Guadalupe City Council
July 11, 2023

Agenda Item No. 10

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of July 11, 2023

________________________________ __________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Tiffany Gonzales, Todd Bodem, City Administrator
Community Development Director, LADG
SUBJECT: Completion and Close-Out of CDBG FY 2017 Grant Project: Le Roy Park and Community Center and City of Guadalupe Community Resilience Plan.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council hold a public hearing seeking community input on the completion of the city’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) FY 2017 Grant Project: Le Roy Park and Community Center and City of Guadalupe Community Resilience Plan, adopt Resolution No. 2023- 62 for the approval and acceptance of the City of Guadalupe Community Resilience Plan, and adopt Resolution No. 2023-63 for the approval and acceptance of the completion and closeout report of the City of Guadalupe’s CDBG FY 2017 project/contract prior to the close-out of the grant as required by the Community Development Block Grant close-out process.

BACKGROUND:

In October 2017, the City of Guadalupe approved the submission of two grant applications to the State of California Department of Housing and Community Department (HCD) for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, approved a resolution in support of the grant applications, authorized the City Administrator to sign applications and supportive documents on behalf of the city, and hired Los Amigos de Guadalupe (LADG) which at the time was called Rural Community Development Corporation of California (RCDCC) for a fee of $1,000 to complete the grant applications on behalf the city. In November 2017, the city successfully submitted the two grant applications to the State’s CDBG program. In the original grant application, the city requested $4.4M for the rehabilitation of Leroy Park and the community center, and planning and technical assistance to develop a community resilience plan. Both projects were expected to benefit approximately 7,080 people.

LADG (RCDCC at the time) , paid the $5,000 in required matching funds after the City Council approved the submission of the planning grant application with the grant application for the renovation of Le Roy Park. LADG (RCDCC at the time) was awarded a contract with the City on October 9, 2018, to administer this grant which included a requirement for the preparation of the City of Guadalupe Community Resilience Plan.

Tiffany Gonzales

Leroy Park and Community Center:

The design process started in November 2018 with a community-wide meeting to discuss what the community wanted to see at LeRoy Park and was followed by 13 community stakeholders’ meetings (known as Los Amigos del Le Roy Park) where the project design was refined, taking into consideration the suggestions collected throughout the stakeholders’ meetings and the budget of the project. In April 2020, the city received an email stating the Le Roy Park and Community Center project would be eligible for a 20% increase in funds, and in May 2020 the City Council approved Resolution No. 2020-32 to submit to the State of California CDBG program one or more application(s) for the purpose of supplementing the project. Due to time delays and increases in costs, project costs had increased from the original cost estimate that was completed in November 2017. In July 2020 the construction contract was awarded to Quincon, Inc. for a total of $4,095,036 and groundbreaking commenced with a groundbreaking event held on July 24th, 2020. The project was awarded an additional $900,000 in October 2020 bringing the total amount in awarded funds to $5.4M.

Twice the city applied for an extension to the State of California CDBG program to complete the projects.

In September 2021 the current contract was approved for a new deadline of February 28, 2022, and then again in March 2022, with a final deadline of March 31, 2023. Due to several compelling issues, the project was slow to start, and due to significant cost increases since the application was submitted, the city had to phase in the work. During the design process, it should be noted that the project was determined to be significantly underfunded for all the features the community members had asked for in the initial application process. To move the project forward to the “construction phase,” the city and Amigos del Le Roy Park reduced the scope of work, with the understanding that the CDBG program would want at minimum the community center to be completed. Therefore, the city and the Amigos del Le Roy Park moved all park features to the unfunded Phase 2. This allowed the city to keep the project moving forward while adding park features as additional funding became available. The city, with the help of LADG (RCDCC at the time), successfully raised almost 80% of the needed funding to renovate the remaining park features via our Capital Campaign.

City of Guadalupe Community Resilience Plan
The work on Guadalupe’s Resiliency Plan began in early 2019, with an introductory presentation to the City Council on February 26th. Initial progress was strong, with leadership meetings in the spring of 2019 and the first stakeholder meetings in September and November of the same year. With the onset of COVID-19 in March 2020, the formal Resilience-Guadalupe effort was put on hold as the community shifted its energy to an immediate response to the pandemic.

The planning effort restarted with remote meetings via Zoom. Several remaining community groups were held along with 7 focus groups, all completed in 2021, which completed what was an extensive community participation. After the outreach effort was completed, the plan was placed on the back burner for quite some time due to Covid 19 and staffing changes/shortages within LADG. The draft was formalized and released for public comment on February 10, 2023. The draft plan was placed on the LADG webpage, an email was sent out to the LADG email list (400 strong), and a physical copy was placed at City Hall in the Administration Department and at the Guadalupe Library. No comments were received at the close of the comment period on March 10, 2023. The Final Copy and all the materials and data for a future initiative to implement the plan will remain available on the LADG website. A Final Copy of the plan will also remain available at City Hall in the Administration Department.

On April 25, 2023, the City Council approved and adopted the City of Guadalupe Community Resilience Plan by resolution, as required by the State CDBG planning grant requirement, however, it is also required by the State CDBG that public notice be given about the recommendation of the City Council for its final approval and adoption of the plan. This was not done.

DISCUSSION:

The pandemic did slow down the Le Roy Park project and the City of Guadalupe Community Resilience Plan was stalled for nearly a year. As noted earlier in the report, the plan was moved to a remote process, but the pivot from in-person to remote was slow. This was partially due to having to develop a remote process and because the next part of the planning effort was to develop a youth stakeholder meeting.

The teachers and students were at home, sheltering in place, and many students had poor or little internet access.

The sealed bid process for the Le Roy Park project had to be completed twice because, during the first sealed bid process, all bids came in higher than the cost estimates, and beyond the grant funds. The solution to fully fund the community center was found when CDBG offered supplemental funding, but the City needed to re-bid the project. The City was finally able to execute a construction contract in August of 2020.

Resolution No. 2023-30 was passed, approved, and adopted at a regular meeting on April 25th, 2023, unanimously, but because there was not a formal public notice provided to the residents about the recommendation to the City Council to approve and adopt the City of Guadalupe Community Resilience Plan as written, this action did not meet State CDBG process requirements. It is recommended by the city’s State HCD Representative to present before the City Council once more for the approval and adoption of the City of Guadalupe Community Resilience Plan following that the residents were provided with a formal public notice.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

Phase 1 of the Leroy Park and Community Center construction project was completed in May 2022 with a ribbon-cutting ceremony held in June 2022. This was a community event, sponsored in part by Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) and the Knights of Columbus. Live music and a free community BBQ helped residents celebrate the long-awaited milestone of the renovation of the city’s beloved Le Roy Park and Community Center.

In May 2022, the City of Guadalupe was awarded an additional $1.7M from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development (USDA RD) under the Community Facilities program to complete Phase 2 of Le Roy Park and Community Center.

Along with a list of Assets and Impediments and a comprehensive list of community data, the City of Guadalupe Community Resilience Plan has some recommendations directed at the community, not just City staff or the City Council. While some recommendations would require the city to implement, community-based organizations could pick up others.

A total of 7,080 residents are benefiting from the completion of Phase 1 of the Le Roy Park and Community Center and the City of Guadalupe Community Resilience Plan. The Boys & Girls Club: Ron Estabillo Club House and Park are both back, up, and running, and serving the youth of Guadalupe.

The project was funded for a total of $5.4M; $5,037,027 for the renovation of Le Roy Park and Community Center; $87,345 for the City of Guadalupe Community Resilience Plan, and $275,628 for the administration of the grant. 99.7% or $5,386,490 of the grant was expended, with $13,510 (.3%) to be disencumbered.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Usage fees of the Le Roy Park and Community Center are expected to help generate some revenue for the City of Guadalupe.

While this plan has no direct fiscal impact, the plan has the potential to generate funds with the data and findings being a valuable reference document for grant writing for both the City and communitybased organizations.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 2023-62

2. Resolution No. 2023-63

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-62

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE

CITY OF GUADALUPE COMMUNITY RESILIENCE PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the submission of a State Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program application for, among other activities, a Planning Grant on November 14, 2017; and WHEREAS, the City contracted with Los Amigos de Guadalupe (at the time was called Rural Community Development Corporation of California) to complete the Resilience-Guadalupe Plan on October 23, 2018; and
WHEREAS, LADG completed extensive community outreach to ensure that all segments of the community were given the opportunity to participate in this planning effort; and WHEREAS, LADG used multiple methods to glean data/input from creating a Leadership Team, to developing a survey, to creating a Facebook page, to creating Zoom meetings during the Covid epidemic, to going into the Guadalupe Union School District schools to ensure youth involvement, to organizing Spanish only community meetings, to researching all public data showing important demographic data; and
WHEREAS, LADG organized a final Leadership Team meeting, opened a public comment period for the final draft version of the Resilience-Guadalupe Plan, which closed on March 10, 2023, with no comment; and
WHEREAS, as part of the State CDBG planning grant requirement, the program requires that the Resilience-Guadalupe Plan be approved by the City Council via a resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council members received a hard copy of the “Final” Resilience-Guadalupe Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council members passed, approved, and adopted Resolution No. 2023-30 approving the City of Guadalupe Community Resilience Plan as written, and WHEREAS, because the City did not provide a formal public notice to the residents about the recommendation to the City Council to approve and adopt the City of Guadalupe Community Resilience Plan as written, this action did not meet State CDBG process requirements; and WHEREAS, it is recommended by the city’s State HCD Representative to present before the City Council once more for the approval and adoption of the City of Guadalupe Community Resilience Plan following that the residents were provided with a formal public notice; and WHEREAS, notice of the recommendation to the City Council to approve and adopt the City of Guadalupe Community Resilience Plan was given on June 30, 2023, by posting copies of the notice in three public places in the City and on the City’s website.

ATTACHMENT 1

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Guadalupe as follows:

SECTION 1. The City of Guadalupe Resilience Plan as given to as “Final” for the purpose of “closing” the awarded activity from the State CDBG program after public notice has been given is hereby approved and adopted.

SECTION 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the City Clerk shall consult with the City Administrator and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting on the 11th day of July 2023 by the following vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

I, Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 2023-62, has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held July 11, 2023, and that same was approved and adopted.

ATTEST:
______________________________ ____________________________________ Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Philip F. Sinco, City Attorney
City of Guadalupe
Community Resilience Plan
2023
City of Guadalupe
Community Resilience Plan
2023
Completed by: Los Amigos de Guadalupe
Photo Credit: Eric Larson, 2022 Written by: Sonia Rios-Ventura, Eric Larson, Tom Brandeberry Contents
Foreword ................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Acknowledgements & Thanks .............................................................................................................................. 9 About the City of Guadalupe ................................................................................................................................. 15 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 15 Geography and Climate ........................................................................................................................... 16 History ..................................................................................................................................................... 21 Resiliency As Development................................................................................................................................... 25 Resilience Defined.................................................................................................................................... 25 Resiliency is Not Just Disaster Preparedness, nor A Specific Response to Climate Change........................................................................................................................................ 28 Planning for Community Resilience......................................................................................................... 29 A Portrait of Guadalupe -- by the Numbers .......................................................................................................... 33 Holistic Approaches to Vulnerability: Using Indices to Evaluate the Community ............................... 34 Vulnerability as Impediment.................................................................................................................... 45 The Core of Resiliency: Identifying Assets, Addressing Impediments............................................................... 49 Community Assets – A Community is More than Money ..................................................................... 49 LeRoy Park and Community Center: A Case in Point............................................................................. 51 Connecting Assets and Impediments to Resiliency Strategies and Planning...................................... 54 Identifying Impediments.......................................................................................................................... 55 Charting the Course Forward................................................................................................................................ 65 Guadalupe’s Dilemma: Developing Internal Resources to Increase Resilience Requires External Investment.................................................................................................................. 65 One Possible Path Forward: Guadalupe as a Destination ..................................................................... 66 Moving from Plan to Strategy: A Community-Owned Process ............................................................. 69 Final Thoughts ..................................................................................................................................................... 79 End Notes ..................................................................................................................................................... 82 Appendix A – City of Guadalupe Resilience Plan Economic Development Opportunities/Constraints and Recommendations by Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc................................................................................................. 83 Appendix B – US Census Data Summary............................................................................................................. 103

Page | 1
Progress to Date
Since this report is over 4 years in the making, it is important to acknowledge that some of the identified impediments from the early data collecting have begun to be addressed by the City, the School District and community nonprofits, like Los Amigos de Guadalupe. This is not a meant to be exhausted list and it doesn’t mean the work is done, but it’s important to acknowledge progress and the hard work done to date to support a more resilient Guadalupe. This is not a complete list but it is meant to be here to update the community on progress in resilience.

City of Guadalupe
City staff work with developers and property owners to facilitate new business.

Often, there’s more than one way to address an issue. Staff will evaluate multiple options, then provide the developer or property owner with acceptable options so that meeting standards can be met in the most cost-efficient manner. • Guadalupe Business Association. The City, in partnership with Los Amigos de Guadalupe, worked with City staff and the Mayor, and local business leaders had a series of meeting with the goal of creating some sort of business group.

These meetings directly resulting in the incorporation of the Guadalupe Business Association (GBA) as a 501 (C)(6) nonprofit. Additionally, the GBA and the City have worked closely on a number of subjects with the City for example, inviting the GBA to participate in review of proposed new ordinances.
• Food Bank. With the Covid 19 pandemic, community members, led by the mayor and his wife, came together to address the urgent need for food security.

This food bank service continues today and shows the degree of resilience the community already has. Additionally, the City used state funding to ensure those at high risk did not stand in line for food bank supplies but were delivered by Los Amigos de Guadalupe staff.
0 Page | 2
• With support from Los Amigos de Guadalupe, the City determine that some of the City’s social infrastructure (City Facilities) needed to be improved based on early data from this plan. The City approved finding funding for the LeRoy Park (considered the community’s unofficial town square), Central Park (funds in place, plans being developed) and Royal Theatre (funds in place, plans completed, clearing conditions, and developing bid documents).
• City staff have work with developers and property owners to facilitate new business. Often, there’s more than one way to address an issue. Staff have, for example, evaluated multiple options, then provide the developer or property owner with acceptable options so that meeting standards can be met in the most costefficient manner.

Guadalupe Unified School District (GUSD)
At the time this planning effort began, the GUSD had a new Superintendent (Dr. Emilio Handall). While, like the City, work is not finished, but a number of improvements/efforts should be acknowledged.
• The GUSD has expanded its Transitional Kindergarten Program to so that all four-year-old’s can now attend school full-day/expanded day prior to kindergarten at no cost.
• Building of a new Kindergarten wing at Buren Elementary School. Eight brand new classrooms built specifically for our kindergarten students and staff. • Installation of broadband internet to the entire district. Enhancing internet access for all staff and students
• Awarded funding to serve up to 100 three-year-old’s for a full-day throughout the year.
• Funding for a new junior high school (targeted to open in Fall of 2025), which will include a new gymnasium. The project will also include an adjacent new Early Learning Center with eight new classrooms to serve all four-year-old’s and State Preschool students, three-year-olds.

Los Amigos de Guadalupe
When this planning first started, a new statewide nonprofit called Rural Community Development Corporation of California (RCDCC) was hired by the City to support the renovation of LeRoy Park and complete this Resilience-Guadalupe plan. The Board, once the worked started determined that RCDCC would have greatly impact as a local, Guadalupe nonprofit by supporting the City and the Community build resilience and fill the gap in capacity. The statewide RCDCC Board became aa local Page | 3
LADG Board of Directors, and that Board voted on a new name: Los Amigos de Guadalupe. With LADG gathering data for the Plan and working closely with the City, LADG staff began addressing community impediments. The following is a list of actions, started during this planning effort. Much of the above, as it relates to the City was supported, and in some cases, implemented by LADG. The core of this new to Guadalupe nonprofit is to increase social capital for the community and support improving and increase social infrastructure.

Page | 4
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Foreword
Work on the Guadalupe Community-Resilience Plan started in early 2019, with an introductory presentation to the City Council on February 26th. Initial progress was strong, with leadership meetings in spring of 2019 and the first stakeholder meetings in September and November of the same year. It is notable that at least one key impediment – the lack of a business-focused organization in the city – was identified early in that process. An initial meeting of business and community leaders was held in February 2020 and the seeds of the Guadalupe Business Association were planted. With the onset of COVID-19 in March 2020, the formal Resilience-Guadalupe effort was put on hold as the community shifted energy to immediate response to the pandemic.

Far from killing the resilience plan, Guadalupe’s response to COVID-19 only served to demonstrate the community’s ability to act with common purpose and drive. It was a real-world test of Guadalupe’s resiliency and it passed! Business and city leaders continued to meet virtually to discuss how best to leverage government and private funding to maintain the city’s economic base and serve citizens hardest hit by the pandemic. Several different solutions were born from these meetings.

Cemented by the needs discussed in those conversations, the Guadalupe Business Association was formally incorporated on October 1st, 2020. Civic leaders and community groups organized and operated (and continue to operate) food banks to sustain those residents most vulnerable to the virus and its effects. In the midst of the third surge of cases in December 2020, the community came together to find a low-contact, open-air way to caravan Santa Claus, fire trucks, vintage cars, and civic leaders through every neighborhood in town. Whether we call it resiliency or just “community”, Guadalupe has it.

Unfortunately, no community can rest for too long on just one success. Resiliency is an ongoing effort, and our planet and the people who inhabit it will continue to throw challenges toward Guadalupe. While the COVID-19 emergency highlighted 1 Page | 5
Page | 6
many of Guadalupe’s intangible strengths and assets, it also exposed impediments.

The next shock will not be the same as the pandemic, but it will stress many of the same foundations. Too many citizens remain in jobs that keep them too close to the floor of poverty, homelessness, and poor health. The education level and English skills of some residents are still a barrier to moving up the income ladder. While agriculture remains the lifeblood of the Santa Maria Valley and Guadalupe, a year of drought or crop-killing blight keeps the entire region vulnerable to losses in a singular industry. Over a year “on pandemic pause” in the improvement and development of Guadalupe’s historic downtown area has incrementally aged each building, giving risk-taking entrepreneurs yet another factor to consider. The pandemic caused the closure of several once-promising businesses in the diverse cluster that must take root if the historic downtown is to succeed.

Recovering the momentum of those pre-COVID days will be hard work and preparing for the next challenge remains an open and ongoing task. Community forums prior to COVID identified many impediments, but also a great number of assets. Few of those underlying strengths and weaknesses shifted dramatically as the result of the pandemic, and really only magnified or clarified their effects and opportunities. It is the hope of those involved in this revived Guadalupe Community-Resilience Plan effort that our work can now continue, comfortable that the lessons of the past 20-plus months have revealed our path to be true and the community ready and well-tested for the change and challenge of the future. We remain confident in the future of Guadalupe, and that this plan will serve as a reliable guide to a prosperous community.

Note on Data Sources: At the original time of writing, data from the 2020 Decennial Census had not been released. As a result, this report relies most heavily on the 2019 U.S. Census American Community Survey, whose estimates are a combination of past Census data and statistical sampling and provides the best current demographics for most communities, including Guadalupe.

The 2020 Census, conducted during the COVID pandemic, is still being evaluated for accuracy and with greater care to anonymize data in small populations. As the Census Bureau continues to evaluate 2020 data and conducts additional surveys (for example, the American Community Survey), Census data is likely to become more accurate and reliability will increase.

The authors remain confident in the broad trends portrayed in the previous year’s demographic data used to inform this plan, and urge caution using 2020 Census data or assuming that data is more accurate or reliable, especially for smaller communities. Although the Census Bureau has announced that the 2020 data is broadly within predicted parameters at high levels (national, state, Page | 7
and metropolitan areas), its accuracy becomes less reliable as the sample size decreases. For example, the 2020 Census reliable describes the population of Guadalupe as 8,057 people, though it may be 7,999 or 8,115 (a margin of error less than one percent). In broader terms, more appropriate for this plan, Guadalupe’s population has grown significantly from just over 7,000 in 2010.

However, the count of seniors within the population likely contains a greater margin of error; while the 2020 Census states there are 721 people age 65 or older in Guadalupe, that number may be off by 125 people more or less. Again, in terms applicable to this plan, the number of seniors grew from around 580 to around 720 between 2010 and 2020.

In all cases, the writers of this plan have striven to provide the most recent data available, in its most accessible form. Across the complete document, some numbers may conflict slightly when put side-by-side with data from different sources, depending on surveying, analytic, and presentation methods used by that particular agency or source. The reader is advised to check sourcing notes carefully when or if sources differ, and give more weight to broad trends in the data to make judgments or decisions, rather than specific numbers.

Page | 8
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page | 9
Resilience-Guadalupe
Acknowledgements
A lot of active and dedicated people, some who have championed Guadalupe, some who work in Guadalupe, and many who are community members, have contributed to this plan in some way, from completing the surveys, to attending the many meetings, both remote and in-person. They all gave their views of Guadalupe, assets and impediments, strengths of Guadalupe and weaknesses of Guadalupe.

Well over 200 people were a part of this planning effort. In our local schools alone, we had participation from 7th and 8th graders to teachers and even the Superintendent. City staff, Council members, many service organizations, and community members were also involved in the process.

While the coronavirus has drawn out, and even interrupted the process, it never completely stopped its progress, which says a lot about the community and the people who remain invested in its success.

The State of California’s CDBG program has funded this planning grant, with the exception of $5,000, which was funded by Los Amigos de Guadalupe. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is a program under the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that funds many different community and economic development activities. Without the CDBG program, many rural communities, especially disadvantaged ones, throughout the country would be left without a critical source of funding. The City of Guadalupe has been successful in applying for these competitive funds and is grateful for its existence.

From the LeRoy Park and Community Center renovation project to the Microenterprise Assistance program, to the food bank delivery program and the 2 Page | 10
Senior Meals program, CDBG is an important catalyst to support economic growth and helps the City leverage funds for community needs. Within this Plan, there are many initiatives both the City and the community will need to work on to ensure Guadalupe continues improving its community resilience. The CDBG program, while not a funding source for all the community’s needs, will continue to fund community programs both partially and in full.

Los Amigos de Guadalupe (LADG) is the lead organization for the development of this plan. LADG, formally known as RCDCC, and a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, wrote the application on behalf of the city to fund this planning effort. LADG funded the required $5,000 cash match, and led all efforts, events, data collecting, and the actual writing of this plan. LADG would like to acknowledge Sonia Rios-Ventura, who was the Community Development Manager, Eric Larson, who was the Vice President of the LADG Board, and Tom Brandeberry, who has held various roles within LADG, as the principal writers of this plan. LADG would also like to acknowledge Jack Boyce who worked for LADG, when it was RCDCC, as a CivicSpark Fellow. He was actively involved in the beginning of the planning process and instrumental in organizing the initial process.

Resilience Leadership Team
This group was composed of City Staff and key community leaders who helped LADG in the planning and implementation of the stakeholder groups. The Leadership Team was used as a group to test out processes and ideas, prior to going out to the community at large. They made suggestions on outreach, reviewed the community survey, and gave important feedback on what assets and impediments were critical to the future of Guadalupe. This group was the first to review the draft plan, and the final draft that went to council. While much of their work was done at the early stages of the plan process, their work was essential to getting to this final plan. • Ariston Julian, Mayor
• Joan Hartmann, District III County Supervisor
• Alma Hernandez, District III County Supervisor’s Office • Dr. Emilio Handall, Guadalupe Union School District Superintendent • Gina Rubalcaba, prior City Council Member
• Liliana Cardenas, prior City Council Member
• Todd Bodem, City Administrator
• Cruz Ramos, prior City Administrator
• Michael Cash, Chief of Police & Director of Public Safety • Shannon Sweeney, Public Works Director
• Larry Appel, Contract City Planner
• Amy Blanchard, Business Owner
• Mai Betancourt, Business Owner
Page | 11
• Sonia Rios-Ventura, LADG Community Development Manager • Jack Boyce, prior CivicSpark Fellow
• Tom Brandeberry, LADG staff
Garret Matsuura with Arclight Media was hired to manage both the ResilienceGuadalupe web page, and the presentation of this plan. His work has been greatly appreciated.

Other Planning Efforts
We would also like to acknowledge these planning efforts which were also in process alongside our planning efforts, and those doing them helped greatly in informing this plan.
• Rachel Couch, Project Manager, State Coastal Conservancy, Trail to the Ocean • Josh Meyer, LGC - Multimodal Transportation and Revitalization Plan • Eileen Monahan, Early Childhood Education Consultant, Preschool Child Care Stakeholders Meetings
The following stakeholder meetings were held to gain general input into the plan, with a focus on community assets and impediments. We wish to thank everyone that participated in the events and hope we have not missed anyone who was in attendance. For the youth classroom presentations, names of the youth have been excluded due to their age and school confidentiality concerns. 09/29/2019: Stakeholders (open to all):

This group was advertised to the community as a whole. Everyone was encouraged to participate and give their input on what they saw as Guadalupe’s assets and impediments.
• Alma Hernandez, Ariston Julian, Bob Havlicek, Charlie Guzman, Eileen Monahan, Enrique Ortiz, Gina Rubalcava, Grace Ortiz, Joan Hartmann, Joanne Britton, Joe Talaugon, Joice Earleen Raguz, Joyce Ellen-Lippman, Kivin Sweeney, Larry Deese, Laurie Brummett, Penny Chamousis, Richard Segovia, Shannon Sweeney, Shirley Boydstun, Sonia Rios-Ventura, Suzanne Singh, Thomas Brandeberry, Victor Cobatuan
11/14/2019 - 11/15/2019: Youth Stakeholders (7 & 8th graders):

Sonia Rios-Ventura did a presentation to the students on what Resilience is and engaged the youth to get their input on what they saw as Guadalupe’s assets and Page | 12
impediments. The Guadalupe Unified School District, its schools’ principals and the teachers of these 7th and 8th grade students were very open to the idea of involving the youth in the planning effort.
• Maria J., Adan G., Nataly C., Natanael R., Paola D., Hector L., Henny B., Emily P., Sugey R., Crystal V., Joe O., Dulce M., Luis P., Velen V., Noah T., Jaylen M., Camila M., Natalie C., Daniela E., Zulema M., Bryan H., Guadalupe R., Sergio S. Ismael C., Jheovanny O., Bryanna B., Margarita B., Reylina M., Nevqeh R.,Lexie G., Daniel A., Shania G., Gabriel M., Marlen D., Diego D., Guadalupe T., Cerina M., Kevin R., Joaquin R., Priscilda M., Tatiana C., Alfonso C., Mateo P., Carolina G., George Z., Adilene P., Kaley C., Adrian S., Azariah Y., Olga R., Alberto D., Hector R., Lauren C., Malina S., Naomi M., Jonathan P., Sophia R., Polo C., Stephanie O., Xavier G., Alexis A., James D., Frankie S., Eva A., Isaiah H., Elizabeth M., Elahny G., Jacob M., Dylan C., Emily G., Lesly C., Juan L., Gazelle M., Dulce S., Samuel C., Vicente R., Patricia R., Berenice P., Quetzalli A., Dayra A., Akari D., Yesenia G., Douglas M., Carlos T., Benny M., Daniel R., Giselle H., Joe., Carmin., Alejandro E., William N., Jim S., Alessandro G., Anthony C., Daniel M., Na’shay S., Karen G., Junali C., Angelina S., Emily M., Shanreign F., Mario F., Linda Z., Gianna E., Pablo T., Ana C., Vanessa L., Joe L., Joseph N., Julieta A., Aaliyan R., Abraham L., Joselyn B., Lesie L., Alondra G., Victoria C., Esmeralda R., Jessica R., Jennifer H., Maddison M., Alberto P., Leonardo F., Bryan E., Briana D., Mia O., Bryhanna A., Nahomi Cr., Abigail R., Edgar V., Rolando G., Elias I., Robert G., Maria N., Melina A., Yareli A., Alexis M., Natalie B., Jonathan T., Beatriz S., Omar Q., Roland R., Jennifer J., Ivan P., Dulce M., Anthony B., Noah V., Leandro H., Jorge B., Maria D., Veronica C.,Nathan T., Brando C., Fabio E., Juan Z., Andres C., Noah G., Edgar O., Gladys S., Andrew L., Vanessa A., Yoselin F., Brenda A., Johnny H., Ovidio R., Jose F., Gabriel M., Alberto B., Arreanrah L., Selena O., Kassandra C., Corah T., Yareli P., Kevin M., Araceli G., Bryan B., Yuritzia R., Anabel M., Adam C., Jessica S., Suse C., Bibian P., Yolanda M., Synthia A., Naomi D., Miranda J., Ezekiel R., Jovanni M., Sergio S., Alex U., Fabian S., Joci E., Donns G., Diana L., Emily Q., Yartiza P. 12/09/2019: Spanish-only Stakeholders:

This group was advertised to the Spanish-speaking community and everyone was encouraged to participate and give their input on what they saw as Guadalupe’s assets and impediments. We would especially thank the Little House, and Samuel Duarte for their support of this stakeholder meeting.
• Liliana Cardenas, Samuel Duarte, Mireya Pina, Reina Chavez, Luila Hernandez, Maribel Zamora
Page | 13
02/22/2021: Youth Stakeholder Group (Leos):

The leadership group expressed the need for more youth involvement; therefore we reached out to the local Leos club as they are seen as the leaders of the intermediate school students. Just prior to the Covid 19 pandemic, a group of adults who work with the youth of Guadalupe, were organizing a large meeting. This remote meeting was developed to ensure we had some youth representation. • Lisbeth A., Yesenia G., Xitlali B., Camelia Q., DIana L., Nadya R., Bryanna A., Elizabeth M., Adilene P., Natalia V., Mia M., Margarita B., Jassmine M., Crystal C.

Focus Groups
The focus groups were all completed remotely due to Covid 19. Focus Groups were divided into subject matters.

Each focus group was conducted to breakdown and combine the assets and impediments pertaining to that category. Focus Groups allow the Planning process to look more closely at what data we had up to that point and then priorities what the community should focus on.

Business - 01/26/2021:
• Larry Appel, Bill Bartels, Tom Brandeberry, Sonia Rios-Ventura, Teresa M. Young, Eric Larson, Bob Havlicek
Children, Youth, Seniors, and Health & Wellbeing - 04/29/2021:
• AM: Alhan Diaz-Correa, Aeron Arlin Genet, Christina Hernandez, Emilio Handell, Jesse Ortiz, Garrett Wong, Shannon Sweeney, Eric Larson, Tom Brandeberry • PM: Tom Brandeberry, Sonia Rios-Ventura, Teresa M. Young, Elieen Monoham, Unknown person,
Built Environment, Housing, Transportation - 05/06/2021:
• AM: Gregory Young, Garret Wong, Shannon Sweeney, Tom Brandeberry, Maggie with PSSH, Zoey Carlson, Lisa (Guadalupe Resident), 2 Unknown • PM: Tom Brandeberry, Sonia Rios-Ventura, Bob Havlicek, Christina Hernandez, Liliana Cardenas, 2 Unknown
Page | 14
Safety and Governance 05/13/2021
• AM: Garret Wong, Belinda Popovich, Tom Brandeberry,
• PM: Tom Brandeberry, Sonia Rios-Ventura, Christina Hernandez, Bob Havlicek, Resilience Survey
The Resilience Survey was created in both English & Spanish to collect community input in regards to their thoughts about the community, health, family, and the local economy.

February 6, 2020 - March 31, 2020:
(The email survey was sent the to stakeholder’s list, shared to Facebook pages, and the losamigosdeguadalupe.org website)
It is likely we have forgotten some individuals that contributed to this planning effort.

Please accept our apology for the lapse in memory.

Page | 15
About the City of
Guadalupe
Introduction
Guadalupe is a growing city of
about 8,000 people located in
the northwest corner of Santa
Barbara County. The city straddles
California Highway 1 – the
Pacific Coast Highway – and the
Union Pacific Railroad for northsouth transportation. California Highway 166 leads east and inland
toward Santa Maria. Guadalupe is
physically bounded on the north by
the San Luis Obispo County line and
southern bank of the seasonally dry
river bed of the Santa Maria River;
the remaining borders of the city
are unconstrained by geographic
features, yet undeveloped because
of political protections afforded the
adjacent cultivated croplands.

The Pacific Ocean and a wide,
sandy, and wild beach are three-anda-half miles to the west of the city, separated by just over two miles of those virtually Figure 1: Guadalupe’s Location in California
3 Page | 16
untouchable, cultivated croplands and a mile and a quarter of protected sand dunes. Eight miles to Guadalupe’s east lies the commercial and population center of the Santa Maria Valley, the city of Santa Maria and its suburb of Orcutt. They are bordered by Highway 101 and provide big box stores, distractions, attractions, and services for almost 165,000 residents of northern Santa Barbara County and southern San Luis Obispo County.

Geography and Climate
The city of Guadalupe lies just over three miles inland from the beaches of California’s Central Coast, in the lowest part of the Santa Maria River Valley where that river flows into the Pacific Ocean via a dune-lined estuary-lagoon (see Figures 2 through 10 for a full depiction of Guadalupe’s location, immediate environs, and city overview, including historical growth of built-up areas).

The Central Coast has a Mediterranean-type climate, with hot, dry summers and a monsoon-like pattern that typically brings Pacific Ocean moisture onto land during cooler -- but not cold -- November to March. Owing both to year-round growing conditions and its position at the bottom (delta lands) of the Santa Maria River Valley, the farmland surrounding Guadalupe is some of the most valuable and productive cropland in the nation. The Santa Maria Valley is protected in almost all directions by coastal and inland mountain ranges, which blunt daily and some seasonal coastal wind in- and out-flows. This has a temperature-regulating effect within the valley which adds to the Valley’s agricultural productivity.

Page | 17
Page | 18
Maps of Guadalupe and Surroundings
Figure 3: Guadalupe’s Location in Northern Santa Barbara County and the Santa Maria Valley Figure 2: Guadalupe’s Location in Santa Barbara County
Page | 19
Figure 5: Guadalupe and Environs - Satellite Imagery
Figure 4: Guadalupe and Environs – Conventional Map
Page | 20
Figure 7: Guadalupe and Environs - City to Dunes, Beach and Ocean Figure 6: Guadalupe and Environs - Satellite Imagery and Terrain Profile Page | 21
Figure 9: Guadalupe Overview - Satellite Imagery Dated September 1994 Depicting Built-up Areas Figure 8: Guadalupe Overview - Conventional Road and Street Map Page | 22
History
Prior to the era of European expansion into North America, the Santa Maria River Valley was known to various Native American tribes, but it was the Chumash tribe that had settled in the area from San Luis Obispo to Malibu. They were the first to meet Spanish expeditions traveling up
the Pacific Coast beginning in the 16th
century. Later, Spanish missionaries
spread north from Mexico into
California, and in 1878, the newly
founded La Purisima Mission’s land
holdings included the Santa Maria
Valley and land south to the Gaviota
Pass on the coast.

When Mexico gained independence
from Spain in 1820, land in the now
Mexican-governed California became
available for additional settlers. Other Europeans bought or were granted land in the valley and became the second round of permanent immigrant settlers. A Mexican land grant in the area known as Rancho Guadalupe was recorded in 1840 and gives Figure 11: The Palace Hotel, later home to the Far
Western Tavern (Photo Courtesy Doug Jenzen)
Figure 10: Guadalupe Overview - Satellite Imagery Dated February 2021 Depicting Comparative Builtup Area growth after 25 years; most notably to the west and south.

Page | 23
the present city its name.

In addition to Mexican
vaqueros (ranch hands)
who remained after the
Mexican-American War in
1846, additional European
settlers began to arrive in
the newly created state of
California (1860) and started
farms and ranches in the
fertile soil and year-round
mild climate of the Santa
Maria Valley in the 1870s. A
more organized settlement
in the present location of
Guadalupe began to take
shape when the railroad link from San Francisco to Los Angeles was completed in 1901 and was further defined where a spur line of the Southern Pacific Railroad into the Santa Maria Valley was completed in 1912. That line connected the valley’s crude oil and agricultural products to larger California ports and markets (Contreras, 2018). By the time of official cityhood in 1946, the town at the junction of the railroad connection into the valley had become home to a multi-cultural mix of European, African-American, Jewish, Scottish, Irish, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Mexican, and other immigrants. The names of these founding community members still adorn businesses, buildings and streets in the town. Although it was primarily the European-origin settlers who built up the economic foundations of the settlement, Japanese residents notably raised the $2,800 needed to complete the school building in 1930 (Boydstun, 2021). The close-knit community bonds of that era remain to this day.

Guadalupe’s early and continuing
fortunes remain tied to agriculture
and its location on road and rail
networks. The arrival of U.S.

Highway 101 through Santa Maria
in the late 1920s as a trucking
route (versus a rail route) signaled
the shift of the agriculture industry
toward the growing city of Santa
Maria (Cal Poly Graduate Planning
Studio, 2009). The short line Santa Maria Valley Railroad runs from Guadalupe to Santa Maria and still carries diverse cargo loads. The railyard at Guadalupe remains vital for the onward movement of select heavy and bulk materials still produced in Figure 12: Looking north into Guadalupe, CA-1 and Union Pacific Rail lines run through the city (Photo Credit: Eric Larson) Page | 24
the valley. Guadalupe also remains a stop for the Amtrak passenger trains that run between Northern and Southern California. The scenic and historic Pacific Coast Highway (California Highway 1) carries international tourists and local commerce alike through town. For most of its history, Guadalupe has been an agricultural outpost and transportation hub at the entrance of the Santa Maria River Valley; a mixing pot community where descriptions like “multi-ethnic”, “immigrant”, and “working-class” have been badges of honor.

Page | 25
Resiliency As
Development
The direct consequences of natural disasters are easy to understand. Earthquakes, fires, floods, and drought produce physical forces that rip pipes from the ground, reduce buildings to ash, wash away bridges, and turn plants to dust. Less certain and less tangible are the long-term economic and social impacts of recovery on a community. Recovery from any shock generally requires applying massive resources – personal savings, private insurance, and government relief – to compensate for losses and then apply those resources to rebuilding. In addition to the loss of business during a crisis, the resources committed to rebuilding become unavailable for future investments and uses. In some cases, individuals, companies, or organizations may simply choose to reduce vulnerability by moving to other locations, taking critical services or assets out of the community.

This reallocation and loss of resources is particularly hard on communities that had limited resources prior to a disaster event. In this case, resiliency efforts must be full-spectrum: increasing the assets available to the community through economic and community development, investing resources in mitigation efforts that reduce individual and community vulnerability to shocks, and organizing local government, business, and not-for-profit service providers to quickly restore critical community services. Ultimately, the purpose of this Community-Resilience Plan is to increase community cohesion, prosperity and well-being long before a disaster strikes.

Resilience Defined
Resilience, applied to the community, is the capacity to recover from events or conditions that affect the community. Resiliency can be considered the “toughness” of the community to absorb change, both gradual and sudden, as well as the 4 Page | 26
elasticity or flexibility of the community to return to its previous state. Resilience is not simply the ability to resist a specific type of event -- for example, it is not only building a wall around the community to resist floods. Rather, resilience builds across multiple fronts: reducing both vulnerability to predictable and unforeseen events of any type, increasing the capacity to reduce the effects of these events, and establishing and emplacing processes to return a community to its version of “normal”. Community-Resilience planning addresses both stresses and shocks, as described below. A resilient community is one in which the people living and working in a community – particularly the poor and vulnerable – survive and thrive no matter what stresses or shocks they encounter.

A word of caution: no community can be made completely invulnerable in the modern world without immense and unbearable cost. Local economies depend on interaction with markets both across the street and around the world. Buildings can be constructed to make them stronger against the harshest earthquakes, but only at great expense. Residents cannot lock themselves inside their houses for days or weeks without contact, and neither can the community isolate itself from business, goods, or visitors for any length of time without significant consequences on economic well-being, as well as physical and mental health. Shocks come from many directions and sources, not all of them predictable. While vulnerabilities can be reduced with physical barriers, communities must also increase resilience – to again be strong, healthy, and successful after something bad happens.

Community Resilience, the ecosystem call a “community,” focuses on two elements needed for a resilience response to sudden disasters (like Guadalupe recent floods) or stresses (the longer term pandemic of Covid 19, or the economic downturn of 2008): Social capital and Social infrastructure. In many ways, addressing, or focusing on these two elements of a community will improve a community’s resilience regardless of the type of disaster or stress.

Social capital refers to the networks of relationships and the resources that are embedded within them. It can refer to the value that is created by the connections between people and groups, and the ability to access these resources through these connections. These resources can be tangible, such as money or information, or intangible, such as trust or reputation. In general terms, social capital can be thought of as the “goodwill” that exists within a community or society, and that can be used to achieve certain goals or to create benefits for individuals or groups.

Social infrastructure refers to the institutions and systems that are in place in a society to support the well-being and quality of life of its members. These can include things like schools, hospitals, parks, public transportation, and community centers. These facilities and services provide the foundation for a healthy and functional society and are intended to meet the basic needs of the population and Page | 27
promote social cohesion. They are often provided and maintained by the government but can also be provided by non-profit organizations or private companies. In general terms, social infrastructure can be thought of as the “building blocks” of a society, which help to support and enhance the lives of the people who live there.

Stresses are underlying or foundational conditions that negatively affect a community – they may be economic, social, or environmental. In some ways, stresses are indirect threats to a community, in that they provide a poor foundation for the community’s response to specific events and long-term sustainability. A financially poor community suffers a particular form of stress, though a rich community with poor social connections may also be stressed – a condition which is only aggravated when disaster strikes. Unlike stresses which are often years in the making, shocks, in contrast, are discrete events that directly threaten a community. Shocks, such as an earthquake or fire, may lead to direct physical damage of infrastructure, property, and people. Other types of shocks, such as the loss of a large employer or industry, may have less physical effect, but still affect the financial prosperity of individuals and the community. Shocks vary in scope and severity, and may arise from both natural or man-made events, including those that start elsewhere on the globe.

Vulnerability is a difficult concept to describe because it has different meanings depending on the audience; it is often synonymous with “weakness”, “fragility”, “deficiency”, or “exposure”. It is better to think of vulnerability as susceptibility to harm, as well as the combination of wide environmental and social conditions that limit community response to the impacts of a hazard. “Vulnerability is not simply about poverty, but extensive research over the past 30 years has revealed that it is generally the poor who tend to suffer worst from disasters” (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2017). Those that take steps to avoid driving a car are reducing their personal vulnerability by reducing their exposure to car accidents; drivers that can afford the latest safety improvements in automobiles are also reducing their vulnerability, but not their exposure to auto accidents.

Mitigation, or preemptive risk reduction, refers to actions which increase warning and/or lessen the consequences of an event on people and the built environment.

Mitigation is a key contributor to a community’s overall resiliency, and can reduce recovery time by lessening physical and economic damage. While Guadalupe’s residents may not be able to control the time and place of a major earthquake, there are some warning systems in place, buildings have been built or improved to be safer shelters, and Guadalupe’s fire department has practiced response to broken gas lines. All of those steps decrease the consequences of predictable and unpredictable disasters – reducing or mitigating the overall risk. Flood levees, redundant wastewater systems, planned emergency or contingency funds, and community shelters are all forms of mitigation. When speaking of secondary effects Page | 28
of a disaster, diversifying the economy of a community is also a form of mitigation.

It reduces the vulnerability of the community to economic and non-economic disruption by having immediately accessible resources within the community, rather than waiting for outside assistance to organize and respond. Simply stated:
mitigation improves resiliency. The recent flood damage and resident displacement show the value of levees.

Mitigation takes place before a disaster strikes and can have massive benefits for a community. In 2020, the Pew Charitable Trusts, using Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) data, estimated every federal dollar spent on natural hazard mitigation saved an average of six dollars in post-disaster recovery costs (Stauffer, 2020). Where hazards are generally well-known and predictable (for example, hurricanes on the Gulf Coast or wildfire in California), mitigation strategies to address those hazards are particularly effective. Riverine and hurricane-driven flood mitigation saves post-disaster spending at a 1:7 investment to savings ratio, while wildfire and earthquake mitigation have a more modest 1:3 savings. The bottom line on mitigation is that spending resources to reduce vulnerability prior to a disaster is a significantly more efficient investment of the community’s resources than money spent on unmitigated disaster recovery. It should be noted here that small communities like Guadalupe are unlikely to receive mitigation investments from the state or the federal government since the cost, for example, of a levee is not economically justifiable for the size of the community.

Unlike some disaster mitigation investments that only show return value after a disaster, diversifying the economy of Guadalupe and investing in improvements to infrastructure now will begin to pay immediate dividends for the community.

For example, the community has both groundwater and water piped in from other locations. Considering the potential loss of water supplies from other locations as both the direct consequence of a natural disaster, or a manmade event such as a budget shortfall, the community may want to plan for ground water being the sole source of the community water supply. Contrarily, a community may decide to spend all of its resources on recovery alone, building a fleet of response vehicles, stockpiling medical supplies, and putting money into what may literally be a “rainy day fund”. While data shows this approach is generally more costly in the long-term, it may be the most politically palatable solution for some communities – it is still better than being completely unprepared for an inevitable disaster.

Resiliency is Not Just Disaster Preparedness, nor A Specific Response to Climate Change
As often as this resiliency plan may reference specific shock events, it is not a direct response to specific disaster scenarios. Many people choose to live in California, Page | 29
where the land is fertile, the sun is plentiful, and the views of the ocean and mountains are amazing, but also where any number of natural disasters can strike at any time. Hazards come in all forms, and all have consequences for the community. Some are instantaneous – such as a fire – while others can be seen coming from miles or years away – such as a drought. Still others are well-known and well-planned for – Guadalupe is just 19 miles from the nuclear power generating station and spent nuclear materials storage at Diablo Canyon and local emergency responders are well-trained to respond to an emergency, thanks in large part to funding by the plant’s owner, Pacific Gas and Electric.

This plan does not directly address the processes of specific disaster preparation or immediate response to the spectrum of natural and human-made hazards which may affect the community. Those steps are covered by the City of Guadalupe Emergency Response Plan (ERP), which outlines the actions the City and its departments would take for protection of people, property, and infrastructure immediately prior (where there is adequate warning), during, and after a crisis event. Rather, this Community-Resilience Plan seeks to work far in advance of any traumatic event, but with community stresses in mind, by building social cohesion and improving the community’s social infrastructures using identified community assets (strengthen) and impediments (improve) as a focal point.

Additionally, climate change has increased the severity of certain types of natural hazards in our lifetimes, specifically those involving weather. High temperatures are higher, seasonal rains have shifted in both location and timing, and predictable snow and rainfall that once sustained California have become very unpredictable.

While this plan does not specifically address climate change as a direct threat to Guadalupe, it acknowledges the severity of weather events – including those far from Guadalupe – does directly increase the impact on people, property, and infrastructure, and makes long-term recovery from all types of disaster more expensive.

Planning for Community Resilience
While recovery cannot begin until after a traumatic event, resilience can be planned and enhanced long before a shock event takes place, and as part of the effort in responding to historic stresses. In fact, a community’s resilience can be improved through the improvement of the social networks and increased social infrastructure development and use. This plan adopts this more holistic view of resilience by recognizing that the ability to recover after a shock is the direct outcome of preparing not just buildings and infrastructure for the most likely shocks, but recognizing the stresses which impede community response to shocks, and Page | 30
improving the capacity of the people within the community to react following an event that threatens it.

A concept fundamental to resiliency is understanding risk and prioritizing resources to the effort based on risk. Addressing and implementing mitigation strategies for every possible shock would be both expensive and foolhardy. However, investing in common tools that address multiple needs across the risk spectrum is both possible and advisable – for example, water infrastructure for a community must be as resilient in a flood as during an earthquake, and a reliable water supply is always good for businesses and residents.

Resiliency planning also addresses the capacity of the community to prepare, respond, and recover from shocks, by building, reinforcing, and channeling common interests – through community development. Complimentary to economic development, which seeks to increase the financial resources available to individuals and the community, community development increases the social cohesion of the community. A cohesive community believes in itself and its future, applies itself Figure 13: Model of Community Resiliency
Page | 31
to common objectives decided by the community, and includes all members of the community in both planning and action. A community must believe it has value recovering after a disaster if it is to successfully survive a shock or to overcome stresses.

This plan recognizes executing a recovery effort after a shock is directly linked to the social and economic well-being of the community. To reiterate a key concept:
an impoverished community with bad relationships within the community is far less likely to recover from a major trauma, while a community with neighbors dedicated to helping other neighbors may be enough to overcome both the shock event and the many obstacles inherent to recovery. Community development is primarily concerned with reducing stresses in the community, where possible, which reduces the obstacles to recovery from a shock. As with mitigation, community development is best practiced prior to the shock and has direct benefits for the community whether the shock happens or not.

Finally, this plan primarily considers resilient actions that affect the whole community, but acknowledges that specific individuals and groups may find themselves at higher risk for the consequences of a specific type of shock or discrete event. For example, COVID-19 has been a shock to the entire community, though individuals with certain health conditions are at higher risk for infection, hospitalization, or even death. Individuals in certain jobs are more susceptible to layoffs and economic shifts. This plan proposes actions for and by the community in order to affect the greatest positive outcome for the greatest number of community members, as well as enabling individuals with tools that contribute directly to their personal success and then indirectly to the community’s well-being.

Page | 32
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page | 33
A Portrait of Guadalupe:
by the Numbers
No single piece of demographic or economic data can adequately describe a community. There is no one variable that illustrates the stresses or strengths, nor a vulnerability to a specific type of shock. However, by drawing on multiple factors and analyzing their interaction, as well as using information from several indices, a community can begin to recognize potential items or patterns that affect resilience.

The community can then identify particular -- and actionable -- stresses that put the population at risk from any disaster, and may hinder recovery from a shock or shocks.

The indices used below are derived from publicly available data collected by the Census Bureau and other state or federal government sources, and the internal workings of each index are well-described in publicly available academic literature.

The data in these indices tends to lag by as much as two to three years, and typically comes from surveys that use statistical sampling to generate estimates, as opposed to going house-to-house like the official 10-year Census. Despite these cautions, when placed in context, they are highly reliable measures.

To that point, the score or scores generated by the indices are not particularly useful in isolation; they tend to reveal more about a community when compared with scores of nearby and/or similar communities, or in the context of regional, state, or national average scores, and may be used to determine progress (or decline) over time for a single location. In practice, this means the data most accurately portrays past trends, not future destiny. It is also stereotypical – meaning it portrays the situation of the average citizen, not any singular individual. This Data is also not useful for day-to-day decision-making in the community. The data does not tell anyone what is happening right now, only what has been happening. 5 Page | 34
Finally, these scores neither show the intangible heart or soul of a community, nor the degree to which the community members identify with or are proud of the community they live in. The perception of those outside a community may be that the numbers show it is an awful place to live, but the reality is quite different for those who experience that community daily. Despite these flaws, the indices below give us a common, evidence-based starting point for discussing Guadalupe’s baseline, and where its vulnerabilities are.

Holistic Approaches to Vulnerability: Using Indices to Evaluate the Community
The indices described here are useful tools that aggregate demographic, geographical, environmental, health, and other data sources to create a single score or combination of scores that describe the stresses within a community -- described in terms of vulnerability, deprivation, or distress. The Center for Disease Control Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) combines 15 indicators, while the Health Resources and Services Administration uses the Area Deprivation Index’s (ADI) 17 indicators to assess conditions at the Census Tract level of detail. Economic Innovation Group’s Distressed Communities Index (DCI) uses just seven indicators, but focuses more on specific indicators of poverty down to the zip code level of analysis (see Figure 14 for a map depicting Guadalupe’s single Census Tract overlaid on Guadalupe’s single zip code—for the purposes of this report, the two geographies produce equivalent results and analysis). A final index to draw from is the California Hard-to-Count (CA-HTC) Index, which is not specifically health or resiliency-focused, but still serves the purpose of aggregating data to portray a community’s vulnerability. In the case of CA-HTC, the vulnerability was undercount on the 2020 U.S. Census, which can affect the community’s ability to access resources from county, state, and federal government programs.

Guadalupe (Santa Barbara County Census Tract 25.02) has an SVI score of .8304 (on a scale from 0 to 1, where 1 is the highest vulnerability), putting it at a “high” vulnerability rating. Within the SVI are four themes with sub-scores:

Socioeconomic Status, Household Composition and Disability, and Housing Type and Transportation. Guadalupe is particularly vulnerable (a score of .9794) in the final theme of “Minority Status and Language”, reflecting the high concentration of minority population and those that speak English “less than well.” For comparison, Santa Barbara County has an overall SVI of .7111, and SVI scores in nearby Santa Maria and Orcutt range from .1697 (Census Tract 20.13, Orcutt west of Orcutt Expressway) to .9869 (Census Tract 22.06, bounded by Main Street, Broadway, Alvin Avenue, and US-101 in Santa Maria).

Page | 35
The Area Deprivation Index (ADI) score for Guadalupe is 127.7 on a 160-point scale, indicating a score higher for deprivation than both the California and national average; it is in the 91st percentile of scores, placing Guadalupe in the top 10% of U.S. communities for deprivation and susceptibility to a number of poverty-linked risks, including preventable diseases and natural disasters. Within the ADI’s 17 indicators, Guadalupe scores lowest in the following categories:
- Under 9 years of education
- High School Graduation
- White collar employment
- Single parents with children
- Homes with crowding
Figure 14: Map Depicting Geographies of Guadalupe’s Zip Code versus U.S. Census Tract Page | 36
Page | 37
3 Original source material available at: https://graphicacy-dci-pdf-images.s3.amazonaws.com/DCI_CA_Zip_ code_93434.pdf or https://eig.org/dci/interactive-map?path=zip/93434 4 Original source material available at: https://census.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2021/05/cahtci_all. pdf (Warning: this document is over 1,000 pages long and over 50MB.) Page | 38
The Distressed Community Index (DCI) for Guadalupe paints a more positive picture of the community, and may be interpreted as a sign of hope and forward progress.

Currently, Guadalupe scores a 46.8 on a 100-point scale, and is firmly in the “midtier” of all California zip codes. States do not receive scores, though California itself fares well in the DCI, with just 8% of the population living in distressed communities; Santa Barbara County scores a 27.3, falling in the “comfortable” category. When compared to its 2000 score of 86.7, Guadalupe has made significant gains in the seven indicators used in the DCI. Lack of high school diploma (42.9% of population) is clearly a major factor that brings down the overall score, and is directly related to lower scores in Median Household Income and Poverty Rate.

Unlike some of the worst-hit communities in Appalachia, the rural Deep South and Midwest, and parts of California with concentrated logging, mining, or agriculture sectors, which lost jobs even during the economic recovery of 2014-2018, Guadalupe has defied those trends by growing out of its 2000 “Distressed” score. According to EIG’s 2020 DCI report, “two-thirds of zip codes that were distressed (in 2000), remained so” (Economic Innovation Group, 2020). It would appear at first glance Area Deprivation Index for the Census Block Groups in our 1-city area (Broadstreet 2021). Made at broadstreet.io
Page | 39
that Guadalupe has risen above the “point of no return” that infects and then dooms many distressed communities – where industries, talent, and wealth have been lost or departed for better opportunities, and communities are “left behind” to wither and die. While much work remains, it should be comforting to know that Guadalupe no longer has to fight only for survival, it can begin to envision a more prosperous future.

Page | 40
A final index comes from the State of California, and was prepared in 2020 (using 2019 American Community Survey data) as the 2020 Census was nearing, the California Hard-to-Count Index (CA-HTC). With billions of dollars each year allocated to state and local jurisdictions based solely on Census data, the state Page | 41
was legitimately concerned
about an accurate count
– and so, identified areas
where an undercount
was most likely, based
on a town or county’s
historical correlations with
low response rates to the
Census. Guadalupe’s rating
was 56 on a scale of 0-134,
above the statewide median.

The lowest score was found
in Imperial County (with a
county-wide score of 73);
Guadalupe was on-par
with nearby Kern County
(at a county-wide score of
55). Across California, those households most likely to be undercounted had the following characteristics:
• Live in large multi-unit housing
• Live in rented housing
• Do not have broadband internet
• Do not have family living with them
• Are foreign-born
• Have income below 150% of poverty level
Guadalupe’s highest-correlation factors were related to education and language and housing.

Page | 42
Page | 43
Page | 44
A summary of all index findings discussed above is presented in Figure 15. These indices are good snapshots of how a community compares to others and over time. With a long time horizon (5-10 years), community and economic development plans can be evaluated using data from the indices. As discussed, Guadalupe made significant progress (whether by design or good luck) since 2000 in the CDI score. When this Resiliency Plan is implemented, a good measure of success will be improvements in scores across these indices over time, as well as in relation to other communities in the area, or with similar demographic profiles.

Figure 15: Index Finding Summary
Page | 45
A complete demographic profile of Guadalupe is also made available as an appendix to this document. Those profiles are pulled directly from U.S. Census Bureau sources, and come primarily from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2019 American Community Survey data. Guadalupe is presented in parallel with Santa Barbara County, California, and United States for easy comparison and to place Guadalupe’s data in a broader context.

Vulnerability as Impediment
In all four aforementioned indices, education is clearly a measurable impediment to Guadalupe’s future growth. Whether described as the predominance of English as a second language, High School Diploma/Graduation, or Years of Education, the story is the same: lower education levels correlate directly to lower earning potential, which correlates directly to lower community wealth, consequently resulting in higher levels of vulnerability for the community. Education is not fixed overnight – it is a generational change that may take a decade or more to overcome. Similarly, community wealth will not dramatically increase in just a year or two. Investment in the human capital – the earning potential – of Guadalupe is a long-term investment.

This is a high-priority investment, but one that is unlikely to bear significant fruit before the next natural or man-made shock strikes.

Simple poverty is also not necessarily an impediment to Guadalupe’s future.

Guadalupe’s poverty rate of 16.6% is only slightly higher than the national average of

13.9% and Santa Barbara County’s at 14.8%. High poverty rates generally have two long-term implications for a community: first, dwindling employment opportunities reduce household resources that contribute to the community’s economy and tax base; second, a diversion of remaining resources from future investments to alleviate current and pressing homelessness, food insecurity, and health issues.

These problems are often exacerbated when a community is isolated geographically and economically, with no neighboring communities (and their diversified resources) to turn to.

That is not the case for Guadalupe. The surrounding counties of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo are relatively wealthy, with an abundance of economic capital available to address short-term poverty. Guadalupe is only eight minutes from Santa Maria, 40 from San Luis Obispo, and 75 from Santa Barbara, so it remains physically accessible and connected to the surrounding region. Guadalupe is a desirable place to live with a housing vacancy rate of just 1.8%, pointing to a combination of affordability and buyer attraction to the opportunities and amenities of Guadalupe, the Santa Maria Valley, and Central Coast.

Page | 46
Jobs are available in the area, and Guadalupe’s residents are actively engaged in them. According to Census and Labor data, many of those jobs are simply in lesserpaying industries such as agriculture and personal/household services. While Guadalupe’s unemployment rate is slightly higher than the national and state rates, rural areas and those with high agricultural employment tend to have wild swings in the employment market, reflecting the seasonal and even intra-seasonal needs for that type of labor. This means Guadalupe is essentially “normal” for a community in an agricultural area, but those seasonal swings in employment -- and household income -- make it difficult to confidently invest in the future. Again, this highlights a dilemma for Guadalupe: residents have jobs, are generally earning enough to make ends meet, and aren’t expending additional resources to simply survive, but there is very little excess wealth available in the community to invest beyond today’s needs.

It is clear, then, that Guadalupe will remain vulnerable to stresses as long as the city and residents are confined to their current earning potential and lack confidence required to invest for the future. This lack of economic capital to further resiliency objectives remains a major impediment for the foreseeable future, complicated by the long lead time to improve human capital through education. If Guadalupe is to grow in the near-term, economic capital will likely have to come from outside the community, and invested in non-economic assets in which Guadalupe is rich.

Analysis and solutions behind the categories “Children” and “Housing” require a more nuanced understanding of relationships between and within these areas. In general, households with children depend on one or more supporting elements: first, two parents are fully employed and expend resources to purchase child care, one parent is not fully employed in order to care for children full time or outside of school hours, or extended family or a community network provides child care while the parents work. In the ADI data, single parents are identified as a variable of concern; a single parent cannot depend on a second income to offset childcare costs but may have an older parent or other family present in the home to provide some child care.

Although single parents are typically more vulnerable to shocks that may come with the loss of or change in employment, any family that must provide childcare faces difficult decisions between full employment and childcare.

Housing also has wide and varying impact on household vulnerability, as housing is amongst the largest expenses for most Americans. Housing affordability in California is broadly recognized as a problem, and while the Central Coast is more affordable than some locations in the state, it remains a major source of stress on poor households especially, who are typically renters and more susceptible to annual and even monthly inflation in housing costs. In markets like Guadalupe, low vacancy rates cause housing prices to go up as renters and buyers alike compete for available openings.

Page | 47
Finally, within the ADI data – which focuses on community health – the combination of single parent families and homes with crowding leads to situations where children may interact with family members across three age groups: children, parents, and grandparents. Children who attend school act as vectors for viruses such as influenza, which can then quickly spread to more vulnerable elderly members of the family. Crowded households are particularly susceptible to airborne diseases because their ability to isolate vulnerable family members from known contagions is limited. From a single-parent perspective, any illness for the primary money-earner could spell disaster for the household. Even a day or two away from a minimumwage job can cost the household enough to lose housing, go hungry, or skip a dose of medicine. Time and time again, it becomes apparent that these single indicators found within a community quickly compound in their effects on individual households, and then into the rest of the community.

Page | 48
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page | 49
The Core of Resiliency:

Identifying Assets,
Addressing Impediments
Community Assets – A Community is More than Money
Communities contain a variety of assets that go well beyond what is in its collective bank account. The Community Capitals Framework, first outlined in 2004 by rural community development researcher-practitioners, catalogs seven types of assets (also referred to as “capitals”) that can be found within a community:
• Natural: the natural environment of a community, and the value derived from it through interaction with the community. The value of cultivated land (active engagement) and the value of protected natural spaces (passive engagement) are equally considered.
• Human: the intellectual talents and physical labor of a community, typically turned into paid work, but may also be dedicated to volunteer and other service activities.
• Cultural: often equated with artistic attractions, cultural capital is also the history and heritage of a community, as well as morals, ethics, and values passed between generations, i.e. a town’s cultural identity.
6 Page | 50
• Social: the organization and cohesion of a community; how a community communicates, coordinates, and cooperates to achieve common purpose. • Political: the organization and operationalization of choices about resources in the community; who controls and how a community collects and distributes resources to address its current needs and future goals. • Built: physical assets within the community; permanent buildings, homes, parks, infrastructure and other items that support the daily productive activities of the community.
• Financial: any resource that can be leveraged to produce additional resources; not restricted to money in the bank, financial capital may also be how other capitals are monetized or produce monetary value.

Figure 16: LeRoy Park under reconstruction in May 2021 (Photo Credit: Eric Larson) Page | 51
LeRoy Park and Community Center: A Case in Point
LeRoy Park, first dedicated to the town in 1871, has long been a central part of the community and its culture. In the shared space of LeRoy Park, community and family BBQs, quinceañeras, and other family-focused events often brought together groups that didn’t normally interact with each other. Wealthy families, looking for space to host an event, used the park alongside poor families normally crammed into small apartments, but seeking a chance to create a special family memory. These small interactions created opportunity for improving social cohesion. With the Boys and Girls Club using the community center, there were additional opportunities for other social groups to build connections and cohesion.

Unfortunately, the 1990s and early 2000s witnessed a slow deterioration of the quality of the park and community center, with the community center officially closed due to mold in August of 2018. Just prior to its closure, the only organization that used the building was the Boys and Girls club from 2-6 PM, Monday through Friday -- simply stated, for most of the past 20 years, the building was seriously underutilized. The Park was also seldom used as facilities fell into disrepair.

In a city often described as close-knit, this major community gathering place (falling into the above categories of social, built, and cultural asset) had been lost. In other words, the deterioration of the park and community center has, over time, eroded community cohesion by eliminating a place where the “common” in community was being reinforced.

Page | 52
Page | 53
Community assets are not exclusive, and a single one – such as a protected beach – may have value as natural, cultural, and financial capital. Birdwatchers may be attracted to a morning surrounded by the natural environment of the beach, then spend lunchtime at a favorite Main Street café catching up with fellow birders. In this example, one asset has become a source for multiple capitals. Similarly, a few talented artists (human capital) in a town may transform into a large, visible, and well-known mural (cultural capital) or an art shop (arguably, both cultural and financial capital). With the exception of financial capital, other capitals are not generally assigned a monetary value; rather, they are the raw materials that combine to create value for the community. A protected beach has natural value – hard to quantify as a dollar amount – but if it gains a reputation for attracting out-of-town tourists who spend money at local restaurants and shops, it creates financial capital out of the human (business owners and employees) and built capital (buildings, clean water, electric lines) of the community.

In the case of Guadalupe, the community is well-endowed with a variety of nonfinancial assets (the full set of which will be discussed with more depth later in this document). The community’s natural capital, set amongst fertile fields and adjacent to the Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes complex, is foremost among a long list of assets that don’t have clear financial value, yet have outsize influence in Guadalupe’s future fortunes. Guadalupe’s social and political capitals are solid; there is little Page | 54
visible confrontation over social and political issues in the city, and the community generally agrees on a common direction for itself. Culturally, Guadalupe’s Hispanic and multicultural identity are well-known and well-respected; the community is proud of its people, history and place in the Santa Maria Valley. The community has a reputation as being hard-working and close-knit. Guadalupe’s list of assets is at least equivalent to its list of impediments, and none of the impediments are fundamentally insurmountable.

Connecting Assets and Impediments to Resiliency Strategies and Planning
Communities are an interactive and interconnected human ecosystem, and can be just as complex as their natural counterparts. In a community, as in nature, a problem at the lowest level can bubble up to cause major issues elsewhere in the system – the loss of a key food source, a severed migration route, or removal of a major rodent predator can all throw off the balance of the natural environment.

This is no less true for the human elements that make up a community. Although communities tend to focus on the scariest shocks at the apex of the community’s ecosystem – the loss of a major employer, a natural disaster, or local political scandal – smaller stressors can still have profound effects because the health of one component within the community affects many others. The complex interaction of residents, government, customers, businesses, and outside forces is difficult to describe and, therefore, hard to consistently achieve positive change with a set formula, because each community is a different combination of the interacting elements.

Enhancing resilience in a community begins with first-hand knowledge of the community and an individual desire to contribute to positive change, usually on an issue or topic about which the individual is passionate. While we look at a community’s resilience as a holistic effort, we must also recognize the role that individuals or groups organized for a single purpose can play within that effort.

Those individuals or groups can pick an impediment and devote significant effort to it -- effort which is truly vital to the community’s success.

When this is done others in the community can then take a broader view as they consider alternative and supporting elements that can be effectively and efficiently addressed without unknowingly or radically changing the most desirable and valuable characteristics of the community. Simply put in the language of resiliency:
addressing an impediment in the community should not come at the price of diminishing the value of a corresponding asset or assets.

This requires understanding how the building blocks and connective mortar within the community will fit around the passions of individuals or groups, to create Page | 55
structures rather than separate piles of raw materials. It may require first addressing smaller issues under or around a single strong concern of residents; or making sure each part of the structure is set before moving on to the next.

Guadalupe clearly has impediments to further development as a resilient community. As described above, it is not simply one or two demographic statistics that place Guadalupe at a disadvantage – it is the combination of several complicating factors that appear to work against the community. Many of these factors are no surprise to residents, and it can be observed in interactions with Guadalupe residents by visitors or new residents that Guadalupe is very self-aware of its limitations. This was further confirmed as Guadalupe’s residents reflected on the assets and impediments in community engagement panel discussions.

While residents identified many specific items that reflect their personal experience and interests, such as not having a community swimming pool, there was also broad recognition that a swimming pool pointed to a larger issue concerning the lack of recreation facilities and opportunities and was – above all – a lack of financial capital within the community. Respondents were also keenly aware that the physical appearance of the community was related to attracting tourists and that tourists could contribute significant amounts of revenue so the city could afford to build new recreation facilities. In other words, Guadalupe’s residents accept the complexity of the ecosystem, and understand there is no single, cheap, or instantaneous action that will make Guadalupe a rich and resilient resort town -- but that with each small action toward a common goal, the community can get there.

Identifying Impediments
Across the series of focus groups, community members identified four major groupings of impediments, and an additional set of three more specific impediments that must be addressed. The four major groups were:

Starting from a position of disadvantage or “it takes money to make money”:

Guadalupe is an economically disadvantaged community, with a low tax base and few additional sources of revenue. In the words of focus group members, there are run-down buildings and vacant storefronts in the downtown that reflect poorly on the community. Without continued investment, visibly run-down buildings are unlikely to attract either new businesses or new customers to the downtown area. Community conversations revolve around this chicken-or-egg problem -- money is needed to improve decaying facades and the appearance of the city, but new businesses won’t move in to generate money until the appearance of the downtown area is improved.

Property owners with undeveloped sites are reluctant to build with little interest from businesses. Landlords also face higher costs to renovate and prepare for new businesses, while new businesses to occupy those storefronts face their own high Page | 56
startup costs and risk. Despite a resurgence in nationwide business starts during the pandemic, many of those were sole proprietorships and online, not the types of businesses that need physical locations.

Education and Language as barriers to advancement: the low average education level and prevalence of non-English speakers limits the job opportunities for local residents and reinforces stagnation in wages and income. Long viewed as a community of low-skill, low-paid workers, Guadalupe tends to attract businesses in search of those workers, and this is a hard stereotype to break. While absolutely vital to the success of the predominantly agricultural economy of the Santa Maria Valley, low-wage workers are unlikely to add significant new resources to the tax base. Limited incomes are spent on necessities like food and housing, not at restaurants and antique stores as disposble income. While the new Pasadera development has provided new housing opportunites and hundreds of new community members over the past five years, it is still a relatively small percentage of the population total and the lack of many new businesses that cater to a retiree or higher disposible income demographic has had a marginal effect on changing the aforementioned stereotype. Change may be happening but it is a slow process.

Transportation and Service Access: it is ironic that in the midst of fields that grow produce for the world, Guadalupe’s residents identify access to food as a major impediment. To reinforce this local view, the U.S. Department of Agriculture identifies Guadalupe as a “low-income, low-access” food desert because of a high number of households that lack transportation to get to a supermarket. Similarly, access to any number of vital services, including healthcare and workforce development programs, as well as routine transport to and from jobs around the Santa Maria Valley is too often restricted to those able to afford a car. Although the city has made important strides to improve bus transportation within Guadalupe and to Santa Maria, the necessity for private cars will continue to be a drain on the limited resources of households in Guadalupe, and draw city resources away from economic development to the more basic requirements of community sustainability.

Current and future relationships between citizens and city: Focus groups noted a lack of recreation facilities and after-school activities for children. Recreation facilities are a unique interaction between the city and citizens – beyond providing a well-maintained, safe open space of a park, specific facilities (like a pool) require a continuing relationship between the city and users. If the pool isn’t used, it won’t be maintained. If it isn’t maintained, it can’t be used. To have these amenities, the community must use them and be willing to calculate convenience and proximity into their price. Recreation facilities and activities are also an analog for both the perception of the community about its appearance and concerns about their children’s future in the city. Nearby Santa Maria has pools and soccer clubs, so why would Guadalupe’s kids remain engaged with their own town? The focus groups Page | 57
also mentioned the lack of diverse service businesses, especially grocery stores and child care, which also reflect citizen doubts about their relationship with the town, and the town’s ability to sustain their loyalty in the long-term.

Linked with the above concern about recreation facilities, and equally concerning as an issue of language and communication, Quality of Community Engagement was also identified as a specific impediment within at least one focus group. One possible interpretation of this impediment is related to the “Bedroom Community Problem,” in which community members who live in Guadalupe, but work elsewhere in the Santa Maria Valley or Central Coast, feel disengaged from the community for a variety of reasons. The lack of a local newspaper dedicated to Guadalupe -- along with Spanish-language news about current events in the city – also presents a challenge to broader community engagement by community leaders in government, development, and other citizen services.

Finally, the focus groups identified two additional specific impediments. The first of these is the so-called “missing middle” for Affordable Housing as a basis for future growth. Affordable housing is a major concern for the city, as it is across the Santa Maria Valley, Central Coast and the rest of California. Guadalupe’s General Plan Housing Element is expected to address that issue and extends beyond the reach of this Resiliency Plan at this time. Housing, of course, has an intricate relationship with economic development, both as a potential burden on households (keeping them from spending on other goods and services), and also as a source of capital for entrepreneurs and investors (against which they borrow to finance new or expanded businesses). The affordable rental units for low-income community members are being addressed by People Self Help Housing (PSHH) and the County’s Housing Authority; entry level for-sale housing (e.g.: manufactured housing, often referred to as mobile home parks, or condominiums) are not available. In the past, PSHH built several self-help houses. These homes, many still owned by the families that built them, have gained value and will allow their children to inherit wealth the previous generation never had. These homes are an example of how today’s lowincome families could also get on the housing ladder. But to do this, there needs to be available and attainable low-cost housing opportunities.

The second was Air Quality, which is a major contributor to health problems in Guadalupe, and represents yet another drain on the resources of individuals and the community, both to address mitigation (sealing windows, purchase of air conditioning and purification systems) and to address the results (healthcare). Air quality in Guadalupe is affected by proximity to agricultural chemicals, as well as airborne particles such as sand and salt blown into the valley by ocean winds, as well as the number of diesel trucks that pass through Guadalupe on an hourly basis.

While the impact of airborne particulates from the Dunes is unavoidable and must be addressed by sealing homes and businesses with improved materials, agricultural Page | 58
chemicals can be controlled and some vehicle-borne and -created pollution can be avoided. Air quality is a known impediment for Guadalupe, but is similarly beyond the scope of this Resiliency Plan -- it requires broader partnerships with the Air Pollution Control District, Coastal Commission, and local agricultural firms.

Addressing Impediments
A community’s impediments are not inherent or immutable. Impediments are identified in the community development process so the community can decide how to prioritize and then devote resources to address and reshape them. Addressing impediments is community development – as a minimum, knowing the impediments and marshaling the resources to fix them is building resilience in the community because it acknowledges real and potential stressors within the community. At best, addressing impediments leads to new or improved assets. The impediments identified above by residents could be addressed directly with a massive infusion of capital - by simply buying solutions - but this approach is both bad practice and wishful thinking.

Instead, this plan recommends an approach that simultaneously strengthens the underlying foundations of the community and begins to chip away at those impediments which are directly within the control of the community and can be tackled with assets already within the community. The recommended approach addresses four community development areas, described in detail below with possible actions for the community, which seek to shore up and build the foundations for the future.

1. Improving Social Capital with Community Engagement
(Non-Physical)
A unified community - one with a common vision, priorities, and perception of itself - embodies resiliency. When residents engage with each other, and have invested relationships with local businesses, the city government, school district, public benefit nonprofits, and other stakeholders in the community, they build social capital which can be harnessed and transformed into other forms of community capital.

Social capital is the inherent value attributed to the interpersonal relationships developed through community communication.

Social capital is built through social, relational and cognitive pathways where civic engagement is paired with social cohesion emphasizing norms and values, ultimately building strong social networks anchored in trust. The goal for Guadalupe is to be a community that is actively and visibly united in purpose because it is far more likely to be awarded resources by external sources or to find solutions formerly Page | 59
hidden within the community itself.

Actions:

Get the Word Out/Correr la Voz: Increase public awareness of events and endeavors in the community through bilingual paper and electronic newsletters with content provided by local civic groups and nonprofits; increased awareness and subscriptions to community-focused social media, and procurement of electronic bulletin boards announcing community news and events at all major city entrances.

Live and portray an active, united, and engaged community to both residents and visitors.

Show Off Progress and Possibilities: Community events hosted by local civic groups at both renovated and older community gathering places (parks, restaurants, museums, other public spaces), highlighting both the progress to make the community more attractive, and the work that is still needed. Generate the maximum exposure of community members to fellow residents with shared interests, the groups already engaged in community-building, and the physical assets of the community.

City Government Outreach: Increase transparency and interest in the activities Page | 60
of Guadalupe city government through bilingual newsletters, increased support, participation and visibility at local events, and increased engagement with civic groups as an additional conduit to the community. Increase engagement with Guadalupe high school students through “Youth City Council” and “Ambassador/ Embajador(a) de Guadalupe” programs, using their networks and language skills to reach non-native English households with city messages.

School District Outreach: The school district should partner with local businesses and civic groups to reach parents regarding issues, programs, and projects within the school system that directly impact the quality of education it is able to deliver to district students. Engage Guadalupe high school students (who attend high school outside of Guadalupe) as “Youth School Board” and ambassadors for the Guadalupe school district (their elementary and middle school) to reach English as Second Language households.

2. Enhancing Social Infrastructure with Community
Development (Physical)
The community needs physical spaces where they can engage with each other, both by design and by coincidence. In Guadalupe, parks, schools, churches, restaurants, and stores are the most important locations where residents interact with each other as equals, as will be future facilities such as the Royal Theater or a newer and larger library. Parks don’t discriminate because of race, riches, or religion – they welcome all families and individuals, where a wealthy family celebrates a quinceañera right next to the poor family playing soccer. Parks are also multi-generational, attracting kids to playgrounds, parents for a walk, and grandparents for a place to enjoy a sunny afternoon with friends. Schools can be a great mixing space for the community, especially when parents and guardians are fully invested in the quality of education their children are receiving. Businesses around town, especially those related to food, also draw in residents of all types. Good food, good service, and good quality draw loyal local customers from broad backgrounds.

Actions:

Parks are Community Centers: Integrate public spaces into all city planning for future development, including any future housing areas and areas where infill is likely. Discourage private parks and open spaces isolated within future housing developments. Continue to improve parks within the city and promote circulation of residents to all parks and neighborhoods by creating and maintaining unique facilities at each park, rather than build all-purpose parks. Ensure parks are connected by walkable or bikeable routes, as well as maintaining accessibility from adjacent neighborhoods.

Page | 61
Schools are Community Centers, Too: The school district should arrange opportunities for the community and parents to see the facilities in which their children are learning, whether by holding some adult education in the elementary and junior high buildings, or regular “Take your Parents to School” events. Local organizations can sponsor and support events outside of normal school hours. The City Council may hold either formal or informal meetings using school facilities, and may also consider holding joint events with the school board.

Downtown Investment / The Center of the Community: Encourage restaurants and entertainment in a concentrated area (i.e., downtown) and improve the attractiveness of that area through creation of a formal Business Improvement District (BID) or a public-private foundation or fund for the same purpose. Since the downtown area is controlled in many ways by CalTrans, the City should work closely with Caltrans on improving the look and feel of the downtown portion of Highway 1.

3. Economic Development and Capital Generation
At some point, Guadalupe must begin to generate economic growth and its own sources of capital if any resilience effort is to be sustainable. The people who live in Guadalupe are the best source of local business intelligence, gained by listening to a few neighbors say “I wish there was a…in Guadalupe” and passing that information to the business association or seeking out advice from the local Small Business Development Center. To be clear, economic development is a long process and the goal is to increase wealth in the community, using local ideas and resources. It is best for the community to grow capital from within, which keeps that wealth in local circulation; however, making the community an attractive and welcoming place for outside investment has its place.

While some companies are purely attracted to the spending power of a community, an increasing number of small businesses are looking for places where employees will find quality-of-life opportunities that supplement and enrich their lives outside of work. Providing necessary services, as well as unique, high-quality, and authentic experiences to local customers, newcomers, and tourists will depend on locals identifying those opportunities, seeking both advice and funding to build successful businesses, and reinvesting in the community.

Actions:

Get to “Yes” for Business: The county and city should continue to examine building and business permitting processes and fees, educating business owners on common pitfalls, and continuing to facilitate the rapid movement of permits and other bureaucratic filings through their respective organizations. While the city Page | 62
has shown its ability to expedite the processing and approval of projects, being able to vocally espouse that “pro-business” approach becomes more important. If businesses are able to launch under conditions where minor deviations in process or code are waived for a specified period of time, allowing the business to begin generating capital to pay for expensive corrections or tap a funding source that doesn’t endanger conventional bank funding, then the cooperative nature of the city becomes part of the draw as a “business-friendly” location. Wherever possible, the city and county should continue to default to “yes” on new businesses or expansion of existing businesses, unless it means a true and expansive threat to the public welfare.

Build Business Infrastructure, Networks and Knowledge: Existing public benefit service providers (community development nonprofits) and mutual benefit organizations (business associations), with support from government entities, must continue to support local entrepreneurs and existing businesses through a variety of small business education and assistance, microenterprise loans and technical assistance, and business outreach programs. A full support network within the community is more likely to produce long-term success for new and expanded businesses, and will tend to produce more complementary than competitive outcomes. It should be noted that the microenterprise program has been incorporated into the final revisions of the recently adopted 2042 General Plan.

Be a Good Place to Do Business: Guadalupe’s businesses and governments must continue to cooperate in advertising the the town’s unique advantages for business, which may include less expensive rent, less regulation, and more loyal customers.

Publicizing Guadalupe as “business friendly”, can be a huge draw, especially to those businesses that may face higher costs or may be unwelcome in other locations.

Of course, this must be done in cooperation with citizens and residents to ensure new businesses remain consistent with the character of the community. The local business community can play an important role in this endeavor through outreach within the community and in marketing Guadalupe, both informally through personal and business contacts and a formal advertising campaign - either through traditional marketing methods or through digital means and social media.

Guadalupe as a Destination: Develop and deploy a strategic tourism marketing campaign (typically called “placemaking”) that highlights Guadalupe’s existing assets (natural environment, museums, restaurants) and begins to rebuild the quality behind Guadalupe’s motto of “Gateway to the Dunes.” As the Royal Theater renovation continues, begin to incorporate and build a reputation behind the theme of a “City of the Arts” with art events, performances, classes, and contests.

Cooperate with the Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce to link Guadalupe more strongly with other attractions in the Valley, and ensure Guadalupe’s truly unique assets are highlighted and promoted.

Page | 63

4. Workforce Development and Employment Diversification Census data from 2019 assesses over 30% of Guadalupe’s working population is employed in the agriculture sector and 33% of residents over the age of 25 have less than a 9th grade education. There is no denying the importance of agriculture to the community and it is impossible to untangle the links between low-skill labor and the American food supply. To be blunt, Guadalupe will need and have significant financial improvement; however, changes to the workforce are painfully slow, and depend on the evolution of both employers and employees in the area.

Despite these daunting realities, Guadalupe has some advantages that should give it hope. Economically, the larger Santa Maria Valley is relatively diverse, with light manufacturing, aerospace, energy, tourism, and healthcare industries augmenting agriculture. In other words, both today’s workers and their children can actually see alternatives to their current employment without leaving the Valley. Even within agriculture, there is growing recognition that English and math skills enhance the productivity of field workers, and that continuing technological evolution within the agriculture industry will require more than just nimble fingers and strong arms.

The scope of workforce development for Guadalupe must be realistically prioritized to raise the skill level of workers within key local industries, with English language training, adult education in math literacy, and technical training in areas identified by local firms. Increased skills translate to increased wages within the same industry, and the possibility of exporting a common skill to a new industry. To be clear, it will not be up to Guadalupe alone to evolve its workforce; partnerships will be the only way to significantly build resiliency through diversification and upskilling within the workforce.

Actions:

Workforce Advocacy and Coordination: Establish a Guadalupe workforce advocacy organization comprising local businesses (large and small) and workforce-focused nonprofits to establish prioritized workforce needs and resources specific to Guadalupe, and advocate in local adult education/workforce development groups for Guadalupe’s interests. Emphasize English literacy and basic math, with follow-on options for more advanced technical, scientific, and managerial skills roughly parallel to those found in high schools, agriculture clubs (4H, Future Farmers of America [FFA]), or industry-specific training. Identify and eliminate redundancies between organizations’ education programs and build a continuum of education that can take place entirely within Guadalupe.

Build Local Workforce Education Infrastructure: Survey local nonprofits and schools to Identify facilities with room capacity for adult education classes, as well as after- Page | 64
hours child care space. Keep classes short (no more than one hour) and offered more often to reduce strain on students, kids, and volunteers. Use distance-learning / remote teaching as necessary to provide students and instructors as many options as possible to attend classes. Partner with churches and civic organizations to staff after-hours child care and train volunteer child care providers.

Children Challenging Parents: Work with both Guadalupe Union and Santa Maria Joint Union School Districts to use Guadalupe’s elementary, junior high, and high school students as vectors for publicizing education and development opportunities for their parents, and ensure all materials are in Spanish. Use messages and programs that challenge parents to learn and develop alongside their children, emphasizing the long-term value of education and continued skills development for household prosperity.

Page | 65
Charting the Course
Forward
Guadalupe’s Dilemma: Developing Internal Resources to
Increase Resilience Requires External Investment
Guadalupe has limited monetary resources to increase community resilience through large, flashy projects. Often, when the stresses on a community turn into cracks, it means a community has fallen below a certain level of vulnerability. This typically happens when and where monetary resources become limited – personal savings and public tax revenue dry up, and investments in future capacity are quickly forgotten in order to meet the urgent needs of the present. The good news is Guadalupe is not yet a city overwhelmed by this scenario. Guadalupe’s attractive assets are many, and capitalizing on them to grow and diversify the community’s economy and well-being is still a choice available to the city. The limited resources within the community will drive future growth toward reliance on investments, grants, and consumer/visitor spending from external sources, while harnessing and focusing the existing non-monetary assets of the community toward a common goal or goals.

In the simplest terms, Guadalupe’s most successful version of the future is one where the city, its assets, attractions, businesses, and residents are initially recognized as a good investment by outsiders. Assets are improved, new assets are created from existing community energy, talent, and ideas, and the community’s 7 Page | 66
reputation grows as a unique and attractive destination for both visitors and capital.

Over time, Guadalupe’s tangible assets grow in value and can be leveraged to drive self-investment from inside the community and reduce reliance on outside money.

To be clear, Guadalupe should remain very interested and welcoming of outside resources to the community – however, a more balanced mix of local and outside investment is better for long-term self-governance and either building or returning some assets that focus on residents rather than visitors.

This is not an easy path. It requires hard decisions to make the community more reliant on outsiders, to take risks on new businesses, to embrace a different type of uncertainty -- people need agriculture because they must eat, but they do not need to be tourists in Guadalupe. It requires hard work and monetary sacrifice to start new businesses, to improve buildings, to organize and put on new community events, to advertise attractions and restaurants, and create an environment and community that is uniquely Guadalupe.

One Possible Path Forward: Guadalupe as a Destination
Grounded in realistic expectations of what it is and what it can be, Guadalupe can begin diversifying and growing the local economy, including eco- and agritourism associated with the natural beauty of the Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes complex and proximity to the freshest ingredients from local fields and farms. In addition, Guadalupe can grow as a community of art and culture, building on “Instagramworthy” murals and renovation of the historic Royal Theatre. The core of those efforts will be a resurgent historic downtown area, once again bustling with restaurants, shops, small offices, a classic small-town theater, and purposeful spaces where “grab your coffee, let’s walk in the park” is the norm. Renovating, rebuilding, and refilling storefronts will be the attractive force drawing additional entrepreneurs and small enterprises from multiple industries and professions, mixing new talent and ideas with old town charm, creating additional reasons for both tourists and locals to stop, stay, and enjoy. Buoyed by new blood, energy, and resources – and given new reasons and confidence that it can do better than just survive events -- Guadalupe will build both community and physical resiliency.

Guadalupe’s proximity to Santa Maria is both curse and blessing. There is a significant outflow of financial capital from Guadalupe to Santa Maria, primarily in the loss of commercial and consumer retail spending to the larger businesses and stores of the larger community. This is a common trend in the relationship between large cities and surrounding towns, and a curse that is unlikely to change significantly in Guadalupe’s favor. In order to recapture the loss of revenue to Santa Maria and other larger cities, Guadalupe must leverage its other capitals to attract visitors seeking unique cultural and natural experiences the cities cannot provide.

It must find and fill gaps in the convenience, quality, and shopping experience for Page | 67
items and services offered elsewhere in the Santa Maria Valley; put in business terms, it must find its comparative advantages in areas outside of pure cost. It must demonstrate that both the built and human resources of Guadalupe are uniquely positioned to provide higher nonmonetary value (for example, a feeling to the experience) that cannot be found in other locations. Guadalupe’s future is not being more like Santa Maria -- it is being less like Santa Maria.

Proximity to Santa Maria also means the unique assets, amenities, and attractions of Guadalupe are just eight miles from a major urban center supporting almost 175,000 people (read: customers from southern San Luis Obispo County and northern Santa Barbara County). Fostering the development of Guadalupe as a destination location is not just a matter of more loudly and insistently shouting the existing “Gateway to the Dunes” marketing slogan. Instead, Guadalupe must truly become the gateway, a mandatory stop for those exploring the Dunes – to grab lunch after a long walk, to relive the memory of the experience with a painting or postcard, and to catch a Saturday evening screening of Ten Commandments.

Four connected lines of effort are necessary to create Guadalupe as a destination for both visitors and resources:

Create and Foster Guadalupe as “A Community of Art”
• Preserve murals and create spaces / opportunities for additional public art • Renovate and revive Royal Theater as the center for art and artists in the community, and position it as a unique destination and talent incubator/host for both upcoming and established artists in the broader Latinx community • Encourage local and visiting artists and creators – especially Guadalupe’s kids – to highlight Guadalupe’s natural environment and cultural heritage as well as the artists’ connections to the city with contests and exhibitions Compliment the “Community of Art” with activities and amenities that extend the “loiter time” (the time visitors spend in Guadalupe) and increase the “revisit rate” (the number of times visitors return to Guadalupe) for visitors • Diversify and expand the restaurant experience in downtown Guadalupe • Improve the appearance of the downtown area by balancing a unified theme for the entire area, while still maintaining the uniqueness of each establishment • Foster the development of overnight accommodation in Guadalupe Page | 68
• Enable additional businesses that cater to visitors (cannabis, antiques & restorations, bike/motorcycle/auto services for CA-1 travelers, additional art and creative businesses)
• Coordinate with Dunes Center, Cultural Arts Center, Historical Society, and other cultural attractions to host and promote Regular, Special, and Rotating Events/ Exhibits by the community and cultural / arts organizations to promote recurring visits (“been there, done that” becomes “excited to visit again”) Harmonize Guadalupe’s internal business and political practices with external marketing messages
• Balance Guadalupe business community’s creation of a destination location while preserving services and quality of life for residents (downtown and “approaches” renovations, business practices and hours to support tourism) • Create and implement a marketing plan to reach near- (San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara) and medium-distance (Ventura/Oxnard, North Los Angeles, Bakersfield, Fresno, San Jose/Southern San Francisco Bay Area) audiences • Ensure City of Guadalupe, County of Santa Barbara, and State policies create conditions for successful destination location build-out Internal Marketing – ensure Guadalupe residents know the attractions/ amenities/ opportunities in their community
• Market local restaurants for locals, especially those community members in new neighborhoods who may have more expendable income and less local knowledge as new transplants to the area, to keep money in Guadalupe rather than dinner in Santa Maria or Pismo Beach
• Revive local interest in local restaurants through marketing and specials for locals, reminding them the brand is about local flavor and retaining their access to restaurants as well
Two additional lines of effort are necessary to enhance the human capital of Guadalupe:

Broadband connections can expand high-speed Internet access through an internal or hybrid build of a community-owned network and attract of providers • Broadband connections will be Guadalupe’s method to “broadcast” its presence Page | 69
to the world, streaming live shows, conferences, and art classroom events from the Royal Theater
• Advertise broadband to attract additional businesses and services • Use broadband to expand educational opportunities
• Focus on broadband-enabled and broadband-enabling skills for workers • Leverage the County-wide commitment to Digital Equity for resources to improve access and availability
Create upskilling opportunities and additional jobs through workforce development and entrepreneurial skills training and small business support • Concentrate on business for tourism, creation of cultural attractions, and small business-enabling jobs (accounting, facilities services, information technology services, and human resources management)
• Train agricultural workforce into higher-skill areas within agriculture, where they enjoy more stable employment, and provide counseling on skills that are most transferable to other industries in the local economy
Moving from Plan to Strategy: A Community-Owned Process Up to this point, this document has presented the concepts behind resiliency, as well as a broad spectrum of possible resiliency-building activities that could be applied to Guadalupe. Both the concepts and activities are broadly consistent with the recommendations that are found in other documents and presentations either created by local stakeholders to inform citizens and city leadership or commissioned directly by the city. The following documents were referenced, in their most current version, which may be a draft or final:
• Guadalupe 2021 General Plan (Public Review Draft, July 30, 2021) – available on the city’s website
• City of Guadalupe 2019-2027 Housing Element (Draft Update, May 2, 2019) – available on the city’s website
• City of Guadalupe Resilience Plan Economic Development Opportunities/ Constraints and Recommendations (July 13, 2021) – available as an appendix to this document
The next steps of this resiliency effort are best placed into the hands of the community. To be most successful, the community will need to convene residents, leaders, and other stakeholders to build the implementation plan. The creation of Page | 70
an implementation plan for resiliency must pass through the process of strategybuilding. Strategy, in its purest form, is a five-part activity of setting goals, describing activities, assigning resources, implementing the plan, and adjusting the plan (See Figure 17). Good strategy-building also requires continuous improvement, and the team must be willing and empowered to review and improve previous steps, not simply plow ahead despite known or potential mistakes earlier in the process.

The strategy process begins with Goal-Setting, or deciding what goals the community wants for itself. Any goal or goals should be able to affirmatively answer the 3 As:
• Acceptable – does the community want this and support the goal? • Actionable – is there a specific action, set of actions, or activity that will contribute to the goal?
• Achievable – are there sufficient resources in the community to do this or a clear path to gain the necessary resources from other sources? The greatest danger in Goal-Setting is setting too many goals because the community and leaders cannot clearly articulate or agree on a vision for the Figure 17: The Strategy-Building Process
Page | 71
community. Too many goals, without a unified purpose, dilutes the energy and resources of the community. Each goal should have actions that can be assigned to individuals or groups, and an understanding of the resources that activity will require. Finally, goals must be malleable through the strategy-building process; as activities are crafted and resources assigned, a goal may end up requiring too many resources to accomplish without hurting other activities (and their respective goals). The process is one of continual refinement, and should never shy away from returning to previous steps to ensure goals remain true to the 3 As – at least while the strategy is still being formed.

Once goals are crafted, the group must Describe the Activities that contribute to achieving them. Activities should be evaluated against 4 Cs:
• Clear – does everyone involved understand the activity and its connection to a goal?
• Connect – does this action connect with others, creating either dependency or synergy?
• Combine – can this activity be combined with any others to save resources? • Completion – does the activity have a way to call it complete or finished, so the resources can be moved to the next or a new activity?
It should go without saying that each activity must be clearly described, and linked to a goal, but it cannot be emphasized enough, especially in large and long-term endeavors like community development that involve many components. Clarity also comes from connecting each activity to others. Activities may need to be sequenced in time because one activity requires the other to be completed before it can start. For example, a church would first need to train volunteers to provide childcare for workforce education students before classes can begin at the Senior Center. While sequencing in time creates one form of dependency, other dependencies are based on available resources. The time of City Councilmembers, a large meeting room, or a critical advisor on external financing can also create the need to prioritize one activity before another. Some activities may need to take place at the same time to create synergistic effects. A project to engage Guadalupe youth in city government can be combined with a project to introduce new community message boards, asking young ambassadors to connect an important local issue with creative and bilingual messages to better reach the community.

Other activities may need to be combined to avoid duplicated efforts toward the same goal, blend two or more activities that would require too many resources to accomplish separately, or reach across several activities or goals with a similar Page | 72
resource. Advertising and media relations are typically activities that can be combined across multiple activities to avoid each activity having to use separate resources to do the same thing. Another example may also be a compromise between lights for a baseball field and a soccer pitch – could the two projects buy from the same company at a discount, or spend extra money to buy one set of lights between the fields that could be turned to cover one or the other (rather than both)? Finally, an activity should have a defined criteria for completion. Being able to say an activity is finished has multiple purposes, both practical and psychological.

In practical terms, the completion of an activity means the resources it has been using can be officially released to the next activity or project. It also means the activity can be evaluated for its effective use of those resources. Did the project cost too much or was there money left over? Did it take much longer than anticipated or was it quickly finished? As the resiliency effort continues, understanding both time and money required helps everyone understand the pace of progress. In a long-term effort such as resiliency, there is also a psychological satisfaction to saying “we’re making progress – we’ve completed 10 of 30 activities.” A goal without completed activities begins to feel like a never-ending quest, without the opportunity to celebrate smaller victories along the way.

Assigning Resources to each activity is typically the most laborious (and contentious) part of strategy-building, but getting it right saves effort and frustration during implementation. Once each activity has been described with enough detail, the assignment of resources should be relatively easy. The first resource to be assigned is the people – this can refer to just one individual working alone on a small project or an organization working on a larger project. Either way, the “people resource” has one of three roles in an activity:
• Leader: the group or individual responsible for implementing the activity; co-leads are possible, but avoid diluting the actual responsibility and accountability of leaders
• Contributor: a group or individuals who will provide additional resources to the activity, guided by the leader
• Coordinator: an individual whose job is to ensure related activities are synchronized or shared resources are used appropriately and in a timely fashion; it is best if this is not also a leader of the activity to avoid an appearance of favoritism
Clearly defining these roles early gives ownership of the activity to just one party. (This avoids the common error of diluting responsibility, as the cliché says, “when everyone is in charge, no one is in charge.”) Contributors may play a dual role as a Page | 73
resource. First, they are providing their time, talents, and assets as workers (labor) in the activity. While this is an important role, for this part of the discussion, though, they play a more vital role by assisting the leader with their own ideas, expertise, and attention. A contributor must take responsibility for their role in the activity and add value for the leader, by tracking resources expended, understanding the connection between project components, and even being prepared to step in for the leader. This level of responsibility is what distinguishes a person from being a contributor (a “people resource”) from a worker (a “labor resource”).

The assets assigned to activities vary widely, and can range from workers to money to shovels. Like those “people resources”, assets can also be divided into primary and contributing categories, where a primary asset is typically the main subject of the activity. The primary asset can be a physical building, the time of a nonprofit, or a community message board. If an activity is working on a primary asset, it will generally be unavailable to other activities, or it requires coordination between activities until that activity is completed (here, a reminder that activities should have a way to define when they are “complete” so the assets can be freed up). A contributing asset may be used by several activities at the same time, but must be carefully managed to ensure it is not spread too thin or is correctly sequenced and prioritized. Resources don’t need to be planned to the last detail or dollar, but should be planned to the level that helps show where conflicts between primary assets and shortages of contributing assets need to be addressed.

Time is a remarkably valuable asset for the community. The time of city staff, volunteers, the vulnerable, and everyone else in the community should be respected, whether by using that time efficiently and effectively, or by exercising patience as others accomplish their own share of the work. Much of the resiliency work in Guadalupe will be done by those who aren’t being paid – that is the very hard and time-consuming work of writing a business plan for a new antique store, preparing legal paperwork for a community arts center, and organizing a tree-planting by Boy Scouts on a Saturday afternoon. Again, if Guadalupe could pay for all of these improvements outright, this report would be a much shorter document and the community’s patience could be limited to whatever time limit was written in a construction contract. However, since that isn’t the case, it is best to realistic (overestimate) the time each activity will take, and be thankful when an activity finishes ahead of schedule.

Finally, when resources run low, priorities truly matter. At this point in the strategybuilding process, it is always advisable to “review and improve” previous steps to ensure the highest priority goals are still the first to receive the resources they will require. Some activities may require different sequencing or be combined to share those resources. Priorities, like any part of the plan, may shift over time, but they should remain relatively constant so they can be used to objectively adjudicate Page | 74
between competing needs at critical moments. With community consensus, it should not be a difficult or contentious decision to prioritize a specific resource required for the final completion of a community park improvement higher than the same resource for a third coordination meeting on the design for new lettering on the water tower.

After all of that, it is finally time to Implement Activities! Although this is the most rewarding part of community development, it doesn’t happen without significant work. Making an activity a success requires good planning, efficient logistics, controlled operations, and thoughtful evaluation. Every activity starts with a good understanding of the scope of work. What is the activity trying to accomplish, what resources are available, how will they be used, and what criteria determine when the activity is considered completed? Who will lead the activity, and who needs to be coordinated with? A great temptation in community development is to try to do more than originally planned. This is called “mission creep” and it can lead to using up resources that were tasked for other projects, or to not recognizing when an activity has actually completed the original task. The former endangers other projects; the latter can deny participants the moment of triumph when they see, feel, and understand what they’ve actually accomplished.

While the team or individual assigned to the activity may include people of all types and expertise, or be a small and highly skilled group, every activity should be able to “tell its story.” Some projects can use data (“a $45,000 playground installed in two days with 25 volunteers”), while others are more photogenic (a picture is worth a thousand words, especially when it comes to kids and pets). Either way, completed activities in community development are worthy of public celebration. Activity leaders should encourage anyone engaged in the project to take photos, write about their work, and gather data that can be fused into good news to be published on social media, newspapers, and other local media outlets. Especially in Guadalupe, all good news should be translated and disseminated in English and Spanish; having volunteers or participants in the project share their story on social media is especially impactful in a close-knit, well-connected community like Guadalupe.

In the midst of an activity, leaders need to remember that other projects may be dependent on theirs, so coordination and cooperation across projects is very important. Leaders across all projects should regularly meet to discuss progress, address concerns, and assess resources. Whether weekly, monthly, or quarterly, these progress meetings should become a matter of routine for the community.

Like all good meetings, they should have a time limit, a known agenda, and good record-keeping. They should happen often enough to be sure to catch up on all known projects, but not so often they interfere with actually getting the project done. The idea of a meeting is not as important as regularly checking in across all activities to record progress, hold each activity accountable, and evaluate resources; Page | 75
there are a variety of ways to accomplish this, from actual meetings to virtual dashboards, which should be decided by the community and activity leaders.

As activities are completed, Evaluating Progress is the final step. As discussed earlier, each activity should have a well-defined endpoint. That endpoint allows the activity leader to look back at the project, add up the cost (not just money, time must also be captured), gather lessons, and celebrate a victory. The activity leader also uses the regular progress meetings mentioned above to pass on those lessons, release resources for other purposes, and answer questions from the group. Although all activities may be accomplishing different objectives, reporting progress should have some standard measures: money, personnel, and time spent are all possible metrics to use, but the team should exercise some creativity to show the impact on the community. As always, the lessons of Evaluating Progress should feed back into the strategy-building cycle to update, revise, or simply confirm the original plans. If the next activity in the sequence can gain efficiency or effectiveness, it will be worth everyone’s time to conduct a review and pass those lessons to the group – in other words, embrace feedback.

As mentioned in the introduction to strategy-building and several times above, good strategy and the plans that come out of that process should be continuously reviewed and improved where required. For example, when assigning resources to an activity, the team realizes there is not enough money for a certain project, so they may have to return to the previous step describing activities to modify, shrink the scope, or cancel that activity. The process of reviewing and improving may even require going back to goal-setting to ensure the goal is still sound. A word of warning: reviewing previous steps does not mean the decisions and products made during strategy-building are “made of Jello” – they still must have structure and direction based on support of the community and the strategy-building team. The ability to review and improve based on new information provides confidence the plan is based on the best available ideas and information and that the plan itself is flexible and able to adjust to new conditions.

Page | 76
Recommendations
In addition to the action suggested within this report, the following is a list of recommendations that are meant to pull out some important recommendations for the community to be aware of.

1. Study the value of applying for the Guadalupe downtown to be federally recognized as a Historic District. Additionally, an exploration of the Mills Act (a state program that compliments the Historic District) at the same time would be valuable. Both would support the City’s goal of making Guadalupe a destination location. There are tangible and intangible benefits to the community and property owners to going through this process. However, the process should be thoroughly discussed in open community meetings.

2. Increase, where possible, the number of advisory groups, or official Committees, to the City Council. This will help inform the Council of community needs, provide an additional pathway for citizen engagement with the City, and support increased community involvement. All of these build the social capital that underlies community resilience. Some examples may be:
a) Senior Center Advisory Committee (perhaps even a Senior Advisory Committee, not limited to just the Senior Center).
b) Public Safety Committee
c) Youth Advisory Group
d) Resilience-Guadalupe Advisory Group

3. The following planning efforts, funded by a combination of City and grant sources and with significant participation by community residents and community organizations, should be considered as stand-alone plans:
a) Climate Adaptation
b) Public Facilities Assessment
c) Hazard Mitigation-Guadalupe

4. Workforce Development. It would be valuable for community resilience for the City to work with other entities to develop a workforce development strategy.

This goal would be twofold: increase employment income and diversify career opportunities for residents of Guadalupe, especially youth. Hancock College, the Guadalupe Unified School District, the Housing Authority of Santa Barbara County, the Guadalupe Business Association, the County of Santa Barbara, and other local nonprofits could form a strong core for the task force.

5. Continue the City’s multiprong efforts toward an improved economic outlook for Guadalupe. While the formation of the Guadalupe Business Association, the Page | 77
Royal Theatre renovation project, the Microenterprise program, and the Rural Recreational Economy planning effort are all great steps forward, it is not time to stop. The need for small business support is fundamental to the growth of the community, both is creating a welcoming and supportive environment for Guadalupe businesses and for the City to continue providing technical and financial assistance. The fundamental goal for the city’s economic growth will always be keeping more earned dollars in Guadalupe and bringing more dollars into Guadalupe via local and distant tourists, all without losing the unique character of the community. See Appendix A – City of Guadalupe Resilience Plan Economic Development Opportunities/Constraints and Recommendations, for more information.

6. Allan Hancock College should be encouraged to have a greater presence in Guadalupe. From workforce development to English as a second language classes to adult education classes, their active presence in Guadalupe would support addressing a number of identified impediments.

7. Rural disadvantage communities will always have a capacity issue: not enough revenue coming into the City to support growth. It is typical for disadvantaged communities to say that they do not have the time or resources to look for grants/funding, write the application needed to apply for these funds, and commit staff needed to implement. The irony is these same disadvantaged communities are the communities at whom grants/funding are targeted, are often the most eligible, and critical to improving the resilience of the community.

Solutions exist, such as hiring temporary staff specific to the grant-funded program, working with nonprofits and volunteers for grant-writing, and/or city leadership emphasizing the important role of grants to staff and the community.

Page | 78
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page | 79
8 Final Thoughts
This report has repeatedly emphasized that building resiliency is community development. When a community is internally engaged – when citizens talk to each other and their representatives, when residents act to improve conditions for themselves and others in the community – they create an environment that is better prepared to respond to shocks. When the community talks to themselves, they identify stressors they believe must be addressed and opportunities that no one outside of that community may notice. When community members invest both their sweat equity and money from their bank accounts to build up assets and address impediments, they become loyal to that community and to each other. Their sense of ownership, common causes, and pride becomes an asset unto itself, one that can overcome or bridge gaps in other resources.

This writing team has been engaged with community members in Guadalupe for over three years on this particular project, though we’ve been engaged in other projects with and in Guadalupe for longer. The most common theme we encounter in residents and former residents is overwhelming pride when they say “I grew up in Guadalupe.” That statement reveals the “good bones” that have kept Guadalupe a vibrant place to live and work. The next stage in Guadalupe’s development is to extend that sense of pride to the entire community, to those who moved here later in Page | 80
life for more affordable housing, a variety of work opportunities, or just to get away from the big city. Those community members need to know that Guadalupe isn’t just where they sleep – they need to see and feel that “here” is more valuable, more unique, and more attractive than “there.”
Resilience means that everyone in the community believes it is worthy of saving when faced with challenges, whether that is continuing stresses on the community or a violent shock. Residents gain ownership of the community by actively using and interacting with its assets and resources, not just when they are told there will be some street repairs the followingTuesday. When Guadalupe residents identify impediments and seek to address them using the resources of the community (time, talent, and money), they are creating a feedback loop that leads to more interest and investment in the community. They turn an asset – Guadalupe’s own sense of value – into tangible physical things like parks, businesses, and tax revenue.

No one individual, group, or agency will turn Guadalupe into a thriving community overnight. There is no lottery for cities that will deliver the amount of monetary capital required to start new restaurants downtown, build a hotel with a view out to the Dunes, and restore the old Far Western Tavern building to new glory as the home of the Dunes Center. It will only be through a concerted effort of individuals, businesses, and government that Guadalupe will be strengthened. Individuals must invest their ideas and money to start new businesses, businesses will provide the tax revenue to the city, and the city will invest in the infrastructure, services, and (where possible) facilities to make Guadalupe an even better place to live, work, and play.

Despite the challenges, new business formation in Guadalupe should be overwhelmingly the responsibility of “locals,” who are in the best position to understand the gaps and needs of the local market. Small businesses fill needs unmet by larger firms (culturally or religiously-specific foods or a more convenient location, for example). Local small businesses are also more responsive to customer feedback because those customers may also be their neighbors or have kids in the same class at school. For example, when a restaurant hears from customers they would like the place to be open just one hour later, that there is nowhere else that serves lengua like they had as a kid, or that they’re willing to pay one dollar more for a really great pizza, that restaurant owner can adjust much faster than a chain restaurant could. To succeed, however; businesses must also be backed by programs that give entrepreneurs the technical skills to get started, enhance their access to capital, build up local customer loyalty, and provide workers that are “right-skilled” for the jobs. None of that happens by accident.

Resiliency is ultimately focused on responding to local needs, using community assets to build physical and monetary resources as well as improving the community’s cohesion. This plan has both provided the framework for action and Page | 81
suggested actions that Guadalupe may choose to implement. There is a lot of work to do, and the task may appear daunting, but the authors of this report are confident in Guadalupe’s residents, leaders, and supporters’ ability to build their own successes in the city.

Page | 82
Endnotes
1 Contreras, Shirley. 2018. “Timeline.” Santa Maria Valley Historical Society Museum. https:// santamariahistory.com/timeline.html.
2 Boydstun, Shirley, e-mail exchange with Eric Larson. 2021. E-mail Correspondence 3 Cal Poly Graduate Planning Studio. 2009. City of Guadalupe Volume 1: Background Report. San Luis Obispo, CA: California Polytechnic University, 7. https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?&article=1051&context=crp_fa c.
4 United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. 2017. “Vulnerability.” PreventionWeb.net. https:// www.preventionweb.net/disaster-risk/risk/vulnerability/. 5 Stauffer, Anne. 2020. “How states can manage the challenges of paying for natural disasters.” PreventionWeb.net. September 16. https://www.preventionweb.net/news/view/73660. 6 Cornelia Butler, Flora, Mary Emery, Susan Fey, and Corry Bergendahl. 2014. “Community Capitals:

A Tool for Evaluating Strategic Interventions and Projects.” North Central Regional Center for Rural Development (Iowa State University). August. https://aae.wisc.edu/ced/wp-content/uploads/ sites/8/2014/01/204.2-Handout-Community-Capitals.pdf.
7 SVI source material available at: https://svi.cdc.gov/index.html for addition information about SVI or https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/placeandhealth/svi/data_documentation_download.html for data download
8 ADI source material available at: https://www.neighborhoodatlas.medicine.wisc.edu/ for additional information about ADI or https://www.neighborhoodatlas.medicine.wisc.edu/download for data download (requires registration)
9 DCI source material available at: https://graphicacy-dci-pdf-images.s3.amazonaws.com/DCI_CA_ Zip_code_93434.pdf or https://eig.org/dci/interactive-map?path=zip/93434 10 Economic Innovation Group. 2020. “The Spaces Between Us: The Evolution of American Communities in the New Century, 4th Edition.” eig.org. October. https://eig.org/wp-content/ uploads/2020/10/EIG-2020-DCI-Report.pdf.
11 CA-HTC source material available at: https://census.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2021/05/ cahtci_all.pdf (Warning: this document is over 1,000 pages long and over 50MB.) Page | 83
Appendix A
The City of Guadalupe
Resilience Plan Economic Development
Opportunities/Constraints and Recommendations
by Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc.

Page | 84
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 2 State’s re-opening framework, pursuing strategies towards economic revitalization in light of COVID-19 impacts is now more important than ever.

Recent Initiatives
The following recent planning initiatives in Guadalupe complement this assessment:
• Guadalupe Mobility Revitalization Plan: The goal of this plan is to enhance connectivity and mobility options within and between neighborhoods, and to improve mobility between the neighborhoods and the historic town center. The plan also addresses regional connectivity between the city and regional destinations, taking into account the specific setting of Guadalupe in relation to the ocean and dunes to the west and the City of Santa Maria to the east. The community feedback and findings from this plan resulted in an award of $1.9 million from the California Transportation Committee’s State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP). These funds will address some of the priorities outlined in the plan, such as increasing connectivity to the Amtrak station and improving sidewalk landscaping. Investing in connectivity and streetscapes will also address some constraints to economic development outlined below. • LeRoy Park Rehabilitation: The City was awarded $4.1 million in CDBG funds to renovate LeRoy Park and Community Center, located near the Downtown study area, and make the open space more inviting while providing additional recreation and community-serving facilities for Guadalupe.

However, construction costs increased in the three-year period between grant submission and construction, threatening the timeline and scope of the project. Additional funds have been granted ($900,000 in CDBG and $177,000 on Prop 68) and the Capital Campaign has reach 70% of the remaining funds needed as of March 2021. With the present construction schedule showing completion in November 2021, the space that has in the past been the City’s unofficial town square will be up and operating.

Current Snapshot of the Economy
The City of Guadalupe generates lower retail sales per capita than many neighboring jurisdictions, such as Goleta, Lompoc, Buellton, Carpinteria, and Solvang. This disparity is in part due to lower median household incomes, which depresses the spending and investment potential of many Guadalupe residents. However, in the past 10 years, the City’s income distribution has shifted. Fewer households are earning under $75,000 and households earning $100,000 to $149,999 have increased more than sixfold, from 2.8% of all households in 2010 to 18.2% in 2019. This shift suggests the changing demographics of the city and growing near-term spending potential.

Additionally, retail sales for residents are disproportionately captured outside of the city where there are more options such as big box stores and full-service grocery stores. Due to the current size of the city and proximity to Santa Maria, its larger next-door neighbor, Guadalupe will have difficulty attracting more sizeable retail chains. For site selection, larger retail tenants typically seek regional visibility and accessibility, considering factors such as:
• Proximate location to major transportation corridors (e.g., Highway 101) • Intersection locations (i.e., where two streets converge there is double the traffic – whether vehicles or pedestrians – compared to a mid-block location)
• Access in and out of the property using both right and left turns • Ability to place signage that is clearly visible
• Parking (unless a very high level of pedestrian activity exists) However, an advantage for Guadalupe is its lower retail rents, which make it more attractive to businesses with low margins, such as restaurants. This could support a concentration of locally operated low-margin businesses in the city.

Page | 85
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 3 The City could take advantage of existing assets and momentum to absorb more revenue from residents with higher discretionary spending capacity and visitors who are drawn to Guadalupe for various reasons but are not yet incentivized to spend more time (and money) in Guadalupe.

City of Guadalupe Local Assets*
* Guadalupe is also home to a variety of murals that showcase Guadalupe’s heritage and culture. These murals are painted throughout the Downtown area.

Page | 86
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 4 Opportunities and Constraints
The following two tables identify economic development opportunities (Table 1) and constraints (Table 2) in Guadalupe. The tables are organized by priority (i.e., high, medium, and low), which is defined by the ability to effectively provide a relative level of economic value:
• High: Higher level of economic value
• Medium: Moderate level of economic value
• Low: Lower level of economic value
The topic areas are also coded by color to enable ease of review. • Access and Connectivity
• Tourism
• Retail/Local Businesses
• Community Identity
Table 1: Prioritized Opportunities
Priority Topic Area Opportunities
High Access and
Connectivity
Guadalupe is a regional destination location with many local assets in proximity to one another. The City is home to the world-famous Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes, is close to the beach, has a walkable Downtown studded with murals and historical buildings, and connected to the larger region (and state) by Amtrak train service. Guadalupe is unique in terms of its diversity of urban and recreational offerings that provides something for everyone to enjoy.

High Access and
Connectivity
Streetscape improvements along commercial corridors can increase business visibility and activity. Promoting bicycle- and electric vehicle-friendly infrastructure along the Downtown corridor can take advantage of the City’s location along Highway 1 by encouraging cyclists and electric vehicle car owners to rest, eat, and/or shop.

High Access and
Connectivity
The Amtrak station provides an opportunity for train passengers to stop in Guadalupe. Trains on the Pacific Surfliner route, running from San Diego to San Luis Obispo, can pick up and drop off passengers in walking distance from the Downtown core. Some of these passengers, driven by train-centric enthusiasm and tourism, are also particularly attracted to the station. The City can capitalize on adventurers seeking to explore more natural parts of the California through the convenience of train travel.

High Tourism Guadalupe's downtown provides a historic urban experience that is unique in the area. Tourists tend to seek places that provide a unique experience and highlight the qualities that make an area special. While Santa Maria offers more shopping and dining options, it lacks a fully developed pedestrian-friendly area for shopping, dining, and community events that reflects the history of the area. With improvements to the public realm and unique local programming, Guadalupe Street could offer this experience for locals and tourists alike attracted to the Dunes.

Signage along W. Main Street and a coordinated wayfinding and branding strategy along Guadalupe Street could help raise awareness Page | 87
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 5 Priority Topic Area Opportunities
of the businesses located there, providing a draw for tourists visiting the Dunes.

High Tourism The planned redevelopment of the Royal Theater will serve as a catalyst for Downtown revitalization. An RFP to renovate the Royal Theater building and its adjacent land was released in March 2020, the timing of which coincided with the COVID-19 global economic shutdown.

Future redevelopment is expected to contain a community arts facility and other commercial uses that take advantage of the Theater’s central location and historic characteristics.

High Retail/Local
Businesses
Guadalupe Street is home to unique small businesses and independent shops. Locating more businesses within proximity to existing businesses creates a convenient "one-stop" shopping environment that attracts more customers making daily and convenience purchases. An improved public realm that is inviting and comfortable for pedestrians is critical to support momentum among local businesses. To that end, vacant and underutilized parcels along Guadalupe Street can be targeted for infill development. Pleasant landscaping and clear, appropriately scaled signage can also enhance public commercial space.

Medium Tourism Unique programming can attract locals and tourists alike.

Guadalupe’s Downtown core is well-positioned to provide a space for outdoor events in underutilized parking lots, vacant lots, or the street (with Caltrans approval). Regular programming, such as live music, farmers markets, art and performance gatherings, and local food festivals can reinforce the Downtown’s identity while incentivizing visitors to patronize nearby businesses. These events also provide a space for communal gatherings, which are especially important after the COVID19 lockdowns.

Medium Tourism Regional and state tourism platforms can be further leveraged to promote Guadalupe’s assets. Existing tourism entities, such as the Santa Maria Valley Chamber or VisitCalifornia.com, market on behalf of and drive visitors to attractions around the region or state. Guadalupe could leverage existing platforms to develop greater visibility as a tourist destination.

Medium Retail/Local
Businesses
A Business/Merchant’s Association can align local businesses on priorities and projects. The recently formed Guadalupe Business Association (GBA) can more easily address the needs of the greater business community, such as maintaining landscaping to create a welcoming environment for customers, coordinating on parking, and improving business representation at City Hall. The GBA could eventually evolve into a more formal Business Improvement District (BID).

Medium Retail/Local
Businesses
Providing more resources for small businesses can spur
businesses incubation. The City can promote existing resources for Page | 88
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 6 Priority Topic Area Opportunities
small businesses, such as the County’s Small Business Development Center, and consider a façade improvement revolving loan program or other programs that could assist or incubate local businesses. Local business support in terms of online presence would be beneficial considering opportunities related to visitor attraction.

Low Community
Identity
Guadalupe has authentic character, a wealth of community culture, interesting history, and a strong branding strategy as "Gateway to the Dunes". Guadalupe's community identity is informed by a variety of inputs, including the community's agricultural economy, Chumash Native American culture, the nearby Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes, a history of Spanish colonial activity, and the diverse cultural groups that settled in Guadalupe. Several key intersections offer gateway opportunities that could reinforce Guadalupe's identity through branding and signage.

Low Community
Identity
Guadalupe is currently host to many murals showcasing the City’s unique cultural heritage. Further investment in public art can enhance Guadalupe’s brand as well as help to draw and capture tourists. Eyecatching, large-scale murals not only support local artists, but also can promote awareness of the City through Instagram and other social media news feeds.

Low Retail/Local
Businesses
The Pasadera community is partially completed and includes 802 homes, a school, and small commercial center. This new housing is expected to boost the city’s population to around 11,000. In addition to an expected increase in property taxes, these new families will inject the city with more discretionary income to support existing and new businesses in Guadalupe. However, Pasadera residents would have to walk approximately one mile or more to get to Downtown Guadalupe, including crossing the railroad tracks and W. Main Street.

Low Access and
Connectivity
Improving the safety and operational efficiency of existing crossings could help improve connectivity within Guadalupe. The U.S. Department of Transportation provides guidance for pedestrian crossing features that could improve the safety of railroad crossings in Guadalupe, including fencing, gates, special paving, and pedestrianscale lighting and signage. These features could be especially helpful on routes with heavy or increasing automobile and truck traffic such as W.

Main Street and 11th Street. In addition, if passenger rail activity continues to rise, active transportation and connectivity between the Amtrak station and Pasadera, such as a walking/biking path, could be considered. A recent $1.9 million SHOPP grant will also be leveraged to repair existing Complete Streets facilities and address crossing issues.

Table 2: Prioritized Constraints
Page | 89
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 7 Priority Topic Area Constraints
High Retail/Local
Businesses
Unused/vacant storefronts can depress Downtown activity.

Especially in light of COVID-19 impacts on small businesses, more stores have shut down and have created greater hurdles to revitalization.

High Retail/Local
Businesses
Guadalupe's retail and services are limited, and don't meet shopping and dining needs of residents. Guadalupe is home to a variety of restaurants, stores, and service-oriented businesses. While these satisfy many of the shopping and dining needs of Guadalupe residents and workers, it is necessary to travel to Santa Maria or other nearby cities to shop at a full-service grocery store or dine at a restaurant with late-night operating hours. Additionally, high turnover of businesses in Guadalupe reflects the challenging operating environment for small businesses.

High Tourism The Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes and Oso Flaco Lake attract tourists from around the world and across the region, but few visit Guadalupe on their way to or from these destinations. Tourism is a large and growing economic sector nationally and within California. While shops, restaurants, and historic attractions in Guadalupe could attract more tourism spending to the town, a lack of awareness has kept Guadalupe off most tourists' itineraries. As such, Guadalupe has no lodging to offer visitors that might consider an overnight stay. The elevated tank in Central Park advertises the community as the "Gateway to the Dunes." Additional branding and marketing efforts could do more to attract tourists to the community, or encourage visitors driving from one destination to the next to make a stop in Guadalupe.

Medium Retail/Local
Businesses
The City’s regulatory environment could inhibit the growth of small businesses. The City may benefit from a regulatory environment that is more predictable and business friendly. The City should reevaluate its fee schedule, ensure appropriate zoning and reasonable flexibility (especially in the Guadalupe Street corridor), and ensure its permitting procedures are easy-to-follow for new businesses.

Medium Access and
Connectivity
Current parking regulations impede direct customer access to businesses. Because the City parking lot has a 2-hour limit, parking spaces along the street can be used all day by employees, which decreases parking supply for customers.

Low Access and
Connectivity
The Union Pacific railroad bisects Guadalupe in the north-south direction and acts as a barrier between the east and west sides of the community. Between W. Main Street and 9th Street — a distance over three-quarters of a mile — there are no formalized crossings over the Union Pacific tracks. The Guadalupe Amtrak train station is located in between W. Main Street and 9th Street on the west side of the tracks, making access to the train station and businesses along Guadalupe Street inconvenient for residents living east of the tracks.

Page | 90
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 8 Priority Topic Area Constraints
Low Community
Identity
At entrances to Guadalupe and throughout the city, branding and signage is limited and lacks a consistent aesthetic expression. The built environment does not adequately reflect the history or identity of Guadalupe. The southern entrance on Guadalupe Street from W. Main Street is not cohesive, and the Amtrak station does not lead directly to a convenient or attractive entrance to the rest of town. While the downtown core includes a public plaza on Guadalupe Street, this public space could be enhanced as a center of activity and identity through the addition of public art, programming, and celebration of Guadalupe's history.

Recommendations
Based on the opportunities and constraints identified above, recommendations for economic development were prepared. These recommendations were also informed by case study research of cities similar to the size and position of Guadalupe. The following table provides a menu of actionable recommendations to support economic development in Downtown Guadalupe. The recommendations are organized by time horizon (short-, medium-, or long-term) for completion, as well as action topic area. The recommendations consist of four topic areas as mentioned above:
• Access and Connectivity: The Amtrak station and proximity to Highway 1 are crucial assets that connect Guadalupe with the rest of the region. The City should build upon these resources to improve the traveling experience and enhance mobility, both intra-city and inter-city, for residents and visitors alike.
• Tourism: Guadalupe is a destination city with many attractions, such as the Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes, Oso Flaco Lake, and the historic Downtown. The City can support its tourism activities through unique programming and greater marketing efforts. • Retail/Local Business: Providing additional retail options should be a top priority for the City. In addition to retail diversity, the City can incentivize new business development and help to strengthen the existing business community.
• Community Identity: Guadalupe has a wealth of local culture, interesting history, and community pride. The City should amplify its brand and identity at major entrances and throughout the Downtown.

Page | 91
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 9 Recommendations by Time Horizon
Recommendations are presented in the following tables by time horizon for completion:
• Short-Term (less than 2 years)
• Medium-Term (2-5 years)
• Long-Term (5 or more years)
Table 3: Implementation Recommendations: Short-Term
Action Topic Area Description
Bike and EV Access and
Connectivity
Install a fast-charging electric vehicle station near Downtown and bike lanes along the 1, partnering with companies like EVGo (PPP) to provide fast-charging stations with no upfront capital costs or maintenance expenses. Promoting bicycle- and electric vehiclefriendly infrastructure along the Downtown corridor can take advantage of the City’s location along Highway 1 by encouraging cyclists and electric vehicle car owners to rest, eat, and/or shop.

Case Study Example: The State of Colorado is
planning on installing fast-charging EV stations
along popular driving routes to support its
climate action goals.

Link: https://energyoffice.colorado.gov/zero-emissionvehicles/electric-vehicle-fast-charging-corridors Maintenance
District
Access and
Connectivity
Explore the creation of a landscape, lighting, maintenance district to identify opportunities for and fund streetscape improvements, like street furniture, unique lighting, trees, and landscaping, etc. Such districts can provide economics of scale for property owners who can spread the cost of maintenance across many individuals.

Link to CA State Code regarding Maintenance Districts; Link to City of Santa Clarita Landscape Maintenance District information page Multi-Use
Zoning
Retail/Local
Businesses
Ensure Zoning Code is flexible enough to allow for multiple uses that can provide for the daily needs and services of residents. City can review the Mixed-Use District zoning and consider requiring at least 20% ground floor retail. This action addresses a regulatory barrier and supports meeting the needs of Guadalupe residents by providing goods, services, and dining within a short pedestrian shed.

Link to Sustainable Development Code Mixed-Use Zoning
description
GBA
Coordination
Retail/Local
Businesses
Regularly coordinate with the Business Association to solicit input on the needs of the business community. The Association could form a Business Improvement District (BID) when economic activity increases.

Case Study Example: The City of Fortuna’s
BID is made up of 500+ members. They
recently received a marketing grant to assist
Page | 92
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 10 Action Topic Area Description
with tourism, business recruitment, and
retention.

Link to Fortuna BID; Link to Description of Mammoth Lakes Tourism BID
Small Biz
Guide
Retail/Local
Businesses
Develop a handbook to starting a small business in Guadalupe that links to information and resources available on City/County webpage.

Case Study Example: The City of Bishop
posted the County’s “Guide to Starting a
Business in Inyo County” on Economic
Development webpage.

Link to City of Bishop “How to Get Started” Information Page Chamber
Marketing
Retail/Local
Businesses
Develop marketing materials aimed at the tenant and Santa Maria Valley Chamber community to promote Guadalupe as businessfriendly. GBA is the business lead (not the creation of a new chamber of commerce).

Fees and
Permits
Retail/Local
Businesses
Evaluate fee schedule and permitting procedures to ensure easeof-use for small businesses.

Low-Cost
Lease
Retail/Local
Businesses
Provide low-cost leases on publicly owned buildings (in coordination with the reuse of the Royal Theater building) to retain small businesses and encourage desired uses.

Parking Regs Retail/Local
Businesses
Revise parking regulations to remove the 2-hour limit off street.

This update would incentivize employee parking in City lots, increasing parking supply for visiting customers.

Vacant
Storefront Art
Retail/Local
Businesses
Work with property owners to encourage the installation of attractive window displays, including art, in vacant storefronts.

Consider developing artist-in-residence programs for display of work by juried artists. Provide short-term workspace in available vacant spaces.

Vacancy PopUp BizRetail/Local
Businesses
Market vacant spaces to pop-up businesses (retailers, test kitchens with a food service component, etc.) and other potential niche users as interim tenants, particularly in visible vacant spaces on the ground floor.

Table 4: Implementation Recommendations: Medium-Term
Action Topic Area Description
Local Asset
Survey
Access and
Connectivity
Inventory, document condition of, and periodically review Guadalupe's local assets, such as historic buildings and murals.

This inventory can form the basis of a historic resources survey in the future. This exercise could utilize University student support.

Grant Opps Access and
Connectivity
Identify and apply for federal infrastructure grant opportunities.

The new Administration has identified Amtrak as a priority for federal infrastructure spending.

Page | 93
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 11 Action Topic Area Description
Mobility Plan Access and
Connectivity
Continue the implementation of the Mobility Revitalization Plan to connect the east vs. west sides of the city and improve safety of crossings.

Case Study Example: The City of Woodlake
completed its multi-phase Downtown
Enhancement Project and fulfilled its goal of
providing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
connectivity to shopping, office, and
recreational destinations in the Downtown, as
well as improving the aesthetic appearance
and usefulness of the area.

Link to article on Woodlake’s transportation investment program.

Wayfinding Community
Identity
Improve branding, wayfinding, and signage at entrances to Guadalupe to enhance local identity and public realm aesthetic, and along Guadalupe St. to showcase businesses in the area and draw tourists who are visiting the Dunes or passing through the city on CA-1.

Retail Brokers Retail/Local
Businesses
Work with the Guadalupe Business Association to attract and retain businesses with the efforts of retail brokers who work with a pool of potential commercial tenants.

Website Update Retail/Local
Businesses
Create webpages for Community and Economic Development
and Social Services on City's website that consolidates all local and regional resources and links.

Case Study Example: The City of Bishop has
an Economic Development webpage with
information from both the City and County on
resources and requirements for starting a
small business.

Link to City of Bishop’s Economic Development webpage.

Festivals Tourism Host unique festivals that celebrate local heritage/cuisine and market Guadalupe to a larger audience. Example: cauliflower, which is rapidly becoming one of the most widely-eaten
vegetables in the country.

Regular
Programming
Tourism Provide regular programming, such as live music, farmers markets, arts and performance gatherings, as well as annual festivities, to promote community-building and showcase local retailers and artists. Example: Autumn Pumpkin Patch photo opportunity.

Case Study Example: The City of
Apalachicola hosts an annual community-wide
Easter Egg hunt in partnership with State
Parks.

Page | 94
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 12 Action Topic Area Description
RV
Campgrounds
Tourism Revise Zoning Code to allow for RVs campgrounds, which can provide a destination for visitors interested in overnight stays.

These campgrounds can also accommodate overflow from
nearby beach cities and provide an opportunity for the City to collect TOT revenue.

A smaller version of the Flying Flags RV Resort and Campground in nearby Solvang could be used as an example of the
accommodations and amenities expected of RV camping in the area.

Link to Flying Flags website.

Short-Term
Rental
Tourism Revise Zoning Code to allow for short-term rentals. Guadalupe does not currently have a hotel, so short-term rental options like Airbnb can increase the number of options visitors have to remain in Guadalupe for longer periods of time.

Community
Space
Tourism Continue to support a public place to gather, such as the Guadalupe Arts and Education Center and/or Leroy Park
Community Center, to facilitate a sense of community and enhance the public realm.

Table 5: Implementation Recommendations: Long-Term
Action Topic Area Description
Amtrak
Longevity
Access and
Connectivity
Secure the Guadalupe Amtrak stop to ensure longevity of the rail station connection through continued investment in and around the physical station, the promotion of Guadalupe as a regional transit destination, and increased City representation in relevant Amtrak discussions and meetings.

Holistic
Branding
Community
Identity
Explore a more updated and holistic branding identity and logo that is reflective of Guadalupe's history and culture. This identity should not be exclusively staked to the Dunes and should appeal to residents and tourists alike.

Murals Community
Identity
Continue to invest in Instagram-worthy public art in appropriate locations. Consider art that reflects, celebrates, and is complementary to Guadalupe’s history and supports the
community's identity, while also encourages people to engage with the physical space.

Art
Competition
Community
Identity
Host an art & design competition to create eye-catching branding while promoting regional artists.

Vacant Land
Fee
Retail/Local
Businesses
Levy a fee on vacant or dilapidated land to incentivize usage and maintenance. Additionally, coordinate with the County Assessor’s Office to ensure proper valuation with each transfer.

Case Study Example: A voter-approved
measure in the City of Oakland establishes an
annual tax of $3,000 to $6,000 on vacant
properties (allowable exemptions apply).

Page | 95
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 13 Action Topic Area Description
Link to City of Oakland’s vacant property tax information.

Revolving Loan Retail/Local
Businesses
Provide a revolving façade improvement loan program.

Fee Deferral Retail/Local
Businesses
Create an impact fee deferral program.

Case Study Example: The City of Gonzales’
Economic Development Incentives Program
offers a variety of benefits, such as impact fee
deferrals, impact fee financing, fee rebates, and
small business loans.

Link to the City of Gonzales’ Incentives Programs.

Fee Financing Retail/Local
Businesses
Create an impact fee financing program, in partnership with the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (SCIP).

Fee Reductions
& Rebates
Retail/Local
Businesses
Provide other incentives, such as:
• Fee reductions
• Property/sales/TOT tax rebate
Small Biz Loan Retail/Local
Businesses
Create a small business loan program capitalized by CDBG.

Agritourism Retail/Local
Businesses
Promote the diversification of farm-related activities through adoption of an agritourism ordinance, a Zoning Code update to include agritourism as a use, streamlined permitting for commercial uses on working farms, and the development of a handbook to provide additional information and links to permitting processes and insurance.

Case Study Example: The City of Gonzales’
agritourism industry is comprised of 46 vineyard
properties that offer tasting rooms, picnic areas,
and wine country charm.

Link to City of Gonzales Agritourism webpage.

Royal Theater
Reuse
Tourism Support the redevelopment of the Royal Theater building into a vibrant, community-focused commercial space to promote the capitalization of the Downtown area.

Tourism
Marketing
Tourism Create a strategy to increase Guadalupe's visibility on regional (Santa Barbara) and statewide tourism platforms and websites.

Prioritization Maps
Prioritization maps reflect the recommendations in a visual manner. The recommendations are generally organized by three metrics: impact, cost, and City staff resources. These maps are also grouped by short-, medium-, and long-term action items, as well as by topic area. • Impact: This metric estimates the level of economic impact or benefit of each action. This metric is measured across the x-axis of each map.
• Cost: This metric estimates the dollar cost of each action. This metric is measured across the yaxis of each map.

Page | 96
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 14 • City Staff Resources: This metric estimates the level of City staff resources required to execute each action. This metric is demonstrated by the size of each bubble. The larger the bubble, the greater the amount of City staff time is expected for each action.

These maps are intended to be illustrative and provide a conceptual approach to understanding the variety of potential actions that could be taken.

Prioritization Maps by Phase
Implementation Recommendations by Phase: Short-Term
Page | 97
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 15 Implementation Recommendations by Phase: Medium-Term
Page | 98
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 16 Implementation Recommendations by Phase: Long-Term
Page | 99
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 17 Prioritization Maps by Topic Area
Implementation Recommendations by Type: Access and Connectivity Page | 100
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 18 Implementation Recommendations by Type: Tourism
Page | 101
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 19 Implementation Recommendations by Type: Retail/Local Businesses Page | 102
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 20 Implementation Recommendations by Type: Community Identity Page | 103
Appendix B
The following pages are screenshots from the U.S. Census Bureau 2021 data for Guadalupe from www.census.gov
Page | 104
Page | 105
Page | 106
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-63

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE FOR THE APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMPLETION AND CLOSEOUT REPORT OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE’S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FY 2017 PROJECT/CONTRACT PRIOR TO

THE CLOSEOUT OF THE GRANT AS REQUIRED BY THE CDBG PROGRAM CLOSEOUT PROCESS WHEREAS, in October 2017, The City of Guadalupe approved the submission of two grant applications to the State of California Department of Housing and Community Department (HCD) for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, approved a resolution in support of the grant applications, authorized the City Administrator to sign applications and supportive documents on behalf of the city, and hired Los Amigos de Guadalupe (LADG) which at the time was called Rural Community Development Corporation of California (RCDCC) for a fee of $1,000 to complete the grant applications on behalf the city; and WHEREAS, in November 2017, the city successfully submitted the two grant applications to the State’s CDBG program. In the original grant application, the city requested $4.4M for the rehabilitation of Leroy Park and the community center, and planning and technical assistance to develop a community resilience plan; and
WHEREAS, Los Amigos de Guadalupe (LADG) which at the time was called Rural Community Development Corporation of California (RCDCC), paid the $5,000 in required matching funds after the City Council approved the submission of the planning grant application with the grant application for the renovation of Le Roy Park. LADG (RCDCC at the time) was awarded a contract with the City on October 9, 2018, to administer this grant which included a requirement for the preparation of the City of Guadalupe Community Resilience Plan; and WHEREAS, in May 2020 the City Council approved Resolution No. 2020-32 to submit to the State of California CDBG program one or more application(s) for the purpose of supplementing the Le Roy Park project due to time delays and increases in costs, project costs had increased from the original cost estimate that was completed in November 2017; and WHEREAS, the Le Roy Park project was awarded an additional $900,000 in October 2020 bringing the total amount in awarded funds to $5.4M; and
WHEREAS, twice the city applied for an extension to the State of California CDBG program to complete the projects, In September 2021 and then again in March 2022, with a final deadline of March 31, 2023, due to several compelling issues, including, but not limited to the slow start of the project, and significant cost increases from the time the application was submitted to the time of the sealed bid process; and
WHEREAS, as a result, the city had to phase in the work to move the project forward with the understanding that the CDBG program would want at minimum the community center to be completed. All park features were moved to Phase 2 of the Le Roy Park Project; and ATTACHMENT 2
WHEREAS, the city, with the help of LADG (formally RCDCC at the time), successfully raised almost 80% of the needed funding to renovate the remaining park features via our Capital Campaign; and
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2023, the City Council approved and adopted the City of Guadalupe Community Resilience Plan by resolution, as required by the State CDBG planning grant requirement, however, a formal public notice was not provided about the recommendation of the City Council for its final approval and adoption of the plan; and WHEREAS, a formal public notice was given on the June 30,2023, by posting the notice in three public places in the City and on the City’s website.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Guadalupe as follows:

SECTION 1. The completion and closeout report of the city of Guadalupe’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) FY 2017 project/contract prior to the closeout of the grant as required by the State of California CDBG program closeout process is hereby approved and adopted.

SECTION 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the City Clerk shall consult with the City Administrator and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting on the 11th day of July 2023 by the following vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

I, Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 2023-63, has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held July 11, 2023, and that same was approved and adopted.

ATTEST:
______________________________ ____________________________________ Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Philip F. Sinco, City Attorney

Agenda Item No. 11

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of July 11, 2023
_______________________________ _________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Janice Davis, Finance Director Todd Bodem, City Administrator SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2021-22 Audited Financial Statements, Single Audit Report, and GANN 2022 Agreed-Upon Procedures.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive and accept the City of Guadalupe Financial Statements for the Year ended June 30, 2022 along with the Independent Auditor’s Report, as well as accept the Single Audit Report for 2022 and the GANN 2022 Agreed-Upon Procedures.

DISCUSSION:

Presentation provided by Mitesh Desai with Badawi & Associates Certified Public Accounts on the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Audited Financial Statements, Single Audit Report and GANN 2022 Agreed-Upon Procedures.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Presentation by Mitesh Desai, Badawi & Associates

2. Basic Financial Statements for year ending June 30,2022 (Includes Independent Auditor’s Report)

3. Single Audit Reports for year ending June 30,2022

4. Independent Auditor’s Report on Agreed-Upon Procedures Applied to Appropriations Limit Schedule for year ending June 30,2022
Janice Davis
City of Guadalupe
Presentation to the City Council
Presented by: Mitesh Desai, CPA
Principal
ATTACHMENT 1
Badawi & Associates
Audit of the
City of Guadalupe
1 Agenda
Engagement Team
Deliverables and Scope of the Audit
Areas of Primary Emphasis
Auditors Report and Financial Statements
Required Communications
New Accounting Standards
Conclusion & Discussion/Questions
2 Engagement Team
Engagement
Partner
Mitesh Desai,
CPA
Senior
Samo Michel
3 Staff Staff
Quality Control Reviewer
Ahmed Badawi,
CPA
Deliverables and Scope of the Audit
Report of Independent Auditors on City of Guadalupe Basic Financial Statements (BFS)
Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters
Report on Compliance and on Internal Control Over Compliance with Major Federal Award Programs
Agreed-Upon Procedures Report on Appropriation Limit Schedule Communications With Those Charged With Governance.

Letter used to summarize communication of various significant matters to those charged with governance.
4 Areas of Primary Audit Emphasis
Revenues & Receivables (Tax, Grants, Notes and Others): Improper revenue recognitions
Governmental Funds:

Confirm/validate property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes & other significant revenues/receivables.

Proprietary Funds:

Perform ratio analysis of receivable and revenue accounts Review allowance for uncollectible accounts
Pension and OPEB:

Reviewed management’s journal entries for pension and OPEB.

Agreed amounts recorded to reports provided by CalPERS and City’s Actuary Tested the census data used by CalPERS and City’s Actuary Obtained reports from CalPERS auditors plan information for pension Management override of controls:

Review of accounting estimates for bias
Examination of manual journal entries
Evaluation of business rationale for unusual transactions 5 Auditors Report
Audit performed in accordance with Generally
Accepted Auditing Standards, Government Auditing
Standards and Uniform Guidance
Unmodified opinion
Financial statements are fairly presented in all material respects
Significant accounting policies have been consistently
applied
Estimates are reasonable
Disclosures are properly reflected in the financial
statements
6 Government-Wide Financial Statements
Cash &
Investments
Accounts, Taxes,
Grant, Notes
and
Interest
Receivable
Other Assets Capital
Assets
Deferred
Outflow of
Resources
2020 $8,293,348 $1,694,099 $791,542 $16,388,669 $1,150,322 2021 $9,083,730 $2,806,343 $1,259,897 $19,155,554 $1,288,460 2022 $10,155,066 $2,791,824 $1,117,315 $22,550,631 $1,264,935 $-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
Assets and Deferred Outflows of Resources (Page 9)
7 Government-Wide Financial Statements
Accounts
Payable and
Accrued
Expenses
Deposits
Payable
Other current
liabilities
Long-Term
Debt
Total OPEB
Liability
Net Pension
Liability
Deferred
Inflow of
Resources
2020 $575,217 $114,112 $205,715 $2,287,979 $470,748 $3,387,991 $286,444 2021 $985,584 $128,181 $488,465 $2,153,503 $494,819 $3,782,088 $299,792 2022 $1,250,470 $129,579 $616,887 $2,105,895 $403,579 $1,935,887 $2,671,412 $-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
Liabilities and Deferred Inflows of Resources (Page 9)
8 Government-Wide Financial Statements
2020 2021 2022
Net Cost of Service $2,957,194 $1,330,646 $2,532,504
Tax Revenue $3,133,584 $3,576,504 $4,335,104
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
$5,000,000
Net Cost of Service to Tax Revenue Governmental Activities (Page 11)
9 General Fund
Expenditure Coverage (Pages 14 and 18)
10 2020 2021 2022
Unrestricted Fund Balance $ 485,622 $ 370,356 $ 331,404 Total Expenditures $ 4,719,679 $ 5,449,800 $ 6,350,537
Unrestricted Fund Balance as
a % of Total Expenditures 10.29% 6.80% 5.22%
Number of months 1.23 0.82 0.63
GFOA recommendation 2 - 4
Measure of City's ability to operate with no revenues using available fund balance.

Pension Plan
City’s Annual Pension Contribution
11 2020 2021 2022
City Contribution $457,869 $560,980 $614,582
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
Pension Plan
12 Total

6.15% $4,244,232

7.15% $1,935,887

8.15% $33,268
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
City’s Pension Plan Sensitivity to Discount Rate
(2021 Measurement Date)
Other Postemployment Benefits
13 2.69% 3.69% 4.69%
Total OPEB Liability $484,189 $403,579 $340,244
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
City’s OPEB Plan Sensitivity to Discount Rate
(2022 Measurement Date)
Other Postemployment Benefits
14 Current Trend -1% Current Trend Current Trend +1%
Total OPEB Liability $326,381 $403,579 $505,742
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
City’s OPEB Plan Sensitivity to Healthcare Trend Rate
(2022 Measurement Date)
Required Communications
Our Responsibility Under
U.S GAAS
• Opinion on whether financial
statements are fairly stated in
accordance with U.S GAAP
• Evaluate internal control over
financial reporting including tone
at the top
• Evaluate compliance with laws,
contract and grants
• Ensure financial statements are
clear and transparent
• Communicate with the governing
body
15 Management Responsibility
• Management is responsible for the
financial statements
• Establish and maintain internal control
over financial reporting
• Making financial records available to us
• Establish internal control to prevent
and detect fraud
• Inform us of all known and suspected
fraud
• Comply with laws and regulations
• Take corrective action on audit findings
Required Communications
Independence
Timing of the Audit
• It is our responsibility to maintain
independence
• We will maintain our
independence by strict adherence
to the AICPA and the Board of
Accountancy rules and regulations
• No other services performed that
could affect our independence
• Audit was delayed in part due to
turnover in City staff in positions
relating to financial reporting and
federal grants.
16 Required Communications
Significant Accounting Policies
and Unusual Transactions
Management Judgment and
Accounting Estimates
The City adopted the following new
pronouncements during the year:
• GASB Statement No. 87 – Leases
• GASB Statement No. 89 – Construction
Period Interest
• GASB Statement No. 92 – Omnibus 2020
• GASB Statement No. 93 – Interbank
Offered Rates
• GASB Statement No. 99 – Omnibus 2022
Significant management estimates impacting
the financial statements include the
following:
• Useful lives of Capital Assets
• Allowance for uncollectible accounts
• Pension Plans
• OPEB Liability
• Accrued Compensation
17 Required Communications
Sensitive Disclosures
Difficulties Encountered in
Performing the Audit
The most sensitive disclosures affecting
the City’s financial statements are as
follow:
• Cash and Investments
• Capital Assets
• Employee Retirement Plans
• Other Post Employment Benefits
• Going Concern
• Successor Agency Private Purpose
Trust For Assets of Former
Redevelopment Agency
No difficulties were encountered
during our audits
18 Required Communications
Significant Audit
Adjustments and
Unadjusted Differences
Considered by
Management to be
Immaterial
Potential Effect on the
Financial Statements of
Any Significant Risks
and Exposures
Significant adjustments were
proposed to correct revenue
recognition and interfund
transactions. Management
has posted the proposed
audit adjustments
No significant risks or
exposures were identified.

Legal matters and potential
liabilities are disclosed in the
financial statements
19 Required Communications
Disagreement with
Management
Deficiencies in Internal
Control over Financial
Reporting
We are pleased to report that
there were no disagreements
with management
Material Weakness
-Going Concern
Significant Deficiencies
-Journal Entries
-Deposits Payable
-Closing Procedures
-Written Policies and
Procedures - Grants
20 Required Communications
Representations
Requested of
Management
Management
Consultation with Other
Accountants
We have requested certain
representations from
management that are included
in the management
representation letters
We are not aware of any
significant accounting or
auditing matters for which
management consulted with
other accountants
21 Required Communications
Other Material Written
Communications
Material Uncertainties
Related to Events and
Conditions
Fraud and Illegal Acts
Other than the engagement
letters and management
representation letters, there
have been no other
significant communications
Refer to Note 15 to the Basic
Financial Statements relating
to the going concern matter
relating to the General Fund.

We have not become aware
of any instances of fraud or
illegal acts.
22 23
New Accounting Standards
• GASB Statement No. 91 – Conduit debt
• GASB Statement No. 94 – Public-private partnerships
• GASB Statement No. 96 - Subscription-Based Information Technology Arrangements 2024
2023
• GASB Statement No. 100 – Accounting Changes and Error Corrections 2025
• GASB Statement No. 101 – Compensated Absences
Questions
Mitesh Desai
[email protected]
24 Thank You
For Allowing Us to Provide Audit Services
to the City of Guadalupe
25 Attachment 2
City of Guadalupe
Basic Financial Statements
Fiscal Year July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022
City of Guadalupe
Guadalupe, California
Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2022

CITY OF GUADALUPE

GUADALUPE, CALIFORNIA

BASIC FINANICAL STATEMENTS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED June 30, 2022
Prepared by:

FINANCE DEPARTMENT
City of Guadalupe
Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022
Table of Contents
Page

FINANCIAL SECTION
Independent Auditors’ Report ............................................................................................................................. 1 Basic Financial Statements:

Government-Wide Financial Statements:

Statement of Net Position ................................................................................................................................. 9 Statement of Activities ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Fund Financial Statements:

Governmental Fund Financial Statements:

Balance Sheet ................................................................................................................................................. 14 Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet
to the Government-Wide Statement of Net Position ........................................................................... 16 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance ................................................. 18 Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances to the Government-Wide Statement of Activities ............................................................................................................................... 20 Proprietary Fund Financial Statements:

Statement of Net Position ........................................................................................................................... 21 Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position ................................................. 23 Statement of Cash Flows .............................................................................................................................. 24 Fiduciary Fund Financial Statements:

Statement of Fiduciary Net Position........................................................................................................... 26 Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position ...................................................................................... 27 Notes to Basic Financial Statements ............................................................................................................... 31 Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited):

Budgets and Budgetary Accounting ................................................................................................................. 73 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual:

Budgetary Comparison Schedule - General Fund ...................................................................................... 74 Budgetary Comparison Schedule – Community Development ............................................................... 75 Budgetary Comparison Schedule – ARPA .................................................................................................... 76 Schedule of the City’s Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability .................................................... 78 Schedule of Plan Contributions ......................................................................................................................... 78 Schedule of Changes in Total OPEB Liability and Related Ratios ............................................................... 81 City of Guadalupe
Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022
Table of Contents, Continued
Page
Supplementary Information:

Non-Major Governmental Funds:

Combining Balance Sheet ................................................................................................................................ 84 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and
Changes in Fund Balances ........................................................................................................................... 86 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Guadalupe
Guadalupe, California
Report on the Audit of the Financial Statements
Opinions
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the businesstype activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Guadalupe, California (City) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2022, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City as of June 30, 2022, and the respective changes in financial position, and, where applicable, cash flows thereof for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Basis for Opinions
We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS) and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of our report. We are required to be independent of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions.

Substantial Doubt About the Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the City will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 15 to the financial statements, the City continues to have expenditures higher than revenues in the General Fund. In addition, the General Fund has a large interfund loans payable balance. There are doubts about the General Fund’s ability to repay the interfund loans payable without having a significant impact on the City’s operations. These conditions raise doubt about the City’s ability to continue as a going concern. Management’s plans regarding those matters are also described in Note 15. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter.

To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Guadalupe
Guadalupe, California

Responsibilities of Management for the Financial Statements The City’s Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

In preparing the financial statements, management is required to evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the City’s ability to continue as a going concern for twelve months beyond the financial statement date, including any currently known information that may raise substantial doubt shortly thereafter.

Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor’s report that includes our opinions. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Misstatements are considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, they would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user based on the financial statements.

In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS, we:
• Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. • Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.
• Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.
• Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluate the overall presentation of the financial statements.
• Conclude whether, in our judgment, there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the City’s ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time.

We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit, significant audit findings, and certain internal control– related matters that we identified during the audit.
2 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council of the City of Guadalupe
Guadalupe, California

Required Supplementary Information
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the budgetary comparison information, schedule of the City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability, schedule of plan contributions, and schedule of changes in total other post-employment benefits on pages 73-81, be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance.

Management has omitted the management’s discussion and analysis that accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require to be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such missing information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. Our opinions on the basic financial statements are not affected by this missing information.

Supplementary Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements. The combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements on pages 84-87 are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements.

The combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements are the responsibility of management and were derived from and relate directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements are fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole. 3 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council of the City of Guadalupe
Guadalupe, California

Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated June 22, 2023, on our consideration of the City’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance.

Badawi & Associates, CPAs
Berkeley, California
June 22, 2023
4 5
This page intentionally left blank
6 7
This page intentionally left blank
8 City of Guadalupe
Statement of Net Position
June 30, 2022
Governmental Business-Type
Activities Activities Total
ASSETS
Current assets:

Cash and investments $ 5,195,003 $ 4,960,063 $ 10,155,066 Accounts receivable 1,199,985 790,090 1,990,075
Prepaid expenses 451,499 665,816 1,117,315
Leases receivable - 232,260 232,260
Loans receivable 32,884 - 32,884
Internal balances 207 (207) -
Total current assets 6,879,578 6,648,022 13,527,600
Noncurrent assets:

Leases - 536,605 536,605
Capital assets:

Non-depreciable 674,008 3,279,312 3,953,320
Depreciable, net 12,947,700 5,649,611 18,597,311
Total capital assets 13,621,708 8,928,923 22,550,631
Total noncurrent assets 13,621,708 8,928,923 22,550,631 Total assets 20,501,286 16,113,550 36,614,836

DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Pension related amounts 971,934 146,551 1,118,485
OPEB related amounts 146,450 - 146,450
Total deferred outflows of resources 1,118,384 146,551 1,264,935

LIABILITIES
Current liabilities:

Accounts payable 796,821 172,705 969,526
Accrued salaries and wages payable 246,043 34,901 280,944 Interest payable - 31,670 31,670
Deposits payable 80,928 48,651 129,579
Unearned revenue 585,217 - 585,217
Long-term debt - due within one year - 74,136 74,136
Total current liabilities 1,709,009 362,063 2,071,072
Noncurrent liabilities:

Net pension liability 1,682,235 253,652 1,935,887
Total OPEB liability 403,579 - 403,579
Long-term debt - due in more than one year 404,092 1,627,667 2,031,759 Total noncurrent liabilities 2,489,906 1,881,319 4,371,225 Total liabilities 4,198,915 2,243,382 6,442,297

DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Deferred inflows - leases - 768,865 768,865
Pension related amounts 1,459,058 220,003 1,679,061
OPEB related amounts 223,486 - 223,486
Total deferred inflows of resources 1,682,544 988,868 2,671,412

NET POSITION
Net investment in capital assets 13,621,708 7,227,120 20,848,828 Restricted for:

Street maintenance 1,487,476 - 1,487,476
Other capital projects 618,982 - 618,982
Other purposes 2,147,581 147,033 2,294,614
Total restricted 4,274,859 147,033 4,421,892
Unrestricted (2,158,356) 5,653,698 3,495,342
$ 15,738,211 $ 13,027,851 $ 28,766,062
Primary Government
Total net position
See accompanying Notes to Basic Financial Statements.
9 City of Guadalupe
Statement of Activities
For the year ended June 30, 2022
Operating Capital
Charges for Grants and Grants and
Functions/Programs Expenses Services Contributions Contributions Primary Government:

Governmental activities:

General Government 1,616,981 $ 500,325 $ 554,161 $ - $
Public Safety 3,789,931 610,879 237,375 -
Transportation 1,441,750 1,153,440 - 108,678
Leisure, cultural and social services 615,885 32,944 322,349 2,053,082 Community development 1,005,502 276,094 35,342 54,886
Interest on long-term debt 2,010 - - -
Total governmental activities 8,472,059 1,420,242 2,302,667 2,216,646 Business-type activities:

Water 1,816,922 2,642,700 30,683 -
Wastewater Treatment 1,500,816 2,646,368 13,827 -
Solid Waste - - - -
Transit 626,912 45,180 690,640 -
Total business-type activities 3,944,650 5,334,248 735,150 - Total primary government $ 12,416,709 $ 6,754,490 $ 3,037,817 $ 2,216,646 General Revenues and Transfers:

Taxes:

Property taxes
Sales taxes
Utilities Uses Tax
Other taxes
Total taxes
Investment earnings
Other
Transfers
Total general revenues and transfers
Change in net position
Net position - beginning of year
Net position - end of year
Program Revenues
See accompanying Notes to Basic Financial Statements.
10 Governmental Business-Type
Total Activities Activities Total
$ (562,495) 1,054,486 $ - $ (562,495) $
(2,941,677) 848,254 - (2,941,677)
(179,632) 1,262,118 - (179,632)
1,792,490 2,408,375 - 1,792,490
(639,180) 366,322 - (639,180)
(2,010) - - (2,010)
(2,532,504) 5,939,555 - (2,532,504)
- 2,673,383 856,461 856,461
- 2,660,195 1,159,379 1,159,379
- - - -
- 735,820 108,908 108,908
- 6,069,398 2,124,748 2,124,748
$ 12,008,953 (2,532,504) 2,124,748 (407,756)
1,954,091 1,954,091 -
1,330,009 1,330,009 -
- 503,050 503,050
- 547,954 547,954
4,335,104 4,335,104 -
(40,571) 18,824 (21,747)
(363,844) 163,177 (200,667)
(623,471) 623,471 -
5,140,576 (1,027,886) 4,112,690
2,608,072 1,096,862 3,704,934
13,130,139 11,930,989 25,061,128
$ 13,027,851 15,738,211 $ 28,766,062 $
$ 13,027,851
Net (Expense) Revenue
and Changes in Net Position
11 This page intentionally left blank
12 Governmental Fund Financial Statements
Proprietary Fund Financial Statements
Fiduciary Fund Financial Statements
13 City of Guadalupe
Balance Sheet
Governmental Funds
June 30, 2022
Capital
Community Improvement
General Development ARPA Program
ASSETS
Cash and investments 736,391 $ 490,63 $ 5 $ 589,603 $ 8 Accounts receivable 465,908 559,580 --
Prepaid expenses 429,013 ---
Interfund loans receivable 78,098 - - 628,676
Loans receivable - 32,884 --
Total assets $ 1,709,410 $ 1,083,099 $ 589,603 $ 628,684

LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES, AND FUND BALANCE Liabilities:

Accounts payable $ 104,918 $ 33,378 $ 628,67 - $ 6
Accrued salaries and wages payable 236,315 ---
Deposits payable 80,928 ---
Unearned revenue 7,214 - 578,003 -
Interfund loans payable 497,777 1,098,995 11,600 -
Total liabilities 927,152 1,132,373 589,603 628,676
Deferred inflows of resources:

Unavailable revenue 1,021 509,571 - -
Total deferred inflows of resources 1,021 509,571 - -
Fund Balances:

Nonspendable:

Prepaid expenses 429,013 ---
Restricted for:

Street maintenance ----
Other capital projects ----
Community development 20,820 ---
Public safety ----
Utility infrastructure ----
Debt service ----
Lighting and landscape ----
Committed to:

Capital projects - - -8
General Reserve 165,702 - - -
Emergency Reserve 165,702 - - -
Unassigned - (558,845) --
Total fund balances 781,237 (558,845) -8
Total liabilities, deferred inflows
of resources, and fund balances $ 1,709,410 $ 1,083,099 $ 589,603 $ 628,684 Major Funds
See accompanying Notes to Basic Financial Statements.
14 Other Total
Governmental Governmental
Funds Funds
$ 3,378,366 $ 5,195,003
174,497 1,199,985
22,486 451,499
1,005,569 1,712,343
- 32,884
$ 4,580,918 $ 8,591,714
$ 29,849 $ 796,821
9,728 246,043
- 80,928
- 585,217
103,764 1,712,136
143,341 3,421,145
74,780 585,372
74,780 585,372
22,486 451,499
1,487,476 1,487,476
618,982 618,982
- 20,820
170,262 170,262
814,204 814,204
31,777 31,777
1,131,338 1,131,338
120,473 120,481
- 165,702
- 165,702
(34,201) (593,046)
4,362,797 4,585,197
$ 4,580,918 $ 8,591,714
See accompanying Notes to Basic Financial Statements.
15 Total Fund Balances - Total Governmental Funds $ 4,585,197 Capital assets used in governmental activities were not current financial resources.

Therefore, they were not reported in the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet. The capital assets were adjusted as follows:

Non-depreciable 674,008
Depreciable, net 12,947,700
Total capital assets 13,621,708
Unavailable revenue recorded in the fund financial statements resulting from activities in which revenues were earned but funds were not available are reclassified as revenues in the Government-Wide Financial Statements. 585,372
Employer contributions for pension were recorded as expenditures in the governmental funds. However, in the Government-Wide Financial Statement these contributions are deferred. 534,053
In the Government-Wide Financial Statement certain OPEB amounts are deferred and amortized over a period of time, however, in the governmental funds no transactions are recorded. (77,036)
In the Government-Wide Financial Statement certain pension amounts are deferred and amortized over a period of time, however, in the governmental funds no transactions are recorded. (1,021,177)
Long-term liabilities were not due and payable in the current period. Therefore, they were not reported in the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet.

Net pension liability (1,682,235)
Net OPEB liability (403,579)
Long term liabilities - due within one year -
Long term liabilities - due in more than one year (404,092) Total long-term liabilities (2,489,906)
Net Position of Governmental Activities $ 15,738,211
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Net Position were different because:

City of Guadalupe
Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet
to the Government-Wide Statement of Net Position
June 30, 2022
See accompanying Notes to Basic Financial Statements.
16 This page intentionally left blank
17 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances For the year ended June 30, 2022
Capital
Community Improvement
General Development ARPA Program
REVENUES:

Taxes 3,789,586 $ - $ - $ - $
Licenses and permits 875,813 - - -
Fines and penalties 6,375 - - -
Revenues from other agencies 688,953 2,567,029 352,927 - Charges for current services 449,303 - - -
Interest 48,964 (3,086) - -
Other revenues 141,561 276,449 - -
Total revenues 6,000,555 2,840,392 352,927 -
EXPENDITURES:

Current:

General government 1,390,226 - - -
Public safety 4,090,986 - - -
Transportation - - - -
Leisure, cultural and social services 369,691 191,360 - - Community development 497,624 - - -
Capital outlay - - - 3,873,508
Debt service:

Interest and fiscal charges 2,010 - - -
Total expenditures 6,350,537 191,360 - 3,873,508

REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES 2,649,032 (349,982) 352,927 (3,873,508)
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):

Transfers in 973,105 53,117 - 3,873,508
Transfers out (212,242) (2,420,091) (352,927) -
Total other financing sources (uses) (2,366,974) 760,863 (352,927) 3,873,508 Net change in fund balances 282,058 410,881 - -
FUND BALANCES:

Beginning of year, as restated 370,356 (840,903) - 8
End of year $ 781,237 $ (558,845) $ 8 - $
City of Guadalupe
Governmental Funds
Major Funds
See accompanying Notes to Basic Financial Statements.
18 Other Total
Governmental Governmental
Funds Funds
$ 1,148,077 $ 4,937,663
44,477 920,290
- 6,375
365,663 3,974,572
28,645 477,948
(27,054) 18,824
50,000 468,010
1,609,808 10,803,682
1,390,226 -
4,145,816 54,830
327,001 327,001
581,081 20,030
585,829 88,205
3,989,862 116,354
2,010 -
606,420 11,021,825
(218,143) 1,003,388
4,953,179 53,449
(4,329,708) (1,344,448)
623,471 (1,290,999)
405,328 (287,611)
4,179,869 4,650,408
$ 4,362,797 $ 4,585,197
See accompanying Notes to Basic Financial Statements.
19 Net Change in Fund Balances - Total Governmental Funds $ 405,328 Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Activities were different because:

Governmental funds reported capital outlay as expenditures. However, in the GovernmentWide Statement of Activities, the cost of those assets was allocated over their estimated useful lives as depreciation expense. This was the amount of capital assets recorded in the current period. 2,953,472
Depreciation expense on capital assets was reported in the Government-Wide Statement of Activities, but they did not require the use of current financial resources. Therefore, depreciation expense was not reported as expenditures in the governmental funds. (570,429) Accrued compensated leave payable is not recorded in the governmental funds, but the accrued payable increased in the Government-Wide Statement of Net Position causing an expense on the Statement of Activities. (31,512)
OPEB expenses reported in the Statement of Activities do not require the use of current financial resources and therefore are not reported as expenditures in governmental funds. (64,234) Repayment of debt principal was an expenditure in governmental funds, but the repayment reduced long-term liabilities in the Government-Wide Statement of Net Position.

Long-term debt repayments 3,704
Revenues that are not considered to be available are reported as unavailable revenues in the governmental funds, however, these amounts are recognized in the Government-Wide Statement of Activities. This amount represents the change in unavailable revenues. (414,465) Current year employer pension contributions are recorded as expenditures in the governmental funds, however, these amounts are reported as a deferred outflow of resources in the Government-Wide Statement of Net Position. 534,053 Pension expense is recorded as incurred in the Government-Wide Statement of Activities, however, pension expense is not recognized in the governmental funds. (207,845) Change in Net Position of Governmental Activities $ 2,608,072 City of Guadalupe
Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances to the Government-Wide Statement of Activities For the year ended June 30, 2022
See accompanying Notes to Basic Financial Statements.
20 City of Guadalupe
Statement of Net Position
Proprietary Funds
June 30, 2022
Wastewater (Nonmajor)
Water Treatment Transit Solid Waste Total
ASSETS
Current assets:

Cash and investments $ 2,208,41 2,048,401 $ 703,24 6 $ 6 $ 4,960,06 - 3 Accounts receivable, net of allowance 306,865 429,796 53,429 - 790,090 Prepaid expenses 595,327 70,489 - - 665,816
Interfund loan receivable, current portion 78,166 - - - 78,166 Leases receivable, current portion - 232,260 - - 232,260 Total current assets 3,028,759 2,940,961 756,675 - 6,726,395 Noncurrent assets:

Interfund loan receivable, net of
current portion - 219,330 - 219,330 -
Leases receivable, net of current portion - 536,605 - - 536,605 Capital assets:

Land 29,464 218,961 - - 248,425
Work in progress 623,345 2,407,542 - - 3,030,887
Buldings, infrastructure and improvements 5,133,448 12,052,727 84,787 - 17,270,962 Vehicles 68,251 113,286 1,647,520 - 1,829,057
Equipment 392,348 162,411 10,610 - 565,369
Less accumulated depreciation (3,613,236) (9,231,904) (1,170,637) - (14,015,777) Total capital assets 2,633,620 5,723,023 572,280 - 8,928,923 Total noncurrent assets 2,852,950 6,259,628 572,280 - 9,684,858 Total assets 5,881,709 9,200,589 1,328,955 - 16,411,253

DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Pension related amounts 63,106 83,445 - - 146,551
Total deferred outflows of resources 63,106 83,445 - - 146,551 Enterprise Funds
See accompanying Notes to Basic Financial Statements.
21 City of Guadalupe
Statement of Net Position
Proprietary Funds
June 30, 2022
Wastewater (Nonmajor)
Water Treatment Transit Solid Waste Total

LIABILITIES
Current liabilities:

Accounts payable 21,714 89,423 61,568 - 172,705
Due to other funds 194,768 97,498 5,437 - 297,703
Deposits payable 48,651 - - - 48,651
Accrued wages and benefits 16,570 18,331 - - 34,901
Interest payable 17,611 14,059 - - 31,670
Current portion of certificates of participation 47,616 26,520 - - 74,136 Total current liabilities 346,930 245,831 67,005 - 659,766 Noncurrent liabilities:

Certificates of participation, net of
current portion 722,467 905,200 - - 1,627,667
Net pension liability 109,226 144,426 - - 253,652
Total noncurrent liabilities 1,014,426 866,893 - - 1,881,319 Total liabilities 1,361,356 1,112,724 67,005 - 2,541,085

DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Deferred inflows - leases - 768,865 - - 768,865
Pension related amounts 94,735 125,268 - - 220,003
Total deferred inflows of resources 94,735 894,133 - - 988,868

NET POSITION
Net investment in capital assets 1,680,804 4,974,036 572,280 - 7,227,120 Restricted for debt service 88,455 58,578 - - 147,033
Unrestricted 2,719,465 2,244,563 689,670 - 5,653,698
Total net position $ 7,277,17 4,488,724 $ 1,261,95 7 $ - 0 $ 13,027,851 $ Enterprise Funds
See accompanying Notes to Basic Financial Statements.
22 City of Guadalupe
Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position Proprietary Funds
For the year ended June 30, 2022
Wastewater (Nonmajor)
Water Treatment Transit Solid Waste Total
OPERATING REVENUES:

Water sales $ - 2,409,700 $ -$ $ 2,409,70 - $ 0
Standby charges 27,189 - - - 27,189
Connection fees 115,237 285,344 - - 400,581
Sewer service charges - 1,838,549 - - 1,838,549
Refuse service charges - -- - -
Other revenues 90,574 281,250 45,180 - 417,004
Total operating revenues 2,642,700 2,405,143 45,180 - 5,093,023 OPERATING EXPENSES:

Personnel services 327,434 278,944 - - 606,378
Maintenance and operations 1,320,121 752,696 530,394 - 2,603,211 Depreciation 128,926 434,578 96,518 - 660,022
Total operating expenses 1,776,481 1,466,218 626,912 - 3,869,611 OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) 866,219 938,925 (581,732) - 1,223,412 NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES):

Revenues from other agencies 30,683 13,827 690,640 - 735,150 Interest income (16,761) (18,836) (4,974) - (40,571)
Interest expense (40,441) (34,598) - (75,039) -
Other income (loss) (363,844) 241,225 - (122,619) -
Total nonoperating revenues (expenses) (390,363) 201,618 685,666 - 496,921

INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE CONTRIBUTIONS
AND TRANSFERS 475,856 1,140,543 103,934 - 1,720,333
Contributed capital - -- - -
Transfers in 33,692 442 2,453 - 36,587
Transfers out (324,723) (299,200) (35,000) (1,135) (660,058) Total contributions and transfers (291,031) (298,758) (32,547) (1,135) (623,471) Change in net position 184,825 841,785 71,387 (1,135) 1,096,862

NET POSITION
Beginning of year 4,303,899 6,435,392 1,190,563 1,135 11,930,989 End of year $ 7,277,17 4,488,724 $ 1,261,95 7 $- 0 $ 13,027,851 $ Enterprise Funds
See accompanying Notes to Basic Financial Statements.
23 City of Guadalupe
Statement of Cash Flows
Proprietary Funds
For the year ended June 30, 2022
Wastewater
Water Treatment
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES:

Cash received from customers $ 2,033,857 2,532,432 $
Cash received from connection fees 115,237 285,344
Cash received from standby charges and other agencies 27,189 - Cash paid to suppliers for goods and services (1,081,433) (810,675) Cash paid to employees and related benefits (346,345) (302,811) Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities 1,247,080 1,205,715 CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES:

Operating grants received 30,683 13,827
Internal activity - cash paid to (received from) other funds for interfund loan payments 245,270 78,899 Net transfers (291,031) (298,758)
Net cash provided by (used in) noncapital financing activities (15,078) (206,032) CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES:

Net changes in capital lease obligations - (4,870)
Principal payments on certificates of participation (45,586) (24,960) Interest payments on certificates of participation (41,226) (35,078) Sale (Acquisition) of capital assets (255,898) (1,693,258) Net cash provided by (used in) capital and related financing activities (342,710) (1,758,166) CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES:

Interest on investments (16,761) (18,836)
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities (16,761) (18,836) NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS 872,531 (777,319) CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS - Beginning of year 1,175,870 2,985,735 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS - End of year $ 2,048,401 $ 2,208,416

RECONCILIATION OF OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) TO NET
CASH PROVIDED BY (USED IN) OPERATING ACTIVITIES:

Operating income (loss) $ 866,219 $ 938,925
Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss)
to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:

Depreciation 128,926 434,578
Changes in assets, deferred outflows and inflows of resources, and liabilities Accounts receivable 40,372 (71,942)
Prepaid expenses 264,884 (30,873)
Deferred outflows pensions (75) (100)
Accounts payable (26,196) (27,106)
Deposits payable (8,214) -
Accrued wages and benefits 2,269 4,140
Net pension liability (104,165) (137,736)
Deferred inflows pensions 83,060 109,829
Total adjustments 380,861 266,790
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities $ 1,247,080 $ 1,205,715 Enterprise Funds
See accompanying Notes to Basic Financial Statements.
24 (nonmajor)
Transit Solid Waste Total
$ - 286,232 $ 4,852,521 $
- 400,581 -
- 27,189 -
(513,533) (2,405,641) -
- (649,156) -
(227,301) 2,225,494 -
690,640 735,150 -
5,437 329,606 -
(32,547) (1,135) (623,471)
663,530 (1,135) 441,285
- (4,870) -
- (70,546) -
- (76,304) -
(67,443) (2,016,599) -
(67,443) (2,168,319) -
(4,974) (40,571) -
(4,974) (40,571) -
363,812 (1,135) 457,889
339,434 1,135 4,502,174
$ 703,246 $ 4,960,06 - $ 3
$ - (581,732) $ 1,223,412 $
- 96,518 660,022
241,052 209,482 -
- 234,011 -
- - (175)
16,861 (36,441) -
- (8,214) -
- 6,409 -
- (241,901) -
- 192,889 -
354,431 1,002,082 -
$ (227,301) $ 2,225,494 - $
Enterprise Funds
See accompanying Notes to Basic Financial Statements.
25 City of Guadalupe
Statement of Fiduciary Net Position
Fiduciary Fund
June 30, 2022
Private-Purpose
Trust Fund
ASSETS
Cash and investments $ 784,416
Cash with fiscal agent 309,008
Accounts receivable 89,170
Property held for resale 222,482
Capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation 119,639 Total assets 1,524,715

DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Deferred loss on refunding 71,030
Total deferred outflows of resources 71,030

LIABILITIES
Accounts payable 27,735
Interest payable 53,779
Unearned revenue 503,493
Long-term liabilities:

Due within one year 230,000
Due after one year 3,673,028
Total liabilities 4,488,035

NET POSITION
Held in trust for other governments $ (2,892,290)
See accompanying Notes to Basic Financial Statements.
26 City of Guadalupe
Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position
Fiduciary Fund
For the year ended June 30, 2022
RDA Successor Agency Successor Agency
Retirement to RDA Merged to RDA Private-Purpose
Obligation Area Housing Trust Fund
ADDITIONS:

Property taxes $ 518,363
Revenue from other agencies 56,405
Other revenues (4,944)
Total additions 569,824
DEDUCTIONS:

Program expenses 447,012
Administration expenses 140,557
Interest on long-term liabilities 140,449
Depreciation 9,900
Total Deductions 737,918
Change in net position (168,094)
NET POSITION:

Beginning of year (2,724,196)
End of year $ (2,892,290)
See accompanying Notes to Basic Financial Statements.
27 This page intentionally left blank
28 NOTES TO BASIC

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
29 30
City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The basic financial statements of the City of Guadalupe, California (City) have been prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) as applied to governmental agencies. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is the accepted standard setting body for establishing governmental accounting and financial reporting principles. The more significant of the City’s accounting policies are described below.

A. Reporting Entity
The City of Guadalupe (the City) was incorporated on August 3, 1946. The City is a general law city under the laws of the State of California and operates under a Council Administrator form of government. The City provides the following services: public safety (police and fire), construction and maintenance of highways and streets, sanitation, culture and recreation, public improvements, planning, zoning and general administration. Enterprise funds, operated in a manner similar to a private business, include water, wastewater, and transit.

The City has defined its reporting entity in accordance with the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 14, amended by GASB Statements No. 39 and 61. These statements provide guidance for determining which organizations, functions and activities of a government should be included in the general purpose financial statements.

The criteria for inclusion in the basic financial statements are generally based upon the ability of the City to exercise oversight responsibility over such organizations, functions and activities. Oversight responsibility is generally defined as the existence of financial interdependency and/or the ability to appoint governing boards, to designate management, to significantly influence operations, to approve operating budgets or to control day to day activities.

The accompanying financial statements include all activities and reporting entities over which the City exercises oversight responsibility. Effective January 31, 2012, the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Guadalupe (the Agency) was dissolved through the Supreme Court decision on Assembly Bill 1X26. This action impacted the reporting entity of the City that previously had reported the Agency as a blended component unit. See Note 13 for additional information on the dissolution and reporting of the Agency as a Private Purpose Trust Fund.

In determining the financial reporting entity for the City of Guadalupe, the following governmental unit has met the criteria for inclusion in the City's financial statements.

Guadalupe Public Financing Authority
The Guadalupe Public Financing Authority (Authority) was established in 2000, and is a separate government entity under the laws of the State of California. The purpose of the Authority is to provide financing for the construction and acquisition of selected City facilities. The City Council of the City of Guadalupe and the Board of Directors of the Authority are legally separate boards; however, they share a common membership. Activities of the Authority are accounted for in the applicable City governmental or enterprise funds. Separate financial statements are not prepared for the Authority, as it is included in the accompanying financial statements as a blended component unit. 31 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, Continued A. Reporting Entity, Continued
Other Governmental Agencies
Other governmental agencies provide various levels of services to residents of the City, either entirely or partially. The entities include, but are not limited to, the State of California, the County of Santa Barbara, as well as several school districts. Each of these agencies has an independently elected governing board or is dependent on an independently elected governing board other than the City Council of the City of Guadalupe.

The City has no ability to appoint or control the management of any of these entities and is not responsible for any operating losses or debts incurred. As a result of the above analysis, financial information for these agencies is not included within the scope of this report.

B. Basis of Accounting and Measurement Focus
The accounts of the City are organized on the basis of funds, each of which is considered a separate accounting entity with its own self-balancing set of accounts that comprise its assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, fund equity, revenues, and expenditures or expenses. These funds are established for the purpose of carrying out specific activities or certain objectives in accordance with specific regulations, restrictions or limitations. Governmental resources are allocated to and accounted for in individual funds based upon the purposes for which they are to be spent and the means by which spending activities are controlled.

Government-Wide Financial Statements
The government wide financial statements (i.e., the statement of net position and the statement of activities) report information on the primary government and its blended component units. The effect of interfund activity has been removed from these statements. Governmental activities, which normally are supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues, are reported separately from business type activities, which rely to a significant extent on fees and charges for support.

The statement of activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given function or segment are offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a specific function or segment. Program revenues include 1) charges to customers or applicants who purchase, use, or directly benefit from goods, services, or privileges provided by a given function or segment and 2) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a particular function or segment. Taxes and other items not properly included among program revenues are reported instead as general revenues.

These financial statements are presented on an “economic resources” measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Accordingly, all of the City’s assets, deferred inflows/outflows of resources, and liabilities, including capital assets, as well as infrastructure assets, and long-term liabilities, are included in the accompanying Statement of Net Position. The Statement of Activities presents changes in net position. Under the accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized in the period in which they are earned while expenses are recognized in the period in which the liabilities are incurred.
32 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, Continued B. Basis of Accounting and Measurement Focus, Continued Government-Wide Financial Statements, Continued
Certain types of transactions reported as program revenues for the City are reported in three categories:
x Charges for services
x Operating grants and contributions
x Capital grants and contributions
Certain eliminations have been made in regards to interfund activities, payables, and receivables. All internal balances in the Statement of Net Position have been eliminated except those representing balances between the governmental activities and the business-type activities, which are presented as internal balances and eliminated in the total primary government column. In the Statement of Activities, internal fund transactions have been eliminated; however, those transactions between governmental and business-type activities have not been eliminated. The following interfund activities have been eliminated:
x Due to/from other funds
x Transfers in/out
The City applies all applicable GASB pronouncements including all NCGA Statements and Interpretations currently in effect.

Fund Financial Statements
Separate financial statements are provided for governmental funds and proprietary funds. Major individual governmental funds and major individual proprietary funds are reported as separate columns in the fund financial statements.

Governmental Fund Financial Statements
Governmental fund financial statements include a Balance Sheet and a Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances for all major governmental funds and non-major funds aggregated. An accompanying schedule is presented to reconcile and explain the differences in net position as presented in these statements to the net position presented in the government-wide financial statements. The City has presented all major funds that meet specific qualifications.

Governmental funds are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Under this method, revenues are recognized when measurable and available. The City considers all revenues reported in the governmental funds to be available if the revenues are collected within sixty days after fiscal year end. Expenditures are recorded when the related fund liability is incurred, except for principal and interest on long term debt, claims and judgments, and compensated absences, which are recognized as expenditures to the extent that they have matured. Capital asset acquisitions are reported as expenditures in governmental funds. Proceeds of long term debt and acquisitions under capital leases are reported as other financing sources. 33 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, Continued B. Basis of Accounting and Measurement Focus, Continued Governmental Fund Financial Statements, Continued
Non exchange transactions, in which the City gives or receives value without directly receiving or giving equal value in exchange, include property taxes, grants, entitlements, and donations. On an accrual basis, revenues from property taxes are recognized in the fiscal year for which the taxes are levied. Revenue from grants, entitlements, and donations are recognized in the fiscal year in which all eligibility requirements have been satisfied.

Other revenues susceptible to accrual include other taxes, intergovernmental revenues, interest, and charges for services.

Grant revenues are recognized in the fiscal year in which all eligibility requirements are met. Under the terms of grant agreements, the City may fund certain programs with a combination of cost reimbursement grants, categorical block grants, and general revenues. Thus, both restricted and unrestricted net position may be available to finance program expenditures/expenses. The City’s policy is to first apply restricted grant resources to such programs, followed by general revenues if necessary.

The City reports the following funds as major governmental funds of the City.

General Fund accounts for resources traditionally associated with governmental activities that are not required legally or by sound financial management to be accounted for in another fund.

Community Development fund accounts for monies spent and activities performed under the Community Development Block Grant
Capital Improvement Program fund is used to account for projects approved by Council from various funding sources.

ARPA fund is used to account for the federal Coronavirus State & Local Fiscal Recovery Funds approved through the American Rescue Plan Act.

The Reconciliations of the Fund Financial Statements to the Government-Wide Financial Statements are provided.

Proprietary Fund Financial Statements
Proprietary fund financial statements include a Statement of Net Position, a Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Change in Net Position, and a Statement of Cash Flows for all proprietary funds.

Proprietary funds are accounted for using the “economic resources” measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Accordingly, all assets and liabilities (whether current or noncurrent) are included on the Statement of Net Position. The Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position present increases (revenues) and decreases (expenses) in total net position. Under the accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized in the period in which they are earned while expenses are recognized in the period in which a liability is incurred. 34 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, Continued B. Basis of Accounting and Measurement Focus, Continued Proprietary Fund Financial Statements, Continued
Proprietary funds distinguish operating revenues and expenses from nonoperating items. Operating revenues and expenses generally result from providing services and producing and delivering goods in connection with a proprietary fund’s principal ongoing operations. The principal operating revenues of the enterprise funds are charges to customers for sales and services, administrative expenses, and depreciation on capital assets. All revenues and expenses not meeting this definition are reported as nonoperating revenues and expenses.

For purposes of the Statement of Cash Flows, the City considers all highly liquid investments with a maturity of three months or less when purchased to be cash equivalents. The proprietary funds’ “deposits” in the City-wide cash management pool are, in substance, demand deposits and are, therefore, considered cash equivalents for purposes of the Statement of Cash Flows.

The City reports the Water, Wastewater, and Transit funds as major proprietary funds of the City.

Water Fund: This enterprise fund accounts for the operation of the City’s water utility, a self supporting activity, which renders a service on a user charge basis to residents and businesses.

Wastewater Treatment Fund: This enterprise fund accounts for the operations of the City’s wastewater treatment plant. The fund accounts for the operation of the City’s sewer utility, a self supporting activity, which renders a service on a user charge basis to residents and businesses.

Transit Fund: This enterprise fund accounts for the operations of the City’s transit service within the City and surrounding areas.

The City reports on non-major proprietary fund:

Solid Waste Fund: This enterprise fund accounts for the discontinued operations of the City’s solid waste collection and disposal services, which rendered service on a user charge basis to residents and businesses. This fund was closed in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022.

Fiduciary Fund Financial Statements
Fiduciary fund financial statements consist of a Statement of Fiduciary Net Position and a Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position. Fiduciary fund statements consist of a private purpose trust fund which accounts for the assets and liabilities of the former Redevelopment Agency.

C. Cash, Cash Equivalents and Investments
The City pools cash resources from all funds in order to facilitate the management of cash. The balance in the pooled cash account is available to meet current operating requirements. Cash in excess of current requirements is invested in various interest-bearing accounts and other investments for varying terms.
35 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, Continued C. Cash, Cash Equivalents and Investments, Continued
In accordance with GASB Statement No. 40, Deposit and Investment Disclosures (Amendment of GASB No. 3), certain disclosure requirements for Deposits and Investment Risks were made in the following areas:
• Interest Rate Risk
• Credit Risk
o Overall
o Custodial Credit Risk
o Concentrations of Credit Risk
In addition, other disclosures are specified including use of certain methods to present deposits and investments, highly sensitive investments, credit quality at year-end, and other disclosures.

In accordance with GASB Statement No. 31, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Certain Investments and for External Investment Pools, highly liquid market investments with maturities of one year or less at time of purchase are stated at amortized cost. All other investments are stated at fair value. The City categorizes the fair value measurements of its investments based on the hierarchy established by generally accepted accounting principles. The fair value hierarchy, which has three levels, is based on the valuation inputs used to measure an asset’s fair value: Level 1 inputs are quoted prices in active markets for identical assets; Level 2 inputs are significant other observable inputs; Level 3 inputs are significant unobservable inputs. The City does not have any investments that are measured using Level 3 inputs.

The City participates in an investment pool managed by the State of California entitled Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) which has invested a portion of the pooled funds in Structured Notes and Asset-Backed Securities. LAIF’s investments are subject to credit risk with the full faith and credit of the State of California collateralizing these investments. In addition, these Structured Notes and AssetBacked Securities are subject to market risk as to the change in interest rates.

Cash equivalents are considered amounts in demand deposits and short-term investments with a maturity date within three months of the date acquired by the City and are presented as “Cash and Investments” in the accompanying Basic Financial Statements.

The City considers all pooled cash and investments (consisting of cash and investments and restricted cash and investments) held by the City as cash and cash equivalents because the pool is used essentially as a demand deposit account from the standpoint of the funds. The City also considers all non-pooled cash and investments (consisting of cash with fiscal agent and restricted cash and investments held by fiscal agent) as cash and cash equivalents because investments meet the criteria for cash equivalents defined above.

D. Restricted Cash and Investments
Certain restricted cash and investments are held by fiscal agents for the redemption of bonded debt, for acquisition and construction of capital projects, and to meet bond indenture debt reserve requirements. 36 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, Continued E. Capital Assets
All capital assets are valued at historical cost or estimated historical cost if actual historical cost is not available. Contributed capital assets are valued at their estimated fair value on the date contributed. The City’s policy is to capitalize all capital assets with costs exceeding $5,000 and with useful lives exceeding one year.

With the implementation of GASB Statement No. 34, the City has recorded all its public domain (infrastructure) capital assets, which include roads, bridges, curbs and gutters, streets and sidewalks, drainage systems, and lighting systems.

The purpose of depreciation is to spread the cost of capital assets equitably among all users over the life of these assets. The amount charged to depreciation expense each fiscal year represents that fiscal year’s pro rata share of the cost of capital assets. GASB Statement No. 34 requires that all capital assets with limited useful lives be depreciated over their estimated useful lives. Depreciation is provided using the straight line method which means the cost of the asset is divided by its expected useful life in years and the result is charged to expense each fiscal year until the asset is fully depreciated.

The City has assigned the useful lives listed below to capital assets.

Vehicles 5 – 10 years
Buildings and Improvements 20 – 35 years
Equipment 5 – 15 years
Infrastructure 10 – 50 years
F. Interest Payable
In the Government-Wide Financial Statements, interest payable on long-term debt is recognized as the liability is incurred for governmental fund types and proprietary fund types.

In the Fund Financial Statements, proprietary and fiduciary fund types recognize the interest payable when the liability is incurred, but governmental fund types do not recognize an interest payable.

Instead interest expense is recorded when the payment is made.

G. Long-Term Debt
Government-Wide Financial Statements
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations are reported as liabilities in the appropriate activities.

Bond premiums and discounts are amortized over the life of the bonds using the straight-line method.

Bonds payable is reported net of the applicable bond premium or discount. Bond issuance costs, except any portion related to prepaid insurance costs, are recognized as an expense in the period incurred.

Fund Financial Statements
The governmental fund financial statements do not present long-term debt. As such, long-term debt is shown in the Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet to the Government-Wide Statement of Net Position.
37 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, Continued G. Long-Term Debt, Continued
Fund Financial Statements, Continued
Bond premiums and discounts are recognized during the current period as other financing sources or uses. Issuance costs, whether or not withheld from the actual debt proceeds received, are reported as debt service expenditures. Bond proceeds are reported as other financing sources.

Proprietary Fund and Fiduciary Fund Financial Statements use the same principles as those used in the Government-Wide Financial Statements.

H. Property Taxes
California Constitution Article XIII A limits the combined property tax rate to one percent of a property’s assessed valuation. Additional taxes may be imposed with voter approval. Assessed value is calculated at one hundred percent of a property’s fair value, as defined by Article XIII A, and may be increased no more than two percent per year unless a change in ownership occurs. The state legislature has determined the method of distributing the one percent tax levy among the various taxing jurisdictions.

Property tax revenues are recognized in the fiscal year for which taxes have been levied, and collected within sixty days of fiscal year end. Property tax assessment and collection is administered by the County of Santa Barbara.

Property taxes are billed and collected as follows:

Valuation/Lien Date(s)
Secured
January 1
Unsecured
January 1
Levy Date(s) September 1 January 1
Due Date(s) November 1 (50%)
February 1 (50%)
Upon Billing
Delinquency Date(s) December 10 (Nov.)
April 10 (Feb.)
August 31
I. Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources
In addition to assets, the statement of net position (balance sheet) will sometimes report a separate section for deferred outflows of resources. This separate financial statement element, deferred outflows of resources, represents a consumption of net assets that applies to a future period(s) and so will not be recognized as an outflow of resources (expense/expenditure) until then.

In addition to liabilities, the statement of net position (balance sheet) will sometimes report a separate section for deferred inflows of resources. This separate financial statement element, deferred inflows of resources, represents an acquisition of net assets that applies to a future period(s) and so will not be recognized as an inflow of resources (revenue) until that time. 38 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, Continued J. Net Position
Government-Wide Financial Statements
In the Government-Wide Financial Statements, net position are classified in the following categories:

Net Investment in Capital Assets – This amount consists of capital assets net of accumulated depreciation and reduced by outstanding debt that is attributed to the acquisition, construction, or improvement of the assets.

Restricted – This amount is restricted by external creditors, grantors, contributors, or laws or regulations of governments.

Unrestricted – This amount is all net position that does not meet the definition of “net investment in capital assets” or “restricted net position” as defined above.

When an expense is incurred for purposes for which both restricted and unrestricted net position is available, the City’s policy is to apply restricted net position first.

K. Fund Balances
Fund Financial Statements
In February 2009, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued Statement 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions (GASB 54). The classifications of fund balances are as follows:

Non-spendable Fund Balances
This component consists of amounts that cannot be spent because they are either (a) not in spendable form or (b) legally or contractually required to be maintained intact.

Restricted Fund Balances
This component consists of amounts that have constraints placed on them either externally by third parties (creditors, grantors, contributors, or laws or regulations of other governments) or by law through constitutional provisions or enabling legislation. Enabling legislation authorizes the City to assess, levy, charge or otherwise mandate payment of resources (from external resource providers) and includes legally enforceable requirement (compelled by external parties) that those resources be used only for the specific purposes stipulated in the legislation.

Committed Fund Balances
This component consists of amounts that can only be used for specific purposes pursuant to constraints imposed by formal action of the City’s highest level of decision making authority which includes the City Municipal Code, Ordinances and Resolutions. Those committed amounts cannot be used for any other purpose unless the City removes or changes the specified use by taking the same type of action (City Municipal Code, Ordinance and Resolution) it employed previously to commit those amounts. 39 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, Continued K. Fund Balances, Continued
Assigned Fund Balances
This component consists of amounts that are constrained by the City’s intent to be used for specific purposes, but are neither restricted nor committed. Such intent should be expressed by the City Council or its designated officials to assign amounts to be used. Constraints imposed on the use of assigned amounts can be removed with no formal Council actions.

Unassigned Fund Balance
This component consists of amounts that have not been restricted, committed or assigned to specific purposes.

Hierarchy of Expenditures to Classify Fund Balance Amounts The City has formally adopted a spending policy regarding the order in which restricted, committed, assigned, and unassigned fund balances are spent when more than one amount is available for a specific purpose. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the City’s policy to use restricted resources first, then unrestricted resources (committed, assigned and unassigned) as they are needed. When unrestricted resources (committed, assigned and unassigned) are available for use it is the City’s policy to use committed resources first, then assigned, and then unassigned as they are needed.

L. Compensated Leave Payable
In compliance with GASB Statement No. 16, the City has established a liability for accrued sick leave and vacation in relevant funds. For governmental funds, the current liability appears in the respective funds. All vacation paid is accrued when incurred in the government wide and proprietary funds financial statements. This liability is set up for current employees at their current rates of pay. If sick leave and vacation are not used by the employee during the term of employment, compensation is payable to the employee at the time of retirement. Such compensation is calculated at the employee’s prevailing rate at the time of retirement or termination. Each fiscal year, an adjustment to the liability is made based on pay rate changes and adjustments for the current portion. The General Fund is primarily responsible for the repayment of the governmental portion of compensated absences.

M. Pension
The City recognizes a net pension liability, which represents the City’s proportionate share of net pension liability reflected in the actuarial reports provided by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) plan (Plan). The net pension liability is measured as of the City’s prior fiscal year‐end. Changes in the net pension liability are recorded, in the period incurred, as pension expense or as deferred inflows of resources or deferred outflows of resources depending on the nature of the change. The changes in the net pension liability that are recorded as deferred inflows of resources or deferred outflows of resources (that arise from changes in actuarial assumptions or other inputs and differences between expected or actual experience) are amortized over the weighted average remaining service life of all participants in the respective pension plan and are recorded as a component of pension expense beginning with the period in which they are incurred. 40 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, Continued M. Pension, Continued
For purposes of measuring the net pension liability and deferred outflows/inflows of resources related to pensions, and pension expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the City’s CalPERS Plan and additions to/deductions from the Plan’s fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they are reported by CalPERS. For this purpose, benefit payments (including refunds of employee contributions) are recognized when due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms.

Investments are reported at fair value. Projected earnings on pension investments are recognized as a component of pension expense.

N. Other Postemployment Benefits (OPEB)
For purposes of measuring the net OPEB liability, deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB, and OPEB expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the City’s plan (OPEB Plan) and additions to/deductions from the OPEB Plan’s fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis. For this purpose, benefit payments are recognized when currently due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value. Generally accepted accounting principles require that the reported results must pertain to liability and asset information within certain defined timeframes. For this report, the following timeframes are used:
x Valuation Date - July 1, 2020
x Measurement Date - June 30, 2022
x Measurement Period - July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022
O. Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, as prescribed by the GASB and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenditures/expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

P. New Pronouncements
The City adopted new accounting standards in order to conform to the following Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statements:
¾ GASB Statement No. 87, Leases – The objective of this statement is to better meet the information needs of financial statement users by improving accounting and financial reporting for leases by governments. The City added one lessor lease to the Proprietary Funds Financial Statements and updated the note disclosures as a result of implementing this statement. 41 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, Continued P. New Pronouncements, Continued
¾ GASB Statement No. 89, Construction-period interest – The objectives of this Statement are (1) to enhance the relevance and comparability of information about capital assets and the cost of borrowing for a reporting period and (2) to simplify accounting for interest cost incurred before the end of a construction period. The requirements of this statement did not apply to the City for the current fiscal year.
¾ GASB Statement No. 92, Omnibus 2020 – The objectives of this Statement are to enhance comparability in accounting and financial reporting and to improve the consistency of authoritative literature by addressing practice issues that have been identified during implementation and application of certain GASB Statements. The requirements of this statement did not apply to the City for the current fiscal year.
¾ GASB Statement No. 93, Interbank offered rates (LIBOR removal and lease modifications) – The objective of this Statement is to address those and other accounting and financial reporting implications that result from the replacement of an interbank offered rate. The requirements of this statement did not apply to the City for the current fiscal year. ¾ GASB Statement No. 99, Omnibus 2022 – The objectives of this Statement are to enhance comparability in accounting and financial reporting and to improve the consistency of authoritative literature by addressing (1) practice issues that have been identified during implementation and application of certain GASB Statements and (2) accounting and financial reporting for financial guarantees. The requirements of this statement did not apply to the City for the current fiscal year.

2. CASH AND INVESTMENTS
The City maintains a cash and investment pool for all funds. Certain restricted funds that are held and invested by independent outside custodians through contractual agreements are not pooled. These restricted funds include cash and investment held by trustees.

The following is a summary of cash and investments at June 30, 2022:
42 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

2. CASH AND INVESTMENTS, Continued
A. Summary of Cash and Investments
Cash and investments as of June 30, 2022 consist of the following:

B. Deposits
The carrying amount of the City’s cash deposits was $2,038,279 at June 30, 2022. Bank balances before reconciling items were $1,930,722 at June 30, 2022. The City’s cash deposit was fully insured up to $250,000 by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The remaining amount was collateralized with securities held by the pledging financial institutions in the City’s name.

The California Government Code (Code) Section 53652 requires California banks and savings and loan associations to secure the City’s cash deposits by pledging securities as collateral. The Code states that collateral pledged in this manner shall have the effect of perfecting a security interest in such collateral superior to those of a general creditor. Thus, collateral for cash deposits is considered to be held in the City's name.

The market value of pledged securities must equal at least 110% of the City’s cash deposits. California law also allows institutions to secure City deposits by pledging first trust deed mortgage notes having a value of 150% of the City’s total cash deposits.

The City follows the practice of pooling cash and investments of all funds, except for funds required to be held by fiscal agents under the provisions of bond indentures. Interest income earned on pooled cash and investments is allocated to the various funds based on the period-end cash and investment balances. Interest income from cash and investments with fiscal agents is credited directly to the related fund.
43 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

2. CASH AND INVESTMENTS, Continued
C. Investments
Under the provisions of the City’s investment policy, and in accordance with the Code, the following investments are authorized:

Investments are stated at fair value using the aggregate method in all funds, resulting in the following investment income in all funds:

The City’s portfolio value fluctuates in an inverse relationship to any change in interest rate.

Accordingly, if interest rates rise, the portfolio value will decline. If interest rates fall, the portfolio value will rise. The portfolio for year-end reporting purposes is treated as if it were all sold. Therefore, fund balance must reflect the portfolio’s change in value. These portfolio value changes are unrealized unless sold. Generally the City’s practice is to buy and hold investments until maturity dates.

Consequently, the City’s investments are carried at fair value.

The City is a voluntary participant in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) that is regulated by Code Section 16429 under the oversight of the Treasurer of the State of California. The City’s investments with LAIF include a portion of the pool funds invested in Structured Notes and AssetBacked Securities. These investments include the following:

Structured Notes – are debt securities (other than asset-backed securities) whose cash flow characteristics (coupon rate, redemption amount, or stated maturity) depend upon one or more indices and/or have embedded forwards or options.
44 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

2. CASH AND INVESTMENTS, Continued
C. Investments, Continued
Asset-Backed Securities – the bulk of which are mortgage-backed securities, entitle their purchasers to receive a share of the cash flows from a pool of assets such as principal and interest repayments from a pool of mortgages (such as Collateralized Mortgage Obligations) or credit card receivables.

As of June 30, 2022, the City had $8,849,656 invested in LAIF, which had invested 1.88% of the pool investment funds in Structured Notes and Asset-Backed Securities as compared to 2.31% in the previous year. The LAIF fair value factor of 0.987125414 was used to calculate the fair value of the investments in LAIF.

D. Risk Disclosures
Interest Risk: Interest rate risk is the market value fluctuation due to overall changes in the interest rates.

It is mitigated by limiting the average maturity of the City’s portfolio not to exceed three years.

Investments held in the City Treasury grouped by maturity date at June 30, 2022, are shown below:

Credit Risk: Generally, credit risk is the risk that an issuer of an investment will not fulfill its obligation to the holder of the investment. This is measured by the assignment of a rating by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization. Presented below is the minimum rating required by (where applicable) the California Government Code, the City’s investment policy, or debt agreements, and the actual rating as of fiscal year end for each investment type.

At June 30, 2022, the City’s deposits and investments were rated as follows:

Custodial Credit Risk: For an investment, custodial credit risk is the risk that, in the event of the failure of the counterparty, the City will not be able to recover the value of its investments or collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. None of the City’s investments were subject to custodial credit risk.
45 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

2. CASH AND INVESTMENTS, Continued
E. Investment Valuation
Investments (except money market accounts that are included as part of restricted cash and investments) are measured at fair value on a recurring basis. Recurring fair value measurements, are those that Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statements require or permit in the statement of net position at the end of each reporting period. Fair value measurements are categorized based on the valuation inputs used to measure an asset’s fair value: Level 1 inputs are quoted prices in active markets for identical assets; Level 2 inputs are significant other observable inputs; Level 3 inputs are significant unobservable inputs.

Investments’ fair value measurements at June 30, 2022 are described below:

3. INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS
A. Interfund Loans Receivable
At June 30, 2022, the City had the following interfund loans:
46 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

3. INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS, Continued
A. Interfund Loans Receivable, Continued
Interfund loans occur when one fund loans another fund amounts for a specific purpose. The City intends to pay amounts back to the appropriate loaning fund in a manner similar to how an external loan would be paid, with a set payment schedule and interest based on the LAIF interest rate. The purpose of the interfund loans to the General Fund was to reduce a historical negative cash balance and support continued operations. The purpose of the Library Fund interfund loan was to pay the library lease payments, which will be supported through development fees in future years. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 2020, the Park Development Fund loaned proceeds from the sale of property to the Community Development Fund to aid in liquidity for community projects.

The remaining loans are short term balances. The General Fund loaned the Community Development Fund $78,098 to cover negative cash. The entire balance due from other funds to the Capital Improvement Program is for services rendered before June 30, 2022 but were paid after that date. They will be paid back in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2023.

Other than the short-term amount of $7,782 owed to the Capital Improvement Program that was paid off immediately, future minimum payments on the General Fund long-term loans as of June 30, 2022 were as follows:

The Community Development Fund is intended to settle the loan from the Park Development Fund of $744,736 in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2023. The Library Fund interfund loan does not have a set payment schedule. All other loans will be paid in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2023.

B. Transfers
Interfund transfers are used to move revenues from the fund with collection authorization to the debt service fund as debt service principal and interest payments become due and to move unrestricted fund revenues to finance various programs that the government must account for in other funds in accordance with budgetary authorizations, including amounts provided as matching funds for various grant programs. Interfund transfers to the General Fund are for the variable cost allocation plan for services provided to other funds of the City.
47 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

3. INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS, Continued
B. Transfers, Continued
At June 30, 2022 the City had the following transfers in/out which arose in the normal course of operations:

The transfers to the General Fund were to pay for overhead and operations. The transfers to the Capital Improvement Program Fund were to pay for various capital projects. The transfers out from the ARPA Fund were to pay for COVID-19 pandemic relief.

4. LEASES RECEIVABLE
In implementing GASB Statement 87 in the fiscal year 2022, the City recognized a lease receivable and deferred inflows of resources for the leasing of various City-owned land. In 2020, the City’s Wastewater Enterprise Fund entered into a lease with Clay’s Septic & Jetting, Inc. (Lessee) for the use of City land for the storage of Lessee’s equipment in exchange for monthly payments of $20,000. The lease term runs through August 2025 and has a discount rate of 0.865% In June 30, 2022, the Wastewater Fund recognized revenues and interest of $240,000. Receivables on the lease as of June 30, 2022 were $768,865.

5. LOANS AND NOTES RECEIVABLE
The City has made various loans under Community Development Block Grants to qualified homeowners and businesses. Under the terms of the business loans, repayments are due in monthly installments through 2023. Under the terms of the homeowner agreements, repayments of the loans are only required upon the sale of the home. The outstanding balance of the total loans receivable was $32,884 at June 30, 2022 and the business loans receivable portion was $5,066. 48 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

5. LOANS AND NOTES RECEIVABLE, CONTINUED
At June 30, 2022, the aggregate maturities of the City’s business loans and notes receivable were as follows:

The homeowner loans receivable amount of $6,318 does not have a fixed repayment schedule.

6. CAPITAL ASSETS
A. Government-Wide Financial Statements
The following is a summary of changes in the capital assets for the governmental activities during the fiscal year:
49 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

6. CAPITAL ASSETS, Continued
A. Government-Wide Financial Statements, Continued
Depreciation expense by program for capital assets for the year ended June 30, 2022 was as follows:

The following is a summary of changes in the capital assets for business-type activities during the fiscal year:

Balance
June 30, 2021 Additions Transfer
Balance
June 30, 2022
Non-depreciable assets:

Land 248,425 $ -$ -$ 248,425 $
Construction in progress 911,889 2,118,998 - 3,030,887
Total non-depreciable assets 1,160,314 2,118,998 - 3,279,312 Depreciable assets:

Buildings and improvements 10,322,380 118,615 (459,592) 9,981,403 Vehicles 1,829,057 - - 1,829,057
Equipment 545,158 20,211 565,369 -
Infrastructure 7,289,559 - - 7,289,559
Total depreciable assets 19,986,154 138,826 (459,592) 19,665,388 Less accumulated Depreciation:

Buildings and improvements, and
infrastructure (7,711,649) (180,669) 95,748 (7,796,570) Vehicles (1,207,338) (110,093) (1,317,431) -
Equipment (534,344) (4,782) (539,126) -
Infrastructure (3,998,172) (364,478) (4,362,650) -
Total accumulated depreciation (13,451,503) (660,022) 95,748 (14,015,777) Total depreciable assets, net 6,534,651 (521,196) (363,844) 5,649,611 Total capital assets $ 7,694,965 $ (363,844) 1,597,802 $ $ 8,928,923 50 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

6. CAPITAL ASSETS, Continued
A. Government-Wide Financial Statements, Continued
Depreciation expense for the year ended June 30, 2022 was as follows:

B. Governmental Fund Financial Statements
The governmental fund financial statements do not present general government capital assets but are shown in the Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet to the Government-Wide Statement of Net Position.

7. LONG-TERM DEBT
A. Governmental Activities
For the year ended June 30, 2022, governmental activities long-term liabilities activity was as follows:

Capital Lease Obligations
The City leased vehicles and equipment under capital leases with terms that expired in December 2021.

Amortization on the assets leased is included in depreciation expense.

Compensated Absences
Compensated absences in the governmental funds are generally liquidated by the General Fund on a pay-as-you-go basis.
51 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

7. LONG-TERM DEBT, Continued
B. Business-Type Activities
For the year ended June 30, 2022, business-type activities long-term liabilities activity was as follows:

Certificates of Participation 2000 – Original Issue $1,429,800 On December 21, 2000, the City issued certificates of participation through the Guadalupe Financing Authority which were purchased by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Utilities Service (RUS), amounting to $1,429,800, in an agreement which included a grant of $875,200 for water and sewer line replacement. Under the terms of the agreement, the City has pledged net water revenues and net wastewater revenues for the payment of debt service. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022, the net water and wastewater revenues were $995,145 and $1,373,503 respectively. The principal and interest payments for the debt during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022 totaled $76,932. The certificates of participation bear interest at 4.5% per annum, with principal and interest payments due semiannually through August 1, 2040. At June 30, 2022, the principal balance outstanding was $960,240.

The annual debt service requirements on the Certificates of Participation 2000 are as follows:
52 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

7. LONG-TERM DEBT, Continued
B. Business-Type Activities
Certificates of Participation 2005 – Original Issue $1,203,900 On July 27, 2005, the City issued certificates of participation which were purchased by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Utilities Service (RUS), amounting to $1,203,900, in an agreement which included a grant for water tank construction and upgrades. Under the terms of the agreement, the City has pledged tax increment revenues for the payment of debt service. Where tax increment revenues are no longer available for the payment of debt service, the City has pledged net water revenues for the payment of debt service. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022, the net water revenues were $995,145 and the principal and interest payments for the debt during the fiscal year were $69,887. The certificates of participation bear interest at 4.125% per annum, with principal and interest payments due semiannually through July 28, 2035. At June 30, 2022, the principal balance outstanding was $741,563.

The annual debt service requirements on the Certificates of Participation-2005 are as follows:

Capital Lease Obligations
The City leased vehicles and equipment under capital leases that have terms that expired in December 2021. Amortization on the assets leased is included in depreciation expense.

8. FUND BALANCE
The City Council approved through resolution the creation of two reserve accounts within the General Fund: General Reserve, and Emergency Reserve.

General Reserve
The General Reserve’s purpose is to provide funding to meet operational appropriation requirements in the event that the City experiences shortfalls in the collection of General Fund revenues or major unanticipated increases in expenditures. At a minimum, the balance is to be set at 10% of the City’s annual operating budget. Use of funds from the General Reserve may only be made after City Council approval.
53 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

8. FUND BALANCE
Emergency Reserve
The General Reserve’s purpose is to provide emergency funding as a result of a declared emergency or to fund an unanticipated urgent event affecting or threatening the public health, safety, and welfare of the City. At a minimum, the balance is to be set at 5% of the City’s annual operating budget. Use of funds from the General Reserve may only be made after City Council approval.

9. JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
The City of Guadalupe participates in two joint ventures under joint powers agreements.

A. Central Coast Water Authority
The Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) is a joint powers authority organized in 1991 for the purpose of providing the financing, construction, operation and maintenance of certain local (non state owned) facilities required to deliver water from the State Water Project to certain water purveyors and users in Santa Barbara County. CCWA is composed of eight members, all of which are public agencies.

The Board of Directors is made up of one representative from each participating entity. Votes on the Board are apportioned between the entities based upon each entity’s pro rata share of the water provided by the project.

Each participant is required to pay to CCWA an amount equal to its share of the total cost of “fixed project costs” and certain other costs in the proportion established in the Water Supply Agreement. This includes the participant’s share of payments to the State Department of Water Resources (DWR) under the State Water Supply Contract (including capital, operation, maintenance, power and replacement costs of the DWR facilities), debt service on CCWA bonds and all CCWA operating and administrative costs. Each participant is required to make payments under its Water Supply Agreement solely from the revenues of its water system. The City’s share of State water payments was $513,045 for the year ended June 30, 2022. The City’s allocations of CCWA’s operating expenses and debt service payments for the year ended June 30, 2022 were $150,072 and $146,624, respectively.

Additional information and complete financial statements for the CCWA may be obtained by contacting The Central Coast Water Authority at 255 Industrial Way, Buellton, CA 93427.

B. California Joint Powers Insurance Authority
The City is a member of the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA). CJPIA is composed of 118 California public entities and is organized under a joint powers agreement pursuant to California Government Code §6500 et seq. The purpose of CJPIA is to arrange and administer programs for the pooling of self insured losses, to purchase excess insurance or reinsurance, and to arrange for group purchased insurance for property and other coverages. The CJPIA’s pool began covering claims of its members in 1978. Each member government has an elected official as its representative on the Board of Directors. The Board operates through a nine member Executive Committee. 54 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

9. JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT, Continued
B. California Joint Powers Insurance Authority, Continued Self Insurance Program of CJPIA:

Each member pays an annual contribution at the beginning of the coverage period. A retrospective adjustment is then conducted annually thereafter, for coverage years 2012-13 and prior. Coverage years 2013-14 and forward are not subject to routine annual retrospective adjustment. The total funding requirement for primary self-insurance programs is based on an actuarial analysis. Costs are allocated to individual agencies based on payroll and claims history, relative to other members of the risk-sharing pool.

Primary Liability Program:

Claims are pooled separately between police and general government exposures. (1) The payroll of each member is evaluated relative to the payroll of other members. A variable credibility factor is determined for each member, which establishes the weight applied to payroll and the weight applied to losses within the formula. (2) The first layer of losses includes incurred costs up to $30,000 for each occurrence and is evaluated as a percentage of the pool’s total incurred costs within the first layer. (3) The second layer of losses includes incurred costs from $30,000 to $750,000 for each occurrence and is evaluated as a percentage of the pool’s total incurred costs within the second layer. (4) Incurred costs from $750,000 to $50 million, are distributed based on the outcome of cost allocation within the first and second loss layers.

The overall coverage limit for each member, including all layers of coverage, is $50 million per occurrence. Subsidence losses have a sub-limit of $40 million per occurrence. The coverage structure includes retained risk that is pooled among members, reinsurance, and excess insurance. More detailed information about the various layers of coverage is available on the following website:
https://cjpia.org/coverage/risk-sharing-pools/.

Primary Workers’ Compensation Program:

Claims are pooled separately between public safety (police and fire) and general government exposures. (1) The payroll of each member is evaluated relative to the payroll of other members. A variable credibility factor is determined for each member, which establishes the weight applied to payroll and the weight applied to losses within the formula. (2) The first layer of losses includes incurred costs up to $50,000 for each occurrence and is evaluated as a percentage of the pool’s total incurred costs within the first layer. (3) The second layer of losses includes incurred costs from $50,000 to $100,000 for each occurrence and is evaluated as a percentage of the pool’s total incurred costs within the second layer. (4) Incurred costs from $100,000 to statutory limits are distributed based on the outcome of cost allocation within the first and second loss layers.

For fiscal year 2021-22, CJPIA’s pooled retention is $1 million per occurrence, with reinsurance to statutory limits under California Workers’ Compensation Law. Employer’s Liability losses are pooled among members to $1 million. Coverage from $1 million to $5 million is purchased through reinsurance policies, and Employer’s Liability losses from $5 million to $10 million are pooled among members.
55 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

9. JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT, Continued
B. California Joint Powers Insurance Authority, Continued Employer’s Liability losses are pooled among members to $2 million. Coverage from $2 million to $5 million is purchased as part of a reinsurance policy, and Employer’s Liability losses from $5 million to $10 million are pooled among members.

Purchased Insurance under CJPIA:

Property Insurance: The City participates in the all risk property protection program of CJPIA. This insurance protection is underwritten by several insurance companies. City property is currently insured according to a schedule of covered property submitted by the City to CJPIA. There is a $10,000 deductible per occurrence except for non emergency vehicle insurance which has a $2,500 deductible.

Adequacy of Protection under CJPIA:

During the past three fiscal years, none of the above programs of protection experienced settlements or judgments that exceeded pooled or insured coverage. There were also no significant reductions in pooled or insured liability coverage in 2021-22.

Additional information and complete financial statements for the CJPIA may be obtained by contacting the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority at 8081 Moody Street, La Palma, CA 90623

10. EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLANS
A. Plan Descriptions
All qualified permanent and probationary employees are eligible to participate in the Public Agency Cost-Sharing Multiple-Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plan (Plan) administered by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS). The Plan consists of individual rate plans (benefit tiers) within a safety risk pool (police and fire) and a miscellaneous risk pool (all other). Plan assets may be used to pay benefits for any employer rate plan of the safety and miscellaneous risk pools.

Accordingly, rate plans within the safety or miscellaneous pools are not separate plans under GASB Statement No. 68. Individual employers may sponsor more than one rate plan in the miscellaneous or safety risk pools. The City sponsors four rate plans (two miscellaneous and two safety). Benefit provisions under the Plan are established by State statute and City resolution. CalPERS issues publicly available reports that include a full description of the pension plan regarding benefit provisions, assumptions, and membership information that can be found on the CalPERS website.

B. Benefits Provided
CalPERS provides service retirement and disability benefits, annual cost-of-living adjustments and death benefits to plan members, who must be public employees and beneficiaries. Benefits are based on years of credited service, equal to one year of full-time employment. Members with five years of total service are eligible to retire at age 50 with statutorily reduced benefits. All members are eligible for non-duty disability benefits after 10 years of service. The death benefit is one of the following:
the Basic Death Benefit, Safety Special Death Benefit, or the Optional Settlement 2W Death Benefit.

The cost-of-living adjustments for each plan are applied as specified by the Public Employees’ Retirement Law.
56 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

10. EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLANS, Continued
The Plans’ provisions and benefits in effect at June 30, 2022, are summarized as follows:

C. Contributions
Section 20814(C) of the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law requires that the employer contribution rates for all public employers be determined on an annual basis by the actuary and shall be effective on the July 1 following notice of a change in the rate. Funding contributions for both Plans are determined annually on an actuarial basis as of June 30 by CalPERS. The actuarially determined rate is the estimated amount necessary to finance the costs of benefits earned by employees during the year, with additional amount to finance any unfunded accrued liability. The City is required to contribute the difference between the actuarially determined rate and the contribution rate of employees.

The City’s contributions to the Plan for the measurement period ended June 30, 2021 were $560,980.

D. Pension Liabilities, Pension Expenses, and Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources Related to Pensions
As of June 30, 2022, the City reported a net pension liability for its proportionate share of the net pension liability of the Plan of $1,935,887.

The City’s net pension liability for the Plan is measured as the proportionate share of the total net pension liability of the Plan. The net pension liability of the Plan is measured as of June 30, 2021, and the total pension liability for the Plan used to calculate the net pension liability was determined by actuarial valuations as of June 30, 2020 rolled forward to June 30, 2021 using standard update procedures. The City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability was based on the City’s plan liability and assetrelated information where available, and proportional allocations of individual plan amounts as of the valuation date where not available.

Miscellaneous Safety
PEPRA
Miscellaneous
PEPRA
Safety
Hire date
Prior to
Jan 1, 2013
Prior to
Jan 1, 2013
On or after
Jan 1, 2013
On or after
Jan 1, 2013
Benefit formula 2.0% @55 2.0% @55 2.0% @62 2.0% @57
Benefit vesting schedule 5 years service 5 years service 5 years service 5 years service Benefit payments Monthly for life Monthly for life Monthly for life Monthly for life Retirement age 55 55 62 57
Monthly benefits, as a % of eligible
compensation 2% 2% 2% 2%
Required employee contribution rates 7.00% 7.00% 6.75% 10.00% Required employer contribution rates 10.88% 14.81% 7.59% 11.13% Unfunded liability payment 170,674 $ 115,117 $ 2,012 $ 4,529 $ 57 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

10. EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLANS, Continued
D. Pension Liabilities, Pension Expenses, and Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources Related to Pensions, Continued
The City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability for the Plan as of June 30, 2021 and 2020 were as follows:

For the year ended June 30, 2022, the City recognized pension expense of $239,184.

At June 30, 2022, the City reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the following sources:
$614,582 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to contributions subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in the year ending June 30, 2023. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized as pension expense (income) as follows:

Deferred Outflows
of Resources
Deferred Inflows
of Resources
Pension contributions subsequent to measurement date $ 614,582 $ - Changes in assumptions - -
Differences between expected and actual experience 260,788 - Changes in employer's proportion 243,115 -
Differences between the employer's contribution and the employer's proportionate share of contributions - 195,874 Net differences between projected and actual earnings on plan investments - 1,483,187
Total $ 1,118,485 $ 1,679,061
58 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

10. EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLANS, Continued
E. Actuarial Assumptions
The total pension liabilities in the June 30, 2020 actuarial valuations were determined using the following actuarial assumptions:
(1) The mortality table used was developed based on CalPERS-specific data The table includes 15 years of mortality improvements using Society of Actuaries Scale 90% of scale MP 2016. For more details on this table, please refer to the December 2017 experience study report (based on CalPERS demographic data from 1997 to 2015) that can be found on the CalPERS website.

F. Discount Rate
The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability for the Plan was 7.15%. The projection of cash flows used to determine the discount rate assumed that contributions from plan members will be made at the current member contribution rates and that contributions from employers will be made at statutorily required rates, actuarially determined. Based on those assumptions, the Plan’s fiduciary net position was projected to be available to make all projected future benefit payments of current plan members. Therefore, the long-term expected rate of return on plan investments was applied to all periods of projected benefit payments to determine the total pension liability. A detailed report testing these projections can be obtained from the CalPERS website.

The long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was determined using a buildingblock method in which best-estimate ranges of expected future real rates of return (expected returns, net of pension plan investment expense and inflation) are developed for each major asset class.

In determining the long-term expected rate of return, CalPERS took into account both short-term and long-term market return expectations as well as the expected pension fund cash flows. Using historical and forecasted information for all the funds’ asset classes, expected compound (geometric) returns were calculated over the short-term (first 10 years) and the long-term (11+ years) using a building-block approach. Using the expected nominal returns for both short-term and long-term, the present value of benefits was calculated for each fund. The expected rate of return was set by calculating the rounded single equivalent expected return that arrived at the same present value of benefits for cash flows as the one calculated using both short-term and long-term returns. The expected rate of return was then set equal to the single equivalent rate calculated above and adjusted to account for assumed administrative expenses.
59 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

10. EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLANS, Continued
F. Discount Rate, Continued
The table below reflects the long-term expected real rate of return by asset class. The rate of return was calculated using the capital market assumptions applied to determine the discount rate and asset allocation. These rates of return are net of administrative expenses.

G. Sensitivity of the Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability to Changes in the Discount Rate – The following presents the City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability for the Plan, calculated using the discount rate for the Plan, as well as what the City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is 1-percentage point lower or 1- percentage point higher than the current rate:

H. Payable to the Pension Plan
At June 30, 2022 the City reported a payable of $0 for outstanding amount of contributions to the pension plan required for the year ended June 30, 2022.

Assumed
asset Real return Real return
Asset Class(1) allocation years 1 - 10(2) years 11+(3)
Global equity 50.00% 4.80% 5.98%
Fixed income 28.00% 1.00% 2.62%
Inflation assets ― 0.77% 1.81%
Private equity 8.00% 6.30% 7.23%
Real assets 13.00% 3.75% 4.93%
Liquidity 1.00% ― -0.92%
Total 100.00%
(1) In the Sytem's CAFR, Fixed income is included in Global debt securities; Liquidity is included in Short-term investments;
Inflaction assets are included in both Global equity securities and Global debt securities (2) An expected inflation of 2.00% used for this period. (3) An expected inflation of 2.92% used for this period. 60 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

10. EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLANS, Continued
I. Deferred Compensation Plan
In addition to the CalPERS pension plan, the City also offers a deferred compensation 457 plan (457 Plan). Per GASB Statement 97, the 457 Plan is a defined contribution pension plan. It is held in trust at Empower Retirement or CalPERS which administer the 457 Plan. Participation in the plan is open to all employees and employees can chose between the two trust administrators. The City contributes a maximum amount, as shown in the table below, that depends on health insurance costs on an individual employee basis. The difference between the maximum and the actual health insurance costs for an employee is contributed to the 457 Plan. Employees who have health insurance coverage external to the City’s policies have the maximum amount contributed to the 457 Plan. The maximums for each bargaining unit are as follows:

For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022, the City contributed $44,599 to the 457 Plan and had payables to the 457 Plan of $9,835 as of June 30, 2022 of which $2,629 were City contributions, and $7,206 were employee contributions.

11. OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
A. Plan Description
The City’s other post-employment benefits (OPEB) plan, an agent multiple-employer defined benefit plan, is for retiree health benefits and is administrated by the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) Health Benefit Program. The City entered the PERS medical insurance program in 1990 under the Public Employees Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA). The required employer contribution was $143-149 per month for each retiree, spouse or surviving spouse, and dependent during the fiscal year. The City provides post-employment health care insurance to all employees who retire from the City on or after attaining age 50 with at least 5 years of PERS credited service. For employees first covered under PERS on or after January 1, 2013, the eligibility requirements are attaining age 52 and 5 years of PERS credited service. Benefits are paid for the lifetime of the retiree, spouse or surviving spouse, and dependents up to the age of 65. The City's OPEB Plan does not issue a publicly available financial report.

B. Employees Covered
The following current and former employees were covered by the benefit terms under the OPEB plan as of the July 1, 2020 actuarial valuation:

Bargining Unit June 30, 2022
Service Employee's International Union $ 700
Police Officer's Assoc. 975
International Assoc. of Fire Fighters 500
Fiscal year ended
61 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

11. OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS, Continued
C. Contributions
The City currently finances benefits on a pay-as-you-go basis and sets its maximum monthly contribution rates for health insurance on behalf of active employees according to the PEMHCA statutory minimum. The minimum was $143 per month for calendar year 2021 and $149 per month for calendar year 2022. This amount is indexed to the rate of medical inflation and increased each year accordingly. The City also pays 0.32% of premiums as an administrative fee on behalf of employees and retirees. For the measurement period June 30, 2021 to June 30, 2022, the City contributed $6,561 in benefit payments for retirees.

D. Total OPEB Liability
The City’s total OPEB liability was measured as of June 30, 2022 and was determined by an actuarial valuation as of July 1, 2020. Standard actuarial update procedures were used to project/discount from the valuation to measurement dates. The total OPEB liability was determined using the following actuarial assumptions, applied to all periods included in the measurement, unless otherwise specified:

The discount rate used the measure the total OPEB liability was 3.69%, which reflects the municipal bond 20-year high grade index rate, and assumes the net fiduciary position of the plan remains at $0. 62 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

11. OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS, Continued
E. Changes in the Total OPEB Liability
F. Sensitivity of the Total OPEB Liability to Changes in the Discount Rate The following presents the net OPEB liability of the City, as well as what the City’s net OPEB liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is 1-percentage-point lower (2.69 percent) or 1- percentage point higher (4.69 percent) than the current discount rate:

G. Sensitivity of the Total OPEB Liability to Changes in the Healthcare Cost Trend Rate The following presents the total OPEB liability of the City, as well as what the City’s total OPEB liability would be if it were calculated using a healthcare cost trend rate that is 1-percentage-point lower or 1- percentage point higher than the current healthcare cost trend rate:

Total OPEB
Liability
Balance at June 30, 2021
(Measurement date 06/30/2021)
Changes in the year:

Service cost 62,656
Interest 10,641
Changes of benefit terms -
Difference between expected and actual experience -
Changes of assumptions (157,976)
Benefit payments (6,561)
Net changes (91,240)
Balance at June 30, 2022
(Measurement date 06/30/2022)
Increase
(Decrease)
$ 494,819
$ 403,579
63 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

11. OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS, Continued
H. OPEB Expense and Deferred Outflows and Inflows of Resources At June 30, 2022, the City’s deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources to OPEB from the following sources were as follows:

Amounts reported as deferred outflows and deferred inflows of resources will be recognized in OPEB expense (income) as follows:

For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022, the City recognized OPEB expense of $70,795.

12. CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS
A. Litigation
The City is presently involved in certain matters of litigation that have arisen in the normal course of conducting City business. City management believes, based upon consultation with the City Attorney, that these cases, in the aggregate, are not expected to result in a material adverse financial impact on the City. Additionally, City management believes that the City’s insurance programs are sufficient to cover any potential losses should an unfavorable outcome materialize.

B. Grant Commitments
The City had received state and federal funds for specific purposes that are subject to review and audit by the grantor agencies. Although such audits could generate expenditure disallowances under terms of the grants, it is believed that any required reimbursements will not be material.

13. SUCCESSOR AGENCY TRUST FOR ASSETS OF THE FORMER REDVELOPMENT AGENCY On December 29, 2011, the California Supreme Court upheld Assembly Bill 1X 26 (the “Bill”) that provides for the dissolution of all redevelopment agencies in the State of California. This action impacted the reporting entity of the City of Guadalupe that previously had reported the City’s Redevelopment Agency within the reporting entity as a blended component unit. 64 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

13. SUCCESSOR AGENCY TRUST FOR ASSETS OF THE FORMER REDVELOPMENT AGENCY, Continued
The Bill provided that upon dissolution of a redevelopment agency, either the City or another unit of local government will agree to serve as the “successor agency” to hold the assets until they are distributed to other units of state and local government. On January 9, 2012, the City Council elected to become the Successor Agency for the former Redevelopment agency in accordance with the Bill as part of City Resolution No. 2 (2012).

After enactment of the law, which occurred on June 28, 2011, redevelopment agencies in the State of California were prohibited from entering into new projects, obligations or commitments. Subject to the control of a newly established oversight board, remaining assets could only be used to pay enforceable obligations in existence at the date of dissolution (including the completion of any unfinished projects that were subject to legally enforceable contractual commitments).

In future fiscal years, successor agencies will only be allocated revenue in the amount that is necessary to pay the estimated annual installment payments on enforceable obligations of the former redevelopment agency until all enforceable obligations of the prior redevelopment agency have been paid in full and all assets have been liquidated.

The Bill directs the State Controller of the State of California to review the propriety of any transfers of assets between redevelopment agencies and other public bodies that occurred after January 1, 2011. If the public body that received such transfers is not contractually committed to a third party for the expenditure of encumbrance of those assets, the State Controller is required to order the available assets to be transferred to the public body designated as the successor agency of the Bill.

Management believes, in consultation with legal counsel, that the obligations of the former redevelopment agency due to the City are valid enforceable obligations payable by the successor agency trust under the requirements of the Bill. The City’s position on this issue is not a position of settled law and there is a considerable legal uncertainty regarding this issue. It is reasonably possible that a legal determination may be made at a later date by an appropriate judicial authority that would resolve this issue unfavorably to the City.

In accordance with the timeline set forth in the Bill (as modified by the California Supreme Court on December 29, 2011) all redevelopment agencies in the State of California were dissolved and ceased to operate as a legal entity as of February 1, 2012. After the date of dissolution, the assets and activities of the dissolved redevelopment agency were transferred to and are reported in a fiduciary fund (private‐ purpose trust fund, the Trust Fund) in the financial statements of the City.

A. Cash and Investments
The City maintained investments with the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) for all City activities, including the Trust Fund. The Trust had $784,416 in cash and investments as of June 30, 2022, that was held in LAIF. The City manages the Trust Fund’s cash and investments in a consistent manner with the rest of its cash and investment pool. Refer to Note 2 for additional information regarding LAIF.
65 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

13. SUCCESSOR AGENCY TRUST FOR ASSETS OF THE FORMER REDVELOPMENT AGENCY, Continued
B. Cash with Fiscal Agent
The Trust Fund had $309,008 in cash and investments as of June 30, 2022, held by fiscal agents pledged for the payment or security of certain bonds. The California Government code provides that these monies, in the absence of specific statutory provisions governing the issuance of bonds, certificates, or leases, may be invested in accordance with the ordinance, resolutions, or indentures specifying the types of investments its fiscal agents may make. These ordinances, resolutions, and indentures are generally more restrictive than the Trust’s general investment policy. In no instance have additional types of investments, not permitted by the Trust’s general investment policy, been authorized.

C. Property Held for Resale
At June 30, 2022, the carrying value of property held for resale was as follows:

D. Capital Assets
For the year ended June 30, 2022, capital assets activity was as follows:

E. Long-Term Liabilities
For the year ended June 30, 2022, long term liabilities activity was as follows:
66 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

13. SUCCESSOR AGENCY TRUST FOR ASSETS OF THE FORMER REDVELOPMENT AGENCY, Continued
E. Long-Term Liabilities, Continued
Tax Allocation Bonds
On April 3, 2003, the former redevelopment agency issued $6,455,000 of tax allocation bonds for a refunding of Series 1997 Tax Allocation Bonds. The bonds were scheduled to mature through August 1, 2035, with interest rates from 2.0 to 5.125%.

On November 1, 2017, the Successor Agency to the Guadalupe Community Redevelopment Agency issued $4,900,000 of tax allocation bonds (Bonds) to refund the 2003 series bonds. The refunding was undertaken to reduce total future debt service payments. The refunding resulted in $1,326,400 gross debt service (principal and interest) savings over 18 years, an economic gain of $147,832, and an accounting deferred loss on refunding of $92,886.

The scheduled payment of principal of and interest on the Bonds when due is guaranteed under an insurance policy issued concurrently with the Bonds. The Bonds mature through August 1, 2035, with interest rates from 1.5% to 3.5%. Principal on the bonds is due annually on August 1 of each year, and interest on the Bonds is due semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year. At June 30, 2022, the total principal and interest remaining to be paid on the bonds was $4,996,423. The outstanding principal balance net of bond discounts was $3,903,028.

For the year ended June 30, 2022, the aggregate maturities of the tax allocation bonds were as follows:

14. DEFICIT FUND BALANCES/NET POSITION
Major Funds
As of June 30, 2022, a deficit fund balance of $558,845 exists for the Community Development Fund.

This was a result of timing differences between invoices paid by the Community Development Fund and the related grant reimbursements received from the State, in addition to continuing the LeRoy Park project without additional funding.
67 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

14. DEFICIT FUND BALANCES/NET POSITION, CONTINUED
Non-major Funds
The Central Park Fund and Library Fund had deficit fund balances of $5,030 and $29,171, respectively, as of June 30, 2022.

15. GOING CONCERN
The City continues to have more expenditures than revenues in its General Fund. In order to continue operations, in prior years the General Fund borrowed from other funds. These borrowings still need to be repaid. There are doubts about the General Fund’s ability to continue to repay these interfund loans in their entirety if economic activity declines. Below is how management intends to address those issues:

The City is experiencing an increase in development related to the Pasadera residential development and other developments that currently have commenced including the Escalante Meadows housing project. There is also an increase in Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s). These new developments will bring in higher property tax and increased building development revenue for the City. In addition, the new Measure N that gained voter approval in November 2020 has brought additional sales tax revenue for the City in perpetuity that started in fiscal year 2022-2023 and is expected to increase tax revenue as the city expands its commerce base. The new Cannabis Program that included an adopted ordinance, ‘spring boarded’ the cannabis development entitlement process to build out two (2) cannabis retail storefronts and one (1) manufacturing processing cannabis operation that will bring in much needed community benefit fee revenue on an annual basis and create an estimate 100 new jobs, several of which, are high paying. Operations are expected to open its doors towards the end of 2023 and the beginning of 2024. Also, fortunately, the City received the American Rescue Plan funds that offset revenue losses related to the Pandemic in fiscal years and will be utilized through June 2024. The General Fund’s priority is to eliminate future borrowing from other funds, payoff current interfund loans and be economically self-sufficient by applying cost-cutting measures to continue to build reserves (from 7% to 15%). Interfund loan payment schedules will be reviewed annually, and, if possible, revised to decrease balances at a faster rate.

During the fiscal year 2022-2023 budget and goal setting sessions, the City Council set the following eight (8) goals to help bolster community and economic development that will help create and increase a long-term sustainable revenue stream now and into the future. The City anticipates another goal setting session in a year or so.

1. Develop and maintain a balanced budget for FY 22-23 Budget providing priority municipal services and securing the City’s financial future with adequate reserve funds. - Identify and allocate funds to be used to meet the General Fund Reserve Goal of 15% - Implement a monitoring program to ensure contracted cannabis Commitments are met. - Review revenue generation options for General Fund including possible Transient Occupancy Tax increase.
- Provide staffing and complete implementation of new finance software program. - Develop and provide for Council review a quarterly report on City finances and goal progress. 68 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

15. GOING CONCERN, CONTINUED
1a. Continue to develop and grow the Recreation Department by providing sustainable programs and facilities for the Community.
- Adequately fund and allocate staff for Recreation and Parks Department including a permanent recreation manager and maintenance positions
- Develop a facilities master plan for current park improvement and maintenance of existing parks and those in the pipeline
- Increase recreational programming for use of facilities utilizing community priorities and coordinating with recreation/sports entities
-
1b. Ensure Public Safety staffing and facilities are sufficient to maintain the delivery of quality public safety services to the community.
- Complete the implementation of a staffing plan for both Fire and Police including the addition of a Battalion Chief in the Fire Department as budget permits across the board - Continue to update facilities and equipment as budget permits 1c. Ensure that Public Facilities and Infrastructure (streets, water, wastewater) are capable of Meeting current and future needs of the City
- Continue to maintain and update facility master plans including streets wastewater, water, and Capital Improvement Plan.
- Prioritize City facilities in urgent need of City repair and identify costs and timing for all municipal facilities including the library
- Seek grant funding to assist with the above
- Develop and implement an adequate staffing plan for the Department of Public Works 1d. Ensure that American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds are maximized to ensure that initially funded staffing and services are met and where feasible converted to Genera Support - Revisit ARRA line items to ensure that the allocation of funds to needed positions and services is justifiable and achieves goals set by City Council.
- On a quarterly basis, revisit the items supported by ARRA in comparison to quarterly expenses and revenues for the entire city budget.
- Require justification of the remaining ARRA budget items requested to ensure allocation amount and intent are realized

2. Create and implement economic development strategies for the city of Guadalupe that will promote the development and maintenance of a strong business sector including business retention, attraction, tourism marketing, and revenue generation
- Work cooperatively with the Guadalupe Business Association to identify a strategy for business retention and attraction.
- Identify and apply for grant funding for the creation and - Staffing of a business support program
69 City of Guadalupe
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2022

15. GOING CONCERN, CONTINUED

3. Support the efforts to attract businesses to Pasadera Commercial Area to help, create employment opportunities, provide local services identified by Residents and generate tax revenue. - Develop a team comprised of a council member, planning staff, City Administrator, and consultants to support project proponents in their efforts to attract potential businesses to the commercial Area. - Advocate for the completion of the necessary infrastructure to support the development of the commercial area using communication between CalTrans, Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG), the City’s Development Team, and DJ Farms.

4. Coordinate with Santa Barbara County Parks Master Plan to acquire property adjacent or near Guadalupe for Camping and recreational facilities.
- Establish a core team to include city council representation, city staff, and existing business groups, who will collaborate with Santa Barbara County Parks Department in developing the Santa Barbara County Park Master plan.
- City representatives will include the City Administrator, Public Works Department, Recreation Department, city council representative, and a representative of the business community.

5. Develop and implement a communication strategy focused on improving flow of information between constituents, city staff and Council members.
- Cultivate a relationship with community-based organizations to disseminate information - Develop and implement social media policies for the City - Increase the usage of Zoom to broadcast City Council meetings 70 REQUIRED

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
71 72
City of Guadalupe
Required Supplementary Information
For the year ended June 30, 2022

1. BUDGETS AND BUDGETARY ACCOUNTING
A. Budgetary Control and Budgetary Accounting
Annual budgets are adopted on a basis consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America for all governmental funds. After adoption of the final budget, transfers of appropriations within a General Fund department, or within other funds, can be made by the City Administrator. Budget modifications between funds and increases or decreases to a fund’s overall budget, must be approved by the City Council.

Budgetary control is enhanced by integrating the budget into the general ledger accounts. Encumbrance accounting is employed (e.g., purchase orders) to avoid expenditures over budget. Encumbrances outstanding at fiscal year end are automatically re budgeted in the following fiscal year.

The following are the budget comparison schedules for all major Special Revenue Governmental Funds and the General Fund.
73 Budgetary Comparison Schedule - General Fund
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
REVENUES:

Taxes 3,596,34 $ 5 $ 3,596,345 $ 3,789,586 $ 193,241
Licenses and permits 838,670 915,842 875,813 (40,029)
Fines and penalties 5,300 5,300 6,375 1,075
Revenues from other agencies 509,358 658,458 688,953 30,495 Charges for current services 191,394 623,058 449,303 (173,755) Interest 94,600 94,600 48,964 (45,636)
Other revenues 121,500 121,500 141,561 20,061
Total revenues 5,357,167 6,015,103 6,000,555 (14,548)
EXPENDITURES:

Current:

General Government 1,330,625 1,401,714 1,390,226 11,488 Public Safety 3,583,000 4,082,346 4,090,986 (8,640)
Leisure, cultural and social services 212,530 383,686 369,691 13,995 Community development 423,570 609,783 497,624 112,159
Debt service:

Principal 119,000 119,000 - 119,000
Interest and fiscal charges 18,818 2,010 2,010 -
Total expenditures 5,687,543 6,598,539 6,350,537 248,002 REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (330,376) (583,436) (349,982) 233,454 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):

Transfers in 685,400 1,051,106 973,105 (78,001)
Transfers out (51,200) (315,938) (212,242) 103,696
Total other financing sources (uses) 634,200 735,168 760,863 25,695 Net change in fund balances 303,824 151,732 410,881 259,149 FUND BALANCES:

Beginning of year 370,356 370,356 370,356 -
End of year $ 674,180 $ 522,088 $ 781,237 $ 259,149
City of Guadalupe
For the year ended June 30, 2022
Budgeted Amounts
74 Budgetary Comparison Schedule - Community Development Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
REVENUES:

Revenues from other agencies $ 2,687,952 $ 2,687,952 $ 2,567,029 $ (120,923) Interest 3,500 3,500 (3,086) (6,586)
Other revenues - - 276,449 276,449
Total revenues 2,691,452 2,691,452 2,840,392 148,940
EXPENDITURES:

Current:

Leisure, cultural and social services 260,000 280,000 191,360 88,640 Total expenditures 260,000 280,000 191,360 88,640
REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 2,431,452 2,411,452 2,649,032 237,580 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):

Transfers in - 20,000 53,117 33,117
Transfers out (2,000,000) (2,000,000) (2,420,091) (420,091) Total other financing sources (uses) (2,000,000) (1,980,000) (2,366,974) (386,974) Net change in fund balances 431,452 431,452 282,058 (149,394) FUND BALANCES:

Beginning of year (840,903) (840,903) (840,903) -
End of year $ (409,451) $ (409,451) $ (558,845) $ (149,394) City of Guadalupe
For the year ended June 30, 2022
Budgeted Amounts
75 Budgetary Comparison Schedule - ARPA
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
REVENUES:

Revenues from other agencies $ - $ - $ 352,927 $ 352,927 Total revenues - - 352,927 352,927
REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES - - 352,927 352,927
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):

Transfers out -- (352,927) (352,927)
Total other financing sources (uses) -- (352,927) (352,927) Net change in fund balances ----
FUND BALANCES:

Beginning of year ----
End of year $ - $ - $ - $ -
City of Guadalupe
For the year ended June 30, 2022
Budgeted Amounts
76 This page intentionally left blank
77 City of Guadalupe
Required Supplementary Information
For the year ended June 30, 2022

2. DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS
A. Schedule of the City’s Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability – Last 10 Years* B. Schedule of Plan Contributions – Last 10 Years*
Fiscal year 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018
Measurement date 6/30/2021 6/30/2020 6/30/2019 6/30/2018 6/30/2017 Proportion of the net pension liability 0.03579% 0.03476% 0.03306% 0.03166% 0.03091% Proportionate share of the net
pension liability $ 3,782,088 1,935,887 $ 3,387,991 $ 3,050,995 $ 3,065,323 $ Covered payroll $ 2,926,608 $ 2,450,043 $ 2,025,580 $ 2,153,332 $ 1,925,534 Proportionate Share of the net pension
liability as percentage of covered payroll 66.15% 154.37% 167.26% 141.69% 159.19% Plan fiduciary net position as a percentage
of the total pension liability 88.29% 75.10% 75.26% 75.26% 73.31% (continued on next page)
Notes to Schedule
*Fiscal year 2015 was the 1st year of implementation, therefore only eight years are shown.

The CalPERS discount rate was increased from 7.5% to 7.65% in fiscal year 2016, and then decreased from 7.65% to 7.15% in fiscal year 2018.

The CalPERS mortality assumptions were adjusted in fiscal year 2019. 78 City of Guadalupe
Required Supplementary Information
For the year ended June 30, 2022

2. DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS, CONTINUED
A. Schedule of the City’s Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability – Last 10 Years, continued* B. Schedule of Plan Contributions – Last 10 Years, Continued* 2017 2016 2015
6/30/2016 6/30/2015 6/30/2014

0.02989% 0.02666% 0.0312%
$ 1,830,12 2,586,229 $ 1,939,137 9 $
$ 1,479,094 1,572,208 $ 1,548,925 $
164.50% 123.73% 125.19%

74.06% 78.40% 79.82%
2017 2016 2015
$ 251,172 305,064 $ 211,025 $
(305,064) (251,172) (211,025)
$ - -$ -$
$ 1,572,208 1,925,534 $ 1,479,094 $

15.84% 15.98% 14.27%
79 City of Guadalupe
Required Supplementary Information
For the year ended June 30, 2022

2. DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS, CONTINUED
C. Actuarial Methods and Assumptions used for Pension Actuarially Determined Contributions Fiscal Year 2022 2021 2020
6/30/2019 6/30/2018 6/30/2017
Actuarial cost method: Entry Age Entry Age Entry Age
Amortization method: (1) (1) (1)
Assets valuation method: Market Value Market Value Market Value Inflation: 2.50% 2.50% 2.63%
Salary increases: (2) (2) (2)
Investment rate of return: 7.00% 7.00% 7.25%
Retirement age: (3) (3) (3)
Mortality: (4) (4) (4)
Fiscal Year 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015
6/30/2016 6/30/2015 6/30/2014 6/30/2013 6/30/2012
Actuarial cost method: Entry Age Entry Age Entry Age Entry Age Entry Age Amortization method: (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
Assets valuation method: Market Value Market Value Market Value Market Value 15 Year Smoothed
Market
Method
Inflation: 2.75% 2.75% 2.75% 2.75% 2.75%
Salary increases: (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)
Investment rate of return: 7.375% 7.50% 7.50% 7.50% 7.50% Retirement age: (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)
Mortality: (4) (4) (4) (4) (4)
(1) Level percentage of payroll, closed
(2) Depending on age, service, and type of employment
(3) 50 for all plans, with the exception of 52 for Miscellaneous PEPRA 2%@62 (4)
Valuation date (for contractually
required contribution):

Mortality assumptions are based on mortality rates resulting from the most recent CalPERS Experience Study adopted by the CalPERS Board.

Valuation date (for contractually
required contribution):
80 City of Guadalupe
Required Supplementary Information
For the year ended June 30, 2022

3. OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (OPEB)
A. Schedule of Changes in Total OPEB Liability and Related Ratios 81 This page intentionally left blank
82 83
City of Guadalupe
Combining Balance Sheet
Other Governmental Funds
June 30, 2022
Guadalupe
Local Public Park Lighting and Public
Transportation Library Facilities Development Assessment Safety ASSETS
Cash and investments $ 400,675 39,089$ $ 28,535 $ 40,840 $ 947,216 $ 175,111 Accounts receivable 16,233 73 33 1,517 60 6,903
Prepaid items - - - 1,916 - -
Interfund loans receivable - - 744,736 - 192,500 -
Total assets $ 416,908 39,162$ $ 28,568 $ 785,636 $ 1,143,149 $ 182,014

LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS

OF RESOURCES AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:

Accounts payable - - - 9,895 - 7,876
Accrued wages and benefits - - - - - -
Interfund loans payable 2,919 68,333 - - - -
Total liabilities 2,919 68,333 - 9,895 - 7,876
Deferred inflows of resources:

Unavailable revenue - - - - - 3,876
Total deferred inflows of
resources - - - - - 3,876
Fund Balances:

Nonspendable:

Prepaid items - - - 1,916 - -
Restricted for:

Street maintenance 413,989 - - - - -
Other capital projects - - - - - -
Public safety - - - - - 170,262
Utility infrastructure - 28,568 - 785,636 - -
Debt service - - - - - -
Lighting and landscape - - - 1,131,338 - -
Committed to:

Capital projects - - - - - -
Unassigned - (29,171) - - - -
Total fund balances 413,989 (29,171) 28,568 785,636 1,133,254 170,262 Total liabilities
and fund balances $ 416,908 39,162$ $ 28,568 $ 785,636 $ 1,143,149 $ 182,014 Special Revenue
84 Total Other
Central Capital Traffic Sewer Bond Governmental
Park Measure A Gas Tax Facilities City Hall Mitigation Debt Service Funds $ - $ 691,165 346,014$ $ 521,244 $ 35,234 $ 121,518 $ 31,725 3,378,366 5,030 126,794 16,660 884 57 201 174,497 52
- 20,570 - - - - - 22,486
- - 68,333 - - - - 1,005,569
5,030$ 838,529 $ 362,674$ $ 590,461 $ 35,291 $ 121,719 $ 31,777 $ 4,580,918 - 5,308 - 6,770 - - 29,849 -
- 9,728 - - - - - 9,728
5,030 13,863 12,373 - 1,246 - - 103,764
5,030 28,899 12,373 6,770 - 1,246 - 143,341
5,030 65,874 - - - - - 74,780
5,030 65,874 - - - - - 74,780
- 20,570 - - - - - 22,486
- 723,186 350,301 - - - 1,487,476 -
- - 583,691 - 35,291 - - 618,982
- - - - - - - 170,262
- - - - - - - 814,204
- - - - - - 31,777 31,777
- - - - - - 1,131,338 -
- - - - - 120,473 - 120,473
(5,030) - - - - - (34,201) -
(5,030) 743,756 350,301 583,691 35,291 120,473 31,777 4,362,797 5,030$ 838,529 $ 362,674$ $ 590,461 $ 35,291 $ 121,719 $ 31,777 $ 4,580,918 Special Revenue Capital Projects
85 City of Guadalupe
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances Other Governmental Funds
For the year ended June 30, 2022
Guadalupe
Local Public Park Lighting and Public
Transportation Library Facilities Development Assessment Safety REVENUES:

Taxes - $ -$ -$ $ - $ 285,559 $ -
Licenses and permits - 15,000 - - --
Revenues from other agencies 176,383 - - - - 41,909
Charges for current services - - 12,911 15,734 --
Interest (2,798) (307) (132) (363) (8,112) (1,434)
Other revenues - - - 50,000 --
Total revenues 173,585 14,693 12,779 65,371 277,447 40,475 EXPENDITURES:

Current:

Public Safety - - - - - 54,830
Transportation - - - - - -
Leisure, cultural and social
services 15,000 - - - - -
Community development - - - 88,205 - -
Capital outlay - - - - -882
Total expenditures - 15,000 - - 88,205 55,712

REVENUES OVER
(UNDER) EXPENDITURES 173,585 (307) 12,779 65,371 189,242 (15,237)

OTHER FINANCING
SOURCES (USES):

Transfers in - 5,000 - 25,000 2,787 -
Transfers out (108,580) -- (75,000) (11,274) -
Total other financing
sources (uses) 5,000 (108,580) (50,000) - (8,487) -
Net change in fund
balances 65,005 4,693 12,779 15,371 180,755 (15,237)
FUND BALANCES:

Beginning of year 348,984 (33,864) 15,789 770,265 952,499 185,499 End of year $ 413,989 $ (29,171) $ 28,568 $ 785,636 $ 1,133,254 $ 170,262 Special Revenue
86 Total Other
Central Capital Traffic Sewer Bond Governmental
Park Measure A Gas Tax Facilities City Hall Mitigation Debt Service Funds $ - $ 663,917 $ 198,592 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,148,07 9 $ 7
---- 6,000 23,477 - 44,477
- 38,693 108,678 - - - -365,663
------- 28,645
- (5,223) (2,989) (4,282) (243) (936) (235) (27,054)
------- 50,000
- 697,387 304,281 (4,282) 5,757 22,541 (226) 1,609,808
- - - - - - 54,830 -
323,924 - 3,077 - - - 327,001 -
5,030 - - - - - 20,030 -
- - - - - - 88,205 -
- - - 115,472 - - - 116,354
5,030 323,924 3,077 115,472 - - - 606,420
(5,030) 373,463 301,204 (119,754) 5,757 22,541 (226) 1,003,388 - 442 - 20,220 - - - 53,449
- (631,906) (439,565) (34,189) - (43,934) - (1,344,448) (631,464) - (439,565) (13,969) (43,934) - (1,290,999) - (5,030) (258,001) (138,361) (133,723) 5,757 (21,393) (226) (287,611) - 1,001,757 488,662 717,414 29,534 141,866 32,003 4,650,408 $ (5,030) $ 743,756 $ 350,301 $ 583,691 $ 35,291 $ 120,473 $ 31,777 $ 4,362,797 Special Revenue Capital Projects
87 Attachment 3
City of Guadalupe
Single Audit Reports
Fiscal Year July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022
Guadalupe, California
Single Audit Reports
For the year ended June 30, 2022
City of Guadalupe
Single Audit Reports
For the year ended June 30, 2022
Table of Contents
Page
Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards ........................................................... 1 Report on Compliance for Each Major Program and on Internal Control over Compliance Required by the Uniform Guidance and on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ................................................................................................................... 3 Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ..................................................................................................... 6 Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ............................................................................... 7 Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs ....................................................................................................... 8

REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE

AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED

IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Guadalupe
Guadalupe, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Guadalupe, California (City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2022, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements and have issued our report thereon dated June 22, 2023.

Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.

Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the preceding paragraph and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies and therefore, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that have not been identified. However, as described in the accompanying schedule of findings and responses, we identified certain deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses and significant deficiencies.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. We consider the deficiency described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs as item 2022-001 to be a material weakness.

A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. We consider the deficiencies described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs as items 2022-002, 2022-003, 2022-004, and 2022-005, to be significant deficiencies.

To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Guadalupe
Guadalupe, California