CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
MEMORANDUM
Augus
t 18, 2025
TO: Cit
y Council
FR
OM: Department of Public Works
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF CITY RESPONSE TO THE 2024- 2025 VENTURA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT – PRIORITIZING BEST
PRACTICE STREET MAINTENANCE
RECOMMENDATION
It
is recommended that the City Council approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the attached form (Attachment A, page 3), in response to the 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury June 4, 2025 Final Report - Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance (Exhibit 1, page 7).
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
On J
une 4, 2025, the 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury issued a Final Report- Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance. California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require the City to respond to the report’s Findings and Recommendations within 90 days. It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached form in response to the Civil Grand Jury report.
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES
On J
une 4, 2025, the 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury delivered a Final Report - Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance. The City is required to respond to the Civil Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations. Those findings and recommendations are listed in the attached Response to Grand Jury Form (Attachment B, page 4).
The f
ollowing alternatives are available to the City Council:
1. Appr
ove and authorize the Mayor to sign the attached form in response to the Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report - Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance dated June 4, 2025;
2. Pr
ovide staff with other direction.
Sta
ff recommends Alternative No. 1.
AGENDA ITEM NO.
Consent (3)
SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL MOTION
I move to approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the City’s response to the Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report- Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance dated June 4, 2025.
SUMMARY
Staff has prepared a response to the Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report - Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance, dated June 4, 2025. It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached form in response to the Civil Grand Jury Report.
____________________________________
Ronald K. Fuchiwaki
Public Works Director
Prepared by: Fuad Shamout, Principal Engineer (Capital Projects)
INDEX Page
Attachment A – Response to the Grand Jury Report Form .............. 3 Attachment B – City Response ........................................................ 4 Exhibit 1 – Civil Grand Jury Final Report .......................................... 7
2 COUNTY �VENTURA
Civil Grand Jury
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 93009
Tel (805) 477-1600
Fax (805) 658-4523
grandj ury. cou ntyofventura. org
Response to 2024-2025 Ventura County Grand Jury Report Form (Please See California Penal Code Section 933.05)
Report Title: Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance Responding Entity: Simi Valley City Council
FINDINGS
• I (we) agree with the Findings numbered: ________________ _ • I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the Findings numbered: ________ _ (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the Findings that are disputed; include an explanation of the reasons.)
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Recommendations numbered _____________ have been implemented. (Attach a summary describing the implemented actions.)
• Recommendations numbered _____________ have not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future.
(Attach a summary indicating the timeframe for implementation.) • Recommendations numbered _____________ require further analysis. (Attach an explanation to include: scope and parameters of the analysis or study and timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion with the agency or department head. The timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the report.)
• Recommendations numbered _____________ will not be implemented because they are not warranted or are not reasonable.
(Attach an explanation.)
Date: -------- Signed: _________________ _
Title: -------------------
Number of pages attached:_
ATTACHMENT A
F-08
F-03
R-04
Mayor of the City of Simi Valley, California
3 CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
Home of The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
The City of Simi Valley ('City') appreciates the opportunity to provide a response to the Report.
F-03: The Civil Grand Jury finds that Simi Valley does not maintain its streets in a best practice condition resulting in costlier deferred maintenance on streets and a hidden cost on residents due to extra vehicle wear.
Response: The City of Simi Valley respectfully disagrees with this finding.
The City is committed to maintaining and improving its roadway network using nationally recognized best practices in pavement management. Simi Valley employs a data-driven approach that includes condition assessments and targeted maintenance strategies to extend pavement life and optimize the use of available resources.
The assertion that best practices are only achieved with a citywide Pavement Condition Index (PCI) above 80 misinterprets how PCI is intended to be used. PCI is a standardized rating tool designed to quantify surface condition based on visual inspections. It is not a standalone indicator of an agency's adherence to best practices. Effective pavement management must consider many interrelated factors, including roadway classification, traffic volumes, traffic type, pavement age, structural needs, drainage, available funding, and long-term performance goals. Best practices are not defined by a fixed PCI target but by how effectively an agency maintains its network within its fiscal and operational context.
Additionally, the claim that only streets with a PCI above 80 are considered 'Good' is misleading. The City utilizes the widely adopted StreetSaver software and its default PCI breakpoints, which categorize pavement into four main categories: Very Good (100-70 PCI), Good (69-50 PCI), Poor (49-25 PCI), and Very Poor (24-0 PCI). These PCI ranges align with regional and national practices. The Save California Streets Report (Reference 14) uses slightly broader groupings: Good to Excellent (PCI 70-100), At Risk (PCI 50-69), Poor (PCI 25- 49), and Failed (PCI 0-24), which still consider streets with a PCI at or above 70 as in 'Good' condition. As of the current reporting date using StreetSaver categories, 51 % of the City's streets fall within the 'Very Good' category and 29% fall within the 'Good' category.
Dee Dee Cavanaugh, Mayor Mike Judge, Mayor Pro Tern Elaine P. Litster, Council Member Rocky Rhodes, Council Member Joseph D. Ayala, Council Member 2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, CA 93063-2199 805.583.6700 www.simivalley.org
ATTACHMENT B
4 Since fiscal year 2021 -2022, the City has allocated almost 49 million dollars to street rehabilitation programs and expanded its investment in preventive maintenance. Staff evaluates multiple factors when selecting streets for treatment, including condition, timing, and cost effectiveness. Street projects also incor porate broader infrastructure improvements such as path of travel upgrades to improve ADA accessibility, tree related repairs and root management, sidewalk and curb ramp replacements, drainage up grades, and traffic safety enhancements. While deferred maintenance is a reality faced by public agencies, the City has made deliberate and proactive efforts to mitigate long-term costs and avoid expensive full reconstructions. However, assuming a street segment would never need more costly repair is incorrect, as even well -maintained roads will eventually require more intensive repairs to maintain performance, safety, and compliance with evolving standards.
The City remains committed to continuous improvement and to using the tools, resources, and professional judgment necessary to preserve the long -term safety, functionality, and value of its street system.
F-08: The Civil Grand Jury finds that Simi Valley, with its dedicated and knowledgeable staff, would make effective use of the funds allocated for street maintenance.
Response: The City appreciates the Grand Jury’s recognition of its dedicated and knowledgeable staff and agrees with this finding.
R-04: The Civil Grand Jury recommends that Simi Valley set a goal to reach best practice pavement conditions within 10 years and create a plan to accomplish that goal by December 2025.
Response: The City of Simi Valley appreciates the Grand Jury’s recommendation and supports the goal of improving overall pavement conditions. The City has a strong track record of applying best practices in pavement management and remains committed to the long-term sustainability of its roadway network.
5 Currently, the City’s overall Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is 69, placing it just one point below the Very Good range according to industry standards. While a citywide PCI of 80 is an aspirational target, reaching that level within the next 10 years would require significant additional investment beyond current funding levels.
Pavement maintenance is one of several infrastructure priorities th e City must manage.
Roadway improvement projec ts typically include multiple elements beyond pavement condition, such as curb and gutter upgrades, sidewalk and ADA ramp improvements (with a full compliance goal within 20 years), drainag e enhancements, and traffic signal modernization. These components are essential to a functional, safe, and accessible transportation system and require steady funding.
City Council must also weigh street maintenance needs alongside broader community priorities, including public safety, public resources, emergency response, and youth and senior services. These competing demands make it necessary to allocate resources in a way that reflects the needs and values of Simi Valley residents. The City has taken proactive steps to address these infrastructure challenges, including dedicating surplus funds to the Streets and Roads Fund and pursuing state and federal grant opportunities to supplement local revenue.
It is also important to note that past community opposition to new tax measures limits the City’s ability to establish a consistent and scalable funding source for streets. Without a significant increase in available funding, achieving a citywide PCI of 80 within the recommended timeframe is unlikely.
However, the City remains committed to continuous improvement. The 2025 update to the Pavement Management Program (PMP), currently in development, will reassess the PCI of all City-maintained streets using standardized inspections, outline strategies to preserve and rehabilitate pavement based on condition and priority, and identify funding levels required to meet different condition targets, including a PCI of 80. This plan will serve as a guiding document for decision-making, over the next 5 years, and will position the City to respond strategically as new funding opportunities arise. 6 P2024 – 2025
Civil G
rand Jury
Final Report
Pr
ioritizing Best Practice
Street Maintenance
June
4, 2025
EXHIBIT 1
7 This page intentionally blank
8 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance 1
Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance
SUMMARY
Streets are a vital part of a city’s infrastructure, enabling commerce, emergency services, and recreation. They often make up the bulk of a city’s assets and are costly to maintain. Streets not kept in a best practice condition are costlier to maintain. Neglected streets also cause extra wear on the vehicles that use them.
The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury investigated the pavement conditions in the cities of Camarillo, Oxnard, Santa Paula, Simi Valley, and Ventura. Although these cities have established improvement goals, none has a specific target to achieve and maintain best practice pavement conditions.
The Civil Grand Jury recommends that each city set a goal to achieve best practice street conditions and create a plan to reach that goal.
METHODOLOGY
The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury received complaints about road conditions in several cities within Ventura County and chose to investigate Camarillo, Oxnard, Santa Paula, Simi Valley, and Ventura due to the differing street conditions present. City pavement management plans, budgets, and financial statements were examined. Interviews were held with city officials. City Council meetings were reviewed. Additionally, online research was conducted. Data was downloaded for analysis from the California State Controller for city and city street revenue. (Ref-01, Ref-02, Ref-03, Ref-04, Ref-05, Ref-06, Ref-07, Ref-08, Ref-09, Ref-10, Ref-11, Ref- 12, Ref-13, Att-01, Att-02)
BACKGROUND
Streets are essential for a functioning city; they provide access for fire, police, and ambulance services. They facilitate commerce, commuting, delivery, and leisure travel while supporting public transit, biking, and walking.
Best Practice Pavement Conditions
Since 2008, a coalition of cities, counties, and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs) has partnered to educate policymakers and the public about the necessity of investing in transportation infrastructure. The group, SaveCaliforniaStreets, presents several points in its biannual report, which is compiled using data submitted by cities and counties, with the most recent release in May 2023. (Ref-14)
• The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is a rating system that ranges from 0 (failed) to 100 (excellent).
• Best practices call for a PCI in the 80s.
• A PCI rating ranging from 60 to 70 is classified as “at risk”. 9 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
2 Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance
• Reconstructing a street in poor condition (PCI < 49) can cost up to 14 times more than maintaining pavement in good condition (PCI 71 to 85).
• Maintaining a street with a PCI of 50 to 70 can cost as much as four times more than maintaining pavement conditions in the 80s.
There are two relevant concepts in best practice pavement management: lifecycle cost analysis and the perpetual pavement design concept. These concepts are presented by the United States Department of Transportation’s “Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Primer” in 2003 and “Reformulated Pavement Remaining Service Life Framework” in 2013. (Ref-15, Ref-16) Lifecycle cost analysis advocates for finding the best, lowest cost way to accomplish a project using discounted cash flows. It considers both the project costs incurred by a city and user costs, including vehicle operating costs, travel time costs, and crash costs. (Ref-15) Figure 1
10 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance 3
Figure 2
Perpetual pavement design promotes maintaining streets in such a condition that distress does not occur at levels below the surface layer. In other words, perform less costly preventative maintenance more often so that more costly maintenance or reconstruction is not needed. (Figure 1, Ref-11, Figure 2, Ref-16)
Attachment 03 presents a simplified overview of applying both concepts to two different alternatives. User costs, disruption during construction, and vehicle wear should be considered, but for simplification purposes, they are assumed to be equivalent between the alternatives.
Alternative A assumes a street service life of 30 years and a reconstruction cost of $84 per square yard. Alternative B assumes preventive maintenance every six years at $7 per square yard for a total of $35 over those 30 years. Both cost estimates (in 2022 dollars) and the preventive maintenance frequency are sourced from SaveCaliforniaStreets. Assuming a discount rate of 4%, the present value of $84 is $26. The present value of $7 spent every six years, starting in year six, is $18. Results indicate that performing preventative maintenance costs about 30% less than reconstructing a street every 30 years. (Ref-14, Ref-15, Att-03) Essentially, a higher PCI provides the opportunity to reduce costs for street maintenance.
Allowing pavement conditions to fall below best practices leads to increased expenses. If a city sets a goal of 70, taxpayers may end up paying four times more to maintain streets that do not advance beyond that level. The sooner a city can achieve a PCI in the 80s, the better.
11 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
4 Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance
Costlier Deferred Maintenance
A software program known as StreetSaver is frequently used for pavement management in California. The StreetSaver program does the following:
• Tracks pavement conditions and estimates their degradation over time • Makes estimates of future funding requirements to achieve a specific PCI goal within one to ten years
• Assists in planning by recommending which streets to prioritize within a limited budget. (Ref-17)
Figure 3
StreetSaver’s estimate of future funding requirements considers the costs for all streets with PCIs ranging from 0 to 100. For asphalt streets with a PCI rating above 70, SaveCaliforniaStreets estimates the cost, in 2022 dollars, to be $4 to $7 per square yard. For streets with a PCI between 50 and 70, the cost increases to between $20 and $30 per square yard. Deferring maintenance until a street’s PCI falls between 70 and 50 is costlier by the difference between these two ranges, totaling $16 to $23 per square yard. This costlier deferred maintenance could be avoided if street conditions were maintained using best practices, a PCI in the 80s. (Figure 3, Ref-14)
Although it is not as precise as StreetSaver, the following calculation provides a rough estimate of costlier deferred maintenance: (Lane miles) × (Additional Cost per Square Yard) × (Average Lane Width) × (Yards per Mile). A city with 1,000 lane miles of streets to maintain with a PCI of 67 incurs an additional cost of $16 to $23 per square yard. Assuming an average lane width of 5 yards and 1,760 yards per mile, the additional cost requirement would range from $140 million to $200 million, likely closer to $140 million since the PCI is nearer to 70 than to 50. (1,000) × ($16 to $23) × (5) × (1,760) = $140,000,000 to $200,000,000. 12 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance 5
If a city spends enough to increase its average PCI, it can reduce the amount of this costlier deferred maintenance. In contrast, if a city does not spend sufficiently to maintain the same pavement conditions, the opposite occurs. Even if a city’s pavement condition remains unchanged, the costlier deferred maintenance amount will escalate by four to seven percent annually due to inflation in paving construction costs, according to SaveCaliforniaStreets. (Ref-14)
The Hidden Cost
In 2024, Trip, a national transportation research nonprofit, estimated that Californians lost $22.9 billion per year in additional vehicle wear due to poor streets. This estimate corresponds with a statewide PCI of 65 reported by SaveCaliforniaStreets in 2022. It encompasses vehicle depreciation, repair costs, increased fuel consumption, and additional tire wear caused by inadequate streets. However, it does not consider the extra time lost due to congestion, delays from detours, the noise and dust from construction, or restricted access for commerce, fire, police, and ambulance services. Assuming a population of 39 million and an average of 16 out of 35 miles driven daily on local streets, this totals approximately $270 per resident annually for driving on subpar local roads. Residents of a city with a population of 100,000 and a PCI of 65 collectively incur $27 million per year for this hidden cost. Like deferred maintenance, this amount is dependent on the average PCI. It is zero at a PCI of 100 and increases to over $270 at a PCI of less than 65. (Ref-18, Ref-19)
Funding Sources
There are two main types of funding: those dedicated to street maintenance, which cannot be used for other purposes, and those that contribute to a city’s general fund and can be allocated for any purpose at the discretion of the city council. State sources constitute the majority of dedicated funding, while city sources account for most discretionary funding. It is important to note that not all street funding is spent on pavement maintenance. Expenditures also cover bridges, traffic signals, sidewalks, wheelchair ramps, gutters, storm drains, engineering, bike paths, signage, and more.
State funds dedicated to street maintenance primarily come from the gas tax (Highway Users Tax Account) and SB1 (The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017). Since SB1 funds and gas taxes are indexed for inflation, these resources are increasing despite lower gas consumption. The future growth rate of these funds is anticipated to decline under current regulations as electric vehicles represent a larger share of the vehicles on the road. The state is conducting several studies to modify these regulations, such as implementing a tax based on miles driven rather than gas consumption. Federal and State funding sources are insufficient to cover routine street maintenance, let alone the funding required to achieve best practice street conditions. (Ref-20 , Ref-21, Ref-14)
City sources for street maintenance funds come from property tax and sales tax, which make up the majority of a city’s general fund. Finding alternative local funding sources is limited, particularly due to Proposition 218 (The Right to Vote on Taxes Act, passed in 1996).
13 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
6 Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance
Funding options that require a two-thirds vote:
• Special property tax assessment
• Sales tax for dedicated services, such as street maintenance • Municipal bonds.
Funding options that require only a 50% vote:
• Sales tax allocated to the general fund.
(Ref-22, Ref-23)
Sales tax is limited to an additional 2% over the base rate of 7.25%, unless a special exception law is passed by the California legislature. These exceptions are typically introduced by a local state representative and have been successfully enacted by 91 cities. (Ref-24) There are several other potential funding sources, some of which are listed below; however, they are less likely to significantly increase available funds and may vary in consistency from year to year.
• Increase transient occupancy tax (voter approval required) • Developer impact fees
• Federal and state grants.
To increase local funding, most cities have chosen to use the lower 50% voter threshold to implement a general sales tax that contributes to a city’s general fund. Voters should understand that these funds are discretionary. The priorities of both voters and city councils approving a general sales tax measure can evolve over time.
DISCUSSION
City Councils for the cities in this report have taken positive steps to improve street conditions. • Camarillo has achieved best practice street conditions and has a goal to continue to seek improvement on local travel issues. (Ref-02)
• Oxnard has resumed a regular pavement cycle and set a goal to achieve a pavement condition rating of 70. (Ref-25, Ref-05)
• Santa Paula is completing the first cycle of a twenty-year pavement management plan, which consists of four five-year cycles. It has an objective to work to maximize funding going to streets. Additionally, a new funding source was established by proposing and passing Measure R in 2024, a 1% sales tax, with 60% of the vote. (Ref-07, Ref-26, Ref-27)
• Simi Valley has made it a capital improvement plan priority to resurface major and minor streets and has requested bids to update the pavement management program, with a deadline of January 2025.(Ref-08, Re f -28)
• Ventura has contracted to update its pavement management plan in 2025 and has a goal to improve conditions across the city for maintenance of roads. (Ref-29, Ref-10) 14 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance 7
While cities have established goals to improve pavement conditions, no city has a specific goal to achieve and maintain best practice pavement conditions, a PCI in the 80s.
City Staff
All the cities in this report:
• Have experienced, skilled, and passionate leadership
• Have skilled engineers and maintenance staff
• Use the pavement management program StreetSaver to help optimize fund allocation • Inspect and rate street conditions on a five-year or shorter cycle • Use internal staff to fill in potholes
• Implement systems for accepting and addressing residents’ pothole reports and complaints
• Engage external contractors for specialized expertise and significant street maintenance projects
• Develop multi-year comprehensive pavement management and capital improvement plans
• Create maps or plans that allow residents to see when specific streets will undergo maintenance
• Prioritize arterials, which are streets that carry the most traffic and heavy loads • Prioritize preventive maintenance.
(Ref-01, Ref-03, Ref-05, Ref-07, Ref-09, Ref-11)
Each city faces problems and challenges, yet it is clear that city staff can resolve these issues, tackle the challenges, and effectively utilize the funds designated for street maintenance.
However, it would be prudent for a plan intended to achieve best practice pavement conditions to include technical design and construction quality assurance metrics that are regularly reported to the public on the quality of work done by staff and contractors. (Ref-30) Costlier Deferred Maintenance
Below is an estimate of costlier deferred maintenance, based on the 2022 maintenance costs estimated by SaveCaliforniaStreets. Camarillo currently has no costlier deferred maintenance amount, as their PCI meets best practices. For the other cities, these amounts are not insignificant; they represent many times the average annual cost those cities have spent on street maintenance over the past few years. (Figure 3, Ref-14) 15 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
8 Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance
(Lane miles) × (Average Lane Width) × (Yards per Mile) × (Additional Cost per Square Yard) (Ref-01, Ref-03, Ref-05, Ref-07, Ref-09, Ref-11, Ref-14) For Oxnard and Simi Valley, the costlier deferred maintenance amounts roughly equivalent to the lower estimate, as their PCIs are around 70. For Santa Paula and Ventura, the costlier deferred maintenance amounts are closer to the midpoint of the range.
The Hidden Cost
Below is an estimate of the hidden cost borne by residents each year. This burden is not shared equally. Households without vehicles incur no hidden cost, while those with more than one vehicle or those who drive more than the average number of miles on local streets bear a higher percentage of the hidden cost. Residents make this hidden cost clear to city officials through complaints about pavement conditions. (Ref-01)
City
Average
Pavement
Condition
Index (PCI)
Lane Miles of
Pavement to
Maintain
Average
Width of a
Lane in
Yards
Yards per
Mile
Low High Low High
Camarillo 82 470 5 1760 $0 $0 $0 $0
Oxnar
d 67 1037 5 1760 $16 $23 $146,009,600 $209,888,800
Santa Paula 58 180 5 1760 $16 $23 $25,344,000 $36,432,000 Simi Valley 69 812 5 1760 $16 $23 $114,329,600 $164,348,800 Ventura 63 736 5 1760 $16 $23 $103,628,800 $148,966,400 Additional Cost
Range to Maintain
Streets at Current
PCI per Sqare Yard
Costlier
Deferred Maintenance
Costlier Deferred Maintenance Estimate
16 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance 9
Assuming the hidden cost changes linearly with PCI, the hidden cost is $139 for Camarillo, $255 for Oxnard, $324 for Santa Paula, $239 for Simi Valley, and $285 for Ventura. (Ref-18, Ref-19, Ref-31)
(Population) × (Average Local Miles) ÷ (Average Total Miles) × (Cost of Vehicle Wear)
City Population
A verage
Pavem ent
Condition
Index (PCI)
Average Local
Miles Driven
per Day
Average Total
Miles Driven
per Day
Cost of Vehicle
Wear per
resident per year
Hidden Tax
per y ear
Camarillo 69,514 82 16 35 $139 $4,417, 118 Oxnard 198,488 67 16 35 $255 $23,138,030 Santa Paula 31,792 58 16 35 $324 $4,708,849 Simi Valley 125,113 69 16 35 $239 $13,669,489 Ventura 109,058 63 16 35 $285 $14,208,699 Esitmated Hidden Tax per Year
17 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
10 Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance
Funding Sources
The cities in this report have employed various strategies to fund street maintenance.
Federal and State Funds for Street Maintenance
From 2018 to 2023, Oxnard received more federal and state funding per lane mile than the average city in California. Santa Paula received about the same amount, while Camarillo, Simi Valley, and Ventura received less. (Ref-12, Att-01)
General Funds Spent on Streets
As noted above, cities in this report are working to improve pavement conditions. To compensate for reduced federal and state funding, Camarillo, Simi Valley, and Ventura are allocating more of their discretionary general funds to street maintenance than the average city in California. (Ref-12, Att-01)
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
California Cities
Avg
Camarillo Oxnard Santa Paula Simi Valley Ventura
Federal and State Spending Sources for Streets &
Infrastructure per Lane Mile, Average of 2018-2023
Federal Revenues State Revenues
18 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance 11
The graph presented above averages data over a six-year period to smooth out year-to-year changes in street maintenance spending. Year-to-year spending can vary greatly since revenue is saved one year to fund a large project in another year, making it difficult to identify trends.
The table below illustrates how local spending on street maintenance was prioritized relative to each city’s general fund, averaged over the period from 2018 to 2023. Non-discretionary funding sources include developer impact fees, facilities assessment districts, and the transportation development act, among others. (Ref-12, Att-01, Att-04)
Sales Tax Measures
Camarillo has achieved best practice pavement conditions without increasing the sales tax.
Oxnard has passed two measures: Measure O, a ½% general sales tax introduced in 2008 that expires in 2029, and Measure E, a 1 ½% general sales tax enacted in 2020 with no expiration date. Measure O promises some funds will be used for street maintenance. It generates approximately $22.1 million annually, but there are efforts underway to reduce reliance on this City
General/
Discretionary
Fund Re
venue
Discretionary
$ Allocated to
Stre
ets
Discretionary
% Allocated to
Stre
ets
Non-
discretionary
$ A
llocated to
Streets
Non-
discretionary
% A
llocated to
Streets
Camarillo $46,577,657 $8,822, 073 18.9% $8,675,158 18.6% Oxnard $182,683,887 $7,459,313 4.1% $7,422,502 4.1%
Santa Paula $17,071,198 $1,238,263 7.3% $1,269,496 7.4% Simi Valley $78,394,698 $10,929,698 13.9% $991,063 1.3% Ventura $143,787,571 $7,200,677 5.0% $11,242,194 7.8%
Prioritization of Local Revenue to Street Maintenance 2018-2023 19 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
12 Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance
funding since it expires in 2029. About 48% of Measure O funds are budgeted for street maintenance in 2025. Measure E makes no promises and is not accounted for separately from the general fund. (Ref-04)
Santa Paula has also passed two measures: Measure T, a 1% general sales tax enacted in 2016 that expires in 2036, and Measure R, a 1% general sales tax enacted in 2024 with no expiration date. Each measure is expected to generate approximately $4.5 million per year.
About 26% of Measure T funds are allocated for street maintenance in the latest two-year budget ending in 2025. It is generating more revenue than originally projected, and its advisory committee has directed most of this extra revenue toward street maintenance. Since Measure R was recently passed, it is not included in the 2025 budget. (Ref-06) Simi Valley has not attempted to pass a local sales tax measure.
Ventura has passed Measure O, a ½% general sales tax implemented in 2016 that will expire in 2041. This measure is expected to generate approximately $17 million per year. Measure O promises some portion of funds for streets, with nearly 90% budgeted for street maintenance in 2025, representing a substantial increase compared to 2023 and earlier years. The majority of the 2025 Measure O street maintenance budget is earmarked for traffic signal upgrades and sidewalk maintenance. (Ref-10)
No city in this report has attempted to pass a sales tax measure dedicated to street maintenance, likely due to the two-thirds voter requirement. However, the city of El Cerrito demonstrates that it is possible. It passed a ½% sales tax in 2008 and documented an 0 5
10 15
20 25
Oxna rd
(M easure O )
Santa P aula
(M easure T )
V entura
(M easure O )
$ in Millions
Sales Tax Allocation to Street Maintenance (FY 2025
Budgets, 2 Year Budget Average for Santa Paula)
For Other Pri ori ties For Street Maintenance
20 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance 13
improvement in PCI from 52 to 85, completing a five-year plan in just three years. Municipal bonds in the form of sales tax revenue bonds were sold to significantly accelerate street maintenance, with the sales tax revenue pledged to pay bond interest and principal over 20 years. This measure has no expiration date and has generated some controversy regarding whether the city is still using the funds for their intended purpose. (Ref-32, Ref-33, Ref-34, Ref-35)
Other Sources
Each city in this report has utilized federal and state grants, employed developer impact fees, and implemented a transient occupancy tax. (Ref-13)
Each city has maintenance assessment districts that serve as a dedicated funding source for street upkeep, yet they provide less than 20% of the funding used for street maintenance. No city has attempted to ask voters to pass a special property tax assessment dedicated to street maintenance, other than community facilities districts that some developers choose for new developments.
Only Oxnard has utilized municipal bonds for street maintenance. Lease revenue bonds, originating from at least 2003, were refunded for $21 million in 2014 and use Measure O funds to cover the interest and principal. In 2007, Oxnard issued $28 million in Certificates of Participation and uses its Gas Tax Fund to cover the interest and principal. It appears the state did not raise objections to this issue in a timely manner, allowing Oxnard to bypass the normally required 2/3 vote. A state audit in 2018 recommended that Oxnard adhere to the rules in the future. (Ref-36)
County-wide, the Ventura County Transportation Commission can provide funds to cities through grants and public transit money. Cities with a population under 100,000 that meet certain public transit requirements can use any extra funds from the commission for street maintenance. A 2016 county-wide effort by the commission to implement a ½% sales tax failed to gain voter approval, denying cities in Ventura County access to matching funds available to those in counties that have passed the ½% sales tax. (Ref-37, Ref-38, Ref-39) Differing Circumstances
Each city in this report is unique in its ability to fund street maintenance and in the condition of its streets. Oxnard, Santa Paula, and Ventura are older cities with road bases that do not meet current standards, resulting in a higher percentage of streets requiring costly reconstruction.
Oxnard faces an additional challenge of replacing aging, under-street cast iron water pipes.
Santa Paula has had to contend with sinkholes related to adverse weather. (Ref-01) Sales tax and property tax generally make up the majority of a city’s discretionary funding sources. Camarillo is viewed as having an advantage in sales tax revenue due to its outlet mall.
However, this does not appear to be the case when considering sales tax revenue per lane mile. Simi Valley has recognized its lower sales tax revenue compared to other cities. (Ref-01, Re
f-13)
21 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
14 Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance
Here is how property tax revenue compares per lane mile. Santa Paula has recognized its lower property values compared to other cities. (Ref-01, Ref-13, Att-02)
Choices
The advantages and disadvantages of different funding sources for achieving best practice pavement condition.
• Use existing general fund sources without raising taxes:
o Pros
Does not require voter approval for increased taxes
22 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance 15
Once best practice pavement conditions are achieved, more funds can be allocated to other priorities.
o Cons
Postpone spending on other priorities until best practice pavement conditions are achieved
Might not be able to significantly reduce funding for other priorities to improve street conditions
This might take longer than other approaches, prolonging the hidden cost. • Increase the sales tax for the general fund:
o Pros
There is no need to alter existing priorities.
o Cons
Requires approval from 50% of voters
Residents are subject to a higher sales tax
Priorities can change over time.
• Increase the sales tax designated for street maintenance:
o Pros
Only applicable for street maintenance
Can be limited to the time needed to achieve best practice pavement conditions
There is no need to change the current priorities
F acilitate bond sales to reduce the time required to achieve best practice pavement conditions and decrease the hidden cost.
o Cons
Requires the approval of two-thirds of voters
Residents are subject to a higher sales tax.
Certainly, the current efforts of the cities in this report to make slow progress toward improving pavement conditions are a worthy option. Such efforts chip away at both future street maintenance needs and the costlier deferred maintenance amounts that have built up little by little over prior decades. However, it doesn’t quickly solve the problem of the hidden cost from vehicle wear or reduce residents' complaints about pavement quality. Perhaps it is time to try a different approach.
23 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
16 Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance
FINDINGS
F-01. The Civil Grand Jury finds that Oxnard does not maintain its streets in a best practice condition resulting in costlier deferred maintenance on streets and a hidden cost on residents due to extra vehicle wear.
F-02. The Civil Grand Jury finds that Santa Paula does not maintain its streets in a best practice condition resulting in costlier deferred maintenance on streets and a hidden cost on residents due to extra vehicle wear.
F-03. The Civil Grand Jury finds that Simi Valley does not maintain its streets in a best practice condition resulting in costlier deferred maintenance on streets and a hidden cost on residents due to extra vehicle wear.
F-04. The Civil Grand Jury finds that Ventura does not maintain its streets in a best practice condition resulting in costlier deferred maintenance on streets and a hidden cost on residents due to extra vehicle wear.
F-05. The Civil Grand Jury finds that Camarillo, with its dedicated and knowledgeable staff, effectively utilizes the funds spent on street maintenance, however, has not set a goal to maintain its streets in a best practice condition.
F-06. The Civil Grand Jury finds that Oxnard, with its dedicated and knowledgeable staff, would make effective use of the funds allocated for street maintenance.
F-07. The Civil Grand Jury finds that Santa Paula, with its dedicated and knowledgeable staff, would make effective use of the funds allocated for street maintenance.
F-08. The Civil Grand Jury finds that Simi Valley, with its dedicated and knowledgeable staff, would make effective use of the funds allocated for street maintenance.
F-09. The Civil Grand Jury finds that Ventura, with its dedicated and knowledgeable staff, would make effective use of the funds allocated for street maintenance.
24 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance 17
RECOMMENDATIONS
R-01. The Civil Grand Jury recommends that Camarillo set a goal to maintain best practice pavement conditions by December 2025. (F-05)
R-02. The Civil Grand Jury recommends that Oxnard set a goal to achieve best practice pavement conditions within 10 years and create a plan to accomplish that goal by December 2025. (F-01, F-06)
R-03. The Civil Grand Jury recommends that Santa Paula set a goal to reach best practice pavement conditions within 10 years and create a plan to accomplish that goal by December 2025. (F-02, F-07)
R-04. The Civil Grand Jury recommends that Simi Valley set a goal to reach best practice pavement conditions within 10 years and create a plan to accomplish that goal by December 2025. (F-03, F-08)
R-05. The Civil Grand Jury recommends that Ventura set a goal to reach best practice pavement conditions within 10 years and create a plan to accomplish that goal by December 2025. (F-04, F-09)
RESPONSES
Responses required from the following governing bodies within 90 days:
Camarillo City Council (F-05, R-01)
Oxnard City Council (F-01, F-06, R-02)
Santa Paula City Council (F-02, F-07, R-03)
Simi Valley City Council (F-03, F-08, R-04)
Ventura City Council (F-04, F-09, R-05)
COMMENDATIONS
The Civil Grand Jury commends Camarillo for maintaining its streets in a best practice condition, which lowers future maintenance costs and the hidden cost from vehicle wear.
The Civil Grand Jury commends Santa Paula for its po sitive actions in improving street conditions by passing two sales tax measures that prioritize street maintenance.
25 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
18 Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance
REFERENCES
Ref-01. Interviews with city officials.
Ref-02. City of Camarillo. (2025). Fiscal year 2024-2025 Budget. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from
https://cms7files.revize.com/camarilloca/City%20of%20Camarillo%202024- 2025%20Budget%20Book%20for%20Website.pdf
Ref-03. City of Camarillo – Department of Public Works. (2024). FY 2024-2029 Capital improvement program. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from
https://www.cityofcamarillo.org/Departments/Public%20Works/administration/FY2 024-2029%205-Year%20Capital%20Improvement%20Program.pdf Ref-04. City of Oxnard. (2024). Adopted annual budget FY 2024-2025. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://www.oxnard.gov/wp-content/uploads/FY24-25-ADOPTED- BUDGET-BOOK_FINAL.pdf
Ref-05. City of Oxnard. (2024, April 2). Citywide pavement management program overview. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from
https://oxnardca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/5038/files/report/4998 Ref-06. City of Santa Paula. (2023). Fiscal year 2023/2024 – 2024/2025 Adopted budget.
Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from
https://www.spcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/3649/Adopted-Budget-2023-25- Final
Ref-07. City of Santa Paula. (2024, May 15). 5-year Pavement management plan update, 145-161. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from
https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/santa-paula/ab9027cc-fceb-11ee-b231- 0050569183fa-145f8b53-4ba0-418f-adc1-11361e34c4ca-1715297564.pdf Ref-08. City of Simi Valley. (2024, July 1). Adopted annual budget Fiscal year 2024-25.
Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from
https://www.simivalley.org/home/showpublisheddocument/28992/638627755031 870000
Ref-09. City of Simi Valley. (2021, January 25). 2019-2020 Pavement management program update. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from
https://www.simivalley.org/home/showpublisheddocument/25194/637879445981 200000
Ref-10. City of Ventura. (2024, January 25). Adopted budget. FY 2025. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from
https://www.cityofventura.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/42486/FY-2025- Adopted-Budget-PDF
26 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance 19
REFERENCES - continued
Ref-11. City of Ventura Public Works. (2023, April 10). Pavement management plan.
Fiscal Year 2023-2027. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://www.cityofventura.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/35973/Fiscal-Years- 2023-2027-Pavement-Management-Plan-5
Ref-12. California State Controller. (2024, May 31). 2017-18 to 2022-23 Cities street annual report – Revenues. Data set. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://bythenumbers.sco.ca.gov/Finance-Application/Street-Revenues/tqrm- tuus/data_preview
Ref-13. California State Controller. (2024, October 30). 2002-03 to 2022-23 City financial transactions report – Revenues. Data set. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://bythenumbers.sco.ca.gov/Finance-Application/City-Revenues/rrtv- rsj9/data_preview
Ref-14. SaveCaliforniaStreets. (2023, April). California statewide local streets and roads needs assessment Final report. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://www.savecaliforniastreets.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Statewide- Needs-2022-FINAL.pdf
Ref-15. United States Department of Transportation. (2002, August). Life-cycle cost analysis primer. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/lcca/010621.pdf
Ref-16. United States Department of Transportation. (2013, November). Reformulated pavement remaining service life framework. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/13038/ 13038.pdf
Ref-17. StreetSaver. (n.d.). Advanced pavement management tools. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://streetsaver.com/
Ref-18. Trip. (2024, May). Key facts about California’s surface transportation system.
Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://tripnet.org/wp- content/uploads/2020/04/TRIP_Fact_Sheet_CA.pdf
Ref-19. Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2018, June 7). California's transportation system.
Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3860 Ref-20. CaliforniaCityFinance. (2025, January 15). Shared revenue estimates: state revenue allocation to cities and counties. Retrieved on May 15, 2025, from https://www.californiacityfinance.com/LSR2505.pdf
Ref-21. California Road Charge. (2025). Road charge projects. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://caroadcharge.com/projects
27 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
20 Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance
REFERENCES - continued
Ref-22. Proposition 218. Right to Vote on Taxes Act. (1996). California Constitution Article XIII C & XIII D. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://vigarchive.sos.ca.gov/1996/general/pamphlet/218text.htm Ref-23. Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2014, March 20). A look at voter-approval requirements for local taxes. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2014/finance/local-taxes/voter-approval-032014.aspx Ref-24. California Department of Tax and Fees Administration. (2025, April 1). California city & county sales & use tax rates. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/rates.aspx
Ref-25. City of Oxnard. (2021, March 16). City council five-year priorities. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://www.oxnard.gov/city-council/city-council-five-year- priorities
Ref-26. City of Santa Paula. (2023). Two-year strategic plan Fiscal years 2023-2025.
Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from
https://www.spcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/3393/Santa_Paula_Strategic_Plan _062823?bidId=
Ref-27. City of Santa Paula. (n.d.). Measure R. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://www.spcity.org/786/Measure-R
Ref-28. City of Simi Valley. (n.d.). Request for proposals. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from
https://www.simivalley.org/home/showpublisheddocument/29263/638687361424 700000
Ref-29. City of Ventura - Public Works. (2024, November 5). Staff report. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from
https://www.cityofventura.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/42531/11 Ref-30. Cheng, DingXin. (2020, March 18). How to get maximum performance out of preservation treatments through specification and quality assurance. (pp. 12-26).
Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://www.cacities.org/Resources- Documents/Education-and-Events-Section/Public-Works-Officers-Institute/2020- Session-Materials/Challenges-and-Opportunities-in-Pavement-Preservat Ref-31. United States Census Bureau. (2023, July 1). Quick facts. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/camarillocitycalifornia,oxnardcitycalif ornia,santapaulacitycalifornia,simivalleycitycalifornia,sanbuenaventuraventuracity california,CA/INC910223
28 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance 21
REFERENCES - continued
Ref-32. City of El Cerrito. (n.d.) Street paving. 2008-2011. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://www.el-cerrito.org/632/Street-Paving
Ref-33. City of El Cerrito. (2013, November 4). Regular meeting of the citizen street oversight committee. Agenda item 4. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://www.el-cerrito.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/1505 Ref-34. California State Treasurer. (2023, June 26). California debt financing guide.
Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://debtguide-api.treasurer.ca.gov/guide- pages/chapter-3-types-of-debt-obligations-issued-by-public-agencies/3-3-types- of-debt-obligations-organized-by-security-and-source-of-payment/3-3-3-sales- tax-revenue-bonds
Ref-35. City of El Cerrito. (2014, January 27). Special meeting of the citizen street oversight committee. Agenda item 4. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://www.el-cerrito.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/1589 Ref-36. California State Controller. (2018, March). City of Oxnard audit report. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://sco.ca.gov/Files-AUD/03_2018_gta_oxnard.pdf Ref-37. Public Utilities. Transit Districts. Public Utilities Code 99232.2. (2014, July 1).
California Legislative Information. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PUC& division=10.&title=&part=11.&chapter=4.&article=3.
Ref-38. Public Utilities. Transit Districts. Public Utilities Code 99401.5. (2013, January 1).
California Legislative Information. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PUC& division=10.&title=&part=11.&chapter=4.&article=8.
Ref-39. Ballotpedia. (2016, November). Ventura County, California, Sales tax increase, Measure AA. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from
https://ballotpedia.org/Ventura_County,_California,_Sales_Tax_Increase,_Measu re_AA_(November_2016)
29 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
22 Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance
ATTACHMENTS
Att-01. California State Controller. City Street Revenue. (Ref-12) Att-02. California State Controller. City Revenue. (Ref-13) Att-03. Maintenance Alternative A & B Discounted Cash Flow.
Att-04. Discretionary Revenue – General Fund + Sales Tax Measure Funds.
GLOSSARY
TERM DEFINITION
PCI Pavement Condition Index. A street condition rating system from 0 (failed) to 100 (excellent),
30 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance 23
Attachment-01
California State Controller. City Street Revenue
Colors below correspond to associated bar graph or table colors.
31 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
24 Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance
Attachment-02
California State Controller. City Revenue.
Colors below correspond to associated bar graph or table colors.
32 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance 25
Attachment-02 - continued
33 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
26 Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance
Attachment-03
Maintenance Alternative A & B Discounted Cash Flow
Discount Rate
Present Value ($25.90) ($18.25)
Year A B
1 - -
2 - -
3 - -
4 - -
5 - -
6 - ($7.00)
7 - -
8 - -
9 - -
10 - -
11 - -
12 - ($7.00)
13 - -
14 - -
15 - -
16 - -
17 - -
18 - ($7.00)
19 - -
20 - -
21 - -
22 - -
23 - -
24 - ($7.00)
25 - -
26 - -
27 - -
28 - -
29 - -
30 ($84.00) ($7.00)
4%
34 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance 27
Attachment-04
Discretionary Revenue – General Fund + Sales Tax Measure Funds
References for the table above in the order of first across, then down.
City of Camarillo. (2025). Revenue Year-over-Year (Various City Funds). General Fund (filter Revenues, Funds to just General Fund). Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://camarilloca.opengov.com
City of Oxnard. (2018). Fiscal year 2018-2019 Adopted Budget. (pp. 266,267). Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://www.oxnard.gov/wp-content/uploads/Fiscal-Year-2018-2019- Adopted-Budget.pdf
City of Oxnard. (2020). Annual comprehensive financial report 2019 Fiscal year ended June 30, 2019. (P. 142). Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://www.oxnard.gov/wp- content/uploads/Oxnard-CAFR-Print-Date-1-13-20.pdf
City of Oxnard. (2021). Annual comprehensive financial report 2020 Fiscal year ended June 30, 2020. (P. 150). Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://live-oxnard.pantheonsite.io/wp- content/uploads/CAFR-City-of-Oxnard-6-30-20-1.pdf
City of Oxnard. (2022). Annual comprehensive financial report 2021 Fiscal year ended June 30, 2021. (pp. 160,162). Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://live-oxnard.pantheonsite.io/wp- content/uploads/ACFR-FY-21-2-3-22.pdf
City of Oxnard. (2023). Annual comprehensive financial report 2022 Fiscal year ended June 30, 2022. (pp. 162,164). Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://www.oxnard.gov/wp- content/uploads/FY2021-2022-Oxnard-ACFR.pdf
City of Oxnard. (2024). Annual comprehensive financial report Fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. (pp. 166,168). Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://live-oxnard.pantheonsite.io/wp- content/uploads/ACFR-FY2022-23-OXNARD.pdf
City of Santa Paula. (2019). Financial statements Year ended June 30, 2018. (P. 45). Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://ca-santapaula.civicplus.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/112 City of Santa Paula. (2020). Financial statements Year ended June 30, 2019. (P. 44). Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://ca-santapaula.civicplus.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/148 City of Santa Paula. (2021). Financial statements Year ended June 30, 2020. (P. 43). Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://ca-santapaula.civicplus.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/151 City 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 A ver age
Camarillo $40,323,798 $44,979,468 $43,120,245 $44,336,443 $49,222,075 $57,483,911 $46,577,657 Oxnard $142,467,538 $159,475,918 $155,188,643 $177,690,368 $220,742,082 $240,538,773 $182,683,887 Santa Paula $18,190,147 $15,500,329 $16,263,030 $16,867,158 $17,930,576 $17,675,947 $17,071,198 Simi Valley $65,302,859 $71,254,132 $73,835,043 $85,711,653 $88,752,789 $85,511,711 $78,394,698 Ventura $128,230,564 $132,118,277 $138,291,982 $154,982,894 $154,668,659 $154,433,049 $143,787,571 General Fund Revenue including Sales Tax Measure Funds
35 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
28 Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance
City of Santa Paula. (2022). Annual financial report For fiscal year ended June 30, 2021. (P. 64). Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://ca-
santapaula.civicplus.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/152 City of Santa Paula. (2023). Annual financial report For fiscal year ended June 30, 2022. (P. 66). Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://ca-
santapaula.civicplus.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/153 City of Santa Paula. (2024). Annual financial report For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. (P. 66). Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from
https://www.spcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/5070/Financial-Statements-FY23 City of Simi Valley. (2019). Comprehensive annual financial report 2017-18 Fiscal year ended June 30, 2018. (P. 33). Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://www.simivalley.org/home/showpublisheddocument/20450/636869629524870000 City of Simi Valley. (2020). Comprehensive annual financial report 2018-19 Fiscal year ended June 30, 2019. (P. 35). Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://www.simivalley.org/home/showpublisheddocument/21946/637189284196570000 City of Simi Valley. (2021). Comprehensive annual financial report 2019-20 Fiscal year ended June 30, 2020. (P. 34). Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://www.simivalley.org/home/showpublisheddocument/24075/637581493488500000 City of Simi Valley. (2022). Annual comprehensive financial report 2020-21 Fiscal year ended June 30, 2021. (P. 30). Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://www.simivalley.org/home/showpublisheddocument/25060/637847547950230000 City of Simi Valley. (2023). Annual comprehensive financial report 2021-22 Fiscal year ended June 30, 2022. (P. 32). Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://www.simivalley.org/home/showpublisheddocument/26623/638185526109670000 City of Simi Valley. (2024). Annual comprehensive financial report 2022-23 Fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. (P. 33. Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://www.simivalley.org/home/showpublisheddocument/29269/638689259249870000 City of Ventura. (2020). Adopted budget FY 2020-21. (pp. 37,38). Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from https://www.cityofventura.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/23401/FY-2020-21-Adopted- Budget
City of San Buenaventura. (2020). Comprehensive annual financial report FY 2019-20. (pp. 91,95). Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from
https://www.cityofventura.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/25618/FY-2019-20-Annual- Comprehensive-Financial-Report
City of San Buenaventura. (2021). Annual comprehensive financial report FY 2020-21. (pp. 89,93). Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from
https://www.cityofventura.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30578/FY-2020-21-Annual- Comprehensive-Financial-Report
36 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance 29
City of San Buenaventura. (2023). Annual comprehensive financial report FY 2021-22. (pp. 93,97). Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from
https://www.cityofventura.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36235/FY-2021-22-Annual- Comprehensive-Financial-Report
City of San Buenaventura. (2024). Annual comprehensive financial report FY 2022-23. (pp. 95,96). Retrieved on April 12, 2025, from
https://www.cityofventura.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/38910/FY-2022-23-Annual- Comprehensive-Financial-Report-PDF
37