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard and all matters and things pertaining thereto were fully heard and considered by the Council; and
WHEREAS, the Council has remedied and corrected any errors or informalities in the Director’s Report and has revised and corrected any of the acts or determinations of the various City officials as contained therein, and is fully informed of the contents.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. That a weighted vote, based on the assessment to each property, was needed to approve the proposed annual assessments for said District because this year’s assessment is greater than the greatest previously approved assessment.

2. That all written protests, objections and other written communications were read at a noticed public hearing and all persons desiring to be heard were fully heard, and that no majority protest exists.

3. That the Director’s Report and each and every part thereof contained all the matters and things called for by Resolution No. 5081 and the City Code, including the budget, the formula or formulae for the annual assessment levy, Assessor's Parcel Number or other description sufficient to identify the same, the amount of the assessment to be levied against each lot or parcel of land in accordance with the formula or formulae, and such other information as will be necessary or useful in applying the formula adopted by the Council.

4. That the Director’s Report and assessment roll, and each of the assessments therein as duly revised and corrected be, and they are hereby approved, confirmed and adopted.

5. That the special benefit assessments shall be levied and collected annually upon the last equalized secured and utility tax rolls upon which ad valorem property taxes are collected. They shall be in addition to all other ad valorem property taxes levied, and shall be collected together with, and not separate therefrom, and enforced in the same manner and by the same persons and at the Resolution/Assessment Dist 183 Page 4 of 5
Rev: 7/27/2023
same time and with the same penalties and interest as are ad valorem property taxes. All laws applicable to the collection and enforcement of the ad valorem property taxes shall be applicable to the special benefit assessment levy, and the assessed lot or parcel of property, if sold for taxes, shall be subject to redemption in the same manner as such real property is redeemed from the sale for ad valorem property taxes, and if not redeemed, shall in like manner pass to the purchaser.

6. That the Director’s Report, together with a certified copy of this Resolution, shall forthwith be delivered to the Director of Finance of this City, who shall thereafter deliver the Director’s Report to the officer of the County of Santa Clara designated by law to extend ad valorem property taxes upon the tax roll. Proper County officer shall cause to be posted to the tax rolls, in a column provided therefor, the amount of each of the special benefit assessments proposed to be levied and collected for the fiscal year as set forth in the Director’s Report as confirmed.

7. That the City Clerk shall forward a certified copy of this Resolution and Director’s Report to the City Manager, Director of Public Works, and Director of Finance of this City and to the officer designated by law to extend ad valorem property taxes upon the tax roll on which they are collected.

8. Constitutionality, severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this resolution is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the resolution. The City of Santa Clara, California, hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, and word thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section(s), subsection(s), sentence(s), clause(s), phrase(s), or word(s) be declared invalid.

Resolution/Assessment Dist 183 Page 5 of 5
Rev: 7/27/2023

9. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE ___ DAY OF _________, 2026, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: ______________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments incorporated by reference:

1. Director’s Report FY 2026-27
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
26-533 Agenda Date: 6/9/2026

REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action on Council Request (Council Policy 030) for a Resolution in Support of Muwekma Ohlone Tribe being Recognized

BACKGROUND
At the March 24, 2026, City Council meeting, a motion was made by Vice Mayor Gonzalez and seconded by Councilmember Cox, to agendize a resolution in support of federal recognition for the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe (Tribe) at a future meeting date uncertain.

DISCUSSION
The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe is composed of descendants of the Ohlone (also known as Costanoan) people, who historically inhabited areas across present-day San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, and portions of Napa, Santa Cruz, Solano, and San Joaquin counties. The Tribe traces its documented ancestry primarily to the historic Verona Band of Alameda County.

The Verona Band of Alameda County, now associated with the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, was previously recognized by the federal government. Federal records indicate that the group’s federal acknowledgment status changed in the early 20th century through administrative actions by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), including actions taken by the Sacramento Indian Agency.

In 1989, the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe submitted a petition for federal acknowledgment under the BIA’s Federal Acknowledgment Process (25 CFR Part 83). The federal acknowledgment process provides an administrative pathway for tribes to seek recognition and requires petitioners to demonstrate satisfaction of specific regulatory criteria related to historical continuity, community, and political authority.

There are three primary pathways through which federal recognition of a tribe may occur:

1. Administrative acknowledgment through the BIA Federal Acknowledgment Process;

2. An act of Congress; or

3. A federal court decision reviewing agency action.

Each pathway relies on legal and evidentiary standards, including historical, anthropological, and genealogical documentation, to establish a continuous tribal existence under federal criteria.

In 2001, the BIA issued a Proposed Finding that the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe did not meet the criteria for federal acknowledgment. In 2002, the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs issued a Final Determination affirming the denial of federal acknowledgment. The determination found that the Tribe did not meet all required criteria, including demonstrating continuous identification and community and political influence or authority for the required period under federal regulations.

City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 4 Printed on 6/5/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-533 Agenda Date: 6/9/2026
The Tribe subsequently challenged the determination in federal court in 2003. In 2011, the U.S.

District Court upheld the BIA’s decision. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

Following the completion of administrative and judicial review processes, the Tribe has continued to pursue federal recognition through legislative advocacy, including seeking congressional support for federal acknowledgment.

Federal recognition establishes a formal government-to-government relationship between a tribe and the United States and may provide eligibility for certain federal programs and services administered through agencies such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. It may also support tribal governance functions, land-into-trust consideration, economic development opportunities, cultural resource protections, and participation in federal consultation processes.

Federal recognition by Congress or any other pathway is a federal determination and does not in itself require or mandate local government action, including land transfers or authorization of specific development activities. Local jurisdictions may maintain independent relationships with tribal or Indigenous organizations regardless of federal recognition status.

The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe has received prior support or correspondence regarding federal recognition from various public entities, including:
· San Francisco Human Rights Commission (resolution adopted September 10, 1992) · City of Union City (Resolution No. 2025-107, June 22, 2025) · City of Livermore (letter of support dated August 4, 2025) In addition, on September 17, 2024, the City of San José City Council received an informational report regarding a proposed resolution supporting federal recognition of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe.

The report included correspondence from members of the congressional delegation outlining differing perspectives regarding the proposed action.

In the attached letter dated August 7, 2024, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren expressed concerns regarding congressional support for federal recognition of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, noting that the Tribe previously completed the federal acknowledgment process through the BIA, which resulted in a 2002 Final Determination denying recognition. The Tribe’s subsequent legal challenges were reviewed by federal courts, which upheld the agency’s decision. Congresswoman Lofgren noted that congressional action to grant federal recognition following a denial by the BIA would be unprecedented and could raise concerns regarding consistency and fairness within the federal recognition process. She also expressed concerns regarding portions of the proposed resolution language that focus on the process the tribe underwent but not the conclusion of that process.

In the attached letter dated August 22, 2024, Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo expressed concerns regarding legislative proposals for tribal recognition. She noted that, in previous instances, Congress has enacted tribal recognition legislation that included provisions related to gaming restrictions, and that several federally recognized tribes in recent years have been subject to such limitations.

City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 4 Printed on 6/5/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-533 Agenda Date: 6/9/2026
She further stated that discussions with the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe’s leadership have included differing perspectives regarding the inclusion of gaming related provisions in any potential recognition legislation. She indicated that these differing positions have contributed to challenges in reaching consensus among members of the Bay Area congressional delegation and have limited opportunities for further engagement on broader questions regarding whether and how legislative recognition should be pursued.

On March 5, 2025, the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe submitted a request to the federal government regarding land at the Presidio of San Francisco and announced the “Landback Presidio” initiative.

The stated objectives of the initiative include:
· Acknowledge Injustice: Recognize the historical injustices faced by the Muwekma Ohlone people and foster reconciliation.
· Dissolve the Presidio Trust: Advocate for the dissolution of the Presidio Trust to streamline governance and reduce federal bureaucracy.
· Establish an Indian Reservation: Proclaim the Presidio as an official Indian Reservation for the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe.
· Cultural Renaissance: Elevate the Presidio as a global destination that reflects Ohlone culture and traditions, promoting tourism that honors our heritage.

While the City acknowledges and respects the advocacy efforts related to federal tribal recognition, such matters fall under federal jurisdiction. The City does not have a role in the federal acknowledgment process and is not positioned to determine or evaluate federal recognition decisions or their legal outcomes. The City is not positioned to fully assess the broader implications or consequences associated with supporting federal recognition of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe.

The City of Santa Clara remains committed to recognizing and honoring Native American communities and their contributions. This includes:
· Annual recognition of Native American Heritage Month in November · Hosting of a Land Acknowledgment Ceremony and presentation in partnership with Muwekma Ohlone representatives in November 2024
· Inclusion of a land acknowledgment statement referencing the Muwekma Ohlone during the 2025 State of the City address

FISCAL IMPACT
No Fiscal Impact.

COORDINATION
This report was coordinated by the City Manager’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 4 Printed on 6/5/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-533 Agenda Date: 6/9/2026

ALTERNATIVES

1. Provide a letter of Support for the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe

2. Receive and file the report.

RECOMMENDATION
Receive the report and provide input or further direction to staff on the adoption of a Resolution supporting Federal Recognition of the Muwekma Ohlone.

Reviewed by: Paulina Morales, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Jovan Grogan, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Resolution Supporting Federal Recognition of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe

2. Resolution & Letter from Union City dated August 5, 2025

3. Support letter from City of Livermore dated August 4, 2025

4. Letters from Congresswomen Anna G. Eshoo and Zoe Lofgren to San Jose City Council

5. Muwekma Ohlone Tribe letter to United States President Requesting Presidio of San Francisco

6. The Federal Recognition of Tribes; Frequently Asked Questions dated March 30, 2026 City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 4 Printed on 6/5/2026
powered by Legistar™
Resolution/Support for Federal Recognition of Muwekma Ohlone Tribe Page 1 of 2 Rev: 6/4/2026
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA

URGING THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS, THE WHITE HOUSE,

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, AND THE BUREAU OF

INDIAN AFFAIRS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE MUWEKMA OHLONE
TRIBE OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA’S FEDERAL

RECOGNITION
WHEREAS, Muwekma Ohlone Tribe is an Indigenous community whose members are descendants of the Native peoples who lived in the San Francisco Bay Area long before European contact. Their ancestral homeland includes much of what is now Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and San Francisco counties, as well as portions of surrounding counties; and,
WHEREAS, In the early twentieth century, federal records identified a Native community known as the Verona Band of Alameda County. Members of the present-day Muwekma Ohlone Tribe have documented descent from individuals listed in these federal records. The Verona Band appeared in federal Indian censuses and was included in federal actions concerning landless California Indians; and,
WHEREAS, Muwekma Ohlone Tribe sought Federal Recognition from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and in 2002 the BIA denied the tribe’s federal acknowledgement petition; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara acknowledges the enduring contributions of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe to the cultural, historical, environmental, and civic fabric of the region; and WHEREAS, the City values its relationship with the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe and supports efforts to preserve and promote the Tribe's history, culture, heritage, and continued presence within its ancestral homelands; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara seeks to foster mutual respect, understanding, and collaboration with the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara wishes to formally express its support for the Muwekma Resolution/Support for Federal Recognition of Muwekma Ohlone Tribe Page 2 of 2 Rev: 6/4/2026
Ohlone Tribe and its continued efforts to preserve its cultural heritage, protect sacred and culturally significant resources, and advance the well-being of its Tribal community.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. The City of Union City urges the United States Congress, the Department of the Interior, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to formally acknowledge the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area as a federally recognized, sovereign tribe, as defined under 25 C.F.R. §1.2, and to take all necessary steps to reinstate the Tribe on the list of federally recognized tribes.

2. The City Council hereby directs the City Manager to prepare and transmit a copy of this resolution to the Bay Area congressional delegation and the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, urging federal action to recognize the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe and include it on the federal register of recognized tribes.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE ___ DAY OF _________, 2026, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: ______________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLAR
To: The Honorable Doug Burgum
Secretary of the Interior
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240
Bryan Mercier
Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW, MS-4660-MIB
Washington, DC 20240
From: Thai Nam Pham, City Clerk
Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2025
RE: Resolution No. 2025-107 – Supporting Federal Recognition of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe
Dear Secretary Burgum and Director Mercier,
As the City Clerk for the City of Union City, I am transmitting this letter pursuant to the direction of the City Council of Union City, which adopted Resolution No. 2025- 107 at its regular meeting on July 22, 2025. The resolution urges the United States Congress, the Department of the Interior, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to formally recognize the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area as a federally recognized tribe.

The resolution expresses the City Council’s support for reaffirming the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe’s status as a sovereign Native Nation. It highlights the Tribe’s historical and cultural significance, including its long-standing presence in the Bay Area and documented historical relationship with the federal government as the Verona Band.

Please find the adopted resolution attached. Should your offices require additional information or documentation, I am happy to provide it upon request.

Sincerely,
Thai Nam Pham, MMC, CPMC
City Clerk
City of Union City
UNION
CITY
california
~
I,_
Q)
0)
cu
C
cu
E Q)
u >- ·- +-' 4--
4--
u 0

CITY OF UNION CITY
34009 Alvarado-Niles Rd • Union City · CA • 94587
unioncity.org
-
cc:

The Honorable Eric Swalwell, Member of Congress
The Honorable Alex Padilla, United States Senator
The Honorable Adam Schiff, United States Senator
The Honorable Dr. Aisha Wahab, California State Senator The Honorable Liz Ortega, California State Assemblymember UNION
CITY
california
I,_
Q)
0)
cu
C
cu
E Q)
u >- ·- +-' 4--
4--
u 0

CITY OF UNION CITY
34009 Alvarado-Niles Rd • Union City · CA • 94587
unioncity.org
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-107

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY

URGING THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS, THE WHITE HOUSE, THE

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, AND THE BUREAU OF INDIAN

AFFAIRS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE MUWEKMA OHLONE TRIBE OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA’S FEDERAL RECOGNITION
WHEREAS, the Muwekma Ohlone people are the only Bureau of Indian Affairsdocumented and historic Ohlone Tribe from the San Francisco Bay Area who have maintained a distinct culture, social, and political identity for over 230 years despite genocide and political erasure; and
WHEREAS, the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe has had an ancestral presence in the San Francisco Bay Area since time immemorial; and
WHEREAS, the direct ancestors of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe were missionized into the three Bay Area Missions—Santa Clara, San Jose, and San Francisco—during the expansion of the Spanish Empire into Alta California from 1769 until secularization in 1836; and
WHEREAS, the United States Government maintained a “trust” relationship with the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, historically identified as the Verona Band, from 1906 to 1927, as recognized by Bureau of Indian Affairs agents and superintendents; and WHEREAS, the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe has never been terminated by an act of Congress but was bureaucratically and politically removed from the list of landless tribes eligible for land or homesite purchases under the Congressional Appropriation Acts of 1906, 1908, and subsequent years, without due process, despite its trust relationship and prior federal recognition; and
WHEREAS, members of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe have been enrolled under the 1928 California Jurisdictional Act and subsequent acts, as approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Secretary of the Interior, and federal courts, and have consistently organized under the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act and attended Indian Boarding Schools in the 1930s and 1940s; and
WHEREAS, there are over 614 BIA-documented enrolled members of the Verona Band/Muwekma Ohlone Tribe currently residing in the San Francisco Bay Area; and WHEREAS, Muwekma Ohlone men and women have honorably served in all branches of the United States Armed Forces in every major military conflict since World War I and continue to serve today; and
WHEREAS, justice and equal treatment under the law demand that the Department of the Interior and the federal government officially recognize the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe’s historical, social, military, and political contributions through reaffirmation of its federal status.

Docusign Envelope ID: 1009E720-3AFB-4439-9544-5A75E8DC12C2 Resolution No. 2025-107
Support for Muwekma Ohlone Tribe Federal Recognition

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY AS FOLLOWS:

1. The City of Union City urges the United States Congress, the Department of the Interior, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to formally acknowledge the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area as a federally recognized, sovereign tribe, as defined under 25 C.F.R. §1.2, and to take all necessary steps to reinstate the Tribe on the list of federally recognized tribes.

2. The City Council hereby directs the City Manager to prepare and transmit a copy of this resolution to the Bay Area congressional delegation and the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, urging federal action to recognize the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe and include it on the federal register of recognized tribes; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of July 2025 by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Nishihira, Patiño, Wang, Vice Mayor Sakakihara, and Mayor Singh
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
APPROVED:

GARY SINGH
Mayor
ATTESTED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

THAI NAM N. PHAM
City Clerk
KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO
City Attorney
Docusign Envelope ID: 1009E720-3AFB-4439-9544-5A75E8DC12C2 7/23/2025
~ Signed by:
~ -
August 4, 2025
Secretary Doug Burgum
Department of the Interior

CI TY OF
c/o: Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240
Subject: Letter of Support - Muwekma Ohl one Tribe's Application for Federal Recognition Dear Secretary Burgum,
On behalf of the City of Livermore, I am writing to express our strong support of a federal recognition application from the Muwekma Oh lone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area .

We recognize the deep historical and cultural significance of the Muwekma Oh lone Tribe in our region. The tribe's members have honorably served in the United States Armed Forces and have continually demonstrated their commitment to the community.

We urge the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs to thoroughly review an application for federal recognition from the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,
~~ John Marchand
Mayor, City of Livermore
cc: Evan Branning, Vice Mayor, City of Livermore
Marianna Burch, City Manager, City of Livermore
Charlene Nijmeh, Chairwoman of Muwekma Oh lone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay City Hall 1052 South Liverm.ore Ave., Livermore, CA 94550 Phone: (925) 960-4000 TDD: (925) 960-4104
www.LivermoreCA.gov
August 7, 2024
Rules and Open Government Committee
San José City Council
200 E. Santa Clara St.

San José, CA 95113
Dear Councilmembers,
I write to express concern about the proposed Resolution regarding federal recognition for the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe.

Since the Resolution mentions me by name, I must provide important context as well express disappointment that I would even be referred to without prior communication, particularly given that a primary stakeholder involved waged a recent disinformation campaign against me. The current Resolution draft notes that I supported the Tribe’s application under the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) administrative process 25 years ago. That is true. Like every other petitioner, the Tribe had the right to a fair and timely decision by BIA. However, based on the facts presented by the Tribe in their petition, BIA determined in 2002 that the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe did not meet three of the seven criteria required for federal recognition.1 The Tribe sought a reversal of the BIA’s determination through the D.C. Circuit Court and, after evaluating the BIA process and the Tribe’s evidence, the Court upheld BIA’s final decision in 2011.2 Thereafter, the Tribe filed an appeal and was denied in 2013.
3 While I supported the Tribe's application to BIA more than two decades ago, I also believe it is important to respect fact-based decisions so that all tribes have a fair and equal opportunity to seek recognition. I'm concerned that the reference to me in the Resolution implies I support overturning BIA's decision, which is what the Tribe seeks today.

I encourage the Council to approach the issue with the seriousness and attention it deserves.

Unfortunately, the current Resolution draft is, at best, misleading. For example, the current Resolution extensively describes the process under which the Tribe submitted a petition to BIA, but fails to note the conclusion of that process: That BIA determined that the Tribe did not meet nearly half of the required criteria and that both a federal district court and an appeals court 1 United States Department of the Interior, Office of Federal Acknowledgement, Summary Under the Criteria and Evidence for Final Determination against Federal Acknowledgment of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, Petition 111 (September 6, 2002). https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/dup/assets/asia/ofa/petition/111_muwekm_CA/111_fd.pdf 2 Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Salazar, 813 F. Supp. 2d 170 (D.D.C. 2011). https://casetext.com/case/muwekmaohlone-tribe-v-salazar 3 Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Salazar, 708 F.3d 209 (D.C. Cir. 2013). https://casetext.com/case/muwekma-ohlonetribe-v-salazar-2

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, ANO T ECHNOLOGY
•RANKING M EMBER

COMMITTEE ON THE J UDICIARY
•SUBCOMMITTEE ON

I MMIGRATION I NTEGRITY, SECURITY, AND E NFORCEMENT
• SUBCOMMITTEE ON C OURTS, INTELLECTUAL

P ROPERTY, AND THE INTERNET
•SUBCOMMITTEE ON A DMINISTRATIVE S TATE,
R EGULATOR\' R El=OAM, AND ANTITRUST
CHAIR, CALIFORNIA DEMOCRAflC C ONGRESSIONAL D ELEGATION Cltongress of tbc fflnitcb ~tatcs
f!,ouse of l\epresentatibes
~«sbington, i)QL 20515

ZOE LOFGREN
18TH D ISTRICT, C ALIFORNIA

PAINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
·6;>· ·
635 NORTH FIRST STREET, S UITE B
SAN JOSE, C A 95112
(408) 271-8700
142 WEST A LISAL S TREET, R OOM E11 6
SALINAS, CA 93901
(831) 837-6000
1401 LONcwoarn House Oe.oce Bu1LOING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
(202) 225-3072
HTTPS://LOFGAEN.HOUSE.GOV
WWW.FACEBOOK.COM/ZOELO•GREN
upheld that determination. It would be unprecedented for Congress to overturn a BIA determination in the manner the Tribe seeks: Congress has never granted federal recognition to a tribe that was denied by BIA and exhausted all appeals. 4 Doing so for one tribe would create
significant issues of fairness for other tribes who have also received negative determinations under the BIA process. I encourage the Council to more carefully consider this and other complicated issues that would arise from Congress overturning BIA’s independent, fact-based determination.

Finally, I would note that federal recognition, which is part of formalizing a government-togovernment relationship between the United States and a tribe, is a unique and complex federal process. The Council may wish to consider whether its intervention in this federal matter is appropriate at all.

Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. Should you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to me or to my staff.

Sincerely,
Zoe Lofgren
Member of Congress
4 BIA Acknowledgement Petitions Denied Through 25 C.F.R Part 83 (34 Petitions, as of March 2024). https://www.bia.gov/as-ia/ofa/petitions-resolved/denied FW: Rep. Eshoo Letter re Muwekma Ohlone Resolution
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 8/22/2024 10:35 AM
To:Agendadesk <[email protected]>
@ 1 attachments (827 KB)
Rep Eshoo Letter to SJ Council re Muwekma Ohlone Resolution 8.22.24.pdf; From: Cohen, Andrew
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 10:26 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rep. Eshoo Letter re Muwekma Ohlone Resolution [External Email]
You don't often get email from
Good morning,
Learn why this is important
Congresswoman Anna Eshoo would like to submit the attached letter for the official record of the San Jose City Council's meeting on Tuesday, August 27. The letter relates to the resolution supporting federal recognition for the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe that will be considered at the meeting.

Please let me know if you need any additional information from our office for the letter to be submitted for the record.

Thanks,
Andrew
Andrew Cohen
Senior Legislative Assistant I Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo (CA-16) website
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Sltma :ff. ~/&o
S'la:t6&zt,,{ 9utrict
<&lf/bmia
August 221 2024
,·1~'.t
·el' , tvi''l. ' ";
'i~ '1~~ "'
Y6o~Fedd CJ,/t~e <ti/Uta/ S'tatea
~Ude o/ Yl3/M'&1entatt'oe.1
~k.?ton,, fiJ. <ef?. 205~5
The Honorable Members of the San Jose City Council
c/o Ms, Toni T aber1 City Clerk
City of San Jose
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose1 California 95113
Dear Councilmembers1
lt has come to my attention that on T uesday1 August 2l1 1 the San Jose City Council
will consider a resolution in support of federal recognition for the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe. l write to share my concerns about this resolution which has significant federal implications.

Federal recognition provides Native American tribes with many rights and benefits1 including the ability to establish a tribal government1 acquire tribal land1 and participate in certain health1 education1 and housing programs. ln many cases1 federal recognition also authorizes tribes to operate casinos on tribal land that would otherwise be prohibited under state gambling restrictions. The Bureau of lndian Affairs /BlA) is responsible for determining which tribes qualify for recognition under existing federal regulations /25 CFR §83.11). However1 in a smaU number of cases1 Congress has passed legislation to recognize tribes outside of the BlA process.

The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe first petitioned the BlA for recognition over three decades ago. After evaluating the Tribe1
s evidence1 the BlA determined in September
2002 that the Tribe only met four of the seven criteria required for recognition.

SpecificaUy1 the BlA concluded that the Tribe was unable to demonstrate that it /1 ) comprises a distinct community1 /2) has maintained political influence over its members1 and /3) has been identified as an American lndian entity on a substantia[[y continuous basis since 1900. Each of these conditions must be met in order to qualify for recognition under existing federal regulations.

The Tribe chaHenged the BlA1s decision in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia1 and in September 20111 the Court upheld the Bureau1s decision in Muwekma Oh/one Tribe v. Salazar. A unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the District Court's decision in March 2013. Having exhausted both the administrative and judicial paths to recognition1 the Tribe is now seeking recognition through an act of Congress.

Federal recognition is a political determination; not an ethnic or racial one. Therefore; the relevant question before Congress is not whether the Muwekma Oh lone Tribe are among the lndigenous people of the Bay Area. l certainly do not dispute this claim and neither does the BlA. lnstead1 the key question is whether the Tribe constitutes a distinct and long-lasting sovereign nation entitled to a government-to-government relationship with the United States. This is a more complicated question with significant implications for the approximately 400 other non-federaUy recognized tribes in the U .5.1 including several in our region.

The resolution pending before the City Council fails to grasp the complexity of the issue at hand. lt makes no mention of the BlNs administrative decision or the multiple federal court rulings upholding it. These omissions distort the historical record and give the misleading impression that the question before Congress is much simpler than it actua[ly is.

Another highly important consideration for the Council is the issue of gaming.

Unless an anti-gaming provision is included; federal recognition legislation passed by Congress would authorize the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe to engage in gaming operations. While l recognize that gaming has provided meaningful economic benefits for some tribes1 l have concerns about the potentia[ly harmful impact of gaming on the broader community. The gambling industry often exploits those who suffer from addiction. l have seen firsthand the devastating impact of gambling addiction on members of my own family.

On many prior occasions; Congress has enacted tribal recognition legislation containing gaming prohibitions. ln fact1 six of the seven tribes recognized by Congress over the past decade have had gaming prohibited. The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe1s leadership has1 thus far1 been unwilling to consider any path forward that does not involve fu[l gaming rights. Because other members of the Bay Area congressional delegation share my concerns about gaming1 the Tribe1s position has left us at an impasse and prevented us from engaging constructively on the complex underlying question of whether legislative recognition should be pursued at alL l hope this information wi[l be helpful to the Council as you consider the proposed resolution1 and l thank you in advance for your consideration of my concerns.

Most gratefuUy1
,e:;;·
Anna G. Eshoo
Member of Congress
March 5, 2025
The Honorable Donald J. Trump
President of the United States
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Subj: Formal request to #LandBack the Presidio of San Francisco Dear Mr. President:

On behalf of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, I would like to express our sincere gratitude for your recent proposal to dissolve the Presidio Trust. Of course, this is an opportunity for your administration to make the federal government smaller, less expensive, more focused, and less prone to waste, fraud, and abuse.

For too many decades, the Presidio Trust has been the political patronage playground of former Senator Diane Feinstein and Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi – who for decades have acted against the interests of our tribe.

The lucrative base of patronage has been influenced by Sen. Feinstein and Rep. Pelosi, who both live within blocks of this section of San Francisco. Both elected officials have been staunchly opposed to our Tribe’s 45-year long struggle to affirm its federal status. When the Tribe submitted a Right of First Refusal to the federal government during the decommissioning of the military installation in 1992, both women were opposed.
“I don’t want an Indian Tribe in my City,” Feinstein told the former Tribal Chairwoman at the time, a statement that still offends the Tribe today. Feinstein, Pelosi, and Rep. Zoe Lofgren, are widely seen as the Tribe’s most ardent enemies.

But we see this as much more than just one opportunity to make the federal government more efficient.

Our People see this an enormous and historic opportunity to acknowledge injustices faced by California Indians, and would constitute the boldest #LandBack act of rematriation in American history.

Our People have never ceded, surrendered, or in any way abrogated aboriginal title to the Presidio, which the Spanish began occupying without a deed or transfer of title. The rightful return of the Presidio of San Francisco to its aboriginal title holders would constitute an extraordinary act of reconciliation. During the Spanish conquest, the fortress was used as a prison where were captured before being enslaved at three Bay Area missions: Mission Delores (San Francisco), Mission Santa Clara, and Mission San Jose.

We have long maintained a deep cultural and spiritual connection to the Presidio lands, which have been integral to our identity and heritage for countless generations. We believe that the return of our ancestral lands is not only a matter of justice but also holds substantial fiscal and political implications that can benefit the tribe, local communities, and the federal government:

1. Fiscal Benefits. Transferring the management of the Presidio back to the Tribe would enable a hyper-local approach to the management of a treasured national parkscape – and would do so in a way that relieves federal, state, and local taxpayers from the burden of its operating costs. Our Tribe has extensive traditional ecological knowledge and will deliver superior and more sustainable land management practices, at a far lower cost than the federal agency currently expends.

Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay
1169 South Main Street, #336
Manteca, CA 95337
Muwekma.org Ÿ [email protected]
The Office of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribal Council
Muwekma.org
[email protected]
(408) 464-2892
[email protected]
2

2. Economic Benefits. The Tribe is uniquely positioned to elevate the Presidio as a tourist destination. No other operator can bring into the visitor experience as authentic, deep, or wide a range of cultural programing that illuminates the anthropological history of the land.

Our Tribe can bolster the local economy by wildly enhancing the visitor experience while elevating the Presidio as California’s premier destination for spiritual catharsis and personal renewal.

3. Political Benefits. Returning the Presidio to the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe would symbolize a commitment to reconciliation and respect for Indigenous sovereignty. It would make a historic and proud moment for the United States, and would earn the Administration enormous praise from Indian Country. At the local level, it would dismantle a federally funded political machine that is controlled by an ultra-elitist cabal of politicians.

4. Cultural Benefits. Returning the Presidio to our Tribe would catalyze a golden age for our People – and would manifest a less elitist reality for San Francisco and coastal California.

While you seek to repeal the Presidio Trust Act of 1996, we would like to bring to your attention an additional legal pathway that can expedite that process and compliment this cost-cutting effort. Section 7 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 [25 U.S.C. 5110] gives the Secretary of the Interior the power to “proclaim new reservations”.

We formally and respectfully request that your Administration exercises this awesome power in defense of our People. This action would rectify historical wrongs and empower our community to thrive while contributing positively to the cultural, ecological, fiscal, economic, and spiritual well-being of the broader San Francisco Bay Area.

Enclosed, you will find a formal proposal that outlines our request in greater detail.

Please do accept this correspondence as a formal request for tribal consultation pursuant to Executive Order 13175, "Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments," which requires federal agencies to consult with Indian tribes when developing policies that have substantial direct effects on us.

We pray for the possibility of working together to realize a just resolution for our Tribe and the legacy of the land we hold sacred. We hope so much to meet with you in Washington, DC to discuss; and we’d be enormously appreciative of whatever time you can spare.

My warmest regards,
Charlene Nijmeh
Chairwoman
CC: Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs
The Federal Recognition of Tribes: Frequently
Asked Questions
March 30, 2026
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R48888
..z;
Congressional
•~.,_ Research Service ~ Informing the legislative debate since 1914 ________________ _

CRS REPORT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress --------------------------------- Congressional Research Service

SUMMARY
The Federal Recognition of Tribes: Frequently
Asked Questions
As of 2026, the United States encompasses 575 federally recognized Tribes, or groups of Indigenous people that have a formally acknowledged government-to-government relationship with the United States. These Tribes are beneficiaries of the federal trust responsibility, a legal obligation under which the United States, through treaties, acts of Congress, and court decisions, “has charged itself with moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust” toward federally recognized Tribes (Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286, 296–97 (1942)). In addition, under federal regulation (25 C.F.R. §83.2), federally recognized Tribes are “eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians.”
This CRS report addresses frequently asked questions related to federal recognition.

R48888
March 30, 2026
Mariel J. Murray
Specialist in Natural
Resources Policy
Mainon A. Schwartz
Legislative Attorney
Laura Deal
Law Librarian
~
~ Congressional Research Service
Informing the legislative debate since 1914
The Federal Recognition of Tribes: FAQs
Congressional Research Service
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Frequently Asked Questions............................................................................................................ 1 What Is the History of Federal Recognition?............................................................................ 1 How Can a Group of Indigenous People Become Federally Recognized? ............................... 2 (1) Federal Recognition Through Legislation..................................................................... 3 (2) Federal Recognition Through the Part 83 Administrative Process................................ 5 (3) Federal Recognition Through Judicial Decision ........................................................... 7 What Is “Reaffirmation”?.......................................................................................................... 7 What Programs, Services, and Funding Can Federal Recognition Provide? ............................ 7 Are All Indigenous Groups Federally Recognized?.................................................................. 8 Are Alaska Native Corporations Federally Recognized?.......................................................... 9 Tables
Table A-1. Denied Petitions That Failed to Meet 25 C.F.R. §83 Criteria...................................... 10 Appendixes
Appendix. Denied Petitions That Failed to Meet 25 C.F.R. §83 Criteria ...................................... 10 Contacts
Author Information........................................................................................................................ 13 The Federal Recognition of Tribes: FAQs
Congressional Research Service 1
Introduction
As of 2026, the United States has a federal trust responsibility to 575 federally recognized Tribes.
1 The federal trust responsibility is a legal obligation under which the United States, through treaties, acts of Congress, and court decisions, “has charged itself with moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust” toward federally recognized Tribes. 2 A federally
recognized Tribe (“Tribe”) is a group of Indigenous people that has a formally acknowledged government-to-government relationship with the United States.3 Federal recognition engenders certain rights and protections for a Tribe, including institutionalizing its powers of selfgovernment, though tribal sovereignty predates the Constitution. 4 In addition, Tribes are “eligible
for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians.”5
This CRS report addresses frequently asked questions related to federal recognition.

Frequently Asked Questions
What Is the History of Federal Recognition?
The United States has long recognized Tribes as sovereign nations, but fluctuating federal policy toward Tribes has affected their status over time. The governments of the 13 original colonies and, later, the United States negotiated treaties with Tribes until about 1871, when federal statute ended this practice.
6 With the passage of the General Allotment Act of 1887 (also known as the Dawes Act), the federal government divided many communally occupied reservation lands into plots allocated to individual tribal members (with provisions for unallotted land to be made available to settlers), aiming to assimilate Tribes into non-Indigenous American culture. 7 In the
1930s and 1940s, federal statute ended the allotment policy and granted more administrative control to Tribes, particularly through the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (IRA). 8 Among
1 See Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), “Indian Entities Recognized by and Eligible to Receive Services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs,” 91 Federal Register 4102 (Jan. 30, 2026). 2 Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286, 296–97 (1942). 3 25 C.F.R. §83.2 (explaining that federal recognition is a prerequisite to the protection, services, and benefits of the federal government available to Tribes that have a government-to-government relationship with the United States). The term Indigenous people is generally used to refer to the people or groups of people who are original habitants of a place but is not consistently defined in the domestic or international legal context. Some entities, such as the United Nations, have developed guidelines for identifying Indigenous groups based on various factors. United Nations, “Who Are Indigenous Peoples?,” https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf. Throughout this report, Indigenous people is used to refer to diverse groups in the United States that may be known or referred to by various terms, including members of federally recognized Tribes, Native Hawaiians, Alaska Natives, and descendants of other groups that predated European colonization of the Americas. 4 See, e.g., Kahawaiolaa v. Norton, 386 F.3d 1271, 1273 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Federal recognition affords important rights and protections to Indian tribes, including limited sovereign immunity, powers of self-government, the right to control the lands held in trust for them by the federal government, and the right to apply for a number of federal services.”). 5 25 C.F.R. §83.2.
6 See Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 (25 U.S.C. §71, Act of March 3, 1871, ch. 120, §1, 16 Stat. 566). 7 Act of Feb. 8, 1887, ch. 119, 24 Stat. 388 (providing, among other things, that tribal members who have “voluntarily taken up ... residence, separate and apart from any tribe of Indians therein, and ... adopted the habits of civilized life” would be recognized as U.S. citizens); see also, e.g., Sarah Krakoff, “Inextricably Political: Race, Membership, and Tribal Sovereignty,” Washington Law Review, vol. 87, (2012), p. 1069 (hereinafter “Krakoff”). 8 Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, P.L. 73-383, 48 Stat. 984.

The Federal Recognition of Tribes: FAQs
Congressional Research Service 2
other things, the IRA encouraged Tribes to organize themselves as governments and defined Tribe as “any Indian tribe, organized band, pueblo, or the Indians residing on one reservation.”9In the 1950s and 1960s, Congress through passing of federal legislation began terminating the recognition of some Tribes in an effort to integrate them into the general population.10 Legislatively, that period ended in 1975 with enactment of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), whereby Congress established a policy of tribal selfdetermination, respecting and promoting Tribes’ autonomy to manage their own affairs.11 Despite these fluctuations, Congress has both explicitly and implicitly recognized many Tribes’ existence by ratifying treaties and other agreements.12 In the 20th and 21st centuries, Congress also recognized Tribes through passage of specific acts.13
The executive branch established a regulatory framework to recognize Tribes in 1978. That year, the Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), issued regulations known as the Part 83 administrative process to handle requests for federal recognition from groups of Indigenous people.
14 Currently, the Office of Federal Acknowledgment within DOI’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs manages the Part 83 administrative process, as explained below in “Who Decides Whether a Petition Meets the Part 83 Process Criteria?” 15 Since 1994,
DOI has regularly published an updated list in the Federal Register of Tribes that have received federal recognition.
16 How Can a Group of Indigenous People Become Federally Recognized?
In the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, Congress outlined three pathways by which a group of Indigenous people could obtain recognition: (1) through legislation, (2) through DOI, using the Part 83 administrative process; and (3) through the courts.17 Each of these three pathways is discussed below.
9 25 U.S.C. §5129. Most Tribes are organized under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, including some Alaska Native villages that adopted governing documents under the provisions of a 1936 amendment to the IRA (BIA, “Frequently Asked Questions,” https://www.bia.gov/frequently-asked-questions). 10 See H.Con.Res. 108, 83rd Cong., 67 Stat. B132 (1953). Congress’s stated policy was, “as rapidly as possible, to make the Indians within the territorial limits of the United States subject to the same laws and entitled to the same privileges and responsibilities as are applicable to other citizens of the United States, to end their status as wards of the United States.” The Termination Era was repudiated in President Nixon’s Special Message on Indian Affairs, delivered to Congress in 1970 (Special Message to the Congress on Indian Affairs, 1 PUB. PAPERS 564 (July 8, 1970)). 11 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), P.L. 93-638, 88 Stat. 2203. 12 Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law §4.02[4] (2024). 13 See, e.g., P.L. 119-60, §8803 (Lumbee Fairness Act), 139 Stat. 1973. 14 DOI, “Procedures for Establishing That an American Indian Group Exists as an Indian Tribe,” 43 Federal Register 39361 (August 24, 1978) (codified as amended at 25 C.F.R. §83). 15 DOI, Office of Federal Acknowledgement (OFA), https://www.bia.gov/as-ia/ofa. 16 Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, Title I of P.L. 103-454, §104, 108 Stat. 4791 (codified at 25 U.S.C. §5131) (directing the Secretary of the Interior to publish regularly a “list of all Indian tribes which the Secretary recognizes to be eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians”).
17 P.L. 103-454, 108 Stat. 4791.

The Federal Recognition of Tribes: FAQs
Congressional Research Service 3
(1) Federal Recognition Through Legislation
When Has Congress Most Recently Considered Granting Federal Recognition to a Group of Indigenous People Through Stand-Alone Legislation? As of March 30, 2026, the following stand-alone bills to federally recognize a group of Indigenous people have been introduced in the 119th Congress:18 • Mono Lake Kootzaduka’a Tribe Recognition Act, H.R. 5820 (2025) • Nottoway Indian Tribe of Virginia Federal Recognition Act, H.R. 5327 (2025) • Cheroenhaka (Nottoway) Indian Tribe of Southampton County, Virginia, Federal Recognition Act, H.R. 5144 (2025)
• Patawomeck Indian Tribe of Virginia Federal Recognition Act, H.R. 4750 (2025) • Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians Restoration Act of 2025, S. 2160 (2025) • Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians Restoration Act of 2025, H.R. 3255 (2025) • Haliwa Saponi Indian Tribe of North Carolina Act, H.R. 2929 (2025) • Nor Rel Muk Wintu Nation Federal Recognition Act, H.R. 619 (2025)19 When Did Congress Last Pass Legislation to Federally Recognize a Group of Indigenous People?
Based on research conducted on March 30, 2026, Congress extended full federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 (FY2026 NDAA) enacted on December 18, 2025.
20 The Lumbee Tribe had been granted
partial recognition in 1956.21 Five years before the FY2026 NDAA, the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians was recognized in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020.
22 What Are Some Provisions That May Appear in Legislation to Federally Recognize a Group of Indigenous People?
• Membership Roll. A Tribe is considered to be entitled to a certain degree of tribal sovereignty, a complex concept rooted in ideals of self-determination and the ability to govern the Tribe’s own internal affairs.23 This includes the ability to determine tribal membership.24 Some bills providing federal recognition require 18 CRS compiled this information based on a search of Congress.gov for legislation introduced in the 119th Congress containing the terms “Federal recognition affirmed”~10 OR “Federal recognition extended”~10 OR “extension full government-to-government”~10, plus a manual review of legislation introduced in the 119th Congress containing the word recognition in the title. This list includes bills that have not been enacted at the time of the search. 19 Additionally, the Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition and Compensation Act, H.R. 41, 119th Cong. (2025), would create a new set of Alaska Native Corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA, P.L. 92-203). Alaska Native Corporations have a unique status. See footnote 74, infra, and accompanying text.
20 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 (FY2026 NDAA), P.L. 119-60, §8803, 139 Stat. 1973. 21 An Act relating to the Lumbee Indians, of North Carolina, P.L. 84-570, 70 Stat. 254. 22 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (FY2020 NDAA), P.L. 116-92, §2870, 133 Stat. 1907. 23 See, e.g., ISDEAA.
24 Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law §5.01[2][b] (2024).

The Federal Recognition of Tribes: FAQs
Congressional Research Service 4
the newly recognized Tribe to submit a list of tribal members (a membership roll) to the Secretary of the Interior.25
• Land Acquisition. Many bills involving federal recognition also take land into trust—or direct the Secretary of the Interior to place land into trust—for the newly recognized Tribe.
26 This type of provision creates a reservation or other form of tribal land over which the Tribe may have certain types of civil or criminal jurisdiction or exercise other authority. While Congress through federal statute may take, or direct the taking of, land into trust at any time, the Secretary’s discretionary authority to take land into trust absent legislative authorization is circumscribed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Carcieri v.

Salazar.
27 Carcieri stated that Tribes not federally recognized as of the 1934 enactment of the IRA are ineligible to petition for land to be taken into trust.28 Absent other specific authority, a Tribe must be able to prove it was under federal jurisdiction in 1934 to be able to request placing land into trust.29 As a result, when legislatively recognizing a Tribe, Congress may choose to consider including provisions clarifying whether the Tribe may put land into trust in the future, as it did when it enacted the Lumbee Fairness Act as part of the FY2026 NDAA.
30 • Restrictions or Limits on Tribal Sovereignty. Some bills to extend federal recognition to a particular group include, as a condition of that recognition, certain limits on tribal sovereignty. For example, bills have proposed limiting a Tribe’s criminal or civil jurisdiction by granting jurisdiction over tribal lands to the state government.31 Historically, restrictions often related to subsistence activities such as hunting or fishing; more recently, these restrictions have more often involved activities such as gaming, as outlined below.32 Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) on October 17, 1988, to regulate the conduct of gaming on tribal lands.33 In general, IGRA and its implementing regulations prohibit most types of gaming on trust lands acquired after 1988, with several significant exceptions.34 For example, some of these exceptions allow 25 See, e.g., FY2020 NDAA, §2870(f), 133 Stat. 1907.
26 Trust lands are lands held in trust by DOI for Tribes or tribal members and cannot be alienated without DOI approval (25 C.F.R. §151.2). For an overview of tribal lands, see CRS Report R48360, Tribal Lands: Overview and Issues for Congress, by Mariel J. Murray.
27 555 U.S. 379 (2009).
28 Id. at 391.
29 Id.; see also, e.g., Littlefield v. Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribe, 951 F.3d 30, 40 (1st Cir. 2020) (applying Carcieri to foreclose a statutory interpretation that permitted taking land into trust for the Mashpee) and Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe v. Bernhardt, 466 F. Supp. 3d 199, 236 (D.D.C. 2020) (holding an agency interpretation that the Mashpee were not under federal jurisdiction in 1934 to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to the law). One concurring Justice in Carcieri wrote that “a tribe may have been ‘under federal jurisdiction’ in 1934 even though the federal government did not believe so at the time.” Carcieri, 555 U.S. at 397 (Breyer, J., concurring). 30 FY2026 NDAA, P.L. 119-60, §8803, 139 Stat. 1973 (providing Secretary of the Interior authorization to take land into trust for the Tribe in certain areas).
31 Kirsten Matoy Carlson, “Congress, Tribal Recognition, and Legislative-Administrative Multiplicity,” 91 Ind. L.J. 955, 988 (2016) (hereinafter “Carlson”).
32 Carlson, 988 (“Hunting and fishing restrictions were more common pre-IGRA and gaming restrictions have been more prevalent post-IGRA.”).
33 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), P.L. 100-497, 102 Stat. 2467. See also CRS In Focus IF12527, Indian Gaming Regulatory Act: Gaming on “Indian Lands”, coordinated by Mariel J. Murray. 34 IGRA; 25 C.F.R. §292.

The Federal Recognition of Tribes: FAQs
Congressional Research Service 5
tribal gaming for Tribes that previously lost recognition but are now recognized (restored lands exception) or newly recognized Tribes acquiring a reservation for the first time (initial reservation exception).35 Due to the potential for newly recognized Tribes to conduct gaming activities on their lands, Congress sometimes includes gaming restrictions in legislation that would recognize Tribes. One analysis of federal recognition bills introduced between 1975 and 2013 found that—of recognition bills containing express restrictions or limits on tribal sovereignty—more than half contained a restriction on gaming (29 of 54 bills).36 However, this represented less than a quarter of all tribal recognition bills introduced during that period (29 of 134 bills).37 When it comes to enacted legislation, IGRA’s passage seems to correlate with Congress reducing the number of restrictions of any kind. From 1975 to 1988 (or pre-IGRA), 10 of 14 enacted bills included some kind of express restrictions on tribal sovereignty, while from 1988 to 2013, 3 of 10 enacted bills included restrictions—though 2 of those 3 included restrictions on gaming.
38 The most recent federal statutes
recognizing Tribes have not included gaming restrictions.39 (2) Federal Recognition Through the Part 83 Administrative Process 40 What Are the Criteria for Recognition Under Part 83? A group of Indigenous people seeking federal recognition under the Part 83 administrative process (a petitioning group) generally must submit a petition to the Office of Federal Acknowledgment (OFA) within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs of DOI.

The petitioning group must prove that it meets the Part 83 regulatory criteria, including that it • has been identified as an American Indian entity since 1900 (25 C.F.R. §83.11(a));
• comprises a distinct community and has existed since 1900 (25 C.F.R. §83.11(b));
• has maintained political influence or authority over its members as an autonomous entity since 1900 (25 C.F.R. §83.11(c));
• comprises individuals descended from a historic Tribe (25 C.F.R. §83.11(e)); • consists principally of individuals who are not also members of another federally recognized Tribe (25 C.F.R. §83.11(f)); and
• has not had a relationship with the United States expressly terminated or prohibited by an act of Congress (25 C.F.R. §83.11(g)).41 35 25 C.F.R. §292.7 (restored lands exception) and 25 C.F.R. §292.6 (initial reservation exception). An infographic presentation of the restored lands exception is available at CRS Infographic IG10082, Gaming on Tribal Lands: The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act’s “Restored Lands” Exception, by Mariel J. Murray and Mainon A. Schwartz. 36 Carlson, 989 (“A majority (53.7 percent, or 29 of 54) of bills with restrictions include gaming restrictions postIGRA.”). 37 Carlson, 989.
38 Carlson, 990. (“The enactment rate for bills with restrictions has decreased dramatically post-IGRA.”) 39 See, e.g., FY2020 NDAA and FY2026 NDAA.
40 An infographic presentation of this information is available at CRS Infographic IG10038, Federal Recognition of Indian Tribes: The Administrative Process, by Mainon A. Schwartz. 41 See generally 25 C.F.R. §83.

The Federal Recognition of Tribes: FAQs
Congressional Research Service 6
The petitioning group also must provide a “governing document” (or a written statement) that includes its membership criteria (25 C.F.R. §83.11(d)).

Who Decides Whether a Petition Meets the Part 83 Process Criteria? DOI’s OFA reviews and evaluates petitions for federal recognition based on the Part 83 criteria. If the OFA determines that a petitioning group meets the regulatory criteria, the office recommends acknowledgement (recognition); if the OFA determines that the petitioning group does not meet the criteria, the office recommends denial. DOI’s Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs makes the final decision.42 DOI has approved 18 petitions since 1980 for those groups meeting all of the Part 83 criteria and has denied 34 petitions in the same timeframe. 43 See Appendix for a summary of
the 34 petitions for federal recognition denied since 1981, including which criteria the petitioning group failed to meet according to DOI’s Office of Federal Acknowledgement. 44 When Was the Last Time a Group of Indigenous People Were Recognized Through the Part 83 Process?
DOI recognized the Pamunkey Indian Tribe in 2015.45
What Happens if a Group Is Denied Federal Recognition Under Part 83? Historically, a DOI denial under Part 83 was the final word, at least administratively. 46 Following
litigation over the question of whether denied groups should be allowed to re-petition for recognition under the Part 83 process, in 2025, BIA promulgated a new rule permitting repetitions in limited circumstances.47 That rule, codified at 25 C.F.R. §83.50, became effective on March 21, 2025. As of the date of this report, three groups of Indigenous people had filed requests for authorization to re-petition:
• Miami Nation of Indians of the State of Indiana, Inc.; 48 • Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians;
49 and
• Schaghticoke Tribal Nation.
50 42 DOI, OFA, https://www.bia.gov/as-ia/ofa.
43 DOI, “Petitions Resolved-Acknowledged,” https://www.bia.gov/as-ia/ofa/petitions-resolved/acknowledged. Note that some Tribes, such as the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians, were acknowledged by congressional action during this period.
44 CRS compiled this information based on a review of denied petitions published on the website maintained by DOI OFA: https://www.bia.gov/as-ia/ofa/petitions-resolved/denied. 45 DOI, “Notification Letter to Petitioner FD,” https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/dup/assets/as-ia/ofa/petition/ 323_pamunk_VA/323_fd_letter.pdf.
46 Regardless of a DOI denial, Congress may choose to extend federal recognition to a group legislatively. Part 83 determinations also may be subject to judicial review—for example, under the Administrative Procedure Act. See, e.g., Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. Babbitt, 117 F.3d 1489, 1503 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (upholding federal jurisdiction to hear Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma challenge to Part 83 decision recognizing Delaware Tribe of Indians). 47 90 Federal Register 3627 (January 15, 2025).
48 90 Federal Register 41409 (August 25, 2025).
49 90 Federal Register 60736 (December 29, 2025).
50 90 Federal Register 61161 (December 30, 2025).

The Federal Recognition of Tribes: FAQs
Congressional Research Service 7
Under the 2025 rule, these petitions are to be evaluated anew under the Part 83 process, which may involve regulations that have been revised since the groups’ first petitions were denied or additional evidence that was not available at the time of the first denial.51 (3) Federal Recognition Through Judicial Decision
Federal courts in the modern era generally decline to consider extending federal recognition to an unrecognized group, citing a “long history making clear that tribal recognition is a political question committed to the political branches.”
52 For example, in 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit stated that it could not order the executive branch to add a group to the list of federally recognized Tribes when that group had not pursued recognition through the Part 83 process.
53 What Is “Reaffirmation”?
DOI also has confirmed the status of a few Tribes using a practice known as reaffirmation. Per this practice, DOI has added Tribes to its annual list of Tribes based on tribal requests for the reaffirmation of their tribal status.54 DOI has reaffirmed Tribes to “rectify … previous administrative errors” or to settle litigation with Tribes that were “wrongfully terminated.”55 A 2013 DOI Office of Inspector General (OIG) report observed that over the course of several Administrations, Assistant Secretaries for Indian Affairs have used this practice to recognize Tribes even though the process is not defined in law or regulation. 56 What Programs, Services, and Funding Can Federal Recognition Provide?
Congress has included in multiple laws authorizations of programs, services, or funding for Tribes and tribal members. Congress has authorized programs and services for Tribes and tribal members focused on agriculture, child welfare and placement, disaster assistance, education, the environment and natural resource management, housing, health care, gaming, transportation, and broadband internet access, among other things.57 Congress has specifically directed three agencies to serve Tribes and tribal members: the BIA, the Bureau of Indian Education, and the Indian Health Service.58
51 90 Federal Register 3631 (January 15, 2025) (explaining “a decision granting authorization to re-petition simply permits the petitioner to proceed with a new documented petition through the Federal acknowledgment process”; if authorization to re-petition is granted, “the petitioner must submit a complete documented petition under § 83.21 to request Federal acknowledgment and will then receive substantive review of the petitioner’s claims and evidence”). 52 Wyandot Nation v. United States, 858 F.3d 1392, 1401-02 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (collecting cases). 53 Agua Caliente Tribe of Cupeno Indians of Pala Reservation v. Sweeney, 932 F.3d 1207, 1223 (9th Cir. 2019). 54 Testimony of Bryan Newland, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, DOI, Oversight Hearing on Federal Acknowledgement: Political and Legal Relationship Between Governments, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, July 12, 2012, https://www.doi.gov/ocl/hearings/112/FederalTribalRecognition_071212. 55 Id.
56 See DOI, Office of the Inspector General, Investigative Report of the Tejon Indian Tribe, January 9, 2013, p. 2, https://www.doioig.gov/sites/default/files/2021-migration/Tejon_ROI_FINAL_PUBLIC.pdf. 57 OMB, FY2025 Native American Funding Crosscut, November 2024, https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2024/12/2025-Native-American-Funding-Crosscut-Report_508.pdf (hereinafter “OMB Crosscut”). 58 See 25 U.S.C. §13 and 25 U.S.C. §§1601 et seq.

The Federal Recognition of Tribes: FAQs
Congressional Research Service 8
Similarly, appropriations laws for various federal departments often include funding for Tribes and tribal members.
59 Newly recognized Tribes also may be eligible for specific funding. For example, Congress has often appropriated funding for the BIA to help newly recognized Tribes establish and carry out the day-to-day responsibilities of a tribal government.60 In addition, Congress has often appropriated funding for the Indian Health Service to help newly recognized Tribes start the delivery of health care services.61 The Bureau of Indian Education does not have a program or funding specifically for newly recognized Tribes.

Are All Indigenous Groups Federally Recognized?
As of the date of this report, 575 Tribes are federally recognized, of which about 40% are located in Alaska. Various groups of Indigenous people continue to seek recognition. 62 Some groups of
Indigenous people may not be federally recognized despite historical evidence about their existence.63 For example, multiple groups of Indigenous people in California experienced challenges achieving federal recognition because of the absence of ratified treaties and tribal reservations.64 Some groups of Indigenous people in Virginia also faced difficulty meeting the criteria for federal recognition because the state’s 1924 Racial Integrity Act eliminated individuals’ ability to select any race other than “colored” or “white” in official records; this presented significant challenges to groups needing to demonstrate their continued recognition as tribal entities.65
In addition, some groups once recognized but whose relationship with the federal government was terminated by federal statute have since sought restored recognition. 66 During the
Termination Era (approximately the 1950s and 1960s), federal policy focused on disestablishing reservations, diminishing tribal sovereign authority, and ending the federal recognition of Tribes.67 During this period, federal statutes formally ended federal recognition of about 109 Tribes through legislation.
68 A group whose relationship was terminated by statute may not use the Part 83 process; only federal statute can restore federal recognition to a “terminated” Tribe.69 Finally, the Part 83 process limits federal acknowledgement to Indigenous groups in the 59 See OMB Crosscut.
60 DOI, BIA, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2026, p. 26, https://edit.doi.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/2025-12/bia-2026-greenbook508.pdf. See also CRS Report R47723, Bureau of Indian Affairs:

Overview of Budget Issues and Options for Congress, by Mariel J. Murray. 61 Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service, Fiscal Year 2026 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, p. CJ-3, https://www.ihs.gov/sites/ofa/themes/responsive2017/display_objects/documents/ FY_2026_IHS_Congressional_Justification_Plan.pdf.
62 DOI, “Petitions Resolved-Acknowledged,” https://www.bia.gov/as-ia/ofa/petitions-resolved/acknowledged. 63 Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law §4.02[3] (2024). 64 Smithsonian Institution, “Handbook of North American Indians: Introduction,” vol. 1, p. 365, 2022. 65 U.S. Congress, Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Federal Recognition: Politics and Legal Relationship Between Governments, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., July 12, 2012, S.Hrg. 112-684 (Washington: GPO, 2013), p. 5. 66 For example, the Tolowa Nation’s status was terminated by P.L. 83-588, 68 Stat. 724, and they later petitioned for recognition but were denied in 2016 (DOI, OFA, “Petition #085: Tolowa Nation, CA,” https://www.bia.gov/as-ia/ofa/ 085-tolowa-ca).
67 See H.Con.Res. 108, 83rd Cong., 67 Stat. B132 (1953). Congress’s stated policy was, “as rapidly as possible, to make the Indians within the territorial limits of the United States subject to the same laws and entitled to the same privileges and responsibilities as are applicable to other citizens of the United States, to end their status as wards of the United States.” The Termination Era arguably ended with President Nixon’s Special Message on Indian Affairs, delivered to Congress in 1970 (Special Message to the Congress on Indian Affairs, 1 PUB. PAPERS 564 (July 8, 1970)). 68 See, e.g., P.L. 83-588, 68 Stat. 724 and P.L. 85-671, 72 Stat. 619. See also Krakoff article, 1077. 69 25 C.F.R. §83.11(g).

The Federal Recognition of Tribes: FAQs
Congressional Research Service 9
continental United States, which excludes Native Hawaiians. 70 However, even after DOI
established a separate process for Native Hawaiians to seek federal recognition, that community remains divided on whether to seek recognition.71
Are Alaska Native Corporations Federally Recognized?
The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) provides a unique statutory framework for the recognition of Alaska Natives.
72 Under the settlement authorized by the ANCSA, Alaska Natives gave up claims to over 360 million acres of land in exchange for $962.5 million and approximately 45 million acres.
73 The act also authorized the creation of Alaska Native village corporations and regional corporations (collectively, ANCs), which are not included on the annual list of Tribes that DOI publishes.74 However, in a lawsuit over funds set aside for Tribes in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (P.L. 116-136, Title V, 134 Stat. 281), the Supreme Court determined that ANCs are included in certain legal definitions of “Indian tribes” (such as the definition in ISDEAA) and therefore are eligible for certain benefits directed to federally recognized Tribes.
75 At the same time, ANCs are for-profit entities that lack many of the characteristics of sovereignty often associated with Tribes. They generally may not, for example, perform judicial or law enforcement functions, and they are subject to certain corporate requirements.76 Congress may consider whether legislation referencing federally recognized Tribes uses a definition that includes or excludes ANCs. 70 25 C.F.R. §83.1.
71 43 C.F.R. §50. Cecily Hilleary, “Native Hawaiians Divided on Federal Recognition,” VOA News, https://www.voanews.com/a/native-hawaiians-divided-on-federal-recognition/4775275.html. 72 P.L. 92-203, 85 Stat. 688.
73 See 43 U.S.C. §1605 and 43 U.S.C. §1611.
74 See 43 U.S.C. §§1606–1607.
75 Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Rsrv., 594 U.S. 338, 341–42 (2021). 76 See Alaska v. Native Vill. of Venetie, 522 U.S. 520 (1998). For corporate structure, see 43 U.S.C. §§1606–1607.

CRS-10
Appendix. Denied Petitions That Failed to Meet 25 C.F.R. §83 Criteria Table A-1. Denied Petitions That Failed to Meet 25 C.F.R. §83 Criteria (1981-2026)
Petitioning Group Name
Denial
Decision
Effective Date 83.11(a) 83.11(b) 83.11(c) 83.11(d) 83.11(e) 83.11(f) 83.11(g) Duwamish Indian Tribe, WA 7/19/2019 x x x — — — —
Georgia Tribe of Eastern
Cherokees, Inc. (aka Dahlonega,
Cane Break Band), GA
3/14/2018 x x x — — — —
Tolowa Nation, CA 2/18/2016 — x — — — — —
Choctaw Nation of Florida 7/11/2013 — — — — x — —
Brothertown Indian Nation 12/11/2012 — — — — — — x
Central Band of Cherokee of
Lawrenceburg, TN
7/24/2012 — — — — x — —
Juaneno Band of Mission Indians,
CA
6/20/2011 x x x — x — —
Steilacoom Tribe, WA 6/17/2008 x x x — x — —
Webster/Dudley Band of
Chaubunagungamaug Nipmuck
Indians, MA
1/28/2008 x x x — — — —
Nipmuc Nation, Hassanamisco
Band, MA
1/28/2008 x x x — x — —
St. Francis/Sokoki Band of
Abenakis of Vermont, VT
10/01/2007 x x x — x — —
Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and
Chippewa Indians, Inc., MI
1/03/2007 — x x — x — —
Schaghticoke Tribal Nation, CT 10/14/2005 — x x — — — — CRS-11
Petitioning Group Name
Denial
Decision
Effective Date 83.11(a) 83.11(b) 83.11(c) 83.11(d) 83.11(e) 83.11(f) 83.11(g) Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Indians
of Connecticut, CT
10/14/2005 — x x — — — —
Eastern Pequot Indians of
Connecticut, CT
10/14/2005 — x x — — — —
Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe, CT 3/18/2005 x x x — x — — Snohomish Tribe of Indians, WA 3/05/2004 x x x — x — —
Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of San
Francisco Bay, CA
12/16/2002 x x x — — — —
Chinook Indian Tribe/Chinook
Nation, WA
7/05/2002 x x x — — — —
Yuchi Tribal Organization, OK 3/21/2000 — — — — — x —
MOWA Band of Choctaw, AL 11/26/1999 — — — — x — —
Ramapough Mountain Indians,
Inc., NJ
1/07/1998 — x x — x — —
Miami Nation of Indians of IN,
Inc., IN
8/17/1992 — x x — — — —
MaChis Lower AL Creek Indian
Tribe, AL
8/22/1988 x x x — x — —
Tchinouk Indians, OR 3/17/1986 x x x — — — x
Northwest Cherokee Wolf Band,

SECC, OR
11/25/1985 x x x — x — —
Red Clay Intertribal Indian Band,

SECC, TN
11/25/1985 x x x — x — —
Southeastern Cherokee
Confederacy (SECC), GA
11/25/1985 x x x — x — —
United Lumbee Nation of NC and
America, CA
7/02/1985 x x x — x x —
CRS-12
Petitioning Group Name
Denial
Decision
Effective Date 83.11(a) 83.11(b) 83.11(c) 83.11(d) 83.11(e) 83.11(f) 83.11(g) Principal Creek Indian Nation, AL 6/10/1985 x x x — — — — Kaweah Indian Nation, CA 6/10/1985 x x x — x x —
Munsee Thames River Delaware,
CO
1/03/1983 x x x — x — —
Creeks East of the Mississippi, FL 12/21/1981 x x x — x — — Lower Muskogee Creek TribeEast of the Mississippi, GA12/21/1981 x x x — x — — Source: Congressional Research Service, based on a review of denied petitions published on the website maintained by DOI’s Office of Federal Acknowledgement at https://www.bia.gov/as-ia/ofa/petitions-resolved/denied. Names of petitioning groups are as they appear on that website as of the date of this report.

Notes: DOI = Department of the Interior. An “x” in one of the 25 C.F.R. §83.11 columns indicates that DOI’s Office of Federal Acknowledgement determined that the petition failed to meet that subsection’s criteria.

The Federal Recognition of Tribes: FAQs
Congressional Research Service R48888 · VERSION 1 · NEW 13 Author Information
Mariel J. Murray
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Laura Deal
Law Librarian
Mainon A. Schwartz
Legislative Attorney
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
26-590 Agenda Date: 6/9/2026

REPORT TO STADIUM AUTHORITY BOARD

SUBJECT
Action on Proposed FY 2027/28 Santa Clara Stadium Authority Capital Expense Projects

BACKGROUND
The Stadium Management Agreement (Management Agreement) between the Santa Clara Stadium Authority (Stadium Authority), Forty Niners SC Stadium Company, LLC (StadCo), and Forty Niners Stadium Management Company LLC (ManCo or Stadium Manager) defines the Stadium Operation and Maintenance Plan (SOMP) as the plan designed to achieve a safe and well-maintained Stadium and states that it should include the standards for management and operation of the Stadium, including the required security, staffing, and other required elements of hosting Stadium events. The Stadium Manager is responsible for preparing the SOMP that is presented annually to the Stadium Authority. The SOMP is required to include certain documents, including a Capital Expenditure Plan.

Each year, Stadium Authority staff prepares a proposed Santa Clara Stadium Authority Operating, Debt Service, and Capital Budget for the Stadium Authority’s twelve-month Fiscal Year (FY), which begins on April 1 and runs through March 31, in accordance with Article 4 - Records, Accounts, Budgets, and Reports of the Management Agreement. The Stadium Manager is required to submit a Capital Expenditure (CapEx) Plan that includes a five-year projection of anticipated capital expenditures.

The last four years of the Stadium Manager’s proposed Five-Year CapEx Plan for FY 2027/28 - FY 2030/31 is included as Attachment 1. The Stadium Manager’s FY 2026/27 budget submittal included significant investment in capital expenses proposed in the out-years beyond FY 2026/27. As the tenant of Levi’s Stadium, StadCo is also conducting a Facility Condition Assessment (FCA), funded at its expense, to support long-term financial planning, operational efficiency, and structural integrity.

The FCA will identify necessary repairs, capital improvements, and compliance requirements while optimizing maintenance costs and resource allocation. The FCA is anticipated to be completed in 2027. Once the assessment is complete and received, the Stadium Authority will undertake a vetting of the FCA. The Stadium Authority’s current capital reserve balance is far below an appropriate level, and increasing this balance will be a major focus of future budgetary and capital project planning.

The Stadium Authority will also assess and independently verify long-term facility needs at the Stadium. Initial funding for this work is included in the FY 2026/27 Operating Budget, and Stadium Authority staff is finalizing the scope of work and anticipates releasing a Request for Proposals (RFP) in the upcoming weeks.

On March 10, 2026, the Stadium Authority Board took several actions related to the 2026/27 Stadium Authority Operating, Debt Service, and Capital Budget, including:

City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 4 Printed on 6/5/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-590 Agenda Date: 6/9/2026

1. Adopt the Santa Clara Stadium Authority Fiscal Year 2026/27 Operating, Debt Service, and Capital Budget; and

2. With respect to the CapEx Plan:
a. Approve the Fiscal Year 2026/27 CapEx projects (Year One, and for items that have budget allocated in Year One and a forecast expenditure in Year Two), of the Stadium Manager’s 5-Year CapEx Plan, including such projects that are to be completed over multiple years;
b. Do not approve at this time CapEx projects to be commenced after Fiscal Year 2026/27 (Years 2 through 5); and
c. Upon completion of the Stadium Manager’s FCA, Stadium Authority staff’s evaluation and completion of its own FCA, and further discussions with Stadium Manager, return to the Stadium Authority Board with staff’s recommendation for Stadium Authority action on the CapEx program for Years 2 through 5.

During the March 10, 2026 budget discussion, staff also committed to conduct a further review and work with the Stadium Manager on the CapEx Projects proposed for FY 2027/28, Year 2 in the Stadium Manager’s 5-Year CapEx Plan, and provide the Stadium Authority Board with additional information on the Stadium Authority’s review of the FY 2027/28 CapEx Projects within 90 days.

Through this report, staff is presenting the Stadium Authority Board with recommendations on the proposed FY 2027/28 CapEx Projects.

DISCUSSION
At Stadium Authority staff’s request, the Stadium Manager provided a CapEx Project Detail document with project descriptions for the FY 2027/28 Stadium Authority CapEx Budget that were much more detailed than prior years’ submissions. On May 4, 2026, the Stadium Manager provided City and Stadium Authority staff a walk-through of Levi’s Stadium to view the proposed projects. During the walk-through, the Stadium Manager team highlighted the condition of the equipment and infrastructure at the Stadium during the tour and answered City/Stadium Authority staff’s questions with transparency and a partnership approach.

The document and the May 4th walk-through enabled City and Stadium Authority staff to gain a more in-depth understanding of the proposed projects and the work the Stadium Manager conducts on behalf of the Stadium Authority. Based on the information included in the CapEx Project Detail and engagement from the Stadium Manager, Stadium Authority staff recommends funding the Stadium Manager’s proposed FY 2027/28 CapEx projects as summarized in the following table:

City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 4 Printed on 6/5/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-590 Agenda Date: 6/9/2026
The attached document titled “Recommendations on Stadium Manager’s Proposed FY 2027/28 CapEx Projects” (Attachment 2) includes the Stadium Manager’s CapEx Project Detail and additional details about Stadium Authority staff’s analysis and recommendation for each project’s funding and any additional direction, if applicable.

It should be noted that the Stadium Manager’s original FY 2027/28 CapEx projects request included “Kawasaki ATVs” in the amount of $53,000. Stadium Authority staff did not request additional details on this project from the Stadium Manager because it was requested by the City’s public safety team.

Stadium Authority staff recommends including this project at the requested funding levels as part of the approved FY 2027/28 CapEx Projects. In addition, on March 10, 2026 the Board approved five of the FY 2027/28 CapEx Projects totaling $4,366,209.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environment Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(a)(4) in that it is a fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potential significant impact on the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed FY 2027/28 CapEx Budget is $11,080,731 which includes projects that were approved by the Board on March 10, 2026 totaling $4,366,209, the additional projects noted in the table above of $6,661,522, and the Kawasaki ATV project of $53,000.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Stadium Authority Counsel’s and Treasurer’s Offices.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 4 Printed on 6/5/2026
powered by Legistar™
Project Project Title FY 2027 SCSAStaff Recorrmendation Recommended Number Request Pmount
27-2001 Premium Areas $ 2,410,116 Approve with modifications (50%). $ 1,205,058 27-2002 ADA Platforms $ 1,500.000 Approve. $ 1,500,000
27-2003 Wayfinding Signs $ 1,238,036 Do not approve at this time. $ - 27-2004 Window Gasket Replacement $ 658,944 Approve with additional direction. $ 658,944 27-2005 Swiss Pearl Exterior Panel System $ 500,000 Approve with additional direction. $ 500,000 27-2006 Sanitary Valves $ 492,128 Approve with additional direction. $ 492,128 27-2007 Beer Systems $ 410,107 Approve with additional direction. $ 410,107 27-2008 Seism ic Joints $ 369,096 Annrove with additional direction. $ 369,096 27-2009 Elevator lvbdernization $ 287,375 Approve with additional direction. $ 287,375 27-2010 Exterior Facing Fixed Glazing $ 147,963 Approve with additional direction. $ 147,963 27-201 1 Ceilinos - Grid or Metal Outdoor Stadium $ 143,688 Annrove. $ 143,688 27-2012 Tire Shredder $ 131,234 Approve. $ 131 ,234
27-2013 Trench Drain Replacement $ 11 8,111 Approve with additional direction. $ 118,111 27-2014 Air Compressors $ 114,950 Approve with additional direction. $ 114,950 27-2015 Condenser Water Systems and VAV Wet Units $ 114,950 Approve with additional direction. $ 114,950 27-2016 Heat Exchanoer $ 114,950 Annrove with additional direction. $ 114,950 27-2017 Surveillance - Command Center Equipment $ 114,950 Approve with additional direction. $ 114,950 27-2018 Backbone Fiber Optics $ 88,583 Approve with additional direction. $ 88,583 27-2019 Replace Furniture - First Aid Hospital Beds $ 68,970 Annrove. $ 68,970 27-2020 Backfiow Preventers repair/replace as needed $ 57,475 Approve. $ 57,475 27-2021 Irrigation - Interior Field and Roof Garden Pumps and Piping $ 22,990 Approve w ith additional direction. $ 22,990 Total $ 9,104,616 $ 6,661 ,522
26-590 Agenda Date: 6/9/2026
outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected], or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve staff’s recommendation on the proposed Santa Clara Stadium Authority Fiscal Year 2027/28 Capital Expense Projects, totaling $11,080,731, as described in the report and “Recommendations for Stadium Manager’s Proposed FY 2027/28 CapEx Projects” attachment, including funding levels and next steps.

Prepared by: Christine Jung, Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Jovan Grogan, Executive Director

ATTACHMENTS

1. Stadium Manager Capital Expenditure Plan for FY 2027/28 - FY 2030/31

2. Recommendations for Stadium Manager’s Proposed FY 2027/28 CapEx Projects City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 4 Printed on 6/5/2026
powered by Legistar™

FORTY NINERS STADIUM MANAGEMENT COMPANY
5-YEAR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
DRAFT
Project Name Category 2027 2028 2029 2030
ADA Platforms Architectural 1,500,000 - - -
Adult Changing Facility Architectural - - - -
Air Compressors Architectural 114,950 - - -
Beer Systems Architectural 410,107 - - -
Beverage Distribution System Architectural - - - 327,943 Bridge - Pedestrian - Reseal walkways and Paint Bridges Architectural - - - 196,766 Exhaust hood/Fire Protection Systems Architectural - 342,849 358,277 - Field Tunnel Synthetic Turf Architectural - - - 373,801 Interior Renovation Non-Public Areas Architectural - - - 374,400 Landscaping - Structure (Planters) and perimeter re-do Architectural - - - 131,177 LED Lighting Replacement Architectural 2,627,963 2,746,221 3,558,554 - Pavement Resurfacing Architectural - 404,918 - -
Premium Areas Architectural 2,410,116 1,906,241 1,640,910 - Press Areas - Interior Finishes Architectural - - - 988,415 Production Equipment Architectural - - - 622,252
Replace Furniture - First Aid Hospital Beds Architectural 68,970 - - - Seating Bowl Sealant Joints Architectural 1,049,873 2,194,234 - - Security Lighting Architectural - - - -
Seismic Joints Architectural 369,096 - - -
Storm Drain Issues Architectural - - 16,957 17,720
Tire Shredder Architectural 131,234 - - -
Trench Drain Replacement Architectural 118,111 - - -
Wayfinding Signs Architectural 1,238,036 - - -
Ceilings - Grid or Metal Outdoor Stadium Building Envelope 143,688 180,184 - - CMU/ Cast Concrete walls Building Envelope - 102,855 107,483 112,320 Concrete Stairs Building Envelope - 137,140 143,311 149,760 Cooling Tower Conduit Building Systems - - 374,042 390,873 Doors - Club-Front Entrance (Glass doors /aluminum frames Building Envelope - 240,246 - - Exposed Staircase Coatings Building Envelope - 277,708 - - Exterior Facing Fixed Glazing Building Envelope 147,963 - - 628,992 Fall Protection System as needed scaffold tower ladders Building Envelope - 12,012 - - Metal panel system and copings Building Envelope - - 921,967 - Overhead Coiling Doors Building Envelope - - - 292,032
Slab on Grade Building Envelope - - - 853,632
Steel Coatings Building Envelope - 963,406 1,970,525 -
Swisspearl Exterior Panel System Building Envelope 500,000 750,000 - - Window Gasket Replacement Building Envelope 658,944 - - - ACS Electrified Door Hardware Building Systems - - - 374,400 Air Separator Building Systems - - - 168,480
Backflow Preventers repair/replace as needed Building Systems 57,475 - - - Closed Loop Condenser Water Pumps Building Systems - - 155,851 - Concourses DW Heating Building Systems - 1,079,975 - -
Condenser Water systems and VAV wet units Building Systems 114,950 - - - DRAFT 1/30/2026

FORTY NINERS STADIUM MANAGEMENT COMPANY
5-YEAR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
DRAFT
Project Name Category 2027 2028 2029 2030
Cooling Towers Building Systems 492,128 - - 84,240
Distribution - High Voltage Outdoor replacement main switchboard 12kv Building Systems - - - 1,967,656 Elevator Modernization Building Systems 287,375 420,430 - - Escalator Skirt Lighting + Skirt Replacement Building Systems - - - 426,816 Escalator Steel Stop Switch Cover Building Systems - 130,283 136,145 142,272 Expansion Tanks Building Systems - - - 247,104
Fire Alarm - EST 4 Fire Alarm panel upgrade to existing EST 3 system Building Systems - - - - Fire Suppression System Novec gas and Pumps/fixtures Building Systems - 120,123 - - Heat Exchanger Building Systems 114,950 - - -
Heat Pumps Building Systems - 501,417 523,981 245,500
HHW Boilers Building Systems - - - 252,720
HHW Pumps Building Systems - - - 224,640
HP Main AHUs Building Systems - - - 1,159,928
HVAC Boilers Exhaust Flues Building Systems - - - -
Inverter Replacement in Level 100 B Quad Building Systems - - - 119,958 Irrigation - Interior field and roof garden pumps and piping Building Systems 22,990 - - - Loop Condenser Water Pumps Building Systems - - 95,660 - Packaged DX Roof Top Units Building Systems - - - 424,794 Plumbing Building Systems - 120,123 - -
Restroom Automatic Flushing Device Replacement Building Systems - - - - Sanitary Valves Building Systems 492,128 514,274 537,416 561,600 Sideline Synthetic Turf Base Building Systems - - - 1,111,967 Smoke Curtains Building Systems - 162,853 - -
Surveillance - Command Center Equip. Building Systems 114,950 - - - TV Monitors in Elevator Cabs Building Systems - - - 24,336 VFDs Building Systems - - 403,779 421,949
Briefing Room Upgrades Public Safety - - - -
E-Bikes Public Safety 24,000 - - -
Golf Carts Public Safety - - - -
Kawasaki ATVs Public Safety 53,000 - 53,000 -
Lifepak Heart Monitor/Defibrilator Public Safety - - 60,000 - Lightweight Chemical Detector (LCD) 4.0 Public Safety - - 30,000 - Motorola APX Radios Public Safety - - 168,825 -
Portable Raman Spectrometer Public Safety - - 60,000 -
Radios Public Safety - - 2,116,000 -
Replace End of Life User Equipment Public Safety - 30,000 25,000 - Rolll Up Door for Briefing Room Public Safety - - - -
TruDefender Infrared Public Safety - - 75,000 -
Backbone Fiber Optics Technology 88,583 - - -
BOH Control Panels, Amplifiers & Speakers Technology 172,245 179,996 188,096 196,560 Broadcast Headend (Main I/O) Technology - - - 48,859
JBTs and SMPTE Fiber - JBT Cabling Package Technology - 130,831 - 142,871 TOTALS 13,523,823 13,648,317 13,720,777 13,806,729
DRAFT 1/30/2026

FORTY NINERS STADIUM MANAGEMENT COMPANY
5-YEAR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
DRAFT
Project Name Category 2027 2028 2029 2030
Footnotes to Schedule;
- Projected costs and projects have been adjusted based on anticipated event schedule, staffing, and available resources. - Project priorities and cost estimates will be revised based on independent condition assessments that are in process. *Does not include any carryforward projects from 2025
DRAFT 1/30/2026
1/21
Premium Areas
Project Number: 27-2001
Category: Architectural
Sub-Category: Premium Spaces
Project Budget Year: FY27/28
Project Manager: Francine Melendez Hughes, Executive
Vice President & General Manager
Location: 4900 Marie P. DeBartolo Way, Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Location Detail: 100 & 300 Premium Club Spaces; 200
Premium Atrium
Funding Source: SCSA - Stadium Capital Expenditure
Project Description:

This project addresses refurbishing specified elements of premium club spaces at the stadium as further detailed below. These premium club areas provide hospitality to the highest paying SBL members and host a multitude of non-NFL catered events. Lifecycle expectations for finishes in these areas are 10 years based on heavy usage.
100 Level Clubs -- Interior finishes need to be refreshed to address damage to the flooring, wall, and ceiling systems.
200 Premium Atrium -- Level 200 plaza premium lobby interior finishes will be refreshed over time due to wear and tear (for example, the round desk in the plaza). There is damage to the flooring, wall, and ceiling systems that will also be addressed.
300 Level Club – In 2024, this space was updated (painted, tiled, carpeted and Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment (“FF&E”) was replaced), totalling approximately $1.12M. There is additional casework and wall/sheetrock treatment that will be addressed as part of this project.

The rough order of magnitude (“ROM”) costs for these areas are ~$200/sqft, subject to the exact needs in each club.

Expenditures FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Total
Total
Expenditures
$ 2,410,116 $ 1,906,241 $ 1,640,910 $ 5,957,267
Project Number 27-2001
Project Title Premium Areas
Category Architectural
Sub-Category Premium Spaces
Project Budget Year FY 27/28
Location Detail 100 & 300 Premium Club Spaces; 200 Premium Atrium Funding Source SCSA – Stadium Capital Expenditure
FY 2027Requested Amount $2,410,116
SCSA Staff Response to Budgetary Request for FY2027
Staff Recommendation to SCSA Board – Approve with modifications (50%).

As per the supplemental project description, “this project addresses refurbishing specified elements of premium club spaces at the stadium as further detailed below… • 100 Level Clubs -- Interior finishes need to be refreshed to address damage to the flooring, wall, and ceiling systems.
• 200 Premium Atrium -- Level 200 plaza premium lobby interior finishes will be refreshed over time due to wear and tear (for example, the round desk in the plaza). There is damage to the flooring, wall, and ceiling systems that will also be addressed. • 300 Level Club – In 2024, this space was updated (painted, tiled, carpeted, and Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment (“FF&E”) was replaced), totaling approximately $1.12M. There is additional casework and wall/sheetrock treatment that will be addressed as part of this project.”
Upon visual inspection, SCSA staff and City representatives did not observe significant deterioration or widespread failure of finishes. However, in several areas, heavy use has created cosmetic scratches, dents, and chips in countertops, flooring, and other non-movable fixtures. Many of these areas can be repaired and/or refinished, thereby extending the useful life of non-movable fixtures and flooring.

SCSA staff recommends that ManCo explore alternatives to the replacement of interior finishes where practical and cost-effective. When replacement is warranted, hard surface materials that are less prone to scratches and dents should be selected. Wood and other soft-surface materials should be limited or elevated to avoid direct contact with patrons.

Based on the observed condition, ManCo's routine cleaning and maintenance practices are sufficient, as the Premium areas exhibit an upscale, modern aesthetic after several years of heavy use.

SCSA staff agree that repair and replacement of some finishes are warranted; however, the specific scope and areas to be improved are unclear. Additionally, the budget request reflects an estimate that is not tied to a specific replacement or repair plan. During the May 4th tour, ManCo staff stated that additional study, contact with vendors, and estimates are needed to determine the specific treatment for the interior finishes that need repairs and/or replacement. Additionally, the supplemental project description states that the financial estimate for this project was projected based on a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) of “~$200/sqft, subject to the exact needs in each club.” It is unclear how the $200/sq ft figure was derived; consequently, SCSA staff are unable to determine whether the requested amount is appropriate (too high or too low) for the work required.

As noted above, we agree that some repairs to interior finishes are warranted, and that the work ManCo needs to conduct to assess the full scope and plan for each area should proceed. As such, we recommend that the Board approve 50% of the requested amount for FY 2027 ($1.2M). We believe this amount will be sufficient to allow ManCo to undertake initial projects as well as develop a complete scope of work and obtain specific estimates. Additionally, SCSA staff requests that ManCo evaluate the ability to enter into As-Needed (master contracts) with vendors that can repair minor chips and scratches to interior finishes on an ongoing basis. It may be appropriate to shift such expenses from a CapEx project to an annual operational maintenance and repair expense. 2/21
ADA Platforms
Project Number: 27-2002
Category: Architectural
Sub-Category: Seating Bowl
Project Budget Year: FY27/28
Project Manager: Francine Melendez Hughes, Executive
Vice President & General Manager
Location: 4900 Marie P. DeBartolo Way, Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Location Detail: 300 Concourse
Funding Source: SCSA - Stadium Capital Expenditure
Project Description:

The stadium receives numerous seating accommodation requests from patrons with accessibility needs that cannot be fulfilled based on the current accessible seating capacity. This project will provide additional accommodations to meet demand.

This project will address the procurement and installation of platforms for the placement of additional accessible seating sections on the 300 level concourse behind the lower bowl seating sections. A study in consultation with a certified access specialist (CASp) will be performed as part of this project in order to evaluate the total amount of additional accessible seating that can be added, taking into account factors including ingress, egress, spacing, and path of travel.

The newly installed platforms and associated accessible seating is expected to last 10+ years.

This project is not associated with ADA remediation projects managed and funded by the 49ers.

Expenditures FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Total
Total
Expenditures
$ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000
Project Number 27-2002
Project Title ADA Platforms
Category Architectural
Sub-Category Seating Bowl
Project Budget Year FY 27/28
Location Detail 300 Concourse
Funding Source SCSA – Stadium Capital Expenditure
FY 2027Requested Amount $1,500,000
SCSA Staff Response to Budgetary Request for FY2027
Staff Recommendation to SCSA Board - Approve
As per the supplemental project description, “this project will address the procurement and installation of platforms for the placement of additional accessible seating sections on the 300 level concourse behind the lower bowl seating sections. A study in consultation with a certified access specialist (CASp) will be performed as part of this project in order to evaluate the total amount of additional accessible seating that can be added, taking into account factors including ingress, egress, spacing, and path of travel.”
SCSA staff agree that this project will provide meaningful enhancements to the facility and should be prioritized for funding. It is not connected to prior non-SCSA funded capital projects, such as FIFA Bowl modifications, and will have lasting benefits for visitors with accessibility needs.
3/21
Wayfinding Signs
Project Number: 27-2003
Category: Architectural
Sub-Category: Seating Bowl
Project Budget Year: FY27/28
Project Manager: Francine Melendez Hughes, Executive
Vice President & General Manager
Location: 4900 Marie P. DeBartolo Way, Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Location Detail: Seating Bowl
Funding Source: SCSA - Stadium Capital Expenditure
Project Description:

This project will improve wayfinding for stadium patrons by replacing wayfinding, identification, and code signage damaged by rust/exposure over time.

This is a phased project with a preliminary FY27 cost of $1.24M, which will cover design and a preliminary rollout of new signage. There will be additional costs in future years for this project.

The typical lifecycle of wayfinding signage is approximately 10-15 years.

Expenditures FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Total
Total
Expenditures
$ 1,238,036 $ 1,238,036
G teC
Project Number 27-2003
Project Title Wayfinding Signs
Category Architectural
Sub-Category Wayfinding
Project Budget Year FY 27/28
Location Detail Seating Bowl
Funding Source SCSA – Stadium Capital Expenditure
FY 2027Requested Amount $1,238,036
SCSA Staff Response to Budgetary Request for FY2027
Staff Recommendation to SCSA Board - Do not approve at this time.

As per the supplemental project description, this is intended to be “a phased project with a preliminary FY27 cost of $1.24M, which will cover design and a preliminary rollout of new signage. There will be additional costs in future years for this project.” Upon visual inspection, SCSA staff and City representatives did not observe significant deterioration or failure in the current Wayfinding Signage beyond normal maintenance and repair. Further, ManCo has not provided evidence that the current signage is insufficient and/or fails to meet ADA or other standards.

SCSA staff agree that replacement and modernization may increase visual appeal; however, we are not in agreement with proceeding with this project without further details on the desired replacement and its benefits. Spending $1.24M on the design of a new wayfinding signage program when the necessity for replacement has not been substantiated is not appropriate solely for aesthetic benefits, given the need to prioritize SCSA funds for higher capital priority needs.

SCSA staff are willing to reassess this determination if additional documentation and evidence are submitted. Additionally, spot or single-sign replacements (or enhancements) may be appropriate to address any deficiencies, rather than a complete sign program redesign and replacement.
4/21
Window Gasket Replacement
Project Number: 27-2004
Category: Building Envelope
Sub-Category: Doors & Windows
Project Budget Year: FY27/28
Project Manager: Francine Melendez Hughes, Executive
Vice President & General Manager
Location: 4900 Marie P. DeBartolo Way, Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Location Detail: 800 Level Press Box - Windows
Funding Source: SCSA - Stadium Capital Expenditure
Project Description:

Gaskets are missing and/or disengaged from window mullions on the operable windows in the 800 level press box. This project addresses these conditions, which are present in multiple areas throughout the 800 level.

The ROM cost for this project is ~$658K, including contingency and inflation.

Expenditures FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Total
Total
Expenditures
$ 658,944 $ 658,944
Project Number 27-2004
Project Title Window Gasket Replacement
Category Building Envelope
Sub-Category Doors & Windows
Project Budget Year FY 27/28
Location Detail 800 Level Press Box - Windows
Funding Source SCSA – Stadium Capital Expenditure
FY 2027Requested Amount $658,944
SCSA Staff Response to Budgetary Request for FY2027
Staff Recommendation to SCSA Board – Approve with additional direction.

As per the supplemental project description, “gaskets are missing and/or disengaged from window mullions on the operable windows in the 800 level press box.” Upon visual inspection, SCSA staff and City representatives did not observe significant deterioration or failure across the entire 800 Level Press Box window system. Spot issues and elevated maintenance needs were observed and substantiated.

The Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) for the repairs estimate of ~$658K (inclusive of contingency and inflation) was not substantiated based on linear feet (or another measurement) of the current areas that need repair. However, given the sizable window system in the 800 Level Press Box and the fact that failed gaskets and mullions can cause significant damage if not repaired immediately, staff agree that funding should be prioritized for this capital project request. However, we request that ManCo use the funds as needed to replace failed window gaskets/mullions and report back to the SCSA on the extent of the replacements conducted annually. In the future, once current failures are repaired, it may be appropriate to adjust this expense from a CapEx project to an annual operational maintenance and repair expense. 5/21
Swiss Pearl Exterior Panel System
Project Number: 27-2005
Category: Building Envelope
Sub-Category: Exterior Facade
Project Budget Year: FY27/28
Project Manager: Francine Melendez Hughes, Executive
Vice President & General Manager
Location: 4900 Marie P. DeBartolo Way, Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Location Detail: 200 Exterior Atrium; 300 East
Concourse; 400 Tower Patios
Funding Source: SCSA - Stadium Capital Expenditure
Project Description:

This project involves replacement of the Swisspearl exterior panel system on the west facade suite and press tower due to solar fading.

We have previously attempted to address fading and chipping with a paint/faux treatment, which was unsuccessful. It is a panel system so the options are to replace specific areas showing the most wear, which may result in aesthetic issues due to mismatched panels, or replace all panels, which will increase cost.

This is a phased project with a ROM cost of ~$1.25M for the initial phases. The FY27 and FY28 costs for this project are $500K and $750K, respectively. There will be additional costs in future years for the remaining phases of this project.

Expenditures FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Total
Total
Expenditures
$ 500,000 $ 750,000 $ 1,250,000
I I
Project Number 27-2005
Project Title Swiss Pearl Exterior Panel System
Category Building Envelope
Sub-Category Exterior Facade
Project Budget Year FY 27/28
Location Detail 200 Exterior Atrium; 300 East Concourse; 400 Tower Patios Funding Source SCSA – Stadium Capital Expenditure
FY 2027Requested Amount $500,000
SCSA Staff Response to Budgetary Request for FY2027
Staff Recommendation to SCSA Board – Approve with additional direction.

This project involves replacing the Swisspearl exterior panel system on the west facade suite and the press tower due to solar fading.

Upon visual inspection, SCSA staff and City representatives confirmed chipping, cracks, and aesthetic paint/fading issues. These elements appear to be aesthetic vs. structural. The original material was not durable enough to withstand normal use, as dents, chips, and cracks are present throughout the facility. A new material should be selected. ManCo should confer with SCSA staff and obtain SCSA staff approval of the selected replacement material. 6/21
Sanitary Valves
Project Number: 27-2006
Category: Building Systems
Sub-Category: Plumbing
Project Budget Year: FY27/28
Project Manager: Francine Melendez Hughes, Executive
Vice President & General Manager
Location: 4900 Marie P. DeBartolo Way, Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Location Detail: Any concessions with kitchen and
pantry.

Funding Source: SCSA - Stadium Capital Expenditure
Project Description:

Sanitary valves are used in systems that handle potable water or other consumable liquids. They are important to maintain food safety (i.e., prevention of bacteria and cross-contamination). Sanitary valves are required to be kept in good condition for all consumable liquids systems.

This project replaces the approximately 150 sanitary valves throughout the stadium (concessions, clubs, kitchens and commissary) to ensure compliance with applicable Health & Safety Code requirements.

Because of their related nature, this project is being performed in conjunction with Project 27-2020, Backflow Preventers repair/replace as needed.

Expenditures FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Total
Total
Expenditures
$ 492,128 $ 514,274 $ 537,416 $ 561,600 $ 2,105,417
Project Number 27-2006
Project Title Sanitary Valves
Category Building Systems
Sub-Category Plumbing
Project Budget Year FY 27/28
Location Detail Any concessions with kitchen and pantry.

Funding Source SCSA – Stadium Capital Expenditure
FY 2027Requested Amount $492,128
SCSA Staff Response to Budgetary Request for FY2027
Staff Recommendation to SCSA Board – Approve with additional direction.

As per the supplemental project description, “this project replaces the approximately 150 sanitary valves throughout the stadium (concessions, clubs, kitchens, and commissary) to ensure compliance with applicable Health & Safety Code requirements.” This phased multi-year project is projected at approximately $500,000 annually for the next 3 years. While we recommend funding this project, during the next capital budgeting process, ManCo and SCSA staff should discuss and determine if it may be appropriate to adjust this expense from a capital project to an annual maintenance and repair operational expense. 7/21
Beer Systems
Project Number: 27-2007
Category: Architectural
Sub-Category: Kitchen & Concessions Equipment
Project Budget Year: FY27/28
Project Manager: Francine Melendez Hughes, Executive
Vice President & General Manager
Location: 4900 Marie P. DeBartolo Way, Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Location Detail: 300 Concourse (Taproom)
Funding Source: SCSA - Stadium Capital Expenditure
Project Description:

The stadium’s beer systems consist of beer compressors, evaporator coils, pumps, valves, glycol equipment, and beverage lines to move beer from kegs to points of distribution. These systems are nearing their end of life and will be replaced as part of this project.

This is a phased project with a ROM cost of ~$410K for the preliminary phase of the project. There will be additional costs in future years for the remaining phases of this project.

Expenditures FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Total
Total
Expenditures
$ 410,107 $ 410,107
Project Number 27-2007
Project Title Beer Systems
Category Architectural
Sub-Category Kitchen & Concessions Equipment
Project Budget Year FY 27/28
Location Detail 300 Concourse (Taproom)
Funding Source SCSA – Stadium Capital Expenditure
FY 2027Requested Amount $410,107
SCSA Staff Response to Budgetary Request for FY2027
Staff Recommendation to SCSA Board – Approve with additional direction.

This project includes replacing/upgrading the stadium’s beer systems, which consist of beer compressors, evaporator coils, pumps, valves, glycol equipment, and beverage lines to move beer from kegs to points of distribution.

As per the supplemental project description, “this is a phased project with a ROM cost of ~$410K for the preliminary phase of the project. There will be additional costs in future years for the remaining phases of this project.”
While SCSA staff are supportive of the proposed allocation, however, it is not clear what the total cost of replacing/upgrading all of the stadium’s beer systems will be. The final cost may be several multiples of the current request. As such, ManCo should assess the total project costs, and provide a thorough project description and estimate in the next capital budgeting process. 8/21
Seismic Joints
Project Number: 27-2008
Category: Architectural
Sub-Category: Seating Bowl
Project Budget Year: FY27/28
Project Manager: Francine Melendez Hughes, Executive
Vice President & General Manager
Location: 4900 Marie P. DeBartolo Way, Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Location Detail: Full stadium bowl
Funding Source: SCSA - Stadium Capital Expenditure
Project Description:

The stadium is experiencing water intrusion from leaks resulting from the deteriorating condition of the existing seismic joints. This project replaces seismic joints between precast concrete stadia and between cast-in-place concrete throughout the seating bowl. Both horizontal and vertical seismic joints in the specified areas noted above will be replaced.

The ROM cost for the preliminary phase of this project is ~$370K. Additional funding will be required in future years to complete all phases of this project.

Expenditures FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Total
Total
Expenditures
$ 369,096 $ 369,096
Project Number 27-2008
Project Title Seismic Joints
Category Architectural
Sub-Category Seating Bowl
Project Budget Year FY 27/28
Location Detail Full stadium bowl
Funding Source SCSA – Stadium Capital Expenditure
FY 2027Requested Amount $369,096
SCSA Staff Response to Budgetary Request for FY2027
Staff Recommendation to SCSA Board – Approve with additional direction.

As per the supplemental project description, “this project replaces seismic joints between precast concrete stadia and between cast-in-place concrete throughout the seating bowl. Both horizontal and vertical seismic joints in the specified areas noted above will be replaced. The ROM cost for the preliminary phase of this project is ~$370K. Additional funding will be required in future years to complete all phases of this project.” Upon visual inspection, SCSA staff and City representatives observed evidence of prior water intrusion and failed seals related to seismic joints.

While SCSA staff are supportive of the proposed project, it is unclear what the total cost of replacing seismic joints across the entire facility will be. Additionally, ManCo and/or its agents should assess the feasibility and the financial benefit of repairing vs. replacing specific areas where seals have not failed entirely.

SCSA staff recommend that ManCo should assess the total cost and timeframe to replace/repair seismic joints across the full facility, and provide a thorough project description and estimate in the next capital budgeting process.
9/21
Elevator Modernization
Project Number: 27-2009
Category: Building Systems
Sub-Category: Conveying Systems / Vertical
Transportation
Project Budget Year: FY27/28
Project Manager: Francine Melendez Hughes, Executive
Vice President & General Manager
Location: 4900 Marie P. DeBartolo Way, Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Location Detail: Passenger: 100 tower lobby
Freight: 100 level D quad, off loading
dock
Funding Source: SCSA - Stadium Capital Expenditure
Project Description:

The stadium’s freight and passenger elevators require both functional and cosmetic upgrades and revitalization to ensure elevators and cabs meet current safety and operational standards.

All elevator equipment at Levi’s Stadium was custom designed and built during the original stadium construction. Because of the custom nature and age of the elevators, many of the existing parts are no longer commercially available, which in turn requires custom fabrication of replacement parts, higher maintenance costs, and long lead times when repair is required. This project will pilot work on a portion of the stadium elevators as part of a larger program to revitalize, refurbish, and modernize all freight and passenger elevators at the stadium.

Expenditures FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Total
Total
Expenditures
$ 287,375 $ 420,430 $ 707,805
Project Number 27-2009
Project Title Elevator Modernization
Category Building Systems
Sub-Category Conveying Systems / Vertical Transportation Project Budget Year FY 27/28
Location Detail Passenger: 100 tower lobby Freight: 100 level D quad, off loading dock
Funding Source SCSA – Stadium Capital Expenditure
FY 2027Requested Amount $287,375
SCSA Staff Response to Budgetary Request for FY2027
Staff Recommendation to SCSA Board – Approve with modifications.

As per the supplemental project description, “all elevator equipment at Levi’s Stadium was custom designed and built during the original stadium construction. Because of the custom nature and age of the elevators, many of the existing parts are no longer commercially available, which in turn requires custom fabrication of replacement parts, higher maintenance costs, and long lead times when repair is required. This project will pilot work on a portion of the stadium elevators as part of a larger program to revitalize, refurbish, and modernize all freight and passenger elevators at the stadium.”
Since the total cost and scope of the elevator project are unknown, SCSA staff cannot determine which aspects of the project should be prioritized for funding. However, given the importance of ensuring that elevators function properly, SCSA staff are supportive of the initial $287K allocation for the “pilot” project in FY 2027.

SCSA staff request that ManCo not make cosmetic upgrades to the freight elevators without providing further details and obtaining consent from SCSA staff. Given the facility's competing capital needs, cosmetic upgrades to the freight elevators are not a high priority. Additionally, we request additional information on challenges with maintaining the current system and evidence to support that the current elevator system cannot be maintained to meet safety and service expectations. It should be noted that a full elevator replacement for a facility that is 11 years old is atypical.
10/21
Exterior Facing Fixed Glazing
Project Number: 27-2010
Category: Building Envelope
Sub-Category: Doors & Windows
Project Budget Year: FY27/28
Project Manager: Francine Melendez Hughes, Executive
Vice President & General Manager
Location: 4900 Marie P. DeBartolo Way, Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Location Detail: Various entry points, including 200
Atrium Exterior doors (pictured) and
exterior doors at Gate F entrance.

Funding Source: SCSA - Stadium Capital Expenditure
Project Description:

The glass entry doors in various locations have chipped or have failing seals, which can lead to moisture intrusion and compromise the integrity of the door and window systems should the chips expand into larger cracks. This project addresses these issues as-needed before a larger-scale replacement in FY2030.

Expenditures FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Total
Total
Expenditures
$ 147,963 $ 628,992 $ 776,955
Project Number 27-2010
Project Title Exterior Facing Fixed Glazing
Category Building Envelope
Sub-Category Doors & Windows
Project Budget Year FY 27/28
Location Detail Various entry points, including 200 Atrium Exterior doors and exterior doors at Gate F entrance.

Funding Source SCSA – Stadium Capital Expenditure
FY 2027Requested Amount $147,963
SCSA Staff Response to Budgetary Request for FY2027
Staff Recommendation to SCSA Board – Approve with additional direction Upon visual inspection, SCSA staff and City representatives observed chipped or failed seals on entry doors. However, it is unknown to the SCSA how many doors need repair or replacement. Given the number and size of Atrium doors on the 200 level and at Gate F, we support funding this project; however, in the future, we request additional details on the specific areas to be repaired.
11/21
Ceilings - Grid or Metal Outdoor Stadium
Project Number: 27-2011
Category: Building Envelope
Sub-Category: Exterior Facade
Project Budget Year: FY27/28
Project Manager: Francine Melendez Hughes, Executive
Vice President & General Manager
Location: 4900 Marie P. DeBartolo Way, Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Location Detail: 700 Level exterior; Gate F
Funding Source: SCSA - Stadium Capital Expenditure
Project Description:

This project includes preparing and coating the existing steel structure along the 300 level concourse of Levi’s Stadium, which is showing substantial rust staining, to extend the useful life of the facility. The work will involve preparing, priming, sealing, and applying two finish coats to the bent stee Some of this work was done as part of an SCSA CapEx project from 2022/23 (Rust Protection Mitigation Project, Bent Steel at Stadium Perimeter – Level 300). In addition, StadCo performed some remediation work in preparation for Super Bowl LX.

Expenditures FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Total
Total
Expenditures
$ 143,688 $ 180,184 $ 323,872
Project Number 27-2011
Project Title Ceilings - Grid or Metal Outdoor Stadium
Category Building Envelope
Sub-Category Exterior Facade
Project Budget Year FY 27/28
Location Detail 700 Level exterior; Gate F
Funding Source SCSA – Stadium Capital Expenditure
FY 2027Requested Amount $143,688
SCSA Staff Response to Budgetary Request for FY2027
Staff Recommendation to SCSA Board – Approve.

As per the supplemental project description, “this project includes preparing and coating the existing steel structure along the 300 level concourse of Levi’s Stadium, which is showing substantial rust staining, to extend the useful life of the facility. The work will involve preparing, priming, sealing, and applying two finish coats to the bent steel.” Upon visual inspection, SCSA staff and City representatives observed rust staining and failed steel coatings in various locations. We recommend funding this project. 12/21
Tire Shredder
Project Number: 27-2012
Category: Architectural
Sub-Category: Site Work
Project Budget Year: FY27/28
Project Manager: Francine Melendez Hughes, Executive
Vice President & General Manager
Location: 4900 Marie P. DeBartolo Way, Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Location Detail: Green/Red Lot Ingress
Funding Source: SCSA - Stadium Capital Expenditure
Project Description:

The driveway exit to Tasman drive from the main stadium lot has a tire shredder to prevent traffic from entering the parking lot through the exit lane.

The tire shredder is more than ten years old and is failing. This project replaces the existing tire shredder.

Expenditures FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Total
Total
Expenditures
$ 131,234 $ 131,234
Project Number 27-2012
Project Title Tire Shredder
Category Architectural
Sub-Category Site Work
Project Budget Year FY 27/28
Location Detail Green/Red Lot Ingress
Funding Source SCSA – Stadium Capital Expenditure
FY 2027Requested Amount $131,234
SCSA Staff Response to Budgetary Request for FY2027
Staff Recommendation to SCSA Board – Approve.

This project involves replacing the tire shredder at the driveway exit to Tasman Dive from the main Stadium lot. The tire shredder is more than ten years old and is failing. We recommend funding this project.
13/21
Trench Drain Replacement
Project Number: 27-2013
Category: Architectural
Sub-Category: Site Work
Project Budget Year: FY27/28
Project Manager: Francine Melendez Hughes, Executive
Vice President & General Manager
Location: 4900 Marie P. DeBartolo Way, Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Location Detail: Loading Dock Area
Funding Source: SCSA - Stadium Capital Expenditure
Project Description:

The existing trench drain at the trash collection area has failed and requires replacement. The failed trench drain has resulted in odor issues occurring near the south entrance, which is used by performers, crew, Santa Clara PD, and stadium staff to access the stadium. This project will include cutting out and replacing the current trench drain with a new drain installed at a deeper slope to improve drainage for washdown of the area. The preliminary phase of this project involving replacement of a section of the existing trench drain will be performed following replacement of the stadium trash compactors, which is currently planned for July 2026.

The ROM cost for the preliminary phase of this project is ~$118K. Additional funding will be required for future phases of this project.

Expenditures FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Total
Total
Expenditures
$ 118,111 $ 118,111
Project Number 27-2013
Project Title Trench Drain Replacement
Category Architectural
Sub-Category Site Work
Project Budget Year FY 27/28
Location Detail Loading Dock Area
Funding Source SCSA – Stadium Capital Expenditure
FY 2027Requested Amount $118,111
SCSA Staff Response to Budgetary Request for FY2027
Staff Recommendation to SCSA Board – Approve with additional direction.

As per the supplemental project description, “the existing trench drain at the trash collection area has failed and requires replacement. The failed trench drain has resulted in odor issues occurring near the south entrance, which is used by performers, crew, Santa Clara PD, and stadium staff to access the stadium. This project will include cutting out and replacing the current trench drain with a new drain installed at a deeper slope to improve drainage for washdown of the area.”
Upon visual inspection, SCSA staff and City representatives observed a substandard drainage system. We support approval of the project, but request ManCo confirm that a full replacement of the drainage system is warranted before proceeding with the project. This work is timed to occur with the previously approved replacement of the stadium trash compactors, which is currently planned for July 2026, so funding should not be delayed.

The supplemental project description also states that “additional funding will be required for future phases of this project.” SCSA staff requests information on the specific improvements and the location of other trench drains that may be repaired in future years. 14/21
Air Compressors
Project Number: 27-2014
Category: Architectural
Sub-Category: Equipment
Project Budget Year: FY27/28
Project Manager: Francine Melendez Hughes, Executive
Vice President & General Manager
Location: 4900 Marie P. DeBartolo Way, Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Location Detail: 100 Pump Room and Engineering
Shop
Funding Source: SCSA - Stadium Capital Expenditure
Project Description:

The main compressor is used for the main stadium water softener system and auto and welding shop compressors. This project is a full replacement of the existing main compressor (originally installed in 2014), which is nearing end of life (i.e., approximately 10 years). The project will also address the need to upsize the main compressor because the existing compressor is undersized for the stadium’s current and future needs.
$100K was a ROM allowance approved as part of the FY25 5-year CapEx Submission, and 10% contingency and 4.5% escalation was added to this number for the FY27 projection.

Expenditures FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Total
Total
Expenditures
$ 114,950 $ 114,950
Project Number 27-2014
Project Title Air Compressors
Category Architectural
Sub-Category Equipment
Project Budget Year FY 27/28
Location Detail 100 Pump Room and Engineering Shop
Funding Source SCSA – Stadium Capital Expenditure
FY 2027Requested Amount $114,950
SCSA Staff Response to Budgetary Request for FY2027
Staff Recommendation to SCSA Board – Approve.

This project is a full replacement of the existing main compressor (originally installed in 2014), which is nearing end of life (i.e., approximately 10 years). The project will also address the need to upsize the main compressor because the existing compressor is undersized for the stadium’s current and future needs.

SCSA staff concurs that replacement aligns with the typical lifecycle of air compressor equipment.

This project was previously approved in FY 2025 but was not completed. As such, SCSA staff recommend approval of the funding request. However, SCSA staff requests ManCo adjust its project estimating practices for minor equipment replacements. The current estimate for this and other small projects is a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) of $100K, plus a 10% contingency and a 4.5% escalation from FY 2025. While the contingency and escalation estimates are in line with industry standards, it is unknown if $100K is the appropriate amount for replacement of the equipment.
15/21
Condenser Water Systems and VAV Wet Units
Project Number: 27-2015
Category: Building Systems
Sub-Category: Mechanical
Project Budget Year: FY27/28
Project Manager: Francine Melendez Hughes, Executive
Vice President & General Manager
Location: 4900 Marie P. DeBartolo Way, Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Location Detail: Throughout stadium, bowl and tower
Funding Source: SCSA - Stadium Capital Expenditure
Project Description:

The condenser water system transfers heat from the building to the outside atmosphere. The existing condensers in use at the stadium are nearing the end of their life cycle and will be replaced as part of this project.

Variable Air Volume (VAV) units control conditioned air flows in the Stadium’s HVAC system to individual spaces. The existing VAV units in use at the stadium are nearing the end of their lifecycle and will be replaced as part of this project.
$100K was a ROM allowance approved as part of the FY25 5-year CapEx Submission, and 10% contingency and 4.5% escalation was added to this number for the FY27 projection.

Expenditures FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Total
Total
Expenditures
$ 114,950 $ 114,950
I I
Project Number 27-2015
Project Title Condenser Water Systems and VAV Wet Units Category Building Systems
Sub-Category Mechanical
Project Budget Year FY 27/28
Location Detail Throughout stadium, bowl and tower
Funding Source SCSA – Stadium Capital Expenditure
FY 2027Requested Amount $114,950
SCSA Staff Response to Budgetary Request for FY2027
Staff Recommendation to SCSA Board – Approve with additional direction.

The Stadium’s condenser water system and the Variable Air Volume (VAV) are nearing the end of their life cycle and will be replaced as part of this project.

This project was previously approved in FY 2025 but was not completed. As such, SCSA staff recommend approval of the funding request. However, SCSA staff requests ManCo adjust its project estimating practices for minor equipment replacements. The current estimate for this and other small projects is a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) of $100K, plus a 10% contingency and a 4.5% escalation from FY 2025. While the contingency and escalation estimates are in line with industry standards, it is unknown if $100K is the appropriate amount for replacement of the equipment.
16/21
Heat Exchanger
Project Number: 27-2016
Category: Building Systems
Sub-Category: Mechanical
Project Budget Year: FY27/28
Project Manager: Francine Melendez Hughes, Executive
Vice President & General Manager
Location: 4900 Marie P. DeBartolo Way, Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Location Detail: 100 Pump Room
Funding Source: SCSA - Stadium Capital Expenditure
Project Description:

This project will repair/rebuild the heat exchanger in the main pump room located on the 100 level of the stadium. This is a critical component of the HVAC system which provides heat safely and efficiently throughout the building. The expected differential for a functional heat exchanger should be 10-12 degrees. The stadium’s current systems may run as low as 2-4 degrees due to aging and lower efficiency resulting from system strain.
$100K was a ROM allowance approved as part of the FY25 5-year CapEx Submission, and 10% contingency and 4.5% escalation was added to this number for the FY27 projection.

Expenditures FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Total
Total
Expenditures
$ 114,950 $ 114,950
Project Number 27-2016
Project Title Heat Exchanger
Category Building Systems
Sub-Category Mechanical
Project Budget Year FY 27/28
Location Detail 100 Pump Room
Funding Source SCSA – Stadium Capital Expenditure
FY 2027Requested Amount $114,950
SCSA Staff Response to Budgetary Request for FY2027
Staff Recommendation to SCSA Board – Approve with additional direction.

As per the supplemental project description, “this project will repair/rebuild the heat exchanger in the main pump room located on the 100 level of the stadium. This is a critical component of the HVAC system, which provides heat safely and efficiently throughout the building. The expected differential for a functional heat exchanger should be 10-12 degrees. The stadium’s current systems may run as low as 2-4 degrees due to aging and lower efficiency resulting from system strain.”
This project was previously approved in FY 2025 but was not completed. As such, SCSA staff recommend approval of the funding request. However, SCSA staff requests ManCo adjust its project estimating practices for minor equipment replacements. The current estimate for this and other small projects is a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) of $100K, plus a 10% contingency and a 4.5% escalation from FY 2025. While the contingency and escalation estimates are in line with industry standards, it is unknown if $100K is the appropriate amount for replacement of the equipment.
17/21
Surveillance - Command Center Equipment (Confidential)
Project Number: 27-2017
Category: Building Systems
Sub-Category: Security Systems
Project Budget Year: FY27/28
Project Manager: Francine Melendez Hughes, Executive
Vice President & General Manager
Location: 4900 Marie P. DeBartolo Way, Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Location Detail: Command Center
Funding Source: SCSA - Stadium Capital Expenditure
Project Description:

This project will address upgrades to the surveillance system in the Level 800 Command Center at Levi’s Stadium. A security integrator will be engaged in FY26 to provide a comprehensive review of the existing system together with recommendations regarding enhancements to be performed as part of this project.
$100K was a ROM allowance approved as part of the FY25 5-year CapEx Submission, and 10% contingency and 4.5% escalation was added to this number for the FY27 projection.

Expenditures FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Total
Total $ 114,950 $ 114,950 IC±==r=__j____L_---'-----
Project Number 27-2017
Project Title Surveillance - Command Center Equipment
Category Building Systems
Sub-Category Security Systems
Project Budget Year FY 27/28
Location Detail Command Center
Funding Source SCSA – Stadium Capital Expenditure
FY 2027Requested Amount $114,950
SCSA Staff Response to Budgetary Request for FY2027
Staff Recommendation to SCSA Board – Approve with additional direction.

As per the supplemental project description, “this project will address upgrades to the surveillance system in the Level 800 Command Center at Levi’s Stadium. A security integrator will be engaged in FY26 to provide a comprehensive review of the existing system together with recommendations regarding enhancements to be performed as part of this project.” This project was previously approved in FY 2025 but was not completed. As such, SCSA staff recommend approval of the funding request. However, SCSA staff requests ManCo adjust its project estimating practices for minor equipment replacements. The current estimate for this and other small projects is a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) of $100K, plus a 10% contingency and a 4.5% escalation from FY 2025. While the contingency and escalation estimates are in line with industry standards, it is unknown if $100K is the appropriate amount for replacement of the equipment.

Additionally, the full scope of this project is unknown, and SCSA staff requests that ManCo provide additional information (including the results of the security integrator’s assessment) to the SCSA and the Santa Clara Police Department prior to proceeding with the project.
18/21
Backbone Fiber Optics (Replaced)
Project Number: 27-2018
Category: Technology
Sub-Category: Technology Infrastructure
Project Budget Year: FY27/28
Project Manager: Francine Melendez Hughes, Executive
Vice President & General Manager
Location: 4900 Marie P. DeBartolo Way, Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Location Detail: Panel Replacement (Exterior adjacent
to Loading Dock)
Funding Source: SCSA - Stadium Capital Expenditure
Project Description:

The original scope of this project was to add broadcast fiber cable to the playing field; however, StadCo paid to execute that specific scope as part of stadium improvements it performed in 2025.

This project will focus on repairing and upgrading the primary broadcast patch panel located at the loading dock, which serves as the critical connection point for mobile production units during major events. The scope includes replacing aging and damaged equipment, and implementing corrective measures to mitigate ongoing water intrusion, and other work necessary to ensure reliable signal integrity and uninterrupted broadcast operations.

Expenditures FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Total
Total $ 88,583 $ 88,583
Project Number 27-2018
Project Title Backbone Fiber Optics
Category Technology
Sub-Category Technology Infrastructure
Project Budget Year FY 27/28
Location Detail Panel Replacement (Exterior adjacent to Loading Dock) Funding Source SCSA – Stadium Capital Expenditure
FY 2027Requested Amount $88,583
SCSA Staff Response to Budgetary Request for FY2027
Staff Recommendation to SCSA Board – Approve with additional direction.

As per the supplemental project description, “this project will focus on repairing and upgrading the primary broadcast patch panel located at the loading dock, which serves as the critical connection point for mobile production units during major events. The scope includes replacing aging and damaged equipment, and implementing corrective measures to mitigate ongoing water intrusion, and other work necessary to ensure reliable signal integrity and uninterrupted broadcast operations.”
While the project description outlines the type of work to be conducted, the project's full scope remains unclear. However, given the facility's age and technological advances, we acknowledges that IT panel and cabling upgrades/repairs are likely warranted. SCSA staff requests additional information from ManCo during the design phase of this project to understand the full scope of repairs and replacements that will be conducted.
19/21
Replace Furniture - First Aid Hospital Beds
Project Number: 27-2019
Category: Architectural
Sub-Category: Equipment
Project Budget Year: FY27/28
Project Manager: Francine Melendez Hughes, Executive
Vice President & General Manager
Location: 4900 Marie P. DeBartolo Way, Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Location Detail: First Aid Station
Funding Source: SCSA - Stadium Capital Expenditure
Project Description:

This project replaces the existing hospital beds in the first aid rooms at the stadium. The existing hospital beds have not been replaced since the stadium originally opened and are at or near the end of their life.

Expenditures FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Total
Total $ 68,970 $ 68,970 I I
Project Number 27-2019
Project Title Replace Furniture - First Aid Hospital Beds Category Architectural
Sub-Category Equipment
Project Budget Year FY 27/28
Location Detail First Aid Station
Funding Source SCSA – Stadium Capital Expenditure
FY 2027Requested Amount $68,970
SCSA Staff Response to Budgetary Request for FY2027
Staff Recommendation to SCSA Board – $68,970
As per the supplemental project description, “this project replaces the existing hospital beds in the first aid rooms at the stadium. The existing hospital beds have not been replaced since the stadium originally opened and are at or near the end of their life.” We recommend funding this project.
20/21
Backflow Preventers repair/replace as needed
Project Number: 27-2020
Category: Building Systems
Sub-Category: Plumbing
Project Budget Year: FY27/28
Project Manager: Francine Melendez Hughes, Executive
Vice President & General Manager
Location: 4900 Marie P. DeBartolo Way, Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Location Detail: Concessions stands and Mechanical
rooms
Funding Source: SCSA - Stadium Capital Expenditure
Project Description:

A backflow preventer is a device installed in a water system that keeps water flowing in one direction only. Over time, mechanical components (springs, valves, rubber seals), debris deposits, and corrosion cause these components to degrade. This project will repair and replace defective backflow preventers.

Backflow preventers are installed in all kitchen, concession, and pantry areas in the stadium where there is soda distribution.

Because of their related nature, this project is being performed in conjunction with Project 27-2006, Sanitary Valves.

Expenditures FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Total
Total $ 57,475 $ 57,475
Project Number 27-2020
Project Title Backflow Preventers repair/replace as needed Category Building Systems
Sub-Category Plumbing
Project Budget Year FY 27/28
Location Detail Concessions stands and Mechanical rooms Funding Source SCSA – Stadium Capital Expenditure
FY 2027Requested Amount $57,475
SCSA Staff Response to Budgetary Request for FY2027
Staff Recommendation to SCSA Board – Approve.

As per the supplemental project description, “a backflow preventer is a device installed in a water system that keeps water flowing in one direction only. Over time, mechanical components (springs, valves, rubber seals), debris deposits, and corrosion cause these components to degrade. This project will repair and replace defective backflow preventers.” SCSA staff and City representatives discussed this project with ManCo and are recommending approval, as the reported failures align with the expected lifecycles of the mechanical components and plumbing equipment.
21/21
Irrigation - Interior Field and Roof Garden Pumps
and Piping
Project Number: 27-2021
Category: Building Systems
Sub-Category: Plumbing
Project Budget Year: FY27/28
Project Manager: Francine Melendez Hughes, Executive
Vice President & General Manager
Location: 4900 Marie P. DeBartolo Way, Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Location Detail: 100 Pump Room
Funding Source: SCSA - Stadium Capital Expenditure
Project Description:

The irrigation pressurized watering system delivers water to the stadium’s playing field and the 900 level green roof.

This project will replace the pumps and piping that form a part of the irrigation pressurized watering system, which are at or nearing end of life.

Expenditures FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Total
Total $ 22,990 $ 22,990 I I
Project Number 27-2021
Project Title Irrigation - Interior Field and Roof Garden Pumps and Piping Category Building Systems Sub-Category:

Sub-Category Plumbing
Project Budget Year FY 27/28
Location Detail 100 Pump Room
Funding Source SCSA – Stadium Capital Expenditure
FY 2027Requested Amount $22,990
SCSA Staff Response to Budgetary Request for FY2027
Staff Recommendation to SCSA Board – Approve with additional direction.

As per the supplemental project description, “the irrigation pressurized watering system delivers water to the stadium’s playing field and the 900 level green roof. This project will replace the pumps and piping that form a part of the irrigation pressurized watering system, which are at or nearing end of life.”
SCSA staff are supportive of this project; however, we request that ManCo provide SCSA staff with a justification for repairing versus replacing the piping systems prior to proceeding with the project.