Barstow City Council
October 21, 2025

City of Barstow
San Bernardino County,
California
September 16, 2025

Table of Contents
 Overview of Measure I
 Case Study & Financing Analysis
 City’s Debt History
 Tools Available to Cities
 Rating Comparison

2. Transportation Sales Tax

1. Financing Vehicle Overview

01 Financing Vehicle Overview

City’s Debt History
General Fund
2022 Pension Bonds SBCERA Lease Agmt. Vehicle Leases
$19.7m to Refi CalPERS Obligation Refi Fire Employee Pension Cost Refurbish/New Fire Vehicles Misc Vehicle Replacement
Redevelopment
2004 Bonds 1994 Bonds 1986 Bonds
Refi 1994 Bonds Refi 1986 Bonds
$5.1m for Redev. Projects
$1.4m for Low/Mod Hsg
Refi 1984 Notes
Land-Secured
AD No. 91-1 (1992) AD No. 83-1 (1985) AD No. 81-1 (1982) AD No. 77 (1978) Virginia Way commercial
adjacent to Barstow Rd. offramp
street and utility improvements
$3.2m for sewer serving
residential/commercial near
Lenwood Rd.

Info not Available Info not Available
Wastewater
1994 COPs 1989 COPs
Refi 1989 COPs
$2.1m for WW Projects
$1.95m Original Par
Measure I
2012 TRIP Program
$9.3m towards $12.9m project improving City streets
Note: Only bolded financings are currently outstanding.

For 2026 $1,990,149 $777,388 $467,203 = $3,234,740

Overview of General Infrastructure Funding Alternatives Property Tax
(GO Election)
Special Tax
(CFD) Sales Tax Parcel Tax Transient Occupancy Tax Utility Users Tax Description
Ad-valorem
property tax
based on % of
assessed value
Special tax levied
on property tax
bill
Tax on goods and
services at the
point of purchase
Typically, a flat
tax based on
the
characteristic
of a parcel
(e.g. sq. ft.)
‘TOT’ or ‘hotel tax’
paid by transients
for occupancy in a
hotel
Tax on the use of
utility services
Voter
Approval
2/3 2/3 50% + 1 (general)
2/3 (special)
2/3 50% + 1 (general)
2/3 (special)
50% + 1 (general)
2/3 (special)
Advantages Least impact for
residents on fixed
income (assumes
lower assessed
values)
Flexibility on
what areas are
included; options
for how much tax
to levy different
types of property
Lower approval;
unrestricted
revenue source;
shifts burdens to
consumers
Relatively
stable revenue
source
Sometimes called
“painless tax” -
paid by visitors
rather than locals
Historically, has
been a stable
revenue source
for the City
Disadvantage
s
No ability to
carve out certain
areas; penalizes
higher valued
homes and
businesses
Fixed rate tax
regardless of
parcel’s AV could
trouble seniors or
those on fixed
incomes
Could trigger
protests from
retail businesses;
more variability
during challenging
economic times
Fixed rate tax
regardless of
parcel’s AV
could trouble
seniors or those
on fixed
incomes
Could discourage
visitors or push
them to nearby
cities with lower
TOT rates
Similar to a parcel
tax, could impact
seniors and those
on fixed incomes;
City already has
the highest UUT in
the County
Stand-Alone Bond Authority Leverage through General Fund

Overview of General Infrastructure Funding Alternatives (cont’d)
Property Tax
(GO
Election)
Special Tax
(CFD) Sales Tax Parcel Tax
Transient
Occupancy
Tax (TOT)
Utility Users
Tax (UUT)
Who Votes Registered
voters
(citywide)
Landowners
or Registered
voters if >12
(specific area)
Registered
voters
(citywide)
Registered
voters
(citywide)
Registered
voters
(citywide)
Registered
voters
(citywide)
Voting For Bonding
authorization
Bonding
authorization
& fixed
charge
Tax rate
percent
Fixed
charge
Tax rate
percent
Tax rate
percent
General/
Special Tax
Special Special Either Special Either Either
Collection
Method
County
property
tax bill
County
property
tax bill
Point of sale County property
tax bill
Hotel bill Utility bill
Types of
Bonds
GO Bonds Special Tax
Bonds
Lease
Revenue
Bonds
Lease Revenue
Bonds
Lease
Revenue
Bonds
Lease
Revenue
Bonds
Stand-Alone Bond Authority Leverage through General Fund

Property Tax Override  General Obligation Bonds
Overview
— Annual tax levied on property tax roll in proportion to property’s assessed valuation — Requires approval by 2/3rd of City voters voting in an election — Voters approve bond authorization and use of proceeds, not tax rate or annual payment
Advantages
— Broad-based tax support for public improvements
— Lowest bond interest cost due to ad valorem security and unlimited tax pledge — Shifts burden to higher valued properties, including non-residential Disadvantages
— Revenues can only be used to repay debt; cannot be used to operate/maintain facilities
— No ability to differentiate among types of property or target different parts of the City — Must establish max bond authorization; no flexibility to increase if project costs rise Leverage
— GO Bonds
When Used?
— Typically for projects with broad political support – varies by community

Source: Urbics
FY 2025 Largest Property Owners
Property Owner
Parcel
Type
FY 2024-25
Total AV
Fro2mo Barstow LLC commercial $110,720,035
Golden State Water Co. other 69,105,178
Hospital of Barstow Inc. commercial 51,966,587
Walmart Inc. commercial 33,424,688
Spruce Enterprises commercial 23,369,443
Jagan Nath Investment Inc commercial 17,184,448
Barstow Hospitality LLC commercial 16,037,184
Global Resorts Inc. commercial 14,634,868
TVL Properties commercial 14,424,366
Desert Heights LP other 14,294,208
Total: 18.61% $365,161,005
All Properties in the Area: $1,835,435,887
Tax Base Breakdown
—Single-family residential comprises
54% of the secured AV in the City;
average secured AV per parcels is
approximately $150,000
Historic Breakdown of Secured AV
by Property Type
FY 2025 Land-Use by Secured AV
Property
Type
Parcel
s
% of
Parcels Secured AV
% of
Secured
AV
Commercial 555 5.56% $689,028,354 37.55%
Industrial 27 0.27% 14,159,796 0.77%
Single Family 5,414 54.19% 773,272,075 42.14%
Other Residential 1,550 15.52% 124,646,388 6.80%
Other/Vacant 2,444 24.46% 233,853,106 12.74%
Totals 9,990 100.00% $1,834,959,719 100.0%
City of Barstow Tax Base Profile Millions
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Residential Commercial Other/Vacant Industrial

Community Facilities District Special Tax  Mello-Roos Bonds Overview
—Public agency sponsors creation of a special
district (community facilities district or ‘CFD’)
—Property owners within the CFD vote
—District boundaries can be tailored to project
support or tax zones can be used to apply
different rates to different parts of the City
Bond financing
—Repaid with special taxes levied on the
property tax bill
Advantages
—Flexibility on which areas or property types
carry more or less of the burden
—New revenue stream that can be applied to
operations and maintenance costs
—Possibly considered more equitable since
tax rate for parcels of the same type pay the
same tax regardless of assessed value
Disadvantages
—Property tax increase
—Must establish maximum bond
authorization at formation; less flexibility
to increase if project costs increase
Leverage
—Special Tax/Mello-Roos Bonds
When Used?
—General infrastructure benefiting
specific areas of the community
—Most often initiated by a developer for
its particular project, but can be initiated
by the public agency for projects it
supports

Overview
— Issuer covenants to appropriate annual lease payments from the general fund — If lease payments are not made, trustee has right/obligation to enter and re-let designated asset
Advantages
— Not subject to the constitutional debt limits per lease exception — No voter approval required for the issuance of bonds; City Council majority vote — Can be completed quickly in as little as 60 days
Disadvantages
— Requires unencumbered leasable asset(s) valued as least as much as the bond issue — Lease payments (debt service) competes with other general fund expenditures –i.e., police, personnel, park and recreation, etc.
Leverage
— All general fund revenues are pledged, although sizing is often based on amount available from a particular revenue source
When Used?
— Typically for general infrastructure projects benefitting the City General Fund Revenues  Lease Revenue Bonds

S&P Criteria Comparison
Source: 2021-2024 ACFR Reports
Issuer City of Barstow City of Hesperia City of Victorville County San Bernardino San Bernardino San Bernardino
Actual Rating A+ AA- AAPer Capita EBI (% of US) 70% 70% 70% EBI as a % of County 100% 100% 100%
Population 24,669 100,633 138,202
County Population 2,196,000 2,196,000 2,196,000
US Population 347,230,465 347,230,465 347,230,465
Gross County Product (GCP) 102,307,449 102,307,449 102,307,449 US Real GDP 22,671,096,000 22,671,096,000 22,671,096,000 GCP per capita as a % of US Real GDP per capita 71% 71% 71% County Nominal PCPI as a % of US Nominal PCPI 93% 93% 93% Net Direct Debt per capita $1,106 $284 $0
Net Pension Liabilities per capita $759 $208 $431
Available General Fund Balance as % of Expenditures 55% 71% 144% Most Recent General Fund Balance $17,086,923 $31,733,194 $132,070,172 Most Recent General Fund Expenditures $31,341,608 $44,990,452 $91,651,562 General Fund Net Result (%) 0% 11% 19%
Total General Fund Revenues $35,526,346 $52,220,415 $100,593,039 Total General Fund Expenditures $31,341,608 $44,990,452 $91,651,562 +transfers in - transfers out $-4,072,687 $-2,185,133 $8,320,129 Three-year Average Operating Result as % of Revenues 10% 12% 23% Available Reserves % of Revenues 48% 61% 131%
Current Cost for Debt Services and Liabilities as a % of Revenues 9% 19% 37%

02 Transportation Sales Tax

Overview
— Installment Sale revenue bonds typically leveraging cities’ local share of county transportation sales tax at 150% coverage
— Can be done on a stand-alone basis or through CSCDA’s Total Road Improvement Program
Advantages
— Does not require voter approval or a pledge of an asset — Allows public agency to economize on contracting costs and complete priority projects on an expedited basis
Disadvantages
— Commits the public agency to the use of a portion of annual stream of revenues towards future debt service
Leverage
— Sole pledge of the local share of county’s transportation sales tax revenues When Used?
— Transportation projects designated as ‘qualified’ by the county transportation authority (in this case, SBCTA) pursuant to the sales tax ordinance Local Measure I Transportation Sales Tax Revenue Bonds

Overview of Measure I
 0.50% sales tax dedicated to transportation planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance
 Originally approved in 1989 and extended in 2004
— Currently sunsets March 31, 2040
 Administered by County Transportation Authority
 Revenues generated from each County subarea are
directed to projects in that subarea; some differences
exist from one subarea to the other in how monies
are directed
— Barstow is within North Desert Subarea; 70% of
revenues is apportioned for local street projects
San Bernardino County Measure I
Leveraging Future Revenues
 Many public agencies (including the City) have
leveraged their local share of county transportation
sales tax dollars
— Goleta (Santa Barbara)
— Palm Springs, Menifee, Lake Elsinore &
Moreno Valley (Riverside)
— Salinas & Marina1 (Monterey)
— Claremont & Covina (Los Angeles)
1Marina sold general fund COPs but used its Measure X monies to make debt service payments.

Outside of ‘COVID years,’ City’s Measure I receipts
have averaged approximately $2 million
City’s Measure I Projects
• First Avenue Bridge over railroad
tracks
• Lenwood Road grade separation
• Rimrock Road pavement
replacement/widening
• Cameron Area: improve streets,
sidewalks, curbs, gutters and ADA
compliance in Central Barstow
• Montara Area: improve streets,
sidewalks, curbs, gutters and ADA
compliance in East Barstow

Case Study & Financing Analysis
Using the same sizing constraints as Goleta and current market conditions, the City could generate about $14.8 million for eligible street/traffic improvements  Pricing: February 25,
2025
 Leveraged City’s share of
Santa Barbara County
Measure A, which sunsets
in 2040

1. Preliminary and subject to change.

2. Analysis assumes current market conditions and similar credits.

3. Stifel neither guarantees such results nor commits to underwrite at these levels.

4. Cost of issuance and underwriter’s discount are estimates for discussion purposes.

5. Assumptions about rating (‘A+’ underlying) and provision/cost of insurance are based on actual results for City of Goleta.

6. Revenue constraint is actual Measure I receipts for FY 2024.  Financing team worked extensively with county
transportation authority (SBCAG) to approve pledge
of local share to bonds
 Bonds sized such that projected revenues($2.1
million) provided no less than 150% coverage of
annual debt service, with no growth
 Pledge to the City’s bonds was subordinate to the
County’s pledge of Measure A revenues to a TIFIA
loan from the U.S. DOT
 S&P rated the Bonds ‘A+’ and insurance and surety
policies were provided by Assured Guaranty
 Provided $16.2 million for priority crib wall repair, multipurpose paths, and road repair
City of Goleta – Local Measure A
Sales Tax Rev. Bonds
Barstow Sample Bond Sizing
Dated Date 12/01/2025
First Maturity 6/01/2026
Final Maturity 6/01/2040
Par Amount $13,785,000
Revenue Constraint 1,956,807
Average Annual Debt
Service
1,346,465
True Interest Cost 3.55%
Deposit to Project Fund 14,856,493

UFI Disclosure
 Conflicts of Interest and Other Matters Requiring Disclosures. Pursuant to Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) Rule G-42, on Duties of NonSolicitor Municipal Advisors, Municipal Advisors are required to make certain written disclosures to clients which include, amongst other things, Conflicts of Interest and any Legal or Disciplinary events of Urban Futures, Inc. (UFI) and its associated persons.  The following are potential conflicts of interest to be considered. —UFI represents that in connection with the issuance of municipal securities, UFI may receive compensation from an Issuer or Obligated Person for services rendered, which compensation is contingent upon the successful closing of a transaction and/or is based on the size of a transaction. Consistent with the requirements of MSRB Rule G-42, UFI hereby discloses, that such contingent and/or transactional compensation may present a potential conflict of interest regarding UFI’s ability to provide unbiased advice to enter into such transaction. The contingent fee arrangement creates an incentive for UFI to recommend unnecessary financings or financings that are disadvantageous to the City, or to advise City to increase the size of the issue. This potential conflict of interest will not impair UFI’s ability to render unbiased and competent advice or to fulfill its fiduciary duty to the City. —UFI’s fees under this agreement may be based on hourly fees of UFI’s personnel, with the aggregate amount equaling the number of hours worked by such personnel times an agreed-upon hourly billing rate. This form of compensation presents a potential conflict of interest because it could create an incentive for UFI to recommend alternatives that would result in more hours worked. This conflict of interest will not impair UFI’s ability to render unbiased and competent advice or to fulfill its fiduciary duty to the City.
—UFI’s fees under this agreement, may be a fixed amount established at the outset of the Agreement. The amount is usually based upon an analysis by City and UFI of, among other things, the expected duration and complexity of the transaction and the Scope of Services to be performed by UFI. This form of compensation presents a potential conflict of interest because, if the transaction requires more work than originally contemplated, UFI may suffer a loss. Thus, UFI may recommend less time-consuming alternatives, or fail to do a thorough analysis of alternatives. This conflict of interest will not impair UFI’s ability to render unbiased and competent advice or to fulfill its fiduciary duty to the City. —The fee paid to UFI increases the cost of investment to the City. The increased cost occurs from compensating UFI for municipal advisory services provided. —UFI serves a wide variety of other clients that may from time to time have interests that could have a direct or indirect impact on the interests of another UFI client. For example, UFI serves as municipal advisor to other municipal advisory clients and, in such cases, owes a regulatory duty to such other clients just as it does to the City. These other clients may, from time to time and depending on the specific circumstances, have competing interests. In acting in the interests of its various clients, UFI could potentially face a conflict of interest arising from these competing client interests. UFI fulfills its regulatory duty and mitigates such conflicts through dealing honestly and with the utmost good faith with the City. —UFI does not have any affiliate that provides any advice, service, or product to or on behalf of the client that is directly or indirectly related to the municipal advisory activities to be performed by UFI;
—UFI has not made any payments directly or indirectly to obtain or retain the City’s municipal advisory business; —UFI has not received any payments from third parties to enlist UFI’s recommendation to the City of its services, any municipal securities transaction or any municipal finance product;
—UFI has not engaged in any fee-splitting arrangements involving UFI and any provider of investments or services to the City; —UFI does not have any legal or disciplinary event that is material to the City’s evaluation of the municipal advisory or the integrity of its management or advisory personnel.
—UFI does not act as principal in any of the transaction(s) related to this Agreement. —Randall Merritt, a Managing Principal, previously worked at Raymond James & Associates, Inc. from December 2015 until December 2023. UFI's relationships with Raymond James and all other investment banks are conducted in an arm's length manner, and any recommendations are independent of any prior employment or other relationships.
—Gabrielle Dawson, an Associate previously worked at Morgan Stanley from June 2022 until December 2023. UFI's relationships with Morgan Stanley and all other investment banks are conducted in an arm's length manner, and any recommendations are independent of any prior employment or other relationships.  Legal Events and Disciplinary History. UFI does not have any legal events and disciplinary history on its Form MA and Form MA-I, which includes information about any criminal actions, regulatory actions, investigations, terminations, judgments, liens, civil judicial actions, customer complaints, arbitrations and civil litigation. The District may electronically access UFI’s the most recent Form MA and each most recent Form MA-I filed with the Commission at the following website: www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html. There have been no material changes to a legal or disciplinary event disclosure on any Form MA F MA I fil d ith th SEC