What Sacramento’s ONE HEAT Report Means for Heat Resilience Implementation

7.4 minute read

September 25, 2026

Extreme heat is no longer a future challenge for California communities. It is a present-day infrastructure, public health, and economic issue that local agencies are already confronting. Public agencies throughout California now face the complex challenge of determining how to address and manage extreme heat effectively, translate policies into realistic and implementable actions, and secure sustainable funding for the measures needed to protect their communities.

I had the opportunity to examine that challenge as a panelist for ONE HEAT: Advancing Heat Resilience in Partnership with the City of Sacramento and Sacramento County, a Technical Assistance Panel (TAP) convened by the Urban Land Institute (ULI). I brought more than two decades of experience in municipal and district finance to the discussion, adding a practical financial perspective focused not only on which strategies could reduce heat, but also on how the City of Sacramento (City) and Sacramento County (County) could fund, implement, and maintain those strategies over time.

That funding and implementation lens matters. Local agencies are already balancing aging infrastructure, staffing constraints, regulatory requirements, housing goals, growing capital needs, and funding gaps. A heat resilience strategy is only actionable when it can be translated into a defined project or program with an accountable owner, an appropriate revenue source, a feasible delivery structure, and a plan for ongoing operations and maintenance.

The Problem We Were Asked to Address

The City and County asked our panel to consider how the built environment can either intensify or reduce extreme heat. The assignment extended beyond design. We were asked to examine development and land use strategies, regulatory pathways, incentives and funding, private-sector participation, and the unequal burden that heat places on underserved communities.

From a municipal finance standpoint, this is a cross-cutting infrastructure problem. Heat affects streets and transit stops, parks and tree canopy, public buildings, energy use, housing conditions, economic activity, and public health. Yet responsibility for those systems is divided among departments, jurisdictions, utilities, property owners, and community partners. Funding is often divided in the same way.

The practical challenge is therefore not to find one program or one pot of money. It is to organize a portfolio of investments and match each element with the entity, authority, and revenue source best suited to deliver it.

What We Did Through ONE HEAT

Over the course of the panel, our multidisciplinary team worked with the City, County, and ULI to evaluate Sacramento's heat conditions and identify pathways from policy to implementation. We considered both near-term actions and the longer-term structures needed to coordinate investment across jurisdictional and departmental lines.

Our recommendations reflected several consistent themes:

• Treat green infrastructure as essential community infrastructure
• Use climate-responsive and performance-based design
• Expand shade, cooling infrastructure, and heat-safe public spaces
• Align land use, housing, transportation, and urban forestry goals
• Tailor solutions to neighborhood conditions and community priorities
• Strengthen public-private and interagency collaboration
• Build durable governance and funding mechanisms for implementation

For me, the central takeaway was that planning, delivery, and finance cannot be sequenced as separate conversations. Funding constraints and opportunities should shape project definition early, just as equity, community benefit, and long-term maintenance should shape the selection of a financing tool.

Moving Beyond Planning Toward Implementation

Many California communities have already established important foundations through climate action plans, general plans, hazard mitigation plans, and sustainability frameworks. As agencies move from long-range planning toward implementation, the focus increasingly shifts to practical pathways for delivering resilience strategies.

That means translating high-level resilience goals into:

• Fundable capital projects
• Updated development standards
• Interdepartmental coordination
• Long-term maintenance strategies
• Equitable investment programs
• Public-private partnerships
• Measurable performance outcomes

The ONE HEAT report repeatedly emphasizes the importance of coordination between planning, public works, utilities, transportation, sustainability, and finance teams. That coordination becomes especially important when communities are balancing priorities such as housing production, infrastructure modernization, economic development, and climate adaptation. The report also acknowledges that implementing resilience strategies often requires strong organizational coordination, funding strategies, and external partnerships to support long-term delivery across departments and programs. It also requires a realistic distinction between capital costs and recurring service costs. A grant may help install trees or shade structures, for example, but it may not pay for irrigation, pruning, inspections, repairs, or replacement. Those obligations need a dependable long-term home.

Funding Heat Resilience

One of the report’s most important contributions is its recognition that governance and financing must be considered alongside planning and design.

The panel recommended that the City and County explore tools such as:

• Joint Powers Authorities
• Climate Resilience Districts
• Development incentives
• Coordinated grant strategies
• Public-private partnerships
• Economic assessments
• Financing approaches tied to resilience outcomes

Building on that framework, agencies should evaluate a layered funding strategy that combines existing resources, outside funding, and locally controlled revenue. From a municipal finance perspective, potential options include:

• Existing budgets and capital improvement programs - Heat mitigation can be incorporated into planned street, park, facility, utility, and transportation projects when the scope, funding eligibility, and long-term maintenance obligations are identified early.
• Grants and partnerships - State, federal, regional, and utility grants can support planning, pilot programs, and capital improvements, particularly in communities with high vulnerability. Property owners, health systems, schools, employers, developers, and philanthropic organizations may also contribute sites, matching funds, or program support. These resources are most effective when an agency has a prioritized project pipeline and a plan for required matches and ongoing maintenance.
• Development-based funding tools - When new development creates a need for eligible public facilities, development impact fees or project-specific exactions may fund a proportionate share of the associated costs when supported by the required legal findings and analysis. Community Facilities Districts and assessment districts may also support eligible improvements and services within a defined area. These tools require careful consideration of nexus or benefit requirements, formation procedures, market feasibility, and applicable voter or property-owner approvals.
• Infrastructure and resilience districts - Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts and Climate Resilience Districts can provide a geographic and governance structure for coordinated investment. Their feasibility depends on the available revenue mechanisms, projected tax increment or other revenues, participation by affected agencies, governance arrangements, and the timing of funding.
• Utility and general revenues - Where a resilience improvement is directly connected to a utility service, an agency may evaluate whether the cost can lawfully be supported through utility rates or related charges. Investments that provide broad community benefits, particularly ongoing programs, services, and maintenance, may instead require General Fund resources or locally approved revenues.

Debt can accelerate the delivery of capital improvements, but bonds and other borrowing mechanisms are financing rather than revenue; a reliable repayment source is still required. Similarly, a Joint Powers Authority can provide valuable regional governance and coordination, but it does not generate funding by itself.

Selecting among these tools requires more than determining what is legally available. Agencies should evaluate who benefits, who should pay, how quickly revenues will become available, whether the source can fund capital costs or ongoing operations, how stable it will be over time, and whether the resulting burden is equitable. Economic and fiscal analysis can help answer those questions before a community commits to a particular structure.

Why a Neighborhood-Scale Approach Matters

Another key takeaway from the report is the importance of tailoring resilience strategies to individual neighborhoods and community conditions.

The report notes that some Sacramento neighborhoods with mature tree canopy can experience temperatures up to 15 degrees cooler than areas lacking sufficient shade and green infrastructure.

Rather than relying solely on citywide mandates, the panel recommends neighborhood-scale approaches that account for:

• Existing infrastructure conditions
• Land use patterns
• Development context
• Community priorities
• Vulnerability and equity considerations
• Existing canopy coverage and heat exposure

This localized approach reflects a broader shift in resilience planning away from one-size-fits-all solutions and toward strategies that respond to the unique needs and constraints of individual communities. At the same time, neighborhood delivery should sit within a broader city and county strategy so that communities with the greatest need are not limited to the resources they can generate locally. Equity may require regional funding, general revenues, or grant prioritization to supplement geographically based tools.

Looking Ahead

My experience on the TAP reinforced that heat resilience is both a physical planning challenge and a public finance challenge. Communities need good design and strong policy, but they also need implementable projects, sustainable revenues, accountable governance, and credible plans for ongoing maintenance.

The ONE HEAT report provides a valuable framework for approaching these issues holistically. For many agencies, the next step will be translating resilience goals into coordinated and equitable investments that can be funded, implemented, and maintained over time. When finance is incorporated from the beginning, resilience goals are more likely to become durable public improvements rather than remain unfunded plans.

Read the full ONE HEAT report from ULI Sacramento

Authors

Megan Quinn

Director / Municipal + District Finance

---