AGENDA ITEM NO.
9A
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
MEMORANDUM
June 9, 2025
TO: City Council
Board of Directors, Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 Successor Agency to the Simi Valley Community Development Agency Board of Trustees, Simi Valley Library
FROM: Office of the City Manager/District Manager/Executive Director/Executive Officer
SUBJECT: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE FY 2025-26 BUDGET, APPROVAL OF FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FY 20 25-26 TO FY 2029-30, APPROVAL OF FY 20 25-26 TRANSIT BUDGET AND
PROGRAM OF PROJECTS, AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council/Boards of Directors/Trustees:
1. Approve the Simi Valley Transit FY 202 5-26 Program of Projects (POP) to be forwarded to the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) for final approval and to be included in the City’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 49 U.S.C. Section 5307, Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ), and Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) grant applications;
2. Adopt the attached Resolution No. 2025 -16 (page 15) authorizing the City Manager to execute and submit the filing of grant applications with the FTA for operating, capital, planning, and preventive maintenance assistance funds under 49 U.S.C. Section 5307, CMAQ, and JARC;
3. Amend the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2025- 26 to FY 2029- 30 to include the Radio Communication Project, CP66800001, (Attachment B) as an ongoing project and adopt the attached joint Resolution No. 2025-17/WWD- 298/SA-14/PL-37 (page 17) approving the FY 202 5-26 Annual Budget , incorporating the previously adopted budgets for the Cultural Arts Center and Council on Aging, and amend the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2025-26 to FY 2029-30.
2 BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
The F iscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Proposed Budget and Five- Year Capital Improvement Program were posted on the City’s website for public viewing on May 20, 202 5, and printed copies were made available to City Council on May 20, 2025. A public meeting was held to present the Proposed Budget and gather feedback on May 27, 2025. As presented, the FY 2025-26 Proposed General Fund Budget is structurally balanced and represents a sustainable and fiscally responsible budget, which funds programs of value to the community and within available resources. Furthermore, the Proposed Budget, as presented, maintains more than the City’s 17% Prudent Reserve policy.
The City is in a strong financial position, as highlighted by its healthy General Fund balance. The City has been very prudent in managing the budget for many years, which has resulted in revenues exceeding expenditures.
After a full accounting, the FY 2023-24 ended with a net surplus of $7,134,886. General Fund expenditures ended the year at $11.7 million below budget, and revenues came in at $5.7 million above budget. In April 2022, the City Council approved a Fund Balance Policy for the General Fund to strategically allocate prior year-end General Fund surplus dollars. This Policy allocates 40% of the surplus to both an Infrastructure Investment Fund and a Retirement Obligation Fund with the remaining 20% to a Contingency Fund.
Included with the FY 2025-26 proposed budget is reallocating the FY 2023-24 surplus funds into the three specific use “holding” funds. In accordance with the Fund Balance Policy, $3.27 million will be placed in the Infrastructure Investment Fund, and $3.27 million will be placed in the Retirement Obligation Fund. Under the Fund Balance Policy, the Contingency Fund shall have a maximum balance of $2 million. Due to the FY 2024-25 year-end Contingency Fund balance of $1.425 million, the fund was allocated an additional $575,000, resulting in the Infrastructure and Retirement funds receiving an amount above 40 percent. Staff will bring the City Council a recommendation for specific uses of these funds after adopting the FY 2025-26 Budget.
FY 2024-25 Projected General Fund Revenues and Expenditures
FY 2024-25 General Fund revenue is estimated at $97.8 million, reflecting $9.6 million more than the adopted budget. The most significant contributor to the increase is in one- time battery storage initiative rebate check received from the state, about $6.4 more than the adopted budget. Interest earned on investments is estimated to end the year at $1.9 million, about $1.1 million more than the adopted budget. Sales tax revenue is estimated to end the year at $22.4 million, about $802,157 less than the adopted budget. Property tax is estimated to end the year at $44 million, about $1.9 million more than the adopted budget, offsetting the decrease in sales tax for a net increase of $1.1 million. Service charges, particularly for plan check and inspection fees tied to development activity is estimated to end the year at $1.9 million, about $744,689 more than the adopted budget.
The $265,854 transfer into the General Fund from the Contingency Fund for senior nutrition programs makes up the balance of the $350,000 General Fund revenue increase.
3 FY 2024-25 General Fund expenses are estimated at $95 million, which is $7.2 million more than the adopted budget. The majority of the increase in expenditure is in Services, estimated to end the fiscal year $8.5 million over the adopted budget. This is primarily a result of a one-time battery storage payment to the project financier received from the state initiative. Combined savings in salary and benefits from planned and unplanned staff vacancies during the year are projected to end the year $1.4 million under the adopted budget, which offsets the increase in supplies and materials for the net increase in General Fund expenditures.
FY 2025-26 General Fund Revenues
FY 2025-26, General Fund operating revenue is budgeted at $ 97 million, which is $747,844 less than the FY 2024-25 projected Estimated Actuals and $8.9 more than the FY 202 4-25 adopted budget. The FY2025 -26 decrease from prior year estimates is driven by FY 2024-25 increases in revenue from Other Revenues, specifically a one-time rebate from a battery storage inc entive program by the state. The FY 2025- 26 increase when compared to the FY 2024-25 adopted budget is driven by the strong-interest-earned in the City’s investments, landfill tonnage fees from recent wildfires, and a n increase in services fees from development activity, specifically Lost Canyons, Phase II.
FY 2025-26 General Fund Expenditures
FY 2025-26 General Fund operating expense is budgeted at $96.7 million. This amount is $1.6 million more than the FY 2025-26 projected estimated actuals and $8.8 million more than the FY 2024-25 adopted budget. This difference is due to the increased cost of personnel, materials & supplies, services and transferring of General Fund dollars to other funds, such as the streets & road fund, vehicle replacement fund, and landscape fund.
FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 Est. vs. Proposed Revenue Category Actual Adopted Revised Est Actuals Proposed % Change Taxes and Franchises 75,774,660 75,445,725$ 75,445,725$ 76,505,749$ 77,703,810$ 1.6% Revenue From Other Governments
(including Transfers In and Grants) 5,602,025 5,124,193 5,401,043 5,350,290 5,714,876 6.8% Licenses and Permits 3,042,135 3,139,000 3,139,000 3,226,447 3,539,000 9.7% Use of Money and Property 5,777,964 1,702,572 1,702,572 2,822,526 2,517,251 -10.8% Service Charges 1,455,529 1,127,100 1,127,100 1,871,789 3,363,700 79.7% Fines and Forfeitures 292,774 333,300 333,300 333,300 333,300 0.0% Other Revenues 1,719,483 1,302,300 1,372,331 7,688,091 3,878,410 -49.6% Total General Fund Revenues 93,664,569$ 88,174,190$ 88,521,071$ 97,798,191$ 97,050,347$ -0.8% FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 Est. vs. Proposed Expenditure Category Actual Adopted Revised Est Actuals Proposed % Change Personnel 65,972,586$ 68,917,416$ 69,272,176$ 67,478,468$ 72,267,683$ 7.1% Supplies & Materials 5,291,769 6,208,321 6,901,028 6,271,275 6,980,068 11.3% Services 12,584,065 12,459,147 18,503,178 20,982,430 14,950,886 -28.7% Reimbursed Expenditures (9,000,135) (9,323,312) (9,323,534) (9,293,534) (9,915,951) 6.7% Capital Outlay 224,191 306,500 502,013 343,219 318,100 0.0% Transfers to Other Funds 11,282,966 9,306,272 9,554,056 9,306,272 12,058,861 29.6% Total General Fund Expenditures 86,355,442$ 87,874,344$ 95,408,917$ 95,088,131$ 96,659,647$ 1.7% *Revised Expenditures includes previously funded carryovers. 4 The Five-Year Capital Improvement Program contains $2 .8 million in funding from the General Fund for FY 202 5-26. Departments also requested new items funded from the General Fund. The Proposed Budget document presents a more detailed description of each item in the appropriate Department or fund section. Department proposals not ultimately included in the Proposed Budget can be found at the end of the document after the Supplemental Schedules tab.
The City Council has prioritized fiscal strength and sustaining high- quality services, and the proposed FY 2025-26 Budget reflects those priorities. Economic indicators suggest slowing ongoing revenue growth, with sales tax expected to remain flat. Given uncertainty at the state and federal levels, the City is taking a strategic, cautious approach, prioritizing essential services while staying flexible and focused on long-term fiscal stability.
Over the past two years, the City has made three significant one-time payments, totaling $12.38 million, to CalPERS to pay down the outstanding unfunded accrued liability (UAL) obligations for the City’s pension. The City realized immediate savings for the next fiscal year’s UAL required payment and ongoing annual savings due to the revised amortization. The FY 2025 -26 budget includes putting $3.27 million aside from the FY 2023-24 surplus fund for retirement obligations. The exact use of those surplus funds will be determined by the City Council at a later date.
Moreover, the proposed budget recognizes changes in economic conditions and anticipated increases in one-time funding. This budget places an emphasis on reinvesting one-time funding into one-time improvements. Such improvements include $300,000 for contractual building inspection services to support increased development activity, $3.5 million for the replacement of aging fleet and expansion of critical vehicles for the Police Department and Public Works Department and a $2.4 million allocation of funds towards addressing building and ground maintenance that has been deferred.
The proposed FY 2025-26 Budget makes a significant effort to reinvest in the community by maximizing the investment into the City’s streets and roads infrastructure with a $9.9 million proposed budget, of which the General Fund contributes $2.8 million towards major and minor street rehabilitation programs, slurry seal and crack seal, bridge rehabilitations, repairs and replacement of deteriorating signage, and pothole repairs.
This budget continues to prioritize innovation and the advancement of technologies that enhance transparency and responsiveness. The FY2025-26 Budget includes a $100,000 allocation for GIS professional services, along with over $1 million dedicated to licensed software, system maintenance, and hardware upgrades.
Additionally, recent wildfires have underscored the critical need for robust emergency preparedness. In response, the proposed budget provides funding for reflective street striping, backup power for traffic signals, and generators to ensure the reliabilit y of essential water and sanitation systems.
5 General Fund Balance
The General Fund balance is estimated to be $55.7 million at the end of FY 2024-25. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends maintaining an unrestricted budgetary fund balance in a general fund of no less than two months (to mitigate current and future risks), or 17% of regular general fund operating revenues or regular general fund operating expenditures. The City’s $ 55.7 million fund balance far exceeds the two-month recommendation with more than six months or nearly 57% of the total balance of the $97 million Proposed FY 202 5-26 General Fund operating expenditures.
The City maintains an AAA rating from the Standard and Poor’s rating agency.
Five-Year General Fund Projection
The Five-Year General Fund Financial Projection and related analyses indicate that the City continues to operate with a structurally balanced budget. As the economy moves further beyond the impacts of the pandemic, revenue growth has begun to moderate in response to the Federal Reserve’s interest rate increases aimed at bringing inflation closer to its 2% target. Economic indicators point to a slowdown in ongoing revenue growth, with sales tax revenues expected to remain flat.
Recent shifts in consumer spending behavior have also played a role. Households are increasingly prioritizing essential purchases, particularly food, which has reached a record share of household income, while discretionary spending on retail and dining has declined. This trend has contributed to stagnation in sales tax revenue growth. Looking ahead, the City anticipates a potential modest decline or continued stagnation in sales tax revenues for FY 2025-26.
REVISED ESTIMATED PROPOSED
AC T U AL BUDGET AC T U AL BUDGET
2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26
BEGINNING GENERA L GOV'T FUND BA LA NCE 65,572,231$ 62,547,470$ 62,547,470$ 55,714,121$ Operating Revenues 93,664,569 88,521,071 97,798,191 97,050,347 Reserved for ARPA Grant Funds - - - - Reserved for Capital Projects 174,241 - - - Net Revenues 93,490,328$ 88,521,071$ 97,798,191$ 97,050,347$ Operating Expenditures 86,355,442 95,408,917 95,088,131 96,659,647 Loan Forgiveness to Liability Fund - - - - Transfer to Transit Fund - - - - Transfer to Covid-19 Recovery Fund - - - - Net Expenditures 86,355,442$ 95,408,917$ 95,088,131$ 96,659,647$ Operating Surplus/(Deficit) 7,134,886$ (6,887,846)$ 2,710,060$ 390,700$ Transfer Out Previous Year's Surplus Funds 10,333,888$ 9,543,410$ 9,543,410$ ENDING GENERA L GOV'T FUND BA LA NCE 62,547,470$ 46,116,214$ 55,714,121$ 56,104,821$ 6 On a more positive note, the City’s investment portfolio has benefited from sustained higher interest rates, resulting in stronger interest earnings, a trend expected to continue into FY 2025-26. However, these gains are considered one-time in nature and are not projected to be a reliable, ongoing source of revenue.
Despite slower real estate activity driven by elevated interest rates, property tax revenues are expected to increase in FY 2025-26, sustained by prior-year transactions reflected in the property tax roll. In addition, the City remains committed to pursuing strategic opportunities to grow the property tax base through residential and commercial/industrial development. Several new development projects are anticipated in the coming years, which will further support long-term revenue growth.
The forecast below assumes a conservative inflationary growth rate of 1% to 3% annually across most revenue categories. On the expenditure side, projections include a 3.5% growth in personnel costs for FY 2026-27 and a 3% growth each year thereafter, a 2% growth in materials and supplies for FY 2026-27 based inflationary growth and 1% growth each year thereafter, and a 2% growth in services each year . Most other expenditure types are projected to grow by approximately 1% annually.
As always, it remains incumbent upon all City departments to manage their operations within approved budget parameters to maintain fiscal discipline and ensure the City’s continued financial health.
ESTIMATED PROPOSED
ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30
REVENUES
Taxes And Franchises 74,464,375 75,774,660 76,505,749 77,703,810 80,034,924 82,435,972 84,909,051 87,456,323 Licenses And Permits 3,606,781 3,042,135 3,226,447 3,539,000 3,609,780 3,681,976 3,755,615 3,830,727 Fines And Forfeitures 261,319 292,774 333,300 333,300 339,966 346,765 350,233 353,735 Use Of Money & Property 2,328,691 5,777,964 2,822,526 2,517,251 2,542,424 2,567,848 2,593,527 2,619,462 From Other Governments 472,942 478,512 479,673 471,729 476,446 481,211 486,023 490,883 Grants 554,928 332,819 317,750 589,500 601,290 613,316 625,582 638,094 Service Charges 1,108,623 1,455,529 1,871,789 3,363,700 3,430,974 3,499,593 3,569,585 3,640,977 Other Revenues 1,744,795 1,719,483 7,688,091 3,878,410 3,955,978 4,035,098 4,115,800 4,198,116 Transfers In 10,023,920 4,790,694 4,552,867 4,653,647 4,700,183 4,747,185 4,794,657 4,842,604 Total Revenues 94,566,375$ 93,664,569$ 97,798,191$ 97,050,347$ 99,691,966$ 102,408,964$ 105,200,073$ 108,070,921$
EXPENDITURES
Personnel 64,342,661 65,972,586 67,478,468 72,267,683 74,797,052 77,040,963 79,352,192 81,732,758 Supplies/Materials 4,581,951 5,291,769 6,271,275 6,980,068 7,119,670 7,190,866 7,262,775 7,335,403 Services 8,978,871 12,584,065 20,982,430 14,950,886 15,249,904 15,554,902 15,866,000 16,183,320 Capital Outlay 43,597 224,191 343,219 318,100 321,281 324,494 327,739 331,016 Transfers to Other Funds 10,692,049 11,282,966 9,306,272 12,058,861 12,179,450 12,301,244 12,424,257 12,548,499 Reimbursed Expenses (8,794,479) (9,000,135) (9,293,534) (9,915,951) (10,015,110) (10,115,262) (10,216,414) (10,318,578) Total Expenditures 79,844,650$ 86,355,442$ 95,088,131$ 96,659,647$ 99,652,245$ 102,297,208$ 105,016,548$ 107,812,418$ Net Surplus/( Deficit) 14,721,724$ 7,309,127$ 2,710,060$ 390,700$ 39,721$ 111,756$ 183,525$ 258,503$ Reserved for ARPA Grant
Funds and Capital Projects (5,178,314) (174,241) - - - - - - Operating Surplus/(Deficit) 9,543,410$ 7,134,886$ 2,710,060$ 390,700$ 39,721$ 111,756$ 183,525$ 258,503$ Surplus Funds FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Transfer to Infrastructure
Investment Fund 3,221,241 4,534,755 4,571,705 3,265,116 Transfer to Retirement
Obligation Fund 3,221,241 4,534,754 4,571,705 3,265,116 Transfer to Contingency
Fund 1,610,621 1,264,379 400,000 575,000 7 Five-Year Capital Improvement Program
The CIP provides detailed information regarding capital improvement projects proposed for financing in FY 20 25-26 and serves as a capital improvement spending plan for the subsequent four years. All projects listed in the CIP will not necessarily be funded as proposed; the City Council will consider all projects on a year-by-year basis in conjunction with the Proposed Budget and available funding.
A total of 1 73 projects, with an estimated five-year cost of $152,763,904, are contained in the Proposed CIP. During the preparation of the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan, one project was inadvertently omitted. The amended page of the CIP document (Attachment B) now includes this project as an ongoing item under the Technology category. At this time, there are no additional funding requests associated with the project.
Funding for FY 202 5-26 is proposed for 53 projects in the amount of $ 36,133,904.
Departments propose the balance of $116,630,000 for funding in FY 2026-27 to FY 2029-
30. Community Development Agency (CDA)
The process of dissolving the former Community Development Agency (CDA) is ongoing.
Successor Agency (former Community Development Agency) expenditures are limited by State law to recognized obligations in place prior to July 1, 2011. Staff members continue to process prior obligations and debt service under the Recognized Obligation Pay ment Schedule (ROPS) agreement with the State of California Department of Finance. The primary fund expense is the annual debt service and related costs for the former Agency’s 2003 Tax Allocation Bonds, which is $2.1 million in FY 2025-26.
Staff in the Department of Environmental Services handle Housing Successor Agency functions. At the time of dissolution in 2012, the Community Development Agency’s Housing Administration Fund was responsible for over $9.1 million in recognized obligations to provide developer loans to create affordable rental or ownership housing units. The Housing Successor Agency Fund (Fund 201) is projected to have a $3.3 million fund balance at the beginning of FY 2025-26 as a result of principal and interest received over the years from prior repaid loans, and these funds will continue to be utilized to encourage the creation of affordable housing in Simi Valley.
Transit Fund
The FY2025-26 Transit budget includes farebox revenues, state and federal grant funds, and allocations. The farebox revenue remains steady at $327,000, the same as in FY24-
25. Grant funds and allocations are budgeted at $10.3 million, an increase of $1.1 million from the previous year due to rising operating expenses, including payroll, general liability insurance, professional services, and vehicle repairs and parts. Additionally, $178,000 from SB125 funds has been allocated to support the new microtransit services. The Transit budget also includes $5.1 million for capital projects, which will be used to purchase a backup compressor, acquire new vehicles, and construct charging infrastructure at the Transit Maintenance Facility.
8 Fixed-route and ADA/DAR service ridership declined dramatically during the 2020 pandemic. Although passenger ridership for fixed-route services improved by 49.8% for FY2023–24 compared to FY2020–21, it still has not fully recovered to its pre-pandemic numbers. In contrast, Dial-A-Ride (DAR) services increased by 139.1% from FY2020– 21 and have surpassed their pre-pandemic figures by 19.9%. To further boost fixed- route ridership, staff are collaborating with the Simi Valley Unified School District to promote the Youth Ride Free Program.
The Department strives to introduce Microtransit services aimed at meeting the needs of our ADA/DAR clients as well as other members of the general public who require transit services in specific areas of the city.
In addition, other objectives and achievements fulfilled by transit are increased productivity and efficiency of Dial-A-Ride services, such as the purchase of eight (8) CNG Dial-A-Ride vans. Furthermore, the Department secured a competitive State grant of $7,053,000 to construct the Civic Center Transit hub and purchase six (6) fixed-route zero emission buses.
Transit Proposed Program of Projects (POP) for FY 2025-26
On December 19, 1988, the City Council established a policy to review the City’s Transit proposed fiscal year budget annually. This review is part of the City Council’s consideration of the Transit Program of Projects. The Transit Program of Projects (POP) provides the foundation for the City’s grant applications for federal funds, which help to offset the cost of operating the Simi Valley Transit System and funding capital projects.
According to Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, the City of Simi Valley's Transit Division is eligible to apply for FTA grant funding under Section 5307. This funding will support both operating and capital expenditures for FY 2025-26. Once the City Council the approves the proposal, the approved Program of Projects (POP) for Simi Valley Transit will be sent to the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC), which is the designated recipient of FTA funds for the City. The VCTC will then hold a public hearing to grant final approval and include the POP in the City’s FTA Section 5307 funding.
The proposed POP outlines a grant of $3,726,137 to Simi Valley Transit, out of which $574,683 will be allocated directly to VCTC for countywide planning assistance. The remaining amount of $3,151,454 will be used for operating and capital assistance, as detailed below.
9 Federal Grant Local Match
Planning Assistance
Countywide Planning 574,683 -
Operating Assistance
Simi Valley Transit 2,541,454 2,541,454
Capital Assistance
Preventive Maintenance 240,000 60,000
Non-Fixed Route ADA Paratransit 370,00 92,500
$3,726,137 $2,693,954
After the City Council reviews the proposal, any necessary adjustments to the POP will be made accordingly.
A resolution is needed to authorize the City Manager to file an application with the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), for funding assistance for operating expenses, capital projects, planning, and preventive maintenance under Title 49 U.S.C. Section 5307. This resolution is included on page 15.
Sanitation Fund
The Sanitation financial system is comprised of an Operating Fund, a Replacement Reserve Fund, and a Plant Expansion Fund. The Operating Fund finances the day-to- day cost of operating the sanitation system. The Replacement Reserve Fund is used to finance the replacement of equipment and infrastructure used to collect and treat wastewater. Both funds are financed from user fees (service charges). The Plant Expansion Fund is financed from developer fees, and the revenue generated can only be used to expan d the capacity of the sanitation system to serve new development adequately. Prior to FY 2022- 23, the Operating Fund and Replacement Reserve fund were combined for reporting purposes in the Annual Budget. The funds are now reported on separately.
The Sanitation Operating Fund revenue is budgeted at $36.2 million, an increase of $210,774 over the estimated actual for FY 2024-25. Expenses, excluding the transfer to the replacement fund, are budgeted at $20.9 million, an increase of $2.9 million above the FY 2024-25 estimated actual. This increase is mostly in salaries and benefits, due to vacancies in the current fiscal year.
The Sanitation Replacement Reserve Fund is funding the capital projects and has a budget of $18.1 million in FY 2025-26 for new project and $1.9 million for vehicle replacement expenses. Based upon the City Council’s policy to establish a Replacement Reserve Fund, the target funding level of the Fund is six months of operating expenses and one year of average CIP expenses.
Both the operating fund and the replacement reserve fund are now holding money aside as reserves for unanticipated expenditures and emergencies as directed by City Council in December of 2019 when the new rate structure was adopted.
10 Waterworks District No. 8
Waterworks District No. 8 is made up of three funds, similar to the Sanitation Fund. As with the Sanitation Fund, both the Operating and Replacement Reserve F unds use the rates as their source of revenue. Prior to FY 2022- 23, the Operating Fund and Replacement Reserve fund were combined for reporting purposes in the Annual Budget.
The funds are now reported on separately.
The Waterworks Operating Fund is budgeted at $53.9 million, an increase of $2.2 million over the FY 2024-25 estimated actual. This is mostly due to increased activity in services provided. Expenses, excluding the transfer to the Replacement Reserve Fund, are budgeted at $49.1 million, an increase of $5.3 million above the FY 2024- 25 estimated actuals. This increase is primarily due to vacancies in the current fiscal year.
The Waterworks Replacement Reserve Fund is funding the capital projects and has a budget of $2.3 million in FY 2025-26 for new project and $80,000 for vehicle replacement expenses. Based upon the City Council’s policy to establish a Replacement Reserve Fund, the target funding level is three months of operating expenses, 5% of commodity sales, and one year of average CIP expenses.
Both the Operating Fund and the R eplacement Reserve Fund are now holding money aside as reserves for unanticipated expenditures and emergencies as directed by City Council in December of 2019 when the new rate structure was adopted.
Planning Commission Review of the Capital Improvement Program
The Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 23, 202 5, reviewed the program of capital improvement projects for conformance with the City of Simi Valley General Plan, as required under Government Code Section 65401. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. SVPC 07-2025, finding that each proposed major public works project for FY 2025-26 is in conformance with the Simi Valley General Plan.
Personnel Updates
The following four personnel changes are included for your consideration as part of the proposed FY 2025- 26 Budget. Two requests are reclassifications of existing positions.
Two requests are to convert part -time positions to full -time positions. Two of these requests include eliminating a part -time position. The requests are located in the departments of Administrative Services, Public Works, and the Police Department.
Administrative Services
• The Administrative Services Department requests elimination of a vacant part-time 50% full -time equivalent (50% FTE) Support Services Worker position.
Three years ago, the prior incumbent moved into a full -time Support Services Worker position and the part -time position has been vacant since that time. The department has determined this position is no longer needed. This proposed change will result in an estimated annual savings to the General Fund of $43,600.
11 If approved as recommended, the elimination of a vacant 50% FTE Support Services Worker position will generate annual savings of $43,600 to the General Fund. The authorization and budget authority for the elimination of this position are included in the proposed FY 2025-26 budget.
Public Works Department
• The Public Works Department requests conversion of three part -time Transit Coach Operator positions, each at 75% of a full-time equivalent (75% FTE) position, to full -time positions. The new full -time positions will be filled by promoting part-time drivers. As part of this request, a fourth 75% FTE position will be eliminated creating an overall savings of $28,280 annually to the Transit Fund.
If approved as recommended, the conversion of three 75% FTE Transit Coach Operator positions to full-time, along with the elimination of a fourth 75% FTE Transit Coach Operator position, will result in an overall savings of $28,280 to the Transit Fund. The authorization and budget authority for changes to this position are included in the proposed FY 2025-26 budget.
• The Public Works Department is requesting the reclassification of a vacant Plant Electrician position to an Instrumentation Technician position. Permission to recruit this position at the Instrumentation Technician level was previously approved and this change reflects the ongoing needs of the Department. This proposed change will result in an estimated annual cost to the Sanitation Fund of $9,448.
If approved as recommended, the reclassification of the position from Plant Electrician to Instrumentation Technician will result in an annual cost of $ 9,448 to the Sanitation Fund. The authorization and budget authority for changes to this position are included in the proposed FY 2025-26 budget.
Police Department
• The Police Department requests to reclassify a vacant Police Records Technician I/II (non-Sworn) position within the Records Bureau to an Investigative Assistant position focused on crime analysis work in the Detectives Bureau to overcome operational challenges and create better efficiencies. Since the loss of the Crime Analysis and Prevention Bureau in 2019, the collection of crime data has fallen to other Detect ives which took away from their ability to work on caseloads related to Human Trafficking, Internet Crimes Against Children, Child Exploitation, and Organized Retail Theft. This proposed reclassification will cost $4,958 annually to the General Fund.
If approved as recommended, the reclassification of a vacant Police Records Technician position to that of an Investigative Assistant position will result in an annual cost of $4,958 to the General Fund. The authorization and budget authority for changes to this position are included in the proposed FY 2025-26 budget.
12 Citizen Participation Meeting
A Citizen Participation meeting to review and discuss the Proposed Budget was held on May 27, 2025. Notice of the meeting was provided through a press release, information distributed through social media, and posting on the City’s website. City staff was in attendance to respond to questions from the public.
A summary of the comments at the meeting is attached to this staff report as Attachment A (page 20).
13 ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives are available to the City Council/Boards of Directors/Board of Trustees. City Council must first adopt the Transit Program of Projects prior to adoption of the FY 2025-26 Annual Budget.
1. Approve the Simi Valley Transit FY 2025-26 Program of Projects (POP) to be forwarded to the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) for final approval and to be included in the City’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 49 U.S.C. Section 5307, Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ), and Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) grant applications;
2. Adopt the attached Resolution No. 2025 -16 authorizing the City Manager to execute and submit the filing of grant applications with the FTA for operating, capital, planning, and preventive maintenance assistance funds under 49 U.S.C.
Section 5307, CMAQ, and JARC;
3. Review and modify, as outlined by Council, the FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget and Preliminary Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2025-26 to FY 2029- 30, incorporating the changes previously adopted for the Council on Aging and Cultural Arts Center funds;
4. Amend the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2025- 26 to FY 2029- 30 to include the Radio Communication Project, CP66800001, (Attachment B) as an ongoing project and adopt the attached Resolution No. 2025-17/WWD-298/SA- 14/PL-37 approving the FY 2025-26 Annual Budget and the Five- Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2025-26 to FY 2029-30;
5. Provide staff with other direction.
Staff recommends Alternative Nos. 1-4.
SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL/BOARDS MOTIONS
1. I move to app rove the Simi Valley Transit FY 2025-26 Program of Projects to be forwarded to the Ventura County Transportation Commission; and
2. I move to adopt Resolution No. 2025-16 authorizing the City Manager to execute and submit the filing of grant applications with the FTA; and
3. I move to amend the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2025- 26 to FY 2029-30 to include the Radio Communication Project and adopt Resolution No. 2025-17/WWD-298/SA-14/PL-37 approving the FY 2025-26 Annual Budget and the Five- Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2025-26 to FY 2029-30 incorporating the previously adopted budgets for the Cultural Arts Center and Council on Aging.
14 SUMMARY
T
he City Council/Boards of Directors/Trustees received the FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget and Five-Year Capital Improvement Program on May 20, 2025. Review and adoption of the FY 2025-26 Simi Valley Transit Program of Projects will be held concurrent with the review of the budget.
T
he City of Simi Valley is eligible to apply for FTA 49 U.S.C. Section 5307 and CMAQ funds, and if available, JARC funds, for Simi Valley Transit’s operating, capital, planning, and preventive maintenance for FY 2025-26. Upon City Council approval, Simi Valley Transit’s Program of Projects will be forwarded to the Ventura County Transportation Commission for final approval at a public hearing, and for inclusion in the City’s FTA grant applications. The City Council is also required to adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute and submit an application with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration for funding assistance under 49 U.S.C. Sections 5307, the CMAQ program, and the JARC program.
S
taff is recommending that the City Council/Boards of Directors/Trustees, after making any desired adjustments, approve the FY 2025-26 Transit Program of Projects, adopt a resolution approving application for CMAQ and JARC Transit funding, and adopt a resolution approving the FY 2025-26 Budget and Five- Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2025-26 to FY 2029-30.
___
_________________________________
Samantha C. Argabrite
City Manager/District Manager/
Executive Director/Executive Officer
P
repared by: Johanna Medrano, Deputy AS Director (Budget & Purchasing) INDEX Page
R
esolution No. 2025-16 – FTA ................................................................................ 15 Joint Resolution No. 2025-17/WWD-298/SA-14/PL-37– Approve the FY 2025-26 Annual Budget and the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2025-26 to FY 2029-30 ................................................................................. 17 Attachment A – Public Meeting Summary ............................................................... 20 Attachment B - CIP 2025-26 to 2029-30 Proposed Technology Projects .............. 38 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-16
A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SIMI VALLEY AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF
APPLICATIONS WITH THE FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION, AN OPERATING ADMINISTRATION OF
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, FOR FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION
ASSISTANCE AUTHORIZED BY TITLE 49 UNITED STATES
CODE CHAPTER 53 AND FOR ANY TITLE 23 UNITED
STATES CODE AND OTHER FEDERAL STATUTES
ADMINISTERED BY THE FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION
W
HEREAS, the Federal Transit Administrator has been delegated authority to award financial assistance for a public transportation project; and W
HEREAS, the grant or cooperative agreement for Federal financial assistance will impose certain obligations upon the City and may require the City to provide the local share of the project costs; and
W
HEREAS, the City has or will provide all annual certification and assurances to the Federal Transit Administration required for the project.
NO
W, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Manager (for the purposes of this resolution, the term “City Manager” includes the Interim City Manager, if any) or the City Manager’s designee is authorized to execute and file an application for Federal assistance on behalf of the City of Simi Valley with the Federal Transit Administration for Federal assistance authorized by Title 49 United State Code Chapter 53, Title 23 or other Federal statues authorizing a project administered by the Federal Transit Administration. The City of Simi Valley has received authority from the Southern California Association of Governments, a designated recipient, to apply for urbanized Area Formula Program Assistance authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5307.
SECTION 2 . The City M anager or the City Manager’s designee is authorized to execute and file with its application(s) , the annual certification and assurances and other document s the Federal Transit Administration requires before awarding a Federal assistance grant or cooperative agreement.
SECTION 3 . The City M anager or the City Manager’s designee is authorized to execute grant and cooperative agreements with the Federal Transit Administration on behalf of the City of Simi Valley.
15 RES. NO. 2025-16
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 9th day of June 2025.
Attest:
Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Dee Dee Cavanaugh, Mayor of the City of Simi Valley, California
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
Algeria R Ford, City Attorney Samantha Argabrite, City Manager
Ronald K. Fuchiwaki
Public Works Director
16 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-17
RESOLUTION NO. WWD-298
RESOLUTION NO. SA-14
RESOLUTION NO. PL-37
A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SIMI VALLEY , BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF VENTURA
COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 8, SUCCESSOR
AGENCY TO THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR
THE SIMI VALLEY LIBRARY APPROVING THE FY 2025-26
ANNUAL BUDGET AND THE FIVE -YEAR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FY 2025-26 TO FY 2029-30
WHEREAS, the City Manager / District Manager / Executive Director / Executive Officer has submitted the FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget and the Preliminary Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 202 5-26 to FY 2029-30 to the City Council / Boards of Directors / Board of Trustees for its review and consideration on May 20, 2025, in accordance with budget policies; and
WHEREAS, a Citizens’ Participation meeting wa s conducted with staff on May 27, 2025, at which time members of the public were invited to voice their opinions on any budget items and provide ideas that they believe should be included in the FY 2025-26 Annual Budget; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to providing the public an opportunity to submit written and oral comments, the City Council reviewed and modified, as appropriate, the FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget and Preliminary Five- Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2025-26 to FY 2029-30; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 54, an action of the City Council is necessary to commit budget amounts in various funds for the specific purposes they are intended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Simi Valley, Boards of Directors of Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8, Successor Agency to the Simi Valley Community Development Agency, and Board of Trustees of the Simi Valley Library as follows:
SECTION 1. The FY 202 5-26 Annual Budget and Five- Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 202 5-26 to FY 2029-30, on file with the City Clerk, are hereby approved.
SECTION 2. All budget amounts that are to be used for specific purposes, as evidenced by the approved budget document, and any amendments thereto, are committed to these specific purposes by action of the City Council.
17 RES. NO. 2025-17
RES. NO. WWD-298
RES. NO. SA-14
RES. NO. PL-37
SECTION 3. A General Fund Prudent Reserve, equivalent to 17% of budgeted expenditures, is hereby established. The Prudent Reserve is to be used to respond to catastrophic events (e.g., earthquakes, fires, floods, civil disturbances, etc.).
The City Manager or his/her designee is authorized to expend the reserved funds as necessary.
SECTION 4. The expenditures and revenues for anticipated grants shall be included in the budget. Grants with uncertain funds shall be presented to City Council for approval. If approved, the program elements shall be adjusted, with approval of the City Manager, to the final amount of expenditures and revenues provided for in the grant.
SECTION 5. The City Manager has authority to transfer appropriations within and between funds and between departments in any amount with justification from the Department.
SECTION 6. After each fiscal year is complete, all budgetary appropriations lapse, the only exceptions are grant fund appropriations and capital improvement project appropriations; carryover may be necessary, however, this is the exception and not the rule, and all budget appropriation carryovers must be approved by the Administrative Services Director and City Manager.
SECTION 7. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the planning and administrative expenses outlined in the FY 2025- 26 budget for the Community Development Agency Housing Successor Agency Administration Fund are necessary for the production, improvement, or preservation of low and moderate income housing.
SECTION 8. In the case of customer usage based water purchase expenditures, if the customers usage/demand exceeds the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 FY 2025- 26 budgeted expenditure, the Board of Directors hereby authorizes the District Manager to increase the appropriation of water funds for the sole purpose of water purchases by Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8.
SECTION 9. H ousing program funds include expenditures and revenues funded through program income and recaptured funds generated from loan repayments previously appropriated by the City Council or grant allocations. The available program funds are determined by the recipient's financial capacity, which may exceed the FY 2025-26 budgeted revenues and expenditures. Therefore, the City Council authorized the City Manager to adjust the appropriations of Housing Program funds by an amount not to exceed the total program income and recaptured funds held in fund balance in FY 2025-26 for the sole purpose of supporting new housing activities , issuing new loans , and completing corresponding transfers for administrative costs, pursuant to comprehensive grant requirements.
18 RES. NO. 2025-17
RES. NO. WWD-298
RES. NO. SA-14
RES. NO. PL-37
SECTION 10. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
SECTION 11. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 9th day of June 2025.
Attest:
Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Dee Dee Cavanaugh, Mayor of the City District Secretary/Agency Secretary/Board of Simi Valley, California, Chair of the Secretary Ventura County Waterworks District No.
8, Successor Agency to the Simi Valley
Community Development Agency, and
President of the Simi Valley Library
Board of Trustees
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
Algeria R. Ford, City Attorney/ Samantha C. Argabrite, City Manager/ District Counsel/Agency Counsel/General District Manager/ Executive Director/ Counsel Executive Officer
19 CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
MEMORANDUM
June 9, 2025
TO: City Council
Board of Directors, Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 Successor Agency to the Simi Valley Community Development Agency Board of Trustees, Simi Valley Library
FROM: Administrative Services Department
SUBJECT: CITIZENS PARTICIPATION MEETING SUMMARY
On May 27,2025, a citizen participation meeting was conducted to provide the community with an opportunity to voice opinions on budget items and submit ideas on items they believe should be included in the FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget. The meeting began at 5:30 p.m. and ended at 6:30 p.m. In attendance were staff members representing each City department, the Administrative Services Director, the City Manager, the Assistant City Manager, and members of the public.
Deputy Administrative Services Director for Budget & Purchasing, Johanna Medrano, and Budget Management Analyst Cynthia Orozco delivered a PowerPoint presentation outlining the proposed FY 2025 -26 budget. Following the presentation, attendees were invited to ask questions and provide comments. There were approximately 60 people in attendance, the majority of whom were City employees and union representatives, which shaped the focus of the discussion. Most comments and questions centered on personnel costs and wage increases.
Written comments that were received are included at the end of this memo. The following is a summary transcription of the feedback and comments in the order received. • Citizen #1 –
Of the $77 million in projected or actual tax revenue for property and sales tax, how much of it is from the sales tax?
Staff Comments –
The sales tax would be $23.1.
Follow up - Citizen #1 –
So, the current amount is $23.1 million. Do you have any idea—though I could probably do the math—if we increased it by an additional 1%, using the higher end rather than just a quarter percent, what that would generate? Would it be around an extra $2 million? Has any calculation been done on that?
ATTACHMENT A
20 Staff Comments –
No calculation is immediately available, but the question was understood for follow- up.
Citizen # 2 –
I don’t understand your question. Are you saying increase sales tax? Citizen #1 –
Yes, I'm saying if the sales tax, which is the lowest, if they increased it, let's say a quarter, how much extra revenue would that bring to the City? Or if they went up a half a percent, how much extra would that bring?
• Citizen #3 –
The other revenue strand is your property tax . Has property taxes not increase since the prices of homes are going up to o, averaging at $1M? Hasn’t that been an increase in your City revenue?
Staff Comments –
That is correct.
Follow up Citizen #3 –
What is that increase and are we projecting that in this budget and future budgets? Because it’s not stopping.
Staff Comments –
Correct, we are projecting a higher property tax for the proposed Fiscal Year 2025- 26 budget. Our revised budget and estimated actuals for Fiscal Year 2024-25 is $42 million. We're projecting $44.1 million for next fiscal year in property tax.
Follow up Citizen #3 –
So, doesn't that negate the sales tax that is going flat as you say.
Staff Comments –
It offsets, but again, we've seen a stagnation in sales tax continuously , where we would normally see an increase in both sales tax and property tax.
Follow up Citizen #3 –
But businesses keep closing. So, if the City is not helping those businesses to thrive and stay open, your sales tax is going to go to negative. I mean that's going to be something that you're not going to be able to consider revenue. So, the City needs to help and support businesses, and not Walmart and McDonald's. I am talking about mom-and-pop businesses.
• Citizen #4 –
21 We have Amazon. We get revenue from Amazon
Citizen #3 –
Yeah, but you know, my daughter graduating, and I need her to try on dresses and we don’t have a whole lot of places where she can actually go in and try on.
Amazon is not going to help me with that.
Citizen #4 –
But Amazon is the biggest competitor and why these stores are closing.
Citizen #3 –
I know that is the biggest competitor but also, I live here, and I, like Macy's, our Macy's that we had, didn't have any of the items that we needed so we had to go to Thousand Oaks to go to the Macy’s there. So, we've got to do it the right way.
Citizen #5 –
Why don’t we get the sales tax from Amazon?
Citizen #6 –
That's a long story. We were sold out.
Citizen #3 –
No, no, but we have Amazon warehouses here. They're in our industrial area. So, we should be getting property tax at least from them. I understand that Port Hueneme or the area over there where Amazon is, are the cities that get the mass majority of the money.
Staff Comments –
I just want to go back really quick to the question about Amazon, and the statement made that we have warehouses. I'm Sam Argabrite, City Manager. We have last mile warehouses in this community. So, the majority of purchases that you all make on Amazon actually are shared through the County pool. The revenue and the sales tax that you pay to Amazon, that comes out through the County pool, and we receive a percentage of that. But we don't see a true-up of what you actually purchase on Amazon coming back to our community. That very large Amazon warehouse in Oxnard that you can see from the freeway , they get the majority of that sales tax because that warehouse is located in their community. So very simplistic explanation, but the warehouses that you see, we receive revenue from the fuel purchased by the trucks that are making deliveries and pickups, especially when they’re filling up at our local gas stations and other things along those lines.
But the majority of the sales tax revenue from the direct purchase of general goods is shared through the County pool and actually goes to Oxnard, unfortunately. And I heard your statement about there's not a lot of opportunity to shop locally. Many of the decisions related to the town center and Macy's closures were nationwide bankruptcies for them. Not necessarily due to lack of support locally, but it's very important that we shop locally whenever we can and seek out those opportunities 22 because we receive those revenue dollars back here too. • Citizen #7 –
I understand that you are not anticipating it being a part of this year’s budget, but when is the City going to anticipate an increase for wages so all the people that are here in this room can get paid a livable wage.
Citizen #2 –
Where's the extra money going to come from to pay the employees a living wage? The city obviously needs more revenue. Where's it going to come from? Staff Comments –
So, that's a City Council decision.
• Citizen #8 –
Is there anything different being done in this year’s budget to address the unfunded pension and health liabilities for retirees?
Staff Comments –
In the past few budgets, we've made efforts to address this. We've made additional payments through the surplus dollars. That is not a part of the budget. Tha t is a Council decision after we have determined the surplus dollars and is brought to the Council separately.
Follow-up Citizen #8 –
There's no plan in the budget?
Staff Comments –
No. The item would come to council in September or October if tha t is what they want to do.
• Citizen #9 –
I know we're getting some smaller buses for a different kind of delivery and pickup system for the residents. But over the years, I still see our big buses doing circles in the town with what I estimate to be one to two passengers a week. I'm sure there's some peak times where maybe they get a little heavy traffic from school or something. But are the supplemental new buses, smaller ones, going to eliminate these empty buses, especially from the hours of 6 to 9 p.m. at night? I know in the past I've heard, well, we get away with it because it's a federal grant and they gave us the buses. That's got to be a big labor source. So, is there going to be any shift in that whole program?
Staff Comments –
The buses are still federally funded. And Ben our Deputy Director of transit is here.
Do you want to talk a little bit about the new micro transit program and how that's going to work.
23 I’m, Ben Gonzales the Deputy Director for Transit. The smaller buses are locally and federally funded. They are going to be part of our Micro Transit Services and that will be more geared towards the residential areas that are not serviced.
Regarding the larger buses for this year, as well as the last two order we’ve placed, we’ve opted to purchase 35 -foot buses instead of the standard 40 -foot models.
This change was made when the manufacturer began producing and offering the smaller buses, allowing us to take advantage of that option.
Follow-up Citizen #9 –
Are there statistics that say how many people ride the bus? What the ridership is per hour here in Simi Valley?
Staff Comments –
Yes, we do have those statistics, and our current service hours reflect the demand patterns. We’ve seen that ridership tends to decline between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., which is why our transit service hours are structured accordingly.
Follow-up Citizen #9 –
The big buses, do they run until 9 o’clock?
Staff Comments –
They run until 8 p.m. We have limited-service hours compared to larger cities that run from 4 a.m. to probably 1 a.m.
• Citizen #10 –
Just a comment about the unfunded pension liabilities. I found that in the PDF, and I'm trying to find it in the hard copy, but the PDF on page 30, it showed that the unfunded pensions were funded at 70.3 percent. 70.3 percent. And I went back and looked at the 2018 budget, and it was 69.8 percent. So it says from 2018 to today, we improved by half a percent. And so the issue is, it's a difficult thing. And again, the revenue is a big issue.
Staff Comments –
That fluctuates based on CalPERS and their returns as well. So it's not just necessarily our contributions, but it's how the market performs. And so unfortunately, our unfunded liability is dictated by CalPERS and how their investments return.
Keep in mind that their discount rate, they did drop their discount rate target as well.
Follow-up Citizen #10
And can I add to that , CalPERS has a board, and I looked into this several years ago. CalPERS has a board that picks the investments for CalPERS. That board is appointed by Gavin Newsom. And that board, several years ago, decided to divest themselves of everything that's oil and gas. And so the revenues, the investments 24 that they put are much lower, much, much lower than Morningstar and some other big funds. They're substantially lower. So the question I have, and I never get to ask this at the City Council because I don't show up very often. And when I do, it's not very well received, and you only have three minutes. But the question I would have is, why doesn't the City take some of the money they're putting toward CalPERS and invest it in some other general wide fund that has a much higher return on investment , than what CalPERS does. Because CalPERS, their investments are completely permitted. And yet, the taxpayers in Simi Valley and throughout California are the ones who suffer. And so, just as a concept, and I understood that was a consideration to have some separate fund that you could put this money into that has a much greater return than what CalPERS does.
Staff Comments –
I think you are referring to a 115 Pension Trust Fund.
Follow-up Citizen #10
I don’t know if it’s a trust fund.
Staff Comments –
We are still obligated with CalPERS as a member of CalPERS to be part of their investments. Because they're the ones that are paying our retirees. And the City has an investment policy that is complying with state regulations as far as what we can invest in. And the liquidity as well as the conservatism, right? Because it is taxpayer dollars, so we don't have the latitude to necessarily invest in those higher risk investments. Because that can put the taxpayer dollar at risk. So, there is opportunity for some other investments. However, in terms of our CalPERS investments, we are largely subject to the decisions made by CalPERS and the State Legislature. And w henever CalPERS or the legislature proposes that they divest of other money-making investments, that spend a variety of different things, we typically take a stand and oppose that. Because realistically, it doesn't make sense for them to decrease their options for investment. • Citizen #11 –
I have another question. In the budget, on page 274, it talks about an Axon contract. That is a contract for the body camaras, for the police. Which is very important, very significant. And what the budget is being requested is that 30% of that $2.4 million cost be funded by the asset forfeiture section. And the question I have is, is that legal?
Staff Comments –
Yes.
Follow-up Citizen #11 –
My understanding was asset forfeiture can pay for a specific part of it, but not expenses. Am I confused?
25 Staff Comments –
There is a document that provides guidance on what it can and cannot pay for. We checked into it and this purchase complies with those guidelines. They specifically call out body cameras.
• Citizen #12 –
So, you budgeted for seven major street projects. The problem is, going back about two years, for ten years we did no major street paving. And I realize that the sales tax, gas tax money only goes to residential paving. But the seven major streets, that c ould be two miles each. Seven major streets sounds great, but it could be two miles. At what stage does the city dip into this big general fund to catch up a little better? Because we're trickling in the street repairs, as far as I'm concerned. So is that generally possible?
Staff Comments –
Keep in mind that the general fund surplus funds for the last three years has gone to our major streets project.
Follow-up Citizen #12 –
Right, 40%. Still not enough. Is that what we're stuck with? Staff Comments –
That's what the City Council has funded.
• Citizen #13 –
What constitutes the City going into this massive reserve zone? Staff Comments –
The Council would have to revisit the reserves.
• Citizen #14 –
Hi. I want to go back to the living wage issue. We have a lot of Public Works employees here that provide a service. But I’m just wondering if this budget factors in the wage study to make sure we are able to attract and retain employees. It looks like we are losing a lot on onboarding costs and not able to retain employees who take care of our streets, take care of our community. Does that factor into the wage study at all?
Staff Comments –
We have not conducted a wage study.
Follow-up Citizen #14 –
There's a lot of jobs here that are making less that what an 18 -year-old is making now literally flipping burgers. We have skilled labor adding a lot of value to this City and they are not making a livable wage. They can go make more working at In-n-Out. So, if we want to lose labor to fast food workers. I just feel like we a re 26 being penny wise but pound foolish. I feel like we are losing our good worker over a livable wage.
• Citizen #15 –
Hi, Vivian De Luca, I think that you can see by all of the people that are in this room that the City needs to do something. I think you should start factoring something into the budget to help pay your employees. Whether it's increasing the sales tax.
Something needs to be done. And I think that we really need to start looking at incorporating something into the budget to help retain your employees. And like we have been saying, pay us a living wage. If you could ask the City Council to consider that?
• Citizen #16 –
When we are forced to be on standby I get out at 4:30 a.m. to 6 a.m. We have to do 13 hours of standby and get paid only $24, one hour, • Citizen #17 –
Is it in the City budget for the next year for employee wages to be increased? What percentage of this budget goes to the employees' wages? Staff Comments –
An increase hasn't been determined yet.
Follow-up Citizen #17 –
Well, I mean, that should, in my opinion, be one of the main things on your agenda.
To make sure, these people make more than a person's flipping hamburgers. Our City won't function without these people.
• Citizen #18 –
Isn't it more economical to have retention of employees rather than bringing them in, spending the money to train them, and then they go to other cities because they get paid more? Wouldn't it be better to put it in the budget to pay them more, retain them, than getting people that just want to come in here, get their foot in a City job, get the experience, and then go to another city for more money? Citizen #19 –
Which we pay for. It's waste of tax money. We're just throwing tax dollars that we so desperately need in the garbage by not retaining them.
Citizen #20 –
The City needs more revenue. They've got to come up with methods, whether it's sales tax or attracting stronger retail. So we stay here.
Citizen #21 –
If we're the lowest in sales tax, that is a good thing to look at. 27 Citizen #22 –
That is why I was curious of the numbers. I didn't realize it was so significant, $23 million.
Citizen #23 –
We used to have 22 employees for the Streets Department and now we are down to 8.
Citizen #24 –
So as far as the budget, there was nothing for employees.
Staff Comments –
We're in active negotiations right now.
Follow-up Citizen #24 –
I didn’t see anything in the information presented that specifically indicated any portion of it was allocated for increases in wages. That was the whole budget that was presented to us, right? It just had a Public Works figure of 20%. Not a breakdown.
• Citizen #25 –
About CDBG and HUD for non-profits, there needs to be negotiations with HUD to get more money for Community Non Profits grants.
COVID Recovery (Fund 271),there is $6M for FY25-26, is that $6M per year? Staff Comments –
No, that is the fund balance. That is how much money is set aside in the fund. • Citizen #25 –
So, there is no plan for use of that money this fiscal year? Staff Comments –
There are no current revenues or expenditures allocated to that fund. This fund is a reserve to assist operations of the City impacted by Covid that may cause revenue to fall below budgeted levels. Use of the funds would need to be approved by City Council.
• Citizen #26 –
Do you know how much revenue the City gets from traffic tickets? Staff Comments –
The City anticipates to get $300,000 in Vehicle Code Violation fines for FY 2025-
26. That is all vehicle fines.
28 • Citizen #27 –
Is the only way to get that book online or can you buy it? Staff Comments –
Yes, the Annual Bu dget is available to the public on the City’s website and hard copies may be purchased at the City Clerk's Office.
Follow-up Citizen #27 –
How much is it?
Staff Comments –
I'll have to get back to you.
Staff reached out to the resident to provide the cost after the meeting. The cost to purchase the FY 2025 -26 Budget is $18.60 and $10.55 for the C apital Improvement Projects Five Year Program.
• Citizen #28 –
You mentioned about some capital projects, 173 projects, over the next five years? Staff Comments –
Yes, over the next five years.
Follow up Citizen #28 –
I want to ask a question about that. Before I do, I want to talk about something that's brought up over here about ret aining people instead of going somewhere else. My own experience, when I got out of school, and I came to California, I went to work for a bank, Union Bank. They did a loan training program. It was 45 plus years ago. And they had the same kind of problem that this City has right now.
They had the best training program in California. Training people how to be loan officers, commercial loan officers. They have a bunch of people come in. They spend a year and a half training them and when they graduated, 80% of our class, got hired away by other banks. For $5,000 more in compensation than what Union Bank was paying. Now, I didn't get hired away. I stayed with them. But that is a true expense that the City is incurring to train people, spend all the money and train them, and then lose them to other people because our wages on the bottom line are not right. And I think that is a valid issue that really needs to be fixed.
Citizen (Prior Citizen) –
Have you guys put a number to that yet? How much we've spent and how much we've lost because of all the employees that on their exit interview stated that they left for higher wages? Is there a number for that? Like what we pay them for that year or two.
Citizen (Prior Citizen) –
29 What happens in the Street Department is that there is no training and there is no way to move up. There is no scale to move up to get proper raises. We just get hired as a Maintenance Worker 2 and that’s all. There is no train ing, there is no structure to get proper training to move up in the City so that is why people leave.
There is nothing beyond where you get hired. We top out at $28. If we get training on the outside they don’t want to compensate you. We go outside and pay out of pocket to do a better job for the community.
Follow up Citizen #28 –
Can I go back to my projects. 173 projects with capital projects of $152 million for the next five years. Is that what I heard you say?
Staff Comments –
Yes. That is correct.
Follow up Citizen #28 –
Okay. In the year, I believe it was either the 20-21 budget, or the 21-22 budget, the capital projects at that time, the unfunded deferred kind of thing, was $130 million.
I think that was for the year 20 -21. The next year, 21 -22, was $160 million. And I don't remember how many projects there were. But here we have an estimate of $152 million, 173 projects, and 53 requested funds. And my question is this. The City just approved raising water connection fees, sewer fees, or some kinds of fees, sanitation fee s by X number of dollars on fees, to fund $71 million and 49 projects. But I didn't read anywhere that there's really 173 projects for $152 million.
Now, as I go through this document, we're saying, well, this project is not requested funds. Where is the list of all the 173 projects, and what the estimated cost is, what they are, and how you come up with $152 million? Where is that? Where is that? Is that a public document anywhere?
Staff Comments –
What you are looking at is the Capital Budget. There are 173 active projects within that book. Not all of them are requesting funding within the next five years, but they are all listed in that book because they are ongoing projects. 53 are requesting funding in Fiscal Year 2025-26.
Follow up Citizen #28 –
Is there somewhere, somehow you came up with that $152 million? Staff Comments –
Of the projects that are listed in the CIP book, over five years, there's a projection of what each project will need . If you go through and look at each project worksheet, there are some projects that may not be request funding in fiscal year 25-26, but they will be requesting in the outer years. So, the accumulation of those costs. Page 30, page 26-30, list the projects, and page 30 has the totals.
Follow up Citizen #28 –
30 Starting on page 26. Okay, alright, I see. And the reason that we are not going forward? The question is, there are 173 project that need to be done, how do they make it on this list?
Staff Comments –
Each department submitted their project priority list.
Follow up Citizen #28 –
Okay. And based on that submission they must have said, there is something going on here we need to fix this. Is that correct?
Staff Comments –
Based on Management and identifying useful life of projects they are tak en into consideration and determined over the next five years that these are the projects that we need to work on.
Follow up Citizen #28 –
Every department has a reserve study correct? A reserve study of some sort.
Staff Comments –
We do studies for Water and Sanitation to determine what the status is of our infrastructure and what is maintainable.
Follow up Citizen #28 –
Homeowner association has a reserve study where they are identifying what is going to need repair over the next five years.
Staff Comments –
We call it something different, but it is similar process. • Citizen #29–
Is there any money this year in Streets project for pedestrian safety.
Staff Comments –
I mentioned there is ATP Grant Funding for pedestrian safety.
For pedestrian safety, we are focusing on the Bicycle Master Plan right now and placing left turn signals on some intersections. The proposed budget has funding for a Bicycle Master Plan to be put in place.
Follow-up Citizen #29–
We have heard rumors about the Bicycle Master Plan but actual dollars funded for pedestrian safety. According to the Safety board, fatalities skyrocketed nationwide and it is a problem especially for old grey haired people like me.
But nothing specifically mentioned regarding reflective crosswalks near schools or any enhanced safety features like that.
31 Staff Comments –
We have made improvements to our crosswalks particularly in school zones.
Specifically, we’re transitioning from the traditional two -line design to the more visible lateral-style crosswalks around schools to enhance pedestrian safety.
With no further comments, attendees were thanked for their participation and told that the budget will be presented to City Council for adoption at the meeting of June 9th.
Carolyn Johnson
Administrative Services Director
Attachments:
Teresa Jordan Comments (Exhibit A)
32 3152 Shad Court
Simi Valley, CA 93063
May 27, 2025
Ms. Johanna Medrano, Deputy Director
Administrative Services Department
Budget and Purchasing Officer
Simi Valley City Hall
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063
Re: Public and Staff Proposed City FY 2025-26 Budget
Meeting.
Dear Ms. Medrano:
Please note that I have read the FY 2025-26 Proposed
Budget Buuk, and Proposed CIP FY 2025-26 to FY 2029-30.
The following are my comments, suggestions, and
questions on the aforementioned subject.
FY 2025-26 PROPOSED BUDGET BOOK
#1 - Page 17, second to last paragraph, Waterworks
District, it is stated “Prior to FY 2022-23, the
Operating Fund and Replacement Reserve fund were
combined for reporting purposes in the Annual
Budget. The funds are now reported on separately.”
This speaks volumes to my request to the City
Council in my April 21, 2025 letter to direct
staff to provide the El Rancho Simi Cemetery
District with a detailed BREAKDOWN(line items,
and dollar amounts) of the City’s administrative
and other costs paid by the Cemetery District
through Secured Levy - RDA Annual Tax Increment
for the District’s accounting purposes!
Noted.
#2 - Page 18, second to last paragraph, it is stated
in the last sentence “Expenditures are budgeted
at the line-item level according to fund and
operational area.”
I restate my comment #1 here also!
EXHIBIT A
33 2
Noted.
#3 - Page 32, second paragraph, last sentence, it is
stated “spkanned and unplanned staff vacancies”!
What is the misspelled word?
Noted. It will be reflected in the adopted budget. Thank you for pointing it out.
#4 - Page 33, “CDA Loan Receivable **”. The text
for the “**” is missing!
Noted. The foot note can be found in the following page however we will add it to this page as well for the adopted budget. Below is the note for your reference
** Pursuant to AB 1584 (FY 2011-12 Legislative Session), the former General Fund loan to the Community Development Agency has been reclassified as a loan receivable.
Repayments were approved by the Department of Finance and commenced June 2014.
#5 - Page 41, under Taxes and Franchices, since the
Transfer In from the CDA Admin is mentioned, I
restate my comment #1 here also!
Noted.
#6 - Page 44, OTHER REVENUES, “Sale of Surplus
Property”, and “Sale of Land”, what is the
difference between these 2 items and entries?
Sales of Surplus Property refer to revenues generated from selling City-owned assets that have reached the end of
their useful life and have depreciated in value—such as old equipment, vehicles, or furniture.
Sale of Land, on the other hand, represents revenue from the sale of land owned by the City. Unlike surplus
property, land typically appreciates in value over time and is sold at market value.
#7 - Page 44, TRANSFERS IN, “Transfer from Sagency-
CDA/Admin”, I restate my comment #1 here also!
Noted.
#8 - Page 64, KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FY25, fourth
bullet point, change “competed” to “Completed”.
34 3
Seventh bullet point, change “Continue” to
“Continued”.
Noted. It will be reflected in the adopted budget. Thank you for pointing it out.
#9 - Page 75, Citywide Rebranding Campaign(City’s
logo), will there be a contest as was done for
the current seal years ago?
At this time, no contest is planned. This request is to engage a professional consultant to update the City’s
branding and develop materials that help tell the Simi
Valley story. Input and buy-in will be sought from both staff and the community. The specific method for community involvement has not yet been determined. Your question has been provided to the City Manager’s Office.
#10 - Page 144, KET ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FY25, seventh
bullet point, change “Monitor” to “Monitored”.
Noted. It will be reflected in the adopted budget. Thank you for pointing it out.
#11 - Page 148, KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS FY25, tenth bullet
point, change “Take over” to “Took over”.
Eleventh bullet point, change “Monitor” to
“Monitored”.
Noted. It will be reflected in the adopted budget. Thank you for pointing it out.
#12 - Page 236, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY
FUNDS FUND 920-927, TOTAL EXPENSITURES, What does
“DS SA” stand for?
DS SA – Stands for Debt Services Successor Agency
What does “LT Debt” stand for?
LT Debt – Stands for Long-Term Debt
Noted. It will be reflected in the adopted budget. Thank you for pointing it out.
Why was the ERROR between the FY 2021-22 annual
budget FY20 Actual, and FY 2022-23 annual budget
FY21 Actual not corrected?
35 4
FY20 Ending Balance . . . . . $(14,019,409)
FY21 Starting Balance . . . . $(12,883,350)
What happened to the $1,136,059?
I restate my comment #1 here also!
Please provide the page and section you are referring to for this comment.
#13 - Why did the City go from the 2025-26 Actual
format to the FY25 Actual, FY24 Actual, FY23
Actual, and for previsous annual budgets’ format?
The City moved to the format used to show two years of
historical actuals (FY23, FY24) in last year’s budget to improve transparency and allow for easier year-over-year comparisons. This layout helps readers better understand financial trends and changes over time, and it aligns with standard governmental budget practices.
#14 - At what point in the fiscal year proposed budget/ adopted budget process are revisions made?
Revisions from the proposed budget to the adopted budget are done once the City Council reviews and approved the budget.
#15 - Page 258, FUND 271: COVID-19 RECOVERY FUND, Why
is Object “39100 Transfer from General Fund”
listed twice(REVENUES)?
Noted. The duplicate line will be revised for the adopted budget. Thank you for pointing it out.
#16 - Why doesn’t the City provide the El Rancho Simi
Cemetery District with a DETAILED(line items and
dollar amounts) BREAKDOWN of City administration
and other costs that are paid by the Cemetery
District with monies from the Secured Levy - RDA
Annual Tax Increment Fund?
Please direct this question to the Ventura County Auditors- Controllers Office, who is responsible for collection and distribution.
36 5
I restate my comment #1 here also! Thank you.
Noted.
Sincerely,
Teresa Jordan
ATTACHMENT:
March 23, 2025, CITY OF SIMI VALLEY ANNUAL BUDGETS
LIST Compiled by Teresa Jordan. (6 Pages)
37 technology
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY FY 2025-26 PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 138
Project Title: City Telephone System Replacement Operating Cost:
Project No: CPB0022 First Year:
Lead Department: Administrative Services Subsequent Years: $20,000 (beginning in year 6) Project Manager: Garry Boswell Source of Funds: Capital Lease, Devt. Agreements, Sanitation, Waterworks
Project Title: Financial Info System Replacement Operating Cost:
Project No: CPB0018 First Year: $310,000
Lead Department: Administrative Services Subsequent Years: $310,000 Project Manager: Gary Boswell Source of Funds: General Fund / Water Sanitation
Project Title: Replacement of Citywide Radio System Operating Cost: Covered Under Project No: CP66800001 First Year: $300,000
Lead Department: Administrative Services Subsequent Years: General Fund / Water Project Manager: Gary Boswell Source of Funds: Sanitation / Transit Funds The following projects are on-going, but are not currently requesting any new funding in the next five fiscal years.
Project Description: The City’s current system, installed in FY19, has many features and utilizes a newer architecture of VoIP. This system architecture provides for enhanced reliability, improved back-up capabilities, mobile communication features, web-based user interface, enhanced in-house support, unified network resources, and is less costly to support. The installation is complete. This project will support on-going maintenance of the system.
Project Description: The City has implemented many of the features of our enterprise system strategy including purchasing, fiscal, payroll, timekeeping, permitting and planning. We have gathered the requirements and are in the process of evaluating needs of the Public Works department. We anticipate presenting the options for the Public Works system to the City Council in the calendar year 2024. These features will allow citizens to report issues with public assets such as potholes, downed trees and water leaks. Staff would have the ability to prioritize the issues, create work orders, and assign them to field workers ultimately making the process more efficient and accountable.
Project Description: The City owns and operates an Ultra High Frequency (UHF) Project 25 (P25) conventional simulcast system used by multiple City departments. Departments that use the system for daily and emergency communications include Police Department, Waterworks, Sanitation, Public Works, Transit, Crossing Guards, Code Enforcement and Building & Safety. The system is aging and users are experiencing issues with coverage deficiencies and system reliability. To address these issues, the system will undergo an upgrade which will meet the City's needs for the next 10-15 years. -A
ATTACHMENT B
38