Capital Improvement Program Budget Workshop for Fiscal Year 2024/25 — Goleta City Council, April 2, 2024 (part 1 of 3)

Agenda Item D.2

DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEM
Meeting Date: April 2, 2024

TO: Mayor and Councilmembers

SUBMITTED BY: Luke Rioux, Finance Director

SUBJECT: Capital Improvement Program Budget Workshop for Fiscal Year 2024/25

RECOMMENDATION:

A. Receive a presentation on the Preliminary Capital Improvement Program Budget for Fiscal Year 2024/25;

B. Direct staff to continue work with municipal financial advisor, p utting together the financing team for issuing certificates of participations or other similar financing option; and

C. Provide input, feedback and policy directly related to short -term and long -term strategies related to funding unfunded Capital Improvement Program.

BACKGROUND:

The City adopted a Two-Year Budget Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24 and FY 2024/25 on June 20, 2024 and is now approaching its second year of the budget plan. The two- year budget is revisited after the first year to allow staff and the City Council to revise the second-year budget appropriations as necessary to reflect the evolving needs of the City while maintaining alignment with the Council’s Strategic Plan and priorities in the departmental work programs. The second -year process is known as the Mid -Cycle Budget Review and, when adopted, is referred to as the Mid-Cycle Budget.

As part of the annual budget adoption process, the City hosts a series of public budget workshops that provide an overview of the Operating and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget. The CIP is a multi -year planning document used by the City to identify capital improvement projects and coordinate the financing timing of the projects.

The purpose of this budget workshop is to provide the City Council the opportunity to review the updated Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that was originally adopted as part of the Two-Year Budget Plan. In addition, review updated CIP project sheets, funded and unfunded amounts , and discuss funding strategies , and set the revised 1 Meeting Date: April 2, 2024

Page 2 of 11 ends

appropriations amounts for FY 2024/25. In addition, adjust for actions taken place during FY 2023/24.

Summary of Major Items Related to the CIP since July 1, 2023

On October 30, 2023, the City Council received a presentation and update on the CIP projects, which included updated cost information based on the latest bidding data at the time. In addition, Public Works identified 12 project s that the City is obligated to deliver over the next five years, which included funding, grants, and unfunded amounts. The update mainly focused on funding Project Connect and Hollister Old Town Interim Striping Projects and provided a high-level overview of the unfunded projects in the CIP. The update also include d outlining a list of short -term solutions for potential sources of immediate funding. This included inter-fund borrowings, CIP reserve funding policy, short- term debt, and lease financings (e.g., Certificates of Participations or IBank). Any type of financing was considered staff’s last resort option. In addition, long-term solutions were listed, which included stormwater utility fees, general obligation bonds, and consideration of future revenue enhancement options. Staff was directed to come back in April 2024 to review funding options further.

On December 19th, 2023, the City Council awarded the construction contract for Project Connect, approved budget appropriations from various funds , and direct ed staff to prepare a financing reimbursement resolution and pursue tax -exempt financing as a contingency should Measure A funding not be available.

On March 5, 2024, the City Council received an update on the CIP project delivery, preliminary cost estimates , and staff's recommended project prioritization framework to be applied to future CIP projects ahead of programming the next budget cycle . The prioritization framework includes the following categories:

 Staff and Public Safety
 Environmental/Social/Governance (Equity)
 Asset Condition and Annual Costs
 Regulatory Compliance
 Funding Availability
 Stakeholder Input

In addition, an update was provided on the recent storm that took place in early February (with a local emergency declared on February 4, 2024). The storm resulted in damage to public right -of-way, downed trees blocking sidewalks and streets, roa d closures, and disruption to public services. Some of these impacts resulted in new emergency project work efforts and impacted existing critical CIP projects such as the Cathedral Oaks Crib Wall Repair.

2 Meeting Date: April 2, 2024

Page 3 of 11 ends

DISCUSSION:

Capital Improvement Program Overview:

The budget for the CIP is prepared separately from the City’s Operating Budget so that a more thorough and detailed understanding of the program can be provided. The Comprehensive CIP Project List (Comprehensive CIP) is comprised of a list of capital projects that improve or add to the City’s public infrastructure and facilities. The list may also include, from time to time, significant purchases of new or replacement equipment and other assets. Typically, the Comprehensive CIP comprises projec ts with a total cost of $100,000 or greater and will have a life span of more than 5 years. Capital projects are generally large -scale endeavors in terms of cost, size, and benefit to the community.

Ultimately, the Comprehensive CIP is a multi-year planning tool that enables the City to plan, prioritize and fund capital projects. The planning of these projects and significant purchases contribute to the effective management of the City’s assets. This planning effort not only sets priorities but also ensures an adequate investment of capital funding.

The CIP consists of three components: a Comprehensive CIP Project List , a Five-Year CIP Project List, and a CIP Budget.

Comprehensive CIP Project List
The Comprehensive CIP Project List (Comprehensive CIP) is a list of current, upcoming, and potential future capital projects that are developed from several sources including City Council direction, departmental recommendations, and policy documents. Additional sources include City Council-approved and adopted documents such as the Development Impact Fee Program, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, UCSB Long Range Development Plan, and projects that address regulatory compliance requirements. The Comprehensive CIP is a long-range planning tool that enables the City to plan, prioritize, and fund capital projects. The Comprehensive CIP is included in Attachment 1.

Five-Year CIP Project List
Once the Comprehensive CIP Project List is established , priority projects are identified from the list, and project sheets a nd cost estimates are developed and included in the Five-Year CIP Project List (Five -Year CIP). Projects included in the Five -Year CIP are generally projects that have been identified that will be actively worked on over the next five years to address publ ic safety concerns, prior commitments, public expectation, and/or grant deadlines. The Five-Year CIP is included in Attachment 2.

The Five-Year CIP specifically identifies projects that were included in the departmental Annual Work Programs and will be a ctively worked on in the upcoming Fiscal Year 2024/25.
3 Meeting Date: April 2, 2024

Page 4 of 11 ends

CIP Budget Documents

The CIP Budget reviews and analyzes the funding component of the Five -Year CIP Project List, focusing on FY 2024/25 budget appropriations and future years with critical deadlines. The CIP Budget consists of three main documents: CIP Summary by Fund, CIP Summary by Project, and CIP Project Detail Sheets. The following paragraphs provide an overview of how to review these budget summary documents.

 The CIP Summary by Fund (Attachment 3)
o This document lists all funding sources, with each project listed under each funding source. This document allows a user to see all the funding sources and amounts currently programmed for capital improvement projects and provides a five -year outlook. It is used as a tool to understand if funding sources will have sufficient balances in current and future years to support portions of the preliminary cost estimate. Unfunded amounts are listed on the very last page , under “to be determined” or “unfunded”. The projects listed under the to be determined amounts are projects that may have a grant or other revenue source available but are still deemed to be unfunded until it is awarded or certain. All amounts are subject to change as they are based on preliminary cost estimates provided by project managers.  The CIP Summary by Projects (Attachment 4)
o This document shows the various funding sources for the Five-Year CIP as well, but by project. It is prepared in order of project number and lists all funding sources collectively for the project . This document is utilized as a tool to view each project and all the funding sources going into this project.

It includes all costs spent on the project in prior years, the current budget, estimated carryovers, and future years. Unfunded amounts are also listed.  The CIP Project Detail Sheets (Attachment 5)
o This document summarizes the project details, which include a picture related to the project, the project description, benefit/core value, purpose and need, project status, estimated annual maintenance costs (if an estimate is available), and a table showing the funding sources, and project cost estimates by phases such as costs associated with any land acquisition/right-of-way, preliminary engineering, and construction.

How CIP Projects are Funded

Capital improvement projects are funded from various revenue sources. Funding details for each specific project can be found in the CIP Budget, starting with Attachment 3. The major sources of funds available for capital projects are dedicated funds for this type of use. The use of dedicated funds is restricted by the limitations imposed by local, state or federal laws associated with the funding source. For the most part, funds for the CIP are accounted for in the City’s special revenue funds and include various development impact fee funds, transportation-related special reve nue funds, and major federal and state grants that have been awarded. Projects that are not completely supported by dedicated revenue or are partially supported by grant revenues and need matching funds are generally supplemented by the General Fund when funds are available. The City may 4 Meeting Date: April 2, 2024

Page 5 of 11 ends

also receive direct funding for projects from other agencies, jurisdictions, or individuals through grants, loans, donations, and/or other subsidies.

Preliminary CIP Budget for FY 24/25 and Five Years and Beyond Outlook:

Note: The financial summary includes all CIP budget projects including those that are deferred five years and beyond and outside the annual work program.

Entire CIP Budget:

The updated CIP Budget has a total cost to complete budget of $624 million over the next five years and beyond. Of the $ 624 million, approximately $153 million is supported by various funding sources, leaving a funding gap of approximately $ 472 million. The $152 million funding sources range from the General Fund to Special Revenue funds such as Measure A, Development Impact Fee (DIF) revenues, and various grants. Since DIF revenues are estimates based on the timing of development, it is important to note that these revenues are revised on an annual basis as more current information regarding the timing of development projects becomes available. By forecasting revenues that specifically fund capital projects, staff can program and plan for projects on a five -year basis.

Given the multitude of projects and significant cost increases over the years, the City is challenged with a growing funding gap of $ 472 million. This funding gap increase is primarily driven by construction cost inflation and the updated preliminary cost estimates.

The majority of this unfunded amount is related to the Goleta US 101 Overcrossing (Project No. 9027), resulting in an unfunded amount of $274 million. When not including this this project, the unfunded amount is estimated at approximately $198 million over the next five years. The following table compares the CIP budgets presented at different times and changes in estimates.

Table 1 – Total CIP Budget Cost Summary Comparison

Total CIP Budget
Summary – 5-Year
Outlook
May 23, 2023
Workshop
June 20, 2023
Budget
Adoption
April 2, 2024
Workshop
Total CIP Project Costs: $ 436,145,168 $
441,307,069
$
701,179,310
Total Project Costs to
Complete: $ 379,729,793 $
378,334,075
$
624,020,891
Total Funded Amount: $ 159,117,782 $
152,992,788
$
152,364,706
Total Est. Unfunded Amount: $ 220,612,011 $
225,341,287
$
471,656,185

When considering the current estimated funding gap of $472 million in the Five-Year CIP Budget, it is not financially feasible, even when considering debt service. The legal debt margin for City of Goleta is currently $338 million.

CIP Budget - Priority CIP Projects Only:
5 Meeting Date: April 2, 2024

Page 6 of 11 ends

When considering only the annual work program priority projects that are actively being worked on, the CIP budget summary is estimated to have an unfunded amount of $78.6 million. The table below summarizes the amounts by department and in further detail.

Table 2 – CIP Priority Projects Only (Annual Work Program)

CIP - Priority Projects
# of Priority
Projects
Total CIP
Project Costs
Total Est.

Unfunded
Amount
General Services 6
$
31,639,068 $ 2,649,276
Neighborhood Services 13
$
73,678,615 $ 26,909,820
Public Works 12 $ 190,638,080 $ 49,029,979 All Departments 31 $ 295,955,763 $ 78,589,075

The following section summarizes the annual work program projects by department. It includes current project phase, total project cost estimates, total estimated unfunded, current funding sources, notes and funding strategies. For complete details of each project, please see Attachment 5 to the report.

Note:
 Cost estimates are subject to change when new information becomes available. Project cost estimates change as the project scope is further developed and when contractor bids are received.

Funding sources can change if the financial situation or revenues are impacted by other factors.

 Funding strategies are preliminary recommendations and staff is seeking Council direction to move forward with next steps. It is anticipated that continued discussions on funding recommendations will happen over the course of the year.

Table 3 - General Services FY 24/25 Annual Work Program Projects

6 Meeting Date: April 2, 2024

Page 7 of 11 ends

Table 4 – Neighborhood Services – FY 24/25 Annual Work Program Projects

#
Project
# Project Name Project Phase
Total Project
Cost
Total
Unfunded
Current Funding
Sources
Notes and Funding
Strategy
1 9067
Goleta Community
Center Seismic
Upgrades
Construction 6,614,950$ -$ General Fund, CDBG, FEMA HMGP Grant Near completion this FY.
2 9121
Goleta Community
Center ADA
Improvements
Design 65% 4,171,569$ -$
General Fund, CDBG,
Federal Community
Project Funding
3 9130 Goleta Valley Library
ADA & Building Refresh Not started 5,348,200$ -$ General Fund, Goleta
Library Special Funds,
California State Library
Grant
4 9131 Historic Train Station
Preservation Not started 1,050,000$ 700,000$ General Fund To be deferred until
funding available. Pay-
go, possible sources:

Grants, General Fund,
DIF
5 9101 City Hall Purchase &
Improvements
Conceptual
Design 14,149,918$ 1,949,276$
General Fund, Ibank
Financing Lease, Public
Admin DIF, Sheriff DIF
To be deferred until
funding available. DIFs,
General Fund
6 9127 Goleta Community
Center Campus Refresh Not started 304,431$ -$ General Fund Total Annual Work Program CIP 31,639,068$ 2,649,276$ 7 Meeting Date: April 2, 2024

Page 8 of 11 ends

Table 5 – Public Works – FY 24/25 Annual Work Program Projects

#
Project
No. Project Name Project Phase
Total Project
Cost
Total
Unfunded
Current Funding
Sources Notes and Funding Strategy
1 9079
Goleta Train Depot
and S. La Patera
Improvements
Design 95% 26,039,997 -
General Fund,
Trasportation DIF,
Public Admin DIF,
Developer Agreement,
Bike & Ped DIF, TIRCP
Grant
If addiitonal funds needed,
possible LRDP funds.

Consideration of lease revenue
bond against the facility
2 9111
Jonny D. Wallis
Neighborhood Park
Phase 2 Splash Pad
Construction 2,424,547 - Park DIF 3 9084 Community Garden Construction 2,213,144 - Park DIF Near completion 4 9126
Pickleball
Entry/Waiting area at
GCC
Conceptual Design 185,000 - Park DIF, Donations, CDBG Grant
5 9113 Mathilda Park
Improvements Design 95% 524,252 -
General Fund, State
Park Grant, CDBG
Grant
6 9074
Stow Grove Park
Master Plan &
Renovation
Conceptual Design 9,450,000 4,500,000 Park DIF Park DIF, Grants. May need to
be deferred until additional
funding available or phased
approached.
7 9108 Winchester II Park Not Started 310,000 - Park DIF 8 9071 Improvements to
Athletic Field at GCC Construction 601,109 - Park DIF, HCD State Grant Completed
9 9063 Evergreen Park
Improvements Not Started 5,280,000 5,000,000 Park DIF Deferred until funding available.

Additional DIF may not be
elgible.
10 9094 Santa Barbara Shores
Park Improvements Not Started 305,000 - Park DIF 11 9093 San Miguel Park
Improvements Not Started 675,000 - Park DIF 12 9025 Fire Station No. 10 Design 25,570,566 17,409,820 General Fund, Public
Admin DIF, Fire DIF,
Developer Agreement,
County Fire DIF
On hold. No capacity for debt
financing.
13 9116 Pickleball Courts Not Started 100,000 - Park DIF Total Annual Work Program CIP 73,678,615 26,909,820 8 Meeting Date: April 2, 2024

Page 9 of 11 ends

Funding Plan Updates for Annual Work Program Projects

To help guide funding discussions and strategies for the unfunded CIP and focus work efforts, staff funding plan recommendation is to pursue both short -term s olutions and long-term solutions which will be discussed in detail during the workshop and has worked on prioritizing the Cathedral Oaks Crib Wall Repair Project (Project No. 9053) and San Jose Creek Bike Path Northern & Southern Segment (Project No. 9006).

# Project
No. Project Name Project
Phase
Total Project
Cost
Total
Unfunded Current Funding Sources Notes and Funding
Strategy
1 9002 Ekwill Street & Fowler
Road Extensions Project Construction 66,619,541$ -$ General Fund, Gas Tax,
Measure A, Measure A
Grants, Transportation DIF,
LRDP, STIP - State Grant,
CDBG, STIP - Federal Grant,
ARPA, Redvelopment Funds,
Other Measure A
Consider COP financing,
leveraging Measure A to
reduce the General Fund
component of $10.1 million, to
be programmed entirely to
Cathedral Oaks Cribwall
2 9033 Hollister Avenue Bridge
Replacement Construction 31,819,911$ -$
General Fund, Measure A,
Transportation DIF, Storm
Drain DIF, HBP Federal
Grant, Redvelopment Funds
Consider COP financing,
leveraging Measure A to
reduce the General Fund
component of $2.6 million, to
be programmed entirely to
Cathedral Oaks Cribwall
3 9006
San Jose Creek Bike Path
Northern & Southern
Extent
Final Design 47,237,000$ 19,233,276$
Measure A, Measure A
Grants, TDA, Transportation
DIF, Bicycle & Pedestrian
DIF, RSTP - State Grant, ATP
- State Grant, TCSP Federal
Grant, Redevelopment
Funds
Consider combination of COP
financing, leveraging Measure
A and General Fund, interfund
borrowing, and possible use
of LRDP
4 9083 Traffic Signal Upgrades Final Design 3,552,000$ -$ General Fund, Measure A, HSIP - Federal Grant
5 9112
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling
Preserve Open Space
Plan
Conceptual
Design 10,958,110$ 5,716,226$ General Fund, MBHMP - State Grant
MBHMP grant balance exists,
though long-term unfunded
portion exists. Will need to be
further evaluated.
6 9110 Hollister Class 1 Bike
Path Lighting
Design/Constr
uction 1,378,855$ 600,784$ Measure A, Measure A Grant Deferred 7 9062
Storke Road/Hollister
Avenue Transit, Bike/Ped,
and Median
Improvements
Design 1,792,000$ 1,000,000$ Transportation DIF, LRDP, Measure A Grant
Still being evaluated and will
be followed up at a future
meeting. Project has a grant
associated with it and property
acquisition needed to move
forward.
8 9117
San Jose Creek Channel
Fish Passage Modification
Project
Conceptual
Design 3,440,000$ 1,992,723$ General Fund Funding needed in FY 25/26.

Recommend setting aside
funds, and interfund borrowing
9 9053 Cathedral Oaks Crib Wall
Interim Repair Project Final Design 17,770,164$ 15,511,770$ General Fund, Measure A,
Transportation DIF, FHWA-
FEMA
Emergency related project.

Recommend COP financing
9002 and 9033 with Measure
A, and transferring all General
Fund to 9053
10 9119 Ellwood Beach Drive
Drainage Repair
Conceptual
Design 1,114,200$ 871,200$ General Fund Funds needed by FY 25/26.

Storm Drain DIF, interfund
borrowing if needed to.

Evaluate long-term funding
needs of stormwater and
pursue funding study
11 9120 Evergreen Park Drainage
Repair Construction 202,300$ -$ General Fund Emergency related project 12 9107
Old Town South Fairview
Avenue, High Flow Trash
Capture Devices
Conceptual
Design 4,754,000$ 4,104,000$ Storm Drain DIF Evaluate and update solid
waste fees to fund trash
capture devices
Total Annual Work Program CIP 190,638,080$ 49,029,979$ 9 Meeting Date: April 2, 2024

Page 10 of 11 ends

In summary, staff has evaluated its debt capacity and financing options and has determined it to be limited with the General Fund. However, after continued work with its municipal advisor, we have determined the best approach in working within other eligible funding sources, is to leverage local transportation sales tax (Measure A) dollars through a certificates of participation (COP) arrangement or considering use of the Total Road Improvement Program (T.R.I.P). T.R.I.P was a program established in 2007 for local agencies to fi nance eligible street projects by issuing certificates of participation. If Council directs staff to move forward, staff will work with its municipal financial advisor and start work on putting together a financing team. Staff and financing team will retu rn to Council for next steps of financing mechanism and updated costs and getting authority to move forward. Based on preliminary analysis, it is estimated that approximately $12.4 million to $16.7 million can be generated. The following table shows a hy pothetical scenario and will be discussed in further detail at the workshop.

Note: Actual results will change based on market conditions

The benefits of leveraging local transportation sales tax revenues, is that it can secured by Measure A revenue s. The COP financing mechanism provides long -term financing through a lease or installment sale agreement. General Fund revenues are not pledged, resulting in no leased asset required, and maintaining greater flexibility with the General Fund. If the General Fund was to be considered, capacity and reductions to the ongoing operating budget will need to be made. Consideration of utilizing the Gener al Fund will continue to be further evaluated, but it is recommended to pursue utilized Measure A first to maintain the General Fund’s flexibility.

In addition, other short-term strategies and long-term strategies are being recommended, which will be further discussed at the workshop.

FISCAL IMPACTS:
10 Meeting Date: April 2, 2024

Page 11 of 11 ends

There is no fiscal impact associated with this item . Based upon City Council direction, staff will evaluate the fiscal impact of the FY 2024/25 Operating Budget and Comprehensive Capital Improvement Progra m and provide the final recommended budget at the June 18, 2024 meeting.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council can direct staff to bring this item back for further discussion and additional information. City Council can also recommend other alternative financi ng options to evaluate or pursue or direct staff to not pursue.

LEGAL REVIEW BY: Megan Garibaldi, City Attorney

APPROVED BY: Robert Nisbet, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Comprehensive Capital Improvement Program

2. Five Year CIP Project List

3. Five Year CIP Budget Summary by Fund

4. Five Year CIP Budget Summary by Project

5. Five Year CIP Budget – Project Detail Sheets

6. Copy of Revenue Enhancement Workshop

7. Debt Management Policy

8. CIP Budget Workshop PowerPoint Presentation
11 ATTACHMENT 1:

Comprehensive CIP List

12 City of Goleta
COMPREHENSIVE CIP PROJECT LIST
June 30, 2024
Project
Number Project Name Project Phase Notes
1 9002 (R1) Ekwill Street & Fowler Road Extensions * Construction Moving forward. Grant Deadline(s) 2 9006 San Jose Creek Bike Path ‐ Northern & Southern Segments Design Moving forward. Grant Deadline(s) 3 9007 San Jose Creek Bike Path ‐ Middle Extent Construction Moving forward. Grant Deadline(s) 4 9033 Hollister Avenue Bridge Construction Moving forward. Grant Deadline(s) 5 9053 Cathedral Oaks Crib Wall Repair Conceptual Design Moving forward. Analyze Project Scope and Funding Needs. 6 9062 Storke/Hollister Transit, Bike/Ped, and Median Imp. * Design Moving forward. Grant Deadline(s) 7 9083 Traffic Signal Upgrades Design Moving forward. Grant Deadline(s) 8 9086 Vision Zero Plan Conceptual Design Moving forward. Priority Project. 9 9103 Citywide School Zones Signage and Striping Evaluation Not Started Moving forward. Priority Project. 10 9107 Old Town Full Trash Capture Conceptual Design Moving forward. Conformance Deadline 11 9110 Hollister Class I Bike Path Lighting Construction Moving forward. Grant Deadline(s) 12 9114 Hollister Avenue Old Town Interim Striping Construction Moving forward. Grant Deadline(s) 13 9115 Public Works Corporation Yard Repairs and Improvements Conceptual Design Moving forward. Priority Project. 14 9117 San Jose Creek Channel Fish‐Passage Modification Project Design Moving forward. Priority Project. 15 9118 Ellwood Coastal Trails and Habitat Restoration Design Moving forward. Priority Project. 16 9119 Ellwood Beach Drive Drainage Repair Design Moving forward. Priority Project. 17 9120 Evergreen Park Drainage Repair Construction Moving forward. Priority Project. 18 9124 Fairview and Stow Canyon Traffic Signal & Intersection Improvements Not Started Moving forward. Priority Project. 19 9125 Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) Calle Real at Jenna Not Started Moving forward. Priority Project. 20 9132 Lake Los Carneros Pedestrian Bridge Removal Not Started Moving forward. Priority Project. 21 9133 Hollister Ave Sidewalk Improvement at Ellwood School Not Started Moving forward. Priority Project. 22 9085 Goleta Storm Drain Master Plan Not Started Moving forward. Priority Project. 23 9122 City ‐Wide Open Space Management and Maintenance Not Started Moving forward. Priority Project. 24 9123 Lake Los Carneros Master Plan Conceptual Design Moving forward. Priority Project. 25 9112 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Butterfly Management Plan Design Moving forward. Grant Deadline(s) 26 TBD Lake Los Carneros Dam Long Range Plan Moving forward. Priority Project. 27 5800‐1 Annual Pavement Rehabilitation Design/Construction Moving forward. Priority Project. 28 5800 ‐2 Miscellaneous Concrete Repair Design/Construction Moving forward. Priority Project. 29 9025 Fire Station 10 Design Project moving forward, (to be put on hold) 30 9063 Evergreen Park Improvements Not started Project moving forward 31 9071 Improvements to Athletic Field at GCC Construction Project moving forward 32 9074 Stow Grove Park Master Plan & Renovation (formerly Multi‐Purpose Field) Conceptual Design Project Moving forward 33 9079 (T1) Goleta Train Depot and S. La Patera Imp. Design 95% Project moving forward, prior General Fund only 34 9084 Community Garden Construction Project moving forward 35 9093 San Miguel Park Improvements Not Started Project moving forward 36 9094 Santa Barbara Shores Park Improvements Not Started Project moving forward 37 9108 Winchester II Park Improvements Construction Project moving forward 38 9111 JDW Neighborhood Park Phase 2‐Splash Pad Construction Project moving forward 39 9113 Mathilda Park Improvements Design 95% Project moving forward 40 9116 Pickleball Courts Not Started Project moving forward 41 9126 Pickleball Entry/Waiting area at GCC Conceptual Design Project moving forward Public Works Department FY 24/25 Work Program Projects
Public Works Department Projects FY 24/25 Work Program ‐ Master Plans and Capital Maintenance Items Neighborhood Services Department FY 24/25 Work Program Projects 13 City of Goleta
COMPREHENSIVE CIP PROJECT LIST
June 30, 2024
Project
Number Project Name Project Phase Notes
42 9067 Goleta Community Center Improvements Construction Nearing completion 43 9101 City Hall Improvements Conceptual Design Project moving forward 44 9121 Goleta Community Center ADA Improvements Design 65% Moving forward. Priority Project. 45 9127 Goleta Community Center Campus Refresh Not Started Project scheduled after completion of 9067 & 9121 46 9130 Goleta Valley Library ADA & Building Refresh Not Started 47 9131 Historic Train Station Preservation Not Started 48 9001 (R2) Hollister Avenue Complete Street Corridor Plan * Conceptual Design Delayed 49 9027 (R5) Goleta US 101 Overcrossing * Conceptual Design Delayed 50 9042 (R12) Storke Road Widening ‐ Phelps to City Limit * Conceptual Design Delayed 51 9044 (I7) Hollister Widening West of Storke Conceptual Design Delayed 52 9061 Cathedral Oaks Class I Multi‐use Path Not Started Delayed 53 9064 Reclaimed Water Service to Evergreen Park Not Started Delayed 54 9065 Reclaimed Water Service to Bella Vista Park Not Started Delayed 55 9078 Rancho La Patera Improvements Conceptual Design Delayed 56 9081 Covington Drainage System Improvements Not Started Delayed 57 9097 Fairview Corridor Study * Not Started Delayed
58 9100 (I22) Hollister/Fairview Roundabout Not Started Delayed 59 9102 Storke Road Corridor Study Conceptual Design Delayed 60 9104 Citywide Traffic Signal Evaluation Not Started Delayed 61 9105 Ellwood Beach Drive Drainage Replacement Not Started Delayed 62 9106 Phelps Ditch Channel Drainage Improvements Not Started Delayed 63 9109 Ward Drive Sidewalk Infill Not Started Delayed 64 9075 Evergreen Park Multi‐Purpose Field Not Started Delayed ‐ project scope under review 65 9076 Public Swimming Pool Not Started Delayed ‐ Unidentified location 66 9077 Recreation Center/Gymnasium Not Started Delayed ‐ Unidentified location 67 9129 Goleta Community Center Parking Lot Improvements Not Started Delayed 68 9128 Goleta Community Center Gazebo Area Improvements Not Started Delayed 69 9134 Facilities Capital Renewal (Proposed FY24/25) Not Started Delayed 70 9135 Stow House Preservation (Proposed FY24/25) Not Started Delayed 71 9136 Portable Replacement Project (Proposed FY24/25) Not Started Delayed 72 9056 LED Street Lighting Closeout
73 9087 Crosswalk PHB on Calle Real near Encina Lane Complete 74 9088 RRFB Improvements at School Crosswalks Complete 75 9089 Goleta Traffic Safety Study Final Study
76 9099 Crosswalk at Calle Real/Fairview Center ‐ PHB Construction * LRDP Projects
General Services Department Projects Not in FY 24/25 Work Program Recently Completed Projects
Neighborhood Services Department Projects Not in FY 24/25 Work Program General Services Department Projects in FY 24/25 Work Program Public Works Department Projects Not in FY 24/25 Work Program 14 City of Goleta
COMPREHENSIVE CIP PROJECT LIST
June 30, 2024
Project
Number Project Name Project Phase Notes
Project # Project Name
1 I1 Fairview Avenue/Calle Real Intersection Improvements * Future Project 2 I2 Fairview Avenue at US 101 Southbound On‐Ramp Improvements * Future Project 3 I3 Fairview Avenue at US 101 Northbound On‐Ramp Improvements * Future Project 4 I8 Patterson Avenue at US 101 Southbound Ramp Improvements * Future Project 5 I9 Patterson Avenue at US 101 Northbound Ramps Improvements * Future Project 6 I10 Hollister Avenue at Patterson Avenue * Future Project 7 I12 New Traffic Signal Installation (Citywide) * Future Project 8 I13 Hollister Avenue at Kellogg Avenue * Future Project 9 I14 Hollister Avenue/Pacific Oaks Road Intersection Improvements * Future Project 10 I16 Glen Annie Road at US 101 Northbound Ramps * Future Project 11 I18 Storke Road at US 101 Southbound Ramps Future Project 12 I20 Los Carneros Road/ US 101 SB On‐Ramp Dual Right Turn Lanes (CIP Project No. 9045) Future Project 13 I21 Los Carneros Road at Hollister Avenue Future Project 14 R9 Phelps Road Extension * Future Project
15 R10 US 101 NB Auxiliary Lane between Los Carneros Road and Storke Road Future Project 16 R11 US 101 Northbound and Southbound Auxiliary Lanes between Fairview Avenue and Los Carneros Road Future Project 17 R13 Los Carneros Way Realignment Future Project
18 R14 South Fairview Avenue Widening Future Project
19 R18 Los Carneros Road/Calle Koral Roadway Widening Future Project 20 R4.2 La Patera Road/ US 101 Crossing Project (CIP Project No. 9072) Future Project * LRDP Projects
Development Impact Fee (DIF) / GTIP Project List
15 City of Goleta
COMPREHENSIVE CIP PROJECT LIST
June 30, 2024
Project
Number Project Name Project Phase Notes
BPMP # Project Name
1 BPMP ‐1 Class 1 Multi‐Use Path Fairview Avenue Future Project 2 BPMP ‐2 Class I Multi‐Use Path along Hollister Avenue – Western End Future Project 3 BPMP ‐3 Bike Lane Improvements Encina Road Future Project 4 BPMP ‐4 Class I Multi‐Use Path along Hollister Avenue – Old Town Future Project 5 BPMP ‐5 Bike Lane Improvements Glen Annie Road Future Project 6 BPMP ‐6 Bike Lane Improvements Kellogg Avenue Future Project 7 BPMP ‐7 Intersection Crossing Improvements – Storke and Hollister Future Project 8 BPMP ‐8 Class I Multi‐Use Path along Fairview Avenue South Future Project 9 BPMP ‐9 Crossing Improvements – Cathedral Oaks Road & Dos Pueblos High Future Project 10 BPMP ‐10 Class I Multi‐Use Path Cathedral Oaks Road – San Pedro Creek to Eastern City Limit Future Project 11 BPMP ‐11 Crossing Improvements – Berkeley Road at Kellogg Avenue Future Project 12 BPMP ‐12 Crossing Improvements – Calle Real/ Fairview Avenue to Kellogg Avenue Future Project 13 BPMP ‐13 Class I Multi‐Use Path along Fairview Avenue North Future Project 14 BPMP ‐14 Crossing Improvements – Hollister Avenue at Palo Alto Drive Future Project 15 BPMP ‐15 Bike Lane Improvements Los Carneros Road and Hollister Avenue Future Project 16 BPMP‐16 Bike Lane Improvements Patterson Avenue South Future Project 17 BPMP ‐17 Crossing Improvements – Fairview Avenue at Cathedral Oaks Future Project 18 BPMP ‐18 Bike Lane Improvements Cathedral Oaks Road – West Connection Future Project 19 BPMP ‐19 Class I Multi‐Use Path Overcrossing US 101/Mendocino Drive Future Project 20 BPMP ‐20 Bike Lane Improvements Carlo Drive Future Project 21 BPMP ‐21 Intersection Crossing Improvements – Cathedral Oaks at Alameda Avenue Future Project 22 BPMP ‐22 Class I Multi‐Use Path along Phelps Ditch Future Project 23 BPMP ‐23 Covington Multi‐Use Path Bridge Replacement Future Project 24 BPMP ‐24 Class I Multi‐Use Path in Evergreen Park Future Project 25 BPMP ‐25 Bike Lane Improvements Ellwood Station Road Future Project 26 BPMP‐26 Bike Lane Improvements San Milano Drive Future Project 27 BPMP ‐27 Class I Multipurpose Path Sperling Preserve Future Project 28 BPMP ‐28 Class I Multi‐Use Path Calle Real/Los Carneros East Future Project 29 BPMP ‐29 Bike Lane Improvements at Santa Barbara Shores Drive/Hollister Avenue Future Project 30 BPMP ‐30 Bike Lane Improvements at Cortona Road/Hollister Avenue Future Project 31 BPMP ‐31 Intersection Crossing Improvements – Marketplace Drive/Storke Road Future Project 32 BPMP ‐32 Bike Lane Improvements Barling Terrace/Stow Canyon Future Project 33 BPMP ‐33 Bike Lane Improvements Mendocino Drive/Dos Pueblos High Future Project 34 BPMP ‐34 Bike Lane Improvements Lindmar Road/Robin Hill Road Future Project 35 BPMP ‐35 Roundabout Signage and Striping Improvements – Los Carneros Future Project 36 BPMP ‐36 Signage and Wayfinding Improvements – Covington Way/Berkeley Road Future Project 37 BPMP‐37 Bike Lane Improvements Hollister Avenue/Storke Road Future Project Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) Project List
16 City of Goleta
COMPREHENSIVE CIP PROJECT LIST
June 30, 2024
Project
Number Project Name Project Phase Notes
Project # Project Name
1 Daytona Drainage Improvements Future Project
2 Various Citywide Pedestrian Intersection Improvements Future Project 3 9080 Electrical Utility Undergrounding Future Project 4 9012 Armitos Avenue Bridge Future Project
5 Fairview Avenue On‐Ramp Caltrans Restriping Future Project 6 Hollister Safety Improvements between Storke and Entrance Road Future Project 7 Sidewalk along Glenn Annie from Norte To Cathedral Oaks Future Project 8 Traffic Calming treatments in Old Town, northerly of Hollister Avenue Future Project 9 Traffic Calming treatment in the Kellogg Neighborhood Future Project 10 Bike Path northerly of Fairview Gardens Future Project 11 Ped/Bike bridge over Highway 101 (amend an existing project to build a vehicle bridge) Future Project 12 Ped/Bike bridge over San Jose Creek on Armitos Avenue (amend an existing project to build a vehicle bridge) Future Project Other Future Project List
17 ATTACHMENT 2:

Five Year CIP Project List

18 City of Goleta
5‐YEAR CIP PROJECT LIST
June 30, 2024
Legend:

Projects moving forward in FY 24/25
Project 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28
28/29 +
Future
Yrs Funding Other Projects delayed in FY 24/25
Number Project Name Project P h a s e 12345 6 G e n e r a l Fund Funding Notes 1 9002 (R1) Ekwill Street & Fowler Road Extensions * Construction Yes Yes Moving forward. Grant Deadline(s) 2 9006 San Jose Creek Bike Path ‐ Northern & Southern Segments Design Unknown Yes Moving forward. Grant Deadline(s) 3 9007 San Jose Creek Bike Path ‐ Middle Extent Construction No Yes Moving forward. Grant Deadline(s) 4 9033 Ho llister Avenue Bridge Construction Yes Yes Moving forward. Grant Deadline(s) 5 9053 Cathedral Oaks Crib Wall Repair Design Yes No Moving forward. Analyze Project Scope and F unding Needs. 6 9062 Storke/Hollister Transit, Bike/Ped, and Median Imp. * Design Unknown Yes Moving forward. Grant Deadline(s) 7 9083 Traffic Signal Upgrades Design No Yes Moving forward. Grant Deadline(s) 8 9086 Vision Zero Plan Conceptual Design None Unknown Yes Moving forward. Priority Project. 9 9103 Citywide School Zones Signage and Striping Evaluation Not Started None Unknown Yes Moving forward. Priority Project. 10 9107 Old Town Full Trash Capture Conceptual Design None Unknown Yes Moving forward. Conformance Deadline 11 9110 Hollister Class I Bike Path Lighting Construction No Yes Moving fo rward. Grant Deadline(s) 12 9114 Hollister Avenue Old Town Interim Striping Construction Unknown Yes Moving forward. Grant Deadline(s) 13 9115 Public Works Corporation Yard Repairs and Improvements Conceptual Design None Yes No Moving forward. Priority Project. 14 9117 San Jose Creek Channel Fish‐Passage Modification Project Design None Yes No Moving forward. Priority Project. 15 9118 Ellwood Coastal Trails and Habitat Restoration Design None Unknown Yes Moving forward. Priority Project. 16 9119 Ellwood Beach Drive Drainage Re pair Design None Unknown No Moving forward. Priority Project. 17 9120 Evergreen Park Drainage Repair Construction None Unknown No Moving forward. Priority Project. 18 9124 Fairview and Stow Canyon Traffic Signal & Intersection Improvements Not Started None Unknown Yes Moving forward. Priority Project. 19 9125 Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) Calle Real at Jenna Not Started None Yes No Moving forward. Priority Project. 20 9132 Lake Los Carneros Pedestrian Bridge Removal Not Started None Yes No Moving forward. Priority Pro ject. 21 9133 Ho llister Ave Sidewalk Improvement at Ellwood School Not Started None Unknown Yes Moving forward. Priority Project. 22 9085 Goleta Storm Drain Master Plan Not Started None Unknown Yes Moving forward. Priority Project. 23 9122 City‐Wide Open Space Management and Maintenance Not Started None Yes No Moving forward. Priority Project. 24 9123 Lake Los Carneros Master Plan Conceptual Design None Yes No Moving forward. Priority Project. 25 9112 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Butterfly Management Plan Design No Yes Moving fo rward. Grant Deadline(s) 26 TBD Lake Los Carneros Dam Long Range Plan None Moving forward. Priority Project. 27 5800 ‐1 Annual Pavement Rehabilitation Design/Construction Yes Yes Moving forward. Priority Project. 28 5800 ‐2 Miscellaneous Concrete Repair Design/Construction Yes Yes Moving forward. Priority Project. 29 9025 Fire Station 10 Design Previous Yes Project moving forward, (to be put on hold) 30 9063 Evergreen Park Improvements Not started Unknown Yes Project moving forward 31 9071 Improvements to Athletic Field at GCC C onstruction No Yes Project moving forward 32 9074 Stow Grove Park Master Plan & Renovation (formerly Multi‐Purpose Field) Conceptual Design No Yes Project Moving forward 33 9079 (T1) Goleta Train Depot and S. La Patera Imp. Design 95% Previous Yes Project moving forward, prior General Fund only 34 9084 Community Garden Construction No Yes Project moving forward 35 9093 San Miguel Park Improvements Not Started None No Yes Project moving forward 36 9094 Santa Ba rbara Shores Park Improvements Not Started None No Yes Project moving forward 37 9108 Winchester II Park Improvements Construction No Yes Project moving forward 38 9111 JDW Neighborhood Park Phase 2‐Splash Pad Construction No Yes Project moving forward 39 9113 Mathilda Park Improvements Design 95% Yes Yes Project moving forward 40 9116 Pickleball Courts Not Started No Yes Project moving forward 41 9126 Pickleball Entry/Waiting area at GCC Conceptual Design No Yes Project moving forward Neighborhood Services Department FY 24/25 Work Program Projects Work Program
Work in
Prior
Years
Fiscal Year/Work Program Year
Public Works Department FY 24/25 Work Program Projects
Public Works Department Projects FY 24/25 Work Program ‐ Master Plans and Capital Maintenance Items 19 City of Goleta
5‐YEAR CIP PROJECT LIST
June 30, 2024
Legend:

Projects moving forward in FY 24/25
Project 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28
28/29 +
Future
Yrs Funding Other Projects delayed in FY 24/25
Number Project Name Project P h a s e 12345 6 G e n e r a l Fund Funding Notes Work Program
Work in
Prior
Years
Fiscal Year/Work Program Year
42 9067 Goleta Community Center Improvements Construction Yes Yes Nearing completion 43 9101 City Hall Improvements Conceptual Design Yes Yes Project moving forward 44 9121 Goleta Community Center ADA Improvements Design 65% Yes Yes Moving forward. Priority Project. 45 9127 Goleta Community Center Campus Refresh Not Started None Yes No Project scheduled after completion of 9067 & 9121 46 9130 Goleta Valley Library ADA & Building Refresh Not Started None Yes No 47 9131 Historic Train Station Pres ervation Not Started None Yes No 48 9001 (R2) Hollister Avenue Complete Street Corridor Plan * Conceptual Design Unknown Yes Delayed 49 9027 (R5) Goleta US 101 Overcrossing * Conceptual Design Unknown Yes Delayed 50 9042 (R12) Storke Road Widening ‐ Phelps to City Limit * Conceptual Design Unknown Yes Delayed 51 9044 (I7) Hollister Widening West of Storke Conceptual Design Unknown Yes Delayed 52 9061 Cathedral Oaks Class I Multi‐use Path Not Started None Unknown No Delayed 53 9064 Reclaimed Water Service to E vergreen Park Not Started None Unknown Yes Delayed 54 9065 Reclaimed Water Service to Bella Vista Park Not Started None Unknown Yes Delayed 55 9078 Rancho La Patera Improvements Conceptual Design Unknown Yes Delayed 56 9081 Covington Drainage System Improvements Not Started None Yes No Delayed 57 9097 Fairview Corridor Study *N ot Started None Unknown Yes Delayed 58 9100 (I22) Hollister/Fairview Roundabout Not Started None Unknown Yes Delayed 59 9102 Storke Road Corridor Study Conceptual Design Unknown Yes Delayed 60 9104 Citywide Traffic Signal Evaluation Not Started None Unknown Yes Delayed 61 9105 Ellwood Beach Drive Drainage Replacement Not S tarted None Unknown Yes Delayed 62 9106 Phelps Ditch Channel Drainage Improvements Not Started None Unknown Yes Delayed 63 9109 Ward Drive Sidewalk Infill Not Started None Unknown Unknown Delayed 64 9075 Evergreen Park Multi‐Purpose Field Not Started Unknown Unknown Combined with 9063 65 9076 Public Swimming Pool Not Started None Unknown Unknown Delayed ‐ Unidentified location 66 9077 Recreation Center/Gymnasium Not Started None Unknown Unknown Delayed ‐ Unidentified location 67 9129 Goleta Community Center Parking Lot Improvements Not Started None Unknown Unknown Delayed 68 9128 Goleta Community Center Gazebo Area Improvements Not Started None Unknown Unknown Delayed 69 9134 Facilities Capital Re newal (Proposed FY24/25) Not Started None Yes No 70 9135 Stow House Preservation Not Started None Unknown Unknown Delayed 71 9136 Portable Replacement Project (Proposed FY24/25) Not Started None Yes No 72 9056 LED Street Lighting Closeout
73 9087 Crosswalk PHB on Calle Real near Encina Lane Complete 74 9088 RRFB Improvements at School Crosswalks Complete 75 9089 Goleta Traffic Safety Study Final Study
76 9099 Crosswalk at Calle Real/Fairview Center ‐ PHB Construction * LRDP Projects
General Services Department Projects in FY 24/25 Work Program Public Works Department Projects Not in FY 24/25 Work Program Neighborhood Services Department Projects Not in FY 24/25 Work Program General Services Department Projects Not in FY 24/25 Work Program Recently Completed Projects
20 City of Goleta
5‐YEAR CIP PROJECT LIST
June 30, 2024
Legend:

Projects moving forward in FY 24/25
Project 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28
28/29 +
Future
Yrs Funding Other Projects delayed in FY 24/25
Number Project Name Project P h a s e 12345 6 G e n e r a l Fund Funding Notes Work Program
Work in
Prior
Years
Fiscal Year/Work Program Year
Project # Project Name
1I 1 Fairview Avenue/Calle Real Intersection Improvements * Future Project 2I 2 Fairview Avenue at US 101 Southbound On‐Ramp Improvements * Future Project 3I 3 Fairview Avenue at US 101 Northbound On‐Ramp Improvements * Future Project 4I 8 Patterson Avenue at US 101 Southbound Ramp Improvements * Future Project 5I 9 Patterson Avenue at US 101 Northbound Ramps Improvements * Future Pro ject 6I 1 0 Hollister Avenue at Patterson Avenue * Future Project 7I 1 2 New Traffic Signal Installation (Citywide) * Future Project 8I 1 3 Hollister Avenue at Kellogg Avenue * Future Project 9I 1 4 Hollister Avenue/Pacific Oaks Road Intersection Improvements * Future Project 10 I16 Glen Annie Road at US 101 Northbound Ramps * Future Project 11 I18 Storke Road at US 101 Southbound Ramps Future Project 12 I20
Los Carneros Road/ US 101 SB On‐Ramp Dual Right Turn Lanes (CIP Project No. 9045) Future Project
13 I21 Los Carneros Road at Hollister Avenue Future Project 14 R9 Phelps Road Extension * Future Project
15 R10 US 101 NB Auxiliary Lane between Los Carneros Road and Storke Road Future Project 16 R11
US 101 Northbound and Southbound Auxiliary Lan es between Fairview Avenue and Los Carneros Road Future Project
17 R13 Los Carneros Way Realignment Future Project
18 R14 South Fairview Avenue Widening Future Project
19 R18 Los Carneros Road/Calle Koral Roadway Widening Future Project 20 R4.2 La Patera Road/ US 101 Crossing Project (CIP Project No. 9072) Future Project * LRDP Projects
Development Impact Fee (DIF) / GTIP Project List
21 City of Goleta
5‐YEAR CIP PROJECT LIST
June 30, 2024
Legend:

Projects moving forward in FY 24/25
Project 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28
28/29 +
Future
Yrs Funding Other Projects delayed in FY 24/25
Number Project Name Project P h a s e 12345 6 G e n e r a l Fund Funding Notes Work Program
Work in
Prior
Years
Fiscal Year/Work Program Year
BPMP # Project Name
1B P M P ‐1 Class 1 Multi‐Use Path Fairview Avenue Future Project 2B P M P ‐2 Class I Multi‐Use Path along Hollister Avenue – Western End Future Project 3B P M P ‐3 Bike Lane Improvements Encina Road Future Project 4B P M P ‐4 Class I Multi‐Use Path along Hollister Avenue – Old Town Future Project 5B P M P ‐5 Bike Lane Improvements Glen Annie Road Fu ture Project 6B P M P ‐6 Bike Lane Improvements Kellogg Avenue Future Project 7B P M P ‐7 Intersection Crossing Improvements – Storke and Hollister Future Project 8B P M P ‐8 Class I Multi‐Use Path along Fairview Avenue South Future Project 9B P M P ‐9 Crossing Improvements – Cathedral Oaks Road & Dos Pueblos High Future Project 10 BPMP ‐10
Class I Multi‐Use Path Cathedral Oaks Roa d – San Pedro Creek to Eastern City Limit Future Project
11 BPMP ‐11 Crossing Improvements – Berkeley Road at Kellogg Avenue Future Project 12 BPMP ‐12 Crossing Improvements – Calle Real/ Fairview Avenue to Kellogg Avenue Future Project 13 BPMP ‐13 Class I Multi‐Use Path along Fairview Avenue North Future Project 14 BPMP ‐14 Crossing Improvements – Hollister Ave nue at Palo Alto Drive Future Project 15 BPMP ‐15 Bike Lane Improvements Los Carneros Road and Hollister Avenue Future Project 16 BPMP ‐16 Bike Lane Improvements Patterson Avenue South Future Project 17 BPMP ‐17 Crossing Improvements – Fairview Avenue at Cathedral Oaks Future Project 18 BPMP ‐18 Bike Lane Improvements Cathedral Oaks Road – West Connection Future Project 19 BPMP ‐19 Class I Mul ti ‐Use Path Overcrossing US 101/Mendocino Drive Future Project 20 BPMP ‐20 Bike Lane Improvements Carlo Drive Future Project 21 BPMP ‐21 Intersection Crossing Improvements – Cathedral Oaks at Alameda Avenue Future Project 22 BPMP ‐22 Class I Multi‐Use Path along Phelps Ditch Future Project 23 BPMP ‐23 Covington Multi‐Use Path Bridge Replacement Future Project 24 BPMP ‐24 Class I Mul ti ‐Use Path in Evergreen Park Future Project 25 BPMP ‐25 Bike Lane Improvements Ellwood Station Road Future Project 26 BPMP ‐26 Bike Lane Improvements San Milano Drive Future Project 27 BPMP ‐27 Class I Multipurpose Path Sperling Preserve Future Project 28 BPMP ‐28 Class I Multi‐Use Path Calle Real/Los Carneros East Future Project 29 BPMP ‐29 Bike Lane Improvements at Santa Ba rbara Shores Drive/Hollister Avenue Future Project 30 BPMP ‐30 Bike Lane Improvements at Cortona Road/Hollister Avenue Future Project 31 BPMP ‐31 Intersection Crossing Improvements – Marketplace Drive/Storke Road Future Project 32 BPMP ‐32 Bike Lane Improvements Barling Terrace/Stow Canyon Future Project 33 BPMP ‐33 Bike Lane Improvements Mendocino Drive/Dos Pueblos High Future Project 34 BPMP ‐34 Bike Lane Improvements Lindmar Road/Robin Hill Road Future Pro ject 35 BPMP ‐35 Roundabout Signage and Striping Improvements – Los Carneros Future Project 36 BPMP ‐36 Signage and Wayfinding Improvements – Covington Way/Berkeley Road Future Project 37 BPMP ‐37 Bike Lane Improvements Hollister Avenue/Storke Road Future Project Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) Project List
22 City of Goleta
5‐YEAR CIP PROJECT LIST
June 30, 2024
Legend:

Projects moving forward in FY 24/25
Project 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28
28/29 +
Future
Yrs Funding Other Projects delayed in FY 24/25
Number Project Name Project P h a s e 12345 6 G e n e r a l Fund Funding Notes Work Program
Work in
Prior
Years
Fiscal Year/Work Program Year
Project # Project Name
1 Daytona Drainage Improvements Future Project
2 Various Citywide Pedestrian Intersection Improvements Future Project 3 9080 Electrical Utility Undergrounding Future Project 4 9012 Armitos Avenue Bridge Future Project
5 Fairview Avenue On‐Ramp Caltrans Restriping Future Project 6 Hollister Safety Improvements between Storke and Entrance Road Future Project 7 Sidewalk along Glenn Annie from Norte To Cathedral Oaks Future Project 8 Traffic Calming treatments in Ol d Town, northerly of Hollister Avenue Future Project 9 Traffic Calming treatment in the Kellogg Neighborhood Future Project 10 Bike Path northerly of Fairview Gardens Future Project 11 Ped/Bike bridge over Highway 101 (amend an existing project to build a vehicle bridge)
12 Ped/Bike bridge over San Jose Creek on Armitos Avenue (amend an existing proje
ct to build a vehicle bridge)
13 Future Project
Other Future Project List
23 ATTACHMENT 3:

Five Year CIP Summary by Fund

24 Five Year Summary by Fund
Funds Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Carryovers
FY 2024/25
Proposed
FY 2025/26
Proposed
FY 2026/27
Proposed
FY 2027/28
Proposed
FY 2028/29 +
Future Yrs
Proposed
Total Project
Cost Cost to Complete
101 -General
9002-Ekwill Street & Fowler Road Extensions Project - - 10,112,493 - - - - - 10,112,493 10,112,493 9025-Fire Station No. 10 1,251,675 - - - - - - - 1,251,675 - 9031-Old Town Sidewalk Improvement Project 756,233 - - - - - - - 756,233 - 9033-Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement - - 295,760 766,900 1,542,700 - - - 2,605,360 2,605,360 9053-Cathedral Oaks Crib Wall Interim Repair Project 221,608 252,509 832,899 - - - - - 1,307,016 832,899 9056-LED Street Lighting Project 857,993 25,691 46,316 - - - - - 930,000 46,316 9064-Reclaimed Water Service to Evergreen Park - - - - - - - - - - 9065-Reclaimed Water Service to Bella Vista Park - - - - - - - - - - 9066-Miscellaneous Park Improvements 11,649 - 1 - - - - - 11,650 1 9067-Goleta Community Center Seismic Upgrades 667,140 681,380 1,294,870 - - - - - 2,643,391 1,294,870 9079-Goleta Train Depot and S. La Patera Improvements 2,656,172 6,030 93,971 900,000 - - - - 3,656,172 993,971 9081-Covington Drainage System Improvements 19,854 - - - - - - - 19,854 - 9083-Traffic Signal Upgrades 8,151 - 328,749 - - - - - 336,900 328,749 9085-Goleta Storm Drain Master Plan - - - - - - - - - - 9086-Vision Zero Plan - - - - - - - - - - 9088-Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Improvements at Sc 13,929 1,697 11,433 - - - - - 27,059 11,433 9089-Goleta Traffic Safety Study (GTSS) 24,974 - - - - - - - 24,974 - 9101-City Hall Purchase & Improvements 10,637,751 3,526 414,207 - - - - - 11,055,483 414,207 9103-Citywide School Zones Signage & Striping Evaluation - - - - - - - - - - 9104-Citywide Evaluation of Existing Traffic Signals - - - - - - - - - - 9107-Old Town South Fairview Avenue, High Flow Trash Capture Devi - - - - - - - - - - 9112-Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Plan - 1,228 448,772 - - - 200,000 600,000 1,250,000 1,248,772 9113-Mathilda Park Improvements - - 199,698 - - - - - 199,698 199,698 9115-Public Works Corporation Yard Repairs 29,679 - 70,321 - 714,000 - - - 814,000 784,321 9117-San Jose Creek Channel Fish-Passage Modification Project 227,559 80,657 1,381,784 - 750,000 - - - 2,440,000 2,131,784 9119-Ellwood Beach Drive Drainage 8,641 14,649 219,710 - - - - - 243,000 219,710 9120-Evergreen Park Drainage Repair 3,328 40,846 158,126 - - - - - 202,300 158,126 9121-Goleta Community Center ADA Improvements 11,446 11,400 580,644 135,000 81,000 - - - 819,490 796,644 9122-City-Wide Open Space Management & Maintenance - - - - - - - - - - 9123-Lake Los Carneros Master Plan - - - - - - - - - - 9124-Fairview & Stow Canyon Traffic Signal - - - - - - - - - - 9125-Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) Calle Real @ Jen - - - - - - - - - - 9127-Goleta Community Center Campus Refresh - - 100,000 150,000 - - - - 250,000 250,000 9128-Goleta Community Center Gazebo Area Improvements - - - - - - 150,000 - 150,000 150,000 9129-Goleta Community Center Parking Lot Improvements - - - - - 150,000 - - 150,000 150,000 9130-Goleta Valley Library ADA & Building Refresh - - 459,640 - - - - - 459,640 459,640 9131-Historic Train Station Preservation - - 250,000 50,000 50,000 - - - 350,000 350,000 9132-Lake Los Carneros Footbridge - - - - - - - - - - 9134-Facilities Capital Renewal (Proposed FY24/25) - - - - - - - - - - 9135-Stow House Preservation (Proposed FY24/25) - - - - - - - - - - 9136-Portable Replacement Project (Proposed FY24/25) - - - - - - 800,000 - 800,000 800,000 Total Cost 17,407,781 1,119,612 17,299,395 2,001,900 3,137,700 150,000 1,150,000 600,000 42,866,388 24,338,995 Total Sources 17,299,395 2,001,900 3,137,700 150,000 1,150,000 600,000 Net Available - - - - - - 102 -General Fund Reserves
9001-Hollister Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Plan 20,166 - - - - - - - 20,166 - 9002-Ekwill Street & Fowler Road Extensions Project 250,000 - - - - - - - 250,000 - 9033-Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement 344 - - - - - - - 344 - Total Cost 270,509 - - - - - - - 270,509 - Total Sources - - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 201 -Gas Tax
9002-Ekwill Street & Fowler Road Extensions Project - - 614,000 40,000 40,000 - - - 694,000 694,000 9114-Hollister Avenue Old Town Interim Striping Project - - - - - - - - - - 9125-Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) Calle Real @ Jen - - - - - - - - - - 9133-Hollister Ave Sidewalk Improvement at Ellwood School Project - - 100,000 - - - - - 100,000 100,000 Total Cost - - 714,000 40,000 40,000 - - - 794,000 794,000 Total Sources 714,000 25,498 25,498 25,498 25,498 25,498 Net Available - (14,502) (29,004) (3,506) 21,992 47,490 25 Five Year Summary by Fund
Funds Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Carryovers
FY 2024/25
Proposed
FY 2025/26
Proposed
FY 2026/27
Proposed
FY 2027/28
Proposed
FY 2028/29 +
Future Yrs
Proposed
Total Project
Cost Cost to Complete
202 -Transportation
9006-San Jose Creek Bike Path - Southern Extent - - 27,135 - - - - - 27,135 27,135 9007-San Jose Creek Bike Path - Middle Extent - 28,000 97 - - - - - 28,097 97 Total Cost - 28,000 27,232 - - - - - 55,232 27,232 Total Sources 27,232 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 36,400 Net Available 234,927 271,327 307,727 344,127 380,527 416,927 205 -Measure A
9001-Hollister Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Plan 74,654 - - - - - - - 74,654 - 9002-Ekwill Street & Fowler Road Extensions Project - - 1,325,292 - - - - - 1,325,292 1,325,292 9006-San Jose Creek Bike Path - Southern Extent 1,008 775 2,665,802 271,000 335,000 708,000 - - 3,981,584 3,979,802 9007-San Jose Creek Bike Path - Middle Extent - 160,000 0 - - - - - 160,000 0 9027-Goleta US 101 Overcrossing - - (13,684) - - - - - (13,684) (13,684) 9031-Old Town Sidewalk Improvement Project 954,195 - - - - - - - 954,195 - 9033-Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement 82,875 4,400 52,725 220,000 550,000 - - - 910,000 822,725 9044-Hollister Widening, West of Storke Road 86,316 - 13,684 - - - - - 100,000 13,684 9053-Cathedral Oaks Crib Wall Interim Repair Project 142,632 - - 521,000 200,000 - - - 863,632 721,000 9071-Improvements to Athletic Field at GCC - - - - - - - - - - 9083-Traffic Signal Upgrades 216 - 94,784 - - - - - 95,000 94,784 9085-Goleta Storm Drain Master Plan - - 100,000 - - - - - 100,000 100,000 9086-Vision Zero Plan - - 10,000 - - - 486,000 - 496,000 496,000 9087-Crosswalk Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) on Calle Real near E 119,713 61 67,726 - - - - - 187,500 67,726 9088-Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Improvements at School Crosswalks 367,069 (1,697) 56,080 - - - - - 421,453 56,080 9089-Goleta Traffic Safety Study (GTSS) 4,426 - 46,299 - - - - - 50,725 46,299 9097-Fairview Corridor Study (Fowler Road to Calle Real) - - - - - - - 250,000 250,000 250,000 9099-Crosswalk at Calle Real/Fairview Center - Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) 123,648 48,654 125,023 - - - - - 297,325 125,023 9102-Storke Road Corridor Study - - - - - - - - - - 9103-Citywide School Zones Signage & Striping Evaluation - - - - - - - - - - 9104-Citywide Evaluation of Existing Traffic Signals - - - - - - - - - - 9110-Hollister Class 1 Bike Path Lighting 35,188 (5,985) 324,471 - - - - - 353,674 324,471 9114-Hollister Avenue Old Town Interim Striping Project 175,769 10,190 68,749 - - - - - 254,708 68,749 9124-Fairview & Stow Canyon Traffic Signal - - - - - - - - - - 9125-Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) Calle Real @ Jen - - - - - - - - - - Total Cost 2,167,710 216,397 4,936,951 1,012,000 1,085,000 708,000 486,000 250,000 10,862,058 8,477,951 Total Sources 4,936,951 1,240,000 1,079,000 1,169,000 1,251,000 1,251,000 Net Available 860,764 1,088,764 1,082,764 1,543,764 2,308,764 3,309,764 206 -Measure A- Other
9002-Ekwill Street & Fowler Road Extensions Project - - 365,315 - - - - - 365,315 365,315 9006-San Jose Creek Bike Path - Southern Extent - - 438,378 - - - - - 438,378 438,378 9007-San Jose Creek Bike Path - Middle Extent - 168,320 13,000 - - - - - 181,320 13,000 9027-Goleta US 101 Overcrossing - - - - - - - - - - 9062-Storke Road/Hollister Avenue Transit, Bike/Ped, and Median Imp 67,116 - 355,834 - - - - - 422,950 355,834 9087-Crosswalk Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) on Calle Real near E 179,290 - 710 - - - - - 180,000 710 9088-Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Improvements at Sc 316,888 - - - - - - - 316,888 - 9099-Crosswalk at Calle Real/Fairview Center - Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) 248,988 (1,657) 50,168 - - - - - 297,500 50,168 9110-Hollister Class 1 Bike Path Lighting 17,213 21,141 386,043 - - - - - 424,397 386,043 9114-Hollister Avenue Old Town Interim Striping Project - - - - - - - - - - Total Cost 829,495 187,805 1,609,449 - - - - - 2,626,748 1,609,449 Total Sources 1,609,449 - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 208 -County Per Capita
9130-Goleta Valley Library ADA & Building Refresh - - 180,000 - - - - - 180,000 180,000 Total Cost - - 180,000 - - - - - 180,000 180,000 Total Sources 180,000 - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 215 -Goleta Library
9130-Goleta Valley Library ADA & Building Refresh - - 250,000 - - - - - 250,000 250,000 Total Cost - - 250,000 - - - - - 250,000 250,000 Total Sources 250,000 - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 26 Five Year Summary by Fund
Funds Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Carryovers
FY 2024/25
Proposed
FY 2025/26
Proposed
FY 2026/27
Proposed
FY 2027/28
Proposed
FY 2028/29 +
Future Yrs
Proposed
Total Project
Cost Cost to Complete
220 -Transportation Facilities DIF
9001-Hollister Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Plan 75,353 - - - - - - - 75,353 - 9002-Ekwill Street & Fowler Road Extensions Project 6,476,618 650,960 7,437,378 2,000,000 - - - - 16,564,956 9,437,378 9006-San Jose Creek Bike Path - Southern Extent 3,028,184 246,963 1,454,518 - - - - - 4,729,665 1,454,518 9007-San Jose Creek Bike Path - Middle Extent 827,681 98,325 370,995 - - - - - 1,297,000 370,995 9027-Goleta US 101 Overcrossing 1,420,974 - 47,803 - - - - - 1,468,777 47,803 9031-Old Town Sidewalk Improvement Project 763,950 - - - - - - - 763,950 - 9033-Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement 900,751 57,493 2,930,627 - - - - - 3,888,871 2,930,627 9042-Storke Road Widening, Phelps Road to City Limits 44,509 - 106,140 - - - - - 150,649 106,140 9044-Hollister Widening, West of Storke Road 15,691 - - - - - - - 15,691 - 9061-
Cathedral Oaks Class I Multi-Use Path 1,360 - - - - - - - 1,360 - 9062-Storke Road/Hollister Avenue Transit, Bike/Ped, and Median Imp 26,082 - 133,077 - - - - - 159,159 133,077 9079-Goleta Train Depot and S. La Patera Improvements 49,900 - 100 - - - - - 50,000 100 9097-Fairview Corridor Study (Fowler Road to Calle Real) - - - - - - - - - - 9100-Hollister Avenue/Fairview Avenue Roundabout (Intersection Impr - - - - - - - - - - 9102-Storke Road Corridor Study - - - - - - - - - - Total Cost 13,631,052 1,053,741 12,480,637 2,000,000 - - - - 29,165,430 14,480,637 Total Sources 10,987,333 825,386 4,694,957 1,725,939 - 4,082,761 Net Available (1,493,304) (2,667,918) 2,027,039 3,752,978 3,752,978 7,835,739 221 -Parks & Recreation Facilities DIF
9063-Evergreen Park Improvements 21,494 - 258,506 - - - - - 280,000 258,506 9064-Reclaimed Water Service to Evergreen Park - - - - - - - - - - 9065-Reclaimed Water Service to Bella Vista Park 1,403 - 204,141 - - - - - 205,544 204,141 9066-Miscellaneous Park Improvements 700,212 - 22,288 - - - - - 722,500 22,288 9071-Improvements to Athletic Field at GCC 303,957 - 27,918 - - - - - 331,875 27,918 9074-Stow Grove Park Master Plan & Renovation 166,242 60,030 1,223,729 3,500,000 - - - - 4,950,000 4,723,729 9078-Rancho La Patera Improvements 122,860 - 648,304 - - - - - 771,164 648,304 9084-Community Garden 255,620 1,529,139 428,384 - - - - - 2,213,144 428,384 9093-San Miguel Park Improvements - - 275,000 - 400,000 - - - 675,000 675,000 9094-Santa Barbara Shores Park Improvements - - 305,000 - - - - - 305,000 305,000 9108-Winchester II Park 250,359 - 59,641 - - - - - 310,000 59,641 9111-Jonny D. Wallis Neighborhood Park Phase 2 - Splash Pad 107,003 738,899 1,578,644 - - - - - 2,424,547 1,578,644 9116-Pickleball Courts - - 100,000 - - - - - 100,000 100,000 9118-Ellwood Coastal Trails and Habitat Restoration - - - - - - - - - - Total Cost 1,929,151 2,328,068 5,131,555 3,500,000 400,000 - - - 13,288,774 9,031,555 Total Sources 5,131,555 12,792 2,177,434 1,604,292 - 3,713,013 Net Available - (3,487,208) (1,709,774) (105,482) (105,482) 3,607,531 222 -Public Administration Development Fees
9025-Fire Station No. 10 92,637 - - - - - - - 92,637 - 9079-Goleta Train Depot and S. La Patera Improvements 2,324,344 - 17,030 - - - - - 2,341,374 17,030 9096-Orange Avenue Parking Lot 373,928 - - - - - - - 373,928 - 9101-City Hall Purchase & Improvements - - 42,279 - - - - - 42,279 42,279 Total Cost 2,790,910 - 59,309 - - - - - 2,850,218 59,309 Total Sources 49,544 3,300 428,500 335,000 - 420,700 Net Available (9,765) (6,465) 422,035 757,035 757,035 1,177,735 224 -Sheriff Facilities DIF
9101-City Hall Purchase & Improvements 934,877 - 168,002 - - - - - 1,102,880 168,002 Total Cost 934,877 - 168,002 - - - - - 1,102,880 168,002 Total Sources 142,419 - - - - - Net Available (25,583) (25,583) (25,583) (25,583) (25,583) (25,583) 229 -Fire Development Fees
9025-Fire Station No. 10 127,899 4,437 4,830,701 - - - - - 4,963,037 4,830,701 Total Cost 127,899 4,437 4,830,701 - - - - - 4,963,037 4,830,701 Total Sources 3,635,198 5,400 243,500 140,300 - 167,700 Net Available (1,195,503) (1,190,103) (946,603) (806,303) (806,303) (638,603) 27 Five Year Summary by Fund
Funds Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Carryovers
FY 2024/25
Proposed
FY 2025/26
Proposed
FY 2026/27
Proposed
FY 2027/28
Proposed
FY 2028/29 +
Future Yrs
Proposed
Total Project
Cost Cost to Complete
230 -Long Range Development Plan
9001-Hollister Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Plan - - - - - - - - - - 9002-Ekwill Street & Fowler Road Extensions Project 804,313 34,463 5,147,934 - - - - - 5,986,710 5,147,934 9027-Goleta US 101 Overcrossing - - - - - - - - - - 9042-Storke Road Widening, Phelps Road to City Limits 223,773 - 383,716 - - - - - 607,489 383,716 9044-Hollister Widening, West of Storke Road 14,440 - 534,954 - - - - - 549,394 534,954 9062-Storke Road/Hollister Avenue Transit, Bike/Ped, and Median Improvements 137,694 23,072 109,369 - - - - - 270,136 109,369 Total Cost 1,180,220 57,536 6,175,974 - - - - - 7,413,729 6,175,974 Total Sources 6,175,974 - - - - - Net Available (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) 231 -Developer Agreement
9025-Fire Station No. 10 - - 270,000 - - - - - 270,000 270,000 9042-Storke Road Widening, Phelps Road to City Limits - - - - - - - - - - 9065-Reclaimed Water Service to Bella Vista Park 12,455 - - - - - - - 12,455 - 9078-Rancho La Patera Improvements 23,836 - - - - - - - 23,836 - 9079-Goleta Train Depot and S. La Patera Improvements 2,031,178 - - - - - - - 2,031,178 - Total Cost 2,067,469 - 270,000 - - - - - 2,337,469 270,000 Total Sources 270,000 - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 232 -County Fire DIF
9025-Fire Station No. 10 1,010,958 21,333 551,107 - - - - - 1,583,397 551,107 Total Cost 1,010,958 21,333 551,107 - - - - - 1,583,397 551,107 Total Sources 551,107 - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 233 -OBF SCE
9056-LED Street Lighting Project 153,589 - - - - - - - 153,589 - Total Cost 153,589 - - - - - - - 153,589 - Total Sources - - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 234 -Storm Drain DIF
9033-Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement - - 100,000 - - - - - 100,000 100,000 9085-Goleta Storm Drain Master Plan - - 100,000 - - - - - 100,000 100,000 9105-Ellwood Beach Drive Drainage Infrastructure Replacement - - - - - - - - - - 9106-Phelps Ditch Flood Control Channel Trash Control Structure - - 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 50,000 9107-Old Town South Fairview Avenue, High Flow Trash Capture Devi 26,413 4,700 618,887 - - - - - 650,000 618,887 9119-Ellwood Beach Drive Drainage - - - - - - - - - - Total Cost 26,413 4,700 868,887 - - - - - 900,000 868,887 Total Sources 726,040 13,500 312,800 47,400 - 8,800 Net Available (142,847) (129,347) 183,453 230,853 230,853 239,653 235 -Bicycle & Pedestrian DIF
9006-San Jose Creek Bike Path - Southern Extent - - - - - - - - - - 9079-Goleta Train Depot and S. La Patera Improvements 200,000 - - - - - - - 200,000 - Total Cost 200,000 - - - - - - - 200,000 - Total Sources 272,204 3,300 105,400 11,700 - 2,200 Net Available 272,204 275,504 380,904 392,604 392,604 394,804 301 -State Park Grant
9113-Mathilda Park Improvements - - 177,952 - - - - - 177,952 177,952 Total Cost - - 177,952 - - - - - 177,952 177,952 Total Sources 177,952 - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 305 -RSTP - State Grant
9001-Hollister Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Plan 250,000 - - - - - - - 250,000 - 9006-
San Jose Creek Bike Path - Southern Extent 20,538 - 10,150 - - - - - 30,689 10,150 9007-San Jose Creek Bike Path - Middle Extent 845,319 - - - - - - - 845,319 - Total Cost 1,115,857 - 10,150 - - - - - 1,126,008 10,150 Total Sources 10,150 - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 28 Five Year Summary by Fund
Funds Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Carryovers
FY 2024/25
Proposed
FY 2025/26
Proposed
FY 2026/27
Proposed
FY 2027/28
Proposed
FY 2028/29 +
Future Yrs
Proposed
Total Project
Cost Cost to Complete
307 -Environmental Justice
9001-Hollister Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Plan 16,929 - - - - - - - 16,929 - Total Cost 16,929 - - - - - - 16,929 - Total Sources - - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 308 -STIP/STIP-TE – State Grant
9002-Ekwill Street & Fowler Road Extensions Project 4,450,320 - 11,372,000 - - - - - 15,822,321 11,372,000 Total Cost 4,450,320 - 11,372,000 - - - - - 15,822,321 11,372,000 Total Sources 11,372,000 - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 311 - Misc Grant
9099-Crosswalk at Calle Real/Fairview Center - Pedestrian Hybrid Bea 232,130 47,561 20,309 - - - - - 300,000 20,309 9118-Ellwood Coastal Trails and Habitat Restoration - - 208,500 - - - - - 208,500 208,500 9126-Pickleball Entry/Waiting area at GCC - - 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 50,000 Total Cost 232,130 47,561 278,809 - - - - - 558,500 278,809 Total Sources 278,809 - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 317 -SSARP Grant
9089-Goleta Traffic Safety Study (GTSS) 278,482 - (482) - - - - - 278,000 (482) Total Cost 278,482 - (482) - - - - - 278,000 (482) Total Sources (482) - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 318 -
ATP – State
9006-San Jose Creek Bike Path - Southern Extent - 2,399,316 919,684 - 14,641,000 - - - 17,960,000 15,560,684 9007-San Jose Creek Bike Path - Middle Extent - - - - - - - - - - 9031-Old Town Sidewalk Improvement Project 2,198,755 - 25,245 - - - - - 2,224,000 25,245 Total Cost 2,198,755 2,399,316 944,928 - 14,641,000 - - - 20,184,000 15,585,928 Total Sources 944,928 - 14,641,000 - - - Net Available - - - - - - 319 -Housing & Community Development State Fund
9071-Improvements to Athletic Field at GCC 269,234 - - - - - - - 269,234 - Total Cost 269,234 - - - - - - - 269,234 - Total Sources - - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 321 - TIRCP
9079-Goleta Train Depot and S. La Patera Improvements 2,430,809 275,236 15,055,228 - - - - - 17,761,273 15,055,228 Total Cost 2,430,809 275,236 15,055,228 - - - - - 17,761,273 15,055,228 Total Sources 15,055,228 - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 322 - MBHMP
9112-Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Plan 1,594,630 137,505 2,259,750 - - - - - 3,991,884 2,259,750 9118-Ellwood Coastal Trails and Habitat Restoration - - - - - - - - - - Total Cost 1,594,630 137,505 2,259,750 - - - - - 3,991,884 2,259,750 Total Sources 2,259,750 - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 325 - California State Library
9130-Goleta Valley Library ADA & Building Refresh - - 4,278,560 - - - - - 4,278,560 4,278,560 Total Cost - - 4,278,560 - - - - - 4,278,560 4,278,560 Total Sources 4,278,560 - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 29 Five Year Summary by Fund
Funds Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Carryovers
FY 2024/25
Proposed
FY 2025/26
Proposed
FY 2026/27
Proposed
FY 2027/28
Proposed
FY 2028/29 +
Future Yrs
Proposed
Total Project
Cost Cost to Complete
401 -HBP Federal Grant
9033-Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement 5,260,570 228,657 18,816,608 - - - - - 24,305,835 18,816,608 Total Cost 5,260,570 228,657 18,816,608 - - - - - 24,305,835 18,816,608 Total Sources 18,816,608 - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 402 -Community Development Block Grant
9001-Hollister Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Plan 30,000 - - - - - - - 30,000 - 9002-Ekwill Street & Fowler Road Extensions Project 97,000 - - - - - - - 97,000 - 9007-San Jose Creek Bike Path - Middle Extent 355,928 - - - - - - - 355,928 - 9031-Old Town Sidewalk Improvement Project 153,958 - - - - - - - 153,958 - 9067-Goleta Community Center Seismic Upgrades 48,677 - - - - - - - 48,677 - 9113-Mathilda Park Improvements 14,271 66,129 66,201 - - - - - 146,602 66,201 9121-Goleta Community Center ADA Improvements 135,225 76,633 90,222 25,000 25,000 - - - 352,079 140,222 9126-Pickleball Entry/Waiting area at GCC - 6,240 128,760 - - - - - 135,000 128,760 9127-Goleta Community Center Campus Refresh - - 54,431 - - - - - 54,431 54,431 Total Cost 835,060 149,002 339,615 25,000 25,000 - - - 1,373,676 389,615 Total Sources 339,615 25,000 25,000 - - - Net Available - - - - - - 403 -Environmental Justice
9001-Hollister Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Plan 28,821 - - - - - - - 28,821 - Total Cost 28,821 - - - - - - - 28,821 - Total Sources - - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 404 -STIP
9002-Ekwill S treet & Fowler Road Extensions Project 670,187 - - - - - - - 670,187 - Total Cost 670,187 - - - - - - - 670,187 - Total Sources - - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 407 -TCSP – Federal
9006-San Jose Creek Bike Path - Southern Extent 76,510 - - - - - - - 76,510 - Total Cost 76,510 - - - - - - - 76,510 - Total Sources - - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 417 -Highway Safety Improvement Program
9083-Traffic Signal Upgrades - 258,197 2,861,904 - - - - - 3,120,100 2,861,904 Total Cost - 258,197 2,861,904 - - - - - 3,120,100 2,861,904 Total Sources 2,861,904 - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 419 -TIGER
9001-Hollister Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Plan 236,000 - - - - - - - 236,000 - Total Cost 236,000 - - - - - - - 236,000 - Total Sources - - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 420 - FHWA - FEMA Reimb
9053-Cathedral Oaks Crib Wall Interim Repair Project - - 87,746 - - - - - 87,746 87,746 Total Cost - - 87,746 - - - - - 87,746 87,746 Total Sources 87,746 - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 421 - FEMA HMGP Grant
9067-Goleta Community Center Seismic Upgrades 1,340,118 1,637,615 945,149 - - - - - 3,922,882 945,149 Total Cost 1,340,118 1,637,615 945,149 - - - - - 3,922,882 945,149 Total Sources 945,149 - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 30 Five Year Summary by Fund
Funds Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Carryovers
FY 2024/25
Proposed
FY 2025/26
Proposed
FY 2026/27
Proposed
FY 2027/28
Proposed
FY 2028/29 +
Future Yrs
Proposed
Total Project
Cost Cost to Complete
423 - ARPA
9002-Ekwill Street & Fowler Road Extensions Project - - 4,933,990 - - - - - 4,933,990 4,933,990 9053-Cathedral Oaks Crib Wall Interim Repair Project - - - - - - - - - - Total Cost - - 4,933,990 - - - - - 4,933,990 4,933,990 Total Sources 4,933,990 - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 424 - Community Project Funding
9121-Goleta Community Center ADA Improvements - - 3,000,000 - - - - - 3,000,000 3,000,000 Total Cost - - 3,000,000 - - - - - 3,000,000 3,000,000 Total Sources 3,000,000 - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 501 - Library Services
9130-Goleta Valley Library ADA & Building Refresh - - 180,000 - - - - - 180,000 180,000 Total Cost - - 180,000 - - - - - 180,000 180,000 Total Sources 180,000 940,500 940,500 940,500 940,500 940,500 Net Available - 940,500 1,881,000 2,821,500 3,762,000 4,702,500 502 - Street Lighting
9056-LED Street Lighting Project 192,000 - 18,000 - - - - - 210,000 18,000 Total Cost 192,000 - 18,000 - - - - - 210,000 18,000 Total Sources 18,000 (635,000) (635,000) (635,000) (635,000) (635,000) Net Available - (635,000) (1,270,000) (1,905,000) (2,540,000) (3,175,000) 601 -Redevelopment Project Fund
9001-Hollister Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Plan 360,610 - - - - - - - 360,610 - 9002-Ekwill Street & Fowler Road Extensions Project 654,318 - - - - - - - 654,318 - 9006-San Jose Creek Bike Path - Southern Extent 24,829 - - - - - - - 24,829 - 9033-Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement 9,502 - - - - - - - 9,502 - Total Cost 1,049,259 - - - - - - - 1,049,259 - Total Sources - - - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 608 - IBank
9101-City Hall Purchase & Improvements - - - - - - - - - - Total Cost - - - - - - - - - - Total Sources - - - - - - Net Available - - - - - - 31 Five Year Summary by Fund
Funds Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Carryovers
FY 2024/25
Proposed
FY 2025/26
Proposed
FY 2026/27
Proposed
FY 2027/28
Proposed
FY 2028/29 +
Future Yrs
Proposed
Total Project
Cost Cost to Complete
995 -TBD - Other Grants / Sources
9002-Ekwill Street & Fowler Road Extensions Project - - - 4,207,000 4,207,000 - - 728,959 9,142,959 9,142,959 9006-San Jose Creek Bike Path - Southern Extent - - - 734,933 - - - - 734,933 734,933 9033-Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement - - - - - - - - - - 9053-Cathedral Oaks Crib Wall Interim Repair Project - - - - - - - - - - 9062-Storke Road/Hollister Avenue Transit, Bike/Ped, and Median Imp - - - - - - - - - - 9063-Evergreen Park Improvements - - - - - - - - - - 9064-Reclaimed Water Service to Evergreen Park - - - - - - - 530,000 530,000 530,000 9067-Goleta Community Center Seismic Upgrades - - - - - - - - - - 9074-Stow Grove Park Master Plan & Renovation - - - - - - - - - - 9085-
Goleta Storm Drain Master Plan - - - - - - - - - - 9101-City Hall Purchase & Improvements - - - - 1,949,276 - - - 1,949,276 1,949,276 9107-Old Town South Fairview Avenue, High Flow Trash Capture Devi - - - - 2,052,000 - - - 2,052,000 2,052,000 9109-Ward Drive Sidewalk Infill - - - - - - - 604,800 604,800 604,800 9111-Jonny D. Wallis Neighborhood Park Phase 2 - Splash Pad - - - - - - - - - - 9114-Hollister Avenue Old Town Interim Striping Project - - - - - - - - - - 9117-San Jose Creek Channel Fish-Passage Modification Project - - - - - - - - - - 9118-Ellwood Coastal Trails and Habitat Restoration - - - - - - - - - - 9119-Ellwood Beach Drive Drainage - - - - - - - - - - 9120-Evergreen Park Drainage Repair - - - - - - - - - - 9121-Goleta Community Center ADA Improvements - - - - - - - - - - 9130-Goleta Valley Library ADA & Building Refresh - - - - - - - - - - 9131-Historic Train Station Preservation - - - - 700,000 - - - 700,000 700,000 9132-Lake Los Carneros Footbridge - - - - 1,050,000 - - - 1,050,000 1,050,000 Total Cost - - - 4,941,933 9,958,276 - - 1,863,759 16,763,968 16,763,968 Total Sources 4,941,933 9,958,276 - - 1,863,759 Net Available - - - - - - 32 Five Year Summary by Fund
Funds Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Carryovers
FY 2024/25
Proposed
FY 2025/26
Proposed
FY 2026/27
Proposed
FY 2027/28
Proposed
FY 2028/29 +
Future Yrs
Proposed
Total Project
Cost Cost to Complete
999 -Unfunded
9001-Hollister Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Plan - - - - - - - 8,659,200 8,659,200 8,659,200 9002-Ekwill Street & Fowler Road Extensions Project - - - - - - - - - - 9006-San Jose Creek Bike Path - Southern Extent - - - 4,000,000 12,941,276 2,292,000 - - 19,233,276 19,233,276 9007-San Jose Creek Bike Path - Middle Extent - - - - - - - - - - 9025-Fire Station No. 10 - - - - - - 17,409,820 - 17,409,820 17,409,820 9027-Goleta US 101 Overcrossing - - - - - - - 273,544,908 273,544,908 273,544,908 9033-Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement - - - - - - - - - - 9042-Storke Road Widening, Phelps Road to City Limits - - - - - - - 12,116,002 12,116,002 12,116,002 9044-Hollister Widening, West of Storke Road - - - - - - - 3,506,115 3,506,115 3,506,115 9053-
Cathedral Oaks Crib Wall Interim Repair Project - - - 15,511,770 - - - - 15,511,770 15,511,770 9056-LED Street Lighting Project - - - - - - - - - - 9061-Cathedral Oaks Class I Multi-Use Path - - - - - - 21,214,640 - 21,214,640 21,214,640 9062-Storke Road/Hollister Avenue Transit, Bike/Ped, and Median Imp - - - - - - - - - - 9063-Evergreen Park Improvements - - - - - 5,000,000 - - 5,000,000 5,000,000 9064-Reclaimed Water Service to Evergreen Park - - - - - - - 310,000 310,000 310,000 9065-Reclaimed Water Service to Bella Vista Park - - - - - - - 626,800 626,800 626,800 9067-Goleta Community Center Seismic Upgrades - - - - - - - - - - 9074-Stow Grove Park Master Plan & Renovation - - - - 4,500,000 - - - 4,500,000 4,500,000 9078-Rancho La Patera Improvements - - - - - - - 12,957,000 12,957,000 12,957,000 9081-Covington Drainage System Improvements - - - - - - - 9,549,246 9,549,246 9,549,246 9083-Traffic Signal Upgrades - - - - - - - - - - 9085-Goleta Storm Drain Master Plan - - - - - - - - - - 9086-Vision Zero Plan - - - - 1,215,000 537,500 51,500 - 1,804,000 1,804,000 9089-Goleta Traffic Safety Study (GTSS) - - - - - - - - - - 9096-Orange Avenue Parking Lot - - - - - - - - - - 9097-Fairview Corridor Study (Fowler Road to Calle Real) - - - - - - - 50,000 50,000 50,000 9099-Crosswalk at Calle Real/Fairview Center - Pedestrian Hybrid Bea - - - - - - - - - - 9100-Hollister Avenue/Fairview Avenue Roundabout (Intersection Impr - - - - - - - 12,416,000 12,416,000 12,416,000 9101-City Hall Purchase & Improvements - - - - - - - - - - 9102-Storke Road Corridor Study - - - - - - - 641,225 641,225 641,225 9103-Citywide School Zones Signage & Striping Evaluation - - - - - 196,950 - - 196,950 196,950 9104-Citywide Evaluation of Existing Traffic Signals - - - - - - - 363,200 363,200 363,200 9105-Ellwood Beach Drive Drainage Infrastructure Replacement - - - - - - 966,000 - 966,000 966,000 9106-Phelps Ditch Flood Control Channel Trash Control Structure - - - - - - 3,118,000 - 3,118,000 3,118,000 9107-Old Town South Fairview Avenue, High Flow Trash Capture Devi - - - - - 1,026,000 1,026,000 - 2,052,000 2,052,000 9108-Winchester II Park - - - - - - - - - - 9109-Ward Drive Sidewalk Infill - - - - - - - - - - 9110-Hollister Class 1 Bike Path Lighting - - - - - - 600,784 - 600,784 600,784 9112-Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Plan - - - - - 5,666,226 50,000 - 5,716,226 5,716,226 9113-Mathilda Park Improvements - - - - - - - - - - 9114-Hollister Avenue Old Town Interim Striping Project - - - - - - - - - - 9115-Public Works Corporation Yard Repairs - - - - - - - - - - 9116-Pickleball Courts - - - - - - - - - - 9117-San Jose Creek Channel Fish-Passage Modification Project - - - - 1,000,000 - - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 9118-Ellwood Coastal Trails and Habitat Restoration - - - - 4,186,500 - - - 4,186,500 4,186,500 9119-Ellwood Beach Drive Drainage - - - - 871,200 - - - 871,200 871,200 9120-Evergreen Park Drainage Repair - - - - - - - - - - 9121-Goleta Community Center ADA Improvements - - - - - - - - - - 9122-City-Wide Open Space Management & Maintenance - - - - 360,000 - - - 360,000 360,000 9123-Lake Los Carneros Master Plan - - - - 750,000 - - - 750,000 750,000 9124-Fairview & Stow Canyon Traffic Signal - - - - 532,000 1,264,850 - - 1,796,850 1,796,850 9125-Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) Calle Real @ Jen - - - - 217,800 - - - 217,800 217,800 9127-Goleta Community Center Campus Refresh - - - - - - - - - - 9128-Goleta Community Center Gazebo Area Improvements - - - - - - 5,000 - 5,000 5,000 9129-Goleta Community Center Parking Lot Improvements - - - - - 480,000 - - 480,000 480,000 9133-Hollister Ave Sidewalk Improvement at Ellwood School Project - - - - 942,800 - - - 942,800 942,800 9134-Facilities Capital Renewal (Proposed FY24/25) - - - - 3,813,742 2,051,049 3,002,007 3,152,107 12,018,905 12,018,905 9135-Stow House Preservation (Proposed FY24/25) - - - - - 200,000 - - 200,000 200,000 9136-Portable Replacement Project (Proposed FY24/25) - - - - - - - - - - Total Cost - - - 19,511,770 31,330,318 18,714,575 47,443,751 337,891,803 454,892,217 454,892,217 Total Sources
Net Available -
33 Five Year Summary by Fund
Funds Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Carryovers
FY 2024/25
Proposed
FY 2025/26
Proposed
FY 2026/27
Proposed
FY 2027/28
Proposed
FY 2028/29 +
Future Yrs
Proposed
Total Project
Cost Cost to Complete
Grand Total Cost 67,003,704 10,154,716 121,113,106 33,032,603 60,617,294 19,572,575 49,079,751 340,605,562 701,179,310 624,020,891 Grand Total Sources 118,518,307 9,439,909 37,170,965 5,551,029 2,768,398 12,477,331 Net Available (1,499,108) (25,091,802) (48,538,131) (62,559,677) (108,871,030) (436,999,261) 34 ATTACHMENT 4:

Five Year CIP Budget Summary by Project

35 Five Year Summary by Project
Project
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Amended
FY 2023/24
Carryovers
FY 2024/25
Proposed
FY 2025/26
Proposed
FY 2026/27
Proposed
FY 2027/28
Proposed
FY 2028/29 +
Future Yrs
Proposed
Sum of Total
Project Costs
Sum of Costs To
Complete
9001‐Hollister Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Plan
102‐General Fund Reserves 20,166 $               ‐ $                        ‐ $                              ‐ $                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          20,166$             ‐$ 205‐Measure A 74,654$               ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          74,654$             ‐$ 220‐Transportation Facilities DIF 75,353$               ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          75,353$             ‐$ 230‐Long Range Development Plan ‐ $                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 305‐RSTP ‐ State Gr ant 250,000$             ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          250,000$           ‐$ 307‐Environmental Justice 16,929$               ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          16,929$             ‐$ 402‐Community Development Block Grant 30,000$               ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          30,000$             ‐$ 403‐Environmental Justice 28,821$               ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          28,821$             ‐$ 419‐TIGER 236,000$             ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          236,000$           ‐$ 601‐Redevelopment Project Fund 360,610$             ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          360,610$           ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          8,659,200$              8,659,200$        8,659,200$ 9001‐Hollister Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Plan Total 1,092,533$         ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          8,659,200$              9,751,733$       8,659,200$ 9002‐Ekwill Street & Fowler Road Extensions Project
101‐General ‐$                     ‐$                        10,112,493$                ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          10,112,493$     10,112,493$ 102‐General Fund Reserves 250,000$             ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          250,000$           ‐$ 201‐Gas Tax ‐$                     ‐$                        614,000$                      40,000$               40,000$                      ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          694,000$           694,000$ 205‐Measure A ‐$                     ‐$                        1,325,292$                   ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          1,325,292$        1,325,292$ 206‐Measure A‐ Other ‐$                     ‐$                        365,315$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          365,315$           365,315$ 220‐Transportation Facilities DIF 6,476,618$          650,960$               7,437,378$                   2,000,000$          ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          16,564,956$     9,437,378$ 230‐Long Range Development Plan 804,313$             34,463$                  5,147,934$                   ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          5,986,710$        5,147,934$ 308‐STIP – State Grant 4,450,320$          ‐$                        11,372,000$                ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          15,822,321$     11,372,000$ 402‐Community Development Block Grant 97,000$               ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          97,000$             ‐$ 404‐STIP 670,187$             ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          670,187$           ‐$ 423‐ARPA ‐$                     ‐$                        4,933,990$                   ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          4,933,990$        4,933,990$ 601‐Redevelopment Project Fund 654,318$             ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          654,318$           ‐$ 995‐To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              4,207,000$          4,207,000$                 ‐$                          ‐$                          728,959$                 9,142,959$        9,142,959$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 9002‐Ekwill Street & Fowler Road Extensions Project Total 13,402,756$       685,423$               41,308,403$                6,247,000$          4,247,000$                ‐$                          ‐$                          728,959$                 66,619,541$     52,531,362$ 9006‐San Jose Creek Bike Path ‐ S outhern Extent
202‐Transportation ‐$                     ‐$                        27,135$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          27,135$             27,135$ 205‐Measure A 1,008$                 775$                       2,665,802$                   271,000$             335,000$                    708,000$                 ‐$                          ‐$                          3,981,584$        3,979,802$ 206‐Measure A‐ Other ‐$                     ‐$                        438,378$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          438,378$           438,378$ 220‐Transportation Facilities D IF 3,028,184$          246,963$               1,454,518$                   ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          4,729,665$        1,454,518$ 235‐Bicycle & Pedestrian DIF ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 305‐RSTP ‐ State Grant 20,538$               ‐$                        10,150$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          30,689$             10,150$ 318‐ATP – State ‐$                     2,399,316$            919,684$                      ‐$                      14,641,000$              ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          17,960,000$     15,560,684$ 407‐TCSP – Federal 76,510$               ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          76,510$             ‐$ 601‐Redevelopment Project Fund 24,829$               ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          24,829$             ‐$ 995‐To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              734,933$             ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          734,933$           734,933$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              4,000,000$          12,941,276$              2,292,000$              ‐$                          ‐$                          19,233,276$     19,233,276$ 9006‐San Jose Creek Bike Path ‐ Southern Extent Total 3,151,070$         2,647,054$            5,515,667$                  5,005,933$          27,917,276$              3,000,000$              ‐$                          ‐$                         47,237,000$     41,438,876$ 9007‐San Jose Creek Bike Path  ‐ Middle Extent
202‐Tr ansportation ‐$                     28,000$                  97$                                ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          28,097$             97$ 205‐Measure A ‐$                     160,000$               0$                                  ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          160,000$           0$ 206‐Measure A‐ Other ‐$                     168,320$               13,000$                        ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          181,320$           13,000$ 220‐Transportation Facilities DIF 827,681 $             98,325$                  370,995$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          1,297,000$        370,995$ 305‐RSTP ‐ State Grant 845,319$             ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          845,319$           ‐$ 318‐ATP – State ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 402‐Community Development Block Grant 355,928$             ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          355,928$           ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 9007‐San Jose Creek Bike Path  ‐ Middle Extent Total 2,028,927$         454,644$               384,092$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         2,867,664$       384,092$ 36 Five Year Summary by Project
Project
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Amended
FY 2023/24
Carryovers
FY 2024/25
Proposed
FY 2025/26
Proposed
FY 2026/27
Proposed
FY 2027/28
Proposed
FY 2028/29 +
Future Yrs
Proposed
Sum of Total
Project Costs
Sum of Costs To
Complete
9025‐Fire Station No. 10
101‐General 1,251,675 $          ‐ $                        ‐ $                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          1,251,675$        ‐$ 222‐Public Administration Development Fees 92,637$               ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          92,637$             ‐$ 229‐Fire Development Fees 127,899$             4,437$                    4,830,701$                   ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          4,963,037$        4,830,701$ 231‐Developer Agreement ‐$                     ‐$                        270,000$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          270,000$           270,000$ 232‐County Fire DIF 1,010,958$          21,333$                  551,107$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          1,583,397$        551,107$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          17,409,820$            ‐$                          17,409,820$     17,409,820$ 9025‐Fire Station No. 10 Total 2,483,168$         25,770$                  5,651,808$                  ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          17,409,820$            ‐$                         25,570,566$     23,061,628$ 9027‐Goleta US 101 Overcrossing
205‐Measure A ‐$                     ‐$                        (13,684)$                       ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          (13,684)$            (13,684)$ 206‐Measure A‐ Other ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 220‐Transportation Facilities DIF 1,420,974$          ‐$                        47,803$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          1,468,777$        47,803$ 230‐Long Range Development Plan ‐ $                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          273,544,908$         273,544,908$   273,544,908$ 9027‐Goleta US 101 Overcrossing Total 1,420,974$         ‐$                        34,118$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          273,544,908$         275,000,000$   273,579,026$ 9031‐Old Town Sid
ewalk Improvement Project
101‐General 756,233$             ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          756,233$           ‐$ 205‐Measure A 954,195$             ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          954,195$           ‐$ 220‐Transportation Facilities DIF 763,950$             ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          763,950$           ‐$ 318‐ATP – State 2,198,755$          ‐$                        25,245$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          2,224,000$        25,245$ 402‐Community Development Block Grant 153,958$             ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          153,958$           ‐$ 9031‐Old Town Sidewalk Improvement Project Total 4,827,092$         ‐$                        25,245$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         4,852,336$       25,245$ 9033‐Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement
101‐General ‐$                     ‐$                        295,760$                      766,900$             1,542,700$                 ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          2,605,360$        2,605,360$ 102‐General Fund Reserves 344$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          344$                   ‐$ 205‐Measure A 82,875$               4,400$                    52,725$                        220,000$             550,000$                    ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          910,000$           822,725$ 220‐Transportation Facilities DIF 900,751$             57,493$                  2,930,627$                   ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          3,888,871$        2,930,627$ 234‐Storm Drain DIF ‐$                     ‐$                        100,000$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          100,000$           100,000$ 401‐HBP Federal Grant 5,260,570$          228,657$               18,816,608$                ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          24,305,835$     18,816,608$ 601‐Redevelopment Project Fund 9,502$                 ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          9,502$               ‐$ 995‐To Be De termined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 9033‐Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Total 6,254,041$         290,550$               22,195,720$                986,900$             2,092,700$                ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         31,819,911$     25,275,320$ 9042‐Storke Road Widening, Phelps Road to Cit y Limits
220‐Transportation Facilities DIF 44,509$               ‐$                        106,140$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          150,649$           106,140$ 230‐Long Range Development Plan 223,773$             ‐$                        383,716$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          607,489$           383,716$ 231‐Developer Agreement ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          12,116,002$           12,116,002$     12,116,002$ 9042‐Storke Road Widening, Phelps Road to City Limits Total 268,281$             ‐$                        489,856$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          12,116,002$           12,874,140$     12,605,858$ 9044‐Hollister Widening, West of Storke Road
205‐Measure A 86,316$               ‐$                        13,684$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          100,000$           13,684$ 220‐Transportation Facilities DIF 15,691$               ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          15,691$             ‐$ 230‐Long Range Development Plan 14,440$               ‐$                        534,954$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          549,394$           534,954$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          3,506,115$              3,506,115$        3,506,115$ 9044‐Hollister Wi dening, West of Storke Road Total 116,446$             ‐$                        548,638$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          3,506,115$              4,171,200$       4,054,753$ 37 Five Year Summary by Project
Project
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Amended
FY 2023/24
Carryovers
FY 2024/25
Proposed
FY 2025/26
Proposed
FY 2026/27
Proposed
FY 2027/28
Proposed
FY 2028/29 +
Future Yrs
Proposed
Sum of Total
Project Costs
Sum of Costs To
Complete
9053‐Cathedral Oaks Crib Wall Interim Repair Project
101‐General 221,608 $             252,509$               832,899$                      ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          1,307,016$        832,899$ 205‐Measure A 142,632 $             ‐ $                        ‐ $                              521,000$             200,000$                    ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          863,632$           721,000$ 420‐FHWA ‐ FEMA Reimb Anticipated ‐$                     ‐ $                        87,746$                        ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          87,746$             87,746$ 423‐ARPA ‐$
‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 995‐To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              15,511,770$        ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          15,511,770$     15,511,770$ 9053‐Cathedral Oaks Crib Wall Interim Repair Pro ject Total 364,240$             252,509$               920,645$                      16,032,770$        200,000$                    ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         17,770,164$     17,153,415$ 9056‐LED Street Lighting  Project
101‐General 857,993$             25,691$                  46,316$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          930,000$           46,316$ 233‐OBF SCE 153,589$             ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          153,589$           ‐$ 502‐Street Lighting 192,000$             ‐$                        18,000$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          210,000$           18,000$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 9056‐LED Street Lighting  Project Total 1,203,582$         25,691$                  64,316$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         1,293,589$       64,316$ 9061‐Cathedral Oaks Class I Multi‐Use Path
220‐Transportation Facilities DIF 1,360$                 ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          1,360$               ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          21,214,640$            ‐$                          21,214,640$     21,214,640$ 9061‐Cathedral Oaks Class I Multi‐Use Path Total 1,360$                 ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          21,214,640$            ‐$                         21,216,000$     21,214,640$ 9062‐Storke Road/Hollister Avenue Transit, Bike/Ped, and Med ian Improvements 206‐Measure A‐ Other 67,116 $               ‐ $                        355,834$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          422,950$           355,834$ 220‐Transportation Facilities DIF 26,082$               ‐$                        133,077$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          159,159$           133,077$ 230‐Long Range Development Plan 137,694$             23,072$                  109,369$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          270,136$           109,369$ 995‐To Be De termined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources ‐$                     ‐ $                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 9062‐Storke Road/Hollister Avenue Transit, Bike/Ped, and Media 230,893$             23,072$                  598,280$                      ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                         852,245$           598,280$ 9063‐Evergreen Park Improvements
221‐Parks & Recreation DIF 21,494 $               ‐ $                        258,506$                      ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          280,000$           258,506$ 995‐To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources ‐$                     ‐ $                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            5,000,000$              ‐$                          ‐$                          5,000,000$        5,000,000$ 9063‐Evergreen Park Improvements Total 21,494$               ‐$                        258,506$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            5,000,000$              ‐$                          ‐$                         5,280,000$       5,258,506$ 9064‐Reclaimed Water Service to Evergreen Park
101‐General ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 221‐Parks & Recreation DI F ‐$                     ‐ $                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 995‐To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          530,000$                 530,000$           530,000$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          310,000$                 310,000$           310,000$ 9064‐Reclaimed Water Service to Evergreen Park Total ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          840,000$                 840,000$           840,000$ 9065‐Reclaimed Water Service to Bella Vista Park
101‐General ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 221‐Parks & Recreation DIF 1,403$                 ‐$                        204,141$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          205,544$           204,141$ 231‐Developer Agreement 12,455$               ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          12,455$             ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          626,800$                 626,800$           626,800$ 9065‐Reclaimed Water Service to Bella Vista Park Total 13,858$               ‐$                        204,141$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          626,800$                 844,800$           830,942$ 9066‐Miscellaneous Park Improvements
101‐General 11,649$               ‐$                        1$                                  ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          11,650$             1$ 221‐Parks & Recreation DIF 700,212$             ‐$                        22,288$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          722,500$           22,288$ 9066‐Miscellaneous Park Improvements Total 711,861$             ‐$                        22,289$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         734,150$           22,289$ 38 Five Year Summary by Project
Project
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Amended
FY 2023/24
Carryovers
FY 2024/25
Proposed
FY 2025/26
Proposed
FY 2026/27
Proposed
FY 2027/28
Proposed
FY 2028/29 +
Future Yrs
Proposed
Sum of Total
Project Costs
Sum of Costs To
Complete
9067‐Goleta Community Center Seismic Upgrades
101‐General 667,140 $             681,380$               1,294,870$                   ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          2,643,391$        1,294,870$ 402‐Community Development Block Grant 48,677 $               ‐ $                        ‐ $                              ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          48,677$             ‐ $ 421‐FEMA HMGP Grant 1,340,118 $          1,637,615$            945,149$                      ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          3,922,882$        945,149$ 995‐To Be De termined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources ‐$                     ‐ $                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 9067‐Goleta Community Center Seismic Upgrades Total 2,055,935$         2,318,996$            2,240,019$                  ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         6,614,950$       2,240,019$ 9071‐Improvements to Athletic Field at GCC
205‐Measure A ‐$
‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 221‐Parks & Recreation DIF 303,957$             ‐$                        27,918$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          331,875$           27,918$ 319‐Housing & Community Development State Fund 269,234$             ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          269,234$           ‐$ 9071‐Improvements to At hletic Field at GCC Total 573,191 $             ‐ $                        27,918$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         601,109$           27,918$ 9074‐Stow Grove Park Master Plan & Renovation
221‐Parks & Recreation DIF 166,242$             60,030$                  1,223,729$                   3,500,000$          ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          4,950,000$        4,723,729$ 995‐To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      4,500,000$                 ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          4,500,000$        4,500,000$ 9074‐Stow Grove Park Master Plan & Renovation Total 166,242$             60,030$                  1,223,729$                  3,500,000$          4,500,000$                ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         9,450,000$       9,223,729$ 9078‐Rancho La Patera Improvements
221‐Parks & Recreation D IF 122,860$             ‐$                        648,304$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          771,164$           648,304$ 231‐Developer Agreement 23,836$               ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          23,836$             ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          12,957,000$           12,957,000$     12,957,000$ 9078‐Rancho La Patera Improvements Total 146,696$             ‐$                        648,304$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          12,957,000$           13,752,000$     13,605,304$ 9079‐Goleta Train Depot and S. La Patera Improvements
101‐General 2,656,172$          6,030$                    93,971$                        900,000$             ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          3,656,172$        993,971$ 220‐Transportation Facilities DIF 49,900$               ‐$                        100$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          50,000$             100$ 222‐Public Administration Development Fees 2,324,344$          ‐$                        17,030$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          2,341,374$        17,030$ 231‐Developer Agreement 2,031,178$          ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          2,031,178$        ‐$ 235‐Bicycle & Pedestrian DIF 200,000$             ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          200,000$           ‐$ 321‐TIRCP 2,430,809$          275,236$               15,055,228$                ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          17,761,273$     15,055,228$ 9079‐Go
leta Train Depot and S. La Patera Improvements Total 9,692,404$         281,265$               15,166,328$                900,000$             ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         26,039,997$     16,066,328$ 9081‐Covington Drainage System Improvements
101‐General 19,854$               ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          19,854$             ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          9,549,246$              9,549,246$        9,549,246$ 9081‐Co
vington Drainage System Improvements Total 19,854$               ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          9,549,246$              9,569,100$       9,549,246$ 9083‐Traffic Signal Upgrades
101‐General 8,151$                 ‐$                        328,749$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          336,900$           328,749$ 205‐Measure A 216$                     ‐$                        94,784$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          95,000$             94,784$ 417‐Highway Safety Impr ovement Program ‐$                     258,197$               2,861,904$                   ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          3,120,100$        2,861,904$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 9083‐Traffic Signal Upgrades Total 8,367$                 258,197$               3,285,437$                  ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         3,552,000$       3,285,437$ 9084‐Community Garden
221‐Parks & Recreation D IF 255,620$             1,529,139$            428,384$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          2,213,144$        428,384$ 9084‐Community Garden Total 255,620$             1,529,139$            428,384$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         2,213,144$       428,384$ 9085‐Goleta Storm Drain Master Plan
101‐General ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 205‐Measure A ‐$                     ‐$                        100,000$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          100,000$           100,000$ 234‐Storm Drain DIF ‐$                     ‐$                        100,000$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          100,000$           100,000$ 995‐To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 9085‐Goleta Storm Drain Master Plan Total ‐$                     ‐$                        200,000$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         200,000$           200,000$ 39 Five Year Summary by Project
Project
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Amended
FY 2023/24
Carryovers
FY 2024/25
Proposed
FY 2025/26
Proposed
FY 2026/27
Proposed
FY 2027/28
Proposed
FY 2028/29 +
Future Yrs
Proposed
Sum of Total
Project Costs
Sum of Costs To
Complete
9086‐Vision Zero Plan
101‐General ‐$                     ‐ $                        ‐ $                              ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                   ‐ $ 205‐Measure A ‐$                     ‐ $                        10,000$                        ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          486,000$                 ‐ $                          496,000$           496,000$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐ $                        ‐ $                              ‐$                      1,215,000$                 537,500$                 51,500$                   ‐$                          1,804,000$        1,804,000$ 9086‐Vision Zero Plan Total ‐$                     ‐$                        10,000$                        ‐$                      1,215,000$                537,500$                 537,500$                 ‐$                         2,300,000$       2,300,000$ 9087‐Crosswalk Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) on Calle Real near Encina Road 205‐Measure A 119,713$             61$                         67,726$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          187,500$           67,726$ 206‐Measure A‐ Other 179,290$             ‐$                        710$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          180,000$           710$ 9087‐Cro
sswalk Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) on Calle Real ne 299,003$             61$                         68,436$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         367,500$           68,436$ 9088‐Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Improvements at School Crosswalks 101‐General 13,929$               1,697$                    11,433$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          27,059$             11,433$ 205‐Measure A 367,069$             (1,697)$                   56,080$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          421,453$           56,080$ 206‐Measure A‐ Other 316,888$             ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          316,888$           ‐$ 9088‐Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Improvements at 697,886$             ‐ $                        67,514$                        ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                         765,400$           67,514$ 9089‐Goleta Traffic Safety Study (GTSS)
101‐General 24,974 $               ‐ $                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          24,974$             ‐$ 205‐Measure A 4,426$                 ‐$                        46,299$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          50,725$             46,299$ 317‐SSARP  Grant 278,482$             ‐$                        (482)$                            ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          278,000$           (482)$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 9089‐Goleta Traffic Safety Study (GTSS) Total 307,882$             ‐$                        45,817$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         353,699$           45,817$ 9093‐San Miguel Park Improvements
221‐Parks & Recreation DIF ‐$                     ‐$                        275,000$                      ‐$                      400,000$                    ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          675,000$           675,000$ 9093‐San Miguel Park Improvements Total ‐$                     ‐$                        275,000$                      ‐$                      400,000$                    ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         675,000$           675,000$ 9094‐Santa Barbara Shores Park Improvements
221‐Parks & Recreation DIF ‐$                     ‐$                        305,000$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          305,000$           305,000$ 9094‐Santa Barbara Sh ores Park Improvements Total ‐$                     ‐ $                        305,000$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         305,000$           305,000$ 9096‐Orange Avenue Parking Lot
222‐Public Administration Development Fees 373,928$             ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          373,928$           ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 9096‐Orange Avenue Parking Lot Total 373,928$             ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         373,928$           ‐$ 9097‐Fairview Corridor Study (Fowler Road to Calle Real) 205‐Measure A ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          250,000$                 250,000$           250,000$ 220‐Transportation Facilities DIF ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          50,000$                   50,000$             50,000$ 9097‐Fairview Corridor Study (Fowler Road to Calle Real) Total ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          300,000$                 300,000$           300,000$ 9099‐Crosswalk at Calle Real/Fairview Center ‐ Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) 205‐Measure A 123,648$             48,654$                  125,023$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          297,325$           125,023$ 206‐Measure A‐ Other 248,988$             (1,657)$                   50,168$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          297,500$           50,168$ 311‐Misc Grant 232,130$             47,561$                  20,309$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          300,000$           20,309$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 9099‐Cro sswalk at Calle Real/Fairview Center ‐ Pedestrian Hybrid 604,766$             94,558$                  195,500$                      ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                         894,825$           195,500$ 9100‐Hollister Avenue/Fairview Avenue Roundabout (Intersection Improvements) 220‐Transportation Facilities DIF ‐$                     ‐ $                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          12,416,000$           12,416,000$     12,416,000$ 9100‐Hollister Avenue/Fairview Avenue Roundabout (In tersectio ‐$                     ‐ $                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          12,416,000$           12,416,000$     12,416,000$ 40 Five Year Summary by Project
Project
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Amended
FY 2023/24
Carryovers
FY 2024/25
Proposed
FY 2025/26
Proposed
FY 2026/27
Proposed
FY 2027/28
Proposed
FY 2028/29 +
Future Yrs
Proposed
Sum of Total
Project Costs
Sum of Costs To
Complete
9101‐City Hall Purchase & Improvements
101‐General 10,637,751 $       3,526$                    414,207$                      ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          11,055,483$     414,207$ 222‐Public Administration Development Fees ‐$                     ‐ $                        42,279$                        ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          42,279$             42,279$ 224‐Sheriff Facilities Development Fees 934,877$             ‐ $                        168,002$                      ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          1,102,880$        168,002$ 608‐IBank ‐$
‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 995‐To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      1,949,276$                 ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          1,949,276$        1,949,276$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 9101‐City Hall Purchase & Improvements Total 11,572,628$       3,526$                    624,488$                      ‐$                      1,949,276$                ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         14,149,918$     2,573,764$ 9102‐Storke Road Corridor Study
205‐Measure A ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 220‐Transportation Facilities DIF ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          641,225$                 641,225$           641,225$ 9102‐Storke Road Corridor Study Total ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          641,225$                 641,225$           641,225$ 9103‐Citywide School Zones Signage & Striping Evaluation 101‐General ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 205‐Measure A ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            196,950$                 ‐$                          ‐$                          196,950$           196,950$ 9103‐Citywide School Zones Signage & Striping Evaluation Total ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            196,950$                 ‐$                          ‐$                         196,950$           196,950$ 9104‐Citywide Evaluation of Existing Traffic Signals
101‐General ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 205‐Measure A ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          363,200$                 363,200$           363,200$ 9104‐Citywide Evaluation of Existing Traffic Signals Total ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          363,200$                 363,200$           363,200$ 9105‐Ellwo
od Beach Drive Drainage Infrastructure Replacement
234‐Storm Drain DIF ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          966,000$                 ‐$                          966,000$           966,000$ 9105‐Ellwood Beach Drive Drainage Infrastructure Replacement T ‐$                     ‐ $                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          966,000$                 ‐$                         966,000$           966,000$ 9106‐Phelps Ditch Flood Control Channel Trash Control Structure 234‐Storm Drain DIF ‐$                     ‐$                        50,000$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          50,000$             50,000$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          3,118,000$              ‐$                          3,118,000$        3,118,000$ 9106‐Phelps Ditch Fl ood Control Channel Trash Control Structure ‐$                     ‐$                        50,000$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          3,118,000$              ‐$                         3,168,000$       3,168,000$ 9107‐Old Town South Fairview Avenue, High Flow Trash Capture Devices 101‐General ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 234‐Storm Drain DIF 26,413$               4,700$                    618,887$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          650,000$           618,887$ 995‐To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      2,052,000$                 ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          2,052,000$        2,052,000$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            1,026,000$              1,026,000$              ‐$                          2,052,000$        2,052,000$ 9107‐Old Town South Fairview Avenue, High Flow Trash Capture 26,413$               4,700$                    618,887$                      ‐$                      2,052,000$                1,026,000$              1,026,000$              ‐$                         4,754,000$       4,722,887$ 9108‐Winchester II Park
221‐Parks & Recreation DIF 250,359$             ‐$                        59,641$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          310,000$           59,641$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 9108‐Winchester II Park Total 250,359$             ‐$                        59,641$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         310,000$           59,641$ 9109‐Ward Drive Sidewalk Infill
995‐To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          604,800$                 604,800$           604,800$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 9109‐Ward Drive Sidewalk Infill Total ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          604,800$                 604,800$           604,800$ 41 Five Year Summary by Project
Project
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Amended
FY 2023/24
Carryovers
FY 2024/25
Proposed
FY 2025/26
Proposed
FY 2026/27
Proposed
FY 2027/28
Proposed
FY 2028/29 +
Future Yrs
Proposed
Sum of Total
Project Costs
Sum of Costs To
Complete
9110‐Hollister Class 1 Bike Path Lighting
205‐Measure A 35,188 $               (5,985)$                   324,471$                      ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          353,674$           324,471$ 206‐Measure A‐ Other 17,213 $               21,141$                  386,043$                      ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          424,397$           386,043$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐ $                        ‐ $                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          600,784$                 ‐$                          600,784$           600,784$ 9110‐Ho llister Class 1 Bike Path Lighting Total 52,401 $               15,156$                  710,514$                      ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          600,784$                 ‐ $                         1,378,855$       1,311,298$ 9111‐Jonny D. Wallis Neighborhood Park Phase 2 ‐ Splash Pad 221‐Parks & Recreation DIF 107,003$             738,899$               1,578,644$                   ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          2,424,547$        1,578,644$ 995‐To Be Determined (TBD) Ot her Grants/Sources ‐$                     ‐ $                        ‐ $                              ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                   ‐ $ 9111‐Jonny D. Wallis Neighborhood Park Phase 2 ‐ Splash Pad  To 107,003$             738,899$               1,578,644$                  ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                         2,424,547$       1,578,644$ 9112‐Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Plan
101‐General ‐$                     1,228$                    448,772$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          200,000$                 600,000$                 1,250,000$        1,248,772$ 322‐MBHMP 1,594,630$          137,505$               2,259,750$                   ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          3,991,884$        2,259,750$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            5,666,226$              50,000$                   ‐$                          5,716,226$        5,716,226$ 310‐CAL Fire Grant ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 9112‐Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Plan Total 1,594,630$         138,733$               2,708,522$                  ‐$                      ‐$                            5,666,226$              250,000$                 600,000$                 10,958,110$     9,224,748$ 9113‐Mathilda Park Improvements
101‐General ‐$                     ‐$                        199,698$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          199,698$           199,698$ 301‐State Park Grant ‐ $                     ‐$                        177,952$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          177,952$           177,952$ 402‐Community Development Block Grant 14,271$               66,129$                  66,201$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          146,602$           66,201$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 9113‐Mathilda Park Improvements Total 14,271$               66,129$                  443,851$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         524,252$           443,851$ 9114‐Hollister Avenue Old Town Interim Striping Project 101‐General ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 201‐Gas Tax ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 205‐Measure A 175,769$             10,190$                  68,749$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          254,708$           68,749$ 206‐Measure A‐ Other ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 995‐To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 9114‐Hollister Avenue Old Town Interim Striping Project Total 175,769$             10,190$                  68,749$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         254,708$           68,749$ 9115‐Public Works Corporation Yard Repairs
101‐General 29,679$               ‐$                        70,321$                        ‐$                      714,000$                    ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          814,000$           784,321$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$
‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 9115‐Public Works Corporation Yard Repairs Total 29,679$               ‐$                        70,321$                        ‐$                      714,000$                    ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         814,000$           784,321$ 9116‐Pickleball Courts
221‐Parks & Recreation DIF ‐$                     ‐$                        100,000$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          100,000$           100,000$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 9116‐Pickleball Courts  Total ‐$                     ‐$                        100,000$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         100,000$           100,000$ 9117‐San Jose Creek Channel Fish‐Passage Modification Project 101‐General 227,559$             80,657$                  1,381,784$                   ‐$                      750,000$                    ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          2,440,000$        2,131,784$ 995‐To Be De termined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources ‐$                     ‐ $                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      1,000,000$                 ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          1,000,000$        1,000,000$ 9117‐San Jose Creek Channel Fish‐Passage Modification Project T 227,559$             80,657$                  1,381,784$                  ‐ $                      1,750,000$                ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                         3,440,000$       3,131,784$ 9118‐Ellwood Coastal Trails and Habitat Restoration
221‐Parks & Recreation DIF ‐$                     ‐ $                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 311‐Misc Grant ‐$                     ‐$                        208,500$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          208,500$           208,500$ 322‐MBHMP ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 995‐To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      4,186,500$                 ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          4,186,500$        4,186,500$ 9118‐Ellwood Coastal Trails and Habitat Restoration Total ‐$                     ‐$                        208,500$                      ‐$                      4,186,500$                ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         4,395,000$       4,395,000$ 42 Five Year Summary by Project
Project
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Amended
FY 2023/24
Carryovers
FY 2024/25
Proposed
FY 2025/26
Proposed
FY 2026/27
Proposed
FY 2027/28
Proposed
FY 2028/29 +
Future Yrs
Proposed
Sum of Total
Project Costs
Sum of Costs To
Complete
9119‐Ellwood Beach Drive Drainage
101‐General 8,641 $                 14,649$                  219,710$                      ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          243,000$           219,710$ 234‐Storm Drain DIF ‐$                     ‐ $                        ‐ $                              ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                   ‐ $ 995‐To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources ‐$                     ‐ $                        ‐ $                              ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                   ‐ $ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      871,200$                    ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          871,200$           871,200$ 9119‐Ellwood Beach Drive Drainage  Total 8,641$                 14,649$                  219,710$                      ‐$                      871,200$                    ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         1,114,200$       1,090,910$ 9120‐Evergreen Park Drainage Repair
101‐General 3,328$                 40,846$                  158,126$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          202,300$           158,126$ 995‐To Be De termined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources ‐$                     ‐ $                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 9120‐Evergreen Park Drainage Repair  Total 3,328$                 40,846$                  158,126$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         202,300$           158,126$ 9121‐Goleta Community Center ADA Improvements
101‐Gener
al 11,446$               11,400$                  580,644$                      135,000$             81,000$                      ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          819,490$           796,644$ 402‐Community Development Block Grant 135,225$             76,633$                  90,222$                        25,000$               25,000$                      ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          352,079$           140,222$ 995‐To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 424‐Community  Project Funding ‐$                     ‐$                        3,000,000$                   ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          3,000,000$        3,000,000$ 9121‐Goleta Community Center ADA Improvements  Total 146,671$             88,033$                  3,670,866$                  160,000$             106,000$                    ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         4,171,569$       3,936,866$ 9122‐City‐Wide Open Space M anagement & Maintenance
101‐General ‐$                     ‐ $                        ‐ $                              ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                   ‐ $ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐ $                        ‐ $                              ‐ $                      360,000$                    ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          360,000$           360,000$ 9122‐City‐Wide Open Space Management & Maintenance  Total ‐$                     ‐ $                        ‐$                              ‐$                      360,000$                    ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         360,000$           360,000$ 9123‐Lake Los Car neros Master Plan
101‐General ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      750,000$                    ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          750,000$           750,000$ 9123‐Lake Los Carneros Master Plan  Total ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      750,000$                    ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         750,000$           750,000$ 9124‐Fairview & St ow Canyon Traffic Signal
101‐General ‐$                     ‐ $                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 205‐Measure A ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      532,000$                    1,264,850$              ‐$                          ‐$                          1,796,850$        1,796,850$ 9124‐Fairview & Stow Canyon Traffic Signal  Total ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      532,000$                    1,264,850$              ‐$                          ‐$                         1,796,850$       1,796,850$ 9125‐Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) Calle Real @ Jenna 101‐General ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 201‐Gas Tax ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 205‐Measure A ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      217,800$                    ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          217,800$           217,800$ 9125‐Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) Calle Real @ Je ‐$                     ‐ $                        ‐$                              ‐$                      217,800$                    ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         217,800$           217,800$ 9126‐Pickleball Entry/Waiting area at GCC
101‐General ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 311‐Misc Grant ‐$                     ‐$                        50,000$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          50,000$             50,000$ 402‐Community Development Block Grant ‐$                     6,240$                    128,760$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          135,000$           128,760$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 9126‐Pickleball Entry/Waiting area at GCC Total ‐$                     6,240$                    178,760$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         185,000$           178,760$ 9127‐Goleta Community Center Campus Refresh
101‐General ‐$                     ‐$                        100,000$                      150,000$             ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          250,000$           250,000$ 402‐Community Development Block Grant ‐$                     ‐$                        54,431$                        ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          54,431$             54,431$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 9127‐Goleta Community Center Campus Refresh Total ‐$                     ‐$                        154,431$                      150,000$             ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         304,431$           304,431$ 43 Five Year Summary by Project
Project
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Amended
FY 2023/24
Carryovers
FY 2024/25
Proposed
FY 2025/26
Proposed
FY 2026/27
Proposed
FY 2027/28
Proposed
FY 2028/29 +
Future Yrs
Proposed
Sum of Total
Project Costs
Sum of Costs To
Complete
9128‐Goleta Community Center Gazebo Area Improvements
101‐General ‐$                     ‐ $                        ‐ $                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          150,000$                 ‐$                          150,000$           150,000$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          5,000$                      ‐$                          5,000$               5,000$ 9128‐Goleta Community Center Gazebo Area Improvements Tota ‐$                     ‐ $                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          155,000$                 ‐$                         155,000$           155,000$ 9129‐Goleta Community Center Parking Lot Improvements
101‐General ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            150,000$                 ‐$                          ‐$                          150,000$           150,000$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            480,000$                 ‐$                          ‐$                          480,000$           480,000$ 9129‐Goleta Community Center Parking Lot Im provements Total ‐$                     ‐ $                        ‐ $                              ‐ $                      ‐ $                            630,000$                 ‐ $                          ‐ $                         630,000$           630,000$ 9130‐Goleta Valley Library ADA & Building Refresh
101‐General ‐$                     ‐ $                        459,640$                      ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          459,640$           459,640$ 208‐County Per Capita ‐$                     ‐ $                        180,000$                      ‐ $                      ‐ $                            ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          180,000$           180,000$ 995‐To Be De
termined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 215‐Goleta Library ‐$                     ‐$                        250,000$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          250,000$           250,000$ 325‐California State Library ‐$                     ‐$                        4,278,560$                   ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          4,278,560$        4,278,560$ 501‐Library Services ‐ $                     ‐$                        180,000$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          180,000$           180,000$ 9130‐Goleta Valley Library ADA & Building Refresh Total ‐$                     ‐$                        5,348,200$                  ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         5,348,200$       5,348,200$ 9131‐Historic Train Station Preservation
101‐General ‐$                     ‐$                        250,000$                      50,000$               50,000$                      ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          350,000$           350,000$ 995‐To Be De
termined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      700,000$                    ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          700,000$           700,000$ 9131‐Historic Train Station Preservation Total ‐$                     ‐$                        250,000$                      50,000$               750,000$                    ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         1,050,000$       1,050,000$ 9132‐Lake Los Carneros Footbridge
101‐General ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 995‐To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      1,050,000$                 ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          1,050,000$        1,050,000$ 9132‐Lake Los Carneros Footbridge Total ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      1,050,000$                ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         1,050,000$       1,050,000$ 9133‐Hollister Ave Sidewalk Improvement at Ellwood School Project 101‐General ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 201‐Gas Tax ‐$                     ‐$                        100,000$                      ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          100,000$           100,000$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      942,800$                    ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          942,800$           942,800$ 9133‐Hollister Ave Sidewalk Improvement at Ellwood School Proj ‐$                     ‐ $                        100,000$                      ‐ $                      942,800$                    ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                         1,042,800$       1,042,800$ 9134‐Facilities Capital Renewal (Proposed FY24/25)
101‐General ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      3,813,742$                 2,051,049$              3,002,007$              3,152,107$              12,018,905$     12,018,905$ 9134‐Facilities Capital Renewal (Proposed FY24/25) Total ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      3,813,742$                2,051,049$              3,002,007$              3,152,107$              12,018,905$     12,018,905$ 9135‐Stow House Preservation (Proposed FY24/25)
101‐General ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            200,000$                 ‐$                          ‐$                          200,000$           200,000$ 9135‐Stow House Preservation (Proposed FY24/25) Total ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            200,000$                 ‐$                          ‐$                         200,000$           200,000$ 9136‐Portable Replacement Project (Proposed FY24/25)
101‐General ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          800,000$                 ‐$                          800,000$           800,000$ 999‐Unfunded ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                   ‐$ 9136‐Portable Replacement Project (Proposed FY24/25) Total ‐$                     ‐$                        ‐$                              ‐$                      ‐$                            ‐$                          800,000$                 ‐$                         800,000$           800,000$ Grand Total 67,003,704$       10,154,716$          121,113,106$              33,032,603$        60,617,294$              19,572,575$            49,079,751$            340,605,562$         701,179,310$   624,020,891$ 44 ATTACHMENT 5:

Five Year CIP Budget – Project Detail Sheets

45 Public Works
Hollister Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Plan 9001
46 Public Works
Hollister Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Plan 9001

Description:

The Hollister Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Plan provides a co mprehensive strategy for creating safety and quality of life enhancements along the 0.8 mile stretch of Hollister Avenue extending from Fairview Avenue to State Route 217. The plan will focus on transf orming the Hollister Avenue Corridor into a Complete Streets corridor prov iding improvements consisting of safe multi-modal connections, t ransportation infrastructure upgrades, improved pedestrian and ADA accessibility, dedicated bicycle lanes, and green infrastructure facilitie s to manage stormwater.

Benefit/Core
Value: To Strengthen Infrastructure and return Old Town to a Vital Center of the City.

Purpose and
Need:

Bicycle and pedestrian improvements are needed in Old town. The Ho llister Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Plan Project will co nstruct improvements to the historic downtown that will communicate a sense of place and encourage all mo des of transportation. The Corridor Plan goals include expanding Old Town's transportation options by making streets within the corridor safer, more inviting and more c onvenient for all travel modes and users.

Project Status:

The City received funds under the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) VI Discretionary Grants Progra m to help develop the Conceptual Design phase of the project. The TIGE R grant funded the first phase of the project which consisted of engineering and traffic studies. These preliminary studies were completed and three conceptual design alternatives for the corridor were developed and included in a Conceptual Design report. The repor t was developed through an extensive public outreach process, collaborating with residents, businesses and property owners, employees of local businesses, advocacy groups, commuters, commun ity members, and adjacent governing agencies. The project was presented to City Council and staff was directed to shift work effort s to a design and construct a new Hollister Avenue Old Town Interim Striping project due to a lack of final design or construction funding fo r this project.

Therefore, the project is curr ently on hold and staff will initiate the Environm ental Review phase of the project pending fundi ng and workload availability.

47 Public Works
Hollister Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Plan 9001

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
102 General Fund Reserves 20,166 - - 20,166 205 Measure A 74,654 - - 74,654 220 Transportation Facilities DIF 75,353 - - 75,353 230 Long Range Development Plan - - - - 305 RSTP - State Grant 250,000 - - 250,000 307 Environmental Justice 16,929 - - 16,929 402 Community Development Block Grant 30,000 - - 30,000 403 Environmental Justice 28,821 - - 28,821 419 TIGER 236,000 - - 236,000 601 Redevelopment Project Fund 360,610 - - 360,610 999 Unfunded - - - 8,659,200 8,659,200 TOTAL BY FUND 1,092,533 - - - - - - 8,659,200 9,751,733 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 1,070,652 - - 1,070,652 57071 C
onstruction/CM 21,881 - - 8,659,200 8,681,081 TOTAL BY PHASE 1,092,533 - - - - - - 8,659,200 9,751,733 Proposed
48 Public Works
Ekwill Street and Fowler Road Extensions Project 9002

49 Public Works
Ekwill Street and Fowler Road Extensions Project 9002

Description:

This project will construct Ekwill Street across Goleta Old Town from Kellogg Avenue to Fairview Avenue and extend existing Sou th Kellogg Avenue (to be renamed to Fowler Road) from its terminus to existi ng Technology Drive. The new streets will be two lane roads and include Class II Bike Lanes and sidewalks/parkways. The project also includes three roundabouts; two at the Hollister Avenue/State Rout e 217 Interchange and one at the intersection of Pine Avenue and Ekwill Street. The project will improve traffic flow on Hollister Av enue and provide new east/west corridors in Old Town. The work budgeted includes environmental, design, permitting, right of way acquisition and construction of the project.

Benefit/Core
Value: Strengthen infrastructure; maintain and improve roads and traffic circulation and return Old Town to the Vital Center of the City.

Purpose and
Need:

The existing roadway system within Goleta Old Town has inadequate east-west circulation both north and south of Hollister Avenue and lacks direct access into the southern portions of Old Town. This proj ect will relieve regional congestion, improve traffic circulatio n in Goleta Old Town, improve access within Goleta Old Town and to the Airport, and provide enhanced bicycle and pedestrian access.

Project Status:

The environmental phase of the project was completed in 2011. All permits for the project were successfully secured in 2018. Th e project is in the Final Design Phase. Construction funding is programmed for FY 22/23 and will take approximately two years to complete. The p roject is funded primarily by State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds, Long Range Development Plan funds, and City Transpor tation Development Impact Fees. In order to mini mize construction impacts along Hollister Av enue, the project will be constructed at t he same time as the City's Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement project. Due to project alignment issues related to the timing of Hollister A venue Bridge Project, the Ekwill-Fowler Project is now scheduled to begin construction in late 2022 or early 2023. A time extension request for the STIP funding was approved by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) in March 2021.

Category Infrastructure – Pavement, Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter, Hardscape, Median Estimated Annual Maintenance Costs: $40,000

50 Public Works
Ekwill Street and Fowler Road Extensions Project 9002

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General - - 10,112,493 10,112,493 102 General Fund Reserves 250,000 - - 250,000 201 Gas Tax - - 614,000 40,000 40,000 694,000 205 Measure A - - 1,325,292 1,325,292 206 Measure A- Other - - 365,315 365,315 220 Transportation Facilities DIF 6,476,618 650,960 7,437,378 2,000,000 16,564,956 230 Long Range Development Plan 804,313 34,463 5,147,934 5,986,710 308 STIP – State Grant 4,450,320 - 11,372,000 15,822,321 402 Community Development Block Grant 97,000 - - 97,000 404 STIP 670,187 - - 670,187 423 ARPA - - 4,933,990 4,933,990 601 Redevelopment Project Fund 654,318 - - 654,318 995 To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources - - - 4,207,000 4,207,000 728,959 9,142,959 999 Unfunded - - - - TO
TAL BY FUND 13,402,756 685,423 41,308,403 6,247,000 4,247,000 - - 728,959 66,619,541 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW 4,548,322 294,602 136,876 4,979,801 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 8,476,160 179,188 1,071,594 9,726,942 57071 Construction/CM 378,273 211,633 40,099,932 6,247,000 4,247,000 728,959 51,912,798 TOTAL BY PHASE 13,402,756 685,423 41,308,403 6,247,000 4,247,000 - - 728,959 66,619,541 51 Public Works
San Jose Creek Bike Path – Northern and Southern Segments 9006 52 Public Works
San Jose Creek Bike Path – Northern and Southern Segments 9006

Description:

The San Jose Creek Bike Path Project as a whole extends approximately three miles alongside San Jose Creek from the California Coast Route path in the south to Cathedral Oaks Road and the Goleta Crosstown Bicycle Route in the north. The northern portion of the project begins north of Calle Real extending south along San Jose Creek to Armitos Avenue where it connects to the San Jose Creek Middle Extent Project at Armitos Ave. The southern portion of the project then continues south from the Ekwill Street intersection at Kellogg Avenue, crosses over the San Jose Creek channel and continues along SR 217 to cross underneath SR 217 in a culvert/tunnel just north of the SR 217 bridge over San Jose Creek. The Project lies within both the City and Santa Barbara County and within the California Coastal Zone.

Project improvements include: either 8-foot-wide paved with 2 foot graded shoulders or 10-foot-wide paved path, bicycle and pedestrian bridge over San Jose Creek channel, tunnel undercrossing at SR 217, retaining walls, concrete barriers, drainage features, crossing improvements, lighting, striping, and ADA accessibility.

Benefit/Core
Value: Strengthen infrastructure and Return Old Town to a Vital Center of the City.

Purpose and
Need:

The project will remove barriers and provide a direct and continuous separated bicycle/pedestrian path for commuting and recreational active transportation users from commercial and residential areas within the Goleta Old Town area to the Atascadero Creek Trail to the south, which provides direct access to Goleta Beach, UCSB, and other areas of Goleta Valley and the City of Santa Barbara and to schools, se rvices and neighborhoods to the north of US 101. This important regional pr oject closes gaps in the regional active transportation network providing connection to the City of Santa Barbara’s new Los Positas and Modoc Roads Multipurpose Path project and the County’s new Modoc Road Multimodal Path Gap Closure Project to the south and the County’s new Class I Bike Path to the north.

Project Status:

The City was awarded $18 million in Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant funding for the design, right-of-way , and construction of the San Jose Creek Bike Path - Northern and Southern Segments Project. The Project is currently in Final Design which includes Righ t of Way phases of the Project Delivery Process. Public Works is working closely with Caltrans to coordinate the project with the Caltra ns SR217 and US 101 bridges over San Jose Creek Bridge Replacement Projects.

53 Public Works
San Jose Creek Bike Path – Northern and Southern Segments 9006

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
205 Measure A 1,008 775 2,665,802 271,000 335,000 708,000 3,981,584 206 Measure A- Other - - 438,378 438,378 202 Transportation - - 27,135 27,135 220 Transportation Facilities DIF 3,028,184 246,963 1,454,518 4,729,665 235 Bicycle & Pedestrian DIF - - - - 305 RSTP - State Grant 20,538 - 10,150 30,689 318 ATP – State - 2,399,316 919,684 14,641,000 17,960,000 407 TCSP – Federal 76,510 - - 76,510 601 Redevelopment Project Fund 24,829 - - 24,829 995 To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources - - - 734,933 734,933 999 Unfunded - - - 4,000,000 12,941,276 2,292,000 19,233,276 TOTAL BY FUND 3,151,070 2,647,054 5,515,667 5,005,933 27,917,276 3,000,000 - - 47,237,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW 4,287 666,647 1,348,066 2,019,000 57070 P
reliminary Eng/Environ 3,140,455 1,980,407 656,638 5,777,501 57071 Construction/CM 6,327 - 3,510,962 5,005,933 27,917,276 3,000,000 39,440,499 TOTAL BY PHASE 3,151,070 2,647,054 5,515,667 5,005,933 27,917,276 3,000,000 - - 47,237,000 Proposed
54 Public Works
San Jose Creek Bike Path – Middle Extent 9007
55 Public Works
San Jose Creek Bike Path – Middle Extent 9007

Description:

The San Jose Creek Multipurpose Path Project as a whole extends approximately three miles alongside San Jose Creek from the Obe rn Trail in the south to Cathedral Oaks Road in the north. The project provides an alternative means of transportation for commute rs as well as a source of recreation. The Middle Extent Project will construc t a Class I bike/Multipurpose path adjacent to San Jose Creek, f rom the northern boundary of Jonny D. Wallis Park to Armitos Avenue. The project includes righ t of way acquisition at Kellogg Ranch.Pro ject improvements include: a paved 8 – 10-foot-wide paved path with 2 foot graded shoulders, striping, ADA accessibility, and environmental enhancement mitigation.

Benefit/Core
Value: Strengthen infrastructure and maintain a safe community.

Purpose and
Need:

The Middle Extent Project will provide a conn ection between Jonny D. Wallis Park and Ar mitos Park and provide off street access to both parks and the new Community Garden from the adjacent neighborhood. The path will eventually connect to the overall San Jose Cre ek Multipurpose Path providing a direct and continuous separated bicycle/pedestrian path fo r commuting and recreational active tra nsportation users between Old Town Goleta and Calle Real to the north and existing Class I Atascadero Creek Trail to the south, removing th e barriers of State Route 217, the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks and the busy US101 freeway interchanges.

Project Status:

The design is complete for this segment of the path and the project will be packaged with the Community Garden and Armitos Park Improvements project for construction in the summer of 2023.

56 Public Works
San Jose Creek Bike Path – Middle Extent 9007

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
202 Transportation - 28,000 97 28,097 205 Measure A - 160,000 0 160,000 206 Measure A- Other - 168,320 13,000 181,320 220 Transportation Facilities DIF 827,681 98,325 370,995 1,297,000 305 RSTP - State Grant 845,319 - - 845,319 318 ATP – State - - - - 402 Community Development Block Grant 355,928 - - 355,928 999 Unfunded - - - - TOTAL BY FUND 2,028,927 454,644 384,092 - - - - - 2,867,664 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW 95,094 - 76,906 172,000 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 1,933,833 9,343 163,487 2,106,664 57071 Construction/CM - 445,301 143,699 589,000 TOTAL BY PHASE 2,028,927 454,644 384,092 - - - - - 2,867,664 Proposed
57 Neighborhood Services
Fire Station No. 10 9025

58 Neighborhood Services
Fire Station No. 10 9025

Description:

Development of a fire station, approximately 11,600 square feet in size, on a 1.25-acre site identified as 7952 Hollister Avenu e to include three apparatus bays and ancillary fac ilities. The fire station will be operat ed by the County of Santa Barbara Fire Pr otection District upon completion.

Benefit/Core Value: This project furthers the Strategic Plan Strategy to maintain a safe community. This project will enhance and improve fire serv ice in western Goleta.

Purpose and Need:

Currently fire service in western Goleta is deficient and does not meet industry standards for response time and firefighter to population ratio. Development of the project will bring fire service in west ern Goleta into conformance with industry recommended standard s for adequate fire protection.

Project Status:

An MOU and Easement Operating Agreement have been completed approved by both the City Council and County of Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors. The City Council awarded the design contract and design of the project has been completed. The Environmen tal Impact Report and City entitlements were approved by the City Council in December 2018. The project was also submitted to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) in December of 2018. After a couple of rounds of incomplete application determinations and additional information requested by CCC staff, the City’s application was deemed complete on February 25, 2020. CCC approved th e City’s Coastal Development Permit (CDP) application with special conditions on September 10, 2020. An extension for the CDP was filed in summer of 2022 and another extension will need to be extended again in summer of 2023. The Project is currently in Bui lding and Safety for Plan Check.

Category
Buildings & Improvements Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: $25,000

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General 1,251,675 - - 1,251,675 222 Public Administration Development Fees 92,637 - - 92,637 229 Fire Development Fees 127,899 4,437 4,830,701 4,963,037 231 Developer Agreement - - 270,000 270,000 232 County Fire DIF 1,010,958 21,333 551,107 1,583,397 999 Unfunded - - - 17,409,820 17,409,820 TOTAL BY FUND 2,483,168 25,770 5,651,808 - - - 17,409,820 - 25,570,566 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW 1,251,675 - - 1,251,675 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 1,228,142 24,850 647,109 1,900,102 57071 Construction/CM 3,351 920 5,004,699 17,409,820 22,418,790 TOTAL BY PHASE 2,483,168 25,770 5,651,808 - - - 17,409,820 - 25,570,566 Proposed
59 Public Works
Goleta US 101 Overcrossing 9027
60 Public Works
Goleta US 101 Overcrossing 9027

Description:

The project will add a new overcrossing over the Union Pacific Ra ilroad (UPRR) and the US 101 ne ar the western end of Hollister Avenue near Entrance Road. The current work effort is preliminary stages of conceptual design, in cluding feasibility study and analys is to establish scope of work prior to moving forward to the environmental revi ew phase. Completing these phases enhances the City’s potential ability to secure competitive future grant funds for the final design, right-of-way, and construction phases.

Benefit/Core
Value: Strengthen City-wide infrastructure including roads and traffic circulation.

Purpose and
Need:

The purpose of the project is to provide an additional freeway and railroad crossing that will reduce traffic congestion at the existing Storke Road/US 101 interchange and along Storke Road between the ramps to US 101 and the Hollister Avenue/Storke Road intersection; im prove vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian access for residents on both sides of the freeway; and reduce emergency response times acros s US 101.

Total project costs estimated to exceed $50 million.

Project Status:

The project is in the conceptual design phase, including a feasibility study and analysis. Following City Council direction reg arding the conceptual design, the team will start the environmental review phase. Due to the staffing deficit and other project priorities, this project is on hold. The construction phase timeframe and full funding availabi lity is unknown due to the Measure A (completion and funding n eeds of the Santa Barbara U.S. 101 Multimodal Corridor project) and future State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding.

Category
Infrastructure – Bridges Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: $20,000

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
205 Measure A - - (13,684) (13,684) 206 Measure A- Other - - - - 220 Transportation Facilities DIF 1,420,974 - 47,803 1,468,777 230 Long Range Development Plan - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - 273,544,908 273,544,908 TOTAL BY FUND 1,420,974 - 34,118 - - - - 273,544,908 275,000,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 1,420,974 - 34,118 1,455,092 57071 Construction/CM - - - 273,544,908 273,544,908 TOTAL BY PHASE 1,420,974 - 34,118 - - - - 273,544,908 275,000,000 Proposed
61 Public Works
Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement (SJC Phase II) 9033

62 Public Works
Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement (SJC Phase II) 9033

Description:

This is the second phase of the San Jose Creek Capacity and Fish-Passage Improvement project. The project includes the replacem ent of the Hollister Avenue Bridge over San Jose Creek and extends upstream the San Jose Creek Channel capacity and fish-passage improveme nts both under and downstream of Hollister Avenue. The new bridge will have a 100-year storm flow capacity.

Benefit/Core
Value: Strengthen infrastructure and return Old Town to the vital center of the City Purpose and
Need:

The existing bridge was constructed using reactive aggregate and is deteriorating. The existing bridge does not conform to curr ent design standards and retrofitting is not feasible. The bridge is also “Functionally Obsolete” due to stormwater capacity, which made i t eligible for federal funding. Replacing the bridge and completing the San Jose Creek Channel capacity and fish-passage improvements will al low the channel to retain the 100-year storm event flows and continue fish-passage improvements up to the natural portion of San Jose C reek, upstream of Hollister Avenue.

Project Status:

The project is in the Final Design, Permitting and Right-of-Way Acquisition Phase. Due to delays in the availability of Federal Construction funding, construction is now scheduled to begin in 2023 and will take approximately 30 months to construct. In order to minimiz e construction impacts along Hollister Avenue, the projec t will be constructed at the same time as the City's Ekwill Street and Fowler Road Ex tensions projects.

Category Infrastructure – Bridge Estimated Annual Maintenance Costs: $10,000

63 Public Works
Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement (SJC Phase II) 9033

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General - - 295,760 766,900 1,542,700 2,605,360 102 General Fund Reserves 344 - - 344 205 Measure A 82,875 4,400 52,725 220,000 550,000 910,000 220 Transportation Facilities DIF 900,751 57,493 2,930,627 3,888,871 234 Storm Drain DIF - - 100,000 100,000 401 HBP Federal Grant 5,260,570 228,657 18,816,608 24,305,835 601 Redevelopment Project Fund 9,502 - - 9,502 995 To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - - TOTAL BY FUND 6,254,041 290,550 22,195,720 986,900 2,092,700 - - - 31,819,911 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW 2,272,437 85,663 4,292,869 6,650,969 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 3,879,161 63,798 789,469 4,732,428 57071 Construction/CM 102,443 141,089 17,113,381 986,900 2,092,700 20,436,513 TOTAL BY PHASE 6,254,041 290,550 22,195,720 986,900 2 ,092,700 - - - 31,819,911 Proposed
64 Public Works
Storke Road Widening, Phelps to City Limits 9042

65 Public Works
Storke Road Widening, Phelps to City Limits 9042

Description:

Project limits are from Phelps Road to Sierra Madre Court (City Limits). The existing configuration of Storke Road along the Pr oposed Project alignment includes one northbound vehicle lane, bike lane, and a landscaped parkway and sidewalk along its eastern side. Along its western side there is a landscaped center median and two vehicle southbound lanes, including a vehicle transition lane merge between Ph elps Road and Whittier Drive, a bike lane and sidewalk. The remainder of the alignment along its west side includes one southbound vehicle lane, a bike lane and a sidewalk.

The proposed design includes two vehicle travel lanes in each direction, as well as sidewalks and Class II bike lanes in both d irections. The medians and parkways will be preserved as much as possible. Feasibility studies are underway to analyze inclusion of a separate d Class I/Multipurpose path through the project limits and replacement of the existing pipe culverts with a natural bottom box culvert beneath Storke Road.

Benefit/Core
Value: Strengthen infrastructure.
Purpose and
Need:

Improve existing and anticipated traffic circulation along Storke Road from the UCSB campus to US Highway 101 and the City. Sto rke Road north and south of this segment to be widened have two travel lanes in each direction, leaving this segment acting as a bottlen eck. Improve bicycle and pedestrian access.

Project Status: The project is not currently in the Annual Work Program. When this project is added in the future, it will be in the Conceptual Design phase of the Project Delivery Process.

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
220 Transportation Facilities DIF 44,509 - 106,140 150,649 230 Long Range Development Plan 223,773 - 383,716 607,489 231 Developer Agreement - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - 12,116,002 12,116,002 TOTAL BY FUND 268,281 - 489,856 - - - - 12,116,002 12,874,140 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - 96,000 96,000 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 268,281 - 489,856 692,002 1,450,140 57071 Construction/CM - - - 11,328,000 11,328,000 TOTAL BY PHASE 268,281 - 489,856 - - - - 12,116,002 12,874,140 Proposed
66 Public Works
Hollister Widening, West of Storke Road 9044
67 Public Works
Hollister Widening, West of Storke Road 9044

Description:

Project limits are on Hollister Avenue from Storke Road intersection to 280 feet west of S. Glen Annie Road. The existing conf iguration of Hollister Avenue along the Proposed Project alignment includes tw o westbound vehicle lanes, bike lane, and an 8 foot sidewalk a long its northern side. The project does not affect the south side (eastbound) of Hollister Ave.

The proposed design includes maintaining the two vehicle travel lanes, as well as sidewalk and bike lane in the westbound direc tion with the addition of a third westbound lane. This lane would allow southbound Storke Road vehicles transitioning to the westbound direction of Hollister Ave to have a dedicated lane and relocate the merge lane farther west past S. Glen Annie Road. The Hollister Village improvemen ts include the additional westbound lane which this project will connect to on the west side of S. Glen Annie. This project also includes the relocation of the Southern California Edison steel transmission line pole on the northwest corner of S. Glen Annie to not conflict with the p roposed improvements.

Benefit/Core
Value: Strengthen infrastructure.

Purpose and
Need:

Improve existing and anticipated traffic circulation along Hollister Avenue from Storke Road including US Highway 101 and the City and support and implement the City’s Transportation Element.

Project Status: This project is currently on hold due to the staffing deficit and other project priorities

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
205 Measure A 86,316 - 13,684 100,000 220 Transportation Facilities DIF 15,691 - - 15,691 230 Long Range Development Plan 14,440 - 534,954 549,394 999 Unfunded - - - 3,506,115 3,506,115 TOTAL BY FUND 116,446 - 548,638 - - - - 3,506,115 4,171,200 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - 660,000 660,000 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 116,446 - 548,638 665,085 57071 Construction/CM - - - 2,846,115 2,846,115 TOTAL BY PHASE 116,446 - 548,638 - - - - 3,506,115 4,171,200 Proposed
68 Public Works
Cathedral Oaks Crib Wall Repair 9053

69 Public Works
Cathedral Oaks Crib Wall Repair 9053

Description:

The project includes repairing the crib walls and multi-purpose path along the north side of Cathedral Oaks Road damaged during past storm events. A Geotechnical E ngineering firm performed a co mprehensive and systematic full-scale geotechnical investigation of the t wo crib walls along the northern side of Cathedral Oaks Road to determine the potential failure mechanisms related to the crib wall design an d construction.

The work included drilling approximately 23 geotechnical borings ranging between 25 feet to 80 feet below ground surface (equal to twice the height of the retaining wall), performing geophysical crosshole logging and ground penetrating radar (GPR) that was not perform ed during pervious investigations, collecting and analyze soil sample in the laboratory, and developing and providing recommended structu ral repair options and cost estimates. This project will be entering the design phase.

Benefit/Core
Value: Strengthen City-wide infrastructure including roads and traffic circulation.

Purpose and
Need:

There has been structural damages to the crib wall structure and backfill due to the 2017 (January) winter storms. High intensity rainfall caused runoff to infiltrate backfill and caused extensive damage to wall backfill, including material loss and scouring of wall struct ure embedment.

Unknown limits of damage to backfill, and potential for wall failure to affect Cathedral Oaks Road and bike path resulting in the decision to close both facilities. The roadway has subsequently been reopened. The bike path remains closed.

Project Status: The project is in the conceptual design phase.

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General 221,608 252,509 832,899 1,307,016 205 Measure A 142,632 - - 521,000 200,000 863,632 420 FHWA - FEMA Reimb Anticipated - - 87,746 87,746 423 ARPA - - - - 995 To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - 15,511,770 15,511,770 TOTAL BY FUND 364,240 252,509 920,645 16,032,770 200,000 - - - 17,770,164 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - 300,000 300,000 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 311,688 252,509 457,187 521,000 1,542,384 57071 Construction/CM 52,552 - 163,458 15,511,770 200,000 15,927,780 TOTAL BY PHASE 364,240 252,509 920,645 16,032,770 200,000 - - - 17,770,164 Proposed
70 Public Works / Planning & Environmental
LED Street Lighting Project 9056

71 Public Works / Planning & Environmental
LED Street Lighting Project 9056

Description:

This project includes the audit of streetlights in the City, reconciliation with SCE audit data, acquisition of streetlights from SCE, and conversion from high pressure sodium (HPS) to light-emitting diode (LED). T he expected results of this project include energy cost savings , increased public safety, and timely streetlight repair.

Benefit/Core
Value: Strengthen Infrastructure, ensure environmental vitality and ensure Financial Stability.

Purpose and
Need: Improve lighting on streets, sidewalks, and crosswalks while generating energy and maintenance savings.

Project Status: The project is completed.

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General 857,993 25,691 46,316 930,000 233 OBF SCE 153,589 - - 153,589 502 Street Lighting 192,000 - 18,000 210,000 999 Unfunded - - - - TOTAL BY FUND 1,203,582 25,691 64,316 - - - - - 1,293,589 57010 Machinery & Equipment 558,750 - 2,045 560,795 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 123,876 - 19,124 143,000 57071 Construction/CM 520,956 25,691 43,147 589,794 TOTAL BY PHASE 1,203,582 25,691 64,316 - - - - - 1,293,589 Proposed
72 Public Works
Cathedral Oaks Class I Multi-Use Path 9061

1 | Page

73 Public Works
Cathedral Oaks Class I Multi-Use Path 9061

2 | Page

Description:

Class I Multi-Use Path Cathedral Oaks Road – San Pedro Creek to Eastern City Limit Class II lanes exist. Construct a multi-use path along Cathedral Oaks Road between San Pedro Creek and the eastern City limit near Cambridge Drive.

Benefit/Core Value: Strengthen City-wide Infrastructure Purpose and Need:

Cathedral Oaks Road currently has Class II bike lanes. The proposed project will construct a new multi-use path on this arteria l that is heavily used by drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. As one of only two east-west arterials that completely traverse the City of Goleta, Cathedral Oaks Road is the only one that has enough right of way and is not so fully developed that there is still room to install a separate multipurpose path. The project will create a non -motorized corridor where bicycles and pedestrians can safely travel between ac tivity centers and residential neighborhoods without traveling alongside vehicles on a busy, high-speed arterial roadway Project Status: Due to the staffing deficit and other project priorities, this project will be on hold.

Category
Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: $0

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
220 Transportation Facilities DIF 1,360 - - 1,360 999 Unfunded - - - 21,214,640 21,214,640 TOTAL BY FUND 1,360 - - - - - 21,214,640 - 21,216,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - 4,800,000 4,800,000 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 1,360 - - 4,798,640 4,800,000 57071 Construction/CM - - - 11,616,000 11,616,000 TOTAL BY PHASE 1,360 - - - - - 21,214,640 - 21,216,000 Proposed
74 Public Works
Storke Road/Hollister Avenue Transit, Bike/Ped, and Median Improvements 9062

75 Public Works
Storke Road/Hollister Avenue Transit, Bike/Ped, and Median Improvements 9062

Description:

The Project includes transit, bi cycle and pedestrian, and roadway improvements along Storke Road south of Hollis ter Avenue. Tra nsit improvements consist of re-designing and merging the two bus stops on Storke Road into one bus stop and replacing bus stop stru ctures on Storke and the structure located on Holliste r Avenue east of Storke Road. The work will also include restriping at the intersec tion of Storke Road and Hollister Avenue to reinstate a free right turn lane fo r northbound Stork Road to ea stbound Hollister Avenue and new b ike lane striping along Storke Road and crosswalk improvements at the in tersection. Median adjustments and left turn lane restriping wil l be implemented for the left turn lanes from Northbound Storke Road to westbound Hollister Ave, and from southbound Storke Road to Storke Plaza Road. Santa Barbara Municipal Transportation District (SBMTD ) is contributing approximately $60,000 to the project for their bus stop related improvements.

Benefit/Core
Value: Strengthen infrastructure.

Purpose and
Need:

The Project will provide for adjusting the medians on Storke R oad southbound to allow for increased left turn pocket storage ar eas. Transit improvements will improve circulation of pub lic buses as well as motorists. Median improvements and left turn lane restriping w ill improve circulation for left turning movements. Rest riping at the intersection of Storke Road and Hollister Avenue will improve safety conditions for bicycles.

Project Status: The Project is in the Final Design phase which includes right-of-way acquisition of the Project Delivery Process.

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
220 Transportation Facilities DIF 26,082 - 133,077 159,159 230 Long Range Development Plan 137,694 23,072 109,369 270,136 206 Measure A- Other 67,116 - 355,834 422,950 995 To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - - TOTAL BY FUND 230,893 23,072 598,280 - - - - - 852,245 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - 111,400 111,400 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 230,893 23,072 77,310 331,275 57071 Construction/CM - - 409,570 409,570 TOTAL BY PHASE 230,893 23,072 598,280 - - - - - 852,245 Proposed
76 Neighborhood Services
Evergreen Park Improvements 9063

77 Neighborhood Services
Evergreen Park Improvements 9063

Description:

Development of a master plan for this park is necessary to confirm needs and uses as well as insure appropriate ESHA and Creek buffers for the proposed improvements. Identified needs include, but not limited to: a permanent restroom facility near the playground, renovate the multi-purpose field (formerly 9075), improve storm water drainage infrastructure and creek habitat, and improve accessibility to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act at Ev ergreen Park. In conjunction with the ma ster planning process, the project scop e is expanded to address concerns related to failing storm water infr astructure, ADA deficiencies throughout the park, and safety is sues on the 18-hole disc golf course. Community outreach, design, and permitting is consolidated for improved cost efficiencies and better project delivery, including reducing impacts to residents and better overall park design.

Benefit/Core Value: Preserve and enhance the quality of life in Goleta.

Purpose and Need:

Evergreen Park is currently served by two portable restrooms, the field needs to be renovated for active recreation, ADA deficiencies are present on all pathways, including the sidewalk adjacent to the park and the age of the current storm water drains needs to be addressed and compliant with current standards and the adopted Creek and Watershed Management Plan. The disc golf course also requires redesign to improve safety.

Project Status: The expanded project is in the preliminary engineering phase.

Category
Buildings and Site Improvements Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: $15,000 above current maintenance costs

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
221 Parks & Recreation DIF 21,494 - 258,506 280,000 995 To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - 5,000,000 5,000,000 TOTAL BY FUND 21,494 - 258,506 - - 5,000,000 - - 5,280,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 21,494 - 108,506 130,000 57071 Construction/CM - - 150,000 5,000,000 5,150,000 TOTAL BY PHASE 21,494 - 258,506 - - 5,000,000 - - 5,280,000 Proposed
78 Public Works
Reclaimed Water Service to Evergreen Park 9064

79 Public Works
Reclaimed Water Service to Evergreen Park 9064

Description: Install a reclaimed water line at Evergreen Park to service the upcoming active recreation field, and extend reclaimed water se rvice to supply existing park irrigation system.

Benefit/Core
Value: Preserve and enhance the quality of life in Goleta.

Purpose and
Need:

The CIP also included a project to install an active play field at Evergreen Park. The grass must be maintained for optimal use . Due to the drought, using potable water for parks and open spaces is not a viable option. The Goleta Sanitary District produces reclaimed water that is resold though the Goleta Water District. The City needs to connect to an existing reclaimed water line and install a meter, pip ing and filtration system in order to use the reclaimed water at the park.

Project Status: Due to the staffing deficit and other project priorities, this project is on hold.

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General - - - - 221 Parks & Recreation DIF - - - - 995 To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources - - - 530,000 530,000 999 Unfunded - - - 310,000 310,000 TOTAL BY FUND - - - - - - - 840,000 840,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - 30,000 30,000 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - - 110,000 110,000 57071 Construction/CM - - - 700,000 700,000 TOTAL BY PHASE - - - - - - - 840,000 840,000 Proposed
80 Public Works
Reclaimed Water Service to Bella Vista Park 9065
81 Public Works
Reclaimed Water Service to Bella Vista Park 9065

Description: Install a reclaimed water meter in the City right-of-way, and extend reclaimed water service to supply the existing park irriga tion system in Bella Vista Park. The mainline will also extend to Evergreen Park.

Benefit/Core
Value: Preserve and enhance the quality of life in Goleta.

Purpose and
Need:

Due to the drought, using potable water for parks and open spaces is not a viable option. The Goleta Sanitary District produces reclaimed water that is resold though the Goleta Water District. The City needs to connect to an existing reclaimed water line and instal l a meter, piping and filtration system to use the reclaimed water at the park.

Project Status: Due to the staffing deficit and other project priorities, this project is on hold.

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General - - - - 221 Parks & Recreation DIF 1,403 - 204,141 205,544 231 Developer Agreement 12,455 - - 12,455 999 Unfunded - - - 626,800 626,800 TOTAL BY FUND 13,858 - 204,141 - - - - 626,800 844,800 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 13,858 - 120,141 130,000 264,000 57071 Construction/CM - - 84,000 496,800 580,800 TOTAL BY PHASE 13,858 - 204,141 - - - - 626,800 844,800 Proposed
82 General Services
Goleta Community Center Improvements 9067
83 General Services
Goleta Community Center Improvements 9067

Description:

This project consists of seismic improvem ents to the Goleta Community Center building and site. Needed seismic improvements inc lude strengthening the floor diaphragm, roof diaphragm, dining room cripple walls, wall to truss connections in the auditorium, and supporting bell tower. Exterior improvements are limited to reroofing. Additional future work may include structural repairs/upgrades throughout the site.

Benefit/Core
Value:

Preserve and enhance the quality of life in Goleta. Improve Old Town and maintain a safe community.

Purpose and
Need:

The Goleta Community Center main building was built in 1927 and various other buildings were constructed in the 1940’s and 1950’s. A seismic evaluation of the main building yielded two ma in deficiencies. They included inadequate connection between the roof system and exterior concrete walls, and the absence of proper roof structural sheathing throughout the entire roof system, excluding the barrel vault.

Project Status: Project is in the construction phase.

Category Facilities Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: $50,000

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General 667,140 681,380 1,294,870 2,643,391 402 Community Development Block Grant 48,677 - - 48,677 421 FEMA HMGP Grant 1,340,118 1,637,615 945,149 3,922,882 995 To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - - TOTAL BY FUND 2,055,935 2,318,996 2,240,019 - - - - - 6,614,950 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 277,931 3,900 65,639 347,470 57071 Construction/CM 1,778,004 2,315,096 2,174,380 6,267,480 TOTAL BY PHASE 2,055,935 2,318,996 2,240,019 - - - - - 6,614,950 Proposed
84 Neighborhood Services
Improvements to Athletic Field at the Goleta Community Center (GCC) 9071 85 Neighborhood Services
Improvements to Athletic Field at the Goleta Community Center (GCC) 9071

Description:

Construction of the park is complete, but a need to address the drainage remains as heavy rains carry the landscape materials away from the park. The project rehabilitated the athletic field located at the Goleta Community Center (GCC) with hydro seed, irrigation and miscellaneous park amenities. The drainage will be redesigned as a bioswale with plants and other materials to allow for more water percolati on on the site and naturally treat run off.

Benefit/Core
Value: To maintain and improve City-wide facilities.

Purpose and
Need:

Active Recreation Outdoor Facilities was an identified as a significant need in the Recreation Needs Assessment. This field is located behind the Community Center in Old Town and is used daily by children of all ages. The renovation will restore the field to a safe, a ctive recreation facility.

Project Status: This project has been completely constructed, but project team is currently addressing some post construction issues before closing out the project.

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
205 Measure A - - - - 221 Parks & Recreation DIF 303,957 - 27,918 331,875 319 Housing & Community Development State Fund 269,234 - - 269,234 TOTAL BY FUND 573,191 - 27,918 - - - - - 601,109 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 88,767 - 5,870 94,636 57071 Construction/CM 484,425 - 22,048 506,473 TOTAL BY PHASE 573,191 - 27,918 - - - - - 601,109 Proposed
86 Neighborhood Services
Stow Grove Multi-Purpose Field 9074

87 Neighborhood Services
Stow Grove Multi-Purpose Field 9074

Description:

The project began as a field renovation but has expanded to a Master Planning Process for a renovation of Stow Grove Park, based on community input during initial outreach efforts. A conceptual mast er design is anticipated by the end of calendar year 2022, w hich will provide an option to construct the entire reno vation project or separate it out into two to three phases. Project to address pa rking and access deficiencies, provide recreation infill opportunities and improve utility efficiencies.

Benefit/Core Value:

This project will address a need for additional youth sports facilities in the community. By utilizing the approach of providin g a multi- purpose field, the City can maximize provision of services on available City owned property. This project also supports the Strategic Plan strategy to enhance quality of life in Goleta.

Purpose and Need: While the renovation of the field was identified as a "Highest Priority" item in the Recreation Needs Assessment report, the co nstruction of the field would require multiple ADA improvements in various areas, launching the need for a master plan approach.

Project Status: The project is in the CEQA process, which is anticipated to be completed by September of 2023 and project can move to design.

Category
Park Improvements Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: $ 0 No additional maintenance costs

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
221 Parks & Recreation DIF 166,242 60,030 1,223,729 3,500,000 4,950,000 995 To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - 4,500,000 4,500,000 TOTAL BY FUND 166,242 60,030 1,223,729 3,500,000 4,500,000 - - - 9,450,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 166,242 60,030 513,729 3,500,000 4,500,000 8,740,000 57071 Construction/CM - - 710,000 710,000 TOTAL BY PHASE 166,242 60,030 1,223,729 3,500,000 4,500,000 - - - 9,450,000 Proposed
88 Public Works
Rancho La Patera Improvements 9078

89 Public Works
Rancho La Patera Improvements 9078

Description: The project consists of parking lot repair, installation of fire line and hydrants, construction of a restroom facility, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements, provision for pedestrian sidewalk and passive use areas, lighting, and walking path repair.

Benefit/Core
Value: Strengthen City-wide infrastructure.

Purpose and
Need:

Various improvements are needed at Rancho La Patera. The existing parking lot is in a state of disrepair and improvements are n eeded to the surface driveway which provides access to the Stow House and surrounding structures. Reconstruction of the parking lot and resurfacing of the driveway are necessary to accommodate park users and employees. The only existing public restroom is a single portable toilet l ocated in the parking lot. Due to the number of users of the park facilities a more permanent restroom facility is necessary. Additionally, t he site is lacking adequate water service in case of a fire at the site. Installation of a new waterline and fire hydrants is necessary for protection of the historic buildings.

Project Status: The project is in the conceptual design phase. The programmed funding will be used for design and construction.

Category Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: $5,000

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
221 Parks & Recreation DIF 122,860 - 648,304 771,164 231 Developer Agreement 23,836 - - 23,836 999 Unfunded - - - 12,957,000 12,957,000 TOTAL BY FUND 146,696 - 648,304 - - - - 12,957,000 13,752,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 146,696 - 563,304 4,330,000 5,040,000 57071 Construction/CM - - 85,000 8,627,000 8,712,000 TOTAL BY PHASE 146,696 - 648,304 - - - - 12,957,000 13,752,000 Proposed
90 Neighborhood Services
Goleta Train Depot and S. La Patera Improvements 9079

91 Neighborhood Services
Goleta Train Depot and S. La Patera Improvements 9079

Description:

The Neighborhood Services Department will construct a new multi-mo dal train station at the location of the existing Amtrak plat form.

The new Train Depot will include facilities for ticketing, passenger waiting, dining, meeting rooms, restrooms/showers, and bik e storage. The Project site is adjacent to the existing AMTRAK platform at the northern end of South La Patera Lane. The project will also include expanded parking, bus facilities, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements along South La Patera Lane between the new station and Hollister Avenue.

Benefit/Core Value: Strengthen City-wide infrastructure including roads and traffic circulation.

Purpose and Need:

The existing Amtrak platform lacks connectivity to station user s’ final destinations, has inadequate parking and transit access ibility, provides limited and marginal restroom facilities, does not have a covered waiting area or food services, has poor pedestrian to the site, and has poor bicycle access and storage. Developing an enhanced Train Depot will improve services and accommodate future increases in passenger ridership resulting from the Surfliner commuter train between Ventura and Goleta. The project addresses the need for improved and expanded multi-modal tr ansit facilities by providing improved parking, bus turnouts, bicycle and pedestri an access, bicycle parking, access to regional rail connections, and first-mile/last-mile connectivity.

Project Status:

The City secured State Transit and Intercity Regional Capital Program (TIRCP) grant funding for the Project planning, design, a nd construction costs. In January of 2022 the Council certifi ed the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), approved the Mitigat ion Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approved the Project. On January 31, 2023, the Project secured an additional $5.56 M in TIRCP Funding which is matched by a $1M commitment of City funds. In December of 2023, City Council approved the development of the Train Depot, plans and specifications and authorized staff to advertise for bids.

Category
Buildings & Improvements Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: $125,000

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General 2,656,172 6,030 93,971 900,000 3,656,172 220 Transportation Facilities DIF 49,900 - 100 50,000 222 Public Administration Development Fees 2,324,344 - 17,030 2,341,374 231 Developer Agreement 2,031,178 - - 2,031,178 235 Bicycle & Pedestrian DIF 200,000 - - 200,000 321 TIRCP 2,430,809 275,236 15,055,228 17,761,273 TOTAL BY FUND 9,692,404 281,265 15,166,328 900,000 - - - - 26,039,997 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW 6,706,153 - 74 6,706,227 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 2,986,251 275,236 431,284 3,692,770 57071 Construction/CM - 6,030 14,734,971 900,000 15,641,000 TOTAL BY PHASE 9,692,404 281,265 15,166,328 900,000 - - - - 26,039,997 Proposed
92 Public Works
Covington Drainage System Improvements 9081

93 Public Works
Covington Drainage System Improvements 9081

Description: This project will address system c apacity, peak flow attenuation, inlet efficiency and downstream conveyance between the inlet at Cathedral Oaks near Laguna Camino Vista, and the outlet at Covington Way and Lake Los Carneros.

Benefit/Core
Value: Strengthen Infrastructure and maintain a safe community.

Purpose and
Need:

The purpose of the project is to improve storm drain system performance and re duce the potential for floo ding of City roadways and adjacent property.

Project Status: Due to the staffing deficit and other project priorities, this project is on hold.

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General 19,854 - - 19,854 999 Unfunded - - - 9,549,246 9,549,246 TOTAL BY FUND 19,854 - - - - - - 9,549,246 9,569,100 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 19,854 - - 3,487,146 3,507,000 57071 Construction/CM - - - 6,062,100 6,062,100 TOTAL BY PHASE 19,854 - - - - - - 9,549,246 9,569,100 Proposed
94 Public Works
Traffic Signal Upgrades 9083

95 Public Works
Traffic Signal Upgrades 9083

Description:

This project will upgrade and modernize existing city traffic si gnals including retroreflective back plates, advanced dilemma d etection, leading pedestrian indicators (LPIs), cabinets, contorllers, battery ba ck-up systems, and 12-inch LED lenses at various locations throu ghout the City.

There are four primary locations - Hollister Avenue a t Rutherford Street, Hollister Avenue a t Pine Avenue, Fairview Avenue a t Encina Road, and Fairview Avenue at Calle Real. - with more full-scale upgrades and replacements. Many of the remaining intersections have some updated equipment and require only some new components and improvements.

Benefit/Core
Value: Strengthen Infrastructure.

Purpose and
Need:

The purpose of the project is to improve traffic signal operatio n, reliability and intersection function, addressing the needs of vehicle and pedestrian safety and accessibility.

Project Status: The project is in the conceptual design phase. The City receiv ed a $3.12 million Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) gran t for the work.

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General 8,151 - 328,749 336,900 205 Measure A 216 - 94,784 95,000 417 Highway Safety Improvement Program - 258,197 2,861,904 3,120,100 999 Unfunded - - - - TOTAL BY FUND 8,367 258,197 3,285,437 - - - - - 3,552,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 8,367 258,197 381,437 648,000 57071 Construction/CM - - 2,904,000 2,904,000 TOTAL BY PHASE 8,367 258,197 3,285,437 - - - - - 3,552,000 Proposed
96 Neighborhood Services
Community Garden 9084

97 Neighborhood Services
Community Garden 9084

Description:

A Community Garden provides a public space where area residents or community gardeners can grow produce for personal use. It is envisioned that the Armitos Community Garden would also offer dem onstration gardening or other instructional programming throug h public/private partnerships. Proposed improvements include a 20,000 square foot garden area comprised of raised' garden plots, decomposed granite walkways, irrigation, hose bibs, fencing and a picnic area with pizza oven. This project will be constructe d along with the bike path extension from Jonny D. Wallis Neighborhood Park to Armitos Avenue. Additional improvements to the ADA walkway and the playground are necessary to complete this project.

Benefit/Core Value: Preserve and enhance quality of life.

Purpose and Need:

The City's Recreation Needs Assessment identified a Community Garden as a desired and needed facility for Goleta and recommended that it be developed in a portion of Armitos Park in Old Town. A community garden is a unique and inclusive community space whe re people from all backgrounds gather, meet and share. A community garden has the potential to be a central gathering place for a neighborhood that creates strong ties between neighbors. Community gardens positively affect the neighborhoods in which they ar e located through health, social, ecological and neighborhood benefits. As well as eating better and being more active, gardeners are more involved in social activities, view their neighborhoods as more beautiful, and have stronger ties to their neighborhoods. Commu nity Gardens also provide many opportunities for children and youth to be involved.

Project Status: Construction to begin in June of 2023
Category
Park Improvements Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: $ 10,000

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
221 Parks & Recreation DIF 255,620 1,529,139 428,384 2,213,144 TOTAL BY FUND 255,620 1,529,139 428,384 - - - - - 2,213,144 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 72,190 94,143 32,801 199,134 57071 Construction/CM 183,430 1,434,997 395,583 2,014,010 TOTAL BY PHASE 255,620 1,529,139 428,384 - - - - - 2,213,144 Proposed
98 Public Works
Goleta Storm Drain Master Plan 9085
99 Public Works
Goleta Storm Drain Master Plan 9085

Description:

The project will study patterns of drainage and flooding that ex ist throughout the entire City, including a specific focus in O ld Town Goleta. The work will include evaluating the capacity of existing storm drai n pipes and channels and provid ing recommendations for improvem ents to area drainage, storm drain, and channel capacity. The City does not hav e a comprehensive storm drain master plan. In particular, Old Town area lacks adequate storm drain infrastructure and street hydraulic capacity, resulting in intersection flooding in minor storm events. Lack of capacity in existing storm drains and overflow from adjacent flood control channels in larger storm events contributes to inundation pat terns reflected on current FEMA flood maps.

Benefit/Core
Value: Strengthen Infrastructure and maintain a safe community.

Purpose and
Need:

The purpose of this project is to comprehensively study and eval uate drainage issues and sources of flooding in the entire City and provide recommendations for required improvements. The project addresses th e need to improve safety and reduce flood risk to traffic, p edestrians and property citywide, with a section dedicated to Old Town Goleta.

Project Status: The project is in the conceptual design phase.

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General - - - - 205 Measure A - - 100,000 100,000 234 Storm Drain DIF - - 100,000 100,000 995 To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - - TOTAL BY FUND - - 200,000 - - - - - 200,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - 200,000 200,000 57071 Construction/CM - - - - TOTAL BY PHASE - - 200,000 - - - - - 200,000 Proposed
100
Public Works
Vision Zero Plan 9086
101
Public Works
Vision Zero Plan 9086

Description:

The project would create a Vision Zero program for the City. Vision Zero is a concept that centers on a core belief that all ac cidents are preventable, and that roadway designers should design and modify roads with the goal and reducing collision rates that result i n injuries or fatalities to zero. Under the current method of calculating roadway collisions, there is an acceptable number of collision per million vehicle miles.

The Vision Zero philosophy replaces that one with the idea that since all collisions are preventable, there are no acceptable collision numbers other than zero. While zero is not likely attainable, it changes the focus of the problem and has resulted in better and safer designs in areas where it has been adopted, beginning with Sweden in 1997.

Benefit/Core
Value: Strengthen Infrastructure.

Purpose and
Need:

The City of Goleta has one of the highest rates of bicycle commuters on the central coast, and is actively promoting walking, biking and the use of all alternative modes of transportation. While the City has not had a high numb er of collisions, the City’s commitment to th e safety of all roadway users makes Vision Zero an appropriate tool to adopt. Th is is expected to be a living document, to be updated constantl y by incorporating other relevant documents, guidelines and regulations by reference.

Project Status: The project is in the Conceptual Design phase. .

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General - - - - 205 Measure A - - 10,000 486,000 496,000 999 Unfunded - - - 1,215,000 537,500 51,500 1,804,000 TOTAL BY FUND - - 10,000 - 1,215,000 537,500 537,500 - 2,300,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - 10,000 343,800 101,900 101,900 557,600 57071 Construction/CM - - - 871,200 435,600 435,600 1,742,400 TOTAL BY PHASE - - 10,000 - 1,215,000 537,500 537,500 - 2,300,000 Proposed
102
Public Works
Goleta Traffic Safety Study (GTSS) 9089

103
Public Works
Goleta Traffic Safety Study (GTSS) 9089

Description:

The City applied for and received a Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) grant. Following receipt of the grant, the project will address ongoing safety concerns for eleven specific corridors in the City. The project will review specific crash locations in greater detail for roadway/intersection attributes that are common to all corridors within the project study area. The project will also identify locations which are experiencing unusually high pedestrian and bicycle collisions, what roadway features are contributing to these collisions and w here similar characteristics occur in the identified corridors.

Additionally, the City applied for and received a Highway Safety Impr ovement Program (HSIP) grant in the amount of $53,000 to c omplete a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP). An LRSP document will be required for agencies to submit future HSIP grant applications and for project planning. The current SSAR scope of work does not include the additional requirements for a LRSP, including a establishing a st akeholders group, gathering public input, and focusing on the 4e's of safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Service). The additional funding for the LRSP will ensure t he City creates a robust docum ent that includes not only the engineering side and local collision history (SSAR) but also the higher level and broader focus including public input a nd trends in the City. This will include particularly focusing on items related to driver behavior, enforcement practices, emergency response, and then engineering challenges.

Together the SSAR and LRSP proved the City with a proactive approach that focuses on evaluating the entire roadway network.

Benefit/Core
Value: To maintain and improve City-wide facilities, roads and traffic circulation. Maintain a safe community.

Purpose and
Need:

Combined, the SSAR and LRSP are designed to assist local agencie s with preparing studies specifically evaluating Strategic High way Safety Plan (SHAP) Challenge Areas, includ e public outreach, and em ploy the 4 e’s of safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Service). The purpose is to take a proactiv e safety approach evaluating an entire roadway network as opposed to individual high -collision site analysis. “A systemic analysis acknowledges that crashes alone are not always sufficient to prioritize countermeasures across a system. This is particularly true for many local streets and highways in rural areas with low volumes where crash densities tend to be low and there are few high crash locations, and in urban areas where vehicles interact with vulnerable road users (pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcycles)” (Caltrans SSARP Guidelines, February 2016). The resulting study will be referenced as the supporting document for grant applications such as the Highway Safety Improvement Program and Active Transportation Program.

Project Status: The project study has been completed.

104
Public Works
Goleta Traffic Safety Study (GTSS) 9089

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General 24,974 - - 24,974 205 Measure A 4,426 - 46,299 50,725 317 SSARP Grant 278,482 - (482) 278,000 999 Unfunded - - - - TOTAL BY FUND 307,882 - 45,817 - - - - - 353,699 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 307,882 - 45,817 353,699 57071 Construction/CM - - - - TOTAL BY PHASE 307,882 - 45,817 - - - - - 353,699 Proposed
105
Neighborhood Services
San Miguel Park Improvements 9093

106
Neighborhood Services
San Miguel Park Improvements 9093

Description:

Project will improve and expand existing playgr ound facilities, providing for disabled accessible paths of travel, activities a nd play surfaces. Improvements will address existing failing timber retaining walls and guard rails, and improve access and visibility from adjacent streets. Other park infrastructure will be evaluated during th is process to determine potential replacement (ie: irrigation an d pedestrian access bridge). The project will require a traffic study to determine safe access for possible ADA Parking.

Benefit/Core Value: To maintain and improving City-wide facilities.

Purpose and Need: Various improvements and safety and ADA upgrades were identified through the Recreation Needs Assessment and are required at various park locations. The purpose of the project is to provide improvements to the structure, access and playground surfacing.

Project Status: This project is in the preliminary engineering phase Category
Park Improvements Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: $0 No new maintenance expense

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
221 Parks & Recreation DIF - - 275,000 400,000 675,000 TOTAL BY FUND - - 275,000 - 400,000 - - - 675,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - 75,000 75,000 57071 Construction/CM - - 200,000 400,000 600,000 TOTAL BY PHASE - - 275,000 - 400,000 - - - 675,000 Proposed
107
Neighborhood Services
Santa Barbara Shores Park Improvements 9094

108
Neighborhood Services
Santa Barbara Shores Park Improvements 9094

Description:

Project will improve safety and access for existing park facilitie s. The project will remove playground equipment (swings) due to inadequate safety clearances, provide an identified disabled accessible path of travel from the street, provide improvements to the safety surfacing on the existing playground and possibly expand or add a new play feature to replace the removed swings.

Benefit/Core Value: To maintain and improving City-wide facilities.

Purpose and Need: The purpose of the project is to construct accessible paths of travel and remove unsafe equipment, addressing the need for safe and accessible park facilities.

Project Status: This project is in the preliminary engineering phase Category
Park Improvements Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: $0 No new maintenance expense

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
221 Parks & Recreation DIF - - 305,000 305,000 TOTAL BY FUND - - 305,000 - - - - - 305,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - 55,000 55,000 57071 Construction/CM - - 250,000 250,000 TOTAL BY PHASE - - 305,000 - - - - - 305,000 Proposed
109
Public Works
Orange Avenue Parking Lot 9096
Orange Avenue Parking Lot (APN 071-051-011)
110
Public Works
Orange Avenue Parking Lot 9096

Description:

The approximate 6,500 square foot lot (APN 071-05 1-011) is 1/3 of a block north of Hollist er Avenue on the western side of Oran ge Avenue.

Depending on striping configurations, the Property is likely to provide between 17-19 spaces. The Property is zoned High Densit y Residential (DR-30, 30 units per acre) with a General Plan Land Use designation Old Town Commercial. Property needs to be evaluated for improvements, including, but not limited to, repaving, striping, lighting, trash enclosures, potential bicycle facilities and s ecurity so it can truly function as a public parking lot.

Benefit/Core
Value:

The Property is one of the few existing vacant lots in an area wit hin close proximity of Old Town’s principal commercial corrid or that can be used for a parking lot in Old Town.

Purpose and
Need: Increase public off-street parking in Old Town.

Project Status:

The lot was temporarily repaired and opened to the public in Apr il 2019. Public Works continues to evaluate the property for permanent improvements and will continue to work the property owner to the south regarding mutual reciprocity ingress/egress to/from the Property to obtain additional parking spaces. On an interim basis PW will place the resurfacing for this parking lot on a future resurfacing project.

Category Infrastructure – Parking Lots Estimated Annual Maintenance Costs: $5,000

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
222 Public Administration Development Fees 373,928 - - 373,928 999 Unfunded - - - - TOTAL BY FUND 373,928 - - - - - - - 373,928 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW 373,928 - - 373,928 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - - - 57071 Construction/CM - - - - TOTAL BY PHASE 373,928 - - - - - - - 373,928 Proposed
111
Public Works
Fairview Corridor Study (Fowler Road to Calle Real) 9097 112
Public Works
Fairview Corridor Study (Fowler Road to Calle Real) 9097

Description:

The project will evaluate the Fairview Avenue corridor from Jame s Fowler Road through Hollister Avenue intersection to Calle Re al. Public works will prepare a Feasibility Study for the corridor that evaluates vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic and potential improvements. The project may include constructing a Class I Multi-Use Path over t he freeway, additional sidewalks, additional crosswalks, new st riping, and/or signage.

Benefit/Core
Value: Strengthen infrastructure including roads and traffic circulation. Return Old Town to a Vital Center of the City.

Purpose and
Need:

The City of Goleta will evaluate the Fairview Avenue corridor especially the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and US 101 overcross ing to determine and recommend potential safety improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists. Public Works has identified this corridor as one of the main north-south freeway crossings and barrier to pedestrian and bicycle traffic. During the public outreach engagement for the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan project, the community also overwhelmi ngly provided written and verbal comments in this area. The nu mber of comments prompted staff to identify this area as a “focus area” in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan process.

Project Status: The project is not currently in Annual Work Program. When this project is added in the future, it will be in the conceptual design phase of the Project Delivery Process.

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
205 Measure A - - - 250,000 250,000 220 Transportation Facilities DIF - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - 50,000 50,000 TOTAL BY FUND - - - - - - - 300,000 300,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - 80,000 80,000 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - - 220,000 220,000 57071 Construction/CM - - - - TOTAL BY PHASE - - - - - - - 300,000 300,000 Proposed
113
Public Works
Crosswalk at Calle Real/Fairview Center-Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)9099 114
Public Works
Crosswalk at Calle Real/Fairview Center-Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)9099

Description:

The Project improvements include constructing a new Pedestrian Hybr id Beacon (PHB) signal controlled crosswalk on Calle Real approximately 550 feet west of the Fairview Avenue and Calle Real intersection. The Project includes constructing a PHB signal with mast- arms, developing a power supply, and installi ng pedestrian push buttons. In addition to the PHB, the Project will install “activated” Blank Out Signs to control vehicular traffic turning out of adjacent driveways. When a pedestrian or bicyclist activates the PHB signal, the Blank Out Signs will also be activated and stop vehicular traffic at the adjacent driveways until the pedestrian or bicyclist has safely crosse d. The Project will construct Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible ramp s at the crossing location and install new crosswalk striping, p avement markings, and applicable PHB warning and control signage.

Benefit/Core
Value:

Strengthen City-wide infrastructure including roads and traffic circulation. Maintain a safe community. Incorporate Vision Zero plans with the goal of eliminating the potential for future traffic related injuries and/or fatalities.

Purpose and
Need:

There is an existing pedestrian/bicycle access path/ramp leading from Fairview Ave directly down to Calle Real and outletting across the street from a popular commercial destination. There is no pedestrian or bicycle crossing of Calle Real at this location. The Project will help address the safety concern for pedestrians and bicyclists, including school aged children, who currently cross 5 lanes of traffic at an uncontrolled location on Calle Real near Fairview Center. This Project addres ses existing pedestrian crossing patterns to/from the Fairview Avenue overcrossing on the south side of Calle Real to destinations to /from the north side. These destinations include schools, servic es, and the Fairview Center. The PHB crossi ng will enhance safety by provid ing a controlled and visible crossing to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian crossings on Calle Real.

Project Status: The project is in the design phase of the project delivery process. This project is currently in construction and will be completed winter of 2023

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
205 Measure A 123,648 48,654 125,023 297,325 206 Measure A- Other 248,988 (1,657) 50,168 297,500 311 Misc Grant 232,130 47,561 20,309 300,000 999 Unfunded - - - - TOTAL BY FUND 604,766 94,558 195,500 - - - - - 894,825 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 91,670 - 1,655 93,325 57071 Construction/CM 513,096 94,558 193,846 801,500 TOTAL BY PHASE 604,766 94,558 195,500 - - - - - 894,825 Proposed
115
Public Works
Fairview Hollister Roundabout (6100 Hollister) 9100
116
Public Works
Fairview Hollister Roundabout (6100 Hollister) 9100

Description: This project will design and construct a two lane roundabout at the intersection of Hollister Avenue and Fairview Avenue. The project will include traffic studies and roundabout at this intersection and will identify potential impacts.

Benefit/Core Value: To maintain and improve City-wide facilities, roads and traffic circulation.

Purpose and Need: The roundabout will provide congestion relief and operational capacity at one of the busiest intersections in the City.

Project Status: The project is not currently in Annual Work Program. When this project is added in the future, it will be in the conceptual des ign phase.

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
220 Transportation Facilities DIF - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - 12,416,000 12,416,000 TOTAL BY FUND - - - - - - - 12,416,000 12,416,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - - 4,430,000 4,430,000 57071 Construction/CM - - - 7,986,000 7,986,000 TOTAL BY PHASE - - - - - - - 12,416,000 12,416,000 Proposed
117
General Services
City Hall Improvements 9101
1| Page
118
General Services
City Hall Improvements 9101

2 | Page

Description:

In 2019 the City completed acquisition of 130 Cremona Drive, which is an approximate 2-acre parcel that includes a 40,000 square foot two-story building utilized as Goleta City Hall. At the time of acquisition, the City recognized that a series of building improvements would be needed to upgrade the facility and accommodate the space needs of the organization. The first phase of these improvements included completion of a space needs analysis of the building, connection of the second floor to a backup generator, and the installation of a solar array in the parking lot. The current phase of this project incl udes implementation of the space needs analysis through interio r modifications to work stations, enclosed offices, conference room s, breakrooms and restroom facilities, primarily on the second floor.

The next phase will include accessibility improvements, such as the installation of an elevator, as well as lobby area improvements.

Benefit/Core Value: Strengthen City-wide infrastructure.

Purpose and Need:

The project provides the City wit h a civic facility that is appropriately config ured and upgraded to house staff, provide spaces for public meetings, and allow for the provis ion of municipal services in accordance with applicable building codes, accessibility laws, and City of Goleta strategic plans.

Project Status:

The City closed escrow on the site in November 2019. A space ne eds analysis was completed in 2020 and presented to the City Hal l Facilities Standing Committee in 2022. Also in 2022, both the connection of the second floor of City Hall to an emergency generator and the installation of a solar array in the parking lot were completed. Next steps will focus on tenant improvements to the second floor, which will include reconfiguring work stations, and remodeling enclosed o ffices, conference rooms, restrooms and break room areas to accommodate the organization’s increase in staffing. The following phase will include the installation of an elevator, as well as various accessibility enhancements and improvements to lobby areas.

Category
Facilities Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: $160,000 - $200,000

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General 10,637,751 3,526 414,207 11,055,483 222 Public Administration Development Fees - - 42,279 42,279 224 Sheriff Facilities Development Fees 934,877 - 168,002 1,102,880 608 IBank - - - - 995 To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources - - - 1,949,276 1,949,276 999 Unfunded - - - - TOTAL BY FUND 11,572,628 3,526 624,488 - 1,949,276 - - - 14,149,918 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW 11,572,628 - 70,291 11,642,919 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - 45,000 45,000 57071 Construction/CM - 3,526 509,197 1,949,276 2,461,999 TOTAL BY PHASE 11,572,628 3,526 624,488 - 1,949,276 - - - 14,149,918 Proposed
119
Public Works
Storke Road Corridor Study 9102
120
Public Works
Storke Road Corridor Study 9102

Description:

The project will evaluate the Storke Road corridor from the City limits to Cathedral Oaks Road across the US 101. Public Works will prepare a Feasibility Study for the corridor that evaluates vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic and potential improvements. The evaluation will include evaluating options for crossing Hollister Avenue and the US 101/UPRR overcrossing. The project may include constructing a Class I Multi-Use Path, additional sidewalks, additional crosswalks, new striping, and/or signage.

Benefit/Core
Value: Strengthen Infrastructure.

Purpose and
Need:

The City of Goleta will evaluate the Storke Road corridor especially the Hollister Avenue intersection, Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), and US 101 overcrossing to determine and recommend potential safety improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists. Public Works has iden tified this corridor as one of the main north-south freeway crossings and barrier to pedestrian and bicycle traffic. During the public outreach engagement for the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan project, the community also provided written and verbal comments in this area.

Project Status: The project is not currently in Annual Work Program. When this project is added in the future, it will be in the conceptual design phase.

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
205 Measure A - - - - 220 Transportation Facilities DIF - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - 641,225 641,225 TOTAL BY FUND - - - - - - - 641,225 641,225 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - - 641,225 641,225 57071 Construction/CM - - - - TOTAL BY PHASE - - - - - - - 641,225 641,225 Proposed
121
Public Works
Citywide School Zones Signage & Striping Evaluation 9103

122
Public Works
Citywide School Zones Signage & Striping Evaluation 9103

Description:

The Project includes evaluating and prioritizing the signage and striping needs in the vicinity of schools within the City. The Project will evaluate 4 elementary schools: Brandon School, Ellwood School, Kellogg School and La Patera School; 1 Junior High School: Goleta Valley Junior High School; 1 High School: Dos Pueblos High School and various K- 8 public and private schools including: Santa Barbara Charter School, St. Raphael School, Montessori Center School of Santa Barbara, and Coastline Christian Academy. The project will also consider illuminating the traffic control devices in the evaluated areas to increase their visibility and increase motorists’ awareness of students’ presence. This project will evaluate the depth of these potentially hazardous conditions and prioritize a plan to fix them. Lastly, the project will result in a new asset database, improved Geographic Information Systems (GIS) m aps, and recommended signage and striping improvements around schools within the City limits.

Benefit/Core
Value: Strengthen City-wide infrastructure including roads and traffic circulation. Maintain a safe community.

Purpose and
Need:

The current signage and striping around the various schools are often inconsistent and do not meet the current standards establ ished by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and California supplement. These inconsistencies, in terms of application, ca n confuse road users and lead to potentially adverse safety affects. Other than inconsistencies, the issues documented with the current signage around the various schools are all related to limited visibility. The limited visibility can be attributed to signs that are faded, va ndalized, or covered by overgrown vegetation. Also, some of the signs were placed at an improper angle or at an improper location, where they are not fully visible to motorists. The purpose is to have a comprehensive database of the existing facilities, recommended options for improvements, an d a spatial database to track future improvements and needs.

Project Status: The Project is in the conceptual design phase.

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General - - - - 205 Measure A - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - 196,950 196,950 TOTAL BY FUND - - - - - 196,950 - - 196,950 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - - 196,950 196,950 57071 Construction/CM - - - - TOTAL BY PHASE - - - - - 196,950 - - 196,950 Proposed
123
Public Works
Citywide Evaluation of Existing Traffic Signals 9104
124
Public Works
Citywide Evaluation of Existing Traffic Signals 9104

Description:

The Project includes evaluating, analyzing, and documenting the existing traffic signal equipment, configuration settings, and record drawings for all traffic signals within the City of Goleta. This Project will result in accurate documentat ion for the current condition s of the City’s traffic signal equipment. Based on this information, the City can evaluate and assess maintenance needs, prioritize and schedule replac ement activities, and document maintenance efforts. The ability to evaluate, prioritize, and schedule the equipment maintenance and r eplacements will improve safety for pedestrians and motorists. Equipment being evaluated includes: traffic signal controllers, conduits, co nductors, ADA pedestrian push buttons, count-down timers, and other traffic si gnal equipment. The project will re sult in a new asset database , improved Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps, and recommended improvements for our traffic signal equipment.

Benefit/Core
Value: Strengthen infrastructure.

Purpose and
Need:

A number of the City’s traffic signal equipment at intersections is over 40 years old and replacement parts are difficult to secure. The City also does not have a comprehensive database with all of our traffic signal equipment, installation dates, replacement dates, interse ction timing sheets, and record drawings. The purpose is to correct that deficiency and have accurate up-to-date information regarding the City’s equipment and system.

Project Status: The project is in the concept ual design phase. Public Works staff submitted a Hig hway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant f or $3,120,100 and is waiting on the program award announcements.

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General - - - - 205 Measure A - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - 363,200 363,200 TOTAL BY FUND - - - - - - - 363,200 363,200 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - - 363,200 363,200 57071 Construction/CM - - - - TOTAL BY PHASE - - - - - - - 363,200 363,200 Proposed
125
Public Works
Ellwood Beach Drive Drainage Infrastructure Replacement 9105 126
Public Works
Ellwood Beach Drive Drainage Infrastructure Replacement 9105

Description: The project will replace the curr ent drainage inlet on Ellwood B each Drive and add a trash captur e system to prevent trash from entering the stormwater system.

Benefit/Core Value: The project will increase overall trash capture in the city and improve the function and health of the City’s waterways.

Purpose and Need:

Public Works completed a visual trash assessments for all priority land use areas in the City of Goleta and identified stormdra in infrastructure that would benefit from the installation of trash capture systems. Public Works has identified the drainage inle t at the end of Ellwood Beach Drive as a priority location for trash capture system installation based on a high level of trash present in this area during visual surveys. Additional trash capture infrastructure is required in accordance with the City’s Track 2 Implementation Plan to Meet the State Water Board’s Trash Provision.

Project Status: The project is in the conceptual design phase.

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
234 Storm Drain DIF - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - 966,000 966,000 TOTAL BY FUND - - - - - - 966,000 - 966,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - - 240,000 240,000 57071 Construction/CM - - - 726,000 726,000 TOTAL BY PHASE - - - - - - 966,000 - 966,000 Proposed
127
Public Works
Phelps Ditch Flood Control Channel Trash Control Structure-NEW 9106

128
Public Works
Phelps Ditch Flood Control Channel Trash Control Structure-NEW 9106

Description: The project will install a full trash capture system for the Phel ps Ditch, a lined flood control channel with intakes along Hol lister Ave. and between Hollister Ave. and Phelps Rd. The outfall for the ditch is on the west side of Phelps Rd. and drains to Phelps Creek.

Benefit/Core
Value:

The project will capture trash from all of the flows that travel through the Phelps Ditch Flood Control Channel, preventing the trash from entering Phelps Creek, the Devereux Slough and ultimately, the Pacific Ocean.

Purpose and
Need:

In order to comply with the State Water Resources Control Board’s statewide Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan) to Control Trash and Part 1 Trash Provision of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries (ISWEBE Plan) (the Trash Amendments), the City of Goleta completed the Track 2 Implementation Plan to Meet the State Water Board’s Trash Provision. As a component of the plan, t he City has opted to implement bot h distributed full capture system s (FCS) at inlets and larger FCS at outfalls that include flows from multiple inlets. This project will implement a FCS at the Phelps Ditch outfall to capture trash from all inlets to the structure
Project Status: The project is in the conceptual design phase.

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
234 Storm Drain DIF - - 50,000 50,000 999 Unfunded - - - 3,118,000 3,118,000 TOTAL BY FUND - - 50,000 - - - 3,118,000 - 3,168,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - 50,000 940,000 990,000 57071 Construction/CM - - - 2,178,000 2,178,000 TOTAL BY PHASE - - 50,000 - - - 3,118,000 - 3,168,000 Proposed
129
Public Works
Old Town South Fairview Avenue, High Flow Full Trash Capture Devices 9107

130
Public Works
Old Town South Fairview Avenue, High Flow Full Trash Capture Devices 9107
Description: The project will install a full trash capture system in the storm drain pipe on South Fairview Ave. in Old Town Goleta to colle ct trash from multiple inlets prior to release to the outlet.

Benefit/Core
Value: The project will increase overall trash capture in the city and improve the function and health of the City’s waterways.

Purpose and
Need:

Public Works completed a visual trash assessments for all priority land use areas in the City of Goleta and identified stormdrain infrastructure that would benefit from the installation of trash capture systems. Public Works has identified the drainage infrastructure on S. Fairview Ave. as a priority location because it collects flows from multiple inlets in areas found to have high volumes of trash during the visual assessment. This project will serve as a pilot to inform the implementation of additional trash capture infrastructure in accordance with the Ci ty’s Track 2 Implementation Plan to Meet the State Water Board’s Trash Provision.

Project Status: The project is in the conceptual design phase.

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General - - - - 234 Storm Drain DIF 26,413 4,700 618,887 650,000 995 To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources - - - 2,052,000 2,052,000 999 Unfunded - - - 1,026,000 1,026,000 2,052,000 TOTAL BY FUND 26,413 4,700 618,887 - 2,052,000 1,026,000 1,026,000 - 4,754,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 26,413 4,700 318,887 600,000 300,000 300,000 1,550,000 57071 Construction/CM - - 300,000 1,452,000 726,000 726,000 3,204,000 TOTAL BY PHASE 26,413 4,700 618,887 - 2,052,000 1,026,000 1,026,000 - 4,754,000 Proposed
131
Neighborhood Services
Winchester II Park Improvements 9108

PHASE 2 includes addressing
drainage concerns and Warwick
ADA entrance
132
Neighborhood Services
Winchester II Park Improvements 9108

Description:

Construct improvements as identified/needed during site inspections and in the Recreation Needs Assessment. Winchester II Park play equipment will be expanded and replaced. Additional improvements include fencing, curbing, and an ADA walkway from Calle Real .

Storms from 2023 revealed drainage issues on the North and the East sides of the park, which will be addressed with a new entrance at Warwick.

Benefit/Core Value: To maintain and improving City-wide facilities.

Purpose and Need: Various improvements and safety upgrades were identified through the Recreation Needs Assessment and after public comment and recent storm activity.

Project Status: Construction of playground complete, Design phase of Warwick entrance.

Category
Park Improvements Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: $0 No new maintenance expense

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
221 Parks & Recreation DIF 250,359 - 59,641 310,000 999 Unfunded - - - - TOTAL BY FUND 250,359 - 59,641 - - - - - 310,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 23,100 - - 23,100 57071 Construction/CM 227,259 - 59,641 286,900 TOTAL BY PHASE 250,359 - 59,641 - - - - - 310,000 Proposed
133
Public Works
Ward Drive Sidewalk Infill 9109
134
Public Works
Ward Drive Sidewalk Infill 9109

Description:

The Project includes constructing a new sidewalk to fill a 340- foot gap in the existing pedestrian network along a 2,400-foot r oute on the west side of Ward Drive extending from Ekwill Street to the terminus of Ward Drive at the Obern Trail. Project includes installation of new sidewalk, curb and gutter. Right-of-way acquisition will be necessary to build the sidewalk.

Benefit/Core Value: Strengthen City-wide infrastructure and maintain a safe community.

Purpose and Need:

The Project will remove a gap in the existing pedestrian network on the west side of Ward Drive south of Ekwill Street intersection.

The project will result in a continuous sidewalk connection fr om Ekwill Street to the Obern Trail, improving the City’s pedestr ian network and increasing public access to Obern Trail due to increased accessibility.

Project Status: Due to the staffing deficit and other project priorities, this project is on hold.

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
995 To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources - - - 604,800 604,800 999 Unfunded - - - - TOTAL BY FUND - - - - - - - 604,800 604,800 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - 46,200 46,200 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - - 63,000 63,000 57071 Construction/CM - - - 495,600 495,600 TOTAL BY PHASE - - - - - - - 604,800 604,800 Proposed
135
Public Works
Hollister Class I Bike Path Lighting 9110
136
Public Works
Hollister Class I Bike Path Lighting 9110

Description:

The Project is initiated to improve the Class I Bike/ Multipurpose path located along the south side of Hollister Avenue from Pacific Oaks Road to Ellwood Elementary School by installing approximately 44 lighting fixtures along the path. The lighting fixtures will be installed approximately 115 feet apart. This spacing will allow the path to be fully illuminated, thus, improving safety conditions for all path users. As part of the original construction of the path, underground conduits and facilities to accommodate lighting were constructed; therefore, the site is already prepped for installation. The Project will install the lighting fixtures, run wire through the existing conduit and pullboxes, and provide electrical service to the lighting system. The Class I Bike Path lighting will be installed at the back of the path and face the roadway to avoid the lights disturbing residential housing.

Benefit/Core
Value: Strengthen City-wide infrastructure and maintain a safe community.

Purpose and
Need:

The only lighting along this portion of Hollister Avenue is provid ed by light fixtures mounted on existing utility poles near s treet intersections.

This existing lighting provides some lighting for vehicles at intersections but otherwise the corridor is very dark during evening hours. This lack of sufficient lighting severely decreases visibility and increases risks for bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists, particularly at the path crossings at the side streets. Increased lighting at these locations will enable motorists to more easily detect path users approaching the crossings. This will help in eliminating potential safety issues of path users no t being seen. Path users have expressed the need for more suff icient lighting along the path during hours of low light and darkness.

Project Status:

The project received Measure A grant funding. The initial lighting design was completed along with the Hollister Class I Bike Path project and all conduit and pullboxes for the future lighting were installed as part of the bike path project construction. The project is in the final design phase of the Project Delivery Process.

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
205 Measure A 35,188 (5,985) 324,471 353,674 206 Measure A- Other 17,213 21,141 386,043 424,397 999 Unfunded - - - 600,784 600,784 TOTAL BY FUND 52,401 15,156 710,514 - - - 600,784 - 1,378,855 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 52,401 15,156 86,168 153,725 57071 Construction/CM - - 624,346 600,784 1,225,130 TOTAL BY PHASE 52,401 15,156 710,514 - - - 600,784 - 1,378,855 Proposed
137
Neighborhood Services
Jonny D. Wallis Neighborhood Park Phase 2 – Splash Pad 9111 138
Neighborhood Services
Jonny D. Wallis Neighborhood Park Phase 2 – Splash Pad 9111

Description:

The Jonny D. Wallis Neighborhood Park was opened in March of 2019, with the Notice of Completion filed in May of 2019. This park design included a Splash Pad a recreation amenity, which was forced to be phased due to drought restrictions. As drought restr ictions are lifted, the installation of the splash pad can occu r with limited disruption of service to park users. Additional improvements to fencing, lighting and shade will be included.

Benefit/Core Value: To Enhance the Quality of Life in Goleta.

Purpose and Need:

During the original construction of CIP 9035, infrastructure rela ted to utilities were included as part of the original contrac t. This phase will include design and construction of the Spla sh Pad Features and the support building for mechanical needs associated to the operations of the splash pad.

Project Status: Construction begins June of 2023
Category
Park Improvements Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: $70,000

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
221 Parks & Recreation DIF 107,003 738,899 1,578,644 2,424,547 995 To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources - - - - TOTAL BY FUND 107,003 738,899 1,578,644 - - - - - 2,424,547 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 52,473 7,023 12,362 71,858 57071 Construction/CM 54,530 731,876 1,566,283 2,352,689 TOTAL BY PHASE 107,003 738,899 1,578,644 - - - - - 2,424,547 Proposed
139
Public Works
Ellwood Mesa Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 9112 140
Public Works
Ellwood Mesa Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 9112

Description: The project will implement the Ellwood Mesa Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan, a long-term, multi-disciplinary effort to ensure the viability of the butterfly population, facilitate scientific study, provide educational opportunities, and maintain recreational access.

Benefit/Core Value: Ensures good stewardship of wildlife habitat, recreational areas, and public safety.

Purpose and Need:

The project is a comprehensive management plan for 78-acres of eucalyptus, a portion of Devereux Creek, and key coastal access trailheads. The Ellwood Butterfly Grove is a designated Environment ally Sensitive Habitat Area and is also a regional destinat ion that draws thousands of visitors each year. City Council adopted the Monarch Butterfly Management Plan in March 2019.

Project Status: The project is in the implementation phase but does require additional final design and permitting for portions of the plan.

Category
Land Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: $250,000

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General - 1,228 448,772 200,000 600,000 1,250,000 322 MBHMP 1,594,630 137,505 2,259,750 3,991,884 310 CAL Fire Grant - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - 5,666,226 50,000 5,716,226 TOTAL BY FUND 1,594,630 138,733 2,708,522 - - 5,666,226 250,000 600,000 10,958,110 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 1,594,397 138,733 1,118,504 501,476 600,000 3,953,110 57071 Construction/CM 232 - 1,590,018 5,164,750 250,000 7,005,000 TOTAL BY PHASE 1,594,630 138,733 2,708,522 - - 5,666,226 250,000 600,000 10,958,110 Proposed
141
Neighborhood Services
Mathilda Park Project 9113

1 | Page

142
Neighborhood Services
Mathilda Park Project 9113

2 | Page

Description:

Address a drainage problem that exists at the playground at Math ilda Park. Project includes a correction to the barrier, drain age adjustments, new playground surfacing and possibly a new playgrou nd based on potential damages under the surface. Project will address ADA improvements are needed to the walkway from the sidewalk to the playground as well as adjustments to landscapes for maintenance and utility efficiencies.

Benefit/Core Value: To maintain and improving City-wide facilities Purpose and Need:

The playground at Mathilda Park has water trapped below the surface, causing damage to the surfacing material as well as possib le damage to the playground equipment. During rain events, the water does not drain, causing slippery surfaces, mildew and stagna nt water at times. In addition, improvements are needed to the walkway from the sidewalk to the playground. Current slopes exceed ADA requirements.

Project Status: This project will be in construction in 2023 Category
Park Improvements Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: $0 No new maintenance costs

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General - - 199,698 199,698 301 State Park Grant - - 177,952 177,952 402 Community Development Block Grant 14,271 66,129 66,201 146,602 999 Unfunded - - - - TOTAL BY FUND 14,271 66,129 443,851 - - - - - 524,252 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 14,271 66,129 66,201 146,602 57071 Construction/CM - - 377,650 377,650 TOTAL BY PHASE 14,271 66,129 443,851 - - - - - 524,252 Proposed
143
Public Works
Hollister Avenue Old Town Interim Striping Project 9114 144
Public Works
Hollister Avenue Old Town Interim Striping Project 9114

Description:

The Hollister Avenue Old Town Interim Striping Project will design and construct an interim striping project consisting of implementing the two-lane alternative for Hollister Avenue developed as part of t he Hollister Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Project. The proj ect consists of implementing a road diet by changing roadway striping, legends, and signage, and adding Class II bike lanes where none currentl y exist.

Other improvements identified in the Complete Streets Corridor Plan such as sidewalk widening, new medians, landscaping and oth er hardscape improvements would be deferred. The project would follow the standard Project Delivery Process with Conceptual Design , Environmental, Design and Construction.

Benefit/Core
Value: Strengthen Infrastructure and return Old Town to the Vital Center of the City.

Purpose and
Need:

Bicycle and pedestrian improv ements are needed in Old Town. T he Hollister Complete Streets Corridor Plan goals include expandin g Old Town's transportation options by making streets within the corridor safer, more inviting, and more convenient for all travel mo des and users.

The Interim Striping Project will look at conceptual designs pr esented in the Complete Streets Corridor Project two-lane altern atives. The project would reduce two major obstacles to implementing the Complete Streets Corridor Project, long timeline and lack of fundi ng, while allowing to temporarily implement and meet the primary goals of the Complete Streets Project.

Project Status: The final design has been completed and the Project will be in construction summer of 2023.

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General - - - - 201 Gas Tax - - - - 205 Measure A 175,769 10,190 68,749 254,708 206 Measure A- Other - - - - 995 To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - - TOTAL BY FUND 175,769 10,190 68,749 - - - - - 254,708 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 175,769 9,782 67,449 253,000 57071 Construction/CM - 408 1,300 1,708 TOTAL BY PHASE 175,769 10,190 68,749 - - - - - 254,708 Proposed
145
Public Works
Public Works Corporation Yard Repairs and Improvements 9115

1 | Page

146
Public Works
Public Works Corporation Yard Repairs and Improvements 9115

2 | Page

Description: The Public Works Department is proposing this project to assess the Corporation Yard, identify and repair immediate items of co ncern.

Additional phases or improvements may be needed pending assessment.

Benefit/Core Value: Strengthen City-wide infrastructure.

Purpose and Need: The Public Works Corporation Yard is currently in need of significant repairs, including minor structure damage, pest infestation, interior and exterior repairs.

Project Status: This is a proposed new project and the initial steps would be to initiate the conceptual design phase and perform an initial assessment.

Category
Buildings and Improvements Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: $10,000

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General 29,679 - 70,321 714,000 814,000 999 Unfunded - - - - TOTAL BY FUND 29,679 - 70,321 - 714,000 - - - 814,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 29,679 - 70,321 100,000 57071 Construction/CM - - - 714,000 714,000 TOTAL BY PHASE 29,679 - 70,321 - 714,000 - - - 814,000 Proposed
147
Neighborhood Services
Pickleball Court Improvements 9116

148
Neighborhood Services
Pickleball Court Improvements 9116

Description:

Consider the installation of two permanent pickleball courts in one of the tennis courts at Evergreen Park, Stow Grove Open Space and Berkeley Park. This process will include a significant public outreach effort in each of the neighborhoods, where the installation of the courts will be considered.

Benefit/Core Value: Preserve and enhance the quality of life in Goleta.

Purpose and Need: The growth and interest of the sport of pickleball in the last few years has outgrown the current opportunities in Goleta Project Status: Preliminary Design
Category
Buildings and Improvements/Parks Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: No additional maintenance costs

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
221 Parks & Recreation DIF - - 100,000 100,000 999 Unfunded - - - - TOTAL BY FUND - - 100,000 - - - - - 100,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - 25,000 25,000 57071 Construction/CM - - 75,000 75,000 TOTAL BY PHASE - - 100,000 - - - - - 100,000 Proposed
149

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SAN JOSE CREEK CHANNEL FISH PASSAGE MODIFICATION 9117

1 | Page

150

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SAN JOSE CREEK CHANNEL FISH PASSAGE MODIFICATION 9117

2 | Page

Description: Removal and replacement or modification of existing fish-passage weirs located in the low-flow channel of San Jose Creek Channel and upstream grading along San Jose Creek.

Benefit/Core Value: Strengthen infrastructure and maintain a safe community.

Purpose and Need: Ensure optimum conditions for fish migration along San Jose Creek Channel and into the natural creek upstream.

Project Status: The project is in the design, environmental and permitting phase which is expected to continue into 2023. The construction sche dule is uncertain at this time, although the target timeframe would be the summer of 2024.

Category
Infrastructure Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: $150,000

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General 227,559 80,657 1,381,784 750,000 2,440,000 995 To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 TOTAL BY FUND 227,559 80,657 1,381,784 - 1,750,000 - - - 3,440,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 227,559 80,657 1,381,784 1,690,000 57071 Construction/CM - - - 1,750,000 1,750,000 TOTAL BY PHASE 227,559 80,657 1,381,784 - 1,750,000 - - - 3,440,000 Proposed
151
Public Works
Ellwood Mesa Coastal Trails and Habitat Restoration Project 9118

152
Public Works
Ellwood Mesa Coastal Trails and Habitat Restoration Project 9118

Description:

The project includes: 1) drainage and trail surface improvements to 1.56 miles of existing coastal trails and realignment of 0.54 miles of existing trails; 2) improvements to three drainage crossing; 3) improvements to two existing beach access points, and 4) 13 acres of habitat restoration.

Benefit/Core Value: Ensures good stewardship of wildlife habitat, recreational areas, and public safety.

Purpose and Need: The proposed project would improve public access throughout Ellwood Mesa, including two key coastal access locations, address ongoing erosion in portions of Devereux Creek, and restore habitat that supports sensitive plant and wildlife species.

Project Status: The project received a Coastal Development Permit in October 2019. Final engineering and habitat restoration plans need to be developed and approved by the California Coastal Commission.

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
221 Parks & Recreation DIF - - - - 311 Misc Grant - - 208,500 208,500 322 MBHMP - - - - 995 To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - 4,186,500 4,186,500 TOTAL BY FUND - - 208,500 - 4,186,500 - - - 4,395,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - 208,500 556,500 765,000 57071 Construction/CM - - - 3,630,000 3,630,000 TOTAL BY PHASE - - 208,500 - 4,186,500 - - - 4,395,000 Proposed
153
Public Works
Ellwood Beach Drive Drainage 9119

1 | Page

154
Public Works
Ellwood Beach Drive Drainage 9119

2 | Page

Description: Repair/Replace existing drainage system at the end of Ellwood Beach Drive.

Benefit/Core Value: Strengthen infrastructure and maintain a safe community Purpose and Need:

The existing downdrain pipe at the end of the Ellwood Beach Drive is nonfunctioning causing drainage to bypass the down drain p ipe and erode the existing slope. The existing downdrain system must be removed and a new downdrain constructed including repair of the eroded slope area. Existing pipes may need to be upsized to handle runoff.

Project Status: The project is in Conceptual Design.

Category
Infrastructure Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: $500

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General 8,641 14,649 219,710 243,000 234 Storm Drain DIF - - - - 995 To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - 871,200 871,200 TOTAL BY FUND 8,641 14,649 219,710 - 871,200 - - - 1,114,200 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 8,641 14,649 219,710 243,000 57071 Construction/CM - - - 871,200 871,200 TOTAL BY PHASE 8,641 14,649 219,710 - 871,200 - - - 1,114,200 Proposed
155
Public Works
Evergreen Park Drainage Repair 9120
1| Page
156
Public Works
Evergreen Park Drainage Repair 9120

2 | Page

Description:

Repair or Replacement of existing drainage system with inlet located at Padova Dr and San Rossano Drive and outlet at Evergreen Park.

The drainage system consists of 12 ft drainage inlet at the curb with a 24 inch corrugated steel pipe running through Evergreen Park and outletting to an existing concrete lined ditch in the park.

Benefit/Core Value: Strengthen infrastructure and maintain a safe community/ Purpose and Need:

Past winter storms showed evidence that the existing pipe system has been damaged near the existing 36 Inch junction structure at the downdrain section of the pipe prior to the outlet at the concrete ditch. In 2021 a sink hole has developed at this section of pipe. The pipe is no longer functioning and requires repair or complete removal and replacement.

Project Status: This project is in the Conceptual Design Category
Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: $1,000

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General 3,328 40,846 158,126 202,300 995 To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - - TOTAL BY FUND 3,328 40,846 158,126 - - - - - 202,300 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 3,328 40,846 58,126 102,300 57071 Construction/CM - - 100,000 100,000 TOTAL BY PHASE 3,328 40,846 158,126 - - - - - 202,300 Proposed
157
Public Works
Goleta Community Center ADA Improvements 9121

1 | Page

158
Public Works
Goleta Community Center ADA Improvements 9121

2 | Page

Description:

This project consists of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements throughout the Goleta Community Center site. The pr oject includes improvements across the site, public restrooms, door hardware, doorways, plumbing fixtures and stage lift. Initial work is focused on upgrades to the path of travel triggered by the seismic improvements to the main building.

Benefit/Core Value: Preserve and enhance the quality of life in Goleta. Improve Old Town and maintain a safe community.

Purpose and Need: Per the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Goleta Community Center (GCC) qualifies as a Title II facility. Title II of the AD A of 1990 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities and requires that facilities be accessible by persons with disabilities.

Project Status: The design phase of the ADA improvements required as a result of the seismic improvements project is currently underway. Additi onal needed improvements have been identified and will be initiated in the near future.

Category
Buildings and Improvements Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: $25,000

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General 11,446 11,400 580,644 135,000 81,000 819,490 402 Community Development Block Grant 135,225 76,633 90,222 25,000 25,000 352,079 424 Community Project Funding - - 3,000,000 3,000,000 995 To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - - TOTAL BY FUND 146,671 88,033 3,670,866 160,000 106,000 - - - 4,171,569 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 146,671 88,033 670,866 25,000 930,569 57071 Construction/CM - - 3,000,000 135,000 106,000 3,241,000 TOTAL BY PHASE 146,671 88,033 3,670,866 160,000 106,000 - - - 4,171,569 Proposed
159
Public Works
City-Wide Open Space Management & Maintenance 9122

1 | Page

160
Public Works
City-Wide Open Space Management & Maintenance 9122

2 | Page

Description:

The project consists of developing a programm atic inventory of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, prescribed maintenance activities, CEQA analysis, and permitting to cover annual management and maintenance in all City open spaces. The City manages over 500-acres of public land on 99 parcels. The majority of these area s are in public open space that require various regulatory a gency approvals to conduct on-going maintenance activities, such as wi ldfire defensive space vegetation management, tree removals and trimming, and hard infrastructure replacement (pathways, culverts, etc.). This project will result in programmatic permit approvals to cover annual maintenance activities, allowing for more cost-effective and efficient operations.

Benefit/Core Value: Strengthens infrastructure, supports community vitality and enhances recreational opportunities, and supports environmental vitality.

Purpose and Need: Having a programmatic inventory of City-wide open spaces will streamline the permit process for annual maintenance and improve cost and operational efficiencies.

Project Status: The conceptual design phase will begin in winter 2024.

Category
Parks and Open Space Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: $30,000

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General - - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - 360,000 360,000 TOTAL BY FUND - - - - 360,000 - - - 360,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - - 360,000 360,000 57071 Construction/CM - - - - TOTAL BY PHASE - - - - 360,000 - - - 360,000 Proposed
161
Public Works
Lake Los Carneros Master Plan 9123
1| Page
162
Public Works
Lake Los Carneros Master Plan 9123

2 | Page

Description:

The project consists of updating the Lake Los Carneros Master Plan. This area includes significant natural resource areas, passive recreation and scenic amenities, Stow House and Rancho La Patera, and the South Coast Railroad Museum. The existing management plans were developed by the County and do not reflect current accessibility and historic structure requirements, wildfire risk reduction actions, or specific habitat restoration goals and priorities.

Benefit/Core Value: Strengthen infrastructure, support community vitality and enhance recreational opportunities, and support environmental vitality.

Purpose and Need: The purpose of this project is to update the existing Master Plan to incorporate accessibility, historic structure requirements, wildfire risk reduction actions, and specific habitat restoration goals and priorities.

Project Status: Due to the staffing deficit and other project priorities, this project will be deferred to summer of 2024.

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General - - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - 750,000 750,000 TOTAL BY FUND - - - - 750,000 - - - 750,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - - 750,000 750,000 57071 Construction/CM - - - - TOTAL BY PHASE - - - - 750,000 - - - 750,000 Proposed
163

PUBLIC WORKS
Fairview Ave & Stow Canyon Rd Traffic Signal & Intersection Improvements 9124 1| Page
1 |
P a ge
164

PUBLIC WORKS
Fairview Ave & Stow Canyon Rd Traffic Signal & Intersection Improvements 9124

2 | Page

Description:

Install a new traffic signal at the intersection of Fairview Avenue and Stow Canyon Road. The project also includes, topographic surveys, identification and coordination with utility companies, including SCE which has several overhead lines and large poles located within the project improvements. Intersection improvements will consist of si dewalk reconstruction and installation, installation of pedestrian curb ramps to meet ADA standards, sidewalk widening, and installation of new curb including curb extensions to shorten pedestrian crossing distances and signing and striping improvements.

Benefit/Core Value: Strengthen infrastructure and maintain a safe community Purpose and Need:

Fairview Avenue is a high speed (42 mph prevailing speed) four-lane divided arterial that is a barrier for pedestrians and bicyclists. The Public Works recently completed a missing link of sidewalk along the east side of Fairview Avenue, increasing pedestrian demand in the area. Most importantly, this location is convenient access between Goleta Valley Jr. High School and the neighborhoods to the east. The project improvements will provide protected accessible pedestrian crossings at this intersection.

Project Status: Conceptual Design
Category
Infrastructure Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: $1,000

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General - - - - - 205 Measure A - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - 532,000 1,264,850 1,796,850 TOTAL BY FUND - - - - 532,000 1,264,850 - - 1,796,850 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - 200,000 200,000 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - - 332,000 332,000 57071 Construction/CM - - - 1,264,850 1,264,850 TOTAL BY PHASE - - - - 532,000 1,264,850 - - 1,796,850 Proposed
165

PUBLIC WORKS
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) Calle Real @ Jenna Dr 9125 1| Page
1 |
P a ge
166

PUBLIC WORKS
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) Calle Real @ Jenna Dr 9125

2 | Page

Description:

A rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) is proposed to be installed to enhance driver awareness of and yielding to pedestrians crossing Calle Real. The system shall be installed on the west leg of the intersection, making use of the existing curb ramps and crosswalk. The RRFB shall be connected to a Southern California Edison (SCE) power source and activated by a an ADA-compliant push button, with both a vibrating arrow button and audible sound cues for pedestrians.

Benefit/Core Value: Strengthen infrastructure and maintain a safe community Purpose and Need:

Calle Real is an arterial roadway with prevailing speeds of nearly 40 mph. The existing crossing at Jenna Drive provides access between the new Winchester II Park playground and the neighborhoods to t he north. Severa incremental improvements have been made to thi s location over the past several years to enhance pedestrian accessibility including engineering and traffic surveys to establish the enforceable speed limit, speed enforcement, edge striping and pedestrian crossing signs, red curb at the crossing locations to enhance pedestrian visibility and installation of a high visibility cros swalk. These improvements have not addressed the safety concer ns for pedestrians in the neighborhood.

Project Status: Conceptual Design
Category
Infrastructure Improvements Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: $500

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General - - - - 201 Gas Tax - - - - 205 Measure A - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - 217,800 217,800 TOTAL BY FUND - - - - 217,800 - - - 217,800 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - - - 57071 Construction/CM - - - 217,800 217,800 TOTAL BY PHASE - - - - 217,800 - - - 217,800 Proposed
167
Neighborhood Services
Pickleball Entry and Waiting Area 9126

168
Neighborhood Services
Pickleball Entry and Waiting Area 9126

Description: The project consists of constructing an entry and waiting area t hat is aesthetically pleasing, safe for users and addresses ADA access.

Materials to be used for surfacing will be permeable.

Benefit/Core Value: This project will enhance the recently renovated pickleball courts at the Goleta Community Center. This project supports the St rategic Plan strategy to enhance the quality of life in Goleta.

Purpose and Need: The Goleta Valley Community Center Organization was working on a plan to improve this area before the City assumed management.

The organization has contributed funds to the project. The improvement will improve functionality and reduce maintenance.

Project Status: Design
Category
Parks Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: A reduction of maintenance time

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General - - - - 311 Misc Grant - - 50,000 50,000 402 Community Development Block Grant - 6,240 128,760 135,000 999 Unfunded - - - - TOTAL BY FUND - 6,240 178,760 - - - - - 185,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - 6,240 8,760 15,000 57071 Construction/CM - - 170,000 170,000 TOTAL BY PHASE - 6,240 178,760 - - - - - 185,000 Proposed
169
General Services
Goleta Community Center Campus Refresh 9127

1 | Page

170
General Services
Goleta Community Center Campus Refresh 9127

2 | Page

Description: Following the ADA improvements and Seismic retrofit projects, the GCC Campus has replacements and refurbishments needed related to the building envelope, mechanical and electrical systems, plumbing, and interior elements and finishes.

Benefit/Core Value: Strengthen infrastructure and enhance recreational opportunities.

Purpose and Need: To maintain and preserve the campus for future generations, im provement projects will be identified as additional assessments a re conducted.

Project Status: This is a proposed new project, and the initial steps would be to scope the project and to develop conceptual design, and to in itiate environmental review including historic building considerations.

Category
Buildings & Improvements Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: N/A

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General - - 100,000 150,000 250,000 402 Community Development Block Grant - - 54,431 54,431 999 Unfunded - - - - - TOTAL BY FUND - - 154,431 150,000 - - - - 304,431 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - 154,431 150,000 304,431 57071 Construction/CM - - - - TOTAL BY PHASE - - 154,431 150,000 - - - - 304,431 Proposed
171
General Services
Goleta Community Center Gazebo Area Improvements 9128

1 | Page

172
General Services
Goleta Community Center Gazebo Area Improvements 9128

2 | Page

Description: Replace gazebo and provide accessible ramp.

Benefit/Core Value: Strengthen infrastructure, enhance recreational opportunities, and improve accessibility to City facilities.

Purpose and Need: The gazebo has exceeded its useful life and is ready for a full replacement. In addition to replacing the gazebo, the project would provide an accessible ramp and handrails to access the top level.

Project Status: This is a proposed new project, and the initial steps would be to initiate project planning and conceptual design.

Category
Buildings & Improvements Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: N/A

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General - - - 150,000 150,000 999 Unfunded - - - 5,000 5,000 TOTAL BY FUND - - - - - - 155,000 - 155,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - - 35,000 35,000 57071 Construction/CM - - - 120,000 120,000 TOTAL BY PHASE - - - - - - 155,000 - 155,000 Proposed
173
Public Works
Goleta Community Center Parking Lot Improvements 9129

1 | Page

174
Public Works
Goleta Community Center Parking Lot Improvements 9129

2 | Page

Description: Resurfacing and striping of GCC parking lot.

Benefit/Core Value: Strengthen infrastructure and enhance recreational opportunities.

Purpose and Need: The asphalt has reached that end of its useful life, constituting a full asphalt overlay and restriping.

Project Status: This is a proposed new project, and the initial steps would be to initiate project planning and conceptual design.

Category
Building & Improvements Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: N/A

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General - - - 150,000 150,000 999 Unfunded - - - 480,000 480,000 TOTAL BY FUND - - - - - 630,000 - - 630,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - - 30,000 30,000 57071 Construction/CM - - - 600,000 600,000 TOTAL BY PHASE - - - - - 630,000 - - 630,000 Proposed
175
General Services
Goleta Valley Library ADA, Safety, and Building Improvement Project 9130 1| Page
176
General Services
Goleta Valley Library ADA, Safety, and Building Improvement Project 9130

2 | Page

Description:

This project consists of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) im provements and building improv ements. The project includes improvements across the site including public restrooms, parking lot, door hardware, roof, doorways, plumbing fixtures, and HVA C systems.

Benefit/Core Value: Strengthen infrastructure and improve accessibility to public facilities.

Purpose and Need: Goleta Valley Library is an aging building with extensive capital repair needs in addition to ADA improvements within the facil ity that will be required as improvements are made to the facility.

Project Status: Conceptual
Category
Buildings & Improvements Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: TBD

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General - - 459,640 - 459,640 208 County Per Capita - - 180,000 180,000 215 Goleta Library - - 250,000 250,000 325 California State Library - - 4,278,560 4,278,560 501 Library Services - - 180,000 180,000 995 To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources - - - - - TOTAL BY FUND - - 5,348,200 - - - - - 5,348,200 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - 1,011,870 1,011,870 57071 Construction/CM - - 4,336,330 4,336,330 TOTAL BY PHASE - - 5,348,200 - - - - - 5,348,200 Proposed
177
General Services
Historic Train Station Preservation 9131
1| Page
178
General Services
Historic Train Station Preservation 9131

2 | Page

Description: The Historic Train Station needs repair to building structures and other exterior elements, such as exterior painting. Additional phases or improvements may be needed pending assessment, including any ADA upgrades needed.

Benefit/Core Value: Strengthen infrastructure and preserve historic properties for future generations.

Purpose and Need: The Historic Train Station is currently in need of significant repairs, including structural, interior, and exterior repairs.

Category
Buildings & Improvements Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: TBD

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General - - 250,000 50,000 50,000 350,000 995 To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources - - - 700,000 700,000 TOTAL BY FUND - - 250,000 50,000 750,000 - - - 1,050,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - 200,000 50,000 250,000 57071 Construction/CM - - 50,000 - 750,000 800,000 TOTAL BY PHASE - - 250,000 50,000 750,000 - - - 1,050,000 Proposed
179

PUBLIC WORKS
LAKE LOS CARNEROS FOOTBRIDGE 9132
1| Page
Project Location
180

PUBLIC WORKS
LAKE LOS CARNEROS FOOTBRIDGE 9132

2 | Page

Description:

The bridge was constructed in the Lake Los Carneros area in the late 1980s, and has reached the end of its design lifespan. The bridge is comprised of a 276-foot long wooden causeway and consists of 24 spans, and contains multiple structural issues throughout. The next steps are to design a demolition plan to move forward with the removal of the existing bridge.

Benefit/Core Value: Strengthen infrastructure, support community vitality and enhance recreational opportunities, and, support environmental vitality.

Purpose and Need:

An engineering firm has conducted a visual inspection of the bridge. The result of the inspection determined the bridge should be closed to the public, and plans were put in place to demolish and replac e the structure. The bridge has since remained closed and the City is now seeking measures to initiate the demolition of the structure. The footbridge is a popular local pathway in the Lake Los Carneros open space and is vital for accessibility to the area
Project Status: The project is entering the Design Phase for the bridge demolition.

Category
Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: $30,000

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General - - - - 995 To Be Determined (TBD) Other Grants/Sources - - - 1,050,000 1,050,000 TOTAL BY FUND - - - - 1,050,000 - - - 1,050,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - - 330,000 330,000 57071 Construction/CM - - - 720,000 720,000 TOTAL BY PHASE - - - - 1,050,000 - - - 1,050,000 Proposed
181
Public Works
Hollister Ave Sidewalk Improvement at Ellwood School Project 9133 1| Page
182
Public Works
Hollister Ave Sidewalk Improvement at Ellwood School Project 9133

2 | Page

Description:

New CIP project. There is no ADA accessible sidewalk along the north side of Hollister Ave from “The Groves” housing community west to the signalized intersection of the entrance to Ellwood School. The existing pathway leading from the housing community to the school is narrow and on a steep slope which does not meet ADA standards. The existing surface of the pathway is in poor condition and is boarded by an unstable rail. There are no ACA accessible curb ramps at either end. This pathway is currently used by students who live on the north side of Hollister in this area and are accessing Ellwood School.

Public Works staff has received several phone calls from residents regarding the need for improvements and an ADA accessible sidewalk along this portion of Hollister Ave
Benefit/Core Value: Public safety, ADA improvement
Purpose and Need: Staff investigated the site and identified the issues that need to be addressed sooner to improve conditions and ADA access. Completion of the project will result in a continuous ADA accessible sidewalk along the north side of Hollister Ave.

Project Status:

The project has not begun conceptual design and there is currently no budget assigned to the project. Project funding will need to be identified before the project can begin the conceptual design phase. Environmental review is necessary, and the project is located within the Coastal Zone requiring Coastal Commission permitting. If the budget is identified it is anticipated that the conceptual design includes Right-or-Ways Works, Topographic Survey, Right-of-Way Location, Dig Alert Utility Marking, and environmental review can begin i n FY22-23 fiscal year since the Coastal Development permit takes at least 18 months to issue. Anticipated Construction phase start date- FY 24/25.

Category

Infrastructure- Regrade Slope, Sidewalk, ADA curb Ramp, Curb & Gutter, Relocate utility & Signage
Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: $600,000 to $650,000

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General - - - - 201 Gas Tax - - 100,000 - 100,000 999 Unfunded - - - 942,800 942,800 TOTAL BY FUND - - 100,000 - 942,800 - - - 1,042,800 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - 33,000 - 33,000 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - 67,000 144,200 211,200 57071 Construction/CM - - - 798,600 798,600 TOTAL BY PHASE - - 100,000 - 942,800 - - - 1,042,800 Proposed
183
General Services
Facilities Capital Renewal (Proposed FY24/25) 9134

1 | Page

184
General Services
Facilities Capital Renewal (Proposed FY24/25) 9134

2 | Page

Description: Facilities Capital Renewal
Benefit/Core Value: Strengthen Infrastructure, Maintain a Safe and Healthy Community, Ensure Equity, Inclusion, and Access in City Programs, Services and Activities
Purpose and Need:

The Facilities Capital Renewal Project funds various periodic replacements of building components (Roofs, HVAC, Plumbing, Electrical) that have reached the end of their useful life. Additionally, the program will cover upgrades to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and efforts to mitigate hazards (including lead paint and asbestos) within the facilities as improvements are made.

The CRV (Current Replacement Value) of Cit y-owned facilities is 55 million. Due to th e severe backlog of deferred maintenance, the Facilities Capital Renewal CIP would address critical capital needs while also addressing necessary ADA improvements and Hazard Abatement. Over the next five years, seve ral key projects will be addressed, includin g the City Hall HVAC replacements ($400,00 0), historical window replacement and restoration at the GVCC Campus ($500,000), and citywide roof replacements ($150,000). These projects are essential for ensuring our facilities' safety, functionality, and longevity while improving accessibility and mitigating hazards.

Project Status: Ongoing Capital Renewal
Category
Facilities Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: N/A

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - 3,813,742 2,051,049 3,002,007 3,152,107 12,018,905 TOTAL BY FUND - - - - 3,813,742 2,051,049 3,002,007 3,152,107 12,018,905 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - - 457,649 246,126 360,241 378,253 1,442,268 57071 Construction/CM - - - 3,356,094 1,804,923 2,641,766 2,773,854 10,576,637 TOTAL BY PHASE - - - - 3,813,742 2,051,049 3,002,007 3,152,107 12,018,905 Proposed
185
General Services
Stow House Preservation (Proposed FY24/25) 9135
1| Page
186
General Services
Stow House Preservation (Proposed FY24/25) 9135

2 | Page

Description: The Stow House is in need of repair to building structures and ot her exterior elements, such as exterior painting. Additional p hases or improvements may be needed pending assessment, including any ADA upgrades needed.

Benefit/Core Value: Strengthen infrastructure and preserve historic properties for future generations.

Purpose and Need: The Stow House is currently in need of significant repairs, including structural, interior, and exterior repairs.

Category
Buildings & Improvements Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: TBD

Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General - - - - 999 Unfunded - - - 200,000 200,000 TOTAL BY FUND - - - - - 200,000 - - 200,000 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - - 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - - 200,000 200,000 57071 Construction/CM - - - - TOTAL BY PHASE - - - - - 200,000 - - 200,000 Proposed
187
General Services
Portable Replacement Project (Proposed FY24/25) 9136

1 | Page

188
General Services
Portable Replacement Project (Proposed FY24/25) 9136
2 | Page
Description: Portable Classroom Replacement Project at the Goleta Community Center Benefit/Core Value: Support Community Vitality and Enhanced Recreational Opportunities, Strengthen Infrastructure Purpose and Need:

There are three existing portable classrooms at the Goleta Community Center currently being leased out to Rainbow School for childcare facilities. The existing portable classrooms date back to the late 1960’s and are in failing condition, with critical systems needing permanent repair that are unfeasible on the existing stru cture. There were portables similar in age to the existing cla ssrooms on the campus that were demolished in 2011. It is anticipated that in addition to the demolition and replacement of the classro oms, additional site work must occur to accommodate the facility. Typically, portable classrooms have a useful life of 25 years.

Project Status: This is a proposed new project.

Category Buildings & Improvements Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs: $ 20,000
Fund Fund Desc Object Obj Desc
Prior Year
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Estimated
Actuals
FY 2023/24
Projected
Carryovers
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 + Future Yrs TOTAL
101 General - - - 800,000 800,000
999 Unfunded - - - -
TOTAL BY FUND - - - - - - 800,000 - 800,000
57050 Land Acquisition/ROW - - - -
57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ - - - 50,000 50,000 57071 Construction/CM - - - 750,000 750,000
TOTAL BY PHASE - - - - - - 800,000 - 800,000 Proposed
189
ATTACHMENT 6:

Copy of Revenue Enhancement Workshop Materials
190
Agenda Item A.1

WORKSHOP
Meeting Date: March 31, 2022
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Michelle Greene, City Manager
CONTACT: Luke Rioux, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Potential Revenue Enhancement Options
RECOMMENDATION:

A. Discuss options for creating and generating new revenue for the City and provide direction to staff on which option(s) to pursue;
B. Discuss options for updating the Cannabis tax rates for the City and provide direction to staff on which option(s) to pursue.

BACKGROUND:

On December 10, 2020, the City Council held a workshop and received a presentation from staff on its long-range financial forecast over a twenty-year period, which included various revenue and expenditure scenarios, informat ion on revenue enhancement options and funding strategies to address unfunded priorities and projects. At the workshop, recommendations on revenue options were pr esented for both for the near term and the long term. The near-term recommendations included staff to evaluate existing cannabis business tax rates with its cannabis consultants, HdL. The long-term recommendations included staff continuing evaluation other ty pes of general fund tax measure options, including Transaction Use Tax (TUT), Utility Users Tax (UUT), Parcel Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) increase, Business License Tax and Real Property Transfer Tax.

DISCUSSION:

Staff consulted with its tax consultants HdL and their cannabis and ECONSolutions divisions on providing additional analysis on these tax revenues. HdL has completed its fiscal analysis on both cannabis tax and the tax revenue enhancement options to help inform discussion and consideration of potential ballot measures. The tax revenue enhancement analysis is provided in full as Attachment 1 and the cannabis tax analysis is provided as Attachment 2.

Revenue Enhancement Options – Summary
Staff has worked with its tax consultants to further refine revenue generation estimates, including consultant analysis on reviewing the nature of the tax, the process to implement, 1 191
the potential estimates, and evaluating the pr os and cons of each. The full report is provided as Attachment 1. The following table summarizes the estimated annual revenues by tax type followed by a brief summary of each type provided by HdL:

Table 1: Tax Revenue Measure Estimates
Revenue Measure
Options
Annual Revenue
Projection Tax Rate Factor
Transaction and Use Tax $2.2M - $2.4M For every 0.25% increase.

Utility User Tax $4.7M Assumes 6% across all utilities
Parcel Tax $960,000 Assumes $100 per parcel
Transient Occupancy Tax $920,000 For each 1% increase
Business License Tax $2.2M - $3.3M
Gross receipts model or
Classification based rates
Real Property Transfer Tax $300,000 For every $0.55 cents Transaction Use Tax (TUT)
From experiences of other cities, a TUT (also referred to as a sales tax) has one of the higher feasibilities of voter approval as compared to other tax options. Some of the reasons are that almost half of the revenue collected will come from non-residents making purchases within the City and the fact that many surrounding communities already impose a similar tax at a higher rate than the City of Goleta’s current rate. The potential revenue generated is on the higher side of other options between $2.3 million to $9.3 million depending on the percent of the TUT. The cost of administration is less than some of the options because the TUT is collected by the State and remitted to the City. To place a measure on the ballot requires supermajority City Council approval (4 out of 5 for the City of Goleta). Once on the ballot, the measure must have a two-thirds voter approval for special purpose funding or a simple majority (50% plus 1) for general purpose funding to pass.

Utility User Tax (UUT)
A UUT like the 6% UUT of the City of Santa Barbara could generate approximately $4.7 million to the City. The payers of a UUT are exclusively residents and businesses within the City. The feasibility of passage of a UUT measure is less than other tax forms because of this fact. Businesses may pass on the cost they pay in a UUT in higher prices. The cost to administer a UUT may be higher in auditing collections from utilities depending on the number of utilities and variations in rates. To place a measure on the ballot requires City Council approval with a two-thirds vote for general purpose funding or a simple majority for special purpose funding. Voter approval of a ma jority (50% plus 1) is required for general purpose funding and two-thirds for special purpose funding.

Parcel Tax
Based upon the revenue projections a parcel tax can generate between $960,000 to $4.8 million in revenue. However, this revenue can only be used for the specific purpose for which the tax is levied. Like a UUT, the tax is borne by the property owners within the city.

The feasibility of passing of a ballot measure is less than other tax forms because of this fact and the ability to demonstrate the need for the revenue for the specific purpose of the tax. The cost of administration is less than other tax options because the collection is the 2 192
responsibility of the County. To place a meas ure on the ballot requires City Council approval with a two-thirds vote. Voter approval also requires a two-thirds vote regardless of the use of the funds.

Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
The feasibility of voter approval of a TOT increase is greater than other tax options because the payers of the tax are for the most part non-residents. However, the revenue projections are limited. The current TOT in Goleta is 12%, which is the statewide average. It is estimated that each 1% increase can generate an additional $960,000. There is a point where an increase beyond the average of surrounding communities may have a negative impact in guests choosing to stay in the city. There is no additional cost to administer an increase in TOT since the City already adm inisters TOT remittance. To place a measure on the ballot requires City Council approval with a majority vote. Voter approval also requires a majority vote.

Business License Tax
The feasibility of voter approval of a business license tax may be slightly less than a TUT.

This revenue option has the highest cost of administration because it would require the city to set up the structure and collect the tax either in-house or using a third party. To place a measure on the ballot requires the City Council approval with a two-thirds vote regardless of whether the funds will be used for gener al purpose funding or special purpose funding.

Voter approval also requires a two-thirds vote regardless of the use of the funds.

Documentary Transfer Tax and Real Property Transfer Tax This is the least feasible revenue option. It would require the City to become a charter city to be eligible to consider this option. The cost, time and politics to consider becoming a charter city are economically infeasible based upon the potential revenue projections.

Next Steps for a Tax Revenue Measure
Based on Council direction, staff will return with draft ballot measure language for Council’s consideration. Below is a sample timeline, inc luding steps that staff will take if Council decides to move forward with a ballot measure.

Next Steps - Project Timeline
2022 Tax Revenue Measure
Dates Description
April – May 2022 Staff to return with draft ballot measure language for Council’s consideration
April-November 2022 Conduct a public outreach and education effort on the financial need and potential uses of a funds related to a proposed tax
measure; including drafting a priority spending
plan
3 193
April – June 2022 If pursuing a TUT (add-on sales tax), contract with California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) . Cities are required to contract with the CDTFA for administration of the ordinance imposing the tax. There are two contracts. One is for setting up the tax; the second is for ongoing
administration.

April – May 2022 Follow-up Tracking Survey conducted.

May 17, 2022 City Council considers draft ordinance approving tax ballot measure language for the November 8, 2022 Election.

June 7, 2022 (latest
date this item can be
considered is June 21,
2022)
City Council adopts: 1) Resolution approving the Council- sponsored ballot measure to be submitted to the voters; 2) Resolution calling and giving Notice of Election and whether rebuttal arguments will be permitted, and if so, adoption of Resolution providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for City measures submitted at Municipal Elections; and 3)
Resolution directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure to be placed on the November 8, 2022 General Election
July 2022 Deadline to submit documentation to County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
November 8, 2022 Election Day
Cannabis Tax Analysis Summary
The cannabis tax analysis included a review that found the City’s current tax rates are competitive with other nearby jurisdictions and with common rates seen across the state.

It considered impacts to business attraction, retention and success, including to the City’s revenues. The analysis reports how retail cannabis sales may be influenced by tourism and visitor traffic, along with the impact of UCSB. HdL also provided six recommendations which are summarized below:

Recommendation 1
HdL recommends that the City work within the existing limitations of Measure Z when making any desired changes to its current cannabis tax rates.

Recommendation 2
HdL recommends that the City consider apply ing its cannabis taxes evenly to both adult- use and medicinal cannabis businesses and sales.

Recommendation 3
HdL recommends that the City retain the exis ting gross receipts-based tax on cannabis cultivation and continue to set the rate at 4.0%.

Recommendation 5
HdL recommends that the City exercise caution and discretion in applying increases to the tax rates for any existing businesses. As an alternative, the City may wish to consider a tiered tax rate for high-earning businesse s when revenues exceed a certain amount. An example of this is seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2- Example of Incremental Tax Rate Model
Recommendation 6
HdL recommends that the City consider exte nding the allowable hours of operation for cannabis retailers to 10:00 p.m., rather th an the current 8:00 p.m. Extending these hours could allow the City’s retailers to recapture sales (and related sales tax revenue) that are likely being lost to retailers in the City of Santa Barbara during these hours.

Next Steps and Staff Recommendation on Cannabis Tax Updates Cannabis tax revenues is a new revenue stream to the City and is highly volatile. There is lots of uncertainty on the stability and consistency of what this revenue stream can generate and staff is still learning its impacts as ot her new businesses begin operating within city limits and nearby city limits. At this ti me, staff recommends City Council making a change 5 195
only to the retail rate for the medicinal category to be set at the current retail for adult use at 5% and to work towards implementing recommendation 6, which is extending the hours of operation from 8:00pm to 10:00pm to be consistent with retailers in the City of Santa Barbara. Staff recommends that other potential rate changes be put on hold until additional information and another full fiscal year has been experienced to review further.

Should Council support staf f’s current recommendation, staff will return with a separate staff report and resolution to enact the tax rate change for medicinal and an ordinance update for the hours of operation for Council approval. Given current staff capacity and other work priorities, this work effort will be programmed for the upcoming FY 22/23 work program and will target August 2022 for implementation.

Finance Committee Review
The Finance Committee met to review the cannabis tax analysis on October 11, 2021, and the tax revenue enhancement analysis on Mach 24, 2022.

FISCAL IMPACTS:

There are no fiscal impacts associated with this report, as the information provided is for informational purposes and feedback from Council of which revenue options to pursue.

Further action taken based on the information provided may result in future fiscal impacts and will be provided in a later report.

ALTERNATIVES:

Council may direct staff to provide further analysis on certain tax measures or explore more in detail the tax measures discussed. Council may also direct staff to not move forward with a ballot measure, directing staff to table the effort or continue to consider it for a future year.

Reviewed By: Approved By:
___________________ _________________
Kristine Schmidt Michelle Greene
Assistant City Manager City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Revenue Enhancement Opportunities Analysis for the City of Goleta

2. Draft Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry for the City of Goleta

3. Long Range Financial Forecast, Revenue and Funding Options Workshop

4. PowerPoint Presentations
6 196
ATTACHMENT 1:

Draft Revenue Enhancement Opportunities Analysis for the City of Goleta 7 197
Page | 1
www.hdlcompanies.com x 714.879.5000

CITY OF GOLETA REVENUE ENHANCEMENT

OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

BACKGROUND
The City of Goleta is exploring potential revenue enhancement opportunities to raise additional general fund tax revenue. The City retained the services of HdL Companies to prepare a report evaluating various revenue enhancement opportunities.

Hinderliter de Llamas Associates (HdL) is a 37-year-old consulting firm with corporate offices in Brea California, along with offices in Pleasanton and Fresno, as well as offices in Texas, Colorado and Georgia. HdL is a highly respected consulting firm working in sales tax, property tax, tax & fee administration, revenue analysis, economic development and cannabis management. HdL ECONSolutions was formed by HdL in 2014 to provide a variety of economic development products, services and special projects in further serving local governments. HdL ECONSolutions has done work for 145 local governments in California and presently is working for 30 California cities and several private sector developers on a variety of economic development related services.

SUMMARY
The report identifies six potential revenue enhancement opportunities:
x Transaction Use Tax (TUT)
x Utility Users Tax (UUT)
x Parcel Tax
x Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
x Business License Tax
x Document Transfer Tax
The report evaluates each of these revenue opportunities by describing:
x The nature of the tax
x The process to implement the tax and feasibility of implementation x The potential revenue estimates
x The pros and cons of each including – Regressiveness comparison, potential impacts on the residents and business within the community DRAFT
ncement opportunities to raise ncement opportunities to ra the the services of HdL Companies to services of HdL Companies to cement opportunities. cement
7-year-old consulting firm with corporat7-year-old consulting f n Pleasanton and Fresno, as well as offasanton and Fres a highly respected consulting firm worespected co
stration, revenue analysise analys , economic dev
CONSolutions CONSolu was formed by HdL in 201med by
ment products, set products, se rvices and special prorvices and specia HdL ECONSoECONSolutions has done wolutions has done wo
and presently is working for 30 Californntly is working for 30 Californ s on a variety off economic development economic development ff ifies six potential revenue enhancementifies six potential revenue enhan nsaction Use Tax (TUT)saction Use Tax (TUT)
Utility Users Tax (UUT)Users Tax (UUT)
x Parcel Tax
xx Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)Transient Occupancy
x Business License Taxess License Tax
x Document Transfer Taxt Transfer Tax
The report evaluates each oThe report evaluates e
xx The nature of thThe nature of t
The processThe process
he potehe pote
$WWDFKPHQW
8 198
Page | 2
www.hdlcompanies.com x 714.879.5000
The report does not make a recommendation of preference of one revenue source over another. However, it clearly outlines the above-described evaluation of each possible opportunity.

TRANSACTION USE TAX
Description
A Transaction and Use Tax (TUT) is an additional sales tax levy on top of the Bradley- Burns Local Sales and Use Tax imposed by individual cities. The TUT would apply to all purchases of goods and services that are applicable to existing sales and use taxes. A city does not have the ability to make exemptions as to what goods and services are exempt from the TUT. The TUT would be applicable to all goods and services subject to the statewide sales and use tax. Items that are exempt from TUT include certain food products for human consumption (many groceries), sales to the U.S. Government, sales of prescription medicine and certain medical devices, and sales of items paid for with food stamps. The sales and use tax currently applied in the City of Goleta is 7.75%, which is the lowest sales and use tax within Santa Barbara County and shared with Buellton and Solvang. The City can impose a TUT in increments up to the state cap amount of 9.25%.

For example, if the City were to approve a 1% TUT, the sales tax rate in the city would be

8.75%, which would be 0.50% below the state cap.

Implementation Process

Enactment of a TUT requires a ballot initiative approved by the residents of the City. To place a measure on the ballot requires supermajority City Council approval (4 out of 5 for the City of Goleta). Once on the ballot, the measure must have, a two-thirds voter approval for special purpose funding or a simple majority (50% plus 1) for general purpose funding to pass.

Currently there are 120 cities in the state that have approved a TUT. The Cities in Santa Barbara County that have TUT’s include the following:
- Buellton (7.75% sales tax rate)
- Carpinteria (9% sales tax rate)
- Goleta (7.75% sales tax rate)
- Guadalupe (8.75% sales tax rate)
- Lompoc (8.75%)
- Santa Barbara (8.75% sales tax rate)
- Santa Maria (8.75% sales tax rate)
DRAFT
achach
s tax levy on top of the Bradley-s tax levy on top of the Bradle l cities. The TUl cities T would apply to all y to all
ble to existing sales and use taxes. A ble to existing sales and use taxes. A ons as to what goods and services areons as to what goods plicable to all goable to a ods and services subjecods an at are exempt from TUT include certaiempt from TU
y groceries), sales to les to the U.S. Governmeth
medical devmedica ices, and sales of items paid sales of urrently applied inrently applied the City of Goleta is 7of Gole thin Santa Santa Barbara County and shared Barbara County and shared se a TUT in incrn inc ements up to the state nts up to the st cc ere to approve a 1% e a 1% TUT, the sales tax TUT, the sales tax e 0.50% below the state cap. e 0.50% below the state cap.

Process Process
a TUT requires a ballot initiativea TUT requires a ballot initiative approv ap asure on the ballot requires supermajoriasure on the ballot requires supermajor of Goleta). Once on the ballot, tGoleta). Once on the ballot, t he mhe m oval for special purpose fcial purpose unding or a simpas i m p nding to pass. ding to pa
Currently there are 120 cities in the staCurrently there are 120 cities i Barbara County that have TUBarbara County that have TUT’s inT’s - Buellton (7.75% sales ta.75% sales ta
- Carpinteria (9% sales(9%
- Goleta (7.75% sale- Goleta (7.75% s
- Guadalupe (8.7- Guadalupe (8.7
- Lompoc (8.7- Lompoc (8.7
Santa BarSanta Bar
anta Manta M
9 199
Page | 3
www.hdlcompanies.com x 714.879.5000
In the November 2020 election there were 71 jurisdictions that had TUT initiatives on the ballot with 84% of them being approved by voters including a 1% sales tax increase in the City of Lompoc which passed with a 69.37% voter approval.

A TUT would be implemented no sooner than 110 days after the election date. For a November ballot measure, it will be implemented on April 1 of the following year, unless a later date is stated in the measure. For financial purposes, an April 1 start date means cash flow will start in June. With a normal 60-day accrual period, the City can expect 1 quarter worth of revenue for that fiscal year - with the first full fiscal year impact not felt until the following year. A sample implementation timeline is provided below:
x November 2022 - successful ballot measure
x April 2023 - first cash flow
x FY 22-23 - one quarter fiscal impact
x FY 23-24 - first full year fiscal impact
Pros and Cons
Pros
Based upon 2019 revenue estimates, 42.4% of the 1%% Bradley Burns Sales tax is estimated to be paid by non-residents of Goleta. This indicates that 42% of a new TUT tax would be paid by non-residents as well. This demonstrates that a TUT tax would be borne by both residents and non-residents in a roughly equal manner.

As shown above, many of Goleta’s nearby cities have a variation of a TUT, so adoption of a similar TUT would not put the City in an economic disadvantage.

Cons
Sales taxes are regressive by nature. Taxes on general goods and services consume a greater proportion of a lower/moderate income family’s income.

Potential Revenue Estimate
In previous reports, City staff and HdL prepared estimates of potential revenue that could be generated from a TUT. The estimates are based upon historic actual sales tax revenue received by the city. Table 1 summarizes the estimated TUT revenues at various levels of additional sales tax rates.

DRAFT
x inx in
lection date. Folection
following year, unlessfollowing
n April 1 start date means n April 1 start da
eriod, the City can expect 1 iod, the City can ex
t full fiscal year impact not felt t full fiscal year impact not ne is provided below: ne is p

ct
nue estimates, 42.4% of the 1%% Bra42.4% of the 1%% Bra by non-residents of Goletaby non-residents of Goleta . This indicat by non-residents as well. by non-residents as well. This demonstrTh esidents and non-resiesidents and non-r dents in a roughly n a r bove, many of Goleta’s nearby cibove, many of Goleta’s n ties haties h ar TUT would not put the TUT would not put the City in an econCity in an econ s
D
Sales taxes are regressive by nature. TSales taxes are regressive b greater proportion of a lower/moderatgreater proportion of a lower/mo Potential Revenue Estimate nue Estimate
In previous reports, City staffIn previous reports, Cit be generated from a TUT.be generated from a TU
received by the city. Tareceived by the city. T
additional sales taadditional sales ta
10 200
Page | 4
www.hdlcompanies.com x 714.879.5000
Table 1: Estimated TUT Revenues (as of August 2021)
Rate 0.25% TUT
Estimate

0.5% TUT
Estimate

0.75% TUT
Estimate

1.0% TUT
Estimate
TUT Estimated
Revenue
(Rounded)
$2,300,000 $4,600,000 $6,900,000 $9,300,000
Range (+/-)
5%
)
$2.2M- $2.4M $4.4M - $4.8M $6.6M - $7.2M $8.8M - $9.8M Combined City
Tax Rate

8.00% 8.25% 8.5% 8.75%
In rounded numbers the estimate of new revenue generated from a TUT is $2.3 million per 0.25% increase.

UTILITY USER TAX
Description
A Utility User Tax (UUT) may be imposed by a city on the consumption of utility services, including (but not limited to) electricity, gas, water, sewer, telephone (including cell phone and long distance), sanitation and cable television. There currently is an issue of whether streaming services can be taxed under a city’s UUT. Involving streaming services is a grey area since they are evaluated on a city-by-city basis. Thus, each city may determine whether a tax should be applied. Assembly Bill 252 of 2017 proposed that streaming services constitute an entertainment service and, therefore, should be a state matter and not subject to local utility taxes. However, it did not pass Until this is resolved by the judicial or legislative process, most cities have deferred imposing UUT on these services.

The rate of the tax and the use of its revenues are determined by the city. The rate of tax may also vary by the utilities being taxed. For example, a city may choose to tax some types of utilities at a 6% rate and others at 4% or not at all. The city may also choose to tax only residential or only commercial customers for each type of utility. The tax is collected by the utility as part of its regular billing cycle and then remitted to the city. Most city UUT levies are general taxes. Over 150 cities in California levy utility user taxes.

UUT rates vary from one to 11 percent. The average rate is 4-5 percent.

For those cities with utility user taxes, it provides an average of 15 percent of a general fund revenue and often as much as 22 percent of their general fund revenue. Typically, UUT’s are for a specified period of time.
% TU% TU
Estimate Estimat
$9,300,000 $9,3
TTT
- $7.2M$7.2M $8.8M - $9.8M 8.8M -
TFTT
5% 8.75% 5%

FTFTFTFTTT
nue generated from a TUT is $2.3 millioue generated from a may be imposed by a cied by ty on the consumpty on the consum d to) electricity, gasto) electricity, gas, water, sewer, teleph, water, sewer, teleph anitation and cable televisianitation and cable television. There curon s can be taxes can be taxe d under a city’s UUT. Invd under a city’s e they are evaluated on a city-be they are evaluated on a city-by-city basy-c ax should be applied. Assemblyax should be applied Bill 25Bill onstitute an entertainment servicnstitute an entertainment service and, e and, bject to local utility taxes. However, it local utility taxes. However, it cial or legislative process, most citive proces es ha
The rate of the tax and the use of its reveThe rate of the tax and the u may also vary by the utilitiesmay also vary by the utilities being tax b types of utilities at a 6% ratetypes of utilities at a 6% rate and ot and tax only residential or only comtial or only com
collected by the utility as part collected by the utility a city UUT levies are generacity UUT levies are gen
UUT rates vary from oUUT rates vary from o
hose cities whose cities w
venue avenue a
fofo
11 201
Page | 5
www.hdlcompanies.com x 714.879.5000
Currently there are three communities in the County of Sant Barbara that impose a UUT - the City of Santa Barbara, Isla Vista Community Services District and the City of Guadalupe.

Implementation Process
Implementation of a UUT requires a ballot initiative approved by the residents of the city.

To place a measure on the ballot requires City Council approval with a two-thirds vote for general purpose funding or a simple majority for special purpose funding. Voter approval of a majority (50% plus 1) is required for general purpose funding and two-thirds for special purpose funding. Depending on the specifics of how a tax measure is proposed it may require “sunset” of the tax.

Most cities with UUTs adopted the tax prior to 1986 by vote of their City Council. After 1986, any increase or extension or new UUT levy requires voter approval as described above. Most city UUT levies in California are general taxes.

From June 2002 through November 2020 there were 97 measures to increase or adopt a new UUT. Eleven were special taxes designated for a specific purpose. Among the 86 general taxes, 12 were accompanied by advisory measures.

Currently in California all but two UUTs are general purpose funding. In the November 2020 election there were 11 jurisdictions that had UUT measures on the ballot with 54% of them being approved by voters.

As described previously, there are many variations as to who can be taxed, such as residents and/or commercial customers, which types of utilities it applies to and at what rate for each. If the City were to pursue consideration of a UUT, a separate analysis should be conducted. Issues to be analyzed include who should be taxed, which utilities it should apply to and at what rates.

Collection of the revenue is the responsibility of the various utilities and remitted to the city on a regular schedule based upon negotiations with the utilities. Any time there is reliance on an outside agency responsible for collection and remittance there are greater chances of errors. This can be further complicated if there are many variations to the UUT rates. Many cities with UUT’s utilize a third-party company to help manage and audit UUT remittance.

Pros and Cons
Pros
Depending on the percent of the tax, UUTs can generate a significant amount of revenue that can be used for general purposes. On average, the UUT provides 15 percent of general revenue in the cities that levy it and can be as high as 30%.

DRAFT
thth
the rethe residents of the city. sidents
al with a two-thirds vote for al with a two-thirds
pose funding. Voter approval pose funding. Voter app
pose funding and two-thirds for pose funding and two-thirds of how a tax measure is proposed of how a tax measure is proposed 1986 by vote of their City Council. Aft1986 by vote of their UT levy requires voter approval as descy requires voter a a are general taxes. l taxes.
2020 there were 97 measures to increa2020 there were 97 measur taxes designated for a specific purpose. xes designated for a specific pur panied by advisory measures. d by advisory measu
but two UUTs ars are general purpose funde general purpose fun e 11 jurisdictions that11 jurisdictions that had UUT measurehad UUT measure ved by voters. ved by voter
eviously, there eviously, there are many variations as are many varia /or commercial customers, which types /or commercial customers, which ty ch. If the City were to pursue considerch. If the City were to pursue conside be conducted. Issues to be analyzed incnducted. Issues to be analyzed inc uld apply to and at what rates. o and at wha
Collection of the revenue is the responsCollection of the revenue is city on a regular schedule based upocity on a regular schedule bas reliance on an outside agency respreliance on an outside agency res chances of errors. This can be fus. This can be fu
rates. Many cities with UUT’s rates. Many cities with
remittance.rem
Pros and Cons Pros an
g ong on
12 202
Page | 6
www.hdlcompanies.com x 714.879.5000
Traditionally, UUTs are a dependable and a consistent revenue stream. They increase gradually over time as the cost of the utility they tax increases.

Cons
The tax is considered somewhat regressive in that the most common utilities taxed include electricity, gas and water. The utility rates users pay are based upon consumption.

Therefore, the more you use the higher your bill. Utility consumption is typically dependent on the size of the user’s home or property. Therefore, property owners or tenants with lower incomes pay a disproportionate percentage of their income on utilities and the UUT.

As mentioned in the pros section, historically the revenue stream is fairly consistent.

However, with current and future changes in the availability of some utilities such as water and energy, UUT revenue may become more of a volatile revenue with great fluctuations.

The tax is on the utility consumption of residents and businesses in the city. Businesses may also choose to pass on the cost of the UUT to their customers in the form of higher prices.

Potential Revenue Estimate
Estimating potential revenue can be a bit complex. It depends on the percentage of the tax and the utilities that the City chooses to impose the tax on. This varies from city to city. In addition, revenues collected by many utilities are proprietary information, so it is difficult to know exactly the amount of revenue collected by certain utilities. The most common way to estimate potential revenue is to look at one or more cities that currently impose the tax, determine their actual revenue, and extrapolate it for the City of Goleta’s population. City staff and HdL chose to use the City of Santa Barbara as a comparison as shown in Table 2 below. The City of Santa Barbara’s UUT is 6% applied on all utilities.

The estimate is based upon their actual revenue collected and adjusted on a per capita basis. It is estimated that a UUT, using these parameters could generate approximately $4.7 million annually for Goleta.

Table 2: Santa Barbara UUT vs Estimated Goleta UUT
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Avg
City of SB -
UUT $13,810,308 $14,337,731 $14,014,216 $14,149,218 $13,888,280 $14,039,951 SB Population 90,401 90,922 91,443 91,325 91,376 91,093.4 SB Per Capita 153 158 153 155 152 154
Goleta
Population 30,541 30,671 30,847 30,790 30,975 30,764.8
Goleta
Estimate $4,665,663 $4,836,591 $4,727,497 $4,770, 374 $4,707,904 $4,741,686 DRAFT
mmon utilities taxemmon
ased upon consumption. ased upon co
ptiption is typically dependent on is typically de
perty owperty o ners or tenants with tenant
income on utilities and the UUT. income on utilities and the UU revenue stream is fairly consistent. revenue stream is fairly consistent. vvailability of some utilities such as water ailability of some utilities such as water of a volatile revenue with great fluctuationa volatile revenue with sidents and businesd businesses in the city. Businses
f the UUT to their customers in the form eir custo
e can be a bit complex. It depends on ta bit complex. It depends on t the City chooses to es to impose the tax on. mpose the tax on. ues collected by many utilues collected by many util ities are propitie actly the amount of revactly the amount of rev enue collected enue estimate potential revenue is to estimate potential revenue is to look at x, determine their actual revenue, x, determine their actual revenue, and ea City staff and HdL chose to use tCity staff and HdL chose to he Cihe C n in Table 2 below. The City of SantTable 2 below. The City of Santa Baa Ba estimate is based upon their actual rebased upon their actual re veve sis. It is estimated that a UUT, using sis. It is estimated that the $4.7 million annually for Goleta. $4.7 million annually for Gole Table 2: Santa Barbara UUT vs ETable 2: Santa Barbara UUT vs 2015 22015 2

DDRDRDRDDR
City of SB -
UUT UU $13,810,313,81
DDDDDD
SB Population SB Population
DDDD
Per Capita Per Capita
DDDDD
13 203
Page | 7
www.hdlcompanies.com x 714.879.5000
For comparison, the Isla Vista Community Services District imposes an 8% UUT on gas, water, electricity, sewer, and garbage disposal services. The total revenue collected in FY 20/21 was $1.03 million. The City of Guadalupe imposes a 5% rate on telephone, electricity, gas and water and generates $409,000 annually

PARCEL TAX
Description
A parcel tax is a tax on a parcel of property within a city. The tax must be imposed for a specific purpose. The revenue collected may only be used for that specific purpose. For example, library services, landscape maintenance or a broader category of public safety.

It is paid by the property owner of the individual property. This is a flat fee tax on each parcel and not based upon the value of the parcel, unlike property taxes. The amount of the flat fee is set by the city and can vary depending upon the type of use of the property, for example, single-family residence, multi-family, commercial or vacant property. It can also be the same rate for all parcels regardless of land use. The city can also exempt certain classifications of properties. In the November 2020 election there were 30 jurisdictions that had a parcel tax measure on the ballot with 46% being approved by voters.

The City of Goleta currently imposes a Library Services parcel tax. This tax was inherited from the County when the City incorporated. The parcel tax was approved by County voters on June 5, 1990. A good reference to the various categories is in Tabe 2 below that illustrates the City of Goleta’s existing library services parcel tax. The flat fee can also be the same regardless of the size of the parcel or be based upon the number rooms for residential parcels or the overall square footage of the parcel. The fee is typically a fixed fee but may include an annual adjustment based upon an indicator such as CPI. The City of Goleta currently imposes a parcel tax for funding library services which increases according to the CPI.

Implementation Process
Implementation of a parcel tax requires a ballot initiative approved by the residents of the city. To place a measure on the ballot requires City Council approval with a two-thirds vote. Voter approval also requires a two-thirds vote regardless of the use of the funds.

As described previously in the report, and much like a UUT, there are many variations as to what parcels would be taxed and at what rates and the purpose of the tax. If the City were to pursue consideration of a parcel tax, a separate analysis on defining the purpose and the taxing structure and to provide more refined revenue estimates for each option would be required.
cc
on teleon te
citycity. The tax must be imposed for a . The tax must be imposed for a be used for tbe used hat specific purpose. For specific purpose. For cce or a broader category of public safetye or a broader category of public safety dual property. Thproperty. This is a flat fee tax on eis is a e parcel, unlike properunlike property taxes. The amot
y depending upon the type of use of the pon the t
, multi-fami, multi ly, commercial or vacercial or ant pro cels regardlls regardless of land use. The city caess of land use. The c erties. In the November 2020 electio. In the November 2020 electi cel tax measure on the ballot with 46%easure on the ballot with 46% rrently imposes a Librarrrently imposes a Library Services parcey Se when the City incorporatwhen the City incorporat ed. The parceled. T 5, 1990. A good reference to t5, 1990. A good reference to t he variohe es the City of Golees the City of Goleta’s existing library servta’s existing library s me regardless of the size of the e regardless of the size of the parcel oparcel o ntial parcels or the overall square footagcels or the overall square footag but may include an annual adjustment bade an annu
f Goleta currently imposes a parcel taf Goleta currently impose according to the CPI. according to the C
Implementation Process Implementation Pro
Implementation of a parcel taxImplementation of a pa
city. To place a measure city. To place a meas
vote. Voter approval alsvote. Voter approval a
described previodescribed previo
t parcels wt parcels w
ursueursue
14 204
Page | 8
www.hdlcompanies.com x 714.879.5000
Potential Revenue Estimate
The City can set the tax rate based upon a fixed amount for various categories of property use. To illustrate the revenue projection the report established a fixed amount for all use categories using several tax rates from $100 per parcel up to $500 per parcel using $100 increments. These projections are illustrative only to give a sense of the magnitude of the revenue potential.

As the charts indicate a parcel tax of $100 per parcel, regardless of land use, could generate approximately $960,440 annually. That amount increases proportionally with each $100 increment as described below. The range of projections based upon the $100 flat amount is between $960,440 - $4,802,000. As a comparison Table 3 provides the existing Library Parcel Tax.

Table 3: Library Parcel Tax
Land Use
FY 21/22
Proposed
Rate
Number of
Parcels
FY 21/22
Projected
Revenue
Benefit
Factor
Residential
Single Family $ 25.20 5,734 $ 144,497 1.0 Condominium $ 25.20 2,567 $ 64,688 1.0 Duplex/Triplex $ 50.32 173 $ 8,705 2.0 Apartments $ 151.03 193 $ 29,149 6.0 Commercial
Heavy $ 113.22 17 $ 1,925 4.5 Light $ 113.22 388 $ 43,929 4.5 Industrial $ 113.22 228 $ 25,814 4.5 Churches/Misc $ 50.32 25 $ 1,258 2.0 Farm/Vacant $ 12.57 279 $ 3,507 0.5 Exempt $ - 498 $ - 0.0 TOTAL PARCELS 10,102
TOTAL PARCELS LEVIED 9,604 $ 323,473

DRAFT
egories of propegories
ed amount for all used amo
0 per parcel using $100 0 per parcel
sense of the magnitude of sense of the magn
el, regardless el, rega of land use, could e, coul
amount incramount eases proportionally with y with
nge of projectionsnge of projections based upon the $100 based upon the $100

0. As a comparison Table 3 provides tAs a comparison Ta 22 22
posed osed
Rate e
Number of
Parcels Parc
FY 21/22 F
Projected Proje
RevenueReven

FAFAAFF
AFAAF
$ 25.20 5,734 $ 20 5,734 $ RARRAA
$ 25.20 2,567 $ $ 25.20 RARRAA
$ 50.32 173 $ 50.32 RARRAA
$ 151.03 193 151.03
RARRA

RARRA
$ 113.22 $ 113.22
RARRA
$ 113.22 $ 113.22
RARRA
strial $ 113.22
DRRR
hurches/Misc hurches/Mis $ 50.32
DRR
Farm/Vacant Farm/Vacant $ 12 $
DRDR
Exempt Ex $ $
DRDR

TOTAL PARCELS LS

DRDRTOTAL PARCELS LEVIED S LEV
DRDD
15 205
Page | 9
www.hdlcompanies.com x 714.879.5000
Table 4: Parcel Tax Projection 1
Land Use
FY 21/22
Proposed
Rate
Number of
Parcels
FY 21/22
Projected
Revenue
Residential
Single Family $ 100.00 5,734 $ 573,400 Condominium $ 100.00 2,567 $ 256,700 Duplex/Triplex $ 100.00 173 $ 17,300 Apartments $ 100.00 193 $ 19,300 Commercial
Heavy $ 100.00 17 $ 1,700 Light $ 100.00 388 $ 38,800 Industrial $ 100.00 228 $ 22,800 Churches/Misc $ 100.00 25 $ 2,500 Farm/Vacant $ 100.00 279 $ 27,900 Exempt $ - 498 $ - TOTAL PARCELS 10,102
TOTAL PARCELS LEVIED 9,604 $ 960,400 Table 5: Parcel Tax Projection 2
Land Use
FY 21/22
Proposed
Rate
Number of
Parcels
FY 21/22
Projected
Revenue
Residential
Single Family $ 200.00 5,734 $ 1,146,800 Condominium $ 200.00 2,567 $ 513,400 Duplex/Triplex $ 200.00 173 $ 34,600 Apartments $ 200.00 193 $ 38,600 Commercial
Heavy $ 200.00 17 $ 3,400 Light $ 200.00 388 $ 77,600 Industrial $ 200.00 228 $ 45,600 Churches/Misc $ 200.00 25 $ 5,000 Farm/Vacant $ 200.00 279 $ 55,800 Exempt $ - 498 $ - TOTAL PARCELS 10,102
TOTAL PARCELS LEVIED 9,604 $ 1,920,800

DRAFT
e e
TTT
573,400 573,400
TT
256,700 256,700
TT
$ 17,300 $
TFT
$ 19,300 $
FTFFT

FTFFT
17 $ 1,700 17 $
FTFFT
388 $ 38,800 388 $ 38 FTFFT
228 $ 22,800 228 $
FTAFFT
25 $ 2,500 25 $

AFTAAFFT
00 279 $ 27,900 $
AFAAFF
- 498 $ - - 498 $ AFAAF
10,102 10
AFAAF
9,604 $ 960 9,604 $ 960

AFAAFAFAF
roojjoo ection 2 ectio
FY 21/22 FY
Proposed Pro
Rate R
Number of N
Parcels P

RAARRAA

RARRA
amilmilyy $ 200.00 $ 200.00 RARRA
ominium $ 200.00 $ 200.00
RARRA
uplex/Triplex $ 200.00
DRRR
AApartments partments $ 200.00
DRR
Commercial Commercial
DRDR
Heavy $ $
DRDR
Light $ $
DRDRIndustrial $
DD
Churches/Misc Chu
DD
Farm/Vacant Farm/V
DD
xempt xempt
D

TAL PARCELTAL PARCEL
D

L PARCL PARC
DD
16 206
Page | 10
www.hdlcompanies.com x 714.879.5000
Table 6: Parcel Tax Projection 3
Land Use
FY 21/22
Proposed
Rate
Number of
Parcels
FY 21/22
Projected
Revenue
Residential
Single Family $ 300.00 5,734 $ 1,720,200 Condominium $ 300.00 2,567 $ 770,100 Duplex/Triplex $ 300.00 173 $ 51,900 Apartments $ 300.00 193 $ 57,900 Commercial
Heavy $ 300.00 17 $ 5,100 Light $ 300.00 388 $ 116,400 Industrial $ 300.00 228 $ 68,400 Churches/Misc $ 300.00 25 $ 7,500 Farm/Vacant $ 300.00 279 $ 83,700 Exempt $ - 498 $ - TOTAL PARCELS 10,102
TOTAL PARCELS LEVIED 9,604 $ 2,881,200 Table 7: Parcel Tax Projection 4
Land Use
FY 21/22
Proposed
Rate
Number of
Parcels
FY 21/22
Projected
Revenue
Residential
Single Family $ 400.00 5,734 $ 2,293,600 Condominium $ 400.00 2,567 $ 1,026,800 Duplex/Triplex $ 400.00 173 $ 69,200 Apartments $ 400.00 193 $ 77,200 Commercial
Heavy $ 400.00 17 $ 6,800 Light $ 400.00 388 $ 155,200 Industrial $ 400.00 228 $ 91,200 Churches/Misc $ 400.00 25 $ 10,000 Farm/Vacant $ 400.00 279 $ 111,600 Exempt $ - 498 $ - TOTAL PARCELS 10,102
TOTAL PARCELS LEVIED 9,604 $ 3,841,600

Table 8: Parcel Tax Projection 5
DRAFT
e e
TTT
1,720,200 1,720,200
TT
770,100 770,100
TT
$ 51,900 $
TFT
$ 57,900 $
FTFFT

FTFFT
17 $ 5,100 17 $
FTFFT
388 $ 116,400 388 $ 116 FTFFT
228 $ 68,400 228 $
FTAFFT
25 $ 7,500 25 $

AFTAAFFT
00 279 $ 83,700 $
AFAAFF
- 498 $ - - 498 $ AFAAF
10,102 10
AFAAF
9,604 $ 2,881 9,604 $ 2,881

AFAAFAFAF
roojjoo ection 4 ectio
FY 21/22 FY
Proposed Pro
Rate R
Number of N
Parcels P

RAARRAA

RARRA
amilmilyy $ 400.00 $ 400.00 RARRA
ominium $ 400.00 $ 400.00
RARRA
uplex/Triplex $ 400.00
DRRR
AApartments partments $ 400.00
DRR
Commercial Commercial
DRDR
Heavy $ $
DRDR
Light $ $
DRDRIndustrial $
DD
Churches/Misc Chu
DD
Farm/Vacant Farm/V
DD
xempt xempt
D

TAL PARCELTAL PARCEL
D

L PARCL PARC
DD
17 207
Page | 11
www.hdlcompanies.com x 714.879.5000
Land Use
FY 21/22
Proposed
Rate
Number of
Parcels
FY 21/22
Projected
Revenue
Residential
Single Family $ 500.00 5,734 $ 2,867,000 Condominium $ 500.00 2,567 $ 1,283,500 Duplex/Triplex $ 500.00 173 $ 86,500 Apartments $ 500.00 193 $ 96,500 Commercial
Heavy $ 500.00 17 $ 8,500 Light $ 500.00 388 $ 194,000 Industrial $ 500.00 228 $ 114,000 Churches/Misc $ 500.00 25 $ 12,500 Farm/Vacant $ 500.00 279 $ 139,500 Exempt $ - 498 $ - TOTAL PARCELS 10,102
TOTAL PARCELS LEVIED 9,604 $ 4,802,000 Pros and Cons
Pros
Parcel taxes are a steady stream of income because they are based upon a fixed fee.

They are not subject to the volatility of land values.

Parcel taxes are less regressive than sales or value-based taxes since they are a fixed amount.

Cons
Residents and landowners of the city pay parcel taxes. Non-residents or visitors of the city are not subject to this type of tax.

Though parcel taxes are less regressive than sales taxes, they still impact lower/moderate income individuals disproportionately

TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
Description
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is a tax levied on persons staying 30 days or less in hotels, motels and similar lodging within a city. The amount of the tax is an add on percentage on the cost of the room rental. The tax is collected by the hotel and remitted to the City.

DRAFT
TTT
7,000 7,000
TT
,283,500 ,283,500
TT
86,500 86,500
TT
$ 96,500
TFT

FTFFT
7 $ 8,500 7 $
FTFFT
388 $ 194,000 388
FTFFT
228 $ 114,000 228 $ 114
FTFFT
25 $ 12,500 25 $ 1

AFTAFFT
279 $ 139,500 279 $

AFTAFFT
498 $ - 8 $
AFAAFF
10,102 10,102
AFAAFF
9,604 $ 4,802,000 9,604 $ 4,8

AFAAAFAFAF
steady stream of incosteady stream me because they me be ject to the volatility of land values. ject to the volatility of land valu are less regressive than sales are less regressive t or valueor va Residents and landowners of the city paResidents and landowners city are not subject to this type of tax. city are not subject to this type Though parcel taxes are less regreThough parcel taxes are less regr income individuals disproportios disproportio

TRANSIENT OCCUPANCTRANSIENT OCCUPA
Description Descrip
sient Occupasient Occupa
motels motels
eoeo
18 208
Page | 12
www.hdlcompanies.com x 714.879.5000
Currently the City of Goleta has a TOT rate of 12%. When the City incorporated it had a 10% TOT. The voters approved an increase of the amount to 12% in November 2012.

The measure passed with a 72.22% affirmative vote.

Implementation Process
Implementation of an increase in the existing 12% TOT requires approval of a ballot initiative by the residents of Goleta. To place a measure on the ballot requires City Council approval with a majority vote. Voter approval also requires a majority vote. The measure would be for a specific rate. There cannot be an escalation factor built into the approval, either for specific future increases at a fixed amount or with consumer price indices.

The existing TOT for the City of Goleta is for general services. Any increase in the tax would also be for general services. In the November 2020 election, there were 18 jurisdictions that had TOT measures on the ballot with 78% approved by voters.

Potential Revenue Estimate
The City’s current TOT rate is 12%. The report estimates additional revenue based upon a 1% increase in the rate up to 17%. Table 9 below estimates the additional revenue in 1% increments. The City’s TOT revenue has declined over the past few years due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. The estimates are based upon the actual revenue the City received in the last full year prior to the pandemic, rounded to $11,000,000 annually. In summary each 1% increase in the TOT could generate approximately $920,000 in additional revenue.

Table 9: TOT Rate Increase - Revenue Estimates using $11,000,000 as Base Year TOT Revenues TOT Rate
Additional New TOT Revenue
with Rate Increase
$ 11,000,000 12% $ 0
$ 11,916,667 13% $ 916,667
$ 12,833,333 14% $ 1,833,333
$ 13,750,000 15% $ 13,750,000
$ 14,666,667 16% $ 14,666,667
$ 15,583,333 17% $ 15,583,333
Conversion Calculation: $11,000,000 x 0.12 Gross Revenue: $91,666,667 Pros and Cons
Pros
Transient Occupancy Taxes are paid by guests who stay at hotels within the city, typically, not city residents. Therefore, residents are not paying the tax.

DRAFT
mm
es approval of a ballot es approval
ballot requires City Council ballot requires City
a majoritya major vote. The measure The me
on factor built into the approval, on factor built into the approv or with consumer price indices. or with consumer price indices. neral services. Any increase in the tax neral services. Any increase in the tax November 2020 election, there were ovember 2020 electi
ballot with 78% approved by voters. with 78% approv
. The The report estimates additional revenureport estimates additiona 17%. Tabl. Table 9 below estimates the addie 9 below estimates the a OT revenue has nue h declined over the past declined over the past fefe estimates are based upon the actual revre based upon the actual re to the pandemicthe pandemic, rounded to $11,000,00, rounded to $11,000,00 n the n the TOT could generate approximTOT could generate at Rate Increase - Revenue Rate Increase - Re Estimates utimat OT Revenues evenues TOT Rate TOT Rate

RARARARA
$ 11,000,000 0,000 12% 12%
DRRRR
$ 11,916,667 $ 11,916,667 13
DRRRR
$ 12,833,333 $ 12,83
DRRRDR
$ 13,750,000 13,750,00

DDRRRDR
$ 14,666,667 666,667

DDRRRDR
$ 15,583,333 3,333

DDRRRDDR
Conversion CalculationConversion Calculati
nd Consnd Cons
19 209
Page | 13
www.hdlcompanies.com x 714.879.5000
Most cities in California impose some form of a TOT.

Most hotel customers do not evaluate the percent of a TOT from one city to another when making their decision on where to stay, unless there is a group event.

Cons
The tax may be seen as regressive in that it is a fixed percentage of the room rate. Lower income individuals pay a higher percent of their income on hotel costs.

Though most customers may not compare the TOT percent from one city to the next, the City should consider parity with surrounding cites. The City’s current rate of 12% was increased in 2012 from 10%. The statewide average rate is 12%. The highest statewide rate is 15%. The average rate within the County of Santa Barbara is 12%. There is a balance to be weighed maintaining parity with neighboring, and hotel competing communities, not to over tax where the tax rate may be a determining factor as to which hotel to choose.

TOT is a very volatile revenue source. For the City of Goleta, it has been one of the City’s largest General Fund Revenue sources. However, as demonstrated with the COVID-19 Pandemic, this source of revenue is volatile and contingent on hotel stays and the health of the economy.

BUSINESS LICENSE TAX
Description
Most cities impose a business license tax on businesses that operate within the physical boundaries of the city. There are various methodologies on how the tax is calculated. The presumption of a business license tax is to tax business for the services provided by the city to support its business community i.e., public safety, infrastructure impacts, etc.

The City of Goleta does not currently impose a Business License Tax. The City imposes a Business License fee, which is a nominal amount intended to recover the cost of administering a business license only.

Implementation Process
Implementation of a business license tax requires a ballot initiative approved by the residents of the city. To place a measure on the ballot requires the City Council approval with a two-thirds vote regardless of whether the funds will be used for general purpose funding or special purpose funding. Voter approval also requires a two-thirds vote regardless of the use of the funds. In the November 2020 election, there were seven jurisdictions that had business license measures on the ballot with 87% approved by voters.

DRAFT
anothanoth
e of the room rate. Lower e of the room ra
otel costs. el cos
ent froment from one city to the next, the e next, t
The City’s current rate of 12% was The City’s current rate of 12% was ge rate is 12%. The highest statewide ge rate is 12%. The highest statewide ty of Santa Barbara is 12%. There is aty of Santa Barbara is 12%. There is a y with neighboring, and hotel competh neighboring, a
x rate may be a determining factor as toy be a determ
ce. For te. For the City of Goleta, it has been onhe City of Goleta, it has sources. Hoces. However, as demonstrated witwever, as demonstrated enue is volatileolatil and contingent on hotel snd contingent on hotel s

NSE TAX NSE TA
es impose a business license tax onmpose a business license tax on bus bus aries of the city. There are various methohe city. There are various metho sumption of a business license tax is to mption of a business city to support its business community i.ecity to support its business c The City of Goleta does not currentlyThe City of Goleta does not curr a Business License fee, which a Business License fee, which administering a business licensusine
Implementation ProcessImplementation Proc
mplementation of a mplementation of a
dents of the citydents of the city
two-thirdstwo-thirds
r spr sp
20 210
Page | 14
www.hdlcompanies.com x 714.879.5000
Potential Revenue Estimates
There are several different models that cities use for business licenses taxes. Some are based on flat fees, based upon the number of employees or gross revenue obtained by the business. A city can impose differing tax rates based upon the classification of business. However, the more variations of tax rates make the administration and collection of the tax more complicated and thus more costly.

Presently, HdL’s business license division administers business license programs for 136 cities in California. The recommended structure for a newly implemented business license is based upon the gross receipts model. This model is the least regressive approach because it is based upon the revenue increases of the business and not other factors such as employees or a flat fee. The report projects revenues based upon a gross receipts model.

Attachment A illustrates two different gross receipts models and projects potential revenues for each. It also provides a comparison of revenue projects based upon these models to comparison cities.

The summary indicates that Model 1 – Single Gross Receipts Rate could generate between $2.2 million – $2.7 million annually depending on the rate. Model 2 – Classification-Based Rates could generate $3.3 million annually.

Pros and Cons
Pros
A business license tax can generate a significant amount of revenue.

Voter approval is by the residents and not necessarily the business owners with residents more likely to approve the tax.

Cons
It can be considered a regressive tax in that the amount that businesses pay is considered a cost of doing business and therefore passed on to customer in the cost of goods and services.

A business license tax may dissuade businesses, most likely, small business from locating or staying within the city.

DOCMENTARY TRANSFER TAX AND REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX
A documentary transfer tax is a tax imposed on property owners who transfer interest in real estate, whether personal or commercial. Counties tax at a rate of $0.55 cents per $500 of the properties. The tax is collected by the County which then remits $0.275 to the city where the property transaction occurred. Currently the City of Goleta receives approximately $150,000 in documentary tax revenue.

DRAFT
es. Ses. S
nue obtainnue ob
he classificationhe clas
e administration ande admin
ness license programs for 136 ness license programs fo
ly implemly imple ented business license ss licen
l is the least regressive approach l is the least regressive approach of the busof the b iness and not other factors and not other factors cts revenues based upon a gross receiptscts revenues based upon a gross receipts gross receipts models and projects ppts models
comparison of revenue projects based uvenue p
Model 1 – Si1 – Si ngle Gross Receipts Ratngle Gross Receipts Ra

2.7 million annualn an ly depending on thdepending on th es could generate $3.3 million annually. rate $3.3 million annually. icense tax can generate icense tax can genera a significant amcant a pproval is by the residents and not necesal is by the residents and not neces likely to approve the tax. pprove the ta
Cons Cons
D
It can be considered a regressive taxIt can be considered a regressive a cost of doing business and thea cost of doing business and the services.

A business license tax mA business license ta
locating or staying withilocating or staying with

CMENTARY TRCMENTARY TR
mentarymentary
21 211
Page | 15
www.hdlcompanies.com x 714.879.5000
Implementation Process
Only charter cities can impose their own Documentary Transfer Tax. General Law cities do not have this ability. Goleta is a General Law city. To consider this tax, the city would need to become a Charter City. The process to become a Charter City is lengthy, complex and costly, far more than would be required for this revenue enhancement to be cost effective.

There are three charter cities in Santa Barbara County; Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and Solvang. None of them have a separate Documentary Transfer Tax.

The State Constitution allows charter cities to enact an enhanced amount, above that imposed by the county. To enact an additional amount for a charter city would require City Council to approve a ballot initiative by a two-thirds vote. The initiative would need to be approved by a majority of voters.

Potential Revenue Estimate
There are only a few cities in the state that impose this type of tax, none in Santa Barbara County. Of the cities that do have an add on tax above the County $0.55 cents per $500, most are double the County rate, to $1.10 per $500. Cities that impose a separate tax receive the full amount of that revenue, however, they forfeit their previous share of the County revenue. The County continues to collect the $0.55 per $500 tax and retains the entire amount. The City tax is in addition to the County tax.

The City of Goleta receives approximately $150,000 in documentary transfer tax revenue.

If the City were to achieve Charter City status, and voter approval of a Documentary Transfer Tax, the City would generate approximately, $300,00 in net revenue for each $0.55 increase in the tax. The net revenue takes into consideration the loss of the existing $0.275 that when revert to the County.

Pros and Cons
Pros
The tax is less subject to volatility because it is based on a percentage flat fee on property transactions.

Cons
The ability to impose the tax is predicated on the City becoming a Charter City. The process of becoming a Charter City is lengthy, costly and political. If this is the only motivating factor for achieving Charter City status, it may not be cost effective.

The financial projections indicate that the potential revenue projections would require a significant tax increase. The tax burden is on the property owners of the City.

DRAFT
eral Leral L
ax, the city wax, the c
is lengthy, compis leng
hancement to be coshanceme
nta Barnta Barbara, Santa Maria and ta Mari
ansfer Tax. ansfer
ct an enhanced amount, above that ct an enhanced amount, above that amamount for a charter city would require ount for a charter city would require wo-thirds vote. The initiative would need o-thirds vote. The initi e state that impose this type e that impose this typ of tax, noneax, non have an add on tax above the County $add on tax above the County $ unty rate, to $1.10 1.10 per $500. Cities that r $500. Cities that t of that revenue, howevet of that revenue, howeve r, they forfeit r, t he County continues to collhe County continues to collect the $0.55ec he City tax is in addition to the County tahe City tax is in addition to the C Goleta receives approximatelGoleta receives approx y $150,000 50,00 y were to achieve Charter Citywere to achieve Charter City status, status, er Tax, the City would generate apprthe City would generate appr oxox 55 increase in the tax. The net revenue tathe tax. T
$0.275 that when revert to the County. 0.275 that when revert to t Pros and Cons Pros and Cons
Pros
D
The tax is less subject to volThe tax is less subject
transactions. trans
ons ons
D
bility to imbility to im
of beof be
22 212
Page | 16
www.hdlcompanies.com x 714.879.5000

SUMMARY
Transaction Use Tax (TUT)
From experiences of other cities, a TUT has one of the higher feasibility of voter approval than other tax options. One of the reasons is that almost half of the revenue collected will come from non-residents making purchases within the city and the fact that many surrounding communities already impose a similar tax. The potential revenue generated is on the higher side of other options between $2.3 million to $9.3 million depending on the percent of the TUT. The cost of administration is less than some of the options because the TUT is collected by the State and remitted to the city.

Utility User Tax (UUT)
A UUT like that of the City of Santa Barbara could generate approximately $4.7 million to the city. The payers of a UUT are residents and businesses within the City. The feasibility of passage of a UUT measure is less than other tax forms because of this fact.

Businesses may pass on the cost they pay in a UUT in higher prices. The cost to administer a UUT may be higher in auditing collections from utilities depending on the number of utilities and variations in rates.

It is estimated that each 1% increase can generate an additional $960,000. There is a point where an increase beyond the average of surrounding communities may have a negative impact in guests choosing to stay in the city. There is no additional cost to administer an increase in TOT since the city already administers TOT remittance.

DRAFT
ibiliibility of voter approvalty of vo
the revenue collected will the revenue col
ty and the fact that many ty and the fact that
he potential revenue generated he potential revenue genera llion to $9.3 million depending on llion to $9.3 million depending on n is less than some of the options n is less than some of the options mitted to the city. mitted to the city.
ara could generanerate approximately $4.7 mte app
dents and businesses within the City. Theses with
s less than s less tha other tax forms becauseforms
cost they pay in a UUT in higher pricthey pay in a UUT in higher p gher in auditing audit collections from utilicollections from utili tiesties ations in rates. es.
evenue projections a parceevenue projections a parcel tax can genel tax ue. However, this revenue ue. However, this can only becan o x is levied. Like a UUT, the tax x is levied. Like a UUT is borne bborne bility of passing of a ity of passing of a ballot measure is leballot measure is le d the ability to demonstrility to demonstrate the need for ate the need for The cost of administration is less than odministrat
esponsibility of the County. esponsibility of the County.

Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT The feasibility of voter approvaf voter approva
because the payers of the taxbecause the payers of
projections are limited. Theprojections are limited.

It is estimated that eacIt is estimated that ea
int where an increint where an incre
tive impact itive impact i
ter an inter an in
23 213
Page | 17
www.hdlcompanies.com x 714.879.5000
Documentary Transfer Tax and Real Property Transfer Tax This is the least feasible revenue option. It would require the city to become a charter city to be eligible to consider this option. The cost, time and politics to consider becoming a charter city are economically infeasible based upon the potential revenue projections.

Business License Tax
The feasibility of voter approval of a business license tax may be slightly less than a TUT.

The tax is borne by the businesses in the city, who may pass on the additional cost in higher prices for goods and services. There are many variations on how the tax is structured. The models used in the report indicate potential revenue between $2.2 million and $2.7 million. This revenue option has the highest cost of administration because it would require the city to set up the structure and collect the tax either in-house or using a third party.
a ch a ch
sider becomsider be
enue projections.enue pr
y be slightly less than a TUT. y be slightly less than a pass on the additional cost in pass on the additional cos any variationsany var on how the tax is e tax
otentialotential revenue between $2.2 million revenue between $2.2 million ghest cost of administration because it ghest cost of administration because it nd collect the d collec tax either in-house or usiax eithe 24 214
Number of Businesses Business Tax Total
Taxable Gross (Est.)
2,414 $2.2 Billion
Business Category Type Total Count Total # of Employees Total Gross Receipts (2019) CONTRACTOR 212 1,053 $ 67,250,359.50*
GENERAL COMMERCE/RETAIL 892 17,128 $ 1,514,258,632.50*

RENTAL (COMMERCIAL &
RESIDENTIAL) 102 639 $ 17,591,309.50*
SERVICE 423 2942 $ 70,442,737.00*
PROFESSIONAL 785 6495 $ 540,388,994.00*
TOTAL 2,414 28,257 $ 2,209,932,032.50*
City of Goleta
March 16, 2022 Alternative Business License Tax Models & Revenue Comparison We have created a series of alternative business license tax revenue structures for the City. Additionally, we have conducted a preliminary revenue comparison of what these structures might yield in revenue. *We did not have current gross receipts data available. We estimated gross receipts from sales tax and reviewed prior information from the City to see if the estimate is reasonable. In a more formal review, we could work with the City to create a more precise estimate.
$WWDFKPHQW$

DDDDDRAF
AA
inesses
AFAF
al
AF
Taxable

AAAFFAF

RAARAFAF
$2.2 Billion

RARARARA
F
RR
ype
RARA
Total
RARA
To

RRRARARARRARR
TOR
RARA
2 RARARRA
OMMERCE/RETAILRCE/RETA 892892

DRRADRDR
AL &
DR

RESIDENTIA

DRDRRDRR
SERVICECE 423
DRDRDR
L

DRDRDDR
TOTAL

DDRDRDDRDRDRDRDDDDD
AF
DD
We did not have current gros
wed prior ation fr
h the City to creat
FTT
Comp
AFT
enue structures for the City. Add
at thes n reven
TT
AFAF
25 215
Model 1: Gross Receipts Tax – Single Gross Receipts Rate Model 1 reflects the potential revenues for converting the City tax to a single-rate, gross-receipts model. This model is simple to administer—everyone is charged the sa me rate—but it allows the City to increase revenue.

Model 1 also lowers the annual base rate to a uniform $25, to mirror annual base rates of neighboring cities more closely.

Table 1: Model 1—Pote ntial Tax Structure
Tax Basis Tax Rate
Base Rate $25 Flat Rate (first $25,000 Gross
Receipts)
Gross Receipts Tax
+ $1 per thousand dollars of Gross
Receipts
(0.001 x Gross Receipts)
Table 2: Model 1 – Rough Estimates from a simple gross receipts structure Number of
Accts
Taxable Gross
Receipts
Base Rate @ $25
per Account
Tax Amount
$1/ thousand
-Over $25,000-
Tax Amount
$1.25 / thousand
-Over $25,000-
2,414 $2.2 billion $60,350 $2,2149,582 $2,686,978
TOTAL $2,209,932 $2,747,328
The "single rate" method of taxing on gross receipts provides an even distribution of the effective tax rate because all businesses subject to the tax will pay the same rate. Under this method, no cap is put in place, and therefore most of the revenues are received from the highest-grossing businesses.

DRAFT
ateate
eipts model. eipts mo T
to increase revenue.to incre
s of neighboring cities s of neighbo
StructureStructur
FTFT
Tax R

FTFTFTAFTFT
t Rate ( 00 Gros
AFT
Rece
FT
$1 per thousand dollars of Gross usand dollars of
Receiptseceipts
(0.001 x Gross Receipts)ss Recei
AAFFTF
del el 1 – 1 – Rough Estimates from a simple gross reRough Estimates from a simple gross re RRAR
Taxable
R
Re
RARA
Base Rate @ $25
RA
p

AAAARARARAAARRAARRRARRARA
$60,350 AARRAA

TOTALTOTAL

RRRRRRRARRRARRARARRR
e "single rate" method of taxing on gross receie "single rate" method of taxing on gross rec because all becaus businesses subject to the tax will pct to the tax will p herefore herefore most of the revenues are receivees are 26 216
Model 2: Gross Receipts Tax – Classification-Based Rates Model 2, as indicated below, would create different rates for different business classifications. The City may, for example, choose to implement a rate for the retail/wholesale/miscellaneous business activities at a base rate of

0.002, recognizing the higher costs of goods sold and lower profit margins for these types of business as well as their contribution to other City revenues such as sales tax. Conversely, the City could consider implementing a higher rate for professionals due to the nature of their business model. This model affords the most flexibility for increasing revenues while accommodating certain business categories. Model 3 utilizes the same base rate as the previous model to resemble the base rate of neighboring cities.

Table 3: Basic tax structure for classification-based gross receipts Categories Base Rate Gross Receipts Tax Rate

CONTRACTOR
$25 Flat Rate per
Business (first $25,000
in Gross)

0.002 X Gross
GENERAL COMMERCE/RETAIL 0.001 X Gross

RENTAL (COMMERCIAL &
RESIDENTIAL) 0.003 X Gross
SERVICE 0.001 X Gross
PROFESSIONAL 0.003 X Gross
Table 4: Estimated revenue from classification-based gross receipts Business Type Number
of Accts
Est. Taxable Gross
Receipts
Base Rate
$25 per
business
Total Est. Annual
Gross
Receipts Tax
CONTRACTOR 212 $ 67,250,359.50 $ 5,300 $ 123,902

GENERAL

COMMERCE/RETAIL
892 $ 1,514,258,632.50 $ 22,300 $ 1,491,959

RENTAL (COMMERCIAL &

RESIDENTIAL)
102 $ 17,591,309.50 $ 2,550 $ 45,124
SERVICE 423 $ 70,442,737.00 $ 10,575 $ 59,868
PROFESSIONAL 785 $ 540,388,994.00 $ 19,625 $ 1,562,292
2,414 $2.2 billion $60,350 $ 3,283,144
TOTAL $ 3,343,494
DRAFT
eses
s.s. The City maThe C
vities at a base rate vities a
pes of business as well as pes of busine
ld consider implementing a ld consider implem
del affords the most flexibility for del affords the most flexib el el 3 3 utilizes the same uti base rate as se rate a
ificationfication-based gross receiptsss recei

AFAFAFTAFT
Gros

AFAFAFTAFRAFAF
$25 Flat Rate p
AF
siness (first $25,000
AF
in Gross)

AFAFAFAFAFAF

0.001 X Gro

AFAFAFAAAFAF

0.003

AFAFAAF

0. AAAFAFRAAFRARAAARARAAARARARARAAAA
able able 44: Estimated revenue from classification: Estimated revenue from class -ba DRR
ess Type
DRARA
mber
RA
of Accts
RARA
ble Gr
RA
Receipts

RRRARARADRRADRDR
OR
DRDR
2 RR
$ 67 250

DRDRDRRRDRR

GENERAL GENE

COMMERCE/RETAIL COMMERCE/RE
892 $ 1,51

DRDRDRRRDDRRDRDR

RENTAL (COMMERCIA
DR
IAL)
DRDR
102
RRDDRDRDRRRDDDRRSERVICE 4233

DDRDRDRDDRDDDDDDDDDDD
27 217
Comparison Cities Revenue Summary Table (Using FY 18-19 data)
Table 7: Comparison Data Using Model 2Table 6: Comparison Data Using Model 1 Table 5: Current Tax Revenue
DRA
AFT
Y 18Y 18-1-
FT
Table 7: Comparison Data Using Model 2Table 7: Comparison Da F
28 218
ATTACHMENT 2:

Draft Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry for the City of Goleta 29 219
HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 1 of 31 Delivering Revenue, Insight
and Efficiency to Local Government
Fiscal Analysis of the
Commercial Cannabis Industry
Prepared for
the
City of Goleta
October 6, 2021
$WWDFKPHQW
30 220

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 2 of 31

Table of Contents

I. Summary and Recommendations Page 3
II. Introduction Page 6
III. The Cannabis Industry in the Santa Barbara Region Page 7 IV. Common Cannabis Tax Rates Page 9
V. Cannabis Retailers Page 11
VI. Cannabis Manufacturers Page 15
VII. Cannabis Distributors Page 17
VIII. Cannabis Cultivation Page 19
IX. Testing Laboratories Page 22
X. Appendix Page 23
a. Legal and Regulatory Background for California Page 24 b. State Tax Considerations Page 27
c. General Economic Impacts Page 29
d. References Page 31

31 221

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 3 of 31

I. Summary and Recommendations
Based upon our analysis as provided in this report, HdL offers the following recommendations to the City.

Recommendation 1
HdL recommends that the City work within the existing limitations of Measure Z when making any desired changes to its current cannabis tax rates. Measure Z was approved with support of 81.95% of the City’s voters, which is the third-highest approval percentage for any local cannabis tax measure in California since 2016

1. We do not note any fundamental flaws in Measure Z that would require “fixing” through a subsequent ballot measure. While many jurisdictions prefer the administrative simplicity of a cultivation tax based on square footage, this is merely a preference. In Section VII we discuss means for converting square footage tax rates to comparable gross receipts rates.

Recommendation 2
HdL recommends that the City consider applying its cannabis taxes evenly to both adult-use and medicinal cannabis businesses and sales. While we understand and appreciate the compassionate reasons for wanting to lower or eliminate taxes on medicinal use cannabis, we note that this is not common either among nearby jurisdictions or statewide. Most cannabis businesses statewide are licensed to deal in both adult-use and medicinal products, meaning that they will be reporting wholesale or retail transactions in both categories. Assuring accurate reporting and remittance of these separate rates can be administratively difficult for both the business and the City.

However, while Measure Z clearly allows the City to adjust rates up to 10% of gross receipts on both adult- use and medicinal cannabis operations, the initial rate of 0.0% for medicinal cannabis was included in the text of Measure Z (though not in the ballot question itself). We recognize that this decision is clearly a matter of discretion for the City Council to decide.

Recommendation 3
HdL recommends that the City retain the existing gross receipts-based tax on cannabis cultivation and continue to set the rate at 4.0%. Though this rate is higher than the square-footage equivalent rates we commonly recommend, it is consistent with the rate set by Santa Barbara County, which has one of the largest and most established cannabis cultivation sectors in the state. Clearly, this rate has been shown to be acceptable to cannabis cultivators in the region. We believe cannabis cultivators in Goleta are likely more influenced by the local industry in the surrounding county than by other cultivators elsewhere in the state. Should the City wish to reduce this rate, HdL would recommend that the rate be set between

1.75% and 2.50%, which would be roughly equivalent to our commonly recommended rates of $7.00 to $10.00 per square foot of canopy.

1 The highest level of voter approval we are aware of was for the City of Blythe’s Measure D in June 2018, which passed with 84.07% of the vote. The second highest was the City of Coachella’s Measure II in 2016, which passed with 81.97%.
32 222

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 4 of 31

Recommendation 4
HdL recommends that any desired adjustments to the City’s current tax rates for cannabis business types other than cultivation stay within the minimum and maximum ranges described in Figure 1, below. While the City’s current rates for nurseries and retailers both fall within our recommended ranges, both manufacturing and distribution are below our recommended initial rates. Increasing the rates for both of these business types up to HdL’s recommended initial rate could potentially generate additional revenue for the City.

HdL makes no recommendation regarding the rate for cannabis testing laboratories. HdL’s recommended rates for testing laboratories are provided for those jurisdictions which wish to impose a tax on such businesses. However, we recognize that these testing laboratories perform a quasi-regulatory function, do not in any way profit off the value of the product and are prohibited from sharing ownership with any other type of cannabis business. Seen through this lens, the City’s current rate of 0.0% seems appropriate.

Figure 1:

The City provided HdL with data showing that licensed cannabis businesses in Goleta collectively generated $2,083,160 in cannabis tax revenue in fiscal year 20/21. Applying the recommended rates shown above to the gross receipts reported to the City would have generated an additional $1,698,112 in cannabis tax revenue for the City, for a total of $3,781,272. HdL is not able to provide a more detailed breakdown of these revenues by business type as such information may allow the reader to infer the revenues derived from individual businesses

2. 2 Disclosure of confidential business earnings and tax information is prohibited under Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7056.

Business Type HdL Std.

Initial Rate
HdL Std.

Maximum Rate
Current
City Rate
Recommendation
Cultivation $7 per SF or

1.75% GR
$10 per SF or

2.5% GR

4.0% GR No Change
Nurseries $1 per SF or

1.0% GR
$2 per SF or

2.0% GR

1.0% GR No Change
Manufacturing 2.5% GR 4.0% GR 2.0% GR 2.5%
Distribution 2.0% GR 3.0% GR 1.0% GR 2.0%
Retail, Adult Use 4.0% GR 6.0% GR 5.0% GR No Change
Retail, Medicinal 4.0% GR 6.0% GR 0.0% GR 5.0%
Testing 1.0% GR 2.5% GR 0.0% GR No Recommendation
SF = Square Feet
GR = Gross Receipts
33 223

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 5 of 31

Recommendation 5
HdL recommends that the City exercise caution and discretion in applying increases to the tax rates for any existing businesses. While HdL’s recommended rates are common and lower than most nearby jurisdictions, we caution that our standard recommended rates assume they are being applied as initial rates, rather than being retroactively imposed on companies that have already developed and operated their business model based on certain assumptions about the regulatory and tax environment of their host jurisdiction. This is particularly a concern for the City’s distributors, as the increase from 1.0% to a still-low 2.0% would effectively double the tax rate on those businesses.

In addition, the City’s cannabis businesses vary significantly in size and earnings. Some businesses may also have operations in multiple jurisdictions, either nearby or around the state, and may have options for where to locate various aspects of their operations to provide the greatest benefit and the least liabilities. Increasing tax rates could potentially result in smaller businesses struggling or even failing, while larger businesses may just shift their operations elsewhere, resulting in a net decrease in cannabis tax revenues for the City.

As an alternative, the City may wish to consider a tiered tax rate for high-earning businesses when revenues exceed a certain amount. For example, the City could apply a tax rate of 2.0% for the first $25 million increment of gross receipts, 1.5% for the next increment ($25 million to $50 million), and 1.0% for any gross receipts above $50 million. Applying these tiered rates to a hypothetical business with earnings of $75 million would generate a total of $1,125,000 in revenue for the City, which is equal to an effective tax rate of $1.5%. This is $375,000 more than would be generated by a flat rate of 1.0%, and $375,000 less than would be generated by a flat rate of 2.0%. These revenues are shown below in Figure 2.

Figure 2:

Recommendation 6:

HdL recommends that the City consider extending the allowable hours of operation for cannabis retailers to 10:00 p.m., rather than the current 8:00 p.m. An analysis of sales data from retailers in other jurisdictions indicates that the hours of 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays are some of the busiest hours of the week for cannabis sales. Extending these hours could allow the City’s retailers to recapture sales (and related sales tax revenue) that are likely being lost to retailers in the City of Santa Barbara during these hours.

Increment Range Taxable
Amount
Increment
Rate
Revenues Effective
Rate
1st Increment $0 to $25 million $25,000,000 2.00% $500,000 2nd Increment $25 million to $50 million $25,000,000 1.50% $375,000 3rd Increment $50 million and above $25,000,000 1.00% $250,000 $75,000,000 $1,125,000 1.50%
Flat Rate $75,000,000 1.00% $750,000
Flat Rate $75,000,000 2.00% $1,500,000
Incremental Tax Rate Model
Flat Rate Model
34 224

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 6 of 31

II. Introduction
The City of Goleta has 8 commercial cannabis businesses that are currently operating, including retailers, distributors, cultivation and microbusinesses. 3 more cannabis businesses are expected to open soon, and another 2 are in the application process.

The City has a cannabis business tax (Measure Z) that was approved by the voters in November of 2018.

Measure Z allows the City to tax commercial cannabis businesses at a rate up to 10% of their gross receipts. While Measure Z allows the City to impose the tax on both adult-use and medicinal cannabis, the initial rates as proposed by the measure imposed the tax only on adult-use cannabis businesses. The current rates as established by the City Council are the initial rates as set forth in Measure Z and are shown below in Figure 3.

Figure 3:

Cannabis Business Type Tax Rate; Adult Use Tax Rate; Medicinal Retailers: 5.0% 0.0%
Cultivators: 4.0% 0.0%
Manufacturers: 2.0% 0.0%
Distributors: 1.0% 0.0%
Nurseries: 1.0% 0.0%
Testing: 0.0% 0.0%
Cannabis microbusinesses are taxed at the highest applicable rate for the activities being conducted, unless the business is able to demonstrate how its gross receipts are apportioned among its different operations. Though Measure Z allows the City to tax both adult-use and medicinal cannabis businesses, the City has so far chosen to not apply the tax to medicinal cannabis activities.

The City is now considering revising its cannabis tax rates and structures to ensure that they are competitive with other nearby jurisdictions and with common rates seen across the state. To assist with this, the City has requested that HdL provide this fiscal analysis of the City’s cannabis industry, to include specific recommended rates and projections for how the recommended changes may affect business attraction, retention and success and, ultimately, the City’s revenues. The City is also interested in understanding how retail cannabis sales may be influenced by tourism and visitor traffic, along with the impact of UCSB.

The City has expressed that it is primarily interested in working within the parameters of Measure Z, but could be willing to consider another ballot measure if necessary for making changes that go beyond the allowances of Measure Z, should there be a compelling reason. This is primarily a consideration for cannabis cultivation, which is most commonly taxed on a square footage basis. Section VII of this analysis discusses conversion factors for determining gross receipts rates that are equivalent or comparable to common square footage rates.

35 225

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 7 of 31

III. The Cannabis Industry in the Santa Barbara Region
The amount of revenue that a city or county may be able to generate from a cannabis business tax depends upon the type, number and size of cannabis businesses that may choose to locate within the City. Cannabis retailers, cultivators, manufacturers, distributors and testing facilities are all interdependent upon a network of other cannabis businesses, so understanding the extent of the industry in the region provides a basis for estimating the number of businesses which may seek to locate in Goleta.

Our analysis of potential cannabis business tax revenue is based on data and assumptions about the total size of the local market. The three cannabis licensing agencies for the State of California (the Bureau of Cannabis Control, the CalCannabis Division of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, and the Manufactured Cannabis Safety Branch of the California Department of Public Health) have all been issuing temporary licenses for commercial cannabis businesses since late December of 2017. In addition, HdL has worked with a number of nearby cities and counties that are developing or implementing their own cannabis regulatory and taxation programs. This data provides a wealth of previously unavailable information about the cannabis industry around the State.

For our analyses, we typically assume that wholesale cannabis businesses such as cultivators, manufacturers and distributors would primarily interact or do business with other cannabis businesses within a one-hour radius. This would extend roughly from Santa Maria and Lompoc in the north and to Oxnard and Port Hueneme in the south. State licensing data as of March 11 th, 2021 shows that there are
31 distributors, 18 manufacturers, 1 testing laboratory and 56 retailers within this immediate area, along with 75 cultivators and 4 microbusinesses. These numbers are shown below in Figure 4.

Figure 4:

The 75 cultivation businesses hold a combined total of 1,382 separate licenses. We note that all of the cannabis business permits in the City of Oxnard are still in process. In addition, both the City of Ventura and the County of Ventura are in the process of permitting cannabis businesses, and the cities of Solvang and Guadalupe have been considering the development and implementation of cannabis regulatory programs. Lastly, we note that agency data sometimes shows licenses as being located in cities when they are actually in the surrounding unincorporated area. We have attempted to correct the data here.

City/County Cultivation*
/Nursery
Distributor Manufacturer Retailer** Microbusiness Testing Laboratory
Total
Lompoc 12 8 6 14 0 1 41
Goleta 231530 1 4
Santa Barbara 032600 1 1
Santa Barbara County 61 13 0 0 0 0 74
Ojai 0113005
Port Hueneme 0 0 0 12 1 0 13
Oxnard*** 0 3 8 16 0 0 27
Total 75 31 18 56 4 1 185
*Number of businesses. Some individual cultivation business hold over 100 separate licenses. **Includes retailing microbusinesses.
***Permits in process.

Active Licenses in Nearby Communities
36 226

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 8 of 31

This data shows that there is a robust cannabis industry in the Santa Barbara/Ventura County region that extends well beyond Santa Barbara’s cultivation sector. With an estimated total population of 1.3 million people, we believe the region could support perhaps 65 to 85 cannabis retailers upon maturity, which suggests there is still room for growth in this regional market.

Statewide, the number of cannabis distributors is typically around one-quarter of the overall number of cannabis businesses. With a total of 183 licensed cannabis businesses in the Santa Barbara/Ventura County region, this would suggest around 46 distributors, which is significantly more than the current 30.

This suggests that there is room for substantially more cannabis distributors than currently exist in the region.

The Santa Barbara/Ventura County region already has one of the most robust cannabis industry clusters in the state, but we anticipate that the number of cannabis businesses in the region will continue to increase. The number of jurisdictions in California that allow for legal cannabis sales continues to grow, which increases the size of the market that is available to licensed cannabis producers. Around 70% of California cities and counties still prohibit legal sales of cannabis, which indicates that there is a lot of room for market expansion in coming years. In addition, we have noted numerous signs that large-scale cannabis operators are positioning themselves for anticipated nationwide legalization.

As more and more cities allow legal cannabis businesses, we would expect the decisions as to where these businesses choose to locate will be increasingly driven by the same market-based factors that influence such decisions for other types of businesses, including access to markets and consumers, available and appropriate industrial or commercial space, competitive lease rates, a ready talent pool, and a network of supporting businesses and industries. Differences in regulations and taxes (within reason) will cease to be the overarching consideration and will be weighed in combination with these other factors.

37 227

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 9 of 31

IV. Common Cannabis Tax Rates

Cannabis tax rates have been settling and stabilizing around the State since the beginning of 2018. Many cities instituted cannabis taxes prior to the implementation of statewide regulations, with a wide range of tax structures and rates as high as $30 per square foot (for cultivation) or 18% of gross receipts. Some of these “early adopter” cities have since reduced their rates to be more competitive with common rates that are now emerging around the State.

The State of California applies two separate taxes to cannabis: a cultivation tax of $9.65 per ounce of dried flower ($2.87 per ounce of dried leaf or trim) and an excise tax of 15% on the purchase of cannabis and cannabis products. These two separate State taxes can add up to 26% to consumer cannabis prices, even before any local taxes are contemplated. This leaves very little room for local jurisdictions to work within if they wish to remain under the total cumulative tax rate of 30%. This is an important benchmark to allow the local industry to compete against the illicit ma rket and against other regul ated cannabis businesses from around the State (see Attachment C; State Tax Considerations).

The City’s maximum cannabis tax rates were set by Measure Z in 2018, which allows rates of up to 10% of gross receipts. The City Council has set the current rates ranging from a high of 5.0% for retailers, to just

1.0% for nurseries. The City currently does not impose a tax on cannabis testing laboratories.

HdL has worked with numerous local agencies around the State to develop cannabis tax measures for the ballot. The initial range of tax rates we recommend for cannabis businesses other than cultivation commonly runs from 2% of gross receipts for distributors, to 2.5% for manufacturers, and up to 4% for retailers. These rates may be adjusted up to a maximum of 3%, 4% and 6%, respectively. HdL’s commonly recommended rates are shown in Figure 5, below, along with the City’s current rates.

Figure 5
The City’s current rates for manufacturing, distribution and testing are all slightly below the range we commonly recommend. We note this only as a point of information and not as a recommended change.

Our recommended range includes an initial rate but not a minimum rate. Setting rates below the recommended initial rate is merely the City’s prerogative, choosing a lower tax burden for the business over some amount of potential revenue. Exceeding the maximum recommended rate would be a concern, as it impacts the ability of those businesses to compete in both regionally and in the statewide market.

Cannabis Business Type HdL Initial Rate HdL Maximum Rate Current City Rate Cultivation (indoors) $7 per square foot $10 per square foot 4.0% of gross receipts Nurseries $1 per square foot $2 per square foot 1.0% of gross receipts Manufacturing 2.5% of gross receipts 4% of gross receipts 2.0% of gross receipts Distribution 2% of gross receipts 3% of gross receipts 1.0% of gross receipts Retail 4% of gross receipts 6% of gross receipts 5.0% of gross receipts Testing 1% of gross receipts 2.5% of gross receipts 0.0% of gross receipts 38 228

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 10 of 31

The City’s rates for cultivation are defined as a percentage of gross receipts. While this is not at all uncommon, HdL’s recommended rates for cultivation are based on the square footage of canopy area. To compare a tax rate based on gross receipts with one based on square footage requires that we make certain assumptions regarding cultivation methods, yield, price, and the number of harvest cycles per year. Assuming indoor cultivation with 4 cycles per year, yielding 1 pound of flower for every 10 square feet and a wholesale price of $1,000 per pound, the Ci ty’s tax rate of 4.0% of gross receipts would be roughly equivalent to a rate of $16 per square foot, which is substantially higher than the maximum rate of $10 per square foot that we commonly recommended.

However any or all of these assumptions can vary greatly. A lower wholesale price of just $600 per pound would reduce the equivalent tax rate to $9.60 per square foot, and limiting production to just 3 harvest cycles per year would reduce this even further, to just $7.20 per square foot. These conversions are discussed in more detail in Section 6; Cultivation.

Figure 6:

We also compared the City’s rates with those found in other nearby jurisdictions, as shown in Figure 6, above. The City’s 5.0% rate for cannabis retailers is consistent with the average among these jurisdictions, while the rates for other business types are at or below the low end of the range. As discussed above, the

4.0% rate for cultivation is higher than the equivalent square-footage rate seen in Port Hueneme and Oxnard

3. However, it is the same rate as in unincorporated Santa Barbara County, which has the second- highest number of cultivation licenses in California (after only Humboldt County). Clearly, a rate of 4.0% has shown itself to be acceptable to large-scale cultivators in the region.

3 Oxnard also requires an additional 1.0% community benefits fee and a one-time payment of between $25,000 and $75,000.
39 229

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 11 of 31

V. Cannabis Retailers
The Santa Barbara coastal plain is currently served by 11 cannabis retailers, with 5 located in Goleta and 6 located in the City of Santa Barbara as shown in Figure 7. These retailers serve an estimated population of 197,000 people including the communities of Isla Vista, Montecito and
Carpinteria, which works out to one retailer for roughly every 18,000 people.

HdL generally assumes a standard market concentration of one retailer per every 18,000 to 20,000 people.

Data from the Bureau of Cannabis Control shows 1,242 licensed retailers and retailing microbusinesses around the state, which works out to one retailer for roughly every 32,000 people based on the state’s overall population. However, these retailers are not evenly distributed around the state. Some 70% of California cities do not allow legal cannabis sales, so these licensed retailers are concentrated in just 30% of cities.
24 of California’s 58 counties have licensed cannabis retailers. These counties are home to 22.5 million of California’s 39.5 million residents. 141 of California’s 482 cities have licensed retailers, with a combined population of 15.5 million, but many of these cities are in counties with licensed retailers, so we can roughly consider those residents as already being “served”. Those cities that are in otherwise “unserved” counties have a total population of 5.5 million. Combined, we estimate that 28 million of California’s 39.5 million residents live in counties or cities with some access to licensed cannabis, equal to 70% of the state’s population. Assuming these 28 million residents are served by the state’s 1,242 licensed retailers yields an average of roughly 22,500 people per retailer.

However, this population-based model does not account for tourists and visitors. Comparing confidential sales tax information for cannabis retailers in other coastal counties shows a stark difference in the gross receipts being generated at these locations, with coastal retailers averaging $4 million per year while retailers in rural inland areas of the same county were generating less than half that amount. When we adjusted the average gross receipts of those cannabis retailers on a per-capita basis, we found that sales among retailers in these coastal areas were more than eight-times higher per-capita than those in nearby inland communities.

Along with its coastal location, the City of Goleta also benefits from its proximity to the University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB). The University has a total undergraduate enrollment of 26,000 students, of which 39% live in housing owned, operated or affiliated with UCSB, which may be either on or off campus. Of these, some 9,000 students live in on-campus dorms. The remaining 61% of students live off campus
i, with a high concentration of students living in Isla Vista (population 27,690. ii This population of largely college-age persons likely increases the market for cannabis in Goleta.

24.7% of Goleta’s population falls within the ages of 20 and 34 years oldiii, which is just slightly higher than Santa Barbara County as a whole, at 24.3%. Both are higher than California as a whole, for which 22.0% of the population falls into this age rangeiv. By contrast, 57.4% of Isla Vista’s population falls into this age demographic. When we combine the populations of Goleta and Isla Vista, the percentage of the population that falls into the 20 to 34 year-old demographic is 38%; significantly higher than percentage Figure 7:

40 230

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 12 of 31

for either California or Santa Barbara as a whole. This generally tracks with the age demographic most likely to use cannabis (young adults ages 18 through 29v)4.

We note that residents of Isla Vista and students living on-campus at UCSB would have to drive through Goleta to reach the City of Santa Barbara. This greatly increases the likelihood that this population would purchase cannabis from retailers in neighboring Goleta rather than the City of Santa Barbara. In addition, retailers in Goleta would easily reach residents in the unincorporated area between Goleta and Santa Barbara, with an additional population estimated at 25,000. vi
Though the entire Santa Barbara coastal plain has a population of 197,000, we estimate that around 92,000 of these residents would be primarily served by retailers in Goleta. While there is certainly some market overlap with the City of Santa Barbara, we believe that the amount of sales leakage and sales capture between retailers in the two cities is likely to be fairly even, as both cities are well-served.

The age demographics for tourists and visitors also seem to generally align with potential cannabis consumers with the single highest age demographic being adults ages 20 through 34. A study conducted for the Goleta Chamber of Commerce by Destination Analysts found that there are 1.5 million visitors to Goleta annually.
vii Of these, 560,000 stayed overnight with an average (mean) length of stay of 1.9 days, for a total of 2.3 million visitor days. This is equivalent to an additional 6,310 year-round residents.

Visitors to Goleta collectively spent over $200 million,viii with average spending of $346 per day. The two largest visitor spending categories were restaurants and dining, followed by hotels and lodging. Beyond these and other necessities such as transportation, visitors on average spent over $120 per day on non- essentials such as entertainment, sightseeing and activities, gifts and souvenirs, wine tasting and spas.

Cannabis retailers could conceivably capture sales from visitors who may not otherwise be cannabis consumers or who are looking for a similar “lifestyle” ex perience while on vacation. There is still both a novelty to walking into a store to purchase cannabis and a stigma about being seen doing so. The anonymity of purchasing cannabis away from home may make cannabis users more likely to do so.

4 It is important to note here that adult-use cannabis is only available to adults ages 21 years and older. The available demographic/age group information provided for cannabis users (ages 18 through 29) and for the local population (ages 20 through 34) come from different sources that do not cleanly align with each other, nor do they cleanly align with the age prohibition for adult-use cannabis. In addition, the data for cannabis users does not distinguish between cannabis sourced from licensed retailers and cannabis sourced from the black market.

Young adults ages 18 through 20 may legally purchase medicinal cannabis with a doctor’s recommendation, but all medicinal sales combined make up less than 10% of overall cannabis sales statewide, so the portion attributable to the 18-20 age group would presumably be only a small subset of this. It is more likely that the majority of cannabis consumers in this age group are sourcing product either from the black market or are purchasing product through friends, acquaintances or other 3
rd parties who are of legal age. In the latter case, these sales would be subsumed within the data for otherwise legal adult-use sales and would be reflected in the City’s cannabis tax revenues.

For purposes of this analysis, we anticipate that the high number of students in this age range would likely increase the overall licensed cannabis sales beyond what would otherwise be attributable to adults ages 21 years and over.

However, due to the uncertainties above and to the fact that such second-hand sales are illegal, we have made no attempt to specifically quantify the portion of sales that may fall into this age group. 41 231

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 13 of 31

As discussed above, we have assumed that cannabis retailers in Goleta would primarily serve consumers in the City and the immediate surrounding area, including Isla Vista and the unincorporated area between Goleta and Santa Barbara. We have estimated the total population of this service area at 92,000 people.

Retailers in the City of Goleta are only allowed to be open for business until 8:00 p.m., while retailers in the City of Santa Barbara are permitted to stay open until 10:00 p.m., which likely allows them to capture sales during those hours that might otherwise go to retailers in Goleta. An analysis of sales data from retailers in nearby jurisdictions indicates that sales are generally slower after 8:00 pm on weekdays but are significantly higher during these hours on Fridays and Saturdays. This suggests that retailers in Goleta are likely experiencing additional sales leakage to retailers in the City of Santa Barbara during these hours.

Estimates of the percentage of the population that uses cannabis on a regular basis vary from around 10% to 13%
ix, up to as high as 22%x. This percentage is influenced by social acceptance of cannabis within the local community. Applying these estimates to our service area population of 92,000 would yield between roughly 9,200 and 20,240 potential cannabis consumers. However, we anticipate that sales to cannabis consumers in the unincorporated area between Goleta and the City of Santa Barbara would likely be split between retailers in both jurisdictions. For purposes of our projections, we have estimated the overall leakage factor at 20% which brings our consumer base down to between 7,360 and 16,192.

Cannabis retailers typically average around 120 customers per day xi, with an average transaction amount
of $73 and an average frequency of twice a monthxii. This would suggest a range of annual gross receipts generated by cannabis retailers in Goleta of between roughly $13.8 million and $30 million. However, we anticipate that licensed retailers would still experience some leakage to black market sales, especially to consumers in the 18-to-20 year-old age range. Data derived from Weedmaps shows that there are a number of unlicensed cannabis delivery services serving Goleta and Santa Barbara, as shown below in Figure 8 (Licensed cannabis retailers and delivery services are shown in green, and unlicensed delivery services are shown in red)

5. Figure 8:

5 Unlicensed cannabis delivery services appear to be shown based on the areas they deliver to, rather than their ‘home’ location, so a single delivery service may be represented multiple times on this map. 42 232

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 14 of 31

To account for these unlicensed sales we have applied a leakage factor of 30% here, which reduces the anticipated gross receipts range to between roughly $9.5 million and $21 million. Lastly, we have subtracted 10% of licensed cannabis sales to account for non-taxable sales of medicinal cannabis products6. This brings the total range of taxable sales down to between $8.7 million and $19 million.

Applying the City’s current tax rate of 5.0% to this range would generate between $434,000 and $955,000 in annual cannabis tax revenue for the City. HdL commonly recommends a range of 4% to 6% for cannabis retailers. Reducing the current tax rate to 4% would generate between $347,000 and $764,000 for the City, while increasing the rate to 6% would generate between $521,000 and $1,146,000 in annual revenue.

These calculations are shown below in Figure 9.

Figure 9:

6 The State of California exempts cannabis sales to qualified patients who present a valid Medical Marijuana Identification Card (MMIC) from all regular state and local sales taxes. This exemption does not apply to voter- approved cannabis taxes or other local transaction and use taxes. However, the City of Goleta’s cannabis tax exempts all retail sales of medicinal cannabis products to qualified patients, whether the customer presents a valid MMIC at time of purchase or not.
43 233

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 15 of 31

VI. Cannabis Manufacturers
The manufacturing sector is still evolving and expanding, which presents significant opportunities for innovation, business development and job growth. The range of products being produced includes an ever-increasing variety of edibles such as candies, cookies, dressings, and infused (non-alcoholic) drinks.

Manufacturers may produce their own extract on site, or they may buy extract from other Type 6 or Type 7 licensees. Much like any other industry, cannabis manufacturers often depend upon other businesses to supply them with the various materials or components that go into their final product. These suppliers do not have to be located in or even near the same jurisdiction as the final manufacturer, and may be located anywhere throughout the state.

Some manufacturers may handle all steps from extraction to packaging the end product in the form of vape pens or other such devices. Others may handle only discreet steps, such as making the raw cannabis concentrate, which is then sold either directly to retailers or to a Type N manufacturer who will package it into vapor cartridges or other end consumer products. Manufacturers also produce a wide variety of tinctures, as well as topicals such as cannabis infused lotions, salves, sprays, balms, and oils.

As of March 11
th, 2021, the Manufactured Cannabis Safety Branch (MCSB) of the California Department of Public Health shows 911 cannabis manufacturing licenses statewide. Of these, 505 are for non-volatile extraction, 198 are for volatile extraction, 153 are for non-extraction manufacturing, 33 are for packaging and labeling, and 22 are for manufacturers using a shared-use facility. Those 911 licenses are owned by 864 separate businesses.
911 licenses represents a decline of 8% from the 995 active manufacturing licenses in April of 2020. While we do not have clear data to indicate the cause of this downturn, we note that neighboring Oregon showed a nearly 5% year-over-year decline in cannabis sales for May of 2021xiii. The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) has similarly reported a decline in State cannabis tax revenue over the past 2 quarters, though some part of this may be due to a change in reporting and remittance deadlinesxiv. It’s also conceivable that part of this decline may be due to smaller, local businesses being unable to compete for shelf space against larger state-wide brands.

In its regulatory impact analysis, the MCSB estimated that there may ultimately be as many as 1,000 cannabis manufacturing businesses in California, employing around 4,140 people. This would indicate an average of 4 new jobs per manufacturer, though this figure likely varies significantly depending on the size and nature of each business. Despite recent declines, we believe these figures for both the potential number of cannabis manufacturing businesses and for the average number of employees to be on the low side. HdL is aware of individual manufacturers which have over 100 employees. While this may not be the norm, it demonstrates that cannabis manufacturers have the potential to far exceed the MCSB’s early predictions.

In addition, 70% of cities and counties in California continue to ban cannabis businesses outright xv, which
greatly limits the size of the market available to legal businesses. As more jurisdictions allow and permit commercial cannabis retailers, the number of cultivators, manufacturers and distributors should increase to supply this growing market.
44 234

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 16 of 31

HdL has reviewed pro-formas for numerous cannabis manufacturers seeking permits in counties and cities throughout California. From our review we have seen a range of gross receipts from around $1 million to well over $20 million7, with an average generally in the range of $2 million to $3 million.

The City currently has one licensed manufacturer that has been operating for one full year, which also operates as a licensed distributor. The business is licensed for both medicinal and adult-use business activities. We believe that the City of Goleta could reasonably attract additional manufacturers in the future.

We have provided three scenarios to estimate the potential revenue that could be generated from various tax rates on cannabis manufacturers. The scenarios assume 1, 2 or 3 manufacturers that have each been fully operational for more than a year, with average gross receipts of $2.5 million each. We note that these are generic projections that are not based upon the one manufacturer currently operating in the City

8. These projections only consider that portion of gross receipts generated through manufacturing operations and do not consider any portion of profits that may be generated through companion operations such as distribution. Further, these projections assume that both adult-use and medicinal cannabis operations are taxed equally.

HdL commonly recommends a rate of between 2.5% and 4.0% of gross receipts for cannabis manufacturers. The City’s current tax rate for adult-use manufacturers is 2.0%, which is slightly below our recommended initial rate. A single manufacturer with average gross receipts of $2.5 million per year could generate around $50,000 in cannabis tax revenue under the City’s current rate, or between $62,500 and $100,000 at HdL’s recommended rates. 2 manufacturers could generate $100,000 in revenue under the City’s current rate, or be tween $125,000 and $200,000 under HdL’s recommended rates, and 3 manufacturers could generate $150,000 under the City’s current rate or between $187,500 and $300,000 under HdL’s recommended rates. These projections are shown in Figure 10, below.

Figure 10:

7 We are aware of at least one large manufacturer with claimed earnings of over $90 million per year, but this business is also a distributor and it is unclear what portion of their gross receipts comes from each of these different business activities.
8 HdL does not disclose or discuss confidential earnings or tax information for individual cannabis businesses.

Type 6/7/N/P
Manufacturer
# of Licenses Avg Gross
Receipts
Total Gross
Receipts
Revenue @

2.0% Tax Rate
Revenue @

2.5% Tax Rate
Revenue @

4.0% Tax Rate
Scenario 1 1 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $50,000 $62,500 $100,000 Scenario 2 2 $2,500,000 $5,000,000 $100,000 $125,000 $200,000 Scenario 3 3 $2,500,000 $7,500,000 $150,000 $187,500 $300,000 Cannabis Manufacturers; Current and Recommended Rates
45 235

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 17 of 31

VII. Cannabis Distributors
Perhaps more than any other part of the cannabis supply chain, distributors are greatly dependent upon the number and variety of other cannabis business types within their service area. Essentially, distributors need a certain “critical mass” of other cannabis businesses for them to serve. Because of this, distributors tend to be located in cities or regions which have a large base of cultivation or manufacturing, as well as a large surrounding customer base.

As a very general figure, the number of cannabis distributors statewide is roughly 1/4 of the number of all other cannabis licenses, combined, or 1 distributor for every 4 other cannabis businesses. In addition, virtually all (281 out of 287) licensed microbusinesses in California include distribution as one of their licensed activities. We can reasonably extrapolate from this to assume that a similar ratio of distributors to other businesses is necessary within any defined region.

The business model for distributors is based on a percentage markup on the price paid to their suppliers.

This markup commonly averages 20% to 30%, though this depends upon the actual services being provided. However, it is important to note that the distributor category may include a variety of services, not all of which are provided by all licensed distributors. Just 12.5% of distributors hold Type 13 licenses that allow self-distribution or transport only. A distributor which is only buying and reselling cannabis at wholesale may make as little as 10% on a transaction, while a distributor which is purchasing raw flower and packaging it as pre-rolls for retail sale may make 50% or more on such a value-added transaction.

Distributors may have annual revenues ranging from less than $1 million to well over $70 million. The vast majority of distributors are local or regional businesses that fall at the lower end of that range, with those at the high end being statewide operators which qualify as statistical outliers. While there is not yet an abundance of data to determine the average gross receipts for distributors, HdL has reviewed a number of pro-formas for distributors seeking licenses in other jurisdictions. These indicate anticipated gross receipts commonly in the range of $2 million to $3 million per year, with an average of $2.5 million.

Again, though, these are merely statistical averages.

The City currently has 3 cannabis distributors, plus 4 licensed microbusinesses that all conduct distribution as one of their business activities
xvi. Confidential cannabis tax information provided by the City demonstrates a significant range both in the overall gross receipts of these businesses and in the portion of the receipts from microbusinesses that is reported as being derived from their distribution operations9.

Half of the cannabis businesses in Goleta (7 out of 14) conduct distribution as at least a part of their activities. This is far greater than the statewide rat io of one distributor for every four other cannabis businesses. However, when we look at the entire Santa Barbara region as shown in Figure 4 on Page 8, we see that there are 35 distributors out of a total of 185 cannabis businesses in the region, which is in line with this statewide ratio. Given this, we believe that Goleta and the Santa Barbara region are already well-served by cannabis distributors. While it is certainly possible that the regional market can accommodate additional distributors, they would likely have to compete by taking clients and business from established distributors, rather than by filling an existing void.

9 HdL does not disclose or discuss confidential earnings or tax information for individual cannabis businesses. 46 236

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 18 of 31

In Figure 11, below, we have applied both the City’s current rate of 1.0% of gross receipts and HdL’s recommended rates of 2.0% to 3.0% to a scenario that includes 3 cannabis distributors with average receipts of $2.5 million per year. While the City has provided HdL with confidential cannabis tax data for these businesses, we shall use generic projections here to protect that confidentiality. As with our discussion of cannabis manufacturers, our projections assume that both adult-use and medicinal sales are taxed at the same rate. We have not included microbusinesses within these projections as there are too many variables and assumptions necessary to make any projections meaningful.

Applying the City’s current rate of 1.0% to these three generic distributors would generate $75,000 per year in revenue for the City. Applying HdL’s recommended initial rate of 2.0% would generate $150,000, and our maximum recommended rate of 3.0% would generate $225,000 in annual revenue for the City.

These figures are provided here only for comparison purposes when considering the setting or adjusting of cannabis tax rates.

Figure 11:

Distributors # of Licenses Avg Gross
Receipts
Total Gross
Receipts
Revenue @

1.0% Tax Rate
Revenue @

2.0% Tax Rate
Revenue @

3.0% Tax Rate
Scenario 1 3 $2,500,000 $7,500,000 $75,000 $150,000 $225,000 Cannabis Distributors; Current and Recommended Rates
47 237

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 19 of 31

VIII. Cultivation
The City of Goleta currently has 3 businesses that are licensed by the state to conduct cultivation activities.

One of these is licensed as a cannabis nursery, one is a microbusiness that is licensed to cultivate up to 10,000 square feet of canopy, and one is licensed as a processor, which allows it to process harvested cannabis but does not allow it to otherwise grow or cultivate cannabis.

While the state includes processing within the category of cultivation licenses, Measure Z taxes processing as a manufacturing activity. Measure Z also specifies a tax rate of 1.0% for cannabis nurseries. The only one of these businesses that would be subject to Measure Z’s cultivation tax rate of 4.0% would be the one microbusiness.

The CalCannabis Division of the California Department of Food and Agriculture has been issuing temporary cultivation licenses since January 1, 2018. As of May 5 th, CalCannabis shows 6,032 active cultivation licenses statewide, held by 2,669 distinct businesses 10 comprising 1,528 acres of cultivation which are conservatively estimated to be capable of producing over 13 million pounds of cannabis per year. A Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment (SRIA) prepared for the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) in 2017 estimated the amount of cannabis consumed by California residents at just 2.5 million poundsxvii.

These figures suggest that the cannabis cultivation market in California has already far exceeded its saturation point. However, this has been the case since early 2018, and yet new cultivation businesses are entering the market on an almost daily basis. Statewide cannabis sales in 2020 reached $4.4 billion xviii, which suggests that every pound of cannabis cultivated in California contributes to around $340 in end value to the consumer.

Though the cultivation sector continues to grow, entry into this highly competitive marketplace can be filled with risk, and requires ample capitalization and a clear strategy to win shelf space. Given this, we believe any additional cannabis cultivation businesses seeking to locate in Goleta would likely be small indoor facilities, similar to the one existing microbusiness.

The City of Goleta has requested that HdL examine whether it may be advantageous to replace the gross receipts cultivation tax established by Measure Z with either a tax based on square footage or one based on weight. Any of these methods can be accommodated, and each can be adjusted to generate an equivalent amount of revenue. Each method also has its advantages and disadvantages. The reasons for choosing one method over another can best be summarized as a question: What is it, exactly, that the City wishes to tax?
A tax based on square footage can be seen essentially as a tax on area of impact, under the assumption that the greater the size of the operation, the higher the impact on the surrounding neighborhood and City services. A square footage tax has the advantage that the amount of annual tax liability is generally known in advance by both the City and the tax-paying business, as it is keyed to the permitted amount of cultivation area. This allows both parties to budget accordingly. Variances in the actual amount of

10 The actual number of distinct businesses is somewhat lower, as minor typos or inconsistencies in how a name is written appear as separate business names in the CalCannabis database. 48 238

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 20 of 31

cultivation area being planted per cycle can be accommodated through advance notification, monitoring and regular inspections or audits. The amount of tax paid does not automatically increase with inflation, making it necessary to include a mechanism to ad just the tax rate annually in accordance with the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Taxing cannabis cultivation by weight is essentially a tax on production. The tax is on the volume of product, rather than on the size of the operation or the profits generated. This method assumes that the volume of cannabis being produced creates a commensurate impact on the community. The State tax rate for cultivation is set by weight at $9.65 per ounce of dried flower or $2.87 per ounce of dried leaf.

Because these rates are set by weight, rather than as a percentage of price paid, the tax is the same whether the cultivator is producing commercial-grade cannabis at $500 per pound or top-grade cannabis at $2,500 per pound. Reporting and remittance for a weight-based tax can be tied to the figures being reported to the State. As with the square-footage tax, it is necessary to annually adjust the tax rate to reflect changes in the CPI.

A tax on gross receipts taxes the gross income of the business, not the actual profits. As such, a gross receipts tax is effectively a tax on conducting business, regardless of the physical size of the operation, the volume of cannabis being produced, or the profitability of the business. A gross receipts tax has the advantage of increasing or decreasing in accordance with income and automatically adjusting for inflation.

Because the cannabis industry largely operates on a cash basis, annual financial audits are highly recommended to ensure that all receipts have been properly reported and all taxes fairly remitted.

Determining an equivalent rate between a tax on square footage, gross receipts or weight can be accomplished using a few basic assumptions. In Figure 12 (next page) we have projected the amount of cannabis that can be produced from a typical 10,000 square foot indoor cultivation facility. We have assumed that the facility will achieve four harvest cycles per year, which is fairly standard (though many operators are able to achieve more).

Yield is assumed to average one pound of cannabis flower for every 10 square feet of cultivation area.

This metric is drawn from a 2010 study by the Rand Corporation xix. Though the study is fairly old for such
a young industry, its findings are consistent with more recent studies. Some cultivation facilities can yield one pound for every eight square feet, and others cite yields that are much lower (more square feet per pound), but 10 square feet remains a commonly used metric which provides for conservative estimates.

Using this figure, a 10,000 square foot cultivation facility operating 4 cycles would produce around 4,000 pounds of cannabis per year.

The price per pound is conservatively assumed to be $1,000. This figure is somewhat lower than the current average for indoor-grown cannabis, but there is still great variability in the market and, over the long term we anticipate that wholesale prices for raw cannabis will continue to decline. Applying this figure, our 10,000 square foot facility would generate $4 million in gross receipts.

Having developed figures for both yield and gross receipts, we can now easily translate the equivalent tax rates between the different methods. Figure 12 shows that the current 4.0% tax rate under Measure Z is roughly equivalent to $40 per pound, or $16.00 per square foot of canopy. Reducing the gross receipts rate to 2.50% would be roughly equivalent to $25 per pound or $10 per square foot. Reducing the rate even further to 1.75% would be roughly equivalent to $17.50 per pound or $7.00 per square foot. 49 239

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 21 of 31

Figure 12:

HdL commonly recommends that cities set a tax rate for cultivation within the range of $7.00 per square foot to $10.00 per square foot. Should the City wish to reduce its tax rate to fit this range, it could be done without having to fundamentally change the gross receipts structure of Measure Z, which could only be accomplished through another ballot measure. The City could achieve the same effect by reducing the tax rate for cultivation to between $1.75% and $2.50% of gross receipts.

HdL recommends that the City retain the existing gross receipts-based tax on cannabis cultivation and continue to set the rate at 4.0%. Though this rate is higher than the square-footage equivalent rates we commonly recommend, it is consistent with the rate set by Santa Barbara County, which has one of the largest and most established cannabis cultivation sectors in the state. We believe cannabis cultivators in Goleta are likely more influenced by the local industry in the surrounding county than by other cultivators elsewhere in the state.

Cultivation
Type
Harvest
Cycles
/Year
Sample
Area
(sq ft)
Yield @
1 lb/10 sf
/cycle
Price per
pound
Gross Receipts Tax Rate
% Gross
Receipts
Total Annual
Tax Paid
Tax Rate
per Pound
Tax Rate
per SF
Indoor 4 10,000 4,000 $1,000 $4,000,000 4.00% $160,000 $40.00 $16.00 Indoor 4 10,000 4,000 $1,000 $4,000,000 2.50% $100,000 $25.00 $10.00 Indoor 4 10,000 4,000 $1,000 $4,000,000 1.75% $70,000 $17.50 $7.00 Cultivation Tax Rate Convertor; Gross Receipts to Square Feet 50 240

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 22 of 31

IX. Testing Laboratories
California law requires that all dried cannabis flower or leaf must be tested for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) content, contaminants, impurities and other factors before it can be sold to a manufacturer, distributor, dispensary or end user. The cost of this mandated testing and the loss of product for a testing sample can add around 0.7% to the wholesale cost.

The Bureau of Cannabis Control has only issued licenses for 36 testing laboratories in all of California.

While some laboratories are located in areas with a large cannabis industry presence, most tend to be located in areas with a large customer base such as the Los Angeles basin, San Diego, Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area. Perhaps surprisingly, there is only one testing laboratory in all of Santa Barbara County (located in Lompoc), and none in Humboldt County or Mendocino. Essentially, most of these businesses have chosen to locate themselves downstream in the cannabis supply chain.

With one testing laboratory already in Lompoc to the north and most of the product from Santa Barbara County moving south to the Los Angeles area, we do not see a strong argument for why an additional testing laboratory would seek to locate in Goleta. However, this is not entirely unreasonable.

Testing is an independent, semi-regulatory function mandated by the State to protect consumer health and safety, and which amounts to a State-imposed cost on the product. HdL is not aware of any similar testing of agricultural products that is subject to a separate tax on top of the cost of mandated testing.

More commonly, the costs for similar services for other agricultural products may be subsidized by the USDA or other sources that are not available to cannabis farmers.

Many jurisdictions choose to not apply any tax to testing laboratories, in recognition of the semi- regulatory function they serve. For those cities that do wish to impose a tax on cannabis testing facilities, HdL recommends that the rate be limited to between 1% and 2.5%.

51 241

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 23 of 31

X. APPENDIX

a. Legal and Regulatory Background for California Page 23 b. State Tax Considerations Page 26
c. General Economic Impacts Page 28
d. References Page 30

52 242

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 24 of 31

a. Legal and Regulatory Background for California
The legal and regulatory status of cannabis in the State of California has been continually evolving ever since the passage of Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (CUA), which de-criminalized the use, possession and cultivation of cannabis for qualifying patients and their primary caregivers when such use has been recommended by a physician. The CUA did not create any regulatory program to guide implementation, nor did it provide any guidelines for local jurisdictions to establish their own regulations.

The lack of legal and regulatory certainty for medical marijuana (or cannabis) continued for nearly 20 years, until the passage of the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA) in October of 2015.

MCRSA created a State licensing program for commercial medical cannabis activities, while allowing counties and cities to maintain local regulatory authority. MCRSA required that the State would not issue a license without first receiving authorization by the applicable local jurisdiction.

On November 8, 2016, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), which allows adults 21 years of age or older to legally grow, possess, and use marijuana for personal, non-medical “adult use” purposes, with certain restrictions. AUMA requires the State to regulate non-medical marijuana businesses and tax the growing and selling of medical and non- medical marijuana. Cities and counties may also regulate non-medical marijuana businesses by requiring them to obtain local permits or restricting where they may be located. Cities and counties may also completely ban marijuana related businesses if they so choose. However, cities and counties cannot ban transport of cannabis products through their jurisdictions, nor can they ban delivery of cannabis by licensed retailers to addresses within their jurisdiction (added later through regulations).

On June 27, 2017, the Legislature enacted SB 94, which repealed MCRSA and incorporated certain provisions of MCRSA into the licensing provisions of AUMA. These consolidated provisions are now known as the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA). MAUCRSA revised references to “marijuana” or “medical marijuana” in existing law to instead refer to “cannabis” or “medicinal cannabis,” respectively. MAUCRSA generally imposes the same requirements on both commercial medicinal and commercial adult-use cannabis activity, with certain exceptions. MAUCRSA also made a fundamental change to the local control provisions. Under MCRSA, an applicant could not obtain a State license until they had a local permit. Under MAUCRSA, an applicant for a State license does not have to first obtain a local permit, but they cannot be in violation of any local ordinance or regulations.

The State licensing agency shall contact the local jurisdiction to see whether the applicant has a permit or is in violation of local regulations, but if the local jurisdiction does not respond within 60 days, then the applicant will be presumed to be in compliance and the State license will be issued.

MAUCRSA authorizes a person to apply for and be issued more than one license only if the licensed premises are separate and distinct. With the passage of AB 133 in 2017, a person or business may co- locate multiple license types on the same premises, allowing a cultivator to process, manufacture or distribute their own product from a single location. This includes the allowance to cultivate, manufacture, distribute or sell cannabis for both medical and adult use from a single location. Licensees of cannabis testing operations may not hold any other type of license. However, these allowances are still subject to local land use authority, so anyone seeking to operate two or more license types from a single location would be prohibited from doing so unless local regulations allow both within the same zone. 53 243

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 25 of 31

The table below provides a detailed overview of the license types available under MAUCRSA and state cannabis regulations:

Type Activity Description Details Licensing
Agency
Notes
1 Cultivation Outdoor; Specialty, Small Up to 5,000 sf, or 50 plants on non- contiguos plots

CDFA A, B
1A Cultivation Indoor; Specialty, Small 501 sf - 5,000 sf CDFA A, B 1B Cultivation Mixed-Light; Specialty, Small 2,501 sf - 5,000 sf CDFA A, B 1C Cultivation Outdoor/indoor/mixed; Specialty
Cottage, Small
Up to 25 plants outdoor; up to 2,500 sf
mixed light; up to 500 sf indoor

CDFA A, B
2 Cultivation Outdoor; Small 5,001 sf - 10,000 sf CDFA A, B 2A Cultivation Indoor; Small 5,001 sf - 10,000 sf CDFA A, B 2B Cultivation Mixed Light, Small 5,001 sf - 10,000 sf CDFA A, B 3 Cultivation Outdoor; Medium 10,001 sf - one acre CDFA A, B, C 3A Cultivation Indoor; Medium 10,001 sf - 22,000 sf CDFA A, B, C 3B Cultivation Mixed-Light; Medium 10,001 sf - 22,000 sf CDFA A, B, C 4 Cultivation Nursery CDFA A, B
- Cultivation Processor Conducts only trimming, drying, curing, grading and packaging of cannabis

CDFA A, B, E
5 Cultivation Outdoor; Large Greater than 22,000 sf CDFA A, B, D 5A Cultivation Indoor; Large Greater than 22,000 sf CDFA A, B, D 5B Cultivation Mixed-Light; Large Greater than 22,000 sf CDFA A, B, D 6 Manufacturer 1 Extraction; Non-volatile Allows infusion, packaging and labeling OMCS A, B 7 Manufacturer 2 Extraction; Volatile
Allows infusion, packaging and labeling,
plus non-volatile extraction

OMCS A, B
N Manufacturer Infusion for Edibles, Topicals No extraction allowed OMCS A, B, E P Manufacturer Packaging and Labeling No extraction allowed OMCS A, B, E S Manufacturer Shared-use manufacturer Manufacturing in a shared-use facility OMCS A, B, E 8 Testing Shall not hold any other license type BCC A
9 Retailer Non-storefront retail delivery Retail delivery without a storefront BCC A, F 10 Retailer Retail sale and delivery BCC A, B
11 Distributor BCC A, B
12 Microbusiness Cultivation, Manufacturer 1,
Distributor and Retailer
< 10,000 sf of cultivation; must meet
requirements for all license types

BCC A, B
CDFA
OMCS
BCC
A
B
C
D
E
CDFA shall limit the number of licenses allowed of this type No Type 5 licenses shall be issued before January 1, 2023 Established through rulemaking process
Bureau of Cannabis Control
California Department of Food and Agriculture
All license types except Type 8 Testing must be designated "A" (Adult Use), "M" (Medical) or "A/M" (Both) State License Types Under MAUCRSA
Calfornia Department of Public Health, Office of Manufactured Cannabis Safety All license types valid for 12 months and must be renewed annually 54 244

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 26 of 31

AUMA, and its successor MAUCRSA, required three state agencies, the Bureau of Cannabis Control, the California Department of Food and Agriculture, and the California Department of Public Health, to permit commercial cannabis licensees and to adopt regulations for the cannabis industry. On January 16, 2019, all three agencies announced that the state's Office of Administrative Law officially approved state regulations, which took immediate effect and replaced emergency regulations that had been in effect since 2017. The final regulations were largely similar to the emergency regulations, but somewhat controversially, Section 5416(d) of the Bureau of Cannabis Control regulations authorizes deliveries of cannabis products into any city or county in the state, even if a city or county has banned commercial deliveries.

55 245

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 27 of 31

b. State Tax Considerations
To determine what local tax rates might be most appropriate, they must be considered in the context of other taxes imposed by the State. Any local taxes will be in addition to those taxes applied through the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), which imposes both a 15% excise tax on purchases of cannabis or cannabis products and a separate cultivation tax on harvested cannabis that enters the commercial market, as well as sales tax. Taxes are most commonly expressed as a percent of price or value, so some method of conversion is necessary to allow development of an appropriate cultivation tax based on square footage.

The State tax rate for
cultivation is set at $9.65
per ounce of dried flower or
$2.87 per ounce of dried
leaf. Because these rates
are set per ounce, rather
than as a percentage of
price paid, the tax is the
same whether the
cultivator is producing
commercial-grade cannabis
at $500 per pound or top-
grade cannabis at $2,500
per pound. The cultivator is
generally responsible for
payment of the tax, though
that responsibility may be
passed along to either a
manufacturer or distributor
via invoice at the time the
product is first sold or
transferred. The distributor
is responsible for collecting
the tax from the cultivator
upon entry into the
commercial market, and
remitting it to the California
Department of Tax and Fee Administration.

The cultivation tax of $9.65 per ounce of dried flower is equivalent to $154 per pound. Just 2 years ago, HdL would have assumed an average wholesale market price for dried flower of around $1,500 per pound, which would make that $154 equal to roughly 10% of value. Since then, however, prices have declined.

Competitive market forces enabled by legalization have brought the average price for indoor cannabis down to around $1,000 per pound, or even less (cannabis prices vary greatly based on product quality).

Category Amount Increase Cumulative Price
Producer Price $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
State Cultivation Tax $9.65/oz $154 $1,154
Local Tax 3.75% $38 $1,192
Batch Testing $75/lb, + 0.75% $75 $1,267
Wholesale Price w/ Taxes $1,267
Total Tax at Wholesale $267
Tax as % 26.65%
Distributor Markup 20.00% $253 $1,520
Local Tax 10.00% $152 $1,672
Total Distributor Price $1,672
Total Taxes at Distributor $418
Total Tax as % 25.03%
Retailer Markup 100.00% $1,672 $3,344
Local Tax 10.00% $334 $3,678
State Excise Tax 15.00% $502 $4,179
Total Retailer Price $4,179
Total Taxes at Retail $1,254
Total Tax as % 30.01%
CA Sales Tax (non-medical) 6.25% $261 $4,441
Local Sales Tax 2.00% $84 $4,524
Total Taxes at Retail $1,599
Total Tax as % 35.35%
Total Local Tax 13.43% $607.43
Cumulative Cannabis Taxes
56 246

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 28 of 31

Conversations with cannabis industry trade groups suggest that the cumulative tax rate on the end product should remain at or around 30%. Higher rates create too much price disparity between legal and illegal cannabis, making it harder for the regulated industry to compete with the illicit market. Higher local tax rates can also make a county or city less attractive to the industry, especially for manufacturers and distributors, which have greater flexibility in choosing where to locate. We believe that setting rates that adhere to this 30% rule will help keep the local cannabis industry competitive with other cultivators across California, thus encouraging the transition to a legal industry.

The above table shows how the cumulative tax rate on adult-use cannabis builds as the product moves towards market. The value of the product increases as it moves through the supply chain towards market, with manufacturers, distributors and retailers each adding their own markup. Testing laboratories do not add a direct markup to the product, but the cost of testing and the loss of a small test sample can add around $75 per pound. Any or all of these activities may be taxed.

This model assumes a hypothetical case where cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution and retail sale all happen within the same jurisdiction and are thus all subject to that jurisdiction’s tax rates. In actuality, this is unlikely to be the case. Manufacturers may work with product purchased from anywhere in California, and may sell their product to retailers elsewhere, as well. The cumulative tax burden for any product at retail sale will almost always include a variety of tax rates from numerous jurisdictions.

57 247

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 29 of 31

c. General Economic Impacts
Discussion of regulating and taxing the cannabis industry can too often overshadow the larger jobs and economic development issues that typically accompany efforts to attract new industry. Word that a new business or industry is looking to bring hundreds of new jobs to a community is more commonly met with open arms and offers of tax incentives. The cannabis industry is perhaps completely unique in that the inherent jobs and economic development benefits are welcomed more grudgingly and met with the disincentive of special taxes.

As with any other industry, the cannabis industry does not exist in a vacuum. Those businesses that actually grow, process, manufacture, distribute and sell cannabis products support a wide variety of other businesses that may never touch the actual product itself. Cultivators support garden supply stores, green house manufacturers, irrigation suppliers, soil manufacturers, and a wide variety of contractors including building and construction, lighting and electrical, HVAC, permitting, and engineering. Manufacturers support many of these same businesses, plus specialized tooling and equipment manufacturers, and product suppliers for hardware, packaging, and labeling. All of these businesses support, and are supported by, a host of ancillary businesses such as bookkeepers, accountants, tax preparers, parcel services, marketing and advertising agencies, personnel services, attorneys, mechanics, facilities maintenance, security services, and others.

The economic benefits are not limited to those in the cannabis industry, itself. Cultivators bring new money into the community by selling their products into a statewide market. Their profits and the salaries they pay move into the general local economy , supporting stores, restaurants, car dealerships, contractors, home sales and other businesses. In Hu mboldt County, a study done in 2011 found that at least $415 million dollars in personal income was entering the local economy annually from the cannabis industry, roughly equal to one quarter of the county’s entire $1.6 billion economy.

While Humboldt is likely an outlier, research done by HdL for other clients suggests that other counties and cities see similar, if smaller, economic inputs from this industry, with some in the range of $100 million dollars or more annually. As this industry adapts to a legal paradigm, the challenge for some counties will be mitigating and minimizing the economic loss as the black market slowly fades away.

Because of the emerging nature of this industry, it is currently populated primarily (but not solely) by small, independently-owned businesses. Numerous studies have demonstrated that locally-owned, independent businesses recirculate a far higher percentage of every dollar back into the local community than large, corporately-owned businesses do. The same economic development arguments that are used to support other independent, locally-owned businesses apply to this industry, too. Host cities or counties should expect to see typical economic benefits from these new (or newly daylighted) businesses on par with other new businesses, separate from any tax revenue that may be generated.

Industry experts believe that California’s current statewide production is five to eight times higher than the State’s population consumes, a figure derived from the SRIA done for CDFA’s cannabis cultivation program. That assessment found that California’s cannabis industry produces some 13.5 million pounds of cannabis per year, which would be enough to provide over half a pound of cannabis per year for every Californian 21 and over. However, the assessment also found that California’s 4.5 million cannabis users only consume about 2.5 million pounds of cannabis per year. 58 248

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 30 of 31

The Bureau of Cannabis Control projects that more than half of the adult use purchases currently in the illicit market will transition to the legal market to avoid the inconvenience, stigma and risks of buying unknown product through an unlicensed seller. Essentially, the easier, cheaper and more reliable it is for consumers to access quality cannabis legally, the less reason they will have to purchase it through the illicit market. That same study projects that 60% of those currently in the legal, medical cannabis market will shift to the adult use market, for the reasons noted above. The availability of legal adult use cannabis is also anticipated to produce a small 9.4% increase in consumer demand.

Given these figures, cities and counties should expect to see some increase in retail sales as these shifts occur in the market. More significantly, the existence of legally permitted cannabis retailers will allow a far greater portion of existing cannabis sales to be captured by legal (and tax-paying) retailers.

The shift from medical to adult use sales is not expected to change the overall volume of sales, only the category into which they fall. Once the legal, adult use market is properly functioning, it is anticipated to capture about 61.5% of the overall cannabis market in California. The legal medical cannabis market is projected to decline to just 9% of the overall market. The other 29.5% is expected to remain in the illicit market.

These numbers only apply to the 2.5 million pounds of cannabis that is consumed in California, representing the potential size of the legal cannabis market. If 29.5% of the cannabis consumed in California continues to come from the illicit market, then the size of the market for legal cannabis must be adjusted downward accordingly. This would reduce the size of the legal market in California to 1.76 million pounds.

The CalCannabis Division of the California Department of Food and Agriculture has been issuing temporary cultivation licenses since January 1, 2018. As of May 5th, CalCannabis shows 6,032 active cultivation licenses statewide, held by 2,669 distinct businesses comprising 1,528 acres of cultivation which are conservatively estimated to be capable of producing over 13 million pounds of cannabis per year. A Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment (SRIA) prepared for the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) in 2017 estimated the amount of cannabis consumed by California residents at just 2.5 million pounds.

59 249

HdL Companies Fiscal Analysis of the Commercial Cannabis Industry in the City of Goleta Page 31 of 31

d. References

i U.S. News and World Report “Best Colleges Ranking” https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/university-of- california-santa-barbara-1320/student-life

ii Wikipedia “Isla Vista, California” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isla_Vista,_California

iii United States Census Bureau, “Age and Sex Demographics for Goleta, California, 2010 through 2019 ” https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=goleta,%20ca&tid=ACSST5Y2019.S0101&hidePreview=false

iv Statista (January 20, 2021) “Population share of California by age group 2019” https://www.statista.com/statistics/912915/california-population-share-age-group/

v Statista (October 2020) “Share of Consumers in the United States Who Currently Use Marijuana as of July 2019, by Age Group” https://www.statista.com/statistics/737849/share-americans-age-group-smokes-marijuana/

vi Wikipedia “Goleta, California” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goleta,_California

vii Visit Goleta, “Goleta Visitor Profile 2016/2017–(September 2016 –August 2017)”

viii Visit Goleta, “Goleta Visitor Profile 2016/2017–(September 2016 –August 2017)”

ix CBS News (2018) “17 stoner states: Where's marijuana use highest?” https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/17- stoner-states-wheres-marijuana-use-highest/9/

x Christopher Ingraham (April 20, 2017) “How many Americans regularly use pot? The number is, errr, higher than you think” Sacramento Bee http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article145681414.html

xi Eli McVey, et al. (2017) “Marijuana Business Factbook 2017” Marijuana Business Daily

xii Eli McVey, et al. (2017) “Marijuana Business Factbook 2017” Marijuana Business Daily

xiii Cannabis Benchmarks (June 8, 2021) “Oregon Cannabis Retail Sales Decline in May ” www.cannabisbenchmarks.com/oregon-cannabis-retail-sales-decline-in-may/

xiv Seth Kerstein (June 2, 2021) “Cannabis Tax Revenue Update, June 2, 2021”, Tax Notes

xv Eli McVey, et al. (2017) “Marijuana Business Factbook 2017” Marijuana Business Daily

xvi Bureau of Cannabis Control License Search database, https://aca5.accela.com/bcc/customization/bcc/cap/licenseSearch.aspx , accessed October 10, 2019

xvii Duncan McEwan, et al (January 2017) “Economic Impact Analysis of Medical Cannabis Cultivation Program Regulations” California Department of Food and Agriculture xviii Lindsey Barlett (January 2021) “Cannabis Sales In California Reach $4.4 Billion In 2020: ‘Essential’, Edibles, And The Election”, Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/lindseybartlett/2021/01/29/cannabis-sales-in-california- reach-44-billion-in-2020-essential-edibles-and-the-election/?sh=469dc1b1313c

xix John P. Caulkins (2010) “Estimated Cost of Production for Legalized Cannabis”, the Rand Drug Policy Research Center
60 250
ATTACHMENT 3:

Goleta City CouncilApril 2, 2024

Goleta City Council
April 2, 2024