Agenda — Santa Maria City Council, May 5, 2026 (part 2 of 10)

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA

APPROVING THE PUBLIC SERVICES ACTIVITIES AND

ALLOCATIONS UNDER THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK

GRANT PROGRAM INCORPORATED IN THE ANNUAL ACTION
PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Maria is eligible for Federal funding in the amount of $1,425,736 during Fiscal Year 2026-27 for the 52
nd consecutive year under the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and is reprogramming unexpended funds; and
WHEREAS, $213,860 or 15 percent of the City’s Fiscal Year 2026-27 CDBG Entitlement may be used for public services activities; and WHEREAS, public input has been solicited and received per the City’s adopted Citizen Participation Plan and Federal regulations; and WHEREAS, Federal regulations require that at least two meetings be held to obtain residents’ views and responses to proposals and questions; and WHEREAS, two public hearings were held, one on July 14, 2025, and one on April 7, 2026, at which time comments and proposals were heard from the public; and WHEREAS, staff analyzed the eligibility of all proposed activities for the use of CDBG Program funds; and
WHEREAS, the Block Grants Advisory Committee and Community Programs Division staff presented a recommendation to the City Council for the allocation of funds for specific activities under the CDBG Program for Fiscal Year 2026-27; and WHEREAS, notices of all public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, as follows:

SECTION 1. The following allocations are approved and incorporated in the Annual Action Plan for the use of Fiscal Year 2026-27 Federal funds under the CDBG program:
///
///
Attachment B

Page 2 of 2 ends

Access Central Coast $15,824
Alliance for Pharmaceutical Access $17,861
Boys & Girls Clubs of the Central Coast $15,824
Community Partners in Caring $17,861
Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse (CADA) $15,824
Family Service Agency - Long Term Care Ombudsman $15,824 Fighting Back Santa Maria Valley $15,824
Good Samaritan Shelter - Freedom Warming Center $15,824 Good Samaritan Shelter - Homeless Shelter Programs $15,824 Meals on Wheels Santa Maria Valley Inc. $17,861
North County Rape Crisis & Child Protection Center $17,861 SMOOTH, Inc. $15,824
Teddy Bear Cancer Foundation $15,824
TOTAL CDBG PUBLIC SERVICES ALLOCATION $213,860
SECTION 2. The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized to execute the necessary documents on behalf of the City of Santa Maria for application of the funds; and
SECTION 3. The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized to make minor changes to the Annual Action Plan to expedite the use of funding so long as the changes follow the City’s CDBG Citizen Participation Plan; and SECTION 4. The Chief Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance with the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the Chief Deputy City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Maria held this 5
th day of May 2026.

ATTEST:

Chief Deputy City Clerk
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BY:

City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

BY:

Department Director
BY:

City Manager
Attachment C

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA

APPROVING THE CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AND

ALLOCATIONS UNDER THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK

GRANT PROGRAM INCORPORATED IN THE ANNUAL ACTION
PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Maria is eligible for Federal funding in the amount of $1,425,736 during Fiscal Year 2026-27 for the 52
nd consecutive year under the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, and is reprogramming unexpended funds from prior fiscal years; and
WHEREAS, $926,729 or approximately 65 percent of the City’s Fiscal Year 2026- 27 CDBG Entitlement, may be used for Capital activities; and WHEREAS, public input has been solicited and received per the City’s adopted Citizen Participation Plan and Federal regulations; and WHEREAS, Federal regulations require that at least two meetings be held to obtain residents’ views and responses to proposals and questions; and WHEREAS, two public hearings were held, one on July 14, 2025, and one on April 7, 2026, at which time comments and proposals were heard from the public; and WHEREAS, staff analyzed the eligibility of all proposed activities for the use of CDBG Program funds; and
WHEREAS, the Block Grants Advisory Committee and Community Programs Division staff presented a recommendation to the City Council for the allocation of funds for specific activities under the CDBG Program for Fiscal Year 2026-27; and WHEREAS, notices of all public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, as follows:

SECTION 1. The following allocations are approved and incorporated in the Annual Action Plan for the use of Fiscal Year 2026-27 Federal funds under the CDBG program:
///
///
Attachment C

Page 2 of 2 ends

PUBLIC FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS (Inc’l 5 percent Project Delivery Cost) City of SM / Rec & Parks / Community Sports Complex $ 906,729 TBRA ADMINISTRATION $ 20,000
TOTAL CDBG CAPITAL ALLOCATION $ 926,729
SECTION 2. The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized to execute the necessary documents on behalf of the City of Santa Maria for application of the funds; and
SECTION 3. The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized to make minor changes to the Annual Action Plan to expedite the use of funding so long as the changes follow the City’s CDBG Citizen Participation Plan; and SECTION 4. The Chief Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance with the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the Chief Deputy City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Maria held this 5
th day of May 2026.

ATTEST:

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA

APPROVING THE GENERAL ADMINISTRATION ACTIVITIES AND

ALLOCATIONS UNDER THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK

GRANT PROGRAM INCORPORATED IN THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Maria is eligible for Federal funding in the amount of $1,425,736 during Fiscal Year 2026-27 for the 52nd consecutive year under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and is reprogramming unexpended funds; and
WHEREAS, $285,147 or 20 percent of the City’s Fiscal Year 2026-27 CDBG Entitlement may be used for general administration activities; and WHEREAS, $15,000 of that $285,147 will be used for Fair Housing activities as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and WHEREAS, $270,147 will be left for general administration activities and will be used to cover the staff’s expenses in managing the CDBG funding; and WHEREAS, public input has been solicited and received per the City’s adopted Citizen Participation Plan and Federal regulations; and WHEREAS, Federal regulations require that at least two meetings be held to obtain residents’ views and responses to proposals and questions; and WHEREAS, two public hearings were held, one on July 14, 2025, and one on April 7, 2026, at which time comments and proposals were heard from the public; and WHEREAS, staff analyzed the eligibility of all proposed activities for the use of CDBG Program funds; and
WHEREAS, the Block Grants Advisory Committee and Community Programs Division staff presented a recommendation to the City Council for the allocation of funds for specific activities under the CDBG Program for Fiscal Year 2026-27; and NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, as follows:

SECTION 1. The following allocations are approved and incorporated in the Annual Action Plan for the use of Fiscal Year 2026-27 Federal funds under the CDBG program:
///
///
Attachment D

Page 2 of 2 ends

General Administration $ 270,147
Fair Housing $ 15,000
GRAND TOTAL 2025-26 CDBG GENERAL ADMIN/FAIR HOUSING $ 285,147 SECTION 2. The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized to execute the necessary documents on behalf of the City of Santa Maria for application of the funds; and
SECTION 3. The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized to make minor changes to the Annual Action Plan to expedite the use of funding so long as the changes follow the City’s CDBG Citizen Participation Plan; and SECTION 4. The Chief Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance with the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the Chief Deputy City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Maria held this 5
th day of May 2026.

ATTEST:

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chenin Dow, Community Development Director
DATE: May 5, 2026
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution to Award a Professional Services Agreement to MDG Associates, Inc. for Grants Compliance Management for the Santa Maria Sports Complex Project
Description:

The City Council will consider adopting a Resolution approving a Professional Services Agreement to MDG Associates, Inc for Grants Compliance Management for the Santa Maria Sports Complex Project.

Environmental Notice: The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Adopt a Resolution awarding a Professional Services Agreement to MDG Associates, Inc. for Grants Compliance Management for the Santa Maria Sports Complex Project in an amount of $100,000; and

2. Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute the agreement.

BACKGROUND:

In January 2026, the City of Santa Maria issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking qualified firms or individuals to provide Grants Compliance Management Services for the multi-funded Sports Complex Project. The project is supported by local, state, and federal sources, each with unique compliance requirements and spending timelines. The selected Grants Compliance Manager will be responsible solely for grants administration, compliance monitoring, reporting, fiscal oversight, and grant closeout. This role does not include construction management, scheduling, or contractor oversight.

Pursuant to the City’s Purchasing Guidelines, the RFP was released on Tuesday, January 20, 2026. Three proposals were received by Thursday, February 19, 2026. A review committee consisting of representatives from Community Development, Public Works Engineering, and Recreation and Parks evaluated the submissions and selected MDG Associates, Inc.

The Community Development Department will oversee the resulting Professional Services Agreement.
2 DISCUSSION:

A. Scope of Work
The Grants Compliance Manager must have experience in grants administration and compliance, with a strong understanding of federal and state funding requirements. The Manager will oversee grant-related tasks for the project, including but not limited to:
 Financial and Compliance Oversight
o Manage the full grant lifecycle through closeout, including tracking expenditures, ensuring timely use of funds, and preparing reimbursement requests and compliance reports.
 Budget and Contract/Grant Administration
o Apply and interpret requirements across multiple funding sources to ensure consistent compliance.
 Reporting and Documentation
o Verify that expenditures are eligible, properly documented, and reimbursable.
o Maintain organized records and prepare monthly or quarterly progress reports.
 Stakeholder Coordination
o Work with designated City staff to gather required documents. o Provide updates on grant expenditures and compliance status.

B. Deliverables
 Reimbursement and drawdown tracking reports for each funding source  Monthly or quarterly grant status reports
 Final project closeout and completion documentation
Alternative(s)
The City Council could decide not to award this Professional Services Agreement and direct staff to conduct all associated efforts in-house. However, this alternative may prevent the City from successfully carrying out Federal and State grant requirements consistent with the various grant deadlines, which could not only prolong the completion of the project, but also risk the funding available for this project.

Fiscal Considerations
No General Fund resources will be used under this Agreement. All fees will be paid solely from eligible federal grant(s) funds, utilizing administrative funding designated for grant management use. The initial contract is for $100,000, with the potential for an increase of a minimum of $25,000 should supplementary tasks be required as noted in the proposed contract.
3 Impact on the Community
Awarding this agreement will enable the City to better meet the needs of the community.

Grant-related guidelines and deadlines have a significant impact on the overall cost and resources required to complete the Sports Complex. The proposed consultant will act as a force multiplier, available to coordinate all grant management and lend expertise regarding a small number of grant sources with which City Staff is not as familiar. This will enrich quality of life for Santa Maria’s residents by facilitating the timely delivery of the Sports Complex.

ATTACHMENT(S)
A. Resolution – MDG Associates, Inc.

B. Professional Services Agreement – MDG Associates, Inc.

C. Proposal from MDG Associates, Inc.

Attachment A

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA

AWARDING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO MDG
ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR GRANTS COMPLIANCE

MANAGEMENT FOR THE SANTA MARIA SPORTS COMPLEX
PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT OF $100,000
WHEREAS, the need exists for the City to obtain grants compliance management services for the multi-funded Sports Complex Project; and WHEREAS, on January 20, 2026, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking qualified firms or individuals to provide Grants Compliance Management Services to assist with various grants that have unique compliance requirements and spending timelines; and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2026, the City received three proposals from firms that perform this work; and
WHEREAS, a review committee consisting of representatives from Community Development, Public Works Engineering, and Recreation and Parks evaluated the submissions; and
WHEREAS, following deliberations, the selection committee determined that MDG Associates, Inc. satisfied the requirements of the RFP and was deemed a qualified firm to provide the needed Grants Compliance Management Services; and WHEREAS, the firm will provide services on an as-needed basis as defined by the City, and all task orders will have a defined scope, schedule, and fee arrangement that will be negotiated based on the rate schedule included in the agreement; and WHEREAS, the firm will be financially compensated by using eligible federal grant funding that allows for the payment of administrative costs associated with the entire project; and
WHEREAS, additional funding may be provided should the City require supplementary tasks to be accomplished by the firm; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Maria determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant Attachment A

Page 2 of 2 ends

effect on the environment. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, as follows:

SECTION 1. A Professional Services Agreement for Grants Compliance Management Services is awarded to MDG Associates, Inc. for a term that ends 12 months after the execution of an executed agreement or once funding is expended, whichever comes first. Depending on the status of the Sports Complex Project and grants associated with it, the term of the agreement may be extended under the authority of the City Manager or his designee should both parties agree; and
SECTION 2. The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized to execute the Professional Services Agreement and any related documents; and SECTION 3. The Chief Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the Chief Deputy City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, held this 5
th day of May 2026.

ATTEST:

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement is made on May 5, 2026 by and between MDG Associates, Inc., a California Corporation (“Contractor”) and the City of Santa Maria, a California Municipal Corporation and charter city (“City”), in Santa Maria, California, based on the following recitals:
 Whereas, the City seeks to expedite project delivery, alleviate staff workloads, and coordinate grant administration across a wide range of grant sources through contracting for Grants Compliance Management for the Santa Maria Sports Complex Project (the “Project”); and
 Whereas, the Contractor has the experience, skills, resources, and the necessary professional licenses and certifications to qualify as Contractor to perform the needed services, and is willing to provide those services on mutually agreeable terms.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED:

1. Recitals true. The above recitals are true.

2. General.

2.01. Term and Termination. The term of this contract is one (1) year, beginning on the date first written above. This contract may be extended for up to two (2) periods of one (1) year each by mutual consent of the parties. This contract may be terminated for breach of its terms or conditions, or because of discovery of any act which violates local, state or federal law. Termination is effective 14 days after deposit of notice as specified in this Agreement.

2.02. Services to be Performed. Contractor shall determine the method, details and means of providing the needed services. More specifically, Contractor agrees to perform the specific services listed in Exhibit “A,” consistent with the proposal attached in Exhibit “D.”

2.03 City’s Duties. City’s duties under this Agreement are to cooperate with Contractor in the performance of the contract and timely pay invoices.

2.04 Scope of Work. Services to be performed are listed in “Exhibit A.”

2.05 Payment. Terms under this Agreement are listed in Exhibit “B.”

2.05 Insurance. Contractor shall provide insurance as listed in Exhibit “C.”

2.06 Proposal. Proposal included in “Exhibit D.”

2.07 Exhibits. Exhibits “A,” “B,” “C,” and “D” are attached and incorporated.

Attachment B
Atty. Rev. 2026

3. Contractor’s Obligations.

3.01. Minimum Amount of Service. Contractor should devote sufficient time to perform services under this agreement efficiently and effectively. Contractor may represent, perform services for and be employed by additional individuals or entities, in Contractor’s sole discretion, as long as the performance of these extra-contractual services does not interfere with or present a conflict with City's business.

3.02. Timeliness. For services related to the management of the various local, state, and federal grants associated with the Sports Complex Project, each grant has unique compliance requirements and spending timelines. The Contractor will be responsible for grants administration, compliance monitoring, reporting, fiscal oversight, and grant closeout. This role does not include construction management, scheduling, or contractor oversight.

3.03. Tools and Equipment. Except as otherwise stated in this Agreement, Contractor will supply all tools and equipment necessary to perform this Agreement.

3.04. Status. Contractor (including its employees) is an independent contractor. No employer/employee relationship exists between Contractor and the City.

Contractor's assigned personnel shall not be entitled to any benefits payable to employees of the City. The City is not required to make any deductions or withholdings from the compensation payable to Contractor under this agreement.

3.05. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Contractor shall indemnify, defend (with independent counsel approved by the City) and hold harmless the City, and its directors, officers, and employees from and against all liabilities (including without limitation all claims, losses, damages, penalties, fines, and judgments, associated investigation and administrative expenses, and defense costs including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys’ fees, court costs and costs of alternative dispute resolution) regardless of nature or type that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, reckless, or willful misconduct of the Contractor or the acts or omissions of an employee, agent or subcontractor of the Contractor. The provisions of this paragraph survive completion of the services or the termination of this contract. The provisions of this Section are not limited by the provisions of the Section relating to insurance.

3.06. Conflict of Interest. Contractor will comply with all conflict of interest laws and regulations including, without limitation, the City’s Conflict of Interest Code (on file in the City Clerk’s Office). All officers, employees and/or agents of Contractor who will be working on behalf of the City pursuant to this Agreement, may be required to file Statements of Economic Interest. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Contractor to notify that City of any staff changes relating to this Agreement.

Attachment B
Atty. Rev. 2026
A. In accomplishing the scope of services of this Agreement, all officers, employees and/or agents of Contractor unless as indicated in Subsection B, will be performing a very limited and closely supervised function, and, therefore, unlikely to have a conflict of interest arise. No disclosures are required for any officers, employees, and/or agents of Contractor, except as indicated in Subsection B.
______________
Initials
B. In accomplishing the scope of services of this Agreement, Contractor will be performing a specialized or general service for the City, and there is substantial likelihood that the Contractor’s work product will be presented, either written or orally, for the purpose of influencing a governmental decision. As a result, the following Contractor shall be subject to Disclosure Category “1” of the City’s Conflict of Interest Code.
______________
Initials

4. Miscellaneous

4.01. Notices. All communication relating to the day-to-day activities of this Agreement shall be exchanged between a designated representative of the City and a representative of Contractor, listed below. All notices shall be addressed as follows unless a written change is filed with the City:

To City: To Contractor:

City of Santa Maria MDG Associates, Inc.

Community Development Department Attn: David Muňoz
Attn: Community Programs Division 10722 Arrow Route, Suite 822 110 S. Pine Street, Suite 103 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Santa Maria, CA 93458
If the designated Representative or address of either party changes during the term of this agreement, a written notice shall be given to the other party prior to the effective date of change. Any written notices required under this agreement shall be effective five (5) days after deposit into United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the designated Representative, or upon confirmation of receipt of delivery if another notification process is used.

4.02. Compliance With Laws, etc. Contractor shall comply with all laws including, but not limited to, the rules and policies of the City, in performing this agreement.

Attachment B
Atty. Rev. 2026

4.03. Integration. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter. All modifications, amendments, or waivers of the terms of this agreement must be in writing and signed by the appropriate representatives of the parties.

4.04. Interpretation. This agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

4.05. Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction and venue of all disputes over the terms of this agreement shall be in the County of Northern Santa Barbara, State of California.

4.06. Warranty of authority. Each person signing this agreement on behalf of a party warrants that he or she has authority to do so.

4.07. No Waiver. Failure to enforce with respect to a default shall not be construed as a waiver.

4.08. Severability. The provisions of this agreement are severable. If any part of this agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall remain in full force and effect unless amended or modified by mutual written consent of the parties.

4.09. Submittals. In addition to any other submittals required by this agreement, Contractor shall submit copies of its current business license and current certificate of workers compensation coverage to the City before beginning work on this project.

4.10 Prevailing Wage. If applicable, Contractor and all subcontractors are required to pay the general prevailing wage rates of per diem wages and overtime and holiday wages determined by the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations under Section 1720 et seq. of the California Labor Code. The Director's determination is on file and open to inspection at www.dir.ca.gov and is referred to and made a part hereof; the wage rates therein ascertained, determined and specified are referred to and made a part hereof as though fully set forth herein.

Attachment B
Atty. Rev. 2026
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement is executed by the parties on the date first written above.

CONTRACTOR CITY OF SANTA MARIA
________________________ _________________________
By: By: Chenin Dow, Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
City Attorney
Attachment B
Atty. Rev. 2026
EXHIBIT “A”

SCOPE OF WORK
The Grants Compliance Manager must have experience in grants administration and compliance, with a strong understanding of federal and state funding requirements. The Manager will oversee grant-related financial, administrative, and compliance tasks for the project, including but not limited to:

A. Financial and Compliance Oversight

1. Manage the full grant lifecycle through closeout, including tracking expenditures, ensuring timely use of funds, and preparing reimbursement requests in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

2. Monitor expenditures to ensure costs are allowable, allocable, reasonable, and properly documented in compliance with all funding requirements.

3. Develop and implement internal controls and compliance procedures to ensure adherence to all applicable regulations and grant agreements.

4. Conduct ongoing compliance monitoring and risk assessments across all funding sources.

5. Ensure proper cash management practices, including alignment of expenditures with reimbursement timing requirements.

6. Prevent duplication of benefits and ensure appropriate allocation of costs across multiple funding sources.

Funding totals approximately $18.5 million from the following sources Funding Source Funding
Date Amount Spending Deadline
ARPA1 12/31/2024 $2,145,820 12/31/2026
County of Santa Barbara 10/14/2025 $1,500,000 12/31/2026 State of California1 7/1/2023 $1,000,000 6/30/2027
City CDBG (FY 2024–25)2 7/1/2024 $457,906 6/30/2027
City CDBG (FY 2025–26)2 7/1/2025 $933,639 6/30/2028
City CDBG (FY 2026-27)2 7/1/2026 $861,393 6/30/2029
CA Department of Parks &
Recreation 7/1/2020 $6,100,000 6/30/2028
City of Santa Maria (Growth
Mitigation Funds) 10/1/2025 $5,530,000 N/A
1Per Rec & Parks, initially priority funding sources require immediate support. 2 The Community Programs Division of the City of Santa Maria will be managing all CDBG grants/requirements. Minimal tasks will be associated with this funding.

Attachment B
Atty. Rev. 2026
B. Budget and Contract/Grant Administration

1. Apply and interpret requirements across multiple funding sources, including identifying and reconciling conflicting regulatory provisions.

2. Develop and maintain cost allocation methodologies to ensure proper distribution of shared project costs.

3. Assist with grant amendments, budget modifications, extensions, and scope changes, ensuring proper documentation and approvals.

C. Reporting and Documentation

1. Verify that expenditures are eligible, properly documented, and reimbursable.

2. Maintain organized records and prepare monthly or quarterly progress reports.

3. Prepare and submit monthly or quarterly financial and compliance reports.

4. Track and report on required performance measures and program outcomes.

5. Maintain documentation to support reimbursement requests and drawdowns.

D. Stakeholder Coordination

1. Work with designated City staff to gather required documents.

2. Provide updates on grant expenditures and compliance status.

E. Deliverables

1. Reimbursement and drawdown tracking reports for each funding source.

2. Monthly or quarterly grant status reports.

3. Cost allocation and compliance documentation.

4. Final project closeout and completion documentation.

F. Supplementary Tasks: Monitoring and Compliance Support 3 The Consultant may provide services that include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Subrecipient and Contractor Monitoring
a. Conduct subrecipient risk assessments and develop monitoring plans. b. Review contractor invoices / supporting documentation for compliance. c. Perform desk reviews and/or on-site monitoring, as needed. d. Ensure contractors comply with federal, state, and local grant requirements.

2. Labor Compliance Monitoring
a. Ensure adherence to applicable labor standards, including the DavisBacon Act and California Prevailing Wage Law. b. Perform quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) on City review of certified payroll records and related labor documentation. Should the City request Contractor review of all certified payrolls, additional funding will be negotiated to cover the related costs.
c. Coordinate with City staff to address labor compliance requirements. d. Support preparation of reporting and documentation required for labor compliance reviews, audits, or investigations.

Attachment B
Atty. Rev. 2026
3 It is noted that these additional tasks may require additional funding to cover the cost of managing these tasks.

EXHIBIT “B”

PAYMENT TERMS
I. Progress Authorization
a. Upon written authorization from the City, the Consultant is authorized to perform work up to a not-to-exceed amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) during the one-year term. Additional funding may be provided for any supplementary tasks identified in Exhibit “A”. b. Billing will be based on the hourly rates set forth in Table 1 of the proposal (page 17) as captured below:

Table 1: Rate Schedule – 5 Year Schedule
(Hourly Rates)
Team Member Title
PY
2025-26
PY
2026-27
PY
2027-28
PY
2028-29
PY
2029-30
President/Sr. Exec. Vice-President $175.00 $179.00 $184.00 $190.00 $196.00 Vice-President $164.00 $169.00 $173.00 $179.00 $185.00
Senior Director $163.00 $163.00 $167.00 $172.00 $177.00 Director $154.00 $158.00 $162.00 $167.00 $172.00
Deputy Director $139.00 $142.00 $146.00 $151.00 $156.00 Manager $123.00 $127.00 $130.00 $134.00 $138.00
Deputy Manger $127.00 $120.00 $123.00 $127.00 $131.00
Senior Associate $111.00 $114.00 $117.00 $121.00 $125.00 Associate $100.00 $103.00 $106.00 $110.00 $114.00
Senior Analyst $82.00 $84.00 $86.00 $89.00 $92.00
Analyst $77.00 $79.00 $81.00 $84.00 $87.00
Secretary $54.00 $56.00 $58.00 $60.00 $62.00
c. The administrative and/or delivery cost of the grant(s) used for this project will cover the cost of this professional service agreement. Therefore, proper documentation such as time and attendance records will be provided along with the firm’s invoice to effectively account for the cost of these services.

Attachment B
Atty. Rev. 2026
Attachment B
Atty. Rev. 2026
II. Invoice procedure
a. Payment shall be monthly based on the billable charges. b. The Consultant shall present the bill for charges from the previous month. c. The Consultant's bill shall be substantiated by appropriate documentation, and include an itemized listing of personnel, subcontractors, and other direct costs incurred.
d. City may withhold payment for disputed work. Payment of fees shall not constitute an acceptance of work.

III. Rates shall be billed according to Consultant’s attached fee schedule, up to the not-to-exceed amount. Work Authorized by Change Order/Amendment shall be billed at on a time and materials basis according to the attached fee schedule, unless another payment method is agreed to in writing by the City.

IV. If Consultant’s response to the City’s RFP or RFQ is attached, all terms other than those concerning the Consultant’s billing rates are null and void.

Attachment B
Atty. Rev. 2026
EXHIBIT “C”

INSURANCE
CONTRACTOR shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the CONTRACTOR, his/her agents, representatives, or employees. If the CONTRACTOR maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the CITY requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or higher limits maintained by the CONTRACTOR.

A. Minimum Scope of Insurance
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001), including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal & advertising injury.

2. Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or if
CONTRACTOR has no owned autos, covering hired (Code 8)
and non-owned autos (Code 9).

3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance.

4. Errors and Omissions liability insurance appropriate to the CONTRACTOR's profession. Architects' and engineers'
coverage is to be endorsed to include contractual liability.

B. Minimum Limits of Insurance
CONTRACTOR should maintain limits no less than:

1. General Liability - $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (ISO CG 25 03 or 25 04) or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

Attachment B
Atty. Rev. 2026

2. Automobile Liability - $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

3. Workers’ Compensation: Statutory limits.

4. Employer's Liability - $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.

5. Errors and Omissions Liability - $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate.

C. Self-insured Retentions
Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the CITY. The CITY may require the CONTRACTOR to purchase
coverage with a lower retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses within the retention.

D. Other Insurance Provisions
The commercial general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

1. The CITY, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the CONTRACTOR including materials,
parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form or an endorsement to the CONTRACTOR’s insurance
(at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 or both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38 and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions are used).

2. For any claims related to this project, the CONTRACTOR's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance coverage at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the CITY, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any
insurance or self-insurance maintained by the CITY, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the CONTRACTOR's insurance and shall not contribute with it.

Attachment B
Atty. Rev. 2026

3. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled or reduced, except with notice stating the title of this contract to the CITY. All notices provided pursuant to this MOU
shall be given to the City representative listed for notice in this Agreement and shall specify the title of this
Agreement. Notice may be given by overnight mail, facsimile with confirmation of receipt, or certified mail with return-receipt requested.

4. CONTRACTOR hereby grants to CITY a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said CONTRACTOR may acquire against the CITY by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. CONTRACTOR agrees to obtain any
endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the CITY has received a waiver of subrogation
endorsement from the insurer.

5. If any of the required policies provide claims-made coverage:
a) The Retroactive Date must be shown, and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work. b) Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after
completion of the contract of work.
c) If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the
CONTRACTOR must purchase “extended reporting”
coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of work.

E. Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A: VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the CITY.

Attachment B
Atty. Rev. 2026
F. Verification of Coverage
CONTRACTOR shall furnish the CITY with original certificates and amendatory endorsements of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the CITY before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the CONTRACTOR’s obligation to provide them. The CITY reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications at any time.

G. Special Risks or Circumstances
Entity reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.

Attachment B
Atty. Rev. 2026
“EXHIBIT D”

PROPOSAL
City of Santa Maria
Proposal
Santa Maria Sports Complex
Grants Compliance Manager
February 19, 2026
Attachment C
10722 Arrow Route ■ Suite 822 ■ Rancho Cucamonga ■ California 91730 (909) 476-9696 ■ Fax (909) 476-6086 February 19, 2026
City of Santa Maria
Community Development Department
Attn: Rosie Rojo, Community Programs Manager
110 South Pine Street, Room 103
Santa Maria, CA 93458
Subject: Proposal – Grants Compliance Manager
Dear Ms. Rojo:

On behalf of MDG Associates, Inc. (MDG), I am pleased to submit our Proposal to provide comprehensive Grants Compliance Management services for the Santa Maria Sports Complex Project. We understand that this multi-funded capital improvement initiative—supported by federal, state, county, and local sources totaling approximately $17.6 million—requires disciplined oversight, fiscal accountability, regulatory compliance, and timely grant closeout.

For more than 35 years, MDG has supported public agencies throughout California in the administration and compliance management of complex, multi-source funding portfolios, including Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), State of California grants, County allocations, and locally funded capital projects. Our work routinely involves managing overlapping federal requirements under 2 CFR Part 200 (Uniform Administrative Requirements), HUD regulations, Federal and State prevailing wage statutes, and agency-specific grant conditions.

We understand that the selected Grants Compliance Manager and their support staff will be responsible for:
▪ Full lifecycle grant administration through closeout
▪ Tracking expenditures and ensuring timely use of funds ▪ Preparing reimbursement requests and compliance reports ▪ Reviewing and validating procurement records for compliance ▪ Monitoring labor standards, including Davis-Bacon, Section 3, and State prevailing wage requirements
▪ Coordinating with City staff to maintain organized and audit-ready documentation We further understand, as clarified in Addendum No. 1, that environmental review requirements under CEQA and 24 CFR Part 58 have been completed and that Authority to Use Grant Funds (AUGF) has been received for CDBG components of the project. Accordingly, our focus will be on compliance oversight, fiscal management, procurement validation, and labor standards monitoring.

MDG brings extensive experience supporting public agencies with:
▪ Multi-source capital project compliance tracking
▪ Procurement record validation under 2 CFR Part 200 and state requirements ▪ Certified payroll review and labor standards enforcement ▪ Grant reimbursement preparation across multiple reporting platforms ▪ Audit preparation, monitoring response, and successful grant closeout 10722 Arrow Route ■ Suite 822 ■ Rancho Cucamonga ■ California 91730 (909) 476-9696 ■ Fax (909) 476-6086 The MDG team proposed for this assignment is identified in the proposal, with resumes included in Appendix 1. The engagement will be led by the team of David Muñoz, who will serve as MDG’s Project Director and Christopher Aune, who will serve as Project Manager. Chris is a Santa Maria Valley resident and brings over two decades of public-sector experience, ensuring responsiveness, accessibility, and strong coordination with City staff.

MDG is prepared to begin services immediately and to establish a structured reimbursement cadence, detailed compliance tracking system, and proactive monitoring framework to ensure all funding sources meet their respective expenditure deadlines.

We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal and look forward to assisting the City of Santa Maria in successfully administering the Sports Complex grants portfolio.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly:

MDG Associates, Inc.

Rudy E. Muñoz, President
10722 Arrow Route, Suite 822
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 476-9696
[email protected]
Respectfully Submitted,
Rudy E. Muñoz
President
Enclosure: Proposal
TC

TC TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
A. Introduction .........................................................................................................................1 B. Qualifications and Firm Experience ...................................................................................3 C. Proposed Methodology ......................................................................................................9 D. Key Personnel and Roles .................................................................................................12 E. References ........................................................................................................................16 F. Fee Proposal .....................................................................................................................17 Exhibits:

Exhibit “1” - Resumes of Key Personnel
1 A INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION
Since 1991, MDG Associates, Inc (MDG) has specialized in crafting tailored solutions to tackle the most pressing challenges faced by our clients. With a distinguished history spanning 35 years, MDG has undergone steady growth by adeptly responding to the evolving needs of the communities we serve to make a tangible difference. Our comprehensive suite of services reflects our dedication to addressing the diverse challenges faced by our clients. These services include grant administration, subrecipient management, implementation of housing and commercial rehabilitation programs, planning, and labor compliance monitoring, among others.

MDG brings a team that possesses a depth of expertise and breadth of experience in providing grants management and compliance services. Our team is comprised of 42 seasoned practitioners. Of those, 23 are subject matter experts in the administration, implementation, and monitoring of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) allocations, State of California capital improvement grants, and other public infrastructure funding sources. MDG’s work routinely involves the application of 2 CFR Part 200 (Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards), 24 CFR Part 570, federal labor standards under the Davis-Bacon Act, HUD Section 3 requirements, State of California prevailing wage statutes, and procurement standards under 2 CFR 200.317 through 200.327. Our team regularly reviews procurement files for documentation sufficiency, confirms cost allowability prior to reimbursement submission, and ensures that expenditures are eligible, properly supported, and defensible under audit or monitoring review.

MDG Associates, Inc. is a California corporation and is certified as both a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) and Small Business (SB). The firm has been in continuous operation for 35 years.

Legal Name of Business MDG Associates, Inc.

State of Incorporation California
Point of Contact / Company
Address
Rudy Muñoz, President
10722 Arrow Route, Suite 822
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Phone: 909-476-9696
[email protected]
Organizational Structure Corporation; Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) Time Business in Operation 35 years (September 1991)
2 Santa Maria Sports Complex Project
MDG understands that the Sports Complex Project is supported by multiple funding sources, including federal, state, county, and local funds, each with distinct expenditure deadlines, reporting requirements, and compliance standards. The selected Grants Compliance Manager is expected to oversee the full grant lifecycle, including expenditure tracking, reimbursement preparation, procurement record validation, labor standards coordination, compliance reporting, and closeout documentation.

MDG’s approach to grants compliance is systematic and documentation driven. At the outset of an engagement, the firm establishes a funding source compliance framework that identifies applicable regulatory requirements, reporting obligations, and expenditure deadlines for each funding stream. This framework supports coordinated financial tracking, timely reimbursement submission, and proactive compliance monitoring. The firm also assists jurisdictions in maintaining organized, audit-ready files, preparing monitoring responses, and assembling complete closeout documentation for federal and state funding sources.

The proposed engagement will be led by the team of David Muñoz, who will serve as MDG’s Project Director and Christopher Aune, who will serve as Project Manager. David and Chris will be assisted by other MDG staff who are knowledgeable in the areas needed to fulfill the tasks outlined in the RFP, such as labor standards compliance monitoring, Section 3 compliance, fiscal management, and file management for compliance with the various grants. Mr. Aune resides in the Santa Maria Valley and brings more than two decades of public-sector experience, ensuring accessibility and familiarity with local governmental processes. Additional compliance and financial staff will be assigned as necessary to meet reporting schedules and funding deadlines.

MDG proposes to function as an extension of City staff by providing structured compliance oversight, reimbursement coordination, procurement validation, labor standards compliance support, and grant closeout preparation. Services will be delivered in coordination with the Community Development and Recreation & Parks Departments to ensure consistent communication, accurate reporting, and adherence to all applicable regulatory requirements. 3 B QUALIFICATIONS AND FIRM EXPERIENCE

QUALIFICATIONS AND FIRM EXPERIENCE
MDG Associates, Inc. (MDG) has more than three decades of experience providing grants administration, fiscal oversight, and regulatory compliance services to public agencies throughout California. The firm’s primary practice area is the implementation and oversight of federally and state-funded programs, including capital improvement projects supported by multiple funding sources with distinct compliance and reporting requirements.

The Sports Complex Project requires coordinated management of federal, state, county, and local funding sources with varying expenditure deadlines, documentation standards, and regulatory frameworks. MDG has extensive experience managing similar multi-source funding portfolios and ensuring that expenditures are eligible, properly documented, and defensible under monitoring or audit review.

Experience in Federal and State Grants Administration
Currently, MDG is contracted by 30 cities and three counties to directly oversee their HUD CPD entitlement programs, totaling around $80.5 million annually. In addition, we assist the State of California and the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico in the administration of their CDBG-DR funds totaling more than $6.5 Billion. Our responsibilities encompass the day-to-day administration, implementation, and monitoring of their programs to ensure effective and compliant utilization of their grant funds. This includes the preparation of essential planning documents such as the Five-Year Consolidated Plans, Annual Action Plans, and Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Reports (CAPERs). Furthermore, MDG assists with subrecipient management to ensure adherence with program requirements, monitoring housing programs to verify continued compliance with affordability covenants, and oversight of capital improvement projects to ensure conformance with the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA), Section 3 requirements, and the Build America Buy America Act (BABA) preferences.

In recent years, MDG has assisted over 15 jurisdictions to administer and implement their CDBGCV, HOME-ARP, and ESG-CV programs, resulting in an approximate investment of $50 million in projects that have positively transformed and revitalized their communities. Furthermore, MDG has played an instrumental role in supporting the State of California and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in establishing systems and developing policies and procedures to effectively manage and monitor their CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT grants, collectively amounting to around $21 billion, allocated to disaster response and recovery efforts.

Due to the successful track record of these endeavors, MDG has been entrusted with developing resources, providing technical assistance, and conducting training nationwide on behalf of HUD.

Specifically, our team has conducted training sessions on various subject matter areas such as “Basically CDBG,” Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting (DRGR), CPD Maps, eCon Planning Suite, and the Integrated Disbursement Information System (IDIS). Furthermore, our staff currently assist grantees across the country through the HUD Exchange Ask-a-Question (AAQ) portal on matters pertaining to CDBG, HOME, DRGR, and BABA.
4 In addition, MDG staff provides administrative and compliance oversight for State of California grant funds including CalHOME, and Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program (PLHA) grant funds as well as assisting the Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency (LACAHSA) in the oversight of the County Measure A funds.

Our responsibilities include overall grant management including financial tracking, reimbursement preparation, performance reporting, procurement documentation review, subrecipient monitoring, labor standards compliance monitoring, and grant closeout preparation. We assist jurisdictions in applying the Uniform Administrative Requirements under 2 CFR Part 200, including procurement standards, cost allowability analysis, financial management systems, and audit preparation. MDG regularly supports jurisdictions during HUD and HCD monitoring reviews as well and the jurisdiction’s Single Audits and prepares corrective action responses where necessary.

In addition to day-to-day administration, MDG staff have been selected by HUD Headquarters to provide national-level training and technical assistance to grantees on regulatory compliance, including instruction on the IDIS and DRGR reporting systems, fiscal management, federal procurement requirements, labor standards monitoring, and Uniform Guidance implementation.

Two members of our staff have trained hundreds of CDBG grant recipients in the “Basically CDBG” training which can also be viewed on HUD’s website (HUD Exchange). Members of our team also support HUD’s Ask A Question (AAQ) portal, providing regulatory interpretation and compliance guidance to grantees nationwide.

Experience Managing Multi-Source Capital Projects
MDG has substantial experience overseeing public facility and infrastructure projects funded through combinations of federal, state, county, and local sources. These projects often involve overlapping regulatory requirements, including federal labor standards under the Davis-Bacon Act, State of California prevailing wage laws, HUD Section 3 requirements, and procurement compliance under 2 CFR 200.317 through 200.327.

Our approach to multi-source capital project oversight includes the development of a funding source compliance matrix to identify applicable regulatory requirements, expenditure deadlines, and reporting obligations for each funding stream. This matrix forms the basis for structured financial tracking and reimbursement coordination. Where procurement has already occurred, as is the case with the Sports Complex Project, MDG conducts file validation to ensure compliance with applicable federal and state standards and identifies any documentation gaps requiring corrective action.

With respect to labor standards compliance, MDG has extensive experience reviewing certified payroll records, coordinating worker interview documentation, and ensuring that federal and state labor requirements are applied appropriately based on funding source. We utilize the LCP Tracker web based reporting system to assist in tracking and ensuring contractor compliance with applicable Federal and State labor standard requirements. We regularly work with jurisdictions to maintain organized and defensible labor compliance files in preparation for monitoring reviews.
5 Our experience managing capital improvement funding portfolios include senior centers, community centers, community parks including soccer and baseball complexes, police stations, and other city facilities such as streets, storm drain systems, and city yard facilities. We believe that this experience positions MDG to effectively oversee the Sports Complex grants lifecycle through final closeout.

Financial Management and Reporting Systems
MDG staff are experienced in multiple federal and state reporting platforms and financial management systems. Our team works regularly with IDIS, DRGR, PAGE, RAMPS, and other federal reporting databases. While the Community Programs Division will continue handling IDIS for CDBG components of the Sports Complex Project, MDG is prepared to coordinate reimbursement preparation and reporting across other applicable funding systems to ensure consistency and accuracy.

Our financial oversight services include expenditure reconciliation against approved budgets, cost allowability review under 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E, preparation of reimbursement documentation, and maintenance of audit-ready financial records. We assist jurisdictions in establishing reimbursement cadences, typically on a monthly basis, to ensure timely drawdown and minimize risk of unspent funds approaching statutory deadlines.

MDG maintains a staff of experienced grants administrators, compliance specialists, financial analysts, and regulatory advisors. Many members of our team have provided federal technical assistance and national training on behalf of HUD and the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Our staff possess advanced knowledge of Microsoft Office applications and project tracking tools and are experienced in maintaining structured documentation systems that support monitoring readiness and grant closeout.

The firm’s long-standing relationships with federal and state oversight agencies reflect our reputation for technical competence, regulatory knowledge, and consistent compliance performance.

Labor Compliance
MDG is currently under contract to provide labor compliance services to 13 cities in Southern California. Our typical scope of work includes preparation or review of bid documents for compliance with Federal labor standards and requirements including but not limited to DavisBacon and Related Acts, Section 3, and DOL regulations; attending pre-bid and pre-construction meetings to present information on Davis-Bacon and Section 3 requirements; reviewing submitted bid documents for compliance; comprehensively analyzing 100% of all certified payroll reports for compliance, establish and maintain contractor and subcontractor labor files; conduct employee field interviews and document posting compliance; reconcile weekly certified payroll reports and supporting documentation; monitor contractors for Section 3 accomplishments; schedule labor compliance file reviews prior to release of retention funds; and address and resolve any underpayment or deficiency issues.
6 Our team utilizes industry-standard tools including using LCPtracker™ to deliver exceptional value to our clients and their construction contractors. These tools 1) help participating contractors produce accurate and compliant certified payroll reports electronically in one central place, 2) reduce reporting lag time, 3) reduce errors and violations, 4) provide greater success in the event of any compliance audit or investigation.
7 Public Agencies Provided Services in Last 5 Years with Most Recent within Last 2 Years.

Client
Con Plan/AI/CPPCDBG HOME Grant Mgmt.CDBG/ HOME TA Hsg. / Com. Rehab.Hsg. / Com. Rehab. TACARES Act TADDBRA and Section 3 Monitoring Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR)Misc. HUD Programs TA Services Provided in Last 2 Years
Apple Valley, CA X X X X X
Agoura Hills, CA X X X
Azusa, CA X X
Baldwin Park, CA X X
Carson, CA X X X
Chula Vista, CA X X
Clarksville, TN X X X X
Commerce, CA X X
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico X* X X
Corona, CA X X X X X
County of Allegheny, PA X
County of Henrico, VA X* X*
County of Imperial, CA X
County of Los Angeles, CA X X
County of Orange, CA X
County of San Bernardino, CA X X
County of Santa Barbara, CA X X X
County of Ventura, CA X
Dallas, TX X X
Downey, CA X X X X X
Duarte, CA X X
Fontana, CA X X X X X
Fresno, CA X X
Gardena, CA X X X X X
Goleta, CA X X
Hawthorne, CA X X X X X
Hesperia, CA X X X X X X
Irvine, CA X X X X X X
King County, WA X
La Cañada Flintridge, CA X X X
La Habra, CA X X X X
Los Angeles, CA X X
Miami – Dade County X
New York City X
Palmdale, CA X X X X X X
Paramount, CA X X X X X X
Rancho Cucamonga, CA X X X X X
San Dimas, CA X X
San Juan, PR X* X*
Santa Ana, CA X X X X
Seattle, WA X* X*
State of California X X X
State of Iowa X* X* X*
State of New Mexico X X
State of North Dakota X* X*
Temecula, CA X X X X X
Tucson, AZ X* X*
Upland, CA X X X X X X
Walnut, CA X X X
8 Client
Con Plan/AI/CPPCDBG HOME Grant Mgmt.CDBG/ HOME TA Hsg. / Com. Rehab.Hsg. / Com. Rehab. TACARES Act TADDBRA andSection 3 Monitoring Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR)Misc. HUD Programs TA Services Provided in Last 5 Years
Albuquerque, NM X X X
Arecibo, PR X* X*
County of Harris, TX X
Detroit, MI X* X*
Houston, TX X
Kansas City, KS X*
County of Riverside, CA X
Simi Valley, CA X* X* X*
State of Utah X* X*
Tulsa, OK X* X*
*Conducted on behalf of HUD
9 C PROPOSED METHODOLOGY

PROPOSED METHODOLOGY
MDG Associates, Inc. proposes a structured, coordinated, and compliance-driven approach to administering the grant funding portfolio for the Santa Maria Sports Complex Project. The firm’s role is to ensure that all applicable federal, state, county, and local funding requirements are satisfied; that expenditures are properly documented and reimbursed; and that the City maintains organized, audit-ready records through final grant closeout.

David Muñoz and Chris Aune will oversee grants management for the project. Mr. Muñoz has over twelve years' experience in grant administration and training across various funding sources, while Mr. Aune offers more than twenty years of public-sector experience and is locally based in Santa Maria Valley, facilitating coordination with Community Development and Recreation & Parks staff. Other MDG team members provide specialized expertise in areas like labor standards and grant reporting. Rudy Muñoz will support David and Chris as needed, and Juan Nunez will handle Davis-Bacon and Section 3 compliance.

MDG’s coordination model is organized around three primary management components:
schedule management, budget management, and grants compliance management Managing Schedule
The Sports Complex Project involves multiple funding sources with distinct expenditure deadlines extending through 2026–2028. MDG will implement a funding compliance calendar at the outset of the engagement identifying all statutory deadlines, reporting cycles, reimbursement timing, and closeout milestones associated with each funding source.

This schedule management system will include regular coordination meetings with City staff to review progress toward expenditure targets and identify any potential risks to timely drawdown.

MDG will establish a recommended quarterly reimbursement cadence to ensure consistent fund utilization and to minimize the risk of delayed expenditures approaching statutory deadlines.

Where corrective action is necessary to maintain compliance with funding timelines, MDG will provide written recommendations and assist staff in implementing appropriate adjustments.

Mr. Aune’s local availability allows for timely in-person coordination meetings when necessary, ensuring that schedule-related issues are addressed proactively and efficiently.

Managing Budget
MDG will implement structured financial tracking procedures to ensure that all project expenditures are eligible, properly allocated to the appropriate funding source, and supported by sufficient documentation. Our services will include reconciliation of expenditures against approved grant budgets, verification of cost allowability under applicable regulatory frameworks, and preparation of reimbursement documentation for submission through applicable reporting systems.
10 Where procurement has already been completed, MDG will conduct a review of procurement files to confirm compliance with federal procurement standards under 2 CFR Part 200 and applicable state requirements. This review will ensure that expenditures charged to federal or state funding sources are supported by documentation sufficient to withstand audit or monitoring review.

MDG will coordinate with City financial staff to ensure that drawdown documentation is consistent with internal accounting records and that reimbursement submissions are accurate and complete. Regular financial status updates will be provided to City staff summarizing expenditures to date, remaining balances, and projected drawdown schedules.

Managing Grants Compliance
MDG’s primary responsibility under this engagement is regulatory compliance oversight. The firm will ensure that all grant-funded activities are administered in accordance with applicable federal, state, county, and local requirements. This includes application of Uniform Administrative Requirements under 2 CFR Part 200, CDBG regulations under 24 CFR Part 570, labor standards compliance under the Davis-Bacon Act where applicable, State of California prevailing wage laws, and HUD Section 3 requirements.

In coordination with the Community Programs Division, MDG will support labor standards documentation review, including certified payroll verification and maintenance of organized compliance files. Although IDIS entries for CDBG components will continue to be handled by City staff, MDG will coordinate reimbursement preparation and documentation for other funding sources to ensure consistency across reporting platforms.

The firm will maintain organized grant files structured to support monitoring reviews and final closeout. Prior to grant expiration, MDG will prepare a closeout checklist for each funding source and confirm that required reports, reconciliations, and compliance documentation have been completed.

Coordination with City Staff and Departments
MDG recognizes that effective grants compliance requires coordination among Community Development, Recreation & Parks, Finance, and other departments involved in project implementation. Mr. Aune will serve as the central coordination point between MDG and City staff, ensuring that information requests are addressed promptly and that documentation is maintained in a consistent and organized format.

MDG will participate in regularly scheduled status meetings and provide written summaries of compliance activities as needed. The firm will also remain available for consultation regarding regulatory interpretation or compliance questions that arise during project implementation.

Quality Control and Documentation Standards
All work performed under this engagement will be subject to internal quality control review.

Compliance documentation, reimbursement requests, and financial tracking reports will be reviewed prior to submission to ensure accuracy and completeness. MDG’s documentation 11 practices are structured to meet federal audit standards and to facilitate efficient monitoring responses if requested by funding agencies.

Summary of Methodology
MDG’s proposed coordination approach reflects substantial experience managing complex, multi-source funding portfolios and demonstrates familiarity with the regulatory frameworks governing federal and state grants. The firm’s methodology emphasizes proactive schedule management, disciplined budget oversight, and structured compliance monitoring to safeguard public funds and ensure successful grant completion.

With David Muñoz providing compliance oversight and Christopher Aune serving as local Project Manager, MDG offers both regional presence and technical expertise. Our organized management framework, regulatory knowledge, and documented experience with grants administration and compliance directly align with the City’s evaluation criteria, including experience, familiarity with funding requirements, and the strength of the proposed project management approach. We are confident that MDG’s structured coordination model will provide the City of Santa Maria with reliable, compliant, and professional grants management services throughout the lifecycle of the Sports Complex Project. 12 D KEY PERSONNEL AND ROLES

KEY PERSONNEL AND ROLES
Proposed Team
The members of the MDG team proposed to directly provide Grants Compliance Management, Davis Bacon, and Section 3 consulting services are provided below, in addition to their role in the implementation of the scope of work. Additional support team members will be available to assist on as needed basis. Resumes for each staff member are provided under Exhibit “1” of this proposal.

The following section provides biographical information for each of the MDG staff members included on the Project Team.

Rudy Muñoz, President – MDG Associates Inc.

Rudy Muñoz is the founder and President of MDG Associates, Inc. With more than 40 years of overall experience in the community development field, Rudy’s primary focus is on assisting government agencies with all aspects of the administration and implementation of their HUD-funded CPD Programs. These include, but are not limited to, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR), and Housing Rehabilitation programs.

Rudy works hand-in-hand with HUD grantees on the development of implementation strategies and tools to facilitate the management of their CPD programs, providing training for the HUD CPD Programs, and at times implementing the day-to-day functions of the programs. These functions include all phases of program implementation from the development of Consolidated Plans and Action Plans through the programmatic and financial closeout of the projects and grants. He assists grantees in developing HUD mandated Policies and Procedures for administering all CPD Programs and implementing Housing Rehabilitation, Commercial Rehabilitation, and Homebuyer activities funded under these programs.

Rudy is a Certified HOME Specialist and is a subcontractor to national Technical Assistance (TA) providers through HUD’s OneCPD and Community Compass initiatives. Through the initiatives, he provides TA and training to HUD grantees throughout the U.S. in CDBG, HOME, and CDBG-Disaster Recovery Programs. He provides training at the national level in “Basically CDBG,” Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH), Integrated Disbursement and Information Systems (IDIS), and the Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting System (DRGR). Because of his fluency in Spanish, he has prepared and provided many of the trainings referenced above in Spanish for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its municipalities.

Rudy has a Bachelor of Architecture (5 yr. degree) from California Polytechnic University in Pomona. 13 David Muñoz, Director – MDG Associates Inc.

With more than 12 years of experience in the planning and implementation of federal grants including those offered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development – Office of Community Planning and Development, David assists municipalities with all aspects of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) management.

David focuses on strategic community investment in affordable housing, development of infrastructure and coordinating the supportive services necessary to achieve local goals and to affirmatively further fair housing choice. His work in these areas includes over 30 Consolidated Plans, 100 Annual Action Plans, and numerous program policy and procedure documents to facilitate the implementation of the housing and community development projects resulting from these plans.

David is a national Technical Assistance (TA) provider through HUD’s Community Compass initiatives. Through the initiative, he provides training to municipalities in the Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting (DRGR) system and is also a beta tester for HUD on the system. Because of his fluency in Spanish, he provides training in Spanish for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

David has a Bachelor of Politics and International Affairs with a Minor in Latin American Studies (Honors Program) from Wake Forest University.

Christopher Aune, Manager – MDG Associates Inc.

Chris Aune is a seasoned planning, housing, and grants management professional with over 22 years of experience in urban development, zoning, permitting, affordable housing initiatives, and publicsector grant administration. His expertise includes the administration and compliance of HUD and State housing funds, development of architectural and design guidelines, management of complex affordable housing initiatives, and strategic use of permit-ready ADU programs to expand housing access and streamline approvals.

Chris has successfully worked on high-impact projects such as the redevelopment of the former Antelope Valley Fairgrounds, citywide scattered-site housing developments, Transit Oriented Development (T.O.D.) Zone guidelines, and the oversight of housing rehabilitation and homeownership programs funded through federal and state grants. His guidance on architectural design standards, stakeholder engagement, fiscal compliance, and coordination with engineering, building, and finance departments has helped cities achieve policy objectives while maintaining regulatory compliance and measurable results.

Chris has a Bachelor of Arts in Planning and Urban Studies from California State University Northridge, Northridge, CA.
14 Juan Nunez, Associate – MDG Associates Inc.

Juan leads the company’s labor compliance and Section 3 monitoring program. The labor compliance monitoring has included both State of California as well as the federal Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA). Juan is responsible for labor compliance monitoring for over fifteen cities and over 30 projects. Juan focuses on implementing monitoring strategies to assist cities and contractors through the various labor compliance regulations imposed by federal and state grants. Juan is responsible for ensuring that all contractors and subcontractors are well informed of the reporting requirements during the pre-bid and pre-construction meetings. He is responsible for collecting, reviewing, and working with contractors on ensuring that all workers are paid prevailing wages as established by the regulatory agencies.

D KEY PERSONNEL AND ROLES
The Project Team was selected based on the requirements and tasks specified in the Request for Proposals (RFP). This team is comprised of professionals with subject matter expertise and practitioners with experience in all facets of grants management and labor compliance services. Additional staff will be available to support the deliverables outlined in the RFP as necessary.

Rudy Muñoz | President | Contract Administrator
Rudy Muñoz will serve as the Contract Administrator on behalf of MDG. He will provide senior-level guidance on complex compliance issues, federal and state regulatory interpretation, and risk mitigation strategies, while supporting the assigned project team on an as needed basis. Mr. Muñoz will also serve as the back-up Project Director if the Project Director is unavailable.

David Muñoz | Director – Grants Management | Project Director David Muñoz will serve as the Project Director for this assignment providing oversight of grants administration, regulatory compliance, and fiscal management activities. He will ensure that the project remains aligned with applicable federal, state, county, and local funding requirements and that schedule, budget and reporting obligations are managed.

He will oversee provide technical direction to the team to maintain documentation integrity and audit readiness throughout the lifecycle of the assignment.

Christopher Aune | Manager – Planning/Grants Management | Project Manager Chris Aune will serve as the primary day-to-day Grants Compliance Manager for the Santa Maria Sports Complex Project. He will oversee expenditure tracking, reimbursement coordination, procurement documentation review, and overall compliance with applicable funding requirements. Chris will coordinate MDG staff responsible for Davis-Bacon and Section 3 monitoring. Chris will provide local presence and accessibility, ensuring that all activities are administered in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations.

Juan Nuñez | Associate – Labor Compliance | Labor Compliance Specialist Juan Nuñez will serve as the labor compliance and Section 3 specialist and work closely with contractors to ensure certified payroll submissions are timely and accurate within LCPtracker™ and compliant with applicable Davis-Bacon and State prevailing wage requirements. He will attend pre-bid and pre-construction meetings as requested, will ensure on-site HUD-11 Employee Interviews are conducted, verify required jobsite postings, and coordinate with project staff to maintain organized labor compliance files. 15 16

E REFERENCES

REFERENCES
The following list represents MDG client references for the performance of similar tasks and grants management. Additional references are available upon request.

CLIENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION DURATION
City of Irvine
Sarah Escobedo, Management
Analyst II
1 Civic Center Plaza,
Irvine, CA 92606
E-mail:[email protected]
Phone: (949) 724-7447
Administered the CDBG, HOME, and ESG
Programs; Administered the CDBG funded
Housing Rehabilitation and Mobilehome
Rehabilitation Programs; Administered the
CDBG-CV, HOME-ARP, and ESG-CV Programs;
Annual Plans and CAPERs.

Prepared Five-Year Consolidated Plan for 2010-
2014; 2015-2019; 2020-2024; 2025-2029
2001
To
Present
City of Fontana
Valerie Gonzales, Housing Dev. MGR.
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (909) 350-6625
Implemented the CDBG, HOME, and ESG
Programs; Implemented the CDBG funded
Housing Rehabilitation and Lead Hazard
Reduction Programs; Implemented the CalHome
Mobile Home Rehabilitation Program; Annual
Plans and CAPERs.

Prepared Five-Year Consolidated Plan for 2010-
2014; 2015-2019; 2020-2024; 2025-2029
2010
to
Present
City of Hawthorne
Kimberly Mack, Director of Housing
4455 West 126th Street
Hawthorne, CA 90250
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (310) 349-1603
Administered the CDBG & HOME Program;
Administered / implemented the CDBG funded
Housing Rehabilitation Program; Administered /
Implemented the Commercial Rehabilitation
Program; Administered the CDBG-CV, HOMEARP, and ESG-CV Programs; Implemented the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP);
Annual Plans and CAPERs.

Prepared Five-Year Consolidated Plan for 2005-
2010; 2010-2014; 2015-2019; 2020-2024; 2025-
2029
1996
to
Present
State of California – Housing and
Community Development Dept.

Alice Brodkin, Disaster Recovery
Federal Fiscal Compliance Section
Manager
651 Bannon Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (916) 883-6139
Supported the State in implementing the CDBGDR funded Multi-Family Development Program and assisted the Fiscal Compliance Division with
fiscal management tasks, including
reconciliations, processing draws, and delivering
training and technical assistance to
subrecipients across the state for all Disaster
Recovery grants awarded to the State.
2018
to
Present
.
17 F FEE PROPOSAL

FEE PROPOSAL
MDG Associates, Inc. proposes to provide the Grants Compliance Manager services to the City of Santa Maria on a time and materials basis. Billing will be based on the hourly rates set forth in Table 1: Rate Schedule included below. This approach allows for flexibility in responding to the City’s specific needs and ensures that costs are directly aligned with the services provided.

If the City requests MDG to handle all daily labor compliance services, we are willing to offer fixed lump sum fee proposals for these services. Please note that MDG uses the LCPTracker software system to carry out its labor compliance monitoring.

We are committed to delivering high-quality work in a cost-effective manner and will coordinate closely with City staff to manage project budgets and reporting expectations.

Table 1: Rate Schedule – 5 Year Schedule
(Hourly Rates)
Team Member Title
PY
2025-26
PY
2026-27
PY
2027-28
PY
2028-29
PY
2029-30
President/Sr. Exec. Vice-President $175.00 $179.00 $184.00 $190.00 $196.00 Vice-President $164.00 $169.00 $173.00 $179.00 $185.00
Senior Director $163.00 $163.00 $167.00 $172.00 $177.00 Director $154.00 $158.00 $162.00 $167.00 $172.00
Deputy Director $139.00 $142.00 $146.00 $151.00 $156.00 Manager $123.00 $127.00 $130.00 $134.00 $138.00
Deputy Manger $127.00 $120.00 $123.00 $127.00 $131.00
Senior Associate $111.00 $114.00 $117.00 $121.00 $125.00 Associate $100.00 $103.00 $106.00 $110.00 $114.00
Senior Analyst $82.00 $84.00 $86.00 $89.00 $92.00
Analyst $77.00 $79.00 $81.00 $84.00 $87.00
Secretary $54.00 $56.00 $58.00 $60.00 $62.00
**Program year is defined as July 1 to June 30 of the following year.

Exhibit Personnel Resumes I
RUDY MUÑOZ
President

AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Grants Management
HUD CPD Programs
Disaster Recovery Programs
CARES Act
Disaster Recovery Grant
Reporting (DRGR) System
Uniform Administrative
Requirements-2 CFR Part 200

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
40 Years

CERTIFICATIONS/TRAINING
Certified HOME Program
Regulations
California General Contractor
No. 681042
ICBO Earthquake Retrofit -
Wood Frame Certification
Certified Lead Visual Inspector

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Architecture
California Polytechnic
University - Pomona

WORK HISTORY
MDG Associates, Inc.
1991 - Present
City of Huntington Park
1988 - 1991
Rudy Muñoz serves as President and founder of MDG Associates, Inc. Over the past 40 years, he has assisted cities and counties with the design, administration, and implementation of their HUD-funded CPD Programs, including, but not limited to the CDBG, HOME, NSP and CDBG-DR programs. Rudy works with government agencies on the development of implementation strategies and tools that facilitate the management of their programs. He has been involved in HUD Disaster Recovery Programs since the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, where he directed the rehabilitation of over 300 homes for two cities in Los Angeles County. Rudy works as a subcontractor to several national Technical Assistance (TA) providers through HUD’s Community Compass initiatives. He has provided classroom training on behalf of HUD including Basically CDBG, Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH), CPD Maps, eCon Planning Suite, and the Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting (DRGR) system. Due to his Spanish fluency, he has also provided all of the training in Spanish for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its municipalities.

PROJECT SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE
State of California - Disaster Recovery and Mitigation Grant Financial Management, Data, and Reporting
Subject Matter Expert – Team Co-lead I November 2019 – June 2022 Rudy is the working group co-lead for the implementation of the financial management, data, and reporting (FDR) unit for Disaster Recovery and Mitigation grants received by the State of California from 2017 through the present. In total, he is working with seven disaster recovery and mitigation grants totaling approximately $2.5 billion. Building on the basic framework of the CDBG program regulations, CDBG-DR Federal Register Notices, and the 2 CFR Part 200 regulations, Rudy has led the preparation of financial management policies and procedures, the development of standard operating procedures (SOPs), workflows, forms and documents, checklists, and system tools to assist HCD-DR staff in the fiscal management aspects of the disaster recovery and mitigation grants. He is assisting in conducting regularly scheduled reconciliations of their labor costs as well as the reconciliation across the three different program level systems (DRGR, Fi$Cal, and Grants Network) and one project level system (eGrants). Rudy also provides technical assistance and training to new staff assigned to the disaster recovery program and regularly provides training for subrecipients in matters related to financial management.

Programs: CDBG-DR I CDBG-MIT I 2 CFR Part 200
Client: Alice Broadkin, Section Chief–Fiscal Compliance & Monitoring, California HCD 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95833 [email protected] I (916) 841-8996
RUDY MUÑOZ
President

PROJECT SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE
Rehabilitation Programs (multiple agencies)
Program Manager / President I 1985 - Current
Rudy has provided residential and commercial rehabilitation program administration services to the City of Upland in addition to approximately 40 other grantees / participating jurisdictions in the last 30 years. Rudy’s services to Upland have supported improvements to residential and commercial structures in the low- and moderate-income sections of the community. Rudy has designed and implemented housing rehabilitation programs utilizing a variety of grants including, but not limited to, CDBG, HOME, state, and local redevelopment funds that resulted in the rehabilitation of over 1,000 residential dwellings. In addition, he has designed and implemented commercial rehabilitation programs utilizing CDBG and local funds that has resulted in the renovation of over 200 commercial buildings in commercial districts that serve the low- and moderate-income community. In this role, Rudy has developed program guidelines, policies and procedures, implementation forms and documents, and tracking and monitoring systems for these programs. Rudy is currently overseeing MDG program staff implementing these programs in cities across Southern California.

Programs: CDBG I HOME I Housing Rehabilitation I Commercial Rehabilitation Client: Diane Cotto, Development Services Manager, City of Upland 460 N. Euclid Avenue, Upland, CA 91786
[email protected] I (909) 931-4146
City of Paramount (plus various other cities), HUD CPD Programs Administration/Housing & Commercial Rehabilitation Administration
Program Manager / President I 2001 - Current
Rudy has provided program administration services to the City of Paramount in addition to 30 other grantees / participating jurisdictions during the last 20 years. Rudy’s services to Paramount have supported improvements to a number of community facilities and infrastructure projects in the low- and moderate-income sections of the community. Rudy has designed and implemented a housing rehabilitation program utilizing HOME program funds that resulted in the rehabilitation of over 350 homes.

In addition, he has designed and implemented a commercial rehabilitation program utilizing CDBG funds that has resulted in the renovation of over 60 commercial buildings in the City’s core commercial district that serves the low- and moderate-income community. In this role, Rudy has developed program guidelines, supporting forms and documents, and tracking and monitoring systems for all of these programs to ensure compliance with CDBG and HOME regulations. Rudy is currently overseeing MDG program staff implementing these programs in cities across Southern California.

Programs: CDBG I HOME I Housing Rehabilitation I Commercial Rehabilitation Client: John King, Planning Director, City of Paramount 16400 Colorado Avenue, Paramount, CA 90723
[email protected] I (562) 220-2049
RUDY MUÑOZ
President

PROJECT SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE
U.S. HUD Technical Assistance – Basically CDBG Training and Online e-Learning Curriculum Subject Matter Expert /Co-Lead Trainer I 2010 - 2021
Rudy was a co-trainer under contract to Enterprise Advisors and ICF for HUD’s live in-person Basically CDBG Trainings from 2010 to 2017, which culminated in a recorded session in Atlanta, GA that was subsequently edited and used as part of HUD’s Basically CDBG Online e-learning curriculum that is available to the public on the HUDExchange.info website. Rudy also worked with Enterprise and HUD Headquarters staff to produce the Basically CDBG Online e-learning curriculum that is currently posted to the HUDExchange.info website (2019-2020). Specifically, Rudy assisted in writing the content for the topical capacity building modules, made recommendations for edits to the live video recordings and reviewed all content for consistency with current HUD policy and guidance. Rudy assisted in the translation of the Basically CDBG training slide deck and manual into Spanish and provided the training in Spanish for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Programs: CDBG I Federal Crosscutting
Client: Diane Lobasso, Senior Advisor, HUD Office of DAS for Grants Programs 451 7th St. SW, Washington, D.C., 20410
[email protected] I (202) 402-2191
HUD CPD Program Trainings/Technical Assistance
Subject Matter Expert / Trainer I 2010 - Current
Rudy has provided a number of live in-person trainings on behalf of HUD through multiple service providers such as TDA, Enterprise Advisors, Cloudburst Group, ICF and NALCAB. Rudy has provided in-class training and technical assistance for grantees in two of HUDs reporting systems: the Integrated Disbursement and Information Systems (IDIS), and the Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting System (DRGR). He has assisted HUD Headquarters as a beta tester for the updates to the DRGR system as well as being a drafter/reviewer on the Ask A Question (AAQ) pool. Rudy was also selected as a trainer for the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) Final Rule and has also trained Financial Management Systems (2 CFR Part 200 - Uniform Administrative Requirements), eCon Planning Suite (for the development of Consolidated Plans and Action Plans); and CPD Maps. Rudy has provided all of the aforementioned training in English and in Spanish for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. In 2020, Rudy presented the CDBG-CV National Objectives training.

Programs: CDBG I Federal Crosscutting I AFH I IDIS I eCon Planning Suite Client: HUD Office for Grants Programs
451 7th St. SW, Washington, D.C., 20410
[email protected] I (202) 402-2191
DAVID MUÑOZ
Director

AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Grants Management
HUD CPD Programs
Disaster Recovery Programs
CARES Act
Disaster Recovery Grant
Reporting (DRGR) System

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
12 Years

EDUCATION
B.A. Politics and International
Affairs
Wake Forest University

WORK HISTORY
MDG Associates, Inc.
2014 - Present
Congressional Hispanic
Leadership Institute – Global
Leaders Fellow
2018
Winston-Salem Poverty
Thought Force
2016 - 2017
Fundación Chile 21 –
Research Assistant Intern
2015
MDG Associates Inc.
2014 - 2018 (part time)
David has assisted cities, counties and states with the design, administration, implementation, and oversight of housing and community development programs – primarily through HUD CPD Programs. Provided services include the oversight of subrecipients, contractors, and internal departments to ensure regulatory compliance in their program implementation. He also provided CDBG-DR technical assistance to grantees, is a HUD national Technical Assistance provider and trainer on behalf of the DRGR system, is part of the HUD Ask a Question DRGR response team and conducted DRGR training in Spanish for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Areas of specialization include review of client’s programmatic and financial systems, preparation of policies and procedures, development of implementation tools, forms, and mechanisms to assist the grantee in documenting process and compliance in addition to establishing performance and financial monitoring systems.

PROJECT SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE
State of California - CDBG-CV and ESG-CV Technical Assistance Subject Matter Expert – Training Team Lead I March 2021 - Current David developed training and capacity building materials for units of local government (UGLGs) and subrecipients under the State of California’s $150 Million Community Development Block Grant – CV (CDBG-CV) and $315 Million Emergency Solutions Grant – CV (ESG-CV) programs funded by HUD in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Training and capacity building was provided on the rules, regulations, and requirements of the CDBG-CV and the ESG-CV programs to State staff as well as subrecipients, and contractors receiving CDBG-CV and ESG-CV funds. He supported the State in designing tools, templates, and resource guides to support implementation of the CDBG-CV and ESG-CV programs; and provided technical assistance and performed QA/QC of program resources.

Programs: CDBG Admin. I HOME Admin. I Housing Rehab Admin. I CDBG-CV I ESG-CV
Client: Felicity Gasser, Section Chief
California Department of Housing and Community Development 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95833 [email protected] I (916) 820-1187
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development - Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting (DRGR) Technical Assistance
Subject Matter Expert – Trainer & TA Provider I May 2018 - Current David was a co-trainer under contract to TDA Inc. for HUD’s in-person Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting (DRGR) system trainings including training in Spanish for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. In addition, he provided on-line training on the DRGR system to grantees across the country participating remotely. He is a drafter/reviewer on the Ask A Question (AAQ) portal for the DRGR system. In addition, he assisted in the development of the DRGR User Manual reflecting the updates performed to the reporting system through release 8.0.

Programs: DRGR Reporting System
Client: Steven D. Edwards, CPD Specialist, HUD
451 7th Street SW, Washington, D.C., 20410
[email protected] I (803) 765-5292
DAVID MUÑOZ
Director

PROJECT SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE
City of Hawthorne (plus various other cities), HUD CPD Programs Administration/ Housing & Commercial Rehab Administration
Program Manager – Manager I June 2018 - Current
David has provided program administration services to the City of Hawthorne in addition to multiple other grantees / participating jurisdictions. His services to Hawthorne have supported the improvements to a number of community facilities and infrastructure projects in the low- and moderate-income sections of the community. He has assisted in the implementation of a housing rehabilitation program utilizing HOME program funds that resulted in the rehabilitation of over 60 homes. In addition, he has designed and assisted in the implementation of a commercial rehabilitation program in the City’s core commercial district that serves the low- and moderate-income community. In this role, he has developed program guidelines, supporting forms and documents, and tracking and monitoring systems for all programs to ensure compliance with CDBG and HOME regulations. David is also currently overseeing MDG program staff implementing these programs in cities across Southern California.

Programs: CDBG I HOME I Housing Rehabilitation I Commercial Rehabilitation I CDBG-CV I HOME ARP Client: Kimberly Mack, Director of Housing, City of Hawthorne 4455 West 126th Street, Hawthorne, CA 90250
[email protected] I (310) 349-1603
Puerto Rico - Disaster Recovery Monitoring and Compliance Technical Assistance Subject Matter Expert – Manager I September 2019 – Current David provided monitoring and general disaster recovery grant compliance technical assistance to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico through the Puerto Rico Department of Housing (PRDOH), on behalf of the $18.4 billion in CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT funding from HUD in response to the devastation resulting from the 2017 Hurricane Maria. He worked as a sub-consultant to HORNE LLP in assisting the Commonwealth with developing a monitoring strategy, risk analysis, and providing training to the Commonwealth staff on every aspect of monitoring subrecipients and contractors responsible for implementing projects and programs contained in the CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT Action Plan. Training included onsite and remote training on HUD monitoring exhibits, contractor and subrecipient oversight, 2 CFR 200 and other statutory and regulatory requirements, scheduling and conducting onsite and desktop monitoring events, preparing monitoring reports, and working with monitored entities to resolve open findings. He also assists the Commonwealth with preparing for HUD monitoring events, inclusive of reviewing and assessing existing monitoring processes for the purpose of strengthening oversight of all funded projects and programs, and preparing for HUD monitoring events. He also provided multiple trainings for Commonwealth staff and participated in several onsite and remote contractor, subrecipient and internal training events.

Programs: CDBG-DR I CDBG-MIT I OMB 2 CFR Part 200
Client: Ryan Flanery, Director of CDBG-DR Compliance, HORNE Puerto Rico 269 Avenida Juan Ponce de León, Hato Rey, PR 00917
[email protected] I (727) 510-9588
DAVID MUÑOZ
Director

PROJECT SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE
City of Rancho Cucamonga (plus various other cities), Consolidated Plan and Assessment of Fair Housing Program Manager I June 2018 - Current
David prepared the Consolidated Plan and Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) documents for the City of Rancho Cucamonga in addition to various other cities. In the development of the Consolidated Plan and the Assessment of Fair Housing, he used HUD’s new planning framework designed to ensure that HUD grantees take meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. This work included analyses of fair housing data, assessments of fair housing issues and contributing factors, and an identification of fair housing priorities and goals.

His active participation in structuring and conducting community meetings and stakeholder focus groups for both documents underscored his commitment to inclusive engagement, ensuring that diverse perspectives from low- and moderate-income residents and members of protected classes were incorporated into planning efforts. Concurrent with this engagement strategy, he developed and prepared outreach materials such as notices, flyers, social media campaigns, and presentations in English and Spanish.

Through his proficiency in data analytics the foundation for preparation of the AFH and Consolidated Plan was established, by providing invaluable insights into community conditions and needs, thereby facilitating informed decision-making throughout the resource programming and approval processes. Furthermore, he supported the City by crafting strategic investment strategies that address the community’s highest priority needs.

Programs: CDBG I HOME I ESG I Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Client: Flavio Nuñez
City of Rancho Cucamonga, Economic Development Department 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected] I (909) 774-4313

CHRISTOPHER
AUNE
Manager

AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Grants Management
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
Zoning
CEQA Review

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
22 Years

CERTIFICATIONS/TRAINING
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
Certification

EDUCATION
B.A. Planning and Urban
Studies, Urban Geography,
History
California State University
Northridge

WORK HISTORY
MDG Associates, Inc.
2025 - Present
City of Lancaster
2006-2025
City of Agoura Hills
2005-2006
City of Walnut
2004-2005
Chris Aune is a seasoned planning, housing, and grants management professional with over 21 years of experience in urban development, zoning, permitting, affordable housing initiatives, and public-sector grant administration. Recognized as an “ADU Guru,” Chris has led the development and implementation of innovative planning solutions while overseeing federal and state housing grants, including CDBG, HOME, and CalHome programs. His expertise includes preparation of CEQA documentation, administration and compliance of HUD and State housing funds, development of architectural and design guidelines, management of complex affordable housing initiatives, and strategic use of permit-ready ADU programs to expand housing access and streamline approvals. With a strong foundation in Planning and Urban Studies, Chris has played a pivotal role in advancing community-focused, fiscally responsible, and sustainable urban growth strategies.

Chris’s portfolio reflects a commitment to creative, context-sensitive development and disciplined program oversight. He has successfully worked on high-impact projects such as the redevelopment of the former Antelope Valley Fairgrounds, citywide scattered-site housing developments, Transit Oriented Development (T.O.D.) Zone guidelines, and the oversight of housing rehabilitation and homeownership programs funded through federal and state grants. His guidance on architectural design standards, stakeholder engagement, fiscal compliance, and coordination with engineering, building, and finance departments has helped cities achieve policy objectives while maintaining regulatory compliance and measurable results.

PROJECT SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE
HUD CPD Grant Management
Housing Manager I May 2023 – May 2025
Chris was responsible for the oversight and administration of the City of Lancaster’s annual U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Planning and Development (CPD) grant allocations, including the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) programs. In addition, he managed State of California housing grants, including the CalHome Program administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), as well as other statefunded housing assistance programs supporting rehabilitation and homeownership activities.

In this role, Christopher managed the full grant lifecycle from planning and budget allocation through implementation, reimbursement, and closeout. His responsibilities included ensuring compliance with all grant regulations as well as all crosscutting requirements including the Uniform Administrative Requirements and applicable State HCD guidelines governing State grant funds.

A significant component of his responsibilities included managing third-party consultants responsible for implementing the City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program and First-Time Homebuyer Program. Christopher provided direct oversight of consultant contracts, monitored performance metrics, reviewed reimbursement packages, ensured regulatory compliance, and verified adherence to both federal and state requirements. His oversight included confirming compliance with federal labor standards and State prevailing wage requirements where applicable, as well as procurement documentation review to ensure conformity with Uniform Guidance and state contracting rules.

Programs: Current Planning I Advanced Planning I
Client: Patti Garibay, Director of Community Development, City of Lancaster 44933 Fern Avenue, Lancaster, CA 93534
[email protected] I (661) 723-6072

CHRISTOPHER AUNE
Manager

PROJECT SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE
Permit-Ready ADUs
Housing Manager I June 2006 – May 2025
Christopher led the City of Lancaster’s Permit-Ready Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) program, a strategic initiative aimed at addressing the region’s housing shortage by simplifying and expediting the ADU development process. He led a multidisciplinary team that included an architectural design consultant and City Planning and Building staff to develop a suite of pre-approved ADU plans. Recognizing the wide variety of lot sizes, shapes, and neighborhood contexts across Lancaster, Christopher emphasized the importance of design flexibility and encouraged the creation of plans that could adapt to multiple site configurations. Rather than enforce a single architectural standard, he championed the inclusion of diverse and locally appropriate styles—including Bungalow, Mediterranean, and California Ranch—to ensure broader community acceptance and compatibility with existing homes.

The result of this effort was the successful creation of six unique ADU designs that were reviewed and approved in advance by both the Planning and Building divisions. This eliminated the need for individual plan checks for each new ADU application, dramatically reducing permitting timelines and development costs for homeowners. By implementing this forward-thinking program, he helped position the City as a leader in ADU development and provided residents with accessible pathways to expand housing on their properties, contributing to long-term affordability and smart urban growth Programs: ADUs I Planning I Housing
Client: Patti Garibay, Director of Community Development, City of Lancaster 44933 Fern Avenue, Lancaster, CA 93534
[email protected] I (661) 723-6072
Development of the Former Antelope Valley Fairgrounds
Housing Manager I June 2006 – May 2025
Christopher led the redevelopment planning process for the former Antelope Valley Fairgrounds, transforming a large, underutilized site into a dynamic mixed-use affordable housing project. He initiated the effort by issuing a comprehensive request for proposals (RFP) and successfully facilitated the selection of a development team composed of Habitat for Humanity and The Grupe Company.

Working closely with the developers and an engineering consultant, Christopher addressed significant challenges related to the site’s complex configuration, including numerous existing parcel lines and infrastructure constraints. He provided critical guidance on improving the site layout, optimizing the placement of residential units, open space, and community amenities, and negotiated key provisions of the Exclusive Negotiation Agreements. The resulting plan covers 37 acres and will deliver 382 units of affordable housing alongside a five-acre neighborhood commercial component. Christopher’s leadership in managing interdepartmental coordination, stakeholder engagement, and technical analysis ensured that the project advanced in alignment with the City’s longterm goals for housing and community revitalization.

Programs: CDBG I Federal Crosscutting
Client: Patti Garibay, Director of Community Development, City of Lancaster 44933 Fern Avenue, Lancaster, CA 93534
[email protected] I (661) 723-6072

CHRISTOPHER AUNE
Manager

PROJECT SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE
Transit Oriented Development (T.O.D) ZONES Development Guidelines Housing Manager I June 2006 – May 2025
Transit Oriented Development (T.O.D.) Zones in the City of Lancaster, a planning initiative funded by a Sustainable Planning Grant from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO). The goal of the project was to revitalize and intensify the walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods surrounding the downtown core and the Metrolink Station. Christopher began by identifying key stakeholders and organizing a series of community engagement activities, including neighborhood walks, stakeholder meetings, surveys, and outreach to residents, business owners, and faith-based leaders. Acting as the grant manager, he prepared and submitted all required quarterly reports and ensured compliance with grant objectives. He also worked closely with a consultant team to translate community input into a comprehensive set of TOD Zone guidelines, which were finalized in 2015.

These guidelines became a foundational component of the City’s long-term strategy to enhance connectivity, support smart growth, and promote reinvestment in its historic downtown and adjacent neighborhoods.

Programs: Transit Development I Planning I Housing
Client: Patti Garibay, Director of Community Development, City of Lancaster 44933 Fern Avenue, Lancaster, CA 93534
[email protected] I (661) 723-6072
Lancaster Architectural and Design Guidelines
City Planner I July 2006 – May 2018
Christopher led the City of Lancaster’s effort to develop its first-ever Architectural and Design Guidelines, a transformative project aimed at improving the quality and character of new development citywide. In response to the absence of established design standards, Christopher facilitated the creation of an architectural design commission and organized a series of educational tours for commissioners and staff to study architecture, public spaces, and master-planned communities throughout the Los Angeles region. He coordinated numerous commission meetings to gather input and build consensus on preferred architectural styles, design elements, building placement, and drought-tolerant landscaping. Christopher also oversaw a robust stakeholder engagement process, including outreach to the Building Industry Association, which ultimately endorsed the guidelines. With the assistance of a consultant, the guidelines were drafted and adopted, providing Planning staff with a powerful tool to encourage high-quality, context-sensitive development. The new standards have since helped elevate the design quality of projects across Lancaster, aligning new growth with the community’s long-term vision for livability and aesthetics.

Programs: CDBG I Federal Crosscutting
Client: Patti Garibay, Director of Community Development, City of Lancaster 44933 Fern Avenue, Lancaster, CA 93534
[email protected] I (661) 723-6072
JUAN NUÑEZ
Associate

AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Labor Compliance
Section 3 Requirements
Davis-Bacon and Related
Acts (DBRA)

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
5 Years

CERTIFICATIONS/TRAINING
HUD Section 3 Final Rule
LCPtracker Academy –
Federal Prevailing Wage
LCPtracker Academy –
State Prevailing Wage

EDUCATION
High School Diploma
Rialto High School

WORK HISTORY
MDG Associates, Inc.
2021 - Present
Juan Nunez leads the company’s labor compliance and Section 3 monitoring program.

The labor compliance monitoring has included both State of California as well as the federal Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA). Juan is responsible for labor compliance monitoring for over 15 cities and over 30 projects. Juan focuses on implementing monitoring strategies to assist cities and contractors through the various labor compliance regulations imposed by federal and state grants.

Juan is responsible for ensuring that all contractors and subcontractors are well informed of the reporting requirements during the pre-bid and pre-construction meetings. He is responsible for collecting, reviewing, and working with contractors on ensuring that all workers are paid prevailing wages as established by the regulatory agencies.

PROJECT SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE
City of Irvine – Capital Improvement Projects
Lead Compliance Consultant | 2023-Present
Juan provides the overall labor compliance and Section 3 monitoring for Irvine’s CDBG and HOME-funded capital improvement projects. Projects include affordable housing development, Americans with Disabilities Act improvements at a variety of public facilities, and nonprofit-owned facilities rehabilitation projects.

Juan is responsible for Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA) prevailing wage compliance and monitoring, including bid document preparation, HUD-11 employee field interviews, review of certified payroll reports, identification and resolution of any labor standard violations as well as Section 3 reporting and compliance. Juan also coordinates preparation of and the submission of the Semi-Annual and Annual Labor Standards Enforcement reports to local counties and U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Programs: CDBG
Client: Stacy Delong, Senior Project Manager, City of Irvine 1 Civic Center Plaza, Irvine, CA 92606
[email protected] I (949) 473-1237
C&C Development – Lincoln Avenue Apartments
Lead Compliance Consultant | 2024 - Present
Juan provides the overall labor compliance and Section 3 monitoring for the project. The project includes new construction of a 55-unit affordable rental housing development in the City of Buena Park. Layered funding sources triggered federal and state prevailing wage, minority- and women-owned business enterprise, and Section 3 requirements.

Programs: Low Income Housing Tax Credits, CalOptima Health Grant, HUD Funds Client: Todd Cottle, Principal
14211 Yorba Street, Suite 200 Tustin, CA 92780
[email protected] I (714) 288-7600
Juan Nuñez
Associate

PROJECT SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE
City of Hawthorne – Capital Improvement Projects
Labor Compliance Specialist / Associate I 2025 - Current Juan provides the overall labor compliance and Section 3 monitoring for three Hawthorne capital improvement projects. The three projects consist of the Hawthorne Senior Center; Hawthorne City Yard Facility; and the Holly Park Renovation Project. These three projects have a construction value of $30 Million. In addition, Juan has been assisting the City in the labor compliance review of the bid documents for the City Hall project which is estimated to cost approximately $26 Million.

Juan is responsible for Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA) prevailing wage compliance and monitoring, including bid document preparation, HUD-11 employee field interviews, review of certified payroll reports, identification and resolution of any labor standard violations as well as Section 3 reporting and compliance. Juan also coordinates preparation of and the submission of the SemiAnnual and Annual Labor Standards Enforcement reports to local counties and U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and ensuring that the contactors are submitting certified payrolls through the States labor compliance portal.

Programs: CDBG I General Funds I Section 108 Loan Funds I Client: Kimberly Mack, Director of Housing, City of Hawthorne 4455 West 126th Street, Hawthorne, CA 90250
[email protected] I (310) 349-1603
City of Hesperia – Street Improvement Projects
Labor Compliance Specialist / Associate I 2024 - Current Juan provides the overall labor compliance and Section 3 monitoring for five street reconstruction projects. The five street projects have a construction value of approximately $4.8 Million.

Juan is responsible for Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA) prevailing wage compliance and monitoring, including bid document preparation, HUD-11 employee field interviews, review of certified payroll reports, identification and resolution of any labor standard violations as well as Section 3 reporting and compliance. Juan also coordinates preparation of and the submission of the SemiAnnual and Annual Labor Standards Enforcement reports to local counties and U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and ensuring that the contactors are submitting certified payrolls through the States labor compliance portal.

Programs: CDBG I Gas Tax I General Funds I Transportation Grant Funds Client: Deanna Lestina, Project Manager, City of Hesperia 9700 Seventh Avenue, Hesperia, CA 92345
[email protected] I (760) 947-1434

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Christopher Williams, Chief of Police
DATE: May 5, 2026
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Acceptance of Donated Ballistic Equipment from the Santa Maria Police Council.

Description:

The City Council will consider approving the receipt of donations of ballistic equipment from the Santa Maria Police Council to enhance safety in the Santa Maria Police Department.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Adopt a Resolution approving a donation of ballistic equipment to the City of Santa Maria Police Department from the Santa Maria Police Council; and

2. Direct the City Manager, or designee, to prepare a letter of appreciation to the Santa Maria Police Council.

BACKGROUND:

The Santa Maria Police Council (SMPC) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation with the mission to serve and support the Santa Maria Police Department (SMPD) by way of purchasing safety materials, equipment, and training for the men and women of the department over and above what the City’s operating budget has allocated. Since the SMPC’s formation in August 2007, they have donated many items of equipment and funded training for the SMPD.

Government Code Section 37354 provides that the City Council may accept any gift, bequest, or devise made to or for the City, or to or for any of its offices in their official capacity, or in trust for any public purpose. City Administration Memo CAM 2017-01 sets forth procedures for reviewing, accepting, and acknowledging gifts and/or donations offered to the City in order to: 1) establish compliance with the law in a consistent manner regardless of the source of the donation; 2) establish uniform procedures for the receipt of donations to the City; 3) cultivate an environment where residents and businesses want to contribute to the City’s programs and facilities; 4) promptly acknowledge and express appreciation for donations; and 5) assure donations are properly inventoried and accounted for.

DISCUSSION:
2 The donation of safety equipment includes five rifle-rated ballistic shields, three ballistic blankets, and fifteen personal body armor packages, consisting of armor plates, inserts, and plate carriers. This equipment will be used by patrol Officers, SWAT Officers, and Firearms Training Instructors and is essential to safeguard officers during high-risk incidents and enhance the department’s ability to train, respond, and protect.

Fiscal Considerations
There is no fiscal impact on the General Fund associated with this donation. The total cost of the ballistic equipment is estimated at $63,349, which will be paid in full by the SMPC.

Impact on the Community
This donation highlights the vital role the Santa Maria Police Department plays in the community, as recognized by the Santa Maria Police Council. The donated equipment and associated training will significantly enhance the safety of both police officers and the community, further supporting the department’s ongoing efforts to protect and serve.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
Attachment A

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA

APPROVING A DONATION OF BALLISTIC EQUIPMENT TO THE

CITY OF SANTA MARIA POLICE DEPARTMENT FROM THE

SANTA MARIA POLICE COUNCIL
WHEREAS, the Santa Maria Police Council has donated ballistic equipment with an estimated value of $63,349; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 37354 provides that the City Council may accept any gift, bequest, or devise made to or for the City, or to or for any of its officers in their official capacity or in trust for any public purpose; and WHEREAS, the City’s Gift and/or Donation Policy CAM 2017-01 requires offers of monetary donations or items valued more than $25,000 must be accepted by the City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, as follows:

SECTION 1. Accept the donation of ballistic equipment from the Santa Maria Police Council in the estimated amount of $63,349, and direct the City Manager, or designee, to prepare a letter of appreciation to the Santa Maria Police Council; and SECTION 2. The Chief Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the Chief Deputy City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary. ///
///
///
Attachment A

Page 2 of 2 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, held this 5
th day of May 2026.

ATTEST:

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brett Fulgoni, Director of Public Works
DATE: May 5, 2026
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Approving Authorization to Submit an Active Transportation Program Grant Application
Description:

The City Council will consider adopting a Resolution authorizing submission of an application to the California Active Transportation Program for a proposed citywide multipurpose trail system intended to create a connected active transportation loop around Santa Maria with links to Downtown/Civic Center, the Transit Center, Allan Hancock College, neighborhoods, schools, parks, and other major destinations.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Adopt a Resolution authorizing submission of an Active Transportation Program grant application; and

2. Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute and submit all documents required for the application.

BACKGROUND:

The City continues to pursue grant funding for projects that improve walking, bicycling, and rolling throughout Santa Maria and that expand access to key destinations for residents of all ages and abilities. The California Active Transportation Program (ATP) is one of the State’s primary competitive funding sources for bicycle, pedestrian, and other active transportation improvements. The program is intended to increase the use of active transportation modes, improve safety and mobility for nonmotorized users, enhance public health, and ensure disadvantaged communities share in the benefits of transportation investment. The current Cycle 8 call for projects is open, with statewide and small urban/rural applications due June 22, 2026.

Staff has been developing a concept for a citywide active transportation loop that would function as a backbone facility for Santa Maria’s bicycle and pedestrian network. The concept generally envisions a multi-purpose trail loop around the community, with strategic on-street and crossing improvements to connect major destinations including 2 Downtown/Civic Center, the Transit Center, Allan Hancock College, schools, parks, neighborhoods, and commercial areas.

A substantial portion of the concept builds on opportunities along existing maintenance roads adjacent to the Blosser Channel and Bradley Channel, together with targeted roadway realignment and corridor reconfiguration opportunities on streets such as Main Street east of U.S. 101, Blosser Road, Depot Street, Bradley Road, College Drive, and Panther Drive.

Santa Barbara County Flood Control has indicated support for the concept at a planning level. Continued coordination will be necessary during project development to ensure access and operational needs for channel maintenance are preserved.

Staff has also introduced the concept to members of the local bicycling community and received initial feedback. That feedback emphasized the importance of designing safe and intuitive crossings, keeping the trail alignment as direct as feasible near intersections, providing accessible detection and push-button treatments without requiring users to dismount, and ensuring uninterrupted connections at key points in the network.

DISCUSSION:

The proposed Santa Maria Loop Multi-Use Trail Project is intended to create a highly visible, citywide active transportation spine that serves both transportation and recreation purposes. Rather than focusing on one isolated segment, the project concept is designed to connect major community destinations into a continuous network that can be used for daily trips, school access, transit access, and recreational walking and bicycling.

At a planning level, the concept includes a combination of off-street and corridor-based improvements. Key elements may include: enhancement of existing channel-adjacent maintenance roads for shared use where feasible; roadway realignment or reconfiguration to accommodate separated active transportation facilities; protected or high-visibility crossings at major intersections and channel crossings; ADA-accessible access points and intersection controls; wayfinding and branding elements; and other supporting improvements needed to create a continuous and intuitive facility.

The project is well aligned with ATP objectives. The ATP guidelines emphasize projects that increase walking, biking, and rolling; improve safety and mobility for nonmotorized users; benefit disadvantaged communities; and deliver transformative community or regional benefits. The guidelines specifically encourage projects that significantly expand active transportation opportunities and create accessible facilities usable by persons with or without disabilities. Staff believes the proposed loop concept is responsive to those objectives because it would establish a recognizable citywide corridor system that improves network continuity, expands access to important destinations, and has the potential to deliver broad community benefit across multiple neighborhoods.

The current application effort would allow the City to further refine the concept and assemble a competitive ATP submission. As part of that effort, staff anticipates the need 3 for additional design ideation and conceptual planning, particularly at intersections, roadway transitions, channel crossings, and other locations where continuity and user comfort will be critical to project success. Early community engagement will also be important. Staff intend to continue coordination with the bicycling community and other stakeholders.

In addition to mobility and safety benefits, the proposed loop presents an opportunity to create a signature Santa Maria active transportation facility. Staff intends to explore project branding as the application advances. A clear and memorable identity may strengthen both public support and the competitiveness of the grant application. Staff also intends to explore opportunities to recognize Santa Maria history and community leadership through naming, interpretive elements, or dedications, potentially in coordination with the Santa Maria Valley Historical Society and other local partners.

Authorization from the City Council at this time would allow staff to proceed with submission of the ATP application and completion of the associated forms and supporting materials. If the project is selected for funding, staff would return to the City Council as needed for future actions related to grant acceptance, appropriations, agreements, environmental review, and project delivery.

Alternative(s)

1. Do not adopt the Resolution
If the City Council does not authorize submission of the application, the City would forgo the opportunity to compete for ATP funding in the current cycle for this project concept.

2. Adopt the Resolution with direction to modify the application emphasis The City Council may choose to authorize submission of the application while directing staff to emphasize particular destinations, corridors, branding concepts, or project elements in the final application package.

Fiscal Considerations
Preparation of the grant application will require staff time and will require consultant support for conceptual engineering, graphics, cost estimating, and application preparation. Those costs are expected to be funded through existing departmental budgets. The total grant amount to be requested through the ATP application is currently estimated at approximately $30 million. The grant scoring provides additional points for leveraging local funds, with 1 point (out of 100) for 1 to 5 percent of total project cost to be funded by local match. Up to 5 points can be scored, with more than 20 percent of the project costs having to be funded by local match.
4 Staff will evaluate how existing roadway funding sources such as Measure A funds that must be spent on active transportation elements can be leveraged. Staff recommends leveraging Growth Mitigation funds identified for active transportation projects if they are available and relevant to the proposed project. Staff will refine the project estimate and funding plan prior to submittal to maximize scoring, but at this time a local match of $6 million may be utilized.

If the project is awarded funding, staff will return to the City Council with any required actions related to grant acceptance, budget amendments, matching funds, and implementation.

Impact on the Community
If funded and implemented, the project would provide a major new community asset intended to improve safety, expand mobility options, and improve access to schools, transit, parks, employment areas, and civic destinations. The project would support residents who walk, bike, and roll for transportation and recreation, including youth, older adults, and persons with disabilities. The project also has the potential to strengthen neighborhood connectivity, encourage healthy activity, and create a more identifiable and cohesive citywide active transportation network.

Other Agency Review
The project concept has been discussed at a preliminary level with Santa Barbara County Flood Control, which has expressed support for continued advancement of the concept, subject to maintaining access and functionality for flood control maintenance operations.

Continued coordination with Flood Control, Caltrans where applicable, SBCAG, transit partners, school representatives, the bicycling community, and other stakeholders will be part of the project development process.

ATTACHMENT(S)
A. Resolution
Attachment A

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA

AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF AN ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION
WHEREAS, the California Transportation Commission has issued a call for projects for Cycle 8 of the Active Transportation Program, with applications due June 22, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the Active Transportation Program is intended to increase the use of active transportation modes, improve safety and mobility for nonmotorized users, enhance public health, support greenhouse gas reduction efforts, and ensure disadvantaged communities share in the benefits of the program; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Maria desires to submit an application for funding for the proposed multi-purpose trail system intended to improve active transportation connectivity throughout the City and provide connections to key destinations including Downtown/Civic Center, the Transit Center, Allan Hancock College, neighborhoods, schools, parks, and other community destinations; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project concept may include improvements along existing channel-adjacent maintenance roads, roadway realignment and reconfiguration, crossing improvements, accessibility improvements, wayfinding, and related improvements necessary to create a continuous and safe active transportation facility; and
WHEREAS, the Active Transportation Program is intended to increase the use of active transportation modes, improve safety and mobility for nonmotorized users, enhance public health, support greenhouse gas reduction efforts, and ensure disadvantaged communities share in the benefits of the program; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that submission of the grant application is in the public interest and will allow the City to compete for external funding to advance a transformative active transportation project for the community.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby authorizes submission of an application to the California Active Transportation Program.

SECTION 2. The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized to execute and submit the grant application and any supporting documents, assurances, certifications, and other materials required to apply for Active Transportation Program funding for the project.

Attachment A

Page 2 of 2 ends

SECTION 3. The City Council acknowledges that if funding is awarded, future City Council action may be required for grant acceptance, budget appropriations, matching funds, environmental review, agreements, and project implementation, as applicable; and SECTION 4. The Chief Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the Chief Deputy City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, held this 5
th day of May 2026.

ATTEST:

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brett Fulgoni, Director of Public Works
DATE: May 5, 2026
SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution Approving a Proposed Establishment of Limited Time Parking Zones and No Stopping Zones On Carmen Lane Description:

The City Council will consider adopting a Resolution establishing two-hour maximum parking zones on each side of Carmen Lane, with No Stopping Zones starting 50 feet west of the railroad terminus to the terminus, to provide short-term parking for users of the new dog park while the long-term roadway improvements are developed.

Environmental Notice: The activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution establishing limited time parking zones and no stopping zones on Carmen Lane.

BACKGROUND:

A request was received from the City of Santa Maria Recreation and Parks Department to modify the existing no stopping zones along Carmen Lane near the new dog park and adjacent development to allow two-hour maximum parking. The park opened in February 2026, and staff is evaluating options to provide short-term parking opportunities for park users. The request would involve replacing the existing No Stopping restrictions on both sides of Carmen Lane, from Western Avenue to the railroad terminus, with time-limited parking.

The Committee noted that this segment of Carmen Lane was previously discussed during the review of the proposed roadway alignment adjacent to Jimenez Elementary School.

A roadway alignment concept was approved by City Council; however, insufficient funds and staff resources are currently available to advance the project. Staff anticipates recommending this effort be included as a future Capital Improvement Project. The twohour parking zone is intended as an interim measure until long-term roadway improvements can be completed.
2 DISCUSSION:

The two-hour maximum parking zone and no stopping zones recommended to be established are described as follows:
 Carmen Lane, 2-Hour Maximum Parking, along the northerly curb face, beginning 20 linear feet east of the curb return of the northeast curb ramp of the intersection of Carmen Lane and South Western Avenue and continuing 510 linear feet east, then resuming 20 linear feet east of the curb return of the northeast curb ramp of the intersection of Carmen Lane and Bay Rose Place and continuing an additional 560 linear feet east.
 Carmen Lane, 2-Hour Maximum Parking, along the southerly curb face, beginning 20 linear feet east of the curb return of the southeast curb ramp of the intersection of Carmen Lane and South Western Avenue and continuing 540 linear feet east, then resuming after the ramp and continuing an additional 630 linear feet east.  Carmen Lane, No Stopping Zone, along the northerly curb face, beginning at the railroad terminus and continuing 50 linear feet west.
 Carmen Lane, No Stopping Zone, along the southerly curb face, beginning at the railroad terminus and continuing 50 linear feet west.

Alternative(s)
The alternative to the recommended action would be to not approve the establishment of the limited time parking zones and no stopping zones.

Fiscal Considerations
The Public Works Department will be responsible for installing two-hour parking signage and red curb along Carmen Lane. Staff has estimated the cost of sign and red curb installation to be approximately $1,200 in staff time and materials. 3 Impact on the Community
The establishment of time-limited parking will provide short-term parking access for users of the new dog park along Carmen Lane while discouraging long-term vehicle storage.

The no stopping zones at the railroad terminus will maintain safety at the end of the parking area for vehicles that need to complete a turnaround. This is an interim measure pending future Capital Improvement Project funding for long-term roadway improvements.

ATTACHMENT(S)
A. Resolution
B. Location Map
Attachment A

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA

ESTABLISHING LIMITED TIME PARKING ZONES AND

NO STOPPING ZONES ON CARMEN LANE
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Santa Maria to establish limited time parking zones on certain streets within the City; and WHEREAS, City of Santa Maria Traffic Committee has reviewed and is recommending the establishment of two-hour maximum parking zones and no stopping zones at the locations described below.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 7-5.14 of the Santa Maria Municipal Code, two-hour maximum parking zones and no stopping zones shall be established on the following street, incorporated herein by reference, at the following locations by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, as follows:
 Carmen Lane, 2-Hour Maximum Parking, along the northerly curb face, beginning 20 linear feet east of the curb return of the northeast curb ramp of the intersection of Carmen Lane and South Western Avenue and continuing 510 linear feet east, then resuming 20 linear feet east of the curb return of the northeast curb ramp of the intersection of Carmen Lane and Bay Rose Place and continuing an additional 560 linear feet east.
 Carmen Lane, 2-Hour Maximum Parking, along the southerly curb face, beginning 20 linear feet east of the curb return of the southeast curb ramp of the intersection of Carmen Lane and South Western Avenue and continuing 540 linear feet east, then resuming after the ramp and continuing an additional 630 linear feet east.  Carmen Lane, No Stopping Zone, along the northerly curb face, beginning at the railroad terminus and continuing 50 linear feet west.
 Carmen Lane, No Stopping Zone, along the southerly curb face, beginning at the railroad terminus and continuing 50 linear feet west.

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, as follows:

Attachment A

Page 2 of 2 ends

SECTION 3. The Chief Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the Chief Deputy City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, held this 5th day of May 2026.

ATTEST:

PARKING

SIGNAGE
(TYP)
(P) 2 HOUR PARKING (P) NSZ
(P) NSZ

The City Council will consider adopting a Resolution establishing limited time parking zones with street sweeping signage on the 700 block of West Cypress Street and the 200–300 blocks of South Depot Street to facilitate regular street sweeping operations.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution establishing limited time parking zones with street sweeping signage on the 700 block of West Cypress Street and the 200–300 blocks of South Depot Street.

BACKGROUND:

A request was received from the Recreation & Parks Department, to establish Limited Time Parking Zones for street sweeping purposes along the 700 block of West Cypress Street and the 200–300 blocks of South Depot Street. Numerous vehicles displaying 'For Sale' signage are routinely parked along these streets and often remain unmoved for extended periods, significantly impeding street sweeping operations.

Street sweeping on the 700 block of West Cypress Street and the west side of the 200– 300 blocks of South Depot Street occurs on Thursdays from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. Street sweeping on the east side of the 200–300 blocks of South Depot Street occurs on Fridays from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.

DISCUSSION:

The limited time parking zones recommended to be established are described as follows:
 West Cypress Street, No Parking for Street Sweeping, Thursdays from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., along the northerly curb face, beginning at the curb return of the northwest curb ramp of the intersection of West Cypress Street and South Depot Street and continuing 45 linear feet west to the driveway apron, then resuming after the driveway apron and continuing an additional 115 linear feet west.  West Cypress Street, No Parking for Street Sweeping, Thursdays from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., along the southerly curb face, beginning at the curb return of the southwest curb ramp of the intersection of West Cypress Street and South Depot Street and continued to 220 linear feet west.
 South Depot Street, No Parking for Street Sweeping, Thursdays from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., along the westerly curb face, beginning at the curb return of the southwest curb ramp of the intersection of South Depot Street and West Church Street and continuing 275 linear feet south.
 South Depot Street, No Parking for Street Sweeping, Thursdays from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., along the westerly curb face, beginning at the curb return of the southwest curb ramp of the intersection of South Depot Street and West Cypress Street and continuing 290 linear feet south.
 South Depot Street, No Parking for Street Sweeping, Fridays from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., along the easterly curb face, beginning at the curb return of the southeast curb ramp of the intersection of South Depot Street and West Church Street and continuing 275 linear feet south.
 South Depot Street, No Parking for Street Sweeping, Thursdays from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., along the easterly curb face, beginning at the curb return of the southeast curb ramp of the intersection of South Depot Street and West Cypress Street and continuing 290 linear feet south.

Alternative(s)
The alternative to the recommended action would be to not approve the establishment of the limited time parking zones with street sweeping signage.

Fiscal Considerations
Implementation will require the installation of new sign poles and street sweeping signage along both streets. The Public Works Department estimates the cost of poles and sign installation to be approximately $1,800 in staff time and materials.

Impact on the Community
3 The limited time parking restrictions will apply only during the designated street sweeping windows (two hours per week per block face) and will not affect parking at other times.

Vehicles in violation during sweeping hours may be subject to citation.

ATTACHMENT(S)
A. Resolution
B. Location Map
Attachment A

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA

ESTABLISHING LIMITED TIME PARKING ZONES WITH
STREET SWEEPING SIGNAGE ON THE 700 BLOCK OF WEST
CYPRESS STREET AND THE 200–300 BLOCKS OF

SOUTH DEPOT STREET
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Santa Maria to establish limited time parking zones with street sweeping signage on certain streets within the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Maria Traffic Committee has reviewed and is recommending the establishment of limited time parking zones with street sweeping signage at the locations described below.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 7-5.14 of the Santa Maria Municipal Code, limited time zones with street sweeping signage shall be established on the following streets, incorporated herein by reference, at the following locations by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, as follows:
 West Cypress Street, No Parking for Street Sweeping, Thursdays from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., along the northerly curb face, beginning at the curb return of the northwest curb ramp of the intersection of West Cypress Street and South Depot Street and continuing 45 linear feet west to the driveway apron, then resuming after the driveway apron and continuing an additional 115 linear feet west.  West Cypress Street, No Parking for Street Sweeping, Thursdays from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., along the southerly curb face, beginning at the curb return of the southwest curb ramp of the intersection of West Cypress Street and South Depot Street and continuing 220 linear feet west.
 South Depot Street, No Parking for Street Sweeping, Thursdays from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., along the westerly curb face, beginning at the curb return of the southwest curb ramp of the intersection of South Depot Street and West Church Street and continuing 275 linear feet south.
 South Depot Street, No Parking for Street Sweeping, Thursdays from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., along the westerly curb face, beginning at the curb return of the southwest curb ramp of the intersection of South Depot Street and West Cypress Street and continuing 290 linear feet south.
 South Depot Street, No Parking for Street Sweeping, Fridays from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., along the easterly curb face, beginning at the curb return of the southeast curb ramp of the intersection of South Depot Street and West Church Street and continuing 275 linear feet south.
 South Depot Street, No Parking for Street Sweeping, Thursdays from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., along the easterly curb face, beginning at the curb return of the southeast curb ramp of the intersection of South Depot Street and West Cypress Street and continuing 290 linear feet south.

Attachment A

Page 2 of 2 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBYRESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, as follows:

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, held this 5
th day of May 2026.

ATTEST:

Chief Deputy City Clerk
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
_______________________________
Department Director
_______________________________
City Manager
Attachment B
(P) LTP for street sweeping
(P) LTP for street sweeping (P) LTP for street sweeping (E) "Angled Parking" signs (P) LTP for street sweeping (P) LTP for street sweeping

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brett Fulgoni, Director of Public Works
DATE: May 5, 2026
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Proposed Establishment of a No Stopping Zone on Alvin Avenue
Description:

The City Council will consider adopting a Resolution establishing a no stopping zone at the northwest corner of Alvin Avenue and North Railroad Avenue to maintain clear access for City maintenance crews servicing nearby electrical cabinets.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution establishing a no stopping zone on Alvin Avenue at North Railroad Avenue.

BACKGROUND:

A request was received from City Operations staff to install approximately 40 feet of red curb at the northwest corner of Alvin Avenue and North Railroad Avenue. Vehicles parking in this area have created access challenges for maintenance crews attempting to service nearby electrical cabinets and perform routine work. The request proposes establishing a no stopping zone through red curb installation to maintain clear access for service vehicles and improve operational safety.

DISCUSSION:

Per City Council Resolution No. 2061 and CAM 63-15, a Traffic Committee was formed to "be responsible for the review, approval or denial, and recommendations to City Council on all matters and requests relating to traffic circulation and safety within the public right-of-way." The Traffic Committee has reviewed the request for a no stopping zone and recommends its establishment. The City Council has the authority to locate, establish, or eliminate no stopping zones within the City. 2 The no stopping zone recommended to be established is described as follows:
 Alvin Avenue, along the northerly curb face, at the northwest corner of the Alvin Avenue and North Railroad Avenue intersection, extending approximately 40 linear feet westerly.

Alternative(s)
The alternative to the recommended action would be to not approve the establishment of the no stopping zone.

Fiscal Considerations
The Public Works Department will be responsible for painting the red curb. Staff has estimated the cost to be approximately $400 in staff time and materials.

Impact on the Community
Approximately two on-street parking spaces will be removed to maintain clear access for City Operations maintenance crews servicing the electrical infrastructure at this location.

ATTACHMENT(S)
A. Resolution
B. Location Map
Attachment A

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA

ESTABLISHING A NO STOPPING ZONE ON ALVIN AVENUE

AT NORTH RAILROAD AVENUE
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Santa Maria to establish a no stopping zone at certain locations within the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Maria Traffic Committee has reviewed and is recommending the establishment of a no stopping zone at the location described below.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 7-5.14 of the Santa Maria Municipal Code, a no stopping zone shall be established on the following street, incorporated herein by reference, at the following location by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, as follows:
 Alvin Avenue, along the northerly curb face, at the northwest corner of the Alvin Avenue and North Railroad Avenue intersection, extending approximately 40 linear feet westerly.

NOW, THEREFORE, ITS HEREBYRESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, as follows:

Page 2 of 2 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, held this 5
th day of May 2026.

ATTEST:

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brett Fulgoni, Director of Public Works
DATE: May 5, 2026
SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution Approving the Proposed Establishment of a Loading Zone on West Boone Street
Description:

The City Council will consider adopting a Resolution for the removal of angle parking and establishing a loading zone on West Boone Street between South Depot Street and South Railroad Avenue to alleviate recurring traffic congestion caused by semi-truck deliveries to 706 West Boone Street.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution establishing a Loading Zone on West Boone Street between South Depot Street and South Railroad Avenue.

BACKGROUND:

Staff received a request from the Police Department to remove the existing angled parking on West Boone Street between South Depot Street and South Railroad Avenue and replace it with an unrestricted loading zone. Currently, semi-trucks servicing ABC Supply Company, whose site lacks adequate on-site loading space, are required to stop and unload in the travel lane. When this occurs, vehicles are unable to maneuver around the trucks, resulting in traffic congestion and circulation issues along the corridor.

DISCUSSION:

Per City Council Resolution No. 2061 and CAM 63-15, a Traffic Committee was formed to "be responsible for the review, approval or denial, and recommendations to City Council on all matters and requests relating to traffic circulation and safety within the public right-of-way." The Traffic Committee has reviewed the request and recommends the establishment of a loading zone. The City Council has the authority to locate, establish, or eliminate loading zones within the City.
2 The loading zone recommended to be established is described as follows:
 West Boone Street, begin at the back of curb return of the curb ramp located at the southwest corner of the South Depot Avenue and West Boone Street intersection and extend westerly for 235 feet.

Alternative(s)
The alternative to the recommended action would be to not approve the establishment of the loading zone.

Fiscal Considerations
The Public Works Department will be responsible for installing loading zone signage. Staff has estimated the cost of sign installation to be approximately $600 in staff time and materials. No yellow curb painting is required.

Impact on the Community
Removal of the angle parking will eliminate several on-street parking spaces along West Boone Street between South Depot Street and South Railroad Avenue. However, the change is expected to significantly reduce traffic congestion caused by semi-truck deliveries blocking the travel lane.

ATTACHMENT(S)
A. Resolution
B. Location Map
Attachment A

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA

ESTABLISHING A LOADING ZONE ON WEST BOONE STREET

BETWEEN SOUTH DEPOT STREET AND

SOUTH RAILROAD AVENUE
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Santa Maria to establish loading zones on certain streets within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Maria Traffic Committee has reviewed and is recommending establishment of a loading zone at the location described below.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 7-5.14 of the Santa Maria Municipal Code, a loading zone shall be established on the following street, incorporated herein by reference, at the following location by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, as follows:
 West Boone Street, begin at the back of curb return of the curb ramp located at the southwest corner of the South Depot Avenue and West Boone Street intersection and extend westerly for 235 feet.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBYRESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, as follows:

SECTION 1. The foregoing shall constitute traffic regulations pursuant to ordinance; and
SECTION 2. All work is to be accomplished using the standards and methods approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. This shall be in accordance with standard City specifications, and the provisions of this resolution are to be carried out by erecting signs, painting marks and temporary markers and barricades required, and by such other indicators or devices as may be under provisions of the Vehicle Code of the State of California and regulations adopted pursuant thereto; and SECTION 3. The Chief Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the Chief Deputy City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary. ///
///
///
Attachment A

Page 2 of 2 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, held this 5
th day of May 2026.

ATTEST:

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brett Fulgoni, Director of Public Works
DATE: May 5, 2026
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Proposed Establishment of No Stopping Zones on Bethel Lane
Description:

The City Council will consider adopting a Resolution establishing no stopping zones on Bethel Lane near the intersection of Stowell Road and South Blosser Road to protect newly improved approach striping and improve traffic flow.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution to establishing no stopping zones on Bethel Lane at the intersection of Stowell Road and South Blosser Road.

BACKGROUND:

A request was received from the City of Santa Maria Public Works Department to evaluate the installation of no stopping zones near the intersection of Stowell Road and South Blosser Road following recent approach striping improvements. Vehicles have been observed parking within the newly striped areas, reducing available space for vehicle maneuvering and creating potential operational concerns at the intersection. The Traffic Committee reviewed the request and approved establishing the no stopping zones through signage rather than red curb painting.

DISCUSSION:

Per City Council Resolution No. 2061 and CAM 63-15, a Traffic Committee was formed to "be responsible for the review, approval or denial, and recommendations to City Council on all matters and requests relating to traffic circulation and safety within the public right-of-way." The Traffic Committee has reviewed the request for no stopping zones and recommends its establishment via signage. The City Council has the authority to locate, establish, or eliminate no stopping zones within the City. 2 The no stopping zones recommended to be established are described as follows:
 Bethel Lane, along the northerly curb face, beginning at the curb return of the northwest curb ramp of the intersection of Bethel Lane and South Blosser Road and continuing 145 linear feet west.
 Bethel Lane, along the southerly curb face, beginning at the curb return of the southwest curb ramp of the intersection of Bethel Lane and South Blosser Road and continuing 145 linear feet west.

Alternative(s)
The alternative to the recommended action would be to not approve the establishment of the no stopping zones.

Fiscal Considerations
The Public Works Department will be responsible for installing the no stopping signage.

Staff has estimated the cost of sign installation to be approximately $800 in staff time and materials. No red curb painting is required.

Impact on the Community
The no stopping zones will maintain clear roadway space within the newly striped approach areas, improving traffic flow and vehicle maneuvering at the intersection. The use of signage rather than red curb minimizes visual impact

ATTACHMENT(S)
A. Resolution
B. Location Map
Attachment A

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA

ESTABLISHING NO STOPPING ZONES ON BETHEL LANE

AT THE INTERSECTION OF STOWELL ROAD

AND SOUTH BLOSSER ROAD
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Santa Maria to establish no stopping zones at certain locations within the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Maria Traffic Committee has reviewed and is recommending the establishment of no stopping zones at the location described below.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 7-5.14 of the Santa Maria Municipal Code, no stopping zones shall be established on the following street, incorporated herein by reference, at the following location by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, as follows:
 Bethel Lane, along the northerly curb face, beginning at the curb return of the northwest curb ramp of the intersection of Bethel Lane and South Blosser Road and continuing 145 linear feet west.
 Bethel Lane, along the southerly curb face, beginning at the curb return of the southwest curb ramp of the intersection of Bethel Lane and South Blosser Road and continuing 145 linear feet west.

Page 2 of 2 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, held this 5
th day of May 2026.

ATTEST:

The City Council will consider adopting a Resolution approving the establishment of no stopping zones on Suey Crossing Road at the southeast property driveway of 1670 E Donovan Road to improve sight distance and operational safety for vehicles entering and exiting the property.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution establishing no stopping zones on Suey Crossing Road.

BACKGROUND:

A request was received from the Santa Maria Fire Department to evaluate red curb installation near Fire Station No. 5 along Suey Crossing Road at East Donovan Road.

The request is intended to improve visibility for vehicles entering or exiting the station.

Santa Maria Municipal Code Section 7-5.01 restricts parking within 15 feet of a fire station driveway; however, additional red curb is being considered to further enhance sight distance and operational safety. The Traffic Committee reviewed the request and approved painting 80 linear feet of red curb continuing southwest from the driveway apron as well as 40 linear feet continuing northeast from the driveway apron.

DISCUSSION:

Per City Council Resolution No. 2061 and CAM 63-15, a Traffic Committee was formed to "be responsible for the review, approval or denial, and recommendations to City Council on all matters and requests relating to traffic circulation and safety within the public right-of-way." The Traffic Committee has reviewed the request for the no stopping zones and recommends its establishment. The City Council has the authority to locate, establish, or eliminate no stopping zones within the City. 2 The no stopping zones recommended to be established is described as follows:
 Suey Crossing Road, along the southwesterly curb face, beginning at the edge of the southeast property driveway of 1670 East Donovan Road and continuing 80 linear feet southwest.
 Suey Crossing Road, along the northeasterly curb face, beginning at the edge of the southeast property driveway of 1670 East Donovan Road and continuing 40 linear feet northeast.

Alternative(s)
The alternative to the recommended action would be to not approve the establishment of the no stopping zones.

Fiscal Considerations
The Public Works Department will be responsible for painting the red curb. Staff has estimated the cost to be approximately $500 in staff time and materials.

Impact on the Community
The no stopping zones will remove approximately three legal on-street parking spaces adjacent to 1670 East Donovan Road to ensure vehicles can safely enter and exit the property with adequate sight distance

ATTACHMENT(S)
A. Resolution
B. Location Map
Attachment A

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA

ESTABLISHING NO STOPPING ZONES

ON SUEY CROSSING ROAD
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Santa Maria to establish no stopping zones at certain locations within the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Maria Traffic Committee has reviewed and is recommending the establishment of no stopping zones at the locations described below.

WHEREAS, that pursuant to Section 7-5.14 of the Santa Maria Municipal Code, no stopping zones shall be established on the following street, incorporated herein by reference, at the following location by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, as follows:
 Suey Crossing Road, along the southwesterly curb face, beginning at the edge of the southeast property driveway of 1670 East Donovan Road and continuing 80 linear feet southwest.
 Suey Crossing Road, along the northeasterly curb face, beginning at the edge of the southeast property driveway of 1670 East Donovan Road and continuing 40 linear feet northeast
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, as follows:

Page 2 of 2 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, held this 5
th day of May 2026.

ATTEST:

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brett Fulgoni, Department Director of Public Works DATE: May 5, 2026
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Proposed Establishment of a No Stopping Zone on West Boone Street and South Western Avenue Description:

The City Council will consider adopting a Resolution approving the establishment of no stopping zones on both sides of the property driveways located at 1026 West Boone Street, to improve sight distance and reduce traffic safety conflicts at the driveway aprons.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution establishing no stopping zones on West Boone Street and South Western Avenue.

BACKGROUND:

A request was received from the property manager of Los Adobes de Maria, to establish no stopping zones on both sides of the property driveways on West Boone Street and South Western Avenue. Vehicles are frequently parked close to the driveway aprons, which limits sight distance and makes it difficult for drivers exiting the site to see oncoming traffic without encroaching into the travel lanes. There are currently no recorded traffic collisions associated with either driveway location.

DISCUSSION:

Per City Council Resolution No. 2061 and CAM 63-15, a Traffic Committee was formed to "be responsible for the review, approval or denial, and recommendations to City Council on all matters and requests relating to traffic circulation and safety within the public right-of-way." The Traffic Committee has reviewed the request for no stopping zones and recommends their establishment. The City Council has the authority to locate, establish, or eliminate no stopping zones within the City. 2 The no stopping zones recommended to be established are described as follows:
 West Boone Street, approximately 20 linear feet of red curb on each side of the westerly property driveway of 1026 West Boone Street.
 South Western Avenue, approximately 20 linear feet of red curb on each side of the southerly property driveway of 1026 West Boone Street.

Alternative(s)
The alternative to the recommended action would be to not approve the establishment of the no stopping zones.

Fiscal Considerations
The Public Works Department will be responsible for painting the red curb. Staff has estimated the cost of red curb installation to be approximately $400 in staff time and materials.

Impact on the Community
Approximately three on-street parking spaces will be removed to improve sight distance and safety at the 1026 West Boone Street driveway aprons.

ATTACHMENT(S)
A. Resolution
B. Location Map
Attachment A

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA

ESTABLISHING NO STOPPING ZONES ON WEST BOONE

STREET AND SOUTH WESTERN AVENUE
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Santa Maria to establish a no stopping zone at certain locations within the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Maria Traffic Committee has reviewed and is recommending the establishment of a no stopping zone at the locations described below.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 7-5.14 of the Santa Maria Municipal Code, a no stopping zone shall be established on the following streets, incorporated herein by reference, at the following locations by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, as follows:
 West Boone Street, approximately 20 linear feet of red curb on each side of the westerly property driveway of 1026 West Boone Street.  South Western Avenue, approximately 20 linear feet of red curb on each side of the southerly property driveway of 1026 West Boone Street.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, as follows:

Page 2 of 2 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, held this 5
th day of May 2026.

ATTEST:

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brett Fulgoni, Director of Public Works
DATE: May 5, 2026
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account Project List for Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017
Description:

The City Council will consider adopting a Resolution approving a Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account Project List for Fiscal Year 2026-2027.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution adopting a list of projects for Fiscal Year 2026-27 funded by Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.

BACKGROUND:

The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, Senate Bill 1 (SB-1), was passed by the State Legislature and signed into law by the Governor in April 2017. The purpose of the bill is to help state and local agencies address transportation funding shortfalls. SB-1 has generated revenue through increases in gas tax, vehicle registration fees, and fees on zero-emission vehicles.

One of the major components of SB-1 is the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), which allocates funding specifically for roadway maintenance and rehabilitation. SB-1 is expected to generate over $5 billion annually at full implementation, with $1.5 billion distributed to local agencies through the RMRA. The City of Santa Maria is projected to receive $3,148,391 in RMRA revenues for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27, an increase of $178,723 from the 2025-2026 allocation.

SB-1 includes accountability and transparency provisions to keep local residents informed about proposed projects in their area. As part of these requirements, local agencies must adopt a project list prior to the start of each fiscal year. This list must include description and location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement. This list must be approved by the City Council 2 via Resolution and submitted to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) no later than July 1, 2026, to remain eligible for RMRA funding.

The primary focus of the RMRA is the maintenance of existing infrastructure within the City’s rights-of-way. Other transportation funding sources, such as Gas Tax, Measure A, LSTP (Local Surface Transportation Program), Growth Mitigation, and other grant programs remain available for capital expenditures through the normal budget process.

On June 3, 2025, the City Council approved the RMRA project list for FY 2025-26, which was submitted to the CTC as required. That list consisted of the roads in the City to receive a grind and overlay. The project was allocated a total of $3,200,000, comprised of $2,901,998 RMRA funds, and $298,0002 in Gas Tax funds. The project selection was based on eligibility and the City’s Pavement Management Program. The previously approved project for FY 2025-26 was:

SB-1 RMRA Funded Projects for Fiscal Year 2025-26:

1. Enhanced Asphalt Maintenance
This project will include the enhanced asphalt maintenance of North College Drive, North Miller Street, east Donovan Road and Mahoney Road in the City of Santa Maria. The work will consist of grinding and overlaying these arterial roadways.

Additionally, the project will include the installation of new striping and pavement markings.

Location:

North College Drive: Main Street to Donovan Road
North Miller Street: Main Street to Donovan Road
East Donovan Road: Lynne Drive to Carlotti Drive
Mahoney Road: Black Road to Betteravia Road
DISCUSSION:

Staff have identified a new pavement rehabilitation project for RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2026-27. This project is identified as Enhanced Asphalt Maintenance. It is eligible for RMRA funds and can be completed within the fiscal year.

SB-1 RMRA Funded Projects for Fiscal Year 2026-27:

1. Enhanced Asphalt Maintenance
A detailed description of the project is included in the Resolution.

Approval of the Resolution will allow the City to submit the project to the CTC before the July 1, 2026, deadline and maintain eligibility for FY 2026-27 RMRA funding.

This action does not preclude the City from using these funds for other eligible roadway maintenance projects during FY 2026-27. If the City decides to utilize the funds for 3 alternate projects, updated reporting to the CTC will be completed at the end of the fiscal year, as required.

Future RMRA project lists will be identified as part of the Pavement Management Program. Projected funding will also support infrastructure improvements such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities, underground utilities, and drainage systems.

Alternative(s)
The recommended action is to approve the SB-1 RMRA Project List for FY 2026-27.

Alternatively, the City Council may direct staff to revise the project list to include alternate locations. However, per SB-1 requirements, the list must be approved by resolution and submitted to the CTC no later than July 1, 2026. Delays may jeopardize timely funding eligibility.

Fiscal Considerations
Approval of the Resolution enables the City to request SB-1 apportionment revenues for FY 2026-27. The CTC will review statewide submittals and adopt project lists at its August 2026 meeting.

Impact on the Community
The community will benefit from transportation revenues that support improvements to Santa Maria’s roadways.

Other Agency Review
No outside agency review was required. The approved list will be submitted to the CTC.

ATTACHMENT(S)
A. Resolution
B. LSR Projected Revenues 2025-2026 and 2026-2027
C. LSR Estimates 2025-2026, 2026-2027
Attachment A

Page 1 of 3 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA
ADOPTING A LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
FUNDED BY SENATE BILL 1, THE ROAD REPAIR AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 to address the significant multimodal transportation funding shortfalls statewide; and
WHEREAS, SB-1 includes accountability and transparency provisions to ensure that residents of the City are made aware of the projects proposed for funding in the community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City must adopt by resolution a list of projects proposed to receive fiscal year funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1, which must include a description and location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and
WHEREAS, the City is projected to receive $3,148,391 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2026-27 from SB-1; and
WHEREAS, this is the tenth year in which the City is receiving SB 1 funding, which enables the City to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, safety improvements, the repair and replacement of aging bridges, and increases in access and mobility options for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB 1; and
WHEREAS, City staff uses the Pavement Management Program to develop the SB1 project list to ensure revenues are used on the highest-priority and cost-effective projects that also reflect community priorities for transportation investment; and WHEREAS, the funding from SB-1 will help the City maintain and rehabilitate various roadways throughout the City this year and support the inclusion of active transportation infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the 2023 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment found that the City’s streets and roads are in a lower “At-Risk” condition and this revenue will improve the overall quality of the road system, with the goal of bringing the network into “Good” condition over the next decade; and Attachment A
WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in local streets and roads infrastructure, focusing on basic maintenance, safety, complete streets, and the use of advanced technology, materials, and practices, will have significant positive co-benefits statewide.

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, as follows:

SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

SECTION 2. The budget for Fiscal Year 2026-27 will incorporate funding for the following proposed project to be funded in part or in full with Fiscal Year 2026-27 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues:
1) Enhanced Asphalt Maintenance Project.

Description:

This project will include enhanced asphalt maintenance on one or more of the roadways listed below within the City of Santa Maria, as prioritized by the City’s Pavement Management Program. The work will consist of selective digouts, grinding, and partial or full-width overlay treatments on arterial and collector streets. Additionally, the project will include the installation or replacement of striping and pavement markings, as needed.

Project limits, specific roadway segments, and treatment types may be adjusted based on field conditions, bid results, and available funding, while maintaining consistency with the overall intent of preserving and improving the City’s roadway network.

Locations:

South College Drive: Main Street to Stowell
South Miller Street: Main Street to Stowell
Donovan Road: Suey Crossing to Carlotti
Donovan Road: College to Blosser
Taylor: Railroad to Blosser.

Southside Parkway: Bradley to College.

McCoy: Broadway to Miller
A Street: Fairway to Betteravia
Cost and Funding:

Preliminary Engineer's Estimate: $ 3,359,223
SB-1 (FY 26/27): $ 3,148,391
Attachment A

Page 3 of 3 ends

Gas Tax: $ 210,832
Estimated Start Date: September 2026
Estimated Completion Date: June 2027
Estimated Useful Life: 10-15 years
SECTION 3. The Chief Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the Chief Deputy City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Maria held this 5
th day of May 2026.

ATTEST:

Chief Deputy City Clerk
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
_______________________________
Department Director
_______________________________
City Manager
Local Streets and Roads - Projected Revenues
Based on State Dept of Finance statewide re 2025-26 2026-27Estimated January 2026 Hwy Users Tax Road Mntnc TOTAL Hwy Users Tax Road Mntnc TOTAL Account Rehab Acct Account Rehab Acct

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
BUELLTON 136,140 150,205 286,344 152,868 144,333 297,201 CARPINTERIA 347,786 374,145 721,932 380,950 368,717 749,667 GOLETA 866,674 923,722 1,790,396 940,679 918,833 1,859,511 GUADALUPE 253,549 234,248 487,797 258,132 248,346 506,478 LOMPOC 1,252,628 1,178,917 2,431,544 1,275,693 1,249,867 2,525,560 SANTA BARBARA 2,449,065 2,313,318 4,762,382 2,494,324 2,452,540 4,946,864 SANTA MARIA 3,142,940 2,969,668 6,112,608 3,201,041 3,148,391 6,349,433 SOLVANG 168,883 153,872 322,755 171,893 163,132 335,026 County of Santa Barbara 12,129,055 10,705,924 22,834,979 12,363,098 11,350,236 23,713,334 Total Cities & County: Santa Barbara 20,844,192 18,906,546 39,750,738 21,238,679 20,044,395 41,283,074

SANTA CLARA COUNTY
CAMPBELL 1,157,268 1,254,093 2,411,360 1,277,165 1,226,915 2,504,080 CUPERTINO 1,727,894 1,596,890 3,324,784 1,759,731 1,692,995 3,452,727 GILROY 1,646,302 1,780,979 3,427,280 1,813,801 1,745,381 3,559,182 LOS ALTOS 912,697 839,493 1,752,190 929,434 890,016 1,819,450 LOS ALTOS HILLS 249,846 226,229 476,075 254,356 239,844 494,200 LOS GATOS 961,744 885,147 1,846,891 979,391 938,417 1,917,808 MILPITAS 2,341,395 2,167,941 4,509,336 2,384,617 2,298,414 4,683,031 MONTE SERENO 109,211 96,256 205,467 111,130 102,049 213,179 MORGAN HILL 1,233,277 1,335,752 2,569,030 1,360,340 1,307,499 2,667,839 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2,472,130 2,289,631 4,761,761 2,517,778 2,427,427 4,945,205 PALO ALTO 1,968,324 1,820,684 3,789,009 2,004,623 1,930,258 3,934,881 SAN JOSE 28,811,914 26,795,295 55,607,209 29,346,130 28,407,911 57,754,041 SANTA CLARA 3,841,521 3,561,945 7,403,466 3,912,535 3,776,313 7,688,848 SARATOGA 895,353 823,349 1,718,702 911,768 872,901 1,784,668 SUNNYVALE 4,554,793 4,225,865 8,780,658 4,639,044 4,480,189 9,119,233 County of Santa Clara 39,483,272 33,048,319 72,531,591 40,216,946 35,037,260 75,254,206 Total Cities & County: Santa Clara 92,700,917 82,413,891 175,114,808 94,418,789 87,373,791 181,792,580 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 17 of 21
Attachment B
CaliforniaCityFinance.com Updated January 15, 2026
The California Local Government Finance Almanac
Shared Revenue Estimates: State Revenue Allocations to Cities and Counties Local Streets and Roads Estimates: 2025-26, 2026-27
Including Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) and
Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA)
The state of California imposes per-gallon excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, sales taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel and registration taxes on motor vehicles with allocations dedicated to transportation purposes.1 The
local (city and county) portions of these allocations flow through the Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA), the familiar gasoline tax revenues that have been in place for decades, and the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) which allocates much of the revenue from the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB1 Beall).

State taxes transferred to and allocated through the state Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) include:
 The per gallon “gasoline tax” and “diesel fuel tax” imposed on the use of vehicle fuels.  The “use fuel tax,” imposed on vendors and users of motor vehicle fuels that are not taxed under either the gasoline or diesel fuel tax, such as liquefied petroleum gas, ethanol, methanol and natural gas (both liquid and gaseous) for use on state highways. Use Fuel Tax rates vary depending on the type of fuel.  Variable rate per gallon gasoline diesel fuel excise taxes imposed in 2010-11 in a complicated arrangement known as the “fuel tax swap.” This rate replaced the previous Proposition 42 sales tax on gasoline.

Transportation taxes allocated to cities and counties through the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) established by the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB1 Beall) include:
 An additional 12 cent per gallon increase to the gasoline excise tax effective November 1, 2017 with annual inflation adjustments beginning July 1, 2020.
 An additional 20 cent per gallon increase to the diesel fuel excise tax effective November 1, 2017 with half of the revenues going to the state Trade Corridor Enhancement Account (TCEA) and half to the RMRA. Annual inflation adjustments beginning July 1, 2020.  An additional vehicle registration tax called the “Transportation Improvement Fee” with rates based on the value of the motor vehicle effective January 1, 2018 with annual inflation adjustments beginning July 1, 2020.
 An additional $100 vehicle registration tax on zero emissions vehicles of model year 2020 or later effective July 1, 2020 with annual inflation adjustments beginning July 1, 2021.

The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB1 Beall) also adopted annual inflationary adjustments beginning July 1, 2020 to all per-gallon motor vehicle fuel excise taxes including the rates allocated through the Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA).

1 Taxes on aircraft jet fuel are transferred to the state Aeronautics Account. 2217 Isle Royale Lane • Davis, CA • 95616-6616 • Tel 530.758.3952 Attachment C

Page 2 of 15 ends

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA)
Revenue Allocations – Streets & Highways Code Sec 2103-2108 “HUTA” Cities and counties receive revenue from the motor vehicle fuel taxes imposed pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7360(a) and (b) through the Highway User Tax Account under the following formulas outlined in the Streets and Highways code and illustrated in Figure 1.

Section 2104. Section 2104 allocates funds to counties with designated allotments for engineering and administration, snow removal, heavy rainfall / storm damage as well as county streets, roads and public mass transit guideways and facilities.

Section 2105. Section 2105(a) allocates 11.5 percent of the tax revenues in excess of 9 cents per gallon (i.e. the Proposition 111 rate) monthly among counties based on population.

Section 2105(b) allocates 11.5 percent of the tax revenues in excess of 9 cents per gallon (i.e. the Proposition 111 rate) monthly among cities based on population.

Section 2106. Revenues equal to 1.04 cents per gallon are allocated as follows:
a. $7.2 million per year to the State Bicycle Transportation Account. b. $400 per month to each city ($2,313,600 per year among the 482 eligible cities2) c. $800 per month to each county ($556,800 per year among the 58 counties) d. The residual amount to each county and the cities in that county based on registered vehicles. In each county, from this amount, the county receives an allotment based on the share of assessed value of the county which is in the unincorporated area. The remainder is allocated to the cities within the county based on population.
2 The city of Rolling Hills has only private streets and is therefor not eligible to receive these allocations.

Type text here Attachment C

Page 3 of 15 ends

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Section 2107. This section provides monthly allocations to cities of 1.315 cents per gallon of gasoline, 1.8 cents per gallon of diesel, and 2.59 cents per liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), as follows. a. Each city with snow removal costs in excess of $5,000 is allocated 50 percent of the cost exceeding $5,000.
b. The remainder is allocated to cities based on population.

Section 2107.5. These funds (about $2.7 million per year) are allocated to cities annually in July based on population as follows:

Section 2107.5 funds must be used for engineering costs and administrative expenses related to city streets. Cities with populations under 10,000 may also expend the moneys for street construction or acquisition of street rights-of-way.

Section 2103 HUTA and the 2010 Gasoline Sales Tax – Excise Tax Swap In March 2010 as a part of a special budget session called by Governor Schwarzenegger, the Legislature enacted a swap of state sales taxes on gasoline for a gasoline excise tax. Intended to be “revenue neutral,” the fuel tax swap provided the Legislature with greater flexibility in the use of funds, in particular relieving the general fund from the cost of state transportation debt service payments. The fuel tax swap:

1. Repealed the state sales tax on gasoline (local rates including the Bradley Burns are NOT affected);

2. Increased the excise tax on gasoline by 17.322 cents and added an annual adjustment mechanism intended to ensure the new excise tax provides, over time, the same amount of revenues expected from the sales tax on gas (no more, no less);

3. Increased the sales tax on diesel by 1.75 percent and allocated 75 percent to local transit agencies and 25 percent to state transit programs. The excise tax on diesel was reduced from 18 cents to 13.6 cents.

Sales tax revenues from diesel must go to transit funding.

4. Provided for a specific allocation of the funds among state and local transportation needs.

Revenues from the new Section 2103 excise tax rate are now allocated as follows:

1. State transportation debt service;

2. Remainder allocated:
a. 44 percent to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP); b. 12 percent State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP); c. 44 percent evenly split between cities and counties using current HUTA formulas.

Section 2103 funds are allocated to cities on a per capita basis and to counties 75 percent based on the proportion of registered vehicles and 25 percent based on the proportion of maintained county road miles.

City Population Annual Allocation
over 500,000 $ 20,000
100,000 to 500,000 $ 10,000
50,000 to 99.999 $ 7,500
25,000 to 49,999 $ 6,000
20,000 to 24,999 $ 5,000
15,000 to 19,999 $ 4,000
10,000 to 14,999 $ 3,000
5,000 to 9,999 $ 2,000
less than 5,000 $ 1,000
Streets & Highway Code §2107.5
Attachment C

Page 4 of 15 ends

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
The law included expressed legislative intent to fully replace the local streets and road funds cities and counties would have received under Proposition 42 state sales tax on gasoline with allocations from the new higher motor vehicle excise tax (HUTA) rate.

However, the swap created certain revenue effects related to the timing and receipt of revenues. In particular, the law provided that the new excise tax rate be adjusted annually by the BOE to garner an amount of revenues equal to what Prop42 would have provided in the prior year. Thus, the annual Sec 2103 funds were always “looking backward.” If the Section 2103 amounts generated less than Prop42 would have, the difference was made up until the following year.

In the years following the swap, there were a number of snafus and changes in interpretation of the Section 2103 allocation. In FY2011-12 SCO allocated more money to cities and counties and did not fully backfill state transportation programs for weight fees that were used for debt service and loans that those funds would have otherwise received. This was contrary to the Legislature’s intention, but the statute was not clear. The statute was clarified in the 2013 budget to clarify the original intent of the weight fee swap to fully backfill state transportation funds. [Streets & Highways Code 2103 (a)(1)(D)].

Changes to HUTA Allocated Rates, Including the Variable Rate by the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB1 Beall)
In addition to increasing various fuel and motor vehicle registration taxes, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB1 Beall) removed BOE’s discretionary rate setting role over the Section 2103 variable rate and reset the variable rate at 17.3 cents per gallon on July 1, 2019, up from the current 11.7 cents. This adjustment more than doubled Section 2103 revenue allocations for FY2019-20 over the prior year.

With regard to diesel fuel taxes, SB1 also eliminated the price-based adjustment mechanism applied to the diesel fuel tax rate.

Since 2020, gasoline and diesel fuel excise tax rates are increased on July 1 by the change in the California Consumer Price Index from the prior year. These include the 18 cent per gallon base rate, the 17.3 percent per gallon rate, the diesel fuel excise tax rate and vehicle registration taxes.

Streets & Highways Code Section 2103 Variable Gas Tax Allocations to Cities and Counties Attachment C

Page 5 of 15 ends

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Use of Funds: HUTA
The use of local Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax funds is restricted by Article XIX of the California State Constitution and by Streets and Highways Code Section 2101. All Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax funds allocated from the Highway Users Tax Account must be expended for the following:
(a) The research, planning, construction, improvement, maintenance, and operation of public streets and highways (and their related public facilities for nonmotorized traffic), including the mitigation of their environmental effects, the payment for property taken or damaged for such purposes, and the administrative costs necessarily incurred in the foregoing purposes. (b) The research and planning for exclusive public mass transit guideways (and their related fixed facilities), the payment for property taken or damaged for such purposes, and the administrative costs necessarily incurred in the foregoing purposes.
(c) The construction and improvement of exclusive public mass transit guideways (and their related fixed facilities), including the mitigation of their environmental effects, the payment for property taken or damaged for such purposes, the administrative costs necessarily incurred in the foregoing purposes, and the maintenance of the structures and the immediate right-of-way for the public mass transit guideways. (d) The payment of principal and interest on voter-approved bonds issued for the purposes specified above.

Effective Date Base Rate Sec2103 SB1 Rate Total
July 1, 2015 $ 0.180 $ 0.120 $ 0.300
July 1, 2016 $ 0.180 $ 0.098 $ 0.278
July 1, 2017 $ 0.180 $ 0.117 $ 0.297
Nov 1, 2017* $ 0.180 $ 0.117 $ 0.120 $ 0.417
July 1, 2019 $ 0.180 $ 0.173 $ 0.120 $ 0.473
July 1, 2020 $ 0.192 $ 0.185 $ 0.128 $ 0.505
July 1, 2021 $ 0.194 $ 0.187 $ 0.130 $ 0.511
July 1, 2022 $ 0.205 $ 0.197 $ 0.137 $ 0.539
July 1, 2023 $ 0.220 $ 0.212 $ 0.147 $ 0.579
July 1, 2024 $ 0.227 $ 0.218 $ 0.151 $ 0.596
July 1, 2025 $ 0.233 $ 0.224 $ 0.155 $ 0.612
July 1, 2026e $ 0.241 $ 0.232 $ 0.161 $ 0.634
California Gasoline Excise Tax Rates - Per Gallon
Effective Date Base Rate SB1 Rate Total
July 1, 2017 $ 0.160 $ 0.160
Nov 1, 2017* $ 0.160 $ 0.200 $ 0.360
July 1, 2019 $ 0.160 $ 0.200 $ 0.360
July 1, 2020 $ 0.171 $ 0.214 $ 0.385
July 1, 2021 $ 0.173 $ 0.216 $ 0.389
July 1, 2022 $ 0.182 $ 0.228 $ 0.410
July 1, 2023 $ 0.196 $ 0.245 $ 0.441
July 1, 2024 $ 0.202 $ 0.252 $ 0.454
July 1, 2025 $ 0.207 $ 0.259 $ 0.466
July 1, 2026e $ 0.214 $ 0.268 $ 0.482
California Diesel Excise Tax Rates
Attachment C

Page 6 of 15 ends

CaliforniaCityFinance.com

Attachment C

Page 7 of 15 ends

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Three Year State General Fund TCRF Loan Repayment Funds SB1 stipulated the repayment of $706 million by the state General Fund to transportation funds over three fiscal years: 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. Under SB1, $75 million was allocated to local streets and roads from repayments of Transportation Congestion Relief Funds (TCRF) in each of these three years. These funds were allocated half to cities and half to counties with the city funds allocated among cities on a per capita basis, the county funds allocated among counties based on numbers of registered vehicles and county road mileage.

These TCRF revenues may be deposited in local HUTA funds.3 However, these TCRF funds carried slightly
different use requirements than HUTA funds. TCRF funds could be expended only for street and highway maintenance, rehabilitation, reconstruction or storm damage repair. For these purposes,  “Maintenance” means patching and/or overlay and sealing.  “Reconstruction” includes any overlay, sealing or widening of the roadway, if the widening is necessary to bring the roadway width to the state minimum standards, but does not include widening for the purpose of traffic capacity.
 “Storm damage repair” is repair or reconstruction of local streets and highways and related drainage improvements that have been damaged due to winter storms and flooding, and construction of drainage improvements to mitigate future roadway flooding and damage problems, in those jurisdictions that have been declared disaster areas by the President of the United States.

Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA)
Revenue Allocations – Streets & Highways Code Sec 2031 “RMRA” The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB1 Beall) represented a significant additional investment in California’s transportation systems of over $5 billion per year. The Act increased per gallon fuel excise taxes, diesel fuel sales taxes and vehicle registration taxes, stabilized the problematic price-based fuel tax rates and provided for inflationary adjustments to rates in future years. The Act is more than doubling local streets and road funds allocated through the Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) and through the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) which it established.

The RMRA receives funds4
from the following new taxes imposed under the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017:
 A 12 cent per gallon increase to the gasoline excise tax effective November 1, 2017.  A 20 cent per gallon increase to the diesel fuel excise tax effective November 1, 2017, half of which will be allocated to Trade Corridors Enhancement Account (TCEA) with the remaining half to the RMRA.  A new vehicle registration tax called the “transportation improvement fee,” effective January 1, 2018, based on the market value of the vehicle.
 An additional new $100 vehicle registration tax on zero emission vehicles model year 2020 and later effective July 1, 2020.
3 Note that the “loan repayment” is between the state general fund and state transportation funds. From an accounting standpoint this is NOT a debt repayment to local agencies, it is simply revenue. 4 In addition, funds from a 4 percent increase in the diesel sales tax to 5.75 percent from the prior 1.75 percent effective November 1, 2017 are allocated to the Public Transportation Account.

Attachment C

Page 8 of 15 ends

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
 Annual rate increases to these taxes every July 1 (January 1 for the registration fees) for the change in the California Consumer Price Index. The first adjustment made on July 1, 2020 covered CPI change for two years: November 1, 2017 through November 12, 2019.

Vehicle Value Jan 2018 Jan 2020 Jan 2021 Jan 2022 Jan 2023 Jan 2024 Jan 2025 Jan 2026 0 - $4,999 $ 25 $ 27 $ 27 $ 28 $ 29 $ 32 $ 32 $ 33
$5,000 - $24,999 $ 52 $ 54 $ 55 $ 56 $ 59 $ 65 $ 65 $ 66 $25,000 - $34,999 $ 105 $ 107 $ 110 $ 112 $ 118 $ 129 $ 129 $ 132 $35,000 - $59,999 $ 157 $ 161 $ 165 $ 168 $ 177 $ 194 $ 194 $ 198 $60,000 & over $ 183 $ 188 $ 192 $ 196 $ 206 $ 227 $ 227 $ 231 Jan 2020 Jan 2021 Jan 2022 Jan 2023 Jan 2024 Jan 2025 Jan 2026 ZEV vehicle* $ 100 $ 101 $ 103 $ 108 $ 118 $ 118 $ 121
*Zero Emission Vehicles, 2020 or later models.

SB1 Transportation Improvement Fee
SB1 Road Improvement Fee (RIF)

15.5 25.9
Attachment C

Page 9 of 15 ends

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
The Road Repair and Accountability Act directs the State Controller to allocate, on a monthly basis, fifty percent of the revenues in the RMRA to the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOP) in the State Highway Account and half to cities and counties. But there are a series of specific program allocations, subject to appropriation in the annual state budget, to be taken out first:

1. Administrative costs.

2. $200 million for the State-Local-Partnership Program for existing and aspiring self-help jurisdictions.

3. $100 million annually for the Active Transportation Program for the purpose of encouraging increased use of active modes of transportation, such as biking and walking.

4. $400 million for state bridge and culvert maintenance and rehabilitation.

5. $25 million for the state’s Freeway Service Patrol program.

6. $5 million for five years through FY 2021-22 for pre-apprenticeship training programs of the California Workforce Development Board.

7. $25 million for local planning grants to encourage local and regional planning.

8. $7 million for transportation research and transportation-related workforce education, training, and development including $5 million to the University of California and $2 million to the California State University.

Attachment C

Page 10 of 15 ends

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Use of Funds: RMRA [Streets and Highways Code Section 2030] The use of RMRA local streets and roads funds is similar but, not identical, to HUTA use rules. Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 2030, RMRA local streets and roads allocations must be used for projects “that include, but are not limited to,” the following
 Road maintenance and rehabilitation
 Safety projects
 Railroad grade separations
 Traffic control devices
 Complete street components, “including active transportation purposes, pedestrian and bicycle safety projects, transit facilities, and drainage and storm-water capture projects in conjunction with any other allowable project.”
RMRA funds may also be used to satisfy a match requirement for projects eligible for state or federal funds.

SB1 also contains non-obligatory intent language regarding the use of funds. “To the extent possible and cost effective,” cities and counties are to use a use:
 advanced recycling techniques that reduce greenhouse gas emissions;  automotive technologies, ZEV fueling, infrastructure-to-vehicle;  communications autonomous vehicle systems;
 resiliency re climate change, fires, floods, sea level rise; and  complete street elements, access for bicycles, pedestrians.

If a city or county has an average Pavement Condition Index that meets or exceeds 80, the city or county may spend its RMRA funds on transportation priorities other than these. [Streets and Highways Code Sec 2037] Maintenance of Effort: RMRA [Streets and Highways Code Sec 2036] The Road Repair and Accountability Act contains a local agency maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement that applies to funds allocated through the RMRA. The Act states that the MOE requirement is to ensure that these new roads funds do not supplant existing levels of city and county general revenue spending on streets and roads. The MOE for the receipt of RMRA funds state that a city or county must maintain general fund spending for street, road, and highway purposes at no less than average of 2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–12 years. In making this calculation an agency may exclude one-time funds. A city or county that fails to comply in a particular year may make it up with in additional expenditures in the following year.

The Act provides that the State Controller may perform audits to ensure compliance with these MOE rules. If the State Controller determines that a city or county has not met its MOE, the agency will be required to reimburse the state for the funds it received during that fiscal year. However, a city or county that fails to comply in a particular fiscal year may expend during that fiscal year and the following fiscal year a total amount that is sufficient to comply. Any funds withheld or returned as a result of a failure to comply will be reapportioned to the other counties and cities whose expenditures are in compliance.

For further guidance, see the State Controller’s “Guidelines Relating to Gas Tax Expenditures for Cities and Counties.”
Attachment C

Page 11 of 15 ends

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Spending Plans and Reports: RMRA [Streets and Highways Code Sec 2034] The Road Repair and Accountability Act stipulates that, prior to receiving RMRA funds in a fiscal year, a city or county must submit to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) a project list pursuant to an adopted budget. The list must include for each project: description, location, schedule, useful life. [Streets and Highways Code Sec 2034(a)]
The Road Repair and Accountability Act also requires that a city or county submit to the CTC an annual report of project completion in order to receive RMRA funds. The report must include descriptions of all projects for which RMRA funds were expended including: description, location, funds expended, completion date, estimated useful life of the project.

Budgeting and Accounting for RMRA Funds: The ~60 Day Delay The allocation of Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) revenues to cities and counties takes many weeks. It takes the State Controller’s Office roughly 30 to 60 days from the time of revenue collection by the state, through the various statutory set asides to distribute the funds to cities and counties in monthly allocations. Consequently, the estimates shown in this report are for revenues collected for July through June are not received on a cash basis by local agencies until September through August. That is, for example, the FY2022-23 figure for your agency is revenues collected in and for July 2022 through June 2023 but distributed in monthly allocations September 2022 through August 2023. Cities and counties thus have two choices in the budgeting and accounting of RMRA revenues:
1) apply a 60 day accrual policy to RMRA funds (recommended); or 2) adjust RMRA budgets (especially in FY2017-18) to reflect a distributed cash basis.

Local Streets and Roads (HUTA and RMRA) Revenue Estimates for FY2025-26 and FY2026-27
We have computed revenue estimates for each city and county using a model reflecting the local allocation formulas, latest population figures used by the State Controller for allocations and estimates by the state Department of Finance (DOF) of statewide HUTA and RMRA tax revenues provided with the Governor’s Proposed 2026-27 Budget (released January 10, 2025) and analyses of SB1(Beall), The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. Compared to their May 2025 projections for 2025-26, DOF statewide revenue estimates show a slight (1.6 percent) downward revision in their RMRA estimate and a slight (1.8 percent) upward revision in HUTA estimate for a very slight 0.2 percent overall higher LSR estimate for this year.

Fuel consumption was sharply down during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic but has largely recovered to its prior, slightly declining trajectory. Recently, fuel prices have increased steeply but the price of fuel no longer has a direct effect on local streets and roads revenues because all rates are per gallon, regardless of price.

Despite lower fuel consumption, scheduled rate increases stipulated in SB1 have kept local allocations of revenue growing at a modest pace but this growth is expected to flatten in a few years. Gas tax revenue collections are forecast to increase 2 percent in 2025-26 and again in 2026-27 but to to zero growth by FY 2030-31.

On the other hand, vehicle registration tax revenues from the SB1 vehicle registration tax (“Transportation Improvement Fee”) and the zero emission vehicle registration tax (“Road Improvement Fee”) are forecast to increase by about 6 percent in 2025-26 and again in 2026-27 and sustain this pace of growth over the five year forecast period.

Attachment C

Page 12 of 15 ends

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Total LSR allocations (including HUTA, TCRF, and RMRA) were up 8.1 percent in 2024-25 from the prior year.

But as fuel consumption gradually declines, revenue growth will soften. The Department of Finance projects total LSR allocations to cities and counties in 2025-26 will increase by just 1.9 percent. For the budget year FY2026-27, DOF estimates total statewide local streets and roads allocations will grow by 6.0 percent.

HUTA (Highway Users Tax Account)
HUTA revenues are allocated to cities and counties pursuant to Sections 2103-2107 of the Streets and Highways Code. The per gallon excise tax rates that provide HUTA revenues are adjusted annually on July 1 as described above. Revenue changes depend on the combined effects of 1) these rate adjustments, 2) taxable gallonage, and 3) the relative change of statutory transfers including the “weight fee offset” that pays state transportation bond debt.

Sec2103-2108 HUTA allocations (not including RMRA) grew 2.6 percent in FY2024-25. But HUTA revenue growth is now flattening and will continue to decline. DOF estimates 1.4 percent HUTA growth in current year FY2025-26, leveling off to 1.8 percent growth in budget year FY2026-27.

RMRA (Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account)5
The Road Repair and Accountability Act (SB1) taxes that provide funding to cities and counties through the RMRA began on November 1, 2017 when the new per-gallon fuel excise taxes took effect. It also includes allocations from the SB1 vehicle registration tax (“Transportation Improvement Fee”) and the zero emission vehicle registration tax (“Road Improvement Fee”) which are expected to grow more robustly and are not included in the HUTA allocations. Additionally, various fixed-amount statutory allocations are made from the SB1 tax rates prior to the city and county allocations. 5 Note that RMRA revenues are delayed 60 days from collection to allocation. That is, the revenues for a July 1 to June 30 fiscal year are allocated September 1 through August 31. These are spendable in the fiscal year because your accounting staff “accrues” them back into your fiscal year.

Attachment C

Page 13 of 15 ends

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Because of this, city and county RMRA revenues are expected to grow more robustly. DOF estimates 2025-26 revenue will be 1.9 percent higher than 2024-25 actuals and that 2026-27 revenues will grow by 6.0 percent over the current year.

California Local Streets and Roads Program - State Funds to Cities and Counties Looking Ahead: Long Term Estimates of Local Streets and Roads Funding Since the recovery following the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020, we have seen modest year over year growth in local streets and roads revenues. In future years, as alternative fuel vehicles come more into use, fuel consumption will continue to decline. The SB1 annual cost of living adjustments will help to maintain revenues but we will see decline in revenue growth to below the rate of inflation.

Due to complicated statutory transfers from these revenues before the city and county allocations are made (including the $1.35 billion transfer for state transportation debt service), actual growth in funding allocated to cities and counties varies somewhat among the various categories of local streets and roads allocations and will not exactly mirror total tax collections. Taking all these factors into account, for the purposes of long-term transportation program planning, we estimate transportation allocations to cities and counties will increase in outyears at the following growth rates:
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
FY12-13 FY13-14 FY14-15 FY15-16 FY16-17 FY17-18FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 FY21-22 FY22-23 FY23-24 FY24-25 FY25-26FY26-27 FY27-28 FY28-29 FY28-30FY30-31 Millions
§2103
cities,
countie
§2104
counties
§2106
§2107
cities
estim. projected > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > R.M.R.A.

TCRF loan
repayment
H.U.T.A.
§2105
cities,
counties
Estimated Annual Revenue Growth Rate over prior year
2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31
HUTA 2103 1.6% 2.0% -0.9% -0.2% -1.6% -1.2%
HUTA 2104 3.5% 1.7% 1.0% 1.0% 0.5% 0.1%
HUTA 2105 0.8% 1.7% 1.0% 1.0% 0.5% 0.1%
HUTA 2106 1.4% 1.7% 1.0% 1.0% 0.5% 0.1%
HUTA 2107 -1.1% 1.7% 1.0% 1.0% 0.5% 0.1%
RMRA 1.9% 6.0% 4.7% 4.9% 5.3% 5.2%
Attachment C

Page 14 of 15 ends

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Your Mileage Revenues May Vary
Long-term, in addition to the growth in statewide local streets and roads revenue collections, the allocations to each particular city will be primarily related to changes in the city’s population relative to the change in state population in cities. The current forecast for California population, provided by the Demographics Unit of the California Department of Finance is as follows:6
If you think your city’s population growth will be significantly different from the statewide average in cities, then you should adjust accordingly. For example, the City of Buenavida’s planning department estimates the city will see average annual residential population growth of 1.5 percent annually over the next ten years. The city’s estimated HUTA 2105 allocation for FY2026-27 is $381,200. The long term projection of Section 2105 revenue would be:
$381,200 x Sec2105 growth x Buenavida Population Growth ÷ Statewide City Population Growth So, for 2027-28, the city would estimate $381,200 x 1.01 x 1.015 ÷ 1.0016 = $390,185 And long term …
Changes for in allocations to an individual county will be affected by many things including: the population of the county relative to the total population of the state, proportion of population in the unincorporated area of the county, as well as relative numbers of vehicle registrations, assessed values and maintained road miles.

Next Update
The next update to these revenue estimates will be in May 2026. mjgc
6 See http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/projections/ . California population in cities estimated by author based on recent historic trend of proportion of population in cities.

California 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Population 39,185,605 38,990,487 38,991,721 39,024,054 39,068,081 39,131,779 39,213,804 39,323,647 39,430,871 39,532,028 …... in Cities 32,713,003 33,118,970 33,120,018 33,182,482 33,219,919 33,274,082 33,343,828 33,437,229 33,528,402 33,614,417 percent change 1.24% 0.00% 0.19% 0.11% 0.16% 0.21% 0.28% 0.27% 0.26% 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
Population 39,626,155 39,719,558 39,800,683 39,872,787 39,936,372 39,991,277 40,037,385 40,076,005 40,106,449 Population in Cities 33,694,454 33,773,875 33,842,856 33,904,167 33,958,234 34,004,920 34,044,126 34,076,965 34,102,852 percent change 0.24% 0.24% 0.20% 0.18% 0.16% 0.14% 0.12% 0.10% 0.08% City of Buenavida EXAMPLE
2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 2032-33 HUTA Sec2015 381,200 $
2105 growth 1.0% 1.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
Buenavida pop 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%
Cities pop 0.16% 0.21% 0.28% 0.27% 0.26% 0.24%
HUTA Sec2015 390,185 $ 399,277 $ 406,122 $ 411,349$ 416,436$ 421,671$ Attachment C

Page 15 of 15 ends

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
ATTACHMENTS:

A) Local Streets and Roads - Projected Individual City Revenues – FY2025-26 B) Local Streets and Roads - Projected Individual City Revenues – FY2026-27 C) Local Streets and Roads - Projected Individual County Revenues – FY2025-26 (from CSAC) D) Local Streets and Roads - Projected Individual County Revenues – FY2026-27 (from CSAC) Attachment C

ALAMEDA COUNTY
ALAMEDA 507,732 757,271 286,688 678,585 7,500 2,237,775 2,091,323 4,329,098ALBANY 136,031 202,888 80,323 181,806 5,000 606,048 560,306 1,166,355 BERKELEY 1,229,995 824,682 462,656 1,102,189 10,000 3,629,522 3,396,825 7,026,347 DUBLIN 715,785 479,917 271,245 641,409 7,500 2,115,856 1,976,753 4,092,609 EMERYVILLE 129,096 86,556 52,855 115,682 3,000 387,190 356,520 743,710 FREMONT 2,229,253 1,494,661 834,622 1,997,616 10,000 6,566,152 6,156,435 12,722,587 HAYWARD 1,571,936 1,053,945 589,941 1,408,600 10,000 4,634,421 4,341,149 8,975,571 LIVERMORE 841,057 563,909 317,877 753,665 7,500 2,484,008 2,322,713 4,806,721 NEWARK 468,488 314,110 179,191 419,809 6,000 1,387,598 1,293,804 2,681,402 OAKLAND 4,150,979 2,783,131 1,549,969 3,719,660 10,000 12,213,739 11,463,584 23,677,323 PIEDMONT 72,401 107,984 44,996 96,764 3,000 325,146 298,216 623,362 PLEASANTON 764,784 512,769 289,485 685,317 7,500 2,259,855 2,112,072 4,371,928 SAN LEANDRO 871,350 584,219 329,153 780,810 7,500 2,573,033 2,406,371 4,979,404 UNION CITY 450,366 671,711 254,839 601,915 7,500 1,986,332 1,855,037 3,841,369

ALPINE COUNTY

AMADOR COUNTY
AMADOR 1,917 1,285 5,736 1,718 1,000 11,655 5,293 16,948 IONE 86,604 58,066 47,094 77,605 2,000 271,369 239,171 510,540 JACKSON 48,213 32,326 28,345 43,204 2,000 154,088 133,149 287,238 PLYMOUTH 10,752 7,209 10,051 9,635 1,000 38,648 29,695 68,342 SUTTER CREEK 25,338 16,989 17,174 22,705 1,000 83,206 69,975 153,182

BUTTE COUNTY
BIGGS 12,677 18,908 12,324 16,943 1,000 61,853 52,217 114,070CHICO 731,508 1,091,028 438,982 977,662 10,000 3,249,179 3,013,045 6,262,225 GRIDLEY 47,072 70,207 32,739 62,912 2,000 214,931 193,888 408,819 OROVILLE 191,752 128,565 81,109 171,827 4,000 577,253 529,553 1,106,806PARADISE 106,259 71,244 47,087 100,275 3,000 327,866 293,452 621,318

CALAVERAS COUNTY
ANGELS CAMP 23,465 34,998 30,112 31,362 1,000 120,937 96,653 217,590

COLUSA COUNTY
COLUSA 41,996 62,636 21,629 56,128 2,000 184,389 172,980 357,370WILLIAMS 35,911 53,561 19,191 47,996 2,000 158,659 147,917 306,576 Highway Users Tax Acct (HUTA)(1) Streets & Highways Code TOTAL 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 1 of 16
Attachment C

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ANTIOCH 750,360 1,119,145 449,674 1,002,857 10,000 3,332,036 3,090,696 6,422,732 BRENTWOOD 422,448 630,072 255,261 564,603 7,500 1,879,884 1,740,043 3,619,927CLAYTON 71,090 106,029 46,948 95,012 3,000 322,080 292,817 614,897CONCORD 806,511 1,202,893 482,965 1,077,903 10,000 3,580,273 3,321,980 6,902,253 DANVILLE 280,576 418,473 171,148 374,991 6,000 1,251,188 1,155,680 2,406,868EL CERRITO 166,924 248,964 103,766 223,095 6,000 748,750 687,554 1,436,303HERCULES 168,505 251,322 104,703 225,207 6,000 755,737 694,064 1,449,801LAFAYETTE 163,365 243,655 101,656 218,337 6,000 733,013 672,892 1,405,904MARTINEZ 241,202 359,747 147,804 322,366 6,000 1,077,118 993,498 2,070,616MORAGA 111,178 165,820 70,715 148,590 4,000 500,302 457,937 958,239OAKLEY 300,874 448,747 183,182 402,118 6,000 1,340,921 1,239,285 2,580,206 ORINDA 187,075 125,429 79,165 167,637 4,000 563,306 516,638 1,079,944PINOLE 181,459 121,664 76,932 162,604 4,000 546,660 501,129 1,047,789PITTSBURG 731,913 490,730 295,745 655,862 7,500 2,181,751 2,021,295 4,203,045 PLEASANT HILL 330,738 221,752 136,273 296,372 6,000 991,135 913,386 1,904,520RICHMOND 1,110,702 744,699 446,318 995,292 10,000 3,307,011 3,067,380 6,374,391 SAN PABLO 308,630 206,929 127,484 276,561 6,000 925,603 852,329 1,777,932SAN RAMON 810,736 543,579 327,078 726,494 7,500 2,415,387 2,238,975 4,654,362 WALNUT CREEK 673,762 451,741 272,629 603,753 7,500 2,009,385 1,860,701 3,870,086

DEL NORTE COUNTY
CRESCENT CITY 43,256 64,515 25,093 57,811 2,000 192,674 178,167 370,842

EL DORADO COUNTY
PLACERVILLE 69,522 103,691 71,964 93,324 3,000 341,501 286,359 627,860SOUTH LAKE TAHOE 137,657 205,312 137,787 1,713,982 5,000 2,199,738 567,002 2,766,740 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 2 of 16
Attachment C

FRESNO COUNTY
CLOVIS 829,649 1,237,403 423,167 1,108,827 10,000 3,609,046 3,417,283 7,026,329 COALINGA 115,901 172,863 63,245 154,901 4,000 510,910 477,389 988,300FIREBAUGH 55,991 83,509 33,034 74,832 2,000 249,365 230,622 479,988FOWLER 49,263 73,475 29,642 65,840 2,000 220,221 202,913 423,133 FRESNO 5,338,194 3,579,131 1,809,649 4,783,514 20,000 15,530,488 14,742,266 30,272,754 HURON 66,431 44,541 27,260 59,529 2,000 199,761 183,461 383,221 KERMAN 168,043 112,669 61,615 150,582 4,000 496,909 464,077 960,986 KINGSBURG 127,314 85,361 47,845 114,085 3,000 377,605 351,597 729,202 MENDOTA 121,804 81,666 45,982 109,147 3,000 361,599 336,380 697,978 ORANGE COVE 93,121 62,435 36,284 83,445 2,000 277,285 257,168 534,453 PARLIER 140,385 94,125 52,264 125,798 3,000 415,573 387,697 803,270 REEDLEY 254,944 170,934 90,997 228,453 6,000 751,328 704,068 1,455,396 SANGER 259,103 173,722 92,403 232,180 6,000 763,409 715,554 1,478,963SAN JOAQUIN 35,439 23,761 16,782 31,757 1,000 108,738 97,870 206,609 SELMA 236,832 158,790 84,873 212,223 5,000 697,718 654,048 1,351,765

GLENN COUNTY
ORLAND 55,926 83,413 31,287 74,746 2,000 247,372 230,358 477,730WILLOWS 41,604 62,052 24,504 55,604 2,000 185,764 171,366 357,130

HUMBOLDT COUNTY
ARCATA 122,088 182,092 82,526 163,171 4,000 553,877 502,876 1,056,753BLUE LAKE 7,743 11,548 9,729 10,348 1,000 40,368 31,891 72,259EUREKA 173,305 258,480 115,132 231,622 6,000 784,539 713,834 1,498,373FERNDALE 8,957 13,359 10,502 11,971 1,000 45,789 36,893 82,683FORTUNA 80,510 120,079 56,055 107,601 3,000 367,245 331,616 698,861RIO DELL 21,782 32,487 18,667 29,112 1,000 103,048 89,719 192,767TRINIDAD 1,973 2,942 6,056 2,636 1,000 14,607 8,125 22,732

IMPERIAL COUNTY
BRAWLEY 277,455 186,027 114,209 248,625 6,000 832,316 766,236 1,598,552 CALEXICO 384,031 257,483 156,234 344,127 6,000 1,147,876 1,060,562 2,208,437 CALIPATRIA 62,617 41,983 29,492 56,111 2,000 192,203 172,927 365,130 EL CENTRO 440,898 295,611 178,659 395,085 6,000 1,316,254 1,217,609 2,533,863 HOLTVILLE 54,481 36,528 26,283 48,820 2,000 168,112 150,458 318,570 IMPERIAL 219,131 146,922 91,210 196,362 5,000 658,625 605,166 1,263,791WESTMORLAND 19,972 13,390 12,675 17,896 1,000 64,934 55,155 120,088

INYO COUNTY
BISHOP 24,770 36,944 20,566 33,105 1,000 116,384 102,025 218,410 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 3 of 16
Attachm
Attachment C

KERN COUNTY
ARVIN 128,449 191,579 57,506 171,673 4,000 553,208 529,077 1,082,284BAKERSFIELD 2,693,755 4,017,676 1,110,116 3,600,208 10,000 11,431,754 11,095,445 22,527,199 CALIFORNIA CITY 143,922 96,496 44,395 128,967 4,000 417,780 397,463 815,242 DELANO 506,294 339,458 144,088 453,686 7,500 1,451,027 1,398,212 2,849,239 MARICOPA 9,832 6,592 7,505 8,811 1,000 33,741 27,154 60,895 MCFARLAND 136,207 91,324 42,272 122,054 3,000 394,857 376,158 771,015 RIDGECREST 272,031 182,390 79,639 243,765 6,000 783,825 751,257 1,535,082 SHAFTER 224,776 150,707 66,639 201,420 5,000 648,541 620,754 1,269,295TAFT 55,072 82,138 27,397 73,603 2,000 240,211 226,838 467,049 TEHACHAPI 124,976 83,793 39,182 111,990 3,000 362,941 345,140 708,081 WASCO 259,831 174,211 76,283 232,833 6,000 749,158 717,566 1,466,724

KINGS COUNTY
AVENAL 87,989 131,233 43,129 117,597 3,000 382,948 362,422 745,370CORCORAN 138,955 207,248 65,330 185,713 5,000 602,246 572,348 1,174,594HANFORD 393,476 586,861 176,201 525,882 7,500 1,689,920 1,620,709 3,310,629LEMOORE 177,931 265,380 82,308 237,805 6,000 769,424 732,889 1,502,314

LAKE COUNTY
CLEARLAKE 108,396 161,670 62,127 144,871 4,000 481,064 446,477 927,541LAKEPORT 32,294 48,166 21,879 43,161 2,000 147,499 133,017 280,516

LASSEN COUNTY
SUSANVILLE 104,303 155,565 50,014 173,901 4,000 487,784 429,618 917,402

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
AGOURA HILLS 129,998 193,889 77,816 173,742 5,000 580,446 535,455 1,115,900ALHAMBRA 530,870 791,780 302,976 709,508 7,500 2,342,634 2,186,626 4,529,260ARCADIA 365,455 545,068 210,067 488,431 7,500 1,616,521 1,505,292 3,121,814ARTESIA 105,357 157,137 63,976 140,809 4,000 471,279 433,959 905,238AVALON 22,123 32,995 17,226 29,567 1,000 102,910 91,122 194,032AZUSA 322,868 481,550 186,146 431,513 7,500 1,429,578 1,329,877 2,759,455BALDWIN PARK 462,857 690,341 264,775 618,609 7,500 2,044,083 1,906,486 3,950,569BELL 219,323 327,116 127,988 293,126 6,000 973,553 903,382 1,876,935BELLFLOWER 755,699 506,678 289,388 677,176 7,500 2,236,441 2,086,983 4,323,424 BELL GARDENS 378,453 253,744 147,321 339,129 6,000 1,124,648 1,045,159 2,169,806 BEVERLY HILLS 313,364 210,103 122,809 280,803 6,000 933,079 865,403 1,798,482BRADBURY 8,817 5,911 8,120 7,901 1,000 31,749 24,348 56,097 BURBANK 1,027,050 688,612 391,575 920,331 10,000 3,037,569 2,836,360 5,873,929 CALABASAS 222,572 149,229 88,618 199,445 5,000 664,863 614,667 1,279,530CARSON 899,056 602,795 343,374 805,637 7,500 2,658,361 2,482,884 5,141,245 CERRITOS 473,040 317,162 182,942 423,888 6,000 1,403,032 1,306,376 2,709,407 CLAREMONT 367,365 246,310 143,146 329,193 6,000 1,092,014 1,014,538 2,106,552 COMMERCE 118,593 79,514 49,461 106,270 3,000 356,838 327,514 684,352 COMPTON 920,867 617,419 351,588 825,182 7,500 2,722,556 2,543,120 5,265,676 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 4 of 16
Type text here
Attachment C

ATTACHMENT A
Local Streets and Roads - Projected FY2025-26 Revenues
Based on State Dept of Finance statewide revenue projectionsEstimated January 2026 TOTAL Road Mntnc Sec2103 (3) Sec2105 (3) Sec2106 (3) Sec2107 (3) Sec2107.5 (4) HUTA Rehab Acct Highway Users Tax Acct (HUTA)(1) Streets & Highways Code TOTAL COVINA 329,621 491,622 189,939 440,539 7,500 1,459,222 1,357,693 2,816,914CUDAHY 218,240 146,325 86,987 195,563 5,000 652,115 602,704 1,254,819 CULVER CITY 387,500 259,809 150,728 347,236 6,000 1,151,273 1,070,142 2,221,416 DIAMOND BAR 526,649 353,106 203,130 471,926 7,500 1,562,311 1,454,425 3,016,736DOWNEY 1,091,708 731,964 415,925 978,271 10,000 3,227,869 3,014,925 6,242,793 DUARTE 227,565 152,577 90,498 203,919 5,000 679,558 628,456 1,308,014EL MONTE 1,045,996 701,315 398,710 937,309 10,000 3,093,330 2,888,683 5,982,013 EL SEGUNDO 165,915 111,242 67,282 148,675 4,000 497,115 458,201 955,316 GARDENA 583,670 391,336 224,603 523,022 7,500 1,730,132 1,611,896 3,342,028 GLENDALE 1,877,346 1,258,715 711,787 1,682,275 10,000 5,540,123 5,184,586 10,724,709 GLENDORA 503,161 337,357 194,285 450,878 7,500 1,493,181 1,389,557 2,882,738 HAWAIIAN GARDENS 133,648 89,608 55,131 119,761 3,000 401,148 369,091 770,240 HAWTHORNE 843,242 565,374 322,356 755,623 7,500 2,494,095 2,328,747 4,822,842 HERMOSA BEACH 188,886 126,644 75,933 169,260 4,000 564,723 521,640 1,086,362HIDDEN HILLS 16,732 11,219 11,101 14,994 1,000 55,046 46,209 101,255 HUNTINGTON PARK 524,340 351,557 202,260 469,857 7,500 1,555,514 1,448,047 3,003,561 INDUSTRY 4,130 2,769 6,355 3,701 1,000 17,956 11,407 29,363 INGLEWOOD 1,039,891 697,222 396,411 931,839 10,000 3,075,364 2,871,824 5,947,188 IRWINDALE 14,461 9,696 10,246 12,959 1,000 48,361 39,937 88,298 LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE 196,850 131,983 78,932 176,396 5,000 589,161 543,633 1,132,794LA HABRA HEIGHTS 54,184 36,329 25,205 48,554 2,000 166,272 149,637 315,909 LAKEWOOD 788,637 528,762 301,792 706,691 7,500 2,333,382 2,177,945 4,511,328 LA MIRADA 472,542 316,828 182,754 423,441 6,000 1,401,565 1,304,999 2,706,565 LANCASTER 1,703,601 1,142,223 646,357 1,526,583 10,000 5,028,764 4,704,762 9,733,526 LA PUENTE 364,241 244,215 141,969 326,394 6,000 1,082,819 1,005,910 2,088,729 LA VERNE 310,786 208,374 121,838 278,493 6,000 925,491 858,284 1,783,775LAWNDALE 304,538 204,185 119,485 272,894 6,000 907,102 841,028 1,748,130LOMITA 200,588 134,489 80,339 179,745 5,000 600,161 553,954 1,154,115LONG BEACH 4,449,364 2,983,191 1,680,381 3,987,040 10,000 13,109,977 12,287,621 25,397,598 LOS ANGELES 37,360,766 25,049,494 14,074,445 33,478,692 20,000 109,983,397 103,177,654 213,161,050 LYNWOOD 656,953 440,471 252,201 588,691 7,500 1,945,816 1,814,280 3,760,096 MALIBU 102,886 68,983 43,546 92,195 3,000 310,610 284,136 594,746 MANHATTAN BEACH 339,842 227,856 132,781 304,530 6,000 1,011,009 938,528 1,949,537MAYWOOD 240,809 161,456 95,486 215,787 6,000 719,538 665,031 1,384,569 MONROVIA 372,981 250,075 145,261 334,226 6,000 1,108,542 1,030,047 2,138,589 MONTEBELLO 601,178 403,076 231,197 538,711 7,500 1,781,662 1,660,249 3,441,911 MONTEREY PARK 585,414 392,506 225,260 524,585 7,500 1,735,265 1,616,713 3,351,978 NORWALK 991,045 664,472 378,017 888,068 10,000 2,931,602 2,736,928 5,668,531 PALMDALE 1,622,267 1,087,691 615,728 1,453,701 10,000 4,789,387 4,480,148 9,269,535 PALOS VERDES ESTATES 127,956 85,791 52,987 114,660 3,000 384,394 353,371 737,765 PARAMOUNT 512,389 343,545 197,760 459,148 7,500 1,520,342 1,415,044 2,935,386 PASADENA 1,347,706 903,605 512,331 1,207,669 10,000 3,981,311 3,721,904 7,703,215 PICO RIVERA 595,428 399,220 229,032 533,559 7,500 1,764,739 1,644,370 3,409,109 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 5 of 16
Attachment C
At
Type text here

MADERA COUNTY
CHOWCHILLA 123,817 184,670 51,574 165,481 4,000 529,541 509,995 1,039,536MADERA 426,920 636,742 166,076 570,579 7,500 1,807,817 1,758,463 3,566,280

MARIN COUNTY
BELVEDERE 13,647 20,355 13,431 18,240 1,000 66,673 56,213 122,886CORTE MADERA 65,609 97,855 46,292 87,687 3,000 300,444 270,242 570,685FAIRFAX 48,801 72,785 35,662 65,222 2,000 224,470 201,007 425,477LARKSPUR 125,349 84,044 57,951 112,325 3,000 382,668 346,172 728,840 MILL VALLEY 135,421 90,797 62,221 121,350 3,000 412,789 373,987 786,777NOVATO 509,505 341,611 220,840 456,563 7,500 1,536,018 1,407,078 2,943,096 ROSS 22,387 15,010 14,292 20,060 1,000 72,749 61,824 134,573 SAN ANSELMO 122,522 82,148 56,752 109,791 3,000 374,214 338,365 712,578 SAN RAFAEL 590,301 395,783 255,099 528,964 7,500 1,777,648 1,630,210 3,407,858 SAUSALITO 68,223 45,742 33,728 61,134 2,000 210,828 188,410 399,238 TIBURON 87,524 58,683 41,912 78,430 2,000 268,548 241,712 510,260

MARIPOSA COUNTY

MENDOCINO COUNTY
FORT BRAGG 46,179 68,875 33,752 61,718 2,000 212,525 190,209 402,734POINT ARENA 2,956 4,408 6,653 3,950 1,000 18,967 12,174 31,142 UKIAH 106,674 159,102 71,680 142,570 4,000 484,025 439,384 923,409WILLITS 31,786 47,408 24,729 42,482 1,000 147,406 130,926 278,332

MERCED COUNTY
ATWATER 305,342 204,725 94,390 273,615 6,000 884,072 843,252 1,727,324 DOS PALOS 55,535 37,235 21,094 49,765 2,000 165,629 153,369 318,998 GUSTINE 58,257 39,060 21,893 52,203 2,000 173,413 160,885 334,298 LIVINGSTON 138,392 92,789 45,405 124,012 3,000 403,598 382,192 785,790 LOS BANOS 468,584 314,174 142,286 419,895 6,000 1,350,939 1,294,069 2,645,008 MERCED 939,535 629,936 280,467 841,910 7,500 2,699,348 2,594,675 5,294,023

MODOC COUNTY
ALTURAS 17,477 26,067 14,381 24,921 1,000 83,846 71,987 155,832

MONO COUNTY
MAMMOTH LAKES 46,391 69,191 65,523 2,046,819 2,000 2,229,924 191,083 2,421,007 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 7 of 16
A
Attachment C

MONTEREY COUNTY
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 20,356 30,360 13,656 27,205 1,000 92,576 83,843 176,420DEL REY OAKS 10,146 15,132 9,214 13,560 1,000 49,051 41,789 90,841GONZALES 54,924 81,918 28,694 73,406 2,000 240,942 226,229 467,171GREENFIELD 133,551 199,188 62,900 178,491 5,000 579,131 550,090 1,129,222KING CITY 92,165 137,463 44,896 123,179 3,000 400,703 379,625 780,328 MARINA 221,240 148,336 69,332 198,251 5,000 642,159 610,988 1,253,147MONTEREY 182,956 272,874 84,394 244,521 6,000 790,744 753,586 1,544,330 PACIFIC GROVE 143,538 96,239 46,668 128,624 3,000 418,069 396,404 814,473 SALINAS 1,550,345 1,039,469 457,014 1,389,252 10,000 4,446,080 4,281,522 8,727,602 SAND CITY 3,575 2,397 5,843 3,203 1,000 16,017 9,872 25,889 SEASIDE 313,670 210,308 96,293 281,078 6,000 907,350 866,250 1,773,600SOLEDAD 264,019 177,019 81,811 236,586 6,000 765,435 729,131 1,494,566

NAPA COUNTY
AMERICAN CANYON 143,902 214,627 71,098 192,326 5,000 626,953 592,727 1,219,680CALISTOGA 33,650 50,188 20,303 44,973 2,000 151,113 138,601 289,714NAPA 500,664 746,729 235,463 669,138 7,500 2,159,494 2,062,211 4,221,705SAINT HELENA 34,671 51,711 20,774 46,338 2,000 155,494 142,809 298,303YOUNTVILLE 19,180 28,606 13,636 25,634 1,000 88,056 79,000 167,056

NEVADA COUNTY
GRASS VALLEY 87,449 130,428 118,687 116,876 3,000 456,441 360,199 816,640 NEVADA CITY 21,512 32,085 32,816 34,351 1,000 121,764 88,607 210,371 TRUCKEE 162,226 108,768 146,452 2,079,169 4,000 2,500,616 448,012 2,948,628 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 8 of 16
Attachment C

ORANGE COUNTY
ALISO VIEJO 332,795 496,356 217,084 444,781 7,500 1,498,516 1,370,767 2,869,283ANAHEIM 2,225,481 3,319,256 1,424,392 2,974,359 10,000 9,953,487 9,166,648 19,120,136 BREA 307,775 459,039 201,124 411,341 6,000 1,385,279 1,267,709 2,652,988BUENA PARK 541,086 807,018 349,948 723,162 7,500 2,428,714 2,228,707 4,657,421COSTA MESA 722,846 1,078,110 465,890 966,086 10,000 3,242,931 2,977,370 6,220,301 CYPRESS 323,549 482,566 211,186 432,424 7,500 1,457,224 1,332,683 2,789,907DANA POINT 212,930 317,580 140,624 284,581 6,000 961,716 877,048 1,838,764 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 367,055 547,455 238,937 490,570 7,500 1,651,517 1,511,882 3,163,399 FULLERTON 1,378,804 924,455 594,492 1,235,536 10,000 4,143,287 3,807,785 7,951,072 GARDEN GROVE 1,647,816 1,104,821 709,544 1,476,595 10,000 4,948,777 4,550,705 9,499,483 HUNTINGTON BEACH 1,900,604 1,274,309 817,657 1,703,117 10,000 5,705,688 5,248,819 10,954,506 IRVINE 3,053,511 2,047,306 1,310,737 2,736,228 10,000 9,157,782 8,432,753 17,590,535 LAGUNA BEACH 220,300 147,706 99,019 197,410 5,000 669,435 608,395 1,277,830LAGUNA HILLS 300,618 201,557 133,369 269,381 6,000 910,926 830,204 1,741,130LAGUNA NIGUEL 625,376 419,300 272,263 560,395 7,500 1,884,834 1,727,075 3,611,909 LAGUNA WOODS 170,046 114,012 77,526 152,377 4,000 517,960 469,608 987,568 LA HABRA 601,226 403,108 261,935 538,754 7,500 1,812,523 1,660,381 3,472,904 LAKE FOREST 563,112 839,869 363,998 752,600 7,500 2,527,080 2,319,431 4,846,511 LA PALMA 149,240 100,062 68,628 133,733 4,000 455,663 412,151 867,814 LOS ALAMITOS 115,057 77,143 54,008 103,102 3,000 352,309 317,748 670,057 MISSION VIEJO 896,995 601,414 388,430 803,790 7,500 2,698,129 2,477,194 5,175,323 NEWPORT BEACH 815,499 546,772 353,576 730,762 7,500 2,454,109 2,252,129 4,706,238 ORANGE 1,348,301 904,003 581,446 1,208,202 10,000 4,051,951 3,723,545 7,775,496 PLACENTIA 517,325 346,854 226,051 463,571 7,500 1,561,300 1,428,674 2,989,974 RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA 459,183 307,871 201,185 411,470 6,000 1,385,709 1,268,106 2,653,815 SAN CLEMENTE 614,317 411,885 267,533 550,485 7,500 1,851,720 1,696,534 3,548,254 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 338,568 227,002 149,600 303,388 6,000 1,024,557 935,008 1,959,565SANTA ANA 3,021,848 2,026,076 1,297,195 2,707,855 10,000 9,062,974 8,345,311 17,408,285 SEAL BEACH 242,438 162,549 108,487 217,247 6,000 736,720 669,530 1,406,250STANTON 388,621 260,561 171,007 348,240 6,000 1,174,430 1,073,239 2,247,669 TUSTIN 769,940 516,226 334,091 689,937 7,500 2,317,694 2,126,311 4,444,005 VILLA PARK 56,148 37,646 28,814 50,314 2,000 174,923 155,063 329,985 WESTMINSTER 584,284 871,446 377,503 780,896 7,500 2,621,629 2,406,636 5,028,265 YORBA LINDA 652,114 437,226 283,698 584,354 7,500 1,964,892 1,800,914 3,765,807 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 9 of 16
Attachment C

PLACER COUNTY
AUBURN 88,458 131,933 59,955 118,224 3,000 401,570 364,354 765,924COLFAX 12,844 19,157 12,809 18,506 1,000 64,316 52,905 117,221LINCOLN 350,311 522,480 223,225 468,191 7,500 1,571,707 1,442,912 3,014,619LOOMIS 43,737 65,233 32,071 58,455 2,000 201,497 180,152 381,649ROCKLIN 470,156 701,228 297,952 628,365 7,500 2,105,201 1,936,551 4,041,752ROSEVILLE 1,018,381 1,518,893 639,780 1,361,068 10,000 4,548,121 4,194,662 8,742,783

PLUMAS COUNTY
PORTOLA 13,564 20,230 9,483 169,727 1,000 214,005 55,869 269,874

RIVERSIDE COUNTY
BANNING 205,284 306,176 133,383 274,362 6,000 925,206 845,554 1,770,760BEAUMONT 383,645 572,199 245,104 512,743 7,500 1,721,190 1,580,217 3,301,407 BLYTHE 179,955 120,655 80,375 161,256 4,000 546,241 496,974 1,043,215CALIMESA 105,359 70,640 49,047 94,411 3,000 322,457 290,964 613,421 CANYON LAKE 105,991 71,064 49,313 94,978 3,000 324,346 292,711 617,057 CATHEDRAL CITY 331,876 494,986 212,677 443,553 7,500 1,490,592 1,366,982 2,857,575 COACHELLA 425,344 285,183 183,430 381,148 6,000 1,281,105 1,174,656 2,455,761 CORONA 1,525,246 1,022,641 645,351 1,366,761 10,000 4,569,999 4,212,208 8,782,208 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 318,759 213,720 138,668 285,638 6,000 962,785 880,304 1,843,088EASTVALE 668,903 448,484 285,716 599,399 7,500 2,010,003 1,847,282 3,857,285 HEMET 590,709 881,029 374,802 789,484 7,500 2,643,524 2,433,102 5,076,625 INDIAN WELLS 46,594 31,240 24,368 41,752 1,000 144,954 128,676 273,631 INDIO 886,827 594,596 377,237 794,679 7,500 2,660,839 2,449,113 5,109,953 JURUPA VALLEY 1,015,138 680,625 431,123 909,657 10,000 3,046,543 2,803,463 5,850,006 LAKE ELSINORE 707,083 474,082 301,751 633,612 7,500 2,124,028 1,952,722 4,076,750 LA QUINTA 371,793 249,278 160,940 333,161 6,000 1,121,172 1,026,765 2,147,937 MENIFEE 1,105,106 740,947 468,906 990,277 10,000 3,315,235 3,051,924 6,367,159 MORENO VALLEY 2,020,376 1,354,613 853,288 1,810,443 10,000 6,048,721 5,579,587 11,628,309 MURRIETA 1,071,305 718,284 454,711 959,988 10,000 3,214,290 2,958,579 6,172,869 NORCO 255,184 171,094 111,968 228,668 6,000 772,914 704,730 1,477,644PALM DESERT 333,990 498,139 214,001 446,378 7,500 1,500,009 1,375,689 2,875,698 PALM SPRINGS 426,226 285,774 183,800 381,938 6,000 1,283,738 1,177,090 2,460,829 PERRIS 778,546 521,996 331,762 697,649 7,500 2,337,453 2,150,077 4,487,530 RANCHO MIRAGE 164,066 110,002 73,702 147,018 4,000 498,788 453,094 951,881 RIVERSIDE 3,069,879 2,058,280 1,294,044 2,750,895 10,000 9,183,098 8,477,957 17,661,055 SAN JACINTO 526,985 353,330 226,115 472,227 7,500 1,586,157 1,455,351 3,041,509 TEMECULA 1,075,436 721,054 456,446 963,690 10,000 3,226,625 2,969,986 6,196,611 WILDOMAR 238,233 355,319 154,022 318,399 6,000 1,071,973 981,270 2,053,243 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 10 of 16 Attachment C

SACRAMENTO COUNTY
CITRUS HEIGHTS 563,639 840,655 372,451 753,304 7,500 2,537,549 2,321,601 4,859,151ELK GROVE 1,174,826 1,752,226 771,117 1,570,156 10,000 5,278,325 4,839,049 10,117,374 FOLSOM 594,840 887,191 392,803 795,005 7,500 2,677,340 2,450,119 5,127,460GALT 167,650 250,047 114,155 224,065 6,000 761,918 690,544 1,452,462 ISLETON 7,619 5,108 8,132 6,827 1,000 28,686 21,040 49,726 RANCHO CORDOVA 818,901 549,053 362,937 733,811 7,500 2,472,202 2,261,524 4,733,727 SACRAMENTO 5,059,771 3,392,455 2,217,635 4,534,022 20,000 15,223,882 13,973,357 29,197,239

SAN BENITO COUNTY
HOLLISTER 279,452 416,796 177,604 373,488 6,000 1,253,339 1,151,048 2,404,387SAN JUAN BAUTISTA 13,390 19,972 13,080 17,896 1,000 65,339 55,155 120,493

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
ADELANTO 238,702 356,019 149,389 319,026 6,000 1,069,136 983,202 2,052,339 APPLE VALLEY 487,794 727,534 300,272 651,938 7,500 2,175,038 2,009,200 4,184,238 BARSTOW 164,065 244,699 104,179 219,273 6,000 738,217 675,776 1,413,994 BIG BEAR LAKE 32,390 48,309 24,420 629,279 2,000 736,398 133,414 869,812 CHINO 611,733 912,386 375,346 817,582 7,500 2,724,546 2,519,698 5,244,244CHINO HILLS 503,607 751,118 309,851 673,071 7,500 2,245,147 2,074,332 4,319,479COLTON 345,408 515,168 214,025 461,638 7,500 1,543,739 1,422,719 2,966,458 FONTANA 1,408,259 2,100,387 857,827 1,882,140 10,000 6,258,613 5,800,550 12,059,163 GRAND TERRACE 84,339 125,790 55,887 112,720 3,000 381,736 347,389 729,125 HESPERIA 654,050 975,501 400,979 874,139 10,000 2,914,670 2,694,001 5,608,671 HIGHLAND 366,811 547,090 226,989 490,243 7,500 1,638,634 1,510,876 3,149,510 LOMA LINDA 162,703 242,668 103,354 217,453 6,000 732,178 670,166 1,402,343 MONTCLAIR 244,273 364,328 152,764 326,471 6,000 1,093,835 1,006,148 2,099,984 NEEDLES 31,638 47,188 23,964 42,285 1,000 146,076 130,317 276,393 ONTARIO 1,767,195 1,184,862 722,508 1,583,570 10,000 5,268,136 4,880,389 10,148,525 RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1,130,812 1,686,581 689,769 1,511,332 10,000 5,028,493 4,657,759 9,686,252 REDLANDS 472,187 704,256 290,818 631,078 7,500 2,105,840 1,944,915 4,050,754 RIALTO 1,011,659 678,293 415,664 906,540 10,000 3,022,155 2,793,856 5,816,012 SAN BERNARDINO 2,138,222 1,433,626 873,193 1,916,044 10,000 6,371,084 5,905,037 12,276,121 TWENTYNINE PALMS 181,690 270,986 114,855 242,829 6,000 816,360 748,372 1,564,732 UPLAND 758,421 508,503 312,816 679,615 7,500 2,266,855 2,094,499 4,361,354 VICTORVILLE 1,351,367 906,059 553,629 1,210,950 10,000 4,032,005 3,732,014 7,764,019 YUCAIPA 352,354 525,528 218,232 470,922 7,500 1,574,535 1,451,328 3,025,864 YUCCA VALLEY 141,531 211,091 90,530 189,157 5,000 637,309 582,961 1,220,270 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 11 of 16 Attachment C

SAN DIEGO COUNTY
CARLSBAD 747,706 1,115,187 484,938 999,311 10,000 3,357,142 3,079,766 6,436,907CHULA VISTA 1,808,102 2,696,745 1,165,868 2,416,532 10,000 8,097,248 7,447,487 15,544,734CORONADO 151,022 225,245 101,778 201,841 5,000 684,886 622,051 1,306,937 DEL MAR 25,387 37,864 21,102 33,929 1,000 119,281 104,566 223,847 EL CAJON 683,151 1,018,904 443,483 913,032 10,000 3,068,570 2,813,864 5,882,434 ENCINITAS 398,090 593,742 260,432 532,047 7,500 1,791,811 1,639,712 3,431,522 ESCONDIDO 1,449,845 972,086 629,023 1,299,195 10,000 4,360,149 4,003,976 8,364,124 IMPERIAL BEACH 170,767 254,695 114,457 228,230 6,000 774,149 703,380 1,477,529 LA MESA 391,356 583,698 256,108 523,048 7,500 1,761,710 1,611,976 3,373,686 LEMON GROVE 180,957 269,894 121,001 241,850 6,000 819,703 745,355 1,565,057 NATIONAL CITY 378,871 565,078 248,091 506,362 7,500 1,705,903 1,560,553 3,266,455 OCEANSIDE 1,120,197 1,670,749 724,132 1,497,145 10,000 5,022,223 4,614,038 9,636,261 POWAY 323,703 482,796 212,665 432,630 7,500 1,459,294 1,333,318 2,792,612 SAN DIEGO 9,052,926 13,502,239 5,818,113 12,099,251 20,000 40,492,530 37,288,565 77,781,095SAN MARCOS 624,050 930,757 405,532 834,044 7,500 2,801,883 2,570,432 5,372,316SANTEE 383,298 571,681 250,934 512,279 7,500 1,725,692 1,578,787 3,304,480SOLANA BEACH 83,440 124,448 58,381 111,517 3,000 380,786 343,684 724,470 VISTA 652,810 973,652 424,000 872,482 7,500 2,930,444 2,688,893 5,619,337

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
SAN FRANCISCO 8,375,452 5,615,539 2,123,371 7,505,178 20,000 23,639,540 23,130,133 46,769,673

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
ESCALON 47,830 71,338 33,628 63,925 2,000 218,722 197,011 415,733 LATHROP 247,993 369,876 154,269 331,443 6,000 1,109,582 1,021,472 2,131,053 LODI 431,097 642,971 264,628 576,161 7,500 1,922,357 1,775,666 3,698,023 MANTECA 602,268 898,270 367,795 804,932 7,500 2,680,766 2,480,714 5,161,479 MOUNTAIN HOUSE 185,018 275,951 118,291 247,277 5,000 831,537 762,081 1,593,618 RIPON 102,729 153,217 66,716 137,297 4,000 463,959 423,134 887,093 STOCKTON 3,075,054 2,061,750 1,247,445 2,755,532 10,000 9,149,781 8,492,248 17,642,030 TRACY 631,067 941,222 385,152 843,422 7,500 2,808,363 2,599,333 5,407,696

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
ARROYO GRANDE 117,886 175,824 92,108 157,555 4,000 547,374 485,567 1,032,941 ATASCADERO 197,901 295,165 151,369 264,495 6,000 914,930 815,145 1,730,075 EL PASO DE ROBLES 201,647 300,752 154,143 269,502 6,000 932,044 830,574 1,762,619 GROVER BEACH 82,174 122,561 65,659 109,826 3,000 383,220 338,470 721,690 MORRO BAY 67,833 101,171 55,038 90,658 3,000 317,699 279,399 597,098 PISMO BEACH 51,750 77,184 43,127 69,164 2,000 243,224 213,155 456,379 SAN LUIS OBISPO 318,274 474,698 240,519 425,373 6,000 1,464,864 1,310,954 2,775,819 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 12 of 16 Attachment C

SAN MATEO COUNTY
ATHERTON 46,147 68,827 34,292 61,675 2,000 212,942 190,077 403,019 BELMONT 181,234 270,306 120,626 242,219 6,000 820,385 746,493 1,566,878 BRISBANE 31,169 46,488 24,720 41,658 1,000 145,036 128,385 273,422 BURLINGAME 202,733 302,372 134,366 270,953 6,000 916,424 835,047 1,751,471 COLMA 9,522 14,202 10,886 12,727 1,000 48,337 39,222 87,559 DALY CITY 1,004,673 673,609 435,303 900,280 10,000 3,023,864 2,774,563 5,798,427 EAST PALO ALTO 192,979 287,824 128,133 257,917 6,000 872,853 794,872 1,667,726 FOSTER CITY 216,445 322,822 143,130 289,279 6,000 977,675 891,525 1,869,200HALF MOON BAY 75,504 112,613 53,055 100,912 3,000 345,084 310,999 656,083 HILLSBOROUGH 73,076 108,991 51,503 97,666 3,000 334,235 300,995 635,229 MENLO PARK 219,394 327,221 145,014 293,220 6,000 990,850 903,673 1,894,523 MILLBRAE 223,492 149,846 100,566 200,269 5,000 679,173 617,208 1,296,381PACIFICA 248,501 370,633 163,617 332,122 6,000 1,120,872 1,023,563 2,144,435 PORTOLA VALLEY 28,509 42,521 23,020 38,103 1,000 133,153 117,429 250,582 REDWOOD CITY 536,222 799,763 347,499 716,662 7,500 2,407,646 2,208,672 4,616,318 SAN BRUNO 282,722 421,674 185,488 377,859 6,000 1,273,742 1,164,519 2,438,262SAN CARLOS 197,503 294,571 131,024 263,963 6,000 893,060 813,504 1,706,564SAN MATEO 1,013,116 679,270 438,921 907,845 10,000 3,049,151 2,797,879 5,847,030SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 425,731 634,969 276,885 568,991 7,500 1,914,076 1,753,567 3,667,643 WOODSIDE 34,099 50,858 26,593 45,574 2,000 159,125 140,454 299,578

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
BUELLTON 33,052 49,296 21,682 44,174 2,000 150,205 136,140 286,344CARPINTERIA 84,436 125,934 47,928 112,848 3,000 374,145 347,786 721,932GOLETA 210,411 313,824 112,273 281,215 6,000 923,722 866,674 1,790,396GUADALUPE 56,871 84,822 33,848 76,008 2,000 253,549 234,248 487,797 LOMPOC 286,218 426,887 150,992 382,530 6,000 1,252,628 1,178,917 2,431,544 SANTA BARBARA 561,628 837,655 291,665 750,617 7,500 2,449,065 2,313,318 4,762,382SANTA MARIA 720,977 1,075,321 373,056 963,587 10,000 3,142,940 2,969,668 6,112,608SOLVANG 37,357 55,717 23,881 49,928 2,000 168,883 153,872 322,755 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 13 of 16 Attachment C

SANTA CLARA COUNTY
CAMPBELL 280,962 419,048 172,577 375,506 6,000 1,254,093 1,157,268 2,411,360CUPERTINO 387,693 578,236 236,312 518,153 7,500 1,727,894 1,596,890 3,324,784GILROY 596,128 399,689 243,476 534,186 7,500 1,780,979 1,646,302 3,427,280 LOS ALTOS 303,982 203,812 126,507 272,396 6,000 912,697 839,493 1,752,190LOS ALTOS HILLS 81,918 54,924 37,598 73,406 2,000 249,846 226,229 476,075 LOS GATOS 320,513 214,896 133,126 287,209 6,000 961,744 885,147 1,846,891MILPITAS 785,014 526,333 319,101 703,445 7,500 2,341,395 2,167,941 4,509,336 MONTE SERENO 34,854 23,369 18,755 31,233 1,000 109,211 96,256 205,467 MORGAN HILL 446,571 299,415 183,597 400,169 6,000 1,335,752 1,233,277 2,569,030 MOUNTAIN VIEW 829,078 555,877 336,744 742,931 7,500 2,472,130 2,289,631 4,761,761 PALO ALTO 659,272 442,026 268,757 590,769 7,500 1,968,324 1,820,684 3,789,009 SAN JOSE 9,702,612 6,505,368 3,889,499 8,694,435 20,000 28,811,914 26,795,295 55,607,209 SANTA CLARA 1,289,785 864,770 521,200 1,155,766 10,000 3,841,521 3,561,945 7,403,466 SARATOGA 298,136 199,893 124,167 267,157 6,000 895,353 823,349 1,718,702SUNNYVALE 1,530,191 1,025,956 617,453 1,371,192 10,000 4,554,793 4,225,865 8,780,658

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY
CAPITOLA 63,348 94,482 40,096 84,664 2,000 284,590 260,926 545,515SANTA CRUZ 415,689 619,990 236,414 555,569 7,500 1,835,162 1,712,201 3,547,363SCOTTS VALLEY 115,661 77,548 48,008 103,643 3,000 347,859 319,415 667,274 WATSONVILLE 496,500 332,891 190,281 444,910 7,500 1,472,083 1,371,164 2,843,247

SHASTA COUNTY
ANDERSON 71,778 107,055 60,257 95,931 3,000 338,020 295,649 633,669REDDING 602,352 898,394 470,188 805,044 7,500 2,783,478 2,481,058 5,264,536SHASTA LAKE 66,451 99,110 56,141 88,812 3,000 313,515 273,709 587,223

SIERRA COUNTY
LOYALTON 4,742 7,072 6,449 7,779 1,000 27,043 19,532 46,575

SISKIYOU COUNTY
DORRIS 5,513 8,222 8,917 7,368 1,000 31,020 22,708 53,728 DUNSMUIR 10,942 16,320 12,971 51,146 1,000 92,380 45,071 137,451 ETNA 6,555 4,395 8,082 5,874 1,000 25,906 18,103 44,008 FORT JONES 6,651 4,459 8,130 5,960 1,000 26,200 18,367 44,567 MONTAGUE 11,778 7,897 10,697 10,554 1,000 41,925 32,526 74,452 MOUNT SHASTA 31,059 20,825 20,350 90,158 1,000 163,392 85,775 249,167 TULELAKE 8,625 5,783 9,118 7,729 1,000 32,255 23,819 56,074 WEED 27,974 18,756 18,805 66,222 1,000 132,757 77,254 210,010 YREKA 75,507 50,625 42,603 75,048 2,000 245,783 208,524 454,307 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 14 of 16 Attachment C

SOLANO COUNTY
BENICIA 174,012 259,534 113,822 232,567 6,000 785,935 716,745 1,502,680DIXON 129,625 193,333 86,013 173,244 4,000 586,215 533,920 1,120,135FAIRFIELD 775,669 1,156,894 490,773 1,036,683 10,000 3,470,019 3,194,945 6,664,964 RIO VISTA 66,425 99,072 46,417 88,778 3,000 303,692 273,603 577,295SUISUN CITY 282,266 189,253 123,371 252,936 6,000 853,825 779,522 1,633,347 VACAVILLE 988,813 662,975 420,167 886,067 10,000 2,968,022 2,730,762 5,698,784 VALLEJO 1,206,880 809,184 511,770 1,081,476 10,000 3,619,310 3,332,990 6,952,300

SONOMA COUNTY
CLOVERDALE 57,886 86,336 41,689 77,365 2,000 265,276 238,430 503,706COTATI 48,711 72,651 35,842 65,102 2,000 224,305 200,637 424,942HEALDSBURG 72,658 108,368 51,103 97,107 3,000 332,236 299,275 631,511PETALUMA 384,416 573,349 249,778 513,773 7,500 1,728,816 1,583,392 3,312,208ROHNERT PARK 283,178 422,354 185,262 378,468 6,000 1,275,263 1,166,398 2,441,661SANTA ROSA 1,146,618 1,710,156 735,507 1,532,457 10,000 5,134,738 4,722,865 9,857,603 SEBASTOPOL 48,338 72,095 35,604 64,604 2,000 222,641 199,102 421,743SONOMA 69,201 103,212 48,900 92,487 3,000 316,800 285,036 601,836WINDSOR 251,245 168,454 112,151 225,139 6,000 762,988 693,852 1,456,840

STANISLAUS COUNTY
CERES 322,746 481,368 193,163 431,350 7,500 1,436,127 1,329,374 2,765,501HUGHSON 51,255 76,446 34,714 68,503 2,000 232,917 211,117 444,034MODESTO 1,412,069 2,106,070 828,919 1,887,233 10,000 6,244,291 5,816,244 12,060,535 NEWMAN 79,604 118,727 51,259 106,391 3,000 358,980 327,884 686,865OAKDALE 149,268 222,629 91,916 199,496 5,000 668,309 614,826 1,283,135PATTERSON 166,211 247,900 101,805 222,142 6,000 744,058 684,616 1,428,674RIVERBANK 167,638 250,028 102,638 224,048 6,000 750,351 690,491 1,440,842TURLOCK 464,033 692,095 275,621 620,181 7,500 2,059,430 1,911,330 3,970,760WATERFORD 58,914 87,869 39,184 78,739 2,000 266,706 242,664 509,370

SUTTER COUNTY
LIVE OAK 62,056 92,555 39,593 82,938 2,000 279,142 255,606 534,748YUBA CITY 675,171 452,686 258,605 605,015 7,500 1,998,978 1,864,591 3,863,569

TEHAMA COUNTY
CORNING 53,125 79,235 34,596 71,001 2,000 239,957 218,819 458,775RED BLUFF 95,147 141,909 58,164 127,164 3,000 425,384 391,905 817,289TEHAMA 2,789 4,159 6,364 3,727 1,000 18,039 11,486 29,525

TRINITY COUNTY
15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 15 of 16 Attachment C

TULARE COUNTY
DINUBA 167,220 249,405 95,433 223,490 6,000 741,547 688,771 1,430,318EXETER 66,502 99,187 40,844 88,881 3,000 298,414 273,920 572,335 FARMERSVILLE 99,589 66,772 40,990 89,241 3,000 299,594 275,032 574,626 LINDSAY 81,763 121,947 49,115 109,276 3,000 365,101 336,777 701,878 PORTERVILLE 609,707 408,794 226,365 546,354 7,500 1,798,721 1,683,804 3,482,525 TULARE 699,599 469,064 259,031 626,905 7,500 2,062,099 1,932,052 3,994,151 VISALIA 1,408,531 944,386 516,655 1,262,174 10,000 4,141,747 3,889,882 8,031,629 WOODLAKE 76,714 51,435 32,678 68,743 2,000 231,570 211,858 443,428

TUOLUMNE COUNTY
SONORA 33,431 49,862 33,276 44,681 2,000 163,250 137,701 300,951

VENTURA COUNTY
CAMARILLO 454,742 678,238 295,232 607,763 7,500 2,043,475 1,873,060 3,916,535FILLMORE 109,456 163,251 74,707 146,288 4,000 497,702 450,844 948,546MOORPARK 232,727 347,106 153,436 311,039 6,000 1,050,309 958,589 2,008,898OJAI 49,398 73,676 36,349 66,021 2,000 227,444 203,469 430,913OXNARD 1,295,989 1,932,938 832,514 1,732,091 10,000 5,803,532 5,338,114 11,141,646 PORT HUENEME 141,776 211,455 95,348 189,483 5,000 643,062 583,967 1,227,029SAN BUENAVENTURA 707,304 1,054,928 456,537 945,312 10,000 3,174,080 2,913,349 6,087,429 SANTA PAULA 203,414 303,388 134,715 271,863 6,000 919,380 837,853 1,757,233SIMI VALLEY 1,209,400 810,874 522,684 1,083,734 10,000 3,636,693 3,339,950 6,976,643 THOUSAND OAKS 1,215,409 814,903 525,257 1,089,119 10,000 3,654,688 3,356,544 7,011,232

YOLO COUNTY
DAVIS 420,366 626,967 281,819 561,820 7,500 1,898,472 1,731,468 3,629,941WEST SACRAMENTO 355,984 530,943 239,391 475,773 7,500 1,609,591 1,466,282 3,075,873WINTERS 51,538 76,867 38,763 68,880 2,000 238,049 212,282 450,330WOODLAND 395,950 590,551 265,728 529,188 7,500 1,788,917 1,630,899 3,419,815

YUBA COUNTY
MARYSVILLE 84,564 126,126 45,299 113,020 3,000 372,009 348,316 720,324WHEATLAND 25,779 38,448 17,146 34,453 1,000 116,825 106,181 223,006 Statewide Total $ 214,881,500 320,491,000 $ 128,094,662 $ 293,573,000 $ 2,724,000 $ 959,764,162 $ 885,086,500 $ 1,844,850,662 $ Notes:

4. Str&HwysCode § 2107.5 amounts are typically paid by the State Controller once per year in July.3. Str&HwysCode §§ 2103, 2105, 2106, 2107 and RMRA amounts are paid monthly. Includes special payments for snow removal.

ALAMEDA COUNTY
ALAMEDA 516,581 772,536 291,689 690,786 7,500 2,279,092 2,217,185 4,496,277 ALBANY 138,402 206,977 81,663 185,075 5,000 617,118 594,027 1,211,145 BERKELEY 1,254,789 839,055 470,778 1,122,008 10,000 3,696,630 3,601,256 7,297,886 DUBLIN 730,214 488,281 275,972 652,943 7,500 2,154,909 2,095,719 4,250,628 EMERYVILLE 131,699 88,065 53,708 117,762 3,000 394,233 377,976 772,210 FREMONT 2,274,191 1,520,710 849,343 2,033,536 10,000 6,687,780 6,526,946 13,214,726 HAYWARD 1,603,623 1,072,314 600,321 1,433,928 10,000 4,720,186 4,602,412 9,322,598 LIVERMORE 858,012 573,737 323,431 767,217 7,500 2,529,896 2,462,500 4,992,397 NEWARK 319,584 477,932 182,285 427,357 6,000 1,413,159 1,371,669 2,784,828 OAKLAND 2,831,636 4,234,655 1,577,381 3,786,544 10,000 12,440,216 12,153,495 24,593,711 PIEDMONT 110,161 73,663 45,709 98,504 3,000 331,037 316,163 647,201 PLEASANTON 780,201 521,706 294,535 697,640 7,500 2,301,582 2,239,183 4,540,765 SAN LEANDRO 888,915 594,401 334,907 794,850 7,500 2,620,574 2,551,193 5,171,767 UNION CITY 685,252 458,215 259,275 612,738 7,500 2,022,981 1,966,678 3,989,659

ALPINE COUNTY

AMADOR COUNTY
AMADOR 1,307 1,955 5,753 1,748 1,000 11,764 5,612 17,375 IONE 59,078 88,350 47,844 79,001 2,000 276,272 253,565 529,837 JACKSON 32,889 49,185 28,763 43,981 2,000 156,818 141,162 297,981 PLYMOUTH 7,335 10,969 10,144 9,808 1,000 39,257 31,482 70,738 SUTTER CREEK 17,285 25,849 17,394 23,114 1,000 84,641 74,187 158,828

BUTTE COUNTY
BIGGS 12,898 19,289 12,458 17,248 1,000 62,893 55,359 118,252 CHICO 744,257 1,113,021 446,685 995,241 10,000 3,309,203 3,194,379 6,503,582 GRIDLEY 47,893 71,622 33,235 64,043 2,000 218,793 205,557 424,350 OROVILLE 130,806 195,617 82,463 174,917 4,000 587,803 561,423 1,149,226 PARADISE 72,486 108,401 47,837 101,987 3,000 333,711 311,113 644,824

CALAVERAS COUNTY
ANGELS CAMP 23,874 35,704 30,561 31,925 1,000 123,065 102,470 225,535

COLUSA COUNTY
COLUSA 42,728 63,899 21,928 57,137 2,000 187,692 183,391 371,082 WILLIAMS 54,641 36,537 19,446 48,859 2,000 161,482 156,819 318,301 TOTAL Highway Users Tax Acct (HUTA)(1) Streets & Highways Code 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 1 of 16
Attachment C

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ANTIOCH 763,437 1,141,705 457,566 1,020,890 10,000 3,393,598 3,276,703 6,670,301 BRENTWOOD 429,811 642,773 259,705 574,755 7,500 1,914,543 1,844,764 3,759,307 CLAYTON 72,329 108,167 47,696 96,721 3,000 327,912 310,440 638,352 CONCORD 820,567 1,227,142 491,448 1,097,285 10,000 3,646,442 3,521,906 7,168,348 DANVILLE 285,466 426,909 174,099 381,733 6,000 1,274,207 1,225,232 2,499,439 EL CERRITO 169,834 253,983 105,522 227,106 6,000 762,445 728,932 1,491,377 HERCULES 171,442 256,388 106,476 229,257 6,000 769,562 735,835 1,505,397 LAFAYETTE 166,212 248,567 103,374 222,263 6,000 746,416 713,388 1,459,804 MARTINEZ 245,405 366,999 150,341 328,163 6,000 1,096,907 1,053,289 2,150,196 MORAGA 113,116 169,162 71,885 151,261 4,000 509,424 485,497 994,920 OAKLEY 306,118 457,793 186,347 409,349 6,000 1,365,606 1,313,869 2,679,475 ORINDA 127,615 190,846 80,484 170,651 4,000 573,597 547,730 1,121,327 PINOLE 123,785 185,117 78,212 165,528 4,000 556,642 531,288 1,087,930 PITTSBURG 746,668 499,283 300,906 667,655 7,500 2,222,012 2,142,942 4,364,954 PLEASANT HILL 225,617 337,405 138,605 301,701 6,000 1,009,328 968,356 1,977,684 RICHMOND 757,678 1,133,092 454,151 1,013,188 10,000 3,368,109 3,251,983 6,620,092 SAN PABLO 314,851 210,535 129,661 281,533 6,000 942,580 903,625 1,846,205 SAN RAMON 827,079 553,053 332,795 739,557 7,500 2,459,984 2,373,723 4,833,707 WALNUT CREEK 459,614 687,344 277,380 614,609 7,500 2,046,448 1,972,683 4,019,130

DEL NORTE COUNTY
CRESCENT CITY 65,815 44,009 25,453 58,851 2,000 196,128 188,890 385,018

EL DORADO COUNTY
PLACERVILLE 70,734 105,781 73,155 94,994 3,000 347,665 303,593 651,258 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE 140,056 209,451 140,146 1,717,290 5,000 2,211,943 601,126 2,813,069 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 2 of 16
Attachment C

FRESNO COUNTY
CLOVIS 844,108 1,262,347 430,589 1,128,765 10,000 3,675,809 3,622,945 7,298,754 COALINGA 117,921 176,348 64,282 157,687 4,000 520,237 506,120 1,026,357 FIREBAUGH 56,966 85,192 33,535 76,177 2,000 253,871 244,502 498,373 FOWLER 74,956 50,122 30,083 67,024 2,000 224,185 215,125 439,310 FRESNO 5,445,802 3,641,509 1,841,668 4,869,527 20,000 15,818,506 15,629,497 31,448,003 HURON 67,770 45,317 27,659 60,599 2,000 203,345 194,502 397,847 KERMAN 171,430 114,632 62,623 153,290 4,000 505,975 492,006 997,982 KINGSBURG 129,880 86,849 48,609 116,136 3,000 384,474 372,758 757,231 MENDOTA 83,090 124,259 46,712 111,110 3,000 368,171 356,624 724,795 ORANGE COVE 63,523 94,998 36,843 84,945 2,000 282,309 272,645 554,954 PARLIER 143,215 95,766 53,107 128,060 3,000 423,148 411,029 834,177 REEDLEY 260,083 173,913 92,526 232,561 6,000 765,083 746,441 1,511,524 SANGER 264,326 176,750 93,957 236,355 6,000 777,389 758,618 1,536,007 SAN JOAQUIN 36,153 24,175 16,995 32,328 1,000 110,651 103,760 214,411 SELMA 161,557 241,606 86,294 216,039 5,000 710,496 693,410 1,403,906

GLENN COUNTY
ORLAND 56,901 85,094 31,757 76,090 2,000 251,842 244,221 496,063 WILLOWS 42,329 63,303 24,853 56,604 2,000 189,089 181,679 370,768

HUMBOLDT COUNTY
ARCATA 124,216 185,763 83,905 166,105 4,000 563,988 533,140 1,097,128 BLUE LAKE 7,877 11,781 9,817 10,534 1,000 41,009 33,811 74,819 EUREKA 176,325 263,691 117,089 235,787 6,000 798,892 756,795 1,555,687 FERNDALE 9,113 13,628 10,603 12,186 1,000 46,531 39,114 85,645 FORTUNA 81,913 122,499 56,965 109,536 3,000 373,913 351,573 725,486 RIO DELL 22,162 33,142 18,913 29,635 1,000 104,852 95,118 199,970 TRINIDAD 3,001 2,007 6,078 2,684 1,000 14,770 8,614 23,384

IMPERIAL COUNTY
BRAWLEY 189,269 283,048 116,150 253,096 6,000 847,563 812,350 1,659,913 CALEXICO 261,971 391,772 158,921 350,315 6,000 1,168,979 1,124,389 2,293,368 CALIPATRIA 42,715 63,879 29,930 57,120 2,000 195,644 183,334 378,978 EL CENTRO 449,786 300,763 181,743 402,189 6,000 1,340,482 1,290,889 2,631,370 HOLTVILLE 55,579 37,165 26,665 49,698 2,000 171,106 159,513 330,619 IMPERIAL 149,483 223,549 92,743 199,893 5,000 670,667 641,586 1,312,253 WESTMORLAND 13,624 20,374 12,815 18,218 1,000 66,031 58,474 124,505

INYO COUNTY
BISHOP 25,201 37,688 20,846 33,700 1,000 118,436 108,166 226,601 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 3 of 16
Attachment C

KERN COUNTY
ARVIN 130,688 195,441 58,441 174,760 4,000 563,330 560,918 1,124,248 BAKERSFIELD 2,740,702 4,098,664 1,129,725 3,664,944 10,000 11,644,035 11,763,201 23,407,236 CALIFORNIA CITY 98,178 146,823 45,097 131,286 4,000 425,384 421,383 846,767 DELANO 345,374 516,500 146,559 461,844 7,500 1,477,778 1,482,360 2,960,138 MARICOPA 6,707 10,031 7,553 8,969 1,000 34,260 28,788 63,048 MCFARLAND 138,953 92,915 42,937 124,249 3,000 402,054 398,796 800,850 RIDGECREST 277,515 185,569 80,967 248,148 6,000 798,199 796,469 1,594,668 SHAFTER 229,307 153,333 67,736 205,042 5,000 660,418 658,113 1,318,531 TAFT 83,794 56,032 27,798 74,927 2,000 244,551 240,490 485,040 TEHACHAPI 127,495 85,253 39,792 114,003 3,000 369,544 365,911 735,455 WASCO 265,069 177,247 77,551 237,020 6,000 762,887 760,751 1,523,638

KINGS COUNTY
AVENAL 89,522 133,879 43,809 119,712 3,000 389,922 384,233 774,155 CORCORAN 141,377 211,426 66,404 189,053 5,000 613,259 606,794 1,220,052 HANFORD 598,691 400,334 179,242 535,338 7,500 1,721,104 1,718,248 3,439,352 LEMOORE 270,730 181,032 83,683 242,081 6,000 783,526 776,997 1,560,523

LAKE COUNTY
CLEARLAKE 110,285 164,929 63,144 147,476 4,000 489,834 473,347 963,181 LAKEPORT 32,857 49,136 22,182 43,937 2,000 150,112 141,022 291,134

LASSEN COUNTY
SUSANVILLE 106,121 158,701 50,816 176,408 4,000 496,046 455,474 951,520

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
AGOURA HILLS 132,263 197,797 79,112 176,866 5,000 591,039 567,680 1,158,719 ALHAMBRA 540,122 807,741 308,265 722,266 7,500 2,385,894 2,318,224 4,704,118 ARCADIA 371,824 556,056 213,708 497,214 7,500 1,646,302 1,595,885 3,242,187ARTESIA 107,193 160,305 65,026 143,341 4,000 479,865 460,076 939,940AVALON 22,508 33,660 17,446 30,098 1,000 104,713 96,606 201,318 AZUSA 328,495 491,257 189,364 439,273 7,500 1,455,889 1,409,913 2,865,801 BALDWIN PARK 470,924 704,257 269,387 629,733 7,500 2,081,801 2,021,224 4,103,025BELL 223,146 333,710 130,174 298,397 6,000 991,425 957,750 1,949,175BELLFLOWER 515,509 770,933 294,437 689,353 7,500 2,277,730 2,212,583 4,490,314 BELL GARDENS 386,082 258,166 149,850 345,227 6,000 1,145,325 1,108,059 2,253,384 BEVERLY HILLS 319,681 213,765 124,903 285,852 6,000 950,200 917,486 1,867,686 BRADBURY 8,994 6,014 8,179 8,043 1,000 32,230 25,814 58,044BURBANK 700,613 1,047,753 398,437 936,880 10,000 3,093,684 3,007,060 6,100,744 CALABASAS 227,058 151,830 90,105 203,031 5,000 677,024 651,659 1,328,683 CARSON 917,179 613,301 349,381 820,123 7,500 2,707,483 2,632,311 5,339,794 CERRITOS 482,576 322,690 186,102 431,510 6,000 1,428,877 1,384,997 2,813,874 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 4 of 16
Attachment C

ATTACHMENT B
Local Streets and Roads - Projected FY2026-27 Revenues
Based on State Dept of Finance statewide revenue projectionsEstimated January 2026 TOTAL Road Mntnc Sec2103 (3) Sec2105 (3) Sec2106 (3) Sec2107 (3) Sec2107.5 (4) HUTA Rehab Acct TOTAL Highway Users Tax Acct (HUTA)(1) Streets & Highways Code CLAREMONT 250,602 374,771 145,600 335,113 6,000 1,112,086 1,075,596 2,187,682 COMMERCE 80,900 120,984 50,253 108,181 3,000 363,318 347,224 710,542 COMPTON 628,180 939,430 357,740 840,020 7,500 2,772,870 2,696,172 5,469,041 COVINA 335,366 501,532 193,224 448,460 7,500 1,486,082 1,439,402 2,925,485 CUDAHY 148,875 222,639 88,445 199,080 5,000 664,039 638,977 1,303,016 CULVER CITY 395,311 264,337 153,317 353,479 6,000 1,172,445 1,134,547 2,306,992 DIAMOND BAR 537,265 359,260 206,649 480,412 7,500 1,591,086 1,541,956 3,133,042 DOWNEY 1,113,715 744,721 423,219 995,862 10,000 3,287,516 3,196,371 6,483,887 DUARTE 232,152 155,236 92,019 207,586 5,000 691,992 666,278 1,358,270 EL MONTE 1,067,081 713,538 405,699 954,163 10,000 3,150,480 3,062,532 6,213,012 EL SEGUNDO 169,260 113,181 68,390 151,349 4,000 506,180 485,777 991,957 GARDENA 398,157 595,435 228,503 532,426 7,500 1,762,022 1,708,905 3,470,926 GLENDALE 1,280,652 1,915,189 724,330 1,712,524 10,000 5,642,695 5,496,609 11,139,304 GLENDORA 343,237 513,303 197,646 458,986 7,500 1,520,672 1,473,185 2,993,857 HAWAIIAN GARDENS 91,170 136,343 56,023 121,915 3,000 408,450 391,304 799,755 HAWTHORNE 860,241 575,227 327,989 769,210 7,500 2,540,167 2,468,898 5,009,065 HERMOSA BEACH 192,694 128,851 77,194 172,303 4,000 575,043 553,034 1,128,076 HIDDEN HILLS 17,070 11,414 11,213 15,263 1,000 55,960 48,990 104,950 HUNTINGTON PARK 357,684 534,909 205,763 478,305 7,500 1,584,162 1,535,194 3,119,356 INDUSTRY 2,818 4,214 6,383 3,768 1,000 18,182 12,093 30,275 INGLEWOOD 1,060,854 709,373 403,359 948,594 10,000 3,132,180 3,044,659 6,176,839 IRWINDALE 14,753 9,865 10,343 13,192 1,000 49,152 42,340 91,492 LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE 200,818 134,284 80,247 179,568 5,000 599,916 576,350 1,176,266 LA HABRA HEIGHTS 55,276 36,962 25,567 49,427 2,000 169,232 158,643 327,875 LAKEWOOD 804,534 537,977 307,061 719,399 7,500 2,376,471 2,309,020 4,685,491 LA MIRADA 322,350 482,068 185,911 431,055 6,000 1,427,384 1,383,538 2,810,921 LANCASTER 1,162,130 1,737,942 657,738 1,554,033 10,000 5,121,844 4,987,908 10,109,752 LA PUENTE 371,584 248,471 144,403 332,263 6,000 1,102,720 1,066,448 2,169,169 LA VERNE 317,051 212,006 123,915 283,500 6,000 942,472 909,938 1,852,410 LAWNDALE 310,676 207,744 121,520 277,801 6,000 923,741 891,644 1,815,385 LOMITA 136,833 204,631 81,679 182,977 5,000 611,120 587,293 1,198,413 LONG BEACH 3,035,183 4,539,055 1,710,106 4,058,732 10,000 13,353,076 13,027,125 26,380,201 LOS ANGELES 38,113,889 25,486,062 14,324,048 34,080,677 112,024,676 20,000 109,387,175 221,411,851 LYNWOOD 670,196 448,148 256,590 599,276 7,500 1,981,710 1,923,468 3,905,178 MALIBU 104,960 70,185 44,233 93,853 3,000 316,231 301,236 617,468 MANHATTAN BEACH 346,693 231,827 135,051 310,006 6,000 1,029,577 995,011 2,024,589 MAYWOOD 245,663 164,270 97,095 219,667 6,000 732,695 705,055 1,437,749 MONROVIA 254,433 380,500 147,752 340,235 6,000 1,128,921 1,092,038 2,220,959 MONTEBELLO 410,101 613,297 235,213 548,398 7,500 1,814,509 1,760,167 3,574,676 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 5 of 16
Attachment C

ATTACHMENT B
Local Streets and Roads - Projected FY2026-27 Revenues
Based on State Dept of Finance statewide revenue projectionsEstimated January 2026 TOTAL Road Mntnc Sec2103 (3) Sec2105 (3) Sec2106 (3) Sec2107 (3) Sec2107.5 (4) HUTA Rehab Acct TOTAL Highway Users Tax Acct (HUTA)(1) Streets & Highways Code MONTEREY PARK 399,347 597,215 229,171 534,017 7,500 1,767,250 1,714,011 3,481,261 NORWALK 676,053 1,011,023 384,638 904,037 10,000 2,985,750 2,901,644 5,887,394 PALMDALE 1,654,969 1,106,648 626,566 1,479,840 10,000 4,878,023 4,749,775 9,627,799 PALOS VERDES ESTATES 130,535 87,287 53,842 116,722 3,000 391,386 374,637 766,023PARAMOUNT 522,718 349,532 201,183 467,404 7,500 1,548,337 1,500,205 3,048,543 PASADENA 919,353 1,374,874 521,335 1,229,385 10,000 4,054,946 3,945,899 8,000,845 PICO RIVERA 406,178 607,431 233,010 543,153 7,500 1,797,272 1,743,332 3,540,604 POMONA 1,000,488 1,496,209 566,920 1,337,880 10,000 4,411,498 4,294,133 8,705,631 RANCHO PALOS VERDES 412,655 275,935 159,833 368,988 6,000 1,223,410 1,184,322 2,407,732 REDONDO BEACH 686,513 459,059 262,720 613,866 7,500 2,029,658 1,970,298 3,999,956 ROLLING HILLS (2)
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES 55,862 83,540 36,186 74,700 2,000 252,287 239,760 492,047 ROSEMEAD 333,986 499,470 192,449 446,616 7,500 1,480,021 1,433,482 2,913,503 SAN DIMAS 227,513 340,240 132,627 304,236 6,000 1,010,616 976,493 1,987,109 SAN FERNANDO 154,883 231,624 91,820 207,113 5,000 690,440 664,763 1,355,203 SAN GABRIEL 257,911 385,701 149,706 344,886 6,000 1,144,205 1,106,965 2,251,170 SAN MARINO 82,031 122,675 50,889 109,694 3,000 368,288 352,078 720,366 SANTA CLARITA 1,519,128 2,271,825 858,316 2,031,420 10,000 6,690,689 6,520,156 13,210,846 SANTA FE SPRINGS 183,485 122,693 73,735 164,068 4,000 547,980 526,602 1,074,583 SANTA MONICA 609,771 911,899 347,397 815,402 7,500 2,691,970 2,617,159 5,309,129 SIERRA MADRE 73,061 109,262 45,849 97,700 3,000 328,872 313,582 642,454 SIGNAL HILL 76,873 114,961 47,991 102,796 3,000 345,621 329,940 675,561 SOUTH EL MONTE 127,714 190,993 76,555 170,782 4,000 570,044 548,151 1,118,195 SOUTH GATE 908,771 607,679 346,222 812,605 7,500 2,682,776 2,608,180 5,290,957 SOUTH PASADENA 176,221 263,534 103,809 235,647 6,000 785,211 756,346 1,541,557 TEMPLE CITY 238,888 357,251 139,018 319,447 6,000 1,060,604 1,025,315 2,085,919 TORRANCE 1,435,380 959,813 544,067 1,283,488 10,000 4,232,748 4,119,553 8,352,301 VERNON 2,063 1,379 5,575 1,845 1,000 11,862 5,920 17,782 WALNUT 277,945 185,857 109,223 248,533 6,000 827,557 797,704 1,625,261 WEST COVINA 716,329 1,071,256 407,267 957,896 10,000 3,162,747 3,074,513 6,237,260 WEST HOLLYWOOD 348,893 233,298 135,878 311,973 6,000 1,036,041 1,001,325 2,037,366 WESTLAKE VILLAGE 79,629 53,247 34,716 71,203 2,000 240,795 228,537 469,332 WHITTIER 858,862 574,305 327,471 767,977 7,500 2,536,116 2,464,942 5,001,058 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 6 of 16
Attachment C

MADERA COUNTY
CHOWCHILLA 125,975 188,392 52,403 168,457 4,000 539,227 540,688 1,079,915 MADERA 434,361 649,577 168,937 580,839 7,500 1,841,214 1,864,293 3,705,507

MARIN COUNTY
BELVEDERE 13,885 20,765 13,584 18,568 1,000 67,802 59,596 127,399 CORTE MADERA 66,753 99,827 47,028 89,264 3,000 305,872 286,506 592,378 FAIRFAX 74,252 49,651 36,210 66,395 2,000 228,508 213,105 441,612 LARKSPUR 127,876 85,508 58,893 114,344 3,000 389,622 367,006 756,628 MILL VALLEY 138,151 92,379 63,240 123,532 3,000 420,302 396,495 816,797 NOVATO 519,775 347,564 224,673 464,773 7,500 1,564,285 1,491,760 3,056,045 ROSS 22,838 15,271 14,461 20,421 1,000 73,991 65,545 139,536 SAN ANSELMO 124,992 83,580 57,673 111,765 3,000 381,011 358,728 739,739 SAN RAFAEL 402,681 602,201 259,540 538,476 7,500 1,810,397 1,728,321 3,538,718 SAUSALITO 46,539 69,599 34,241 62,234 2,000 214,613 199,749 414,362 TIBURON 89,288 59,706 42,570 79,840 2,000 273,404 256,259 529,663

MARIPOSA COUNTY

MENDOCINO COUNTY
FORT BRAGG 46,984 70,263 34,266 62,828 2,000 216,341 201,657 417,998 POINT ARENA 3,007 4,497 6,686 4,021 1,000 19,212 12,907 32,118 UKIAH 162,309 108,533 72,866 145,133 4,000 492,841 465,828 958,669 WILLITS 48,364 32,340 25,082 43,246 1,000 150,033 138,806 288,838

MERCED COUNTY
ATWATER 208,293 311,498 95,979 278,535 6,000 900,305 894,001 1,794,305 DOS PALOS 37,884 56,655 21,384 50,659 2,000 168,581 162,599 331,181 GUSTINE 39,740 59,431 22,196 53,142 2,000 176,510 170,568 347,078 LIVINGSTON 94,406 141,182 46,126 126,242 3,000 410,955 405,193 816,149 LOS BANOS 319,650 478,030 144,725 427,445 6,000 1,375,850 1,371,950 2,747,800 MERCED 640,914 958,475 285,358 857,049 7,500 2,749,295 2,750,830 5,500,125

MODOC COUNTY
ALTURAS 17,782 26,592 14,551 25,341 1,000 85,266 76,319 161,585

MONO COUNTY
MAMMOTH LAKES 47,200 70,586 66,600 2,047,934 2,000 2,234,320 202,583 2,436,902 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 7 of 16
Attachment C

MONTEREY COUNTY
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 20,710 30,972 13,813 27,694 1,000 94,189 88,889 183,079 DEL REY OAKS 15,437 10,322 9,292 13,803 1,000 49,855 44,304 94,159 GONZALES 83,569 55,881 29,118 74,726 2,000 245,294 239,844 485,139 GREENFIELD 203,204 135,879 63,931 181,701 5,000 589,714 583,196 1,172,911 KING CITY 140,234 93,772 45,607 125,394 3,000 408,006 402,472 810,478 MARINA 150,921 225,699 70,477 201,816 5,000 653,914 647,759 1,301,673 MONTEREY 186,144 278,375 85,806 248,917 6,000 805,242 798,938 1,604,181 PACIFIC GROVE 146,432 97,916 47,411 130,936 3,000 425,695 420,261 845,956 SALINAS 1,581,597 1,057,585 465,036 1,414,232 10,000 4,528,451 4,539,196 9,067,647 SAND CITY 3,647 2,438 5,861 3,261 1,000 16,207 10,466 26,673SEASIDE 319,993 213,974 97,916 286,132 6,000 924,015 918,384 1,842,399 SOLEDAD 269,342 180,104 83,177 240,840 6,000 779,462 773,012 1,552,474

NAPA COUNTY
AMERICAN CANYON 146,410 218,954 72,274 195,784 5,000 638,422 628,399 1,266,821 CALISTOGA 34,236 51,199 20,578 45,781 2,000 153,795 146,943 300,737 NAPA 509,390 761,782 239,555 681,170 7,500 2,199,397 2,186,320 4,385,717 SAINT HELENA 35,275 52,754 21,057 47,171 2,000 158,258 151,404 309,661 YOUNTVILLE 29,183 19,514 13,793 26,095 1,000 89,584 83,755 173,339

NEVADA COUNTY
GRASS VALLEY 88,973 133,058 120,708 118,977 3,000 464,716 381,877 846,593 NEVADA CITY 21,887 32,732 33,313 34,868 1,000 123,799 93,940 217,739 TRUCKEE 110,664 165,496 148,965 2,081,783 4,000 2,510,908 474,975 2,985,883 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 8 of 16
Attachment C

ORANGE COUNTY
ALISO VIEJO 338,595 506,362 220,850 452,779 7,500 1,526,086 1,453,263 2,979,349 ANAHEIM 2,264,267 3,386,166 1,449,576 3,027,842 10,000 10,137,850 9,718,323 19,856,173 BREA 313,139 468,293 204,606 418,738 6,000 1,410,775 1,344,003 2,754,779 BUENA PARK 550,516 823,286 356,071 736,166 7,500 2,473,539 2,362,837 4,836,375COSTA MESA 1,099,842 735,444 474,070 983,457 10,000 3,302,813 3,156,556 6,459,370 CYPRESS 492,294 329,188 214,847 440,199 7,500 1,484,028 1,412,887 2,896,915 DANA POINT 323,982 216,641 143,034 289,698 6,000 979,355 929,832 1,909,187 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 558,490 373,452 243,091 499,391 7,500 1,681,924 1,602,871 3,284,796 FULLERTON 1,406,598 940,567 604,954 1,257,752 10,000 4,219,870 4,036,949 8,256,819 GARDEN GROVE 1,681,033 1,124,076 722,047 1,503,146 10,000 5,040,303 4,824,579 9,864,882 HUNTINGTON BEACH 1,938,917 1,296,518 832,078 1,733,741 10,000 5,811,254 5,564,707 11,375,961 IRVINE 3,115,064 2,082,987 1,333,905 2,785,428 10,000 9,327,384 8,940,260 18,267,644LAGUNA BEACH 224,741 150,280 100,690 200,959 5,000 681,671 645,009 1,326,681 LAGUNA HILLS 306,678 205,070 135,650 274,225 6,000 927,623 880,168 1,807,791 LAGUNA NIGUEL 426,607 637,983 277,008 570,471 7,500 1,919,569 1,831,015 3,750,585 LAGUNA WOODS 115,999 173,474 78,816 155,117 4,000 527,405 497,870 1,025,275 LA HABRA 410,133 613,346 266,496 548,442 7,500 1,845,917 1,760,308 3,606,225 LAKE FOREST 572,926 856,799 370,371 766,133 7,500 2,573,729 2,459,021 5,032,750 LA PALMA 101,806 152,249 69,760 136,138 4,000 463,953 436,955 900,908 LOS ALAMITOS 78,487 117,376 54,881 104,955 3,000 358,700 336,871 695,571 MISSION VIEJO 915,077 611,895 395,236 818,243 7,500 2,747,951 2,626,278 5,374,230 NEWPORT BEACH 831,938 556,302 359,763 743,902 7,500 2,499,405 2,387,668 4,887,073 ORANGE 1,375,480 919,758 591,676 1,229,927 10,000 4,126,841 3,947,638 8,074,479 PLACENTIA 352,899 527,753 229,976 471,906 7,500 1,590,034 1,514,655 3,104,690 RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA 313,237 468,439 204,669 418,869 6,000 1,411,214 1,344,424 2,755,638SAN CLEMENTE 419,063 626,701 272,194 560,383 7,500 1,885,841 1,798,636 3,684,477 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 345,393 230,958 152,169 308,843 6,000 1,043,362 991,280 2,034,642 SANTA ANA 3,082,763 2,061,387 1,320,123 2,756,545 10,000 9,230,818 8,847,555 18,078,373 SEAL BEACH 247,325 165,382 110,326 221,153 6,000 750,186 709,825 1,460,010 STANTON 396,455 265,102 173,956 354,502 6,000 1,196,015 1,137,829 2,333,845 TUSTIN 785,461 525,223 339,933 702,343 7,500 2,360,459 2,254,278 4,614,737 VILLA PARK 38,302 57,280 29,240 51,219 2,000 178,041 164,395 342,436 WESTMINSTER 889,013 594,467 384,115 794,937 7,500 2,670,032 2,551,474 5,221,506 YORBA LINDA 444,846 665,259 288,646 594,861 7,500 2,001,113 1,909,299 3,910,411 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 9 of 16
Attachment C

PLACER COUNTY
AUBURN 90,000 134,593 60,934 120,350 3,000 408,876 386,282 795,158 COLFAX 13,068 19,543 12,951 18,814 1,000 65,377 56,089 121,466 LINCOLN 356,416 533,013 227,100 476,609 7,500 1,600,638 1,529,751 3,130,389 LOOMIS 44,500 66,548 32,555 59,506 2,000 205,109 190,994 396,104 ROCKLIN 478,350 715,363 303,152 639,664 7,500 2,144,029 2,053,098 4,197,128 ROSEVILLE 1,036,129 1,549,511 651,045 1,385,541 10,000 4,632,226 4,447,108 9,079,334

PLUMAS COUNTY
PORTOLA 13,800 20,638 9,566 170,053 1,000 215,058 59,232 274,289

RIVERSIDE COUNTY
BANNING 208,862 312,348 135,665 279,295 6,000 942,170 896,442 1,838,612 BEAUMONT 390,332 583,733 249,367 521,962 7,500 1,752,894 1,675,318 3,428,212 BLYTHE 122,758 183,582 81,716 164,156 4,000 556,212 526,883 1,083,095 CALIMESA 71,872 107,482 49,832 96,109 3,000 328,295 308,475 636,770 CANYON LAKE 72,303 108,128 50,102 96,686 3,000 330,219 310,327 640,546 CATHEDRAL CITY 504,964 337,660 216,365 451,529 7,500 1,518,018 1,449,251 2,967,269 COACHELLA 290,153 433,918 186,599 388,001 6,000 1,304,672 1,245,350 2,550,022 CORONA 1,040,464 1,555,992 656,715 1,391,337 10,000 4,654,508 4,465,711 9,120,219 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 325,185 217,445 141,043 290,774 6,000 980,446 933,283 1,913,729 EASTVALE 682,387 456,300 290,700 610,177 7,500 2,047,064 1,958,457 4,005,521 HEMET 898,789 601,004 381,366 803,679 7,500 2,692,339 2,579,533 5,271,871 INDIAN WELLS 47,533 31,785 24,715 42,503 1,000 147,536 136,421 283,956 INDIO 904,704 604,959 383,844 808,968 7,500 2,709,975 2,596,508 5,306,483 JURUPA VALLEY 1,035,601 692,488 438,686 926,014 10,000 3,102,788 2,972,184 6,074,972 LAKE ELSINORE 721,337 482,345 307,019 645,005 7,500 2,163,205 2,070,242 4,233,447 LA QUINTA 253,623 379,288 163,710 339,151 6,000 1,141,772 1,088,559 2,230,331 MENIFEE 753,860 1,127,382 477,140 1,008,083 10,000 3,376,465 3,235,597 6,612,062 MORENO VALLEY 2,061,103 1,378,222 868,341 1,842,997 10,000 6,160,663 5,915,383 12,076,046 MURRIETA 730,803 1,092,901 462,693 977,250 10,000 3,273,647 3,136,635 6,410,282 NORCO 260,328 174,076 113,870 232,780 6,000 787,053 747,142 1,534,196 PALM DESERT 508,180 339,811 217,713 454,405 7,500 1,527,609 1,458,482 2,986,091 PALM SPRINGS 434,818 290,755 186,976 388,805 6,000 1,307,354 1,247,931 2,555,285 PERRIS 794,240 531,094 337,563 710,193 7,500 2,380,590 2,279,475 4,660,064 RANCHO MIRAGE 167,373 111,919 74,924 149,662 4,000 507,878 480,362 988,240 RIVERSIDE 3,131,762 2,094,152 1,316,915 2,800,359 10,000 9,353,190 8,988,184 18,341,374SAN JACINTO 537,608 359,488 230,042 480,718 7,500 1,615,356 1,542,938 3,158,294 TEMECULA 733,620 1,097,115 464,458 981,018 10,000 3,286,211 3,148,728 6,434,939 WILDOMAR 362,482 242,385 156,669 324,124 6,000 1,091,660 1,040,326 2,131,986 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 10 of 16 Attachment C

SACRAMENTO COUNTY
CITRUS HEIGHTS 573,462 857,601 378,973 766,850 7,500 2,584,386 2,461,322 5,045,708 ELK GROVE 1,195,301 1,787,548 784,711 1,598,390 10,000 5,375,950 5,130,277 10,506,227 FOLSOM 605,207 905,076 399,687 809,300 7,500 2,726,770 2,597,574 5,324,344 GALT 170,572 255,087 116,095 228,094 6,000 775,849 732,103 1,507,952 ISLETON 5,197 7,772 8,191 6,950 1,000 29,110 22,307 51,417 RANCHO CORDOVA 558,622 835,408 369,291 747,006 7,500 2,517,827 2,397,629 4,915,456 SACRAMENTO 3,451,579 5,161,767 2,256,891 4,615,548 20,000 15,505,786 14,814,313 30,320,098

SAN BENITO COUNTY
HOLLISTER 284,322 425,198 180,669 380,203 6,000 1,276,393 1,220,321 2,496,714 SAN JUAN BAUTISTA 13,624 20,374 13,227 18,218 1,000 66,443 58,474 124,917

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
ADELANTO 242,862 363,196 151,955 324,762 6,000 1,088,775 1,042,374 2,131,149 APPLE VALLEY 496,295 742,200 305,514 663,660 7,500 2,215,169 2,130,119 4,345,288 BARSTOW 166,924 249,632 105,942 223,216 6,000 751,715 716,446 1,468,162 BIG BEAR LAKE 32,955 49,283 24,768 630,057 2,000 739,063 141,443 880,506 CHINO 622,394 930,778 381,920 832,283 7,500 2,774,874 2,671,340 5,446,215 CHINO HILLS 512,384 766,260 315,262 685,174 7,500 2,286,580 2,199,171 4,485,751 COLTON 351,428 525,553 217,736 469,939 7,500 1,572,157 1,508,342 3,080,499 FONTANA 1,432,802 2,142,727 872,960 1,915,983 10,000 6,374,472 6,149,643 12,524,116 GRAND TERRACE 128,326 85,809 56,793 114,746 3,000 388,675 368,296 756,971HESPERIA 665,449 995,166 408,007 889,857 10,000 2,968,479 2,856,134 5,824,613 HIGHLAND 373,204 558,119 230,931 499,059 7,500 1,668,812 1,601,805 3,270,617 LOMA LINDA 165,539 247,560 105,103 221,363 6,000 745,564 710,498 1,456,062 MONTCLAIR 248,530 371,672 155,389 332,341 6,000 1,113,932 1,066,701 2,180,633 NEEDLES 48,139 32,190 24,304 43,045 1,000 148,679 138,160 286,839 ONTARIO 1,802,819 1,205,512 735,241 1,612,044 10,000 5,365,616 5,174,105 10,539,720 RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1,150,520 1,720,579 701,920 1,538,507 10,000 5,121,527 4,938,076 10,059,603 REDLANDS 718,453 480,416 295,893 642,426 7,500 2,144,687 2,061,965 4,206,652 RIALTO 1,032,052 690,114 422,953 922,840 10,000 3,077,960 2,961,998 6,039,958 SAN BERNARDINO 2,181,324 1,458,612 888,598 1,950,496 10,000 6,489,031 6,260,418 12,749,449 TWENTYNINE PALMS 276,449 184,856 116,808 247,195 6,000 831,308 793,411 1,624,719 UPLAND 773,709 517,365 318,281 691,835 7,500 2,308,690 2,220,552 4,529,242 VICTORVILLE 1,378,608 921,850 563,365 1,232,724 10,000 4,106,548 3,956,617 8,063,165 YUCAIPA 358,495 536,122 222,018 479,389 7,500 1,603,524 1,538,673 3,142,197 YUCCA VALLEY 143,998 215,346 92,051 192,558 5,000 648,953 618,045 1,266,998 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 11 of 16 Attachment C

SAN DIEGO COUNTY
CARLSBAD 760,737 1,137,667 493,455 1,017,279 10,000 3,419,140 3,265,115 6,684,254 CHULA VISTA 2,751,106 1,839,614 1,186,466 2,459,984 10,000 8,247,171 7,895,697 16,142,868 CORONADO 229,786 153,654 103,499 205,470 5,000 697,408 659,488 1,356,896 DEL MAR 38,627 25,829 21,391 34,539 1,000 121,386 110,859 232,246 EL CAJON 1,039,443 695,057 451,266 929,449 10,000 3,125,215 2,983,211 6,108,426 ENCINITAS 605,710 405,028 264,967 541,614 7,500 1,824,819 1,738,394 3,563,213 ESCONDIDO 1,479,071 989,028 640,097 1,322,556 10,000 4,440,752 4,244,946 8,685,698 IMPERIAL BEACH 259,829 173,743 116,403 232,334 6,000 788,309 745,711 1,534,020 LA MESA 398,176 595,465 260,566 532,453 7,500 1,794,160 1,708,989 3,503,149 LEMON GROVE 184,111 275,334 123,063 246,199 6,000 834,707 790,212 1,624,919 NATIONAL CITY 576,469 385,474 252,407 515,467 7,500 1,737,318 1,654,471 3,391,789 OCEANSIDE 1,704,428 1,139,720 736,893 1,524,066 10,000 5,115,107 4,891,724 10,006,831 POWAY 492,528 329,345 216,353 440,409 7,500 1,486,135 1,413,561 2,899,695 SAN DIEGO 13,774,419 9,210,703 5,921,244 12,316,810 20,000 41,243,176 39,532,696 80,775,872 SAN MARCOS 949,519 634,926 412,641 849,041 7,500 2,853,628 2,725,128 5,578,756 SANTEE 583,205 389,979 255,301 521,490 7,500 1,757,475 1,673,803 3,431,278 SOLANA BEACH 126,957 84,894 59,331 113,523 3,000 387,705 364,368 752,073 VISTA 664,187 993,279 431,437 888,170 7,500 2,984,573 2,850,718 5,835,291

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
SAN FRANCISCO 5,713,408 8,544,286 2,160,956 7,640,129 20,000 24,078,779 24,522,170 48,600,949

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
ESCALON 72,776 48,664 34,139 65,075 2,000 222,654 208,868 431,522LATHROP 377,332 252,315 156,920 337,403 6,000 1,129,971 1,082,947 2,212,918 LODI 655,932 438,610 269,237 586,521 7,500 1,957,801 1,882,531 3,840,331 MANTECA 612,765 916,377 374,235 819,406 7,500 2,730,283 2,630,010 5,360,293 MOUNTAIN HOUSE 188,243 281,513 118,291 251,723 5,000 844,771 807,945 1,652,716RIPON 104,519 156,306 67,814 139,766 4,000 472,405 448,600 921,005 STOCKTON 3,137,042 2,097,683 1,269,490 2,805,080 10,000 9,319,294 9,003,336 18,322,630TRACY 960,195 642,065 391,900 858,587 7,500 2,860,248 2,755,768 5,616,016

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
ARROYO GRANDE 119,941 179,369 93,657 160,388 4,000 557,355 514,790 1,072,144 ATASCADERO 201,350 301,115 153,969 269,251 6,000 931,685 864,203 1,795,888 EL PASO DE ROBLES 205,161 306,815 156,793 274,348 6,000 949,116 880,561 1,829,677 GROVER BEACH 83,606 125,031 66,739 111,800 3,000 390,177 358,840 749,017 MORRO BAY 69,015 103,210 55,929 92,288 3,000 323,442 296,214 619,656 PISMO BEACH 78,740 52,652 43,807 70,407 2,000 247,606 225,983 473,589 SAN LUIS OBISPO 484,267 323,821 244,701 433,022 6,000 1,491,811 1,389,851 2,881,662 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 12 of 16 Attachment C

SAN MATEO COUNTY
ATHERTON 46,951 70,215 34,816 62,784 2,000 216,766 201,516 418,282 BELMONT 184,392 275,755 122,681 246,575 6,000 835,403 791,419 1,626,822 BRISBANE 31,713 47,426 25,074 42,407 1,000 147,619 136,112 283,731 BURLINGAME 206,266 308,467 136,665 275,825 6,000 933,223 885,303 1,818,526 COLMA 9,688 14,489 10,994 12,956 1,000 49,126 41,583 90,709 DALY CITY 1,024,925 685,349 442,940 916,468 10,000 3,079,682 2,941,544 6,021,225 EAST PALO ALTO 293,626 196,343 130,321 262,555 6,000 888,844 842,710 1,731,554 FOSTER CITY 329,330 220,217 145,584 294,480 6,000 995,611 945,180 1,940,790 HALF MOON BAY 114,883 76,820 53,911 102,726 3,000 351,341 329,716 681,056 HILLSBOROUGH 111,188 74,349 52,331 99,422 3,000 340,290 319,110 659,399 MENLO PARK 223,218 333,817 147,502 298,493 6,000 1,009,030 958,058 1,967,088 MILLBRAE 152,457 227,997 102,265 203,870 5,000 691,590 654,353 1,345,943 PACIFICA 252,832 378,105 166,434 338,094 6,000 1,141,464 1,085,164 2,226,628 PORTOLA VALLEY 29,006 43,378 23,344 38,788 1,000 135,516 124,496 260,011 REDWOOD CITY 815,885 545,567 353,579 729,548 7,500 2,452,079 2,341,596 4,793,675 SAN BRUNO 430,174 287,650 188,693 384,653 6,000 1,297,170 1,234,603 2,531,773 SAN CARLOS 300,509 200,945 133,263 268,709 6,000 909,426 862,463 1,771,889 SAN MATEO 1,033,538 691,108 446,622 924,169 10,000 3,105,438 2,966,263 6,071,701 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 647,769 433,151 281,712 579,222 7,500 1,949,353 1,859,102 3,808,455 WOODSIDE 51,884 34,694 26,980 46,393 2,000 161,950 148,907 310,857

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
BUELLTON 33,628 50,290 21,982 44,968 2,000 152,868 144,333 297,201 CARPINTERIA 85,907 128,472 48,693 114,878 3,000 380,950 368,717 749,667 GOLETA 214,078 320,150 114,179 286,272 6,000 940,679 918,833 1,859,511GUADALUPE 57,862 86,531 34,363 77,375 2,000 258,132 248,346 506,478 LOMPOC 435,492 291,206 153,586 389,409 6,000 1,275,693 1,249,867 2,525,560 SANTA BARBARA 571,416 854,541 296,754 764,113 7,500 2,494,324 2,452,540 4,946,864 SANTA MARIA 733,542 1,096,997 379,589 980,913 10,000 3,201,041 3,148,391 6,349,433 SOLVANG 56,840 38,008 24,220 50,826 2,000 171,893 163,132 335,026 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 13 of 16 Attachment C

SANTA CLARA COUNTY
CAMPBELL 285,858 427,495 175,554 382,258 6,000 1,277,165 1,226,915 2,504,080 CUPERTINO 394,450 589,892 240,419 527,470 7,500 1,759,731 1,692,995 3,452,727 GILROY 608,145 406,655 247,710 543,791 7,500 1,813,801 1,745,381 3,559,182 LOS ALTOS 310,109 207,364 128,666 277,294 6,000 929,434 890,016 1,819,450 LOS ALTOS HILLS 83,569 55,881 38,180 74,726 2,000 254,356 239,844 494,200 LOS GATOS 326,974 218,641 135,402 292,373 6,000 979,391 938,417 1,917,808 MILPITAS 800,839 535,506 324,677 716,094 7,500 2,384,617 2,298,414 4,683,031 MONTE SERENO 35,557 23,776 19,002 31,794 1,000 111,130 102,049 213,179 MORGAN HILL 304,634 455,573 186,769 407,365 6,000 1,360,340 1,307,499 2,667,839 MOUNTAIN VIEW 565,565 845,791 342,632 756,289 7,500 2,517,778 2,427,427 4,945,205 PALO ALTO 672,562 449,730 273,440 601,391 7,500 2,004,623 1,930,258 3,934,881 SAN JOSE 9,898,198 6,618,745 3,958,416 8,850,771 20,000 29,346,130 28,407,911 57,754,041 SANTA CLARA 879,841 1,315,785 530,361 1,176,548 10,000 3,912,535 3,776,313 7,688,848 SARATOGA 203,377 304,146 126,284 271,961 6,000 911,768 872,901 1,784,668 SUNNYVALE 1,043,837 1,561,037 628,322 1,395,848 10,000 4,639,044 4,480,189 9,119,233

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY
CAPITOLA 64,452 96,386 40,722 86,187 2,000 289,747 276,629 566,376 SANTA CRUZ 632,488 422,933 240,523 565,558 7,500 1,869,003 1,815,246 3,684,250 SCOTTS VALLEY 117,992 78,899 48,775 105,506 3,000 354,172 338,638 692,811 WATSONVILLE 506,509 338,693 193,572 452,910 7,500 1,499,184 1,453,684 2,952,868

SHASTA COUNTY
ANDERSON 73,029 109,213 61,241 97,656 3,000 344,138 313,442 657,580 REDDING 612,850 916,504 478,445 819,520 7,500 2,834,818 2,630,375 5,465,193 SHASTA LAKE 67,609 101,108 57,052 90,409 3,000 319,178 290,181 609,360

SIERRA COUNTY
LOYALTON 4,825 7,215 6,479 7,893 1,000 27,411 20,707 48,118

SISKIYOU COUNTY
DORRIS 5,609 8,388 8,990 7,501 1,000 31,488 24,074 55,562 DUNSMUIR 11,133 16,649 13,116 51,409 1,000 93,308 47,784 141,091 ETNA 4,472 6,687 8,140 5,979 1,000 26,278 19,192 45,470 FORT JONES 6,785 4,537 8,189 6,067 1,000 26,578 19,473 46,050MONTAGUE 12,015 8,034 10,801 10,744 1,000 42,595 34,484 77,079 MOUNT SHASTA 21,188 31,686 20,626 90,658 1,000 165,157 90,938 256,095 TULELAKE 8,799 5,884 9,195 7,868 1,000 32,745 25,253 57,998 WEED 28,537 19,083 19,054 66,673 1,000 134,347 81,903 216,249 YREKA 51,508 77,029 43,274 76,265 2,000 250,075 221,073 471,148 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 14 of 16 Attachment C

SOLANO COUNTY
BENICIA 177,044 264,766 115,756 236,749 6,000 800,315 759,881 1,560,196 DIXON 131,884 197,230 87,454 176,359 4,000 596,928 566,053 1,162,980 FAIRFIELD 1,180,214 789,188 499,394 1,055,324 10,000 3,534,121 3,387,225 6,921,346 RIO VISTA 67,583 101,069 47,155 90,374 3,000 309,181 290,069 599,250 SUISUN CITY 192,551 287,956 125,474 257,484 6,000 869,465 826,436 1,695,901 VACAVILLE 1,008,745 674,529 427,536 902,000 10,000 3,022,811 2,895,107 5,917,917 VALLEJO 1,231,209 823,287 520,764 1,100,922 10,000 3,686,182 3,533,579 7,219,760

SONOMA COUNTY
CLOVERDALE 58,895 88,076 42,344 78,756 2,000 270,071 252,779 522,850 COTATI 49,560 74,115 36,393 66,272 2,000 228,340 212,712 441,052 HEALDSBURG 73,924 110,552 51,924 98,854 3,000 338,254 317,286 655,540 PETALUMA 391,116 584,906 254,124 523,011 7,500 1,760,657 1,678,686 3,439,343 ROHNERT PARK 288,114 430,868 188,463 385,274 6,000 1,298,719 1,236,595 2,535,314SANTA ROSA 1,166,602 1,744,629 748,470 1,560,013 10,000 5,229,714 5,007,100 10,236,814 SEBASTOPOL 49,180 73,548 36,151 65,765 2,000 226,645 211,084 437,729 SONOMA 70,407 105,292 49,682 94,150 3,000 322,532 302,190 624,723 WINDSOR 171,389 256,310 114,055 229,187 6,000 776,941 735,610 1,512,551

STANISLAUS COUNTY
CERES 328,371 491,072 196,504 439,106 7,500 1,462,553 1,409,380 2,871,933 HUGHSON 52,148 77,987 35,244 69,734 2,000 237,114 223,823 460,937 MODESTO 1,436,679 2,148,524 843,540 1,921,167 10,000 6,359,910 6,166,282 12,526,192 NEWMAN 80,991 121,121 52,083 108,304 3,000 365,498 347,617 713,115 OAKDALE 151,869 227,117 93,462 203,083 5,000 680,531 651,828 1,332,359 PATTERSON 169,108 252,898 103,526 226,136 6,000 757,667 725,818 1,483,485 RIVERBANK 170,559 255,068 104,373 228,077 6,000 764,077 732,047 1,496,124 TURLOCK 472,120 706,046 280,426 631,332 7,500 2,097,425 2,026,359 4,123,784WATERFORD 59,941 89,640 39,794 80,155 2,000 271,530 257,269 528,798

SUTTER COUNTY
LIVE OAK 63,138 94,421 40,210 84,429 2,000 284,198 270,989 555,187 YUBA CITY 688,781 460,575 263,108 615,894 7,500 2,035,859 1,976,807 4,012,666

TEHAMA COUNTY
CORNING 54,051 80,832 35,124 72,278 2,000 244,285 231,988 476,273 RED BLUFF 96,805 144,770 59,111 129,450 3,000 433,136 415,491 848,627 TEHAMA 2,837 4,243 6,392 3,794 1,000 18,266 12,177 30,443

TRINITY COUNTY
15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 15 of 16 Attachment C

TULARE COUNTY
DINUBA 170,134 254,432 97,041 227,508 6,000 755,116 730,223 1,485,339 EXETER 67,661 101,186 41,484 90,479 3,000 303,810 290,406 594,216 FARMERSVILLE 101,597 67,936 41,632 90,846 3,000 305,011 291,584 596,596 LINDSAY 124,405 83,188 49,901 111,241 3,000 371,735 357,045 728,780 PORTERVILLE 621,998 415,919 230,296 556,178 7,500 1,831,891 1,785,140 3,617,031 TULARE 713,701 477,239 263,542 638,177 7,500 2,100,159 2,048,329 4,148,488 VISALIA 960,845 1,436,925 525,735 1,284,869 10,000 4,218,375 4,123,986 8,342,361 WOODLAKE 78,261 52,331 33,172 69,979 2,000 235,743 224,609 460,352

TUOLUMNE COUNTY
SONORA 34,014 50,867 33,782 45,484 2,000 166,147 145,989 312,135

VENTURA COUNTY
CAMARILLO 462,667 691,910 300,384 618,692 7,500 2,081,153 1,985,786 4,066,939 FILLMORE 111,364 166,542 75,947 148,919 4,000 506,771 477,977 984,748 MOORPARK 236,783 354,103 156,073 316,632 6,000 1,069,592 1,016,280 2,085,871 OJAI 50,259 75,161 36,909 67,208 2,000 231,537 215,714 447,251 OXNARD 1,971,903 1,318,575 847,199 1,763,236 10,000 5,910,912 5,659,377 11,570,289 PORT HUENEME 215,718 144,246 96,955 192,890 5,000 654,809 619,111 1,273,921 SAN BUENAVENTURA 719,631 1,076,193 464,551 962,310 10,000 3,232,684 3,088,683 6,321,367 SANTA PAULA 206,959 309,503 137,020 276,752 6,000 936,234 888,277 1,824,511 SIMI VALLEY 825,006 1,233,780 531,872 1,103,221 10,000 3,703,879 3,540,958 7,244,837 THOUSAND OAKS 1,239,910 829,105 534,490 1,108,702 10,000 3,722,207 3,558,551 7,280,758

YOLO COUNTY
DAVIS 427,693 639,605 286,733 571,922 7,500 1,933,454 1,835,673 3,769,127 WEST SACRAMENTO 362,188 541,645 243,553 484,328 7,500 1,639,215 1,554,527 3,193,742 WINTERS 52,436 78,417 39,366 70,119 2,000 242,338 225,057 467,395 WOODLAND 402,851 602,455 270,357 538,703 7,500 1,821,866 1,729,051 3,550,917

YUBA COUNTY
MARYSVILLE 86,038 128,668 46,017 115,052 3,000 378,776 369,278 748,054 WHEATLAND 26,228 39,223 17,365 35,073 1,000 118,888 112,571 231,459 Statewide Total $ 218,626,500 326,951,500 $ 130,324,066 $ 298,737,000 $ 2,724,000 $ 977,363,066 $ 938,353,500 $ 1,915,716,566 $ Notes:

1. The Highway Users Tax is also known as the "Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax", the "Gasoline Excise Tax" and "Article XIX Revenues."2. Rolling Hills has no public streets and is therefore not eligible for HUTA or RMRA allocations.3. Str&HwysCode §§ 2103, 2105, 2106, 2107 and RMRA amounts are paid monthly. Includes special payments for snow removal.4. Str&HwysCode § 2107.5 amounts are typically paid by the State Controller once per year in July. 15 January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 16 of 16 Attachment C

ATTACHMENT C
Local Streets and Roads - Projected FY2025-26 Revenues
Based on State Dept of Finance statewide revenue projections Estimated January 2026 TOTAL Road Maintnc
Sec2103 (2) Sec2104 Sec2105 Sec2106 HUTA Rehab Acct
ALAMEDA COUNTY 14, 9,448,584 6,747,060 878,316 450,174 31,524,134 26,097,421 57,621,555 ALPINE COUNTY 182,626 136,703 289,606 20,966 629,901 504,422 1,134,323 AMADOR COUNTY 931,241 575,397 785,227 212,189 2,504,054 2,572,129 5,076,183 BUTTE COUNTY 2, 3,066,522 1,894,748 657,676 443,457 8,062,403 8,469,874 16,532,277 CALAVERAS COUNTY 1, 1,411,052 871,863 106,765 360,963 3,750,643 3,897,391 7,648,034 COLUSA COUNTY 1,085,759 670,871 613,553 124,423 2,494,606 2,998,917 5,493,523 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 12, 7,982,250 5,755,827 086,933 989,597 26,814,607 22,047,339 48,861,946 DEL NORTE COUNTY 555,537 343,256 350,702 118,863 1,368,358 1,534,419 2,902,777 EL DORADO COUNTY 3, 2,976,706 2,103,531 873,217 905,747 9,859,201 8,221,799 18,081,000 FRESNO COUNTY 10, 10,448,018 6,455,639 609,625 1,308,739 28,822,021 28,857,904 57,679,925 GLENN COUNTY 1,327,540 755,416 820,263 149,849 3,053,068 3,666,727 6,719,795 HUMBOLDT COUNTY 2,490,628 1,798,993 1,538,913 424,366 6,252,900 6,879,228 13,132,128 IMPERIAL COUNTY 4,706,234 2,612,878 2,907,895 466,106 10,693,113 12,998,832 23,691,945 INYO COUNTY 1,555,199 969,928 960,929 134,632 3,620,688 4,295,530 7,916,218 KERN COUNTY 9,581,174 9,406,668 5,920,032 2,102,164 27,010,038 26,463,640 53,473,678 KINGS COUNTY 2,020,545 1,525,189 1,248,458 257,062 5,051,254 5,580,838 10,632,092 LAKE COUNTY 1,382,532 1,072,538 854,241 353,189 3,662,500 3,818,617 7,481,117 LASSEN COUNTY 1,334,091 938,437 824,310 134,458 3,231,296 3,684,819 6,916,115 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 56,992,981 88,956,483 40,409,135 2,848,095 189,206,694 157,417,218 346,623,912 MADERA COUNTY 2,958,510 1,931,165 1,828,009 555,154 7,272,838 8,171,541 15,444,379 MARIN COUNTY 2,157,503 2,784,532 1,365,388 317,462 6,624,885 5,959,122 12,584,007 MARIPOSA COUNTY 885,452 540,863 547,104 141,540 2,114,959 2,445,658 4,560,617 MENDOCINO COUNTY 2,036,277 1,380,019 1,258,178 417,352 5,091,826 5,624,290 10,716,116 MERCED COUNTY 3,950,802 3,029,766 2,441,128 634,854 10,056,550 10,912,295 20,968,845 MODOC COUNTY 1,307,289 868,742 807,750 67,634 3,051,415 3,610,791 6,662,206 MONO COUNTY 958,656 778,477 592,336 32,304 2,361,773 2,647,851 5,009,624 MONTEREY COUNTY 4,387,465 4,789,425 2,710,934 965,265 12,853,089 12,118,379 24,971,468 NAPA COUNTY 1,505,119 1,695,203 929,985 333,534 4,463,841 4,157,207 8,621,048 NEVADA COUNTY 1,586,328 1,797,533 980,163 329,890 4,693,914 4,381,512 9,075,426 ORANGE COUNTY 20,576,812 33,776,695 15,234,287 833,730 70,421,524 56,834,095 127,255,619 PLACER COUNTY 4,509,566 6,594,634 3,310,850 927,209 15,342,259 12,455,628 27,797,887 PLUMAS COUNTY 1,070,832 1,049,568 661,647 161,798 2,943,845 2,957,686 5,901,531 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 18,146,510 25,836,626 12,190,427 1,858,522 58,032,085 50,121,491 108,153,576 SACRAMENTO COUNTY 12,533,964 16,435,418 8,268,455 2,349,495 39,587,332 34,619,382 74,206,714 SAN BENITO COUNTY 1,073,461 899,569 663,272 177,106 2,813,408 2,964,948 5,778,356 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 16,755,904 23,676,807 11,130,076 1,609,355 53,172,142 46,280,572 99,452,714 SAN DIEGO COUNTY 23,110,215 34,806,103 16,277,305 2,173,930 76,367,553 63,831,470 140,199,023 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY 4,333,502 5,340,404 2,677,591 12,361,097 9,600 11,969,329 24,330,426 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 7,103,008 8,629,128 4,388,819 838,171 20,959,126 19,618,834 40,577,960 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY 3,851,182 3,729,037 2,379,575 714,474 10,674,268 10,637,141 21,311,409 SAN MATEO COUNTY 5,160,624 8,009,984 3,661,437 308,351 17,140,396 14,253,879 31,394,275 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY 3,876,085 4,838,781 2,522,396 891,793 12,129,055 10,705,924 22,834,979 SANTA CLARA COUNTY 11,965,160 18,777,029 8,410,497 330,586 39,483,272 33,048,319 72,531,591 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY 2,481,310 3,013,353 1,627,663 684,496 7,806,822 6,853,490 14,660,312 SHASTA COUNTY 2,951,012 2,716,673 1,823,376 441,117 7,932,178 8,150,831 16,083,009 SIERRA COUNTY 524,603 434,640 324,142 36,586 1,319,971 1,448,977 2,768,948 SISKIYOU COUNTY 2,113,904 1,558,599 1,306,143 215,979 5,194,625 5,838,701 11,033,326 SOLANO COUNTY 3,642,067 4,933,095 2,263,753 209,873 11,048,788 10,059,557 21,108,345 SONOMA COUNTY 5,363,857 6,238,090 3,314,229 1,020,063 15,936,239 14,815,219 30,751,458 STANISLAUS COUNTY 5,517,383 6,164,357 3,409,090 785,859 15,876,689 15,239,264 31,115,953 SUTTER COUNTY 1,683,330 1,290,272 1,040,099 227,215 4,240,916 4,649,433 8,890,349 TEHAMA COUNTY 1,859,553 1,024,824 1,148,983 277,039 4,310,399 5,136,169 9,446,568 TRINITY COUNTY 980,307 696,843 605,714 96,510 2,379,374 2,707,654 5,087,028 TULARE COUNTY 6,669,753 5,194,002 4,121,118 813,866 16,798,739 18,422,164 35,220,903 TUOLUMNE COUNTY 1,305,415 1,129,133 806,592 353,320 3,594,460 3,605,615 7,200,075 VENTURA COUNTY 6,277,691 9,476,499 4,468,208 674,719 20,897,117 17,339,270 38,236,387 YOLO COUNTY 2,409,460 2,510,113 1,488,761 195,892 6,604,226 6,655,039 13,259,265 YUBA COUNTY 1,386,910 1,010,847 856,946 334,731 3,589,434 3,830,709 7,420,143 Total $ 320,446,000 $ 414,674,998 $ 214,881,497 $ 35,151,413 $ 985,153,908 $ 885,086,500 $ 1,870,240,408 Notes:

Highway Users Tax Acct
(1) Streets & Hwys Code TOTAL
Annual

1. The Highway Users Tax is also known as the "Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax", the "Gasoline Excise Tax" and "Article XIX Revenues." January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 1 of 1
Attachment C

ATTACHMENT D
Local Streets and Roads - Projected FY2026-27 Revenues
Based on State Dept of Finance statewide revenue projections Estimated January 2026 TOTAL Road Maintnc
Sec2103 (2) Sec2104 Sec2105 Sec2106 HUTA Rehab Acct
ALAMEDA COUNTY 15, 9,640,403 6,865,780 147,286 457,733 32,111,203 27,668,037 59,779,240 ALPINE COUNTY 186,334 136,790 289,739 21,168 634,030 534,780 1,168,810 AMADOR COUNTY 950,146 585,163 798,229 214,800 2,548,338 2,726,927 5,275,265 BUTTE COUNTY 2, 3,128,777 1,926,907 703,902 445,851 8,205,436 8,979,615 17,185,050 CALAVERAS COUNTY 1, 1,439,699 886,661 123,899 367,453 3,817,712 4,131,947 7,949,659 COLUSA COUNTY 1,107,802 682,257 615,257 126,559 2,531,875 3,179,400 5,711,275 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 12, 8,144,301 5,865,824 304,608 1,027,641 27,342,374 23,374,210 50,716,583 DEL NORTE COUNTY 566,815 349,082 356,611 121,241 1,393,749 1,626,765 3,020,514 EL DORADO COUNTY 3, 3,037,138 2,131,770 923,074 922,159 10,014,141 8,716,610 18,730,751 FRESNO COUNTY 10, 10,660,128 6,565,208 797,538 1,323,275 29,346,149 30,594,654 59,940,803 GLENN COUNTY 1,354,491 757,550 834,185 148,913 3,095,140 3,887,401 6,982,540 HUMBOLDT COUNTY 2,541,191 1,829,827 1,565,033 430,160 6,366,211 7,293,239 13,659,450 IMPERIAL COUNTY 4,801,777 2,659,856 2,957,250 476,032 10,894,915 13,781,139 24,676,053 INYO COUNTY 1,586,771 971,569 977,238 136,786 3,672,365 4,554,047 8,226,412 KERN COUNTY 9,775,685 9,573,968 6,020,510 2,083,897 27,454,060 28,056,296 55,510,356 KINGS COUNTY 2,061,565 1,552,461 1,269,648 266,241 5,149,914 5,916,709 11,066,623 LAKE COUNTY 1,410,600 1,091,570 868,740 359,989 3,730,899 4,048,433 7,779,331 LASSEN COUNTY 1,361,175 940,424 838,301 137,041 3,276,941 3,906,582 7,183,523 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 58,150,017 90,563,051 41,127,851 2,915,164 192,756,084 166,891,029 359,647,114 MADERA COUNTY 3,018,572 1,965,299 1,859,035 562,074 7,404,980 8,663,327 16,068,307 MARIN COUNTY 2,201,303 2,834,278 1,389,576 324,046 6,749,204 6,317,758 13,066,962 MARIPOSA COUNTY 903,428 542,401 556,390 143,881 2,146,100 2,592,845 4,738,945 MENDOCINO COUNTY 2,077,616 1,403,930 1,279,533 425,236 5,186,315 5,962,776 11,149,090 MERCED COUNTY 4,031,008 3,084,298 2,482,560 643,540 10,241,406 11,569,027 21,810,433 MODOC COUNTY 1,333,828 869,530 821,459 68,664 3,093,482 3,828,099 6,921,581 MONO COUNTY 978,118 779,449 602,389 32,680 2,392,636 2,807,206 5,199,843 MONTEREY COUNTY 4,476,537 4,875,504 2,756,946 976,960 13,085,946 12,847,698 25,933,644 NAPA COUNTY 1,535,675 1,725,378 945,770 341,931 4,548,754 4,407,399 8,956,153 NEVADA COUNTY 1,618,533 1,824,830 996,799 332,173 4,772,335 4,645,203 9,417,539 ORANGE COUNTY 20,994,550 34,388,306 15,508,838 861,251 71,752,945 60,254,531 132,007,476 PLACER COUNTY 4,601,116 6,692,561 3,359,497 943,136 15,596,311 13,205,242 28,801,553 PLUMAS COUNTY 1,092,571 1,051,396 672,877 164,368 2,981,212 3,135,688 6,116,900 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 18,514,910 26,302,445 12,412,009 1,908,423 59,137,787 53,137,944 112,275,731 SACRAMENTO COUNTY 12,788,421 16,732,838 8,412,759 2,388,261 40,322,278 36,702,874 77,025,152 SAN BENITO COUNTY 1,095,254 915,408 674,529 179,928 2,865,120 3,143,387 6,008,507 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 17,096,072 24,089,166 11,321,600 1,643,347 54,150,186 49,065,867 103,216,052 SAN DIEGO COUNTY 23,579,384 35,434,281 16,563,958 2,213,425 77,791,049 67,673,027 145,464,076 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY 4,421,478 5,436,709 2,723,037 12,590,824 9,600 12,689,677 25,280,501 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 7,247,209 8,785,111 4,463,309 858,257 21,353,886 20,799,551 42,153,437 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY 3,929,366 3,795,696 2,419,963 720,016 10,865,041 11,277,314 22,142,355 SAN MATEO COUNTY 5,265,392 8,154,750 3,729,107 321,021 17,470,269 15,111,717 32,581,986 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY 3,954,775 4,925,395 2,569,099 913,829 12,363,098 11,350,236 23,713,334 SANTA CLARA COUNTY 12,208,069 19,116,856 8,557,897 334,123 40,216,946 35,037,260 75,254,206 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY 2,531,684 3,066,486 1,654,858 694,790 7,947,817 7,265,953 15,213,770 SHASTA COUNTY 3,010,922 2,762,289 1,854,324 448,549 8,076,084 8,641,371 16,717,454 SIERRA COUNTY 535,253 434,974 329,644 37,100 1,336,971 1,536,181 2,873,152 SISKIYOU COUNTY 2,156,820 1,562,123 1,328,312 219,057 5,266,311 6,190,090 11,456,401 SOLANO COUNTY 3,716,007 5,022,112 2,303,155 212,658 11,253,932 10,664,969 21,918,901 SONOMA COUNTY 5,472,751 6,349,824 3,370,480 1,032,791 16,225,847 15,706,841 31,932,688 STANISLAUS COUNTY 5,629,394 6,275,683 3,466,951 796,300 16,168,328 16,156,406 32,324,734 SUTTER COUNTY 1,717,504 1,313,287 1,057,752 231,165 4,319,708 4,929,249 9,248,957 TEHAMA COUNTY 1,897,304 1,028,923 1,168,485 281,201 4,375,913 5,445,278 9,821,191 TRINITY COUNTY 1,000,209 697,857 615,995 98,051 2,412,112 2,870,608 5,282,720 TULARE COUNTY 6,805,159 5,286,131 4,191,065 827,866 17,110,221 19,530,862 36,641,083 TUOLUMNE COUNTY 1,331,916 1,146,072 820,282 359,861 3,658,131 3,822,611 7,480,742 VENTURA COUNTY 6,405,137 9,646,708 4,546,540 686,982 21,285,366 18,382,796 39,668,163 YOLO COUNTY 2,458,376 2,555,230 1,514,030 198,902 6,726,537 7,055,558 13,782,095 YUBA COUNTY 1,415,066 1,028,069 871,491 341,385 3,656,011 4,061,252 7,717,263 Total $ 326,951,500 $ 421,902,000 $ 218,626,500 $ 35,758,934 $ 1,003,238,934 $ 938,353,500 $ 1,941,592,434 Notes:

TOTAL
Annual

1. The Highway Users Tax is also known as the "Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax", the "Gasoline Excise Tax" and "Article XIX Revenues." Highway Users Tax Acct
(1) Streets & Hwys Code
January 2026 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 1 of 1
Attachment C

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brett Fulgoni, Director of Public Works
DATE: May 5, 2026
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Memorandum of Understanding with the County of Santa Barbara for Orcutt and Tanglewood Transit Stop Furniture Improvements and Authorization to Purchase Bus Stop Furniture from Tolar Manufacturing Company
Description:

The City Council will consider adopting a Resolution approving a Memorandum of Understanding with the County of Santa Barbara for bus stop improvements in Orcutt and Tanglewood, and authorize the purchase of furniture from Tolar Manufacturing Company.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Adopt a Resolution approving a Memorandum of Understanding with the County of Santa Barbara for transit stop improvements in Orcutt and Tanglewood; and

2. Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute the Memorandum of Understanding; and

3. Authorize staff to purchase bus stop furniture from Tolar Manufacturing Company.

BACKGROUND:

The County of Santa Barbara (County) and the City of Santa Maria (City) have developed a partnership to improve transit stops served by Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) within the unincorporated communities of Orcutt and Tanglewood. Under this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the County will perform ADA-compliant concrete flatwork and site preparation. However, because the County is not a transit operator, it does not have access to the same consortium contracts that the City has access too.

Therefore, in order to ensure bus amenity uniformity, the County will transfer $100,230 to the City for the Transit Division to procure and install these amenities through its existing consortium contract California Association for Coordinated Transportation (CalACT)/Morongo Basin Transit Authority (MBTA) for the procurement of Tolar Manufacturing bus stop amenities which are the adopted City Standards (see Attachment C).
2 DISCUSSION:

SMRT currently operates five routes (5, 6, 8, 12X and 30) serving Orcutt and Tanglewood.

While these stops are within the County’s right-of-way, they are served by SMRT. To enhance the passenger experience, the project includes:
 County Responsibilities: Construction of ADA-compliant concrete boarding pads, bench footings, and landscaping modifications.
 City Responsibilities: Procurement and installation of 13 benches and 5 shelters.  Procurement Rationale: As a municipal transit operator, the City has access to the CalACT /MBTA joint procurement contract, which provides competitive, prevetted pricing for Tolar Manufacturing products and consistency with other bus stops already equipped with Tolar stop amenities. The County is ineligible for this contract and is therefore providing funding to the City to leverage this costsaving mechanism.

Alternative(s)
Reject the MOU: This however could then require SMRT, as the operator, to invests City transit funds to address ADA improvement in County areas. The MOU remains the most fiscally responsible and efficient method by leveraging the County’s participation and the City’s specialized procurement access.

Fiscal Considerations
The cost for installation of these bus stop amenities is accounted for in the Transit Division’s Bus Stop Improvement cost center (with a budget of $500,000 for FY 2026/27) and is performed the City’s Transit Operations & Maintenance contractor, RATPDev, under our Bus Stop Maintenance agreement either by performing the work themselves or by outsourcing the work and passing through the costs.
 Furniture Cost: $90,285 for the units themselves.
 Additional Costs: The remaining funds cover procurement fees (2.5%), sales tax (7.75%), freight, and installation hardware.
 Maintenance: Following installation, the City will be responsible for ongoing cleaning, graffiti removal, and routine repairs of the furniture Impact on the Community
Entering into this MOU with County of Santa Barbara benefits SMRT riders from the unincorporated communities of Orcutt and Tanglewood by upgrading their transit stops to ADA standards, ensuring safe and accessible boarding for seniors and individuals with mobility challenges, which lies outside the City of Santa Maria’s sphere to unilaterally perform. By installing new shelters and seating, the project provides some weather protection and comfort, which promotes public health and encourages increased ridership across the SMRT system. Furthermore, this partnership fosters agency-agnostic equity, ensuring that high-quality transit amenities are distributed to regional riders, regardless 3 of whether they reside in the City or unincorporated County areas while preserving bus stop amenity uniformity.

ATTACHMENT(S)
A. Resolution
B. Tolar Furniture Quote
C. Furniture Specifications
D. Indemnification and Insurance for Construction and Contracts E. List of SB County Selected Bus Stops
F. MOU
Attachment A

Page 1 of 2 ends

Santa Maria City CouncilMay 5, 2026

Santa Maria City Council
May 5, 2026