Title
Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) Fund in Fiscal Year 2026/27 Programming
End
FileID
File ID: 2026-00994
End
Location
Location: District 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8
End
Recommendation
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution identifying projects to be funded with Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) in Fiscal Year 2026/27.
End
Contact
Contact: Jennifer Donlon Wyant, Mobility and Sustainability Division Manager, (916) 808-5913, jdonlonwyant@cityofsacramento.org; Josh Werner, Development Project Manager, (916) 808-8158, jwerner@cityofsacramento.org; Department of Public Works
End
Presenter
Presenter: None
End
Attachments
Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-Resolution RMRA FY2026/27
3-Exhibit A - RMRA List of Projects FY2026/27
End
Description/Analysis
IssueDetail
Issue Detail: Pursuant to Senate Bill 1 (SB1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) requires that before receiving an apportionment of formula-based Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Act (RMRA) revenue from the State Controller, the City must annually submit to the CTC a list of projects proposed to be funded in whole or part with these funds by July 1. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2026/27, the City is estimated to receive approximately $14.8 million in RMRA funds, which is programmed annually in the Capital Improvement Program.
Since available funding covers less than 20 percent of what is identified as needed, resurfacing activities have been prioritized based on criteria related to the Transportation Priorities Plan. The list also focuses on projects that achieve multiple objectives, including those that support improvements to address safety, support bicycle and pedestrian mobility, serve under-resourced areas, leverage or support external funding, and improve streets with higher traffic volumes and transit service. Additional details on this analysis is provided in the Background section.
The roadways listed below and described more fully in Exhibit A are proposed to be funded in whole or in part using the balance of prior year RMRA funding and anticipated FY2026/27 revenue. The plan may be amended by the City, if necessary, at any time without state action.
§ Fruitridge Road Improvements, Phase 2 (T15033600)
§ Florin Road Vision Zero Safety Project, Phase 2 (T15215800)
§ Central City Mobility Project (under construction) (T15195000)
§ Broadway Vision Zero Safety Project (R15210000)
§ Florin-Perkins Roadway Rehabilitation (R15200000)
§ Folsom Boulevard Safety Improvement Project (T15235500)
§ T Street Safety Improvements: 34th Street to Stockton Blvd (R15210000)
§ Broadway Complete Streets Project, Phase 3 (T15245000)
§ Lampasas Avenue and Rio Linda Boulevard Safety Project (T1520550)
§ Franklin Boulevard Gap Closure Project (R15200000)
§ Franklin Boulevard Complete Streets Project Phases 1 and 2 (under construction) (T15165500)
§ Pedestrian Crossings Enhancements (Main Avenue and Marysville Boulevard) (S15125500)
§ Floodgate Modernization and Resilience Project (T15255200)
§ Carlson Drive Post-Construction Resurfacing (R15200000)
§ Marysville Boulevard Quick Build Safety Project (T15255300)
§ Pedestrian Crossing at R Street and 29th/30th Streets (T15225100)
The following projects will use this funding for preliminary design only; this effort is intended to position these larger projects for future grant applications:
§ Marysville Boulevard Vision Zero Safety Project (T15216300)
§ Central City Mobility Project Phase 2 (R15200000)
§ Elvas Avenue Cycle Track and Roadway Rehabilitation Project (R15200000)
The following project is a shared project with Sacramento County, as the roadway segment crosses from the city limits into the unincorporated county area. Funding will be proportionately shared between agencies. This project will be delivered by Sacramento County.
• Fair Oaks Boulevard, Howe Avenue to east of University Avenue
• Ethan Way, Arden Way to El Camino Ave
• Auburn Way, Winding Way to Myrtle Ave
Most projects require more than one fiscal year to complete, and complex projects-particularly those that include safety improvements, road diets, new buffered bikeways, or leveraged grant funding-may take multiple years from initial planning through delivery. Many projects included in last year’s programming are being carried forward into FY 2026/27, including those that will be under construction or nearing completion this year.
End
PolicyConsiderations
Policy Considerations: The recommendations meet the eligibility and outcomes specified in the State legislation governing the use of these funds. Recommended projects are consistent with the General Plan, Community and Specific Plans, Active Transportation Plan, Vision Zero Action Plan, and other transportation planning documents, as well as those included the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.
Potential new projects are evaluated based on the criteria in the Transportation Priorities Plan (TPP).
End
EconomicImpacts
Economic Impacts: These will be analyzed when construction contracts are awarded.
End
EnvironmentalConsiderations
Environmental Considerations:
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): Programming funding is an administrative activity and is not considered a project under CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 Cal. Code Reg. §15000 et seq.) § 15378 (b)(4). All projects using this funding will undergo appropriate environmental review prior to construction.
End
Sustainability
Sustainability: The City uses sustainable pavement mixes, incorporating a mix of recycled materials when possible. In connection with pavement rehabilitation, the City will incorporate improved accessibility, active transportation improvements, and other complete streets components wherever feasible. Restoring roads before they fail reduces construction time which results in less air pollution from heavy equipment and less water pollution from site run-off.
End
Commission/Committee Action
Commission/Committee Action: Not applicable.
End
RationaleforRecommendation
Rationale for Recommendation: The CTC requires a resolution identifying annual plans for anticipated RMRA funds in order for the City to receive its ongoing monthly apportionment of funds. With the current conditions of the city’s roadway network, the annual funding apportionment is about 17% the funding that is needed to maintain the average citywide pavement quality at its current level (fair), and only about 10% of what is needed to bring the City’s pavement into a state of good repair.
Given the scarcity of funding relative to the need, these recommendations focus on major arterials and collectors that carry higher volumes of traffic and projects that also advance other City priorities, including improvements to corridors on the High Injury Network identified in the Vision Zero Action Plan, other safety efforts, traffic calming, or active transportation improvements. Many of these projects use this funding to leverage state and federal grants. Given the complexity of these projects, most take multiple years to complete. Projects that were included in previous years’ plans but are not yet completed are carried over to the proposed FY2026/27 plan.
End
FinancialConsiderations
Financial Considerations: Based on available projections, the City is estimated to receive $14.8 million in RMRA funds (Fund 2036) in FY2026/27. This is budgeted as part of the proposed FY2026/27 Capital Improvement Program, primarily in the Transportation Corridor Program (R15200000).
Total costs for the projects listed in Exhibit A are estimated at approximately $90 million; approximately $35 million in RMRA funds will be needed for these projects, including past expenditures and anticipated needs in future years. Most of the other funding will come from state and federal grants. No contracts will be awarded unless funding is available to cover contract and staff costs.
End
LocalBusinessEnterprise
Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not applicable.
End
Background
Background: State Requirements: Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, was signed into law on April 28, 2017. Beginning on November 1, 2017, the State Controller began depositing revenues from the increased fuel taxes into the newly created Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA). A percentage of this additional RMRA funding is apportioned by formula to eligible cities and counties pursuant to Streets and Highways Code (SHC) Section 2032(h) for basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety projects on the local streets and roads system.
RMRA funds must be used for expenditures on basic road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, and on critical safety projects. Eligible uses include the following:
§ Road maintenance and rehabilitation
§ Safety projects
§ Railroad grade separations
§ Complete streets components (including active transportation improvements, pedestrian and bicycle safety projects, transit facilities, and drainage or stormwater capture projects conducted in conjunction with other eligible work)
§ Traffic control devices
§ Funds may also be used to satisfy a match requirement to obtain state or federal funds for projects.
SB 1 emphasizes the importance of accountability and transparency in the delivery of California’s transportation programs.
Prior to receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds from the State Controller in a fiscal year, a City or County must submit to the CTC, before the stated deadline, a list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds. The list of projects must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement [SHC § 2034(a)(1)].
The project list does not limit the flexibility of an eligible City or County to fund projects in accordance with local needs and priorities so long as the projects are consistent with RMRA priorities as outlined in SHC section 2030(b) [SHC § 2034(a)(1)].
The CTC will report to the State Controller the Cities and Counties that have submitted a list of projects as described in SHC section 2034(a)(1) and that are therefore eligible to receive an apportionment of RMRA funds for the applicable fiscal year [SHC § 2034(a)(2)]. The deadline for submission to the CTC for fiscal year FY25/26 is June 30, 2025. The State Controller, upon receipt of the report from the CTC, shall apportion RMRA funds to eligible Cities and Counties pursuant to SHC section 2032(h) [SHC § 2034(a)(2)].
For each fiscal year in which RMRA funds are received and expended, Cities and Counties must submit documentation to the CTC that includes a description and location of each completed project, the amount of funds expended on the project, the completion date, and the estimated useful life of the improvement [SHC § 2034(b)].
Roadway Conditions
The City prepares a report every two years that assesses its overall pavement conditions and estimates funding needs. The most recent published report is from July 2025. The City is in the process of updating its Pavement Conditions Report and is expected to be available later this Summer.
The City’s current Pavement Condition Index (PCI), which measures pavement conditions on a scale of 1 to 100 reports a citywide average PCI of 60, which is considered “fair.” In 2025, the citywide deferred maintenance backlog was estimated at approximately $419 million, an increase of 41% since 2023. With only 15% to 20% of the annual funding needed for adequate rehabilitation, the unfunded backlog is expected to continue to increase exponentially. It is estimated to reach about $1.2 billion in ten years with a projected average citywide PCI of 42.
The primary mechanism to address street maintenance has been the state gas tax. In 2017, the State increased the statewide gas tax for the first time in nearly 25 years in response to a statewide crisis in poor pavement conditions on state highways and local streets throughout the state. With the gas tax formerly set at a flat rate that was not indexed to inflation, by 2017 the amount of gas tax generated statewide had about half the spending power it had decades earlier, resulting in gradual disinvestment in pavement maintenance. Many counties and jurisdictions implemented local funding measures to support pavement maintenance to help offset some of the loss in spending power. Sacramento County voters approved a countywide transportation sales tax measure (Measure A), which provides additional funding for street maintenance among other transportation expenditures.
The City of Sacramento has some of the oldest roads in the state, with a roadway network developed over the last 150-plus years. Decades of inadequate investment have resulted in thousands of miles of needed roadway rehabilitation and overall pavement conditions that are in a continued decline.
The additional funding from the 2017 gas tax increase may have been sufficient for communities with newer streets or those that were able to devote sufficient local or federal funding for pavement rehabilitation to offset reduced gas tax availability. For those communities, the new revenue helped alter the trajectory of deteriorating PCI and allow for gradual improvement. Unfortunately, for many of those communities with older infrastructure that did not have sufficient street maintenance funding in the decades before 2017, pavement conditions have declined to a level that requires more annual funding than is currently available from the increased gas tax revenues or is foreseeable from other local, state, and federal sources in order to alleviate the ongoing decline in pavement conditions.
The amount needed annually by the City to arrest the steep decline is five times the amount it currently receives. The City dedicates an estimated $14 to $15 million annually to roadway rehabilitation, so it would require an additional $136.5 million annually over the next 10 years to bring the roadways into a state of good repair (average PCI of 75).
Roadway Selection
With limited funding compared to the need, it is necessary to prioritize where the funding will be spent. Other than those recently constructed, nearly every roadway in the City would benefit from some kind of pavement treatment. To identify which roadways should be selected for treatment, City staff use the criteria in the Transportation Priorities Plan (TPP) with the intent to combine pavement rehabilitation with other needed corridor improvements, including safety and active transportation improvements. Wherever possible, funding is used to leverage or support grant funds or other efforts or to complete preliminary design efforts to make projects more attractive for future grant funding efforts.
To apply funding to reach the highest number of users, roadways were selected that carry the highest traffic volumes, particularly where safety or active transportation improvements are key elements. As a result, arterials and collectors were prioritized over residential streets. Roadways with the highest costs in frequent emergency repairs may be selected as rehabilitation can reduce local costs associated with having to frequently fill potholes or make other repairs.
In order to maximize the benefit to those roadways with higher volumes and those that support grant efforts, no new residential neighborhood streets are included in this fiscal year’s plan. Based on adopted criteria, it is expected that this trend will continue.
Residential streets comprise over 60% of the city’s total lane miles, and other than new development, almost all of the residential streets in the City warrant some kind of pavement treatment, from preventative maintenance in newer areas to many older neighborhoods with very aged pavement, as well as many neighborhoods with impacts from a variety of underground utility work (i.e., gas, electric, water, sewer, and telecommunication agencies and companies installing or repairing underground infrastructure). While there is clearly community demand and an identified need for repairs on residential roadways, there is just not adequate funding to address residential road repair. The estimated need to bring just the city’s residential streets into a state of good repair is over $83 million annually for the next ten years. Even if the city were to alter its criteria and choose to focus pavement rehabilitation only on residential streets and ignore pavement rehabilitation on its more heavily travelled corridors, it could still only address one to three residential neighborhoods per year with available funding.
End