Agenda Item A.1
WORKSHOP
Meeting Date: June 14, 2022
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Michelle Greene, City Manager
CONTACT: Luke Rioux, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Priority Spending Plan Workshop for Enhanced Sales Tax Revenues
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Provide input, feedback and policy direction related to a draft Priority Spending Plan for new revenue generated by a potential 1¢ Sales Tax.
BACKGROUND:
On June 7, 2022, the City Council provided direction to staff to move forward with an ordinance to place a 1% (1¢ per dollar) sales tax on the ballot for the November 2022 General Election.
The City has over $104 Million in unfunded Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Projects, $9 million in annual deferred maintenance costs for pavement and other assets, and a significant number of strategic and master plan documents reflecting community priorities that lack a source of ongoing revenue to implement. The City’s current sales tax rate is tied for the lowest sales tax in Santa Barbara County. This is exacerbated by the Revenue Neutrality Agreement (RNA) with the County of Santa Barbara , which further limits the funds available for Goleta community priorities. The November 2022 sales tax measure provides a significant opportunity for voters to address the needs of the Goleta community now and into the future. Should the voters approve the measure, it is estimated to raise $10,600,000 per year for general government purposes.
The proposed sales tax measure will be a general tax. A tax is general when its revenues are placed into the general fund and are available for expenditure for any and all government purposes. It will give the City the flexibility needed to addres s the various community priorities, unfunded CIP projects, deferred maintenance of roads and facilities and support public safety and library services. A tax is ‘special’ when its proceeds are earmarked or dedicated in some manner to a specific project or projects or specific function. Because a special tax requires supermajority approval of County voters, rather than a simple majority required for a general tax, it is important that the City not make binding promises to dedicate general tax revenue to a particular project or initiative.
1 Meeting Date: June 14, 2022
However, Council can declare its spending priorities and intentions to the public in a non- binding discussion, or even adopt a spending policy document that does not formally bind them to a future course of action. This spending policy document will then i nform the future programming of the new tax revenue source during the annual budget process.
DISCUSSION:
The discussion at this workshop is designed to identify potential areas of spending that the new sales tax revenue could address, and to seek input, feedback and policy direction from the City Council for use in developing a Priority Spending Plan for the enhanced sales tax revenues. While the money raised by the sales tax measure would go a long way to addressing identified needs, it will not address all the needs, or allow needs to be addressed simultaneously, so Council will need to prioritize spending in the short - and long-term.
As part of thi s discussion, community members are encouraged to provide input during the public comment period on spending priorities in the event a sales tax measure is approved by voters. Priorities not listed can then be incorporated into the list subject to Council direction. S taff will walk Council through a prioritization process. Finance Department staff will share a spreadsheet that will allow Council to view the list of priorities and various spending scenarios for the additional revenue over the first several years that the measure is in effect. Council will be asked to engage in a ranking process to identify their key priorities.
Staff will present suggested placeholder starting allocations in the spreadsheet, but it is important to note that staff fully expect that Council may wish to change these allocations, which is the purpose of the workshop. Potential areas for prioritization will include those that cannot be addressed with current funding levels, such as the following.
1. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Projects
The City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) starts with the Comprehensive CIP Project List. The Comprehensive CIP Project List is comprised of a list of capital projects that improve or add to the City’s public infrastructure and facilities. Capital projects are generally large-scale endeavors in terms of investment of staff time, cost, size and benefit to the community. Typically, the CIP is comprised of projects with a total cost of $100,000 or greater and will have a life span of more than 5 years. The list may also include, from time to time, significant purchases of new or replacement equipment and other assets.
Once the Comprehensiv e CIP Project List is established, priority projects are identified from the list each year, budgeted and included in the Five-Year CIP Plan (Five-Year CIP).
Projects included in the Five-Year CIP will be actively worked on over the next five years.
The proposed FY 2022/23 CIP Budget has a total cost to complete budget of $249 million over the next five years. FY 2022/23 CIP Plan Project List includes 41 projects (36 capital projects and 5 master plans) with a total estimated project cost of over $225 million. Staff has, with the assistance from its financial consultants, identified a funding gap of $109 2 Meeting Date: June 14, 2022
million for the Five-Year CIP. Of this amount, $5.2 million has been identified to possibly have a potential grant or other revenue source that is to be determined, leaving over $104 million still unfunded.
At the CIP Budget Workshop held on June 8, 2022, staff presented funding strategies to address only the active CIP projects listed in FY 22/23 Annual Work Program Projects.
There are a total of 41 CIP projects with 11 projects that were identified with unfunded amounts of $69.1 million (an amount for Lake Los C arneros Pedestrian Bridge has not been identified). Based on the funding strategies, only $4.7 million can be supported with current revenue sources, leaving a continued gap of $64.4 million.
Some of the key capital projects that still have unfunded amounts include the construction of Fire Station 10 serving the western part of the City, the replacement of the Lake Los Carneros Pedestrian Bridge, and needed improvements to the Goleta Community Center.
Without the additional revenue source from the proposed sales tax, many of the projects included in the CIP cannot be completed.
Moving forward, Council could include a regular additional allocation in the Priority Spending Plan to make progress toward the accomplishment of the identified Five-Year CIP projects each year . Staff has provided an updated CIP Project List (Attachment 1) that summarizes the 5 -Year CIP projects by total project costs estimated unfunded amounts and reorganized to show the Annual Work Program projects first.
2. Pavement Program Deficit
The City of Goleta’s paved roadway surface, typically asphalt concrete, has a replacement value of $221 million, making just the pavement itself the most valuable asset the City owns. Pavement maintenance ranges from pothole repair and crack sealing to slurry seals, overlays and reconstructions. The current 2022 Pavement Rehabilitation Project priority list includes roadway pavement work es timated at $6 million per year, however the existing budget is approximately $2.6 million per year. This leaves a significant unfunded annual deferred maintenance cost of $3.4 million per year.
Underspending on maintenance of roadways increases safety co ncerns and, ultimately, costs will be significantly higher when the roadways eventually d o receive maintenance.
When regular maintenance has not been performed, paved surfaces will need to be reconstructed much sooner. The reconstruction of a roadway will typically cost several times that of the cost of having performed regular maintenance over a period of years.
Due to deferred maintenance, t he most recent independent engineers report rated two - thirds of Goleta’s streets and roads as “fair,” “poor,” or “failed.”
In the professional polling conducted four times over the last several years, Goleta residents consistently identified road maintenance as one of their most important priorities. Moving forward, Council could include a regular additional allocatio n in the Priority Spending Plan to close the deficit in pavement maintenance and reduce the safety impacts and long-term costs of deferred maintenance.
3 Meeting Date: June 14, 2022
3. Critical Maintenance Backlog
This category includes the significant identified backlog in addressin g needed facility improvements, fixture and equipment replacements, and the establishment of replacement reserves. It also includes a backlog of maintaining other non -pavement assets in the community like public street trees and concrete, and parks and open space features. When Goleta incorporated twenty years ago, it inherited several old buildings from the County, including an aging library, the now 94 -year-old community center, the Stow House and Historic Train Depot, all of which already had a backlog of needed maintenance. The City now also owns the Corporation Yard Building and a 44,000 - square-foot City Hall. These properties must be properly maintained to preserve their value over the long term. To do this, we must catch up on the deferred maintenance, and develop and fund a maintenance and replacement schedule for each facility.
Staff have estimated an approximate $9 million critical maintenance backlog. This is likely an underestimate, and staff are in the process of developing and/or updating various maintenance and replacement plans that should further quantify this need As with other types of deferred maintenance, failin g to address needs in the short term can increase costs in the future by leading to the early degradation of assets and continued rising construction costs. At the time of preparing this report, the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) has increased b y 16.7% for May 2022 . The C CCI is produced by the California Department of General Services.
In recent public opinion polling conducted on behalf of the City by a polling consultant , residents identified infrastructure preservation as a high priority. Moving forward, Council could include a regular additional allocation in the Priority Spending Plan to reduce the safety impacts and long-term costs of deferred maintenance on our facilities.
4. Important Community Master Plans
Over the years, the City Council has sought input from stakeholders and the community at large at various times about the community’s priorities and has created various strategic plans that set forth a path to achieve them. Council sets forth its most immediate goals and objectives for the upcoming two-year budget cycle in the Two-Year Strategic Plan, which then get incorporated in the Two-Year Financial Plan and the annual Work Program. To the extent that we can, we include priorities from these important community master plans and make progress toward achieving the goals they outline. However, due to limited funds and staff resources, many of the objectives outlined in these plans just can’t be included.
A partial list of these plans is:
Homelessness Strategic Plan : Provides important direction and clarity around needs, service gaps, and priorities in order to make effective and strategic funding decisions that serve both the existing homeless population, as well as those at risk of becoming homeless , and to address the impac ts of homelessness in the community.
4 Meeting Date: June 14, 2022
Creek and Watershed Master Plan : Includes detailed information on the many creeks that run through Goleta, identifies impairments to these creeks, and outlines programs and specific future actions to address identified impairments. It also outlines best practices to provide habitat for fish and wildlife, accommodate wildlife movement corridors, convey stormwater runoff and floodwaters, and furnish open space and passive recreational areas for City residents. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP): Provides plan to expand and improve the pedestrian and bicycle network in the City of Goleta making it easier to walk and bike around town. The BPMP also promotes public health by encouraging people to walk and bike, reduces automobile usage and fuel consumption, and promotes transportation equity.
Lake Los Carneros Master Plan (scheduled for an update): A comprehensive management plan s erving as the community’s guiding document to prioritize needed maintenance and improvemen ts to critical infrastructure, habitats, and recreation amenities in and around Lake Los Carneros.
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan: Outlines the programmatic approach and methods for the City to manage and improve the Ellwood Mesa eucalyptus forest for the benefit of the overwintering behavior of the monarch butterfly, other wildlife, and the public’s use and enjoyment.
Parks, Facilities and Playgrounds Master Plan : Creates a roadmap for upgrades, expansions and potential additions to the City parks system to meet current and future community needs for parks, open space, and urban respite areas that contribute to the public's health.
Recreation Needs Assessment: Included an examination of the characteristics that define the community and an inventory of the existing recreational opportunities and resources available and set forth a guide and implementation tool for the management and development of recreational facilities and programs. Strategic Energy and Climate Action Plan: Identifies how it will reach the renewable energy goals to move the city’s municipal facilities and community-wide electricity supply to 100% renewable power by 2030 and hav e at least 50 percent of electricity use by municipal facili ties come from renewable sources by 2025 , including options, methods, financial resources needed, and an associated timeline.
Goleta Community Center Strategic Plan (under development): This project will develop a vision, mission, values, and strategic goa ls and objectives to guide the future use of the Goleta Community Center for the benefit of Old Town and the Goleta community at large.
Economic Development Strategic Plan (under development): This will include the critical focuses of economic and workforce development, local business economy support, and tourism/visitor services. The Economic Development Strategic Plan and the objectives and initiatives that may come from this have been identified as a top priority of the business community, as represented through comments from the Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce.
Library Strategic Plan (planned): This will set forth a plan to meet the challenges facing library services and ensure that the Goleta Valley Library remains a vibrant and vital resource for the community.
5 Meeting Date: June 14, 2022
As mentioned above, the goals and objectives in these plans are important to the community, but the City has limited ability to address them. Instead, progress is made toward these priorities as our limited funding and staffing allow.
In polling and surveys, residents identified many of these areas of focus, particularly homelessness, creeks and watersheds, as important issues. Moving forward, Council could include a regular additional allocation in the Priority Spe nding Plan to make progress in addressing implementing these plans. Provided as Attachment 2 are the recent survey results (responses as of April 30, 2022) provided by over 600 people that took the survey and rated a list of priorities by level of importance.
5. Other Unfunded Costs
Over the past several years, the City Council has expressed interest in dedicating additional funds to the following areas:
Parks and Open Space Maintenance : Since the City incorporated and took over Goleta, residents have expressed approval for the enhanced condition of our parks and open spaces, and Public Works is working on a comprehensive plan for maintaining these areas even more actively, but funding does limit what we can do.
Childcare Programs: In April 2022, City Coun cil received a report about a study, funded jointly by the cities of Goleta and Santa Barbara, examining the significant challenges local families face in finding and affording childcare in our community.
The findings recommended the establishment of a stakeholder group and creation of a local childcare collaborative action plan to take concrete actions to address identified needs within the childcare sector. Childcare has been identified as a top priority of the business community, as represented through comments from the Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce. There are currently no identified funds to assist with this effort.
Affordable Housing Program : Housing in Goleta suffers from the same level of unaffordability as other local South Coast communities. A key City goal is the help address the City’s share of regional housing needs and make affordable housing available for individuals and families of all social and economic segments of the community, including those from low- and very low-income households. Old Town Visioning Process, Old Town Improvements and CIP : The Old Town area is recognized as the historic center of town. Strategic efforts to restore this area include enhancing the physical and economic environment, improving the bicycle and pedestrian experience, managing traffic, and minimizing impacts on residential areas, while preserving the unique character of the area. As the City matures, there is a growing desire to establish a stronger identity for the community and create a greater sense of place. Old Town enhancements also have been identified as a top priority of the business community. Enhanced Police Services: Community public safety has been a constant priority of the City Council. Cost increases from the County of Santa Barbara are affecting the affordability of Police services. Councilmembers have also indicated interest in exploring an increase in service levels to ensure that they remain appropriate for our growing community.
6 Meeting Date: June 14, 2022
Moving forward, Council could include a regular additional allocation in the Priority Spending Plan to address these other unfunded costs.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
As indicated above, the exercise in this workshop is not designed to commit the Council to an economic course of action, but to spur a public discussion about priorities for the use of the potential $10.6 Million annual increase in revenues that a 1% sales tax would bring, from among those important community needs that cannot be addressed with the City’s current revenues. As such, there is no financial impact associated with this discussion.
Reviewed By: Legal Review By: Approved By:
___________________ ___________________ _________________ Kristine Schmidt Megan Garibaldi Michelle Greene
Assistant City Manager City Attorney City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Capital Improvement Program Budget and Unfunded Amounts
2. Goleta‘s Next 20 Survey Results
3. Preliminary Local Revenue Measure Results – June 2022
4. Priority Spending Plan PowerPoint Presentation
7 ATTACHMENT 1:
Capital Improvement Program Budget and Unfunded Amounts
8 Public Works ‐ Current Annual Work Program Total Project Costs Current Unfunded TBD 9002‐Ekwill Street & Fowler Road Extensions Project 33,515,381$ ‐$ ‐$ 9006‐San Jose Creek Bike Path ‐ Southern Extent 27,902,828$ 3,705,000$ ‐$ 9007‐San Jose Creek Bike Path ‐ Middle Extent 2,867,664$ ‐$ ‐$ 9027‐Goleta US 101 Overcrossing 48,594,613$ 38,000,000$ ‐$ 9033‐Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement 24, 037,898$ ‐$ ‐$ 9053‐Cathedral Oaks Crib Wall Interim Repair Project 7,607,178$ ‐$ ‐$ 9056‐LED Street Lighting Project 1,193,589$ ‐$ ‐$ 9062‐Storke Road/Hollister Avenue Transit, Bike/Ped, and Median Improvements 852,245$ ‐$ ‐$ 9067‐Goleta Community Center Upgrade 12,857,282$ 2,300,000$ ‐$ 9083‐Traffic Signal Upgrades 3,223,251$ ‐$ ‐$ 9085‐Goleta St orm Drain Master Plan 300,000$ ‐$ ‐$
9087‐Crosswalk Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) on Calle Real near Encina Road 367,500$ ‐$ ‐$ 9088‐Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Improvements at School Crosswalks 765,400$ ‐$ ‐$ 9089‐Goleta Traffic Safety Study (GTSS) 353,699$ ‐$ ‐$
9099‐Crosswalk at Calle Real/Fairview Center ‐ Pedestrian Hyb rid Beacon (PHB) 482,120$ ‐$ ‐$ 9110‐Hollister Class 1 Bike Path Lighting 688,725$ ‐$ ‐$ 9112‐Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Plan 3,900,000$ ‐$ ‐$ 9114‐Hollister Avenue Old Town Interim Striping Project 1,450,028$ ‐$ ‐$ 9115‐Public Works Corporation Yard Repairs 500,000$ ‐$ ‐$ 9117‐San Jose Creek Channel Fish‐P assage Modification Project 1,315,000 $ ‐ $ ‐$ 9118‐Ellwood Coastal Trails and Habitat Restoration (Proposed FY 22/23) 2,475,000$ ‐$ 2,400,000$ 9119‐Ellwood Beach Drive Drainage (Proposed FY 22/23) 253,000$ ‐$ ‐$ 9120‐Evergreen Park Drainage Repair (Proposed FY 22/23) 300,000$ ‐$ ‐$ 9121‐Goleta Community Center ADA Improvements (Proposed FY 22/23) 3,210,371$ ‐$ ‐$ 9122‐C
ity‐Wide Open Space Management & Maintenance (Proposed FY 22/23) 300,000$ ‐$ ‐$ 9123‐Lake Los Carneros Master Plan (Proposed FY 22/23) 750,000$ ‐$ ‐$ 9124‐Fairview & Stow Canyon Traffic Signal (Proposed FY 22/23) 2,200,000$ 2,000,000$ ‐$ 9125‐Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) Calle Real @ Jenna (Proposed FY 22/23) 350, 000$ ‐$ ‐$ TBD ‐ Lake Los Carneros Pedestrian Bridge TBD TBD TBD
Public Works ‐ Current Annual Work Program ‐ Total 182,612,772$ 46,005,000$ 2,400,000$ Summary of CIP Projects by Annual Work Program (as of 6/9/2022) The following is a summary of the 5‐Year CIP Project Budget that first lists the projects identified in the current Annual Work Program and then followed by future projects or completed projects that have closeout items. The cost estimates are based on the data in the revised 5‐Year CIP that will be propos ed to Council for adoption on June 21, 2022.
Attachment 1
9 Summary of CIP Projects by Annual Work Program (as of 6/9/2022) Neighborhood Services ‐ Current Annual Work Program Total Project Costs Current Unfunded TBD 9025‐Fire Station No. 10 21,608,686$ 13,447,939$ ‐ $ 9063‐Evergreen Park Improvements 3,220,000$ 1,000,000$ ‐$ 9071‐Improvements to Athletic Field at GCC 601,109$ ‐$ ‐$ 9074‐Stow Grove Multi‐Purpose Field 5,950,000$ 3,963,648$ ‐$ 9079‐Goleta Train Depot and S. La Patera Improvements 19,485,227$ ‐$ ‐$ 9084‐Community Garden 1,645,095$ ‐$ ‐$ 9093‐San Miguel Park Improvements 245,000$ ‐$ ‐$ 9094‐Santa Barbara Shores Park Improvements 180,000$ ‐$ ‐$ 9108‐Winchester II Park 310,000$ ‐$ ‐$ 9111‐Jonny D. Wallis Neighborhood Park Phase 2 ‐ Splash Pad 1,807,322$ ‐$ ‐$ 9113‐Mathilda Park Improvements 524,252$ ‐$ ‐$ 9116‐Pickleball Courts 100,000$ ‐$ ‐$ Neighborhood Services ‐ Current Annual Work Program Total 55,676,691$ 18,411,587$ ‐$ Public Works ‐ Not in Annual Work Program Total Project Costs Current Unfunded TBD 9001‐Hollister Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Plan 8,195,464 $ 6,500,000$ ‐ $ 9042‐Storke Road Widening, Phelps Road to City Limits 4,061,998 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 9044‐Hollister Widening, West of Storke Road 3,087,397$ ‐$ ‐$ 9061‐Cathedral Oaks Class I Multi‐Use Path 1,360$ ‐$ ‐$ 9064‐Reclaimed Water Ser vice to Evergreen Park 840,000$ 310,000$ ‐ $ 9065‐Reclaimed Water Service to Bella Vista Park 448,000$ 230,000$ ‐$ 9069‐Miscellaneous Facilities Improvements 250,211$ ‐$ ‐$ 9078‐Rancho La Patera Improvements 4,455,000$ 3,660,000$ ‐$ 9081‐Covington Drainage System Improvements 3,719,854$ 3,700,000$ ‐$ 9086‐Vision Zero Plan 310,000$ 300,000$ ‐$ 9096‐Or
ange Avenue Parking Lot 785,000$ 400,000$ ‐$ 9097‐Fairview Corridor Study (Fowler Road to Calle Real) 640,100$ 500,000$ ‐$ 9100‐Hollister Avenue/Fairview Avenue Roundabout (Intersection Improvements) 9,020,000$ 8,500,000$ ‐$ 9102‐Storke Road Corridor Study 338,775$ 200,000$ ‐$ 9103‐Citywide School Zones Signage & Striping Evaluation 319,950$ 300,000$ ‐$ 9104‐C
itywide Evaluation of Existing Traffic Signals 318,800$ 250,000$ ‐$ 9105‐Ellwood Beach Drive Drainage Infrastructure Replacement 300,000$ 300,000$ ‐$ 9106‐Phelps Ditch Flood Control Channel Trash Control Structure 650,000$ 600,000$ ‐$ 9107‐Old Town South Fairview Avenue, High Flow Trash Capture Devices 350,000$ ‐$ ‐$ 9109‐Ward Drive Sidewalk Infill 675, 000$ 675,000$ ‐$ TBD‐z10‐Fairview Avenue and Stow Canyon Road Intersection Improvements (Not established in Incode until Year of A 1,500,000$ ‐ $ ‐ $ Public Works ‐ Not in Annual Work Program ‐ Total 40,266,910$ $ 26,425,000 $ ‐ 10 Summary of CIP Projects by Annual Work Program (as of 6/9/2022) Neighborhood Services ‐ Not in Annual Work Program Total Project Costs Current Unfunded TBD 9066‐Miscellaneous Park Improvements 734,150$ ‐ $ ‐ $ 9075‐Evergreen Park Multi‐Purpose Field ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 9076‐Public Swimming Pool 4,013,697$ 4,013,697$ ‐$ 9077‐Recreation Center/Gymnasium 3,830,000$ 3,830,000$ ‐$ Neighborhood Services ‐ Not in Annual Work Program ‐ Total 8,577,847$ 7,843,697$ ‐$ General Services ‐ Not in Annual Work Pr ogram Total Project Costs Current Unfunded TBD 9101‐City Hall Purchase & Improvements (Elevator) 12,142,919$ ‐ $ ‐ $ General Services ‐ Not in Annual Work Program ‐ Total 12,142,919 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ Completed Projects ‐ Pending Closeout Items Total Project Costs Current Unfunded TBD 9009‐San Jose Creek Improvements and Fish Passage 32,081,466 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 9031‐Old Town Sidewalk Improvement Project 5,416,697$ ‐ $ ‐ $ 9058‐Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) at Chapel / Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) at Kingston 739,238$ ‐$ ‐$ 9070‐Fairview Avenue/US 101 Intersection Sidewalk Infill 115,150$ ‐$ ‐$ Completed Projects Total 38,352,551$ ‐$ ‐$ Total ‐ Current Annual Work Program 238,289,463$ 64,416,587$ 2,400,000$ Total ‐ Not In Annual Work Program 60,987,675$ 34,268,697$ ‐$ GRAND TOTAL 337,629,689$ 98,685,284$ 2,400,000$ 11 ATTACHMENT 2:
Goleta’s Next 20 Year Survey Results
12 Attachment 2
Goleta’s Next 20 Survey Results
Below is a list of priorities that will require additional resources. We recently asked Goleta residents to rate these priorities in level of importance. Thank you to the over 600 people that took the survey (responses as of April 30, 2022). Here is what you told us (importance of community services - high or medium priority):
List of Priorities Percent
Keeping public areas safe and clean 97%
Paving streets, removing potholes, and improving traffic safety 95% Protecting Goleta’s long-term financial stability 94%
Supporting public safety and maintaining rapid 911 response 93% Maintaining open spaces and natural areas 93%
Preparing for wildfires, floods, natural disasters, and public health emergencies
93%
Protecting local creeks and coastal waters from pollution 92% Conserving water by increasing use of recycled water to irrigate parks and fields
92%
Preventing brush fires caused by illegal encampments 91% Maintaining services for low-income senior citizens and other vulnerable residents
85%
Addressing homelessness through our Homelessness Strategic Plan 84% Helping local businesses rebound and retain the workforce to fill critical jobs
79%
Improving access to affordable housing for middle- and working-class families
78%
Supporting and expanding afterschool programs and affordable early childhood/childcare programs
73%
Source: https://www.cityofgoleta.org/projects-programs/studies-and-other- projects/goleta-s-next-20-years
13 ATTACHMENT 3:
Preliminary Local Revenue Measure Results – June 2022
14 CaliforniaCityFinance.Com
Local Revenue Measure Results
June 2022
There were 99 local measures on the June 7,
2022 election in California. Among these were
67 measures affecting local taxes, fees or
charges. Because of the large volume of vote-
by-mail, provisional and other ballots still to
tabulated by county elections officials, final
results will not be known for several weeks.
Among the 67 measures were 29 school
measures including 21 school bond measures
seeking a total of $1.775 billion in school
construction bond financing. There were 38
city, county and special district fiscal measures
including 11 majority vote measures and 27
special taxes and bond measures requiring
two-thirds voter approval. Among these were
10 add-on sales tax measures and 16 parcel
taxes.
This is substantially fewer local measures,
especially school measures, than ever before
in a spring presidential or gubernatorial
primary election.
Preliminary Election Night
Results
Based on election night tallies, 47 of the 67 tax
or bond measures are passing, about 70
percent. Although the number passing is lower
than primary elections over the last 20 years,
the percentage passing is comparable with the
exception of the record setting March 2020
election.
2217 Isle Royale Lane • Davis, CA • 95616-6616
Phone: 530.758.3952 • Fax: 530.758.3952
Sales Tax
Special Init 2
Sales Tax 4
Hotel
Occup Tax 4
Disposable
Cup Tax 1
G.O.
Bond 3
Cannabis Tax
2/3 1
Vehicle
Registration Tax 3
SalesTax
2/3 4 Parcel T ax
16 School
Parcel
Ta x 7
School
Bond 21
School Parcel
Tax Init 1
Proposed Local Revenue Measures
June 2022
55%
Vote
2/3
Vote
Majority
Vote
© 2022 Michael Coleman
School Initiative
Parcel Tax 1
Special District
Initiative Special Tax 1
County Initiative
Special Tax 1
County General
Tax 4
City General
Tax 5
City Special
Tax 7
City G.O.
Bond 2 County
Special
Tax 6
Special District
G.O.Bond 1
Special
District
ParcelTax
11 School
Parcel Tax
7 School Bond
55%
21 55%
Vote
2/3
Vote
Majority
Vote
Proposed Local Revenue Measures
June 2022
© 2022 Michael Coleman
June 8, 2022 Preliminary
Schools
Special Districts
Counties
Cities
Schools
Cities, counties,
special districts
15 Local Revenue Measure Results June 2022 – 2 – PRELIMI NARY June 8, 2022
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Total Pass Passing%
City General Tax (Majority Vote) 5 3 60%
County General Tax (Majority Vote) 4 4 100%
County Init. Special Tax -Majority Vote* 1 0 0%
SpecDistrict Init. Tax -Majority Vote* 1 1 100%
City SpecialTax or G.O.bond (2/3 Vote) 9 6 67%
County Spec.Tax, G.O.bond (2/3 Vote) 6 4 67%
SpecDistrict Tax, G.O.bond (2/3 Vote) 12 7 58%
School ParcelTax (2/3 vote) 7 7 100%
School Init. Parcel Tax -Majority Vote 1 0 0%
School Bond 55% vote 21 15 71%
Total 67 47 70%
The City/County of San Francisco is counted as a city
Local Revenue Measures June 2022
Local Revenue Measures in California
City General Tax (majority vote) 11/14 78.6% 12/14 85.7% 10/11 90.9% 8/8 100.0% 13/13 100.0% 17/18 94.4% 23/34 67.6% 3/5 60.0% County General Tax (majority v ote) 1/1 100.0% 2/2 100.0% 4/7 57.1% /0 /2 0.0% 7/10 70.0% 3/9 33.3% 4/4 100.0% Special Dist. Majority Fee (majority v ote) / 1/1 100.0% // 1 /1 100.0% / / City Initiative Special Tax (majority vote) / / / / 1/1 100.0% / / County Initiative Special Tax (majority vote) / / / / / / 0/1 0.0% Special District Initiativ e Special Tax (majority v ote) / / / / / / 1/1 100.0% City SpecialTax orG.O.bond (2/3 vote) 2/5 40.0% 5/9 55.6% 2/8 25.0% 8/11 72.7% 7/10 70.0% 6/9 66.7% 8/16 50.0% 6/9 66.7% County Special Tax (2/3 vote) 1/2 50.0% 1/1 100.0% 3/3 100.0% 2/5 40.0% 1/5 20.0% 0/2 0.0% 0/4 0.0% 4/6 66.7% Special District (2/3 v ote) 5/10 50.0% 7/11 63.6% 4/10 40.0% 9/12 75.0% 2/6 33.3% 9/18 50.0% 3/26 11.5% 7/12 58.3% School Parcel Tax (2/3 vote) 6/13 46.2% 16/22 72.7% 9/13 69.2% 5/5 100.0% 7/7 100.0% 10/11 90.9% 14/28 50.0% 7/7 100.0% School Initiative ParcelTax (majority vote) / / / / 1/1 100.0% / 0/1 0.0% School Bond 2/3 vote 1/1 100.0% // 1 /1 100.0% 1/1 100.0% 0/2 0.0% 1/2 50.0% / School Bond 55% vote 25/32 78.1% 15/20 75.0% 25/34 73.5% 32/43 74.4% 41/45 91.1% 33/38 86.8% 43/119 36.1% 15/21 71.4% Total 52/78 66.7% 58/79 73.4% 58/87 66.7% 65/85 76.5% 72/89 80.9% 85/111 76.6% 95/238 39.9% 47/67 70.1% June 2022June2008 June2010 June2012 June2014 June2016 June 2018 March 2020 © 2022 Michael Coleman
© 2022 Michael Coleman
52 58 58 65 72 85 95 47
26 21 29 20 17
26 143
20 0
50 100
150
200
250
June2008 June2010 June2012 June2014 June2016 June2018 Mar2020 June2022 Pass Fail
40%
70%
California Local Tax and Bond Measures - Primary Elections 67% 73% 67% 77% 81% 77%
16 Local Revenue Measure Results June 2022 – 3 – PRELIMI NARY June 8, 2022
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
School Measures: Bonds and Parcel Taxes
With a few measures too close to call, the number of passing school bond measures appears to be a bit lower than in prior elections. School bonds are used for capital facilities and involve a borrowing that is paid back over time with an increase in the ad valorem property tax rate.
Parcel taxes are non ad valorem (rate per parcel) taxes. Proceeds from parcel taxes may be used to pay for operations. All of the school parcel taxes passed, except, notably, the one that was qualified by initiative and needed just majority voter approval.
School Parcel Taxes
Parcel taxes are non ad-valorem taxes on property (rate per parcel). Proceeds from parcel taxes may be used to pay for operations.
In this election, there were seven measures that were extensions of previously approved taxes. All were placed on the ballot by their school district boards and required two-thirds voter approval. All seven passed.
The Manhattan Beach Unified School District parcel tax measure was placed on the ballot via citizen initiative and therefore, under recent court rulings, required only majority approval for passage. Unlike the other school parcel tax measures in this election, this was a new tax. The measure was defeated. 100% (7/7)
71% (15/21)
0% (0/1)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2/3 Vote
Parcel Tax*
55% Vote
Bond
Initiative
Parcel Tax
(Majority
Vote)
Percent Passing
School Tax & Bond Measures June 2022
Since 2001 84%
Since 2001 66%
17 Local Revenue Measure Results June 2022 – 4 – PRELIMI NARY June 8, 2022
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
School Bonds
There were 21 local school bonds on the ballot this election, each requiring 55 percent approval. On election night, 15 are passing.
School Parcel Taxes (2/3 voter approval)
Agency Name County Rate Sunset YES% NO%
Kenwood SD Sonom a Measure A $52/yr ex tend 5yrs 78.5% 21.5% PASS Larkspur-Corte Madera SD Marin Measure E $910/yr extend 10yrs 75.7% 24.3% PASS Milpitas USD Santa Clara Measure E $84/yr ex tend 8yrs 74.7% 25.3% PASS Belm ont-Redwood Shores SD San Mateo Measure C $292/yr ex tend 10yrs 72.7% 27.3% PASS Alum Rock SD Santa Clara Measure I $214/yr ex tend 7yrs 70.8% 29.2% PASS Brisbane SD San Mateo Measure G $131/yr ex tend 6yrs 69.6% 30.4% PASS Mount Pleasant SD Santa Clara Measure H $84/yr ex tend 8yrs 67.5% 32.5% PASS School Parcel Tax - Majority Vote via Initiative
Manhattan Beach USD Los Angeles Measure A $1095/yr increase 12yrs 31. 2% 68.8% FAIL School Bond Measures - 55% Approval
School District County Meas ure Amount YES% NO%
Westside Elem entary School District Fresno Measure A 4,500,000 88.2% 11.8% PASS San Lucas Union School District Monterey Measure C 3,600,000 73.7% 26.3% PASS Ravenswood City SD San Mateo Measure I 110,000,000 68.1% 31.9% PASS Westm orland Union Elementary SD Im perial Measure w 3,750,000 67.3% 32.7% PASS Westm orland Union Elementary SD Im perial Measure z 3,750,000 66.7% 33.3% PASS Mill Valley SD Marin Measure G 194,000,000 66.1% 33.9% PASS San Rafael City HSD Marin Measure B 216,000,000 65.1% 34.9% PASS San Rafael City ESD Marin Measure C 152,000,000 64.3% 35.8% PASS Muroc Joint USD Kern / San Bernardino Measure B 21,000,000 62.8% 37.2% PASS Anderson V alley USD Mendocino Measure M 13,000,000 62.5% 37.5% PASS Jefferson ESD San Mateo Measure J 45,000,000 61.4% 38.6% PASS Little Lake City SD Los Angeles Meas ure LL 36,000,000 60.5% 39.5% PASS El Centro Elementary SD Imperial Measure y 37,800,000 60.4% 39.6% PASS Hillsborough City SD San Mateo Measure H 140,000,000 59.5% 40.5% PASS Chowchilla UHSD Madera Measure S 25,100,000 58.1% 41.9% PASS Frem ont Union HSD Santa Clara Measure G 275,000,000 54.4% 45.6% FAIL Alameda USD Alameda Measure B 298,000,000 53.9% 46.1% FAIL Sierra Sands USD Kern / San Bernardino Measure C 52,800,000 53.7% 46.3% FAIL Millbrae ESD San Mateo Measure E 90,000,000 50.8% 49.2% FAIL Imperial Unified SD Imperial Measure A 50,000,000 50.8% 49.2% FAIL Merced River Union Elementary SD Merced Measure T 3,500,000 23.5% 76.5% FAIL 18 Local Revenue Measure Results June 2022 – 5 – PRELIMI NARY June 8, 2022
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
City, County and Special District Measures
While there were fewer measures on the ballot than in prior elections, the passage rate of local non- school majority vote tax measures was consistent or even slightly better than prior elections.
City, County, Special District Tax & Bond Measures June 2022 63% (17/27)
78% (7/9)
50% 1/2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Special Tax 2/3
Voter Measures
Initiative Special
Tax (Majority
Vote)
General Tax
Majority Vote
Measures*
Percent Passing
Since 2001 76%
Since 2001 49%
0 1
1 1
2 3
3 3
11 1
1 2
1 1
1 1
5 Cannabis Tax Special 2/3
Disposable Cup Tax
Sales Tax - Init Special
G.O. Bond
Vehicle Registr Tax 2/3
Hotel Occup Tax
Sales Tax Special 2/3
Sales Tax
Parcel Tax 2/3
Passing
Failing
City, County, Special District Tax & Bond Measures June 2022 19 Local Revenue Measure Results June 2022 – 6 – PRELIMI NARY June 8, 2022
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Parcel Taxes and Special Taxes (non-school)
There were sixteen non-school parcel taxes all placed on the ballot by city councils or special district governing boards, requiring two-thirds voter approval.
Local Add-On Sales Taxes (Transaction and Use Taxes)
Voters in four cities considered general purpose majority vote add-on sales tax rates ranging from 1/4 percent to one percent. Three passed. Avalon had both a sales tax and a hotel tax on the same election and both failed.
There were also four special add-on sales tax measures for specific purposes.
City, County and Special District Parcel Taxes (2/3 vote) Agency Name County Amount YES% NO%
Fallen Leaf Lake Community Service District El Dorado Measure A $6 60+/yr 87.5% 12.5% PASS ex tend Ross Marin Measure I $94.5+/yr 87.3% 12.7% PASS ex tend Firehouse Community Park Agency Marin Measure M $75/yr 85.3% 14.7% PASS increase Sleepy Hollow Fire Protection District Marin Measure L $94.5+/yr 84.4% 15.7% PASS ex tend Kentfield Fire Protection District Marin Measure K $94.5+/yr 83.5% 16.5% PASS ex tend San Anselmo Marin Measure J $94.5+/yr 80.7% 19.3% PASS ex tend Oakland Alameda Measure C $114.50/yr 80.4% 19.6% PASS ex tend L arkspur Marin Measure H $94.5+/yr 79.9% 20.1% PASS ex tend South County Am bulance Zone CSA No. 21 Tuolumne Measure W $90/yr 78.6% 21.4% PASS ex tend Sundance Trail Zone of Benefit El Dorado Measure C $600+/yr 75.6% 24.4% PASS increase River Delta Fire District Sacramento Measure H $90/yr 71.0% 29.0% PASS increase Martinez Contra Costa Measure F $79/yr 65.9% 34.1% FAIL increase Ex eter Public Cemetery Tulare Measure U $35/yr 61.1% 38.9% FAIL increase Oceano Community Services District San Luis Obispo Measure A $180+ /yr 60.9% 39.1% FAIL increase Knolls Property Owners Com munity Service DEl Dorado Measure B $300+/yr 57.9% 42.1% FAIL increase Cascade Drainage Zone of Benefit El Dorado Measure E $350/yr 0.0% 100.0% FAIL increase Transactions and Use Tax (Add-on Sales Tax) - General Tax - Majority Approval City County Meas ure Rate YES% NO% incr/ext
Torrance Los Angeles Measure SST 1/2 cent 55.2% 44.9% PASS increase Susanvi l l e L assen Measure P 1 cent 54.5% 45.5% PASS increase Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Measure F 1/2 cent 50.2% 49.8% PASS increase Avalon Los Angeles Measure S 1/4 cent 34.8% 65.3% FAIL increase Transactions and Use Tax (Add-on Sales Tax) - Special Tax - Two-Thirds Approval Agency Name County Rate Purpose Sunset YES% NO%
County of Fresno Fresno Measure Z 1/10 cent zoo 15yrs 82.4% 17.6% PASS ex tend Truckee Nevada Measure U by 1/4 cent to
1/2 cent
open space
/ trails none 76.4% 23.6% PASS increase
County of Marin Marin Measure A 1/4 cent open space
/ trails 9yrs 74.8% 25.2% PASS ex tend
County of Napa Napa Measure L 1/4 cent fire 10yrs 58.4% 41.6% FAIL increase 20 Local Revenue Measure Results June 2022 – 7 – PRELIMI NARY June 8, 2022
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Two add-on sales tax measures were placed on the ballot by citizens initiative. Under recent court rulings, the Proposition 218 state constitutional requirement for a two-thirds vote for a special tax does not apply to a measure placed on the ballot by initiative. Nevertheless, the sales tax for fire services in Kings County was soundly defeated and the hospital sales tax in Mariposa county achieved over well two-thirds approval.
Transient Occupancy Taxes
There were four Transient Occupancy Tax (Hotel Tax) measures, a ll for general purposes requiring majority voter approval.
Vehicle Registration Taxes
Three counties submitted measures to continue existing local vehicle registration taxes used for abandoned vehicle abatement. Since Proposition 26 of 2010, these are now legally considered taxes, not fees and require two-thirds voter approval.
General Obligation Bonds
There were three non-school general obligation bonds. On election night, only the City of Saint Helena water bond appears to be passing.
Transactions and Use Tax (Add-on Sales Tax) - Initiative Special Tax - Majority Vote Agency Name County Rate Purpose Sunset YES% NO%
John C. Fremont Healthcare District Mariposa Measure N 1 cent hospi tal 40yrs 71.6% 28.4% PASS increase County of Kings Kings Measure F 1/2 cent fire none 37.6% 62.4% FAIL increase Transient Occupancy Tax Tax Measures: Majority Vote General Use Agency Name County Rate YES% NO%
County of Placer - North Tahoe TOT Area Placer Measure A by 2% to 10% 86.8% 13.3% PASS ex tend County of Santa Cruz Unincorporated Santa Cruz Measure B by 1% to 12% 68.6% 31.4% PASS increase County of Hum boldt Unincorporated Hum boldt Measure J by 2% to 12% 63.3% 36.7% PASS ex pand Avalon Los Angeles Meas ure TT by 1% to 13% 48.9% 51.1% FAIL increase Agency Name Meas ure Amount YES% NO% Pass/Faincr/ext
County of Hum boldt Hum boldt Measure K $1/veh 79.5% 20.5% PASS ex tend County of Contra Costa Contra Costa Measure G $1/veh 68.7% 31.3% PASS ex tend County of Sacramento Sacramento Measure C $1/veh 58.6% 41.4% FAIL ex tend Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Tax
(Fees prior to Prop26 of 2010) - 2/3 voter approval required City, County and Special District General Obligation Bond Measure s (2/3 vote ) Agency County Amount YES% NO%
Saint Helena Napa Measure H 19,150,000$ water 77.3% 22.7% PASS San Francisco San Francisco Propos ition A 400,000,000$ public transportation 63.3% 36.7% FAIL Antelope Valley Healthcare District Los Angeles Measure H 400,000,000$ hospital 56.5% 43.5% FAIL 21 Local Revenue Measure Results June 2022 – 8 – PRELIMI NARY June 8, 2022
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Disposable Cup Tax (Business Operations Tax)
Voters in the County of Santa Cruz approved a measure to adopt a 12.5 cent per cup charge on single use cups, the first of its kind. The County previously imposed a 25 cent per cup charge on single use cups sold in the unincorporated areas of the county. The charge, which is to go into effect on July 1, 2022 is collected and retained by sellers. The cities of Watsonville and Santa Cruz already impose single use cup charges.
The measure, which passed easily, adopts have of the charge as a tax, to be remitted by businesses to the county for general purposes including environmental cleanup. The remaining 12.5 cents per cup will continue to be retained by the sellers.
The ballot question reads: “ To reduce pollution, trash and plastics entering local waters and beaches; protect water quality, public health and marine life; address illegal dumping; help prevent wildfires; clean/maintain parks and public areas; and provide environmental education and other general services, shall 12.5 cents of Santa Cruz County’s existing single-use cup charge be collected as a tax until ended by voters, raising approximately $700,000 annually and requiring public spending reports?”
Cannabis – Local Excise Taxes
After a flurry of cannabis taxation measures in recent election s, there was just one this time. Revenues collected from the Huntington Beach measure are earmarked “for the specific purposes of funding police, homeless prevention, behavioral health services, and intervention programs….” The measure is trailing narrowly on election eve, too close to call.
Single Use Cup Tax - Majority Vote General Use
Agency Name County Rate Sunset YES% NO%
County of Santa Cruz Unincorporated Santa Cruz Measure C 12.5cents /cup none 68.2% 31.8% PASS Cannabis Taxes - Two-Thirds Vote Special Purpose
Agency Name County Rate Sunset YES% NO%
Huntington Beach Orange Measure A 6% of gross receipts none 66.3% 33.7% FAIL 22 Local Revenue Measure Results June 2022 – 9 – PRELIMI NARY June 8, 2022
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Other Municipal Measures of Note
Voters in three cities and the County of Siskiyou considered making elected clerk or county auditor positions appointed to improve professionalism and reduce costs. The Carlsbad measure was just 8 voted behind on election night with hundreds of votes still to be tabulated.
Five term limits measures passed.
************
For more information: Michael Coleman 530-758-3952. [email protected]
Appointed City Clerk / City Treasurer / etc.
Agency Name County %YES% NO%
Imperial Imperial Measure v appoint clerk 53.3% 46.7% PASS Carlsbad San Diego Measure C appoint clerk 50.0% 50.0% FAIL South G ate Los Angeles Measure CC appoint clerk 45.9% 54.1% FAIL County of Siskiyou Siskiyou Measure P appoint county
auditor-controller 40.8% 59.2% FAIL
Term limits
Agency Name County %YES% NO%
Glendale USD Los Angeles Measure T 88.4% 11.6% PASS
Am erican Canyon Napa Measure I 82.0% 18.1% PASS
Beverly Hills Los Angeles Measure TL 80.9% 19.1% PASS
Lynwood Los Angeles Measure R 64.0% 36.0% PASS
Santa Clara Water District Santa Clara Measure A 53.5% 46.5% PASS 23 ATTACHMENT 4:
Priority Spending Plan PowerPoint Presentation
24 City of Goleta
City Council Workshop
June 14, 2022
Priority Spending
Plan Workshop
25 Goleta has weathered the pandemic and associated
economic challenges using a hiring freeze and
postponing capital maintenance and improvements.
However, even prior to the pandemic, the City did not
have sufficient funding to keep up with capital asset
depreciation and investments in infrastructure.
City revenues are sufficient to get by, but not enough
to achieve goals in the City Council’s Strategic Plan or address the backlog of critical deferred maintenance.
City revenues are also reduced because of the
Revenue Neutrality Agreement (RNA) between the
City and the County.
2 Does Goleta Need
Additional
Revenues?
Background
26 3
How Are Funds
Currently
Allocated?
General
Government
14%
General
Services
8%
Library
1%
Finance
4%
Planning & Env.
Review
10%Public Works
18%
Neighborhood
Services
5%
Public Safety
22%
Non-
Departmental
2%
CIP
16%
General Fund – FY 22/23 - $44.1 M
General Government
8%
General Services
4% Library Services
4%
Finance
2%
Planning &
Environmental Review
5%
Public Works
16%
Neighborhood
Services
4%
Police
Services
12%
Non-Departmental
3%
CIP
42%
All Funds – FY 22/23 - $81.25
• All funds includes Gas Tax, Measure A,
library and
street lighting assessments,
DIFs, state and federal grants and ARPA
• General Fund includes use of one-time
funds fr
om fund balance for one-time
expenditures
27 4
Potential Revenue
Enhancements
The City Council has studied a range of options to
provide locally-controlled, ongoing revenue to meet the City’s growing needs and ensure financial stability:
• 1¢ Sales Tax generating approximately $10.6M/year;
• 6% Utility Users Tax generating approximately
$4M/year
• $100 per parcel tax generating approximately
$1M/year
• Business License Tax based on employees, square
foot
age or gross income generating approximately
$2M/year depending on specifics
• Transient Occupancy Tax increase generating
appro
ximately $3M/year
28 5
Rationale for a
Sales Tax
A sales tax stands out for several reasons
1. An estimated 44% of the sales tax increase would
be paid by visitor
s and other non-residents. It
would apply to everyone who purchases retail
goods within City limits.
2. Essential items are exempt from sales tax. This
means a sales tax would not raise the cost of food,
prescription medicine and certain medical devices,
gasoline, and sales of items paid for with food
stamps.
3. It is familiar to the public, and preferred to
alternative forms of revenue enhancement
29 6
Rationale for a
Sales Tax
A sales tax stands out for several reasons:
(continued):
4. Goleta currently is tied for the lowest sales tax rate among cities in Santa Barbara County.
5. Unlike other cities in the County and the state,
Goleta does not receive the full 1% of the baseline
7.75% sales tax that all CA cities collect. The
County receives 30% (over $ 3 million) of Goleta’s
1%.
6. Goleta would retain 100% of any new sales tax
approved by local voters.
30 Sales Tax Exemptions
Qualifying purchases made in the City of Goleta are subject to the tax. This includes items such as clothing, cars, household goods and alcohol. Pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code, food groceries, prescriptions, certain medical devices, and other “Necessities of Life” are exempt from sales taxes. 31 8
History of the
Sales Tax in
Goleta
$3.5M $3.6M $3.9M $4.M $4.1M $4.2M
$3.4M $3.3M
$3.9M $3.8M
$5.8M
$6.8M
$6.3M $6.2M $6.5M $6.4M
$7.M $6.7M
$7.6M
$8.1M
0% 4% 7% 5% 2% 1%
-19%
-1%
18%
-2%
50%
18%
-7% -2%
4% -1%
9%
-4%
13% 7%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
$0M
$1M
$2M
$3M
$4M
$5M
$6M
$7M
$8M
$9M
Change from Prior Year
Sales Tax
MILLIONS
Sales Tax Revenues
Sales Tax Revenue Change from Prior Year
Great
Recession
COVID-19
Time Period Description
2002 - 2012 A t start of City incorporation, the County received 50% of the City’s Sales Tax allocation, and then reduced to 30% starting in FY 12/13
4/1/2009 – 6/30/2011 The State of CA increased their sales tax rate to 7.75%, making Goleta’s overall sales tax rate temporarily at 8.75% during the Great Recession
7/1/2011 – 12/31/2012 Goleta’s overall sales tax rate back to 7.75% 1/11/2013 – 12/31/2016 Goleta’s overall sales tax rate temporarily increased to 8.00% due to the State of CA 1/1/2017 - Now Goleta’s overall sales rate went back to 7.75% Sales Tax History
32 9
Goleta’s Property
Tax and Sales Tax
are not fully
allocated to the
City
Lompoc
Buellton
Santa Maria
Santa Barbara
Guadalupe
Carpinteria
Solvang
Goleta
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
12.00%
14.00%
16.00%
18.00%
20.00%
City Property Tax %
Share of 1% Property Tax
By City
Average County
Share – All Cities Average City & County Share
from Goleta
The City of Goleta receives the lowest property tax percentage among Santa Barbara County cities. Gole
ta shares 50% of its property tax allocation with the County, per the RNA. If the RNA did not exist, Goleta’s property tax allocation would be approximately 10% instead of 5%
Property Tax Allocations by City
33 10
Goleta’s Property
Tax and Sales Tax
are not fully
allocated to the
City
The City of Goleta receives the lowest property tax percentage among Santa Barbara County cities. Gole
ta shares 50% of its property tax allocation with the County, per the RNA. If the RNA did not exist, Goleta’s property tax allocation would be approximately 10% instead of 5%
Where do Goleta’s Property Tax Go?
Dependent Districts, 1.62%
Independent Districts, 4.31%
Goleta, 5.10%
County, 11.10%
County Fire, 14.84%
Schools, 63.02%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Property Tax Share
City of Goleta Property Tax Allocations
Schools
County Fire
County
Goleta
Independent Districts
Dependent Districts
34 11
Goleta’s Property
Tax and Sales Tax
are not fully
allocated to the
City
Almost all Cities in California receive the base 1% allocation of the sales tax, except Goleta Goleta receives the lowest sales tax allocation of the base 1%, due to the RNA. 30% goes to the Coun
ty.
1.00%
2.25%
0.70%
1.25%
2.00%
2.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.50%
2.313%
2.313%
2.613%
2.313%
2.313%
2.313%
2.313%
2.313%
3.9375%
3.9375%
3.9375%
3.9375%
3.9375%
3.9375%
3.9375%
3.9375%
7.7500%
9.0000%
7.7500%
8.0000%
8.7500%
8.7500%
8.7500%
7.7500%
CITY OF BUELLTO N
CITY OF CARP IN T E R I A (1)
CITY OF GOLETA
CITY OF GUAD ALUP E (2)
CITY OF LOMP OC ( 3)
CITY OF SANTA BARBAR A (4)
CITY OF SANTA MARIA ( 5)
CITY OF SOLV ANG
SALES TAX RATE BY CITY AND ALLOCATION
City SBCAG County State of CA
(1)City of Carpinteria passed a 1.25% sales tax measure at the November 6, 2018 General Election. (2)City of Guadalupe passed a 0.25% sales tax measure at the November 4, 2014 General Election, along with two other tax measures. (3)City of Lompoc passed a 1% sales tax measure during the primary election March 3, 2020, with a sunset date of 15 years (4)City of Santa Barbara passed a 1.0% sales tax measure at the November 6, 2018 General Election. (5)City of Santa Maria first passed a 0.25% sales tax measure at the June 5, 2012 Primary Election with a sunset date of 9 years (2021).
City of Santa Maria then passed a sales tax renewal measure to increase the 0.25% rate to 1% with no sunset clause at the N ovember 6, 2018 General Election.
Sales Tax Allocations by City
35 12
Goleta’s Property
Tax and Sales Tax
are not fully
allocated to the
City
Other Cities Nearby with Additional Sales Tax
Ventura County:
Tax Area Rate Effective Date
Oxnard (City) 1.50% 4/1/2 021
Oxnard (City) 0.50% 4/1/2009
Port Hueneme (City) 1.00% 4/1/2019
Port Hueneme (City) 0.50% 4/1/2009
Santa Paula (City) 1.00% 4/1/2017
Ventura (City) 0.50% 4/1/2017
San Luis Obispo County:
T
ax Area Rate Effective Date
Arroyo Grande (City) 0.50% 4/1/2 007
Atascadero (City) 1.00% 4/1/2021
Atascadero (City) 0.50% 4/1/2015
Grover Beach (City) 1.50% 4/1/2021
Grover Beach (City) 0.50% 4/1/2007
Morro Bay (City) 1.50% 4/1/2021
Morro Bay (City) 0.50% 4/1/2007
Paso Robles (City) 1.00% 4/1/2021
Paso Robles (City) 0.50% 4/1/2013
Pismo Beach (City) 0.50% 10/1/2008
San Luis Obispo (City) 1.50% 4/1/2021
San Luis Obispo (City) 0.50% 4/1/2007
36 Preliminary – Local Add-On Sales Tax Measure – June 2022 Election 37 14
Consistent
Support for a
Sales Tax
Increase
Generation
Four separate public opinion surveys indicate support
for enhanced revenue generation through a one cent
increase in the City’s sales tax.
38 Public Opinion Polling Data and Budget Priorities
Helping prevent brush fires caused by illegal encampments, protecting creeks and coastal waters from pollution, and supporting public safety response are among the potential uses of the funds considered extremely/very important by seven in ten voters or more.
Ext./Very
Impt.
73%
71%
71%
71%
71%
70%
70%
70%
37%
36%
33%
32%
28%
34%
31%
30%
36%
35%
38%
38%
43%
36%
39%
40%
19%
20%
19%
23%
22%
23%
25%
22%
8%
9%
10%
7%
8%
7%
5%
8%
Helping prevent brush fires caused by illegal
encampments
Protecting creeks and coastal waters from pollution
Supporting public safety, and
911 response
Preventing pollution from entering local creeks and
coastal waters
Keeping public areas clean and safe
Protecting public health and safety
Increasing the use of recycled water to irrigate parks
and fields
^Repairing streets and potholes
Ext. Impt. Very Impt. Smwt. Impt. Not Too Impt./Don't Know (Ranked by Extremely/Very Important)
Q. I am now going to read you a list of possible uses for the funds that might be included in this local ballot measure. Regardless of how you feel about this measure, please tell me how important it is to you personally that each use of funds is included in the measure: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. ^Not Part of Split Sample
39 Public Opinion Polling Data and Budget Priorities
(Ranked by Extremely/Very Important)
Ext./Very
Impt.
69%
67%
67%
67%
66%
66%
65%
64%
29%
32%
31%
23%
35%
27%
25%
37%
40%
35%
36%
44%
31%
39%
40%
26%
24%
23%
20%
28%
20%
23%
26%
25%
7%
11%
12%
14%
12%
10%
11%
Retaining and attracting local businesses and jobs
Maintaining open spaces and natural areas
Retaining local businesses and jobs
Keeping parks clean and safe
Maintaining open space
^Protecting Goleta’s long-term financial stability
Addressing homelessness
Ext. Impt. Very Impt. Smwt. Impt. Not Too Impt./Don't Know Q. I am now going to read you a list of possible uses for the funds that might be included in this local ballot measure. Regardless of how you feel about this measure, please tell me how important it is to you personally that each use of funds is included in the measure: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. ^Not Part of Split Sample Continued
40 17
Community
Survey Results
(as of April 30, 2022)
Below is a list of priorities that will require additional resources. In April over 600 Goleta residents ranked the priorities by level of importance. Here are the community services that were ranked as high or medium priority:
Survey Results Are In!
Keeping public areas safe and clean 97%
Paving streets, removing potholes, and improving traffic safety 95% Protecting Goleta’s long-term financial stability 94%
Supporting public safety and maintaining rapid 911 response 93% Maintaining open spaces and natural areas 93%
Preparing for wildfires, floods, natural disasters, and public health emergencies 93% Protecting local creeks and coastal waters from pollution 92% Conserving water by increasing use of recycled water to irrigate parks and fields 92% Preventing brush fires caused by illegal encampments 91% Maintaining services for low-income senior citizens and other vulnerable residents 85% Addressing homelessness through our Homelessness Strategic Plan 84% Helping local businesses rebound and retain the workforce to fill critical jobs 79% Improving access to affordable housing for middle- and working-class families 78% Supporting and expanding afterschool programs and affordable early childhood/childcare programs 73%
41 18
What is
Unfunded?
•Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Projects
• Over $100 million
• Current City revenues are not sufficient to support debt service • Pavement Program Deficit
• Existing budget at $2.6 million, need additional ongoing of $3.4 million to maint
ain PCI average of 67
•Critical Maintenance Backlog
• Old buildings (Library, Community Center, Stow House and Historic T
rain Depot)
• Other facility improvements, fixture and equipment replacements, and establishm
ent of replacement reserves
• Public street trees, sidewalks, and parks and open space •Important Community Master Plans
•Other Unfunded Costs
• Childcare programs, Affordable Housing Program, Old Town impro
vements, and Public Safety and Library
42 19
Some
Investments
Cannot Wait
• Address homelessness
• Repair streets, remove potholes
• Provide ways to expand childcare and help make it more aff
ordable as well as to expand opportunities for
afterschool programs
• Prevent polluted stormwater runoff from entering local creek
s and coastal waters
• Restore local creeks and add more bicycle and pedestrian rout
es
• Increase affordable housing
• Provide programs to assist local businesses and families fa
cing economic hardship
Why the need to add revenues?
43 20
We must avoid
falling behind
on our
investments
The City should not let its investment in
strategic planning go to waste
Existing Strategic Plans
• Creek and Watershed Management Plan
• Butterfly Habitat Management Plan
• Parks, Facilities and Playgrounds Master Plan
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
• Homelessness Strategic Plan
• Strategic Energy and Climate Action Plan
• Pavement Condition Index Goal
Plans that ar
e soon to be started or completed
• Old Town Visioning Process
• Community Center Strategic Plan
• Economic Development Strategic Plan
• Child Care Master Plan
• Lake Los Carneros Master Plan Update
• Affordable Housing Plan
44 21
What if Goleta
does not
address its
deferred
maintenance?
Failing to address deferred maintenance and backlog of priorities will result in increasing costs and other issues, including safety hazards, health risks, compliance issues, costly emergency repairs, reduced equipment efficiency, shorter asset life cycles, poor quality facilities, and employee retention challenges.
99M 118M 134M 148M 161M 170M 179M 184M 190M 196M 202M
FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25 FY 25/26 FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30 FY 30/31 FY 31/32 Cost of Continued Deferred CIP (Unfunded Portion Only)
$10.3M annual average increase
9M 11M 12M 14M 15M 15M 19M 24M 29M
36M
45M
FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25 FY 25/26 FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30 FY 30/31 FY 31/32 Cost of Continued Deferred Maintenance
$5.8M annual increase
$1.3M annual average increase
Costs of Deferred Maintenance
45 22
What happens if
Goleta does not
have the
additional funding
for its pavement
program?
Pavement Program
• Goleta will struggle to keep up with the PCI average goal of 67 and roads will con
tinue to deteriorate at a faster pace
• At current funding levels, PCI levels will continue to drop and reach a PCI level of 50 by FY 30/31.
Anything below 55 is considered to be
in “poor” condition, and may result in in costly reconstruction instead of maintenance
20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 Increase to PCI Goals - ($5.8M) 62 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 Maintain 63 - ($4.7M) 62 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63
Current Budget - ($2.5M) 62 62 61 60 58 57 56 54 53 51 50 Zero budget 62 61 58 56 54 51 48 46 43 40 37
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 PCI RANGE
PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX - 10 YEAR PROJECTION
46 General Fund Impacts and Deferred Maintenance
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
$70,000,000
$80,000,000
$90,000,000
$100,000,000
FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25 FY 25/26 FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30 FY 30/31 FY 31/32 General Fund Forecast: Revenues and Expenditures with Deferred Maintenance Surplus (Deficit) General Fund Revenues Total Expenditures Expenditures outpace Revenues
Ongoing Annual Deficit
-$50,000,000
-$45,000,000
-$40,000,000
-$35,000,000
-$30,000,000
-$25,000,000
-$20,000,000
-$15,000,000
-$10,000,000
-$5,000,000
$0
FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25 FY 25/26 FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30 FY 30/31 FY 31/32 Net Operating Revenue with Deferred Maintenance
Ongoing Annual Deficit
Average Years: 5 Years 10 Years
Average Annual Surplus (Deficit) $ (12,100,172) $ (20,736,093) Average Annual Deficit Increase
Per Year $ (1,295,627) $ (3,526,055)
Average Annual Deficit Growth
Rate 12.8% 18.7%
Goleta cannot afford critical deferred maintenance or continue to keep putting
off critical maintenance without facing significant cost increases The City is at risk should another unanticipated emergency repair be needed, lik
e the Cathedral Oaks Cribwall Repair Project
In an event of an emergency, the City will have to look at using the conting
ency reserve, possible lines of credit and reducing
service levels permanently to afford debt service for an emergency repair
The charts assumes the City’s current revenue stream and expenditures,
with deferred maintenance programmed in
A significant ongoing deficit exists and will further increase when maint
enance items become major structural repairs
or replacements which will experience significant cost
increases
47 24
Sample Sales
Tax Ballot
Language
• Ballot Language must be very general about what funds will be used for
.
• Sample Ballot Language below:
• “To maintain City of Goleta services, to address public health emergencies and natural disast
ers, support
public safety and 911 response, clean and maintain
public areas, retain local businesses and jobs, maintain open spaces, repair streets, address homelessness and
provide other general City services, shall a measure be adopted establishing a 1¢ sales tax providing
approximately $9,800,000 annually until ended by
voters, requiring annual independent audits with all
funds staying in Goleta?”
48 25
General
Purpose Tax
Constraints
General Purpose Tax Constraints
- As a general-purpose tax requiring majority voter
support (rather than a special tax requiring 2/3
voter support), the City cannot commit funds on
the ballot for any particular direction and must
maintain the availability of such funds for any
general purpose.
- However, the City Council can establish specific
priorities to guide the use of the new revenue
generated by a sales tax measure.
49 Spending Plan
26 The Council may wish to approve a
plan for how to allocate potential
new sales tax revenue to ensure that:
• Funds go to the highest priority
projects and purposes, a
nd
• Instead of a backlog of unfunded
capital
projects, strategic plans,
and degrading roads, the
community will see progress and
accomplishments.
The plan can be revised each year or
two, as conditions warrant
50 Spending Plan
27 • Staff will walk Council through a
prioritiza
tion process with a
tracking spreadsheet
• Council can engage in a ranking
process t
o identify their key
priorities
• Community members are
encourag
ed to provide input on
spending priorities
• Subject to Council direction,
priorities not list
ed can be
incorporated in the Spending
Plan
51 Spending Plan
28 See excel spreadsheet
52