August XX, 2026
Honorable Stephen W. Berrier, Presiding Judge
Yuba County Superior Court
215 5th Street, Suite 200
Marysville, CA 95901
RE: Response of the Marysville City Council to the Final Report of the Yuba County Grand Jury (2025-2026)
Dear Judge Berrier,
Pursuant to California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the Marysville City Council hereby submits its formal response to the 2025-2026 Yuba County Civil Grand Jury Final Report entitled 'City of Marysville Street Maintenance – A Bump in the Road.' The City respectfully submits the following responses on behalf of the City Council and City Manager.
I) INTRODUCTION
Street maintenance and rehabilitation have been longstanding priorities of the City Council.
Infrastructure, including streets, sidewalks, drainage, water, sewer, facilities, and related public improvements, has been one of the City's six primary strategic priorities for at least the past seven years and remains one of the Council's highest priorities.
Despite the funding challenges facing local agencies throughout California, the City has made substantial progress in improving its transportation infrastructure through a combination of local investment, state and federal grant funding, strategic project delivery, and ongoing maintenance activities.
During the review period and preceding years, the City invested approximately $3.5 million in General Fund resources toward street rehabilitation projects that were not strong candidates for grant funding. The City also aggressively pursued and secured funding through multiple state and federal programs, including Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Senate Bill 1 (SB1), and other transportation-related funding sources. Since 2021, the City has been awarded more than $17 million in outside funding for roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, and related transportation improvements bringing total street infrastructure investment during this period to over $20 million.
As a result, the City has rehabilitated approximately 20% of its street network during the past six years and anticipates increasing that percentage to approximately 34% by year 2028 through completed, funded, programmed, and active projects. During the same period, the City's Pavement Condition Index (PCI) improved from 56 to 67. See Attachment A – January 20, 2026 Pavement Management Presentation.
The City recognizes that infrastructure needs routinely exceed available funding resources.
Nevertheless, the City believes its level of investment, success in securing outside funding, measurable improvements in pavement conditions, and percentage of streets rehabilitated compare favorably with many similarly situated communities.
The City appreciates the efforts of the Yuba County Grand Jury and welcomes recommendations intended to improve municipal operations. However, the City is disappointed that the report does not adequately recognize the significant efforts undertaken by the City Council, City staff, and Public Works personnel, nor the substantial local and grant-funded investments made in recent years.
The City further believes portions of the report focus primarily on process concerns and anecdotal complaints without adequately evaluating measurable outcomes, including rehabilitation accomplishments, pavement condition improvements, funding secured, and overall performance. The City also notes that the report does not benchmark Marysville's performance against similarly situated jurisdictions facing comparable infrastructure funding challenges.
The City is proud of the progress achieved and believes the accomplishments outlined herein demonstrate a sustained commitment to infrastructure investment and improvement.
Accordingly, the City respectfully provides the following responses to the Grand Jury's findings and recommendations.
II) REQUIRED RESPONSES TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding F1
Council Response: Disagree
The Council disagrees with this finding. The City is not required by law, regulation, or professional standard to maintain a formal pavement management plan in any particular format. Infrastructure has been identified by the City Council as one of the City's primary strategic priorities for at least the past seven years. The absence of a standalone pavement management document should not be construed as an absence of planning, prioritization, or commitment to infrastructure investment.
The City evaluates roadway conditions, available funding sources, public safety considerations, traffic volumes, economic development objectives, grant eligibility requirements, and other factors when establishing priorities for street rehabilitation projects.
The Council further notes that the primary challenge facing the City is not identifying roadway needs, but rather obtaining sufficient funding to address those needs. Like most California cities, Marysville faces infrastructure needs that exceed available funding resources. Accordingly, the Council must continually balance street rehabilitation needs against other essential municipal services and infrastructure priorities through the annual budget process.
The Council further notes that the report does not acknowledge the substantial progress made in rehabilitating the City's street network during the review period, nor does it benchmark the City's performance against similarly situated California cities facing similar infrastructure funding challenges.
The allocation of limited public resources among streets, public safety, parks, facilities, economic development, regulatory compliance, and other municipal needs is ultimately a policy decision entrusted to the elected City Council through the annual budget process and other Council actions.
City Manager Response: Disagree in Part
The City Manager disagrees in part with this finding. While the City does not maintain a standalone pavement management plan document, the City maintains roadway condition information and utilizes that information in conjunction with funding availability, grant opportunities, traffic volumes, public safety considerations, utility coordination requirements, and City Council direction when developing street rehabilitation projects.
The City is currently developing a broader Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process intended to assist with planning and prioritization of infrastructure and facility improvements across multiple City functions. The scope, level of detail, and implementation timeline of such planning efforts will be determined based upon available resources, organizational priorities, and City Council direction.
The City Manager notes that the primary challenge facing the City is not identifying roadway needs, but rather obtaining sufficient funding to address those needs. Like most California cities, Marysville faces infrastructure needs that exceed available funding resources.
Despite these constraints, the City has rehabilitated approximately 20% of its street network during the past six years and anticipates increasing that percentage to approximately 34% by year 2028 through a combination of local, state, and federal funding sources.
Finding F2
Council Response: Disagree
The Council disagrees with this finding. The finding is factually inaccurate. The City maintains systems and procedures for receiving, documenting, assigning, tracking, and responding to maintenance requests.
The report acknowledges only that the Grand Jury identified at least one complaint that was reportedly filed but was not included in a report reviewed by investigators. The report does not identify the complaint, reporting method, date submitted, location, or other information that would permit the City to independently verify or evaluate the assertion. The existence of a complaint that may not have appeared in a particular report does not support the conclusion that the City lacks a centralized tracking system.
City Manager Response: Disagree
The City Manager disagrees with this finding. The City utilizes the iWorQ work order and service request management system to receive, document, assign, track, and close maintenance requests, including street-related concerns.
The report references a complaint that was reportedly filed but was not included in documentation reviewed by investigators. However, the report does not provide sufficient information regarding the specific request, date, reporting method, location, or other information necessary for the City to independently verify or evaluate the assertion. It would be helpful in the future if the Grand Jury provided specific information and/or backup materials as part of its report.
The City maintains a centralized work order and service request management system and processes street-related maintenance requests through that system. While the City continually evaluates opportunities to improve public awareness and accessibility of available reporting tools, the City disagrees with the finding that a centralized tracking system does not exist.
Finding F3
Council Response: Disagree in Part
The Council disagrees in part with this finding. Street rehabilitation projects are routinely discussed in public input meetings, budget deliberations, capital improvement planning discussions, grant applications, project approvals, and contract awards.
The Council agrees that opportunities may exist to improve the accessibility and organization of project-related information available on the City's website. However, the Council notes that project schedules are frequently dependent upon grant funding, environmental review, utility coordination, contractor availability, and bid results. Accordingly, project schedules often remain preliminary until construction contracts are awarded.
The Council will continue to evaluate the level of public information it believes is appropriate while balancing the need to provide useful information with the risk of creating expectations regarding projects that remain subject to change.
City Manager Response: Disagree in Part
The City Manager disagrees in part with this finding because communication regarding street maintenance and rehabilitation activities occurs at multiple stages of the project development and implementation process.
First, the City provides opportunities for public input regarding potential projects and priorities through public input meetings, budget discussions, agendized and noticed public hearings, and other public forums.
Second, the City provides general information regarding funded and anticipated projects through Council agendas, staff reports, budget documents, grant applications, project approvals, and related public documents. At this stage, project schedules are often preliminary and subject to funding availability, grant awards, environmental review, utility coordination, bidding results, and contractor availability.
Third, once projects are funded, awarded, and approaching construction, the City and/or its contractors provide more specific notifications to residents, businesses, and property owners who may be directly affected by construction activities. The City believes it is important to distinguish between preliminary planning information and project schedules that are sufficiently finalized to support construction notifications.
The City agrees that opportunities exist to improve the accessibility and organization of projectrelated information on its website to inform our constituents of the positive results achieved.
The City will continue to evaluate reasonable methods of providing general information regarding anticipated infrastructure projects while recognizing that project schedules frequently change as funding and project development activities evolve.
Finding F4
Council Response: Disagree
The Council disagrees with this finding. The report does not adequately distinguish between routine maintenance activities and major rehabilitation projects. Routine maintenance activities and major rehabilitation projects involve different funding sources, staffing, scheduling, and operational considerations.
Major street rehabilitation projects are policy decisions evaluated and prioritized through the annual budget process and other Council actions. Project selection is based on roadway condition, available funding, grant eligibility requirements, public safety considerations, traffic volumes, utility coordination opportunities, economic development objectives, and other community priorities.
The Council further notes that the principal challenge facing the City is not identifying roadway needs, but obtaining sufficient funding to address them. Like most California cities, Marysville faces infrastructure needs that substantially exceed available resources.
Infrastructure has been one of the City's six strategic priorities for at least the past seven years.
The Council has consistently dedicated significant local resources toward street rehabilitation, including approximately $3.5 million in General Fund resources for projects that were not strong candidates for outside funding. The City has also aggressively pursued state and federal grants, resulting in more than $20 million in transportation infrastructure investment since 2021.
The Council believes these measurable accomplishments demonstrate that street rehabilitation has been both planned and prioritized and that available resources have been allocated in a responsible and effective manner.
City Manager Response: Disagree
The City Manager disagrees with this finding. The report does not distinguish between reactive maintenance activities and planned capital rehabilitation projects, which are managed through different operational processes.
Routine maintenance activities, including pothole repairs and localized pavement failures, are operational functions that are performed on an as-needed basis as issues are identified by City staff or reported by the public through the City's work order management system. Because these activities are reactive in nature, they are not performed according to a fixed maintenance schedule.
Reactive maintenance activities are intended to address localized safety concerns, preserve roadway serviceability, and extend pavement life until comprehensive rehabilitation or reconstruction can be funded. They are not a substitute for major rehabilitation of deteriorated streets.
Major street rehabilitation projects are planned separately and are evaluated based upon roadway condition, available funding, grant eligibility requirements, public safety considerations, traffic volumes, utility coordination opportunities, and City Council direction.
The timing of these projects is largely dependent upon available funding rather than the identification of roadway needs.
The City continually evaluates opportunities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its maintenance operations. Most recently, the City invested in an asphalt grinder attachment, a sweeper attachment for its skid steer, and an asphalt hot box to improve the quality, durability, and efficiency of pavement repairs. Staff also continues to evaluate maintenance materials, repair methods, and equipment that can extend pavement life and improve service delivery.
The City Manager further notes that the report focuses primarily on anecdotal complaints but does not evaluate measurable operational results, including the City's substantial rehabilitation accomplishments, investments in maintenance operations, success in securing outside funding, or improvements in overall pavement conditions.
Recommendations R1-R4
Recommendation R1
Council Response: Disagree in Part
Respectfully, the Grand Jury’s recommendation will not be implemented as stated.
The City Council recognizes the value of planning tools that assist in the evaluation and prioritization of infrastructure investments. However, the City is not required to maintain a formal pavement management plan in any particular format, and the Council believes the appropriate level of planning documentation should be determined by the City based upon available resources, organizational needs, and competing priorities.
Infrastructure has been one of the City's six primary strategic priorities for at least the past seven years, and the City currently evaluates roadway conditions, funding opportunities, public safety considerations, traffic volumes, economic development objectives, grant eligibility requirements, and other factors when establishing rehabilitation priorities.
The Council notes that the primary challenge facing the City is funding availability rather than identification of roadway needs.
City Manager Response: Disagree in Part
Respectfully, the Grand Jury’s recommendation will not be implemented as stated.
The City currently evaluates roadway conditions and rehabilitation needs utilizing pavement condition information, staff assessments, funding opportunities, grant eligibility requirements, traffic volumes, public safety considerations, utility coordination opportunities, and other factors.
The City is currently developing a broader Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process intended to assist with planning and prioritization of infrastructure and facility improvements across multiple City functions. The scope, level of detail, and implementation timeline of such planning efforts will be determined based upon available resources, operational priorities, and City Council direction.
The City Manager will continue developing the City's broader Capital Improvement Program and will evaluate the appropriate level of documentation for pavement management and infrastructure planning based upon available resources, organizational priorities, and City Council direction.
Recommendation R2
Council Response: Disagree
The recommendation will not be implemented because a system is already in place.
The Council notes that the City currently maintains a centralized work order and service request management system for the receipt, assignment, tracking, and completion of maintenance requests.
City Manager Response: Disagree
The recommendation will not be implemented because a system is already in place.
The City currently utilizes the iWorQ work order and service request management system to receive, document, assign, track, and close maintenance requests, including street-related concerns.
The City Manager will continue to evaluate opportunities to improve public awareness and accessibility of available reporting tools.
Recommendation R3
Council Response: Agree in Part
The recommendation has been partially implemented and remains ongoing.
The Council supports continued efforts to improve public access to general information regarding anticipated infrastructure projects. The Council will continue to evaluate the level of public information it believes is appropriate while balancing the need to provide useful information with the risk of creating expectations regarding projects that remain subject to change.
City Manager Response: Agree in Part
The recommendation has been partially implemented and remains ongoing.
The City will continue to evaluate opportunities to improve the accessibility and organization of infrastructure-related information available on the City's website.
The City Manager notes that communication regarding street maintenance and rehabilitation activities occurs at multiple stages, including public input during project development, general project information during planning and funding phases, and targeted notifications to residents and businesses when construction activities are imminent.
Project schedules will generally be presented as preliminary until funding is secured, contracts are awarded, and construction schedules are finalized.
Recommendation R4
Council Response: Disagree
The Council respectfully disagrees with the implication that additional resources should be directed toward one municipal function without considering the impacts on other essential public services and community priorities.
The Council disagrees with this recommendation because it does not adequately recognize the substantial actions already taken by the City to prioritize and fund street maintenance and rehabilitation activities. In recent years, the City has allocated approximately $3.5 million in General Fund resources toward street rehabilitation projects, particularly projects that were not strong candidates for outside grant funding. In addition, the City has aggressively pursued state and federal grant funding opportunities and has successfully secured significant outside funding for transportation and infrastructure improvements.
The Council further notes that the recommendation does not fully recognize the responsibility of elected officials to balance numerous competing municipal priorities within finite financial resources. Each year, the City Council must allocate available resources among public safety, infrastructure, economic development, parks and recreation, regulatory compliance, facilities, and other essential municipal services. These decisions are made through a public budgeting process and are based upon community needs, staff recommendations, available funding sources, legal obligations, and long-term strategic priorities.
Infrastructure has been one of the City's six strategic priorities for at least the past seven years, and the City has consistently dedicated substantial resources toward improving the condition of its street network. However, the Council must continue to balance infrastructure investments against other critical community needs and cannot dedicate additional resources to one service area without considering the impacts on others.
The Council will continue to evaluate infrastructure needs, funding opportunities, and staff recommendations and will allocate resources in a manner it believes best serves the overall interests of the community.
City Manager Response: Disagree
The City Manager disagrees with this recommendation because many of the actions contemplated by the recommendation are already occurring and have been ongoing for several years.
The City routinely evaluates roadway conditions, identifies rehabilitation priorities, pursues grant funding opportunities, develops project recommendations, and implements both maintenance and rehabilitation activities within the resources made available through the budget process. Street rehabilitation projects are regularly presented to the City Council for consideration and funding, and staff actively pursues opportunities to leverage local funds with state and federal grant programs.
The City has rehabilitated approximately 20% of its street network during the past six years and anticipates increasing that percentage to approximately 34% by year 2028 through projects that are completed, under construction, funded, or programmed. In addition, the City has invested in personnel, equipment, and operational improvements intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of ongoing maintenance activities.
The City Manager further disagrees with the premise that additional street rehabilitation can be achieved primarily through administrative action, planning documents, or scheduling changes.
The City's experience is that the primary constraint is funding availability rather than the identification of roadway needs, project prioritization, or operational responsiveness. Like most California cities, Marysville faces infrastructure needs that exceed available funding resources.
The City will continue to evaluate roadway conditions, pursue outside funding opportunities, improve operational efficiencies, and provide recommendations to the City Council regarding infrastructure investments. The pace of future rehabilitation efforts will continue to be influenced primarily by available funding, grant opportunities, and budgetary decisions made by the City Council through the public budget process.
III) CONCLUSION
The City appreciates the important role of the Yuba County Civil Grand Jury and welcomes recommendations intended to improve municipal operations. While the City respectfully disagrees with several findings and recommendations contained in the report, it remains committed to making infrastructure one of its highest priorities, investing available local resources, aggressively pursuing outside funding, improving operational efficiencies, and providing recommendations to the City Council that maximize the benefit of limited public resources. The City believes the measurable progress achieved during the past several years demonstrates this ongoing commitment and looks forward to continuing these efforts in partnership with the community.
Attachments:
A – January 20, 2026 Pavement Management Presentation.
______________________________
Chris Branscum, Mayor
______________________________
Jim Schaad, City Manager