Glendale City Council
June 3, 2025

PACKET
JOINT MEETING: GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL AND GLENDALE HOUSING AUTHORITY

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
Meetings

are

broadcast

live

on

Glendale

TV,

viewable

on

Spectrum

Cable,

channel

6,

and

AT&T

U-
verse,

channel

99. Meetings

are

also

streamed

live

in

high

definition

(HD)

on

the

City

webpage,
glendaleca.gov/live
,

on

YouTube.com/myglendale
,

and

on

Apple

TV,

Roku,

Amazon

Fire,

iOS

and
Android

devices

using

a

free

app

called

Cablecast

and

choosing

"Glendale

TV"

from

the

menu.

Meetings

are

also

archived

on

the

City

Website

for

viewing

anytime

at

glendaleca.gov/agendas
.

Call

(818)

548-4013

for

program

schedules.

For

public

comments

and

questions

during

the
meeting,

call

(818)

937-8100.

Public

comments

on

a

specific

agenda

item

will

be

taken

when

that
agenda

item

is

discussed.

If

you

have

any

question

about

matters

on

the

agenda,

or

requests

for
assistance, please contact the City Clerk at (818) 548-2090 during regular business hours.

PLEASE TURN OFF CELLULAR PHONES WHILE INSIDE THE MEETING LOCATION In

compliance

with

the

Americans

with

Disabilities

Act

(ADA)

of

1990,

auxiliary

hearing

aids,

sign
language

translation,

and

Braille

transcripts

are

available

upon

request.

Assisted

listening

devices
are

available

same-day

upon

request.

The

City

Clerk’

office

should

be

notified

72 hours

(three
business

days)

or

as

soon

as

practicable

for

requests

regarding

sign

language

translation

and
Braille

transcription

services.

All

documents

related

to

open

session

items

on

this

agenda

that

are
received

less

than

72 hours

prior

to

this

meeting,

and

are

public

records,

will

be

available

for

review
in the Office of the City Clerk, 613 E. Broadway, RM 110, Glendale, CA 91206.

Translation

services

are

provided

for

meetings

through

the

use

of

bilingual

staff

for

speakers

who
wish

to

utilize

the

service

as

available.

Speakers

should

state

their

request

by

contacting

the

City
Clerk’s

office

at

(818)

548-2090,

at

least

72 hours

prior

to

the

scheduled

meeting

or

as

soon

as
practicable.

Please

specify

the

language

for

which

you

require

translation.

The

exclusive

use

of

City
provided

interpreters

is

not

required

and

persons

are

welcome

to

use

their

own

interpreter

or

speak
in their native language.

JUNE 3, 2025

ROLL CALL
-
2:00 PM

1 TYPED 5/30/2025 2:55:43 PM
06 03 25
CC HA

-
Report of the City Clerk of the City Council and Housing Authority, re: Posting of Agenda.

The Agenda for the Tuesday, June 3, 2025 joint public meeting of the City Council and Housing Authority was posted on May 30, 2025, on the Bulletin Board outside City Hall.

A

JOINT PUBLIC MEETING
of the City Council and Housing Authority is hereby called to meet at

2:00 PM
on
Tuesday, June 3, 2025
, in the Council Chamber, 613 E. Broadway, 2nd
Floor, Glendale, CA 91206 to consider the following item(s) of business, to wit;

1. Community Development, re:

Report on Potential Rental Assistance Programs

1. City Council Motion to Receive and File Report and Provide Direction as Deemed Appropriate

ADJOURNMENT

2 TYPED 5/30/2025 2:55:43 PM
06 03 25
CC HA

1 25-87994

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE JOINT MEETING: GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL AND

GLENDALE HOUSING AUTHORITY

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Report on Potential Rental Assistance Programs

1.City Council Motion to Receive and File Report and Provide Direction as Deemed Appropriate.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for June 3, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of financial and rental assistance programs available to Glendale residents, including current and past initiatives, as well as potential future models that have been explored by staff in support of possibly developing a new rental assistance program.

In order to design a program that aligns with Council’s priorities and funding expectations, staff requests guidance on several key elements if Council wishes to move forward with a program, including:
Desired program objectives (e.g., eviction prevention, relocation assistance, or rent relief)
Target population (e.g., seniors, families, tenants facing no-fault evictions) Level of funding commitment
Number of participants
Preferred program structure (e.g., fixed subsidy, or need-based)

RECOMMENDATION
That City Council provide direction regarding a new rental assistance strategy. Clear direction from City Council is essential to shape a program that reflects Council’s goals, priorities, and fiscal constraints. Specifically, staff is seeking guidance on the following:
3 of 39

12 25-87994
6 0
6 0
What is Council’s primary objective? Is the goal to prevent eviction, support relocation, supplement rent for cost-burdened tenants, or promote long-term housing stability?
Who should the City prioritize? Should the focus remain on seniors, students, or working families, or be expanded to include additional vulnerable populations, such as low-income single renters or persons with disabilities not currently served?
What level of funding is Council willing to allocate? Should a new program be designed to assist a large number of households with modest support, or a smaller number with deeper, more targeted assistance?
How many households does Council wish to serve? Staff can model options based on different budget and program structures to provide clarity on trade-offs between reach and impact.

Once Council’s policy direction is established, staff will return with cost projections, eligibility models, and potential administrative frameworks. The design of future programs will also depend on administrative capacity and available partners to deliver services effectively, whether in-house or through contracted agencies.

ANALYSIS

GLENDALE RENTER PROFILE AND HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Rental Market Overview
Glendale is the fourth-largest city in Los Angeles County, with a population of approximately 196,500 residents, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) estimates. According to the same survey, of the city’s over 72,000 occupied housing units, roughly 64% are renter-occupied, representing more than 46,000 households. Glendale’s rental market skews heavily toward higher rent levels: the median gross rent is $2,095, and more than 55% of renters pay over $2,000 per month. Only 6.5% of renters pay under $1,000.

These high rent levels translate into widespread housing cost burden. According to the ACS, at least 63.5% of Glendale renter households spend 30% or more of their income on rent, qualifying as rent-burdened under federal standards. By contrast, only about 27% spend less than 25% of their income on rent. This trend reflects the affordability challenges facing most renters.

Rent Burden Across Age Groups
Rent burden is not confined to a single age group, but certain populations experience it more acutely. Seniors aged 65 and over are the most disproportionately impacted: more than 76% of senior renter households are rent-burdened. Seniors aged 65 and over represent approximately 23% of all Glendale renter households. 4 of 39

13 25-87994
6 0
6 0
Many seniors live on fixed incomes and have limited ability to adapt to rising rents, making them highly vulnerable to even modest housing cost increases.

Among Glendale’s senior population, a significant portion also live with disabilities, compounding their housing challenges. According to the American Community Survey, nearly 57% of residents aged 75 and older and 29% of those aged 65–74 report having at least one disabling condition. The most common limitations include difficulty with mobility, independent living, and self-care.

The largest number of rent-burdened households, however, falls within the 35 to 64 age range, which comprises over 52% of all Glendale renter householders. These working- age adults often support families and may not qualify for senior- or student-specific assistance, despite facing persistent affordability challenges.

Young adults under 35, which account for 25% of all renter households in Glendale, are also significantly affected, with approximately 71.2% experiencing rent burden. This likely stems from lower or unstable earnings due to early career stages, student status, or part-time work. However, this group may have greater future income potential and may benefit from transitional support rather than permanent subsidy.

Income Distribution and Housing Affordability
Income data further underscores these challenges. Nearly 50% of renter households earn less than $50,000 per year, and more than one-quarter earn under $25,000.

Glendale’s median renter income is $60,773, meaning a household would need to pay no more than $1,519 per month to avoid being rent-burdened.

These figures indicate that rental affordability in Glendale is fundamentally mismatched with renter income, even for households earning near the median. The risk of rent burden is highest among extremely low-income renters, and seniors on fixed incomes.

To further illustrate local affordability thresholds, the following chart shows the 2025 income limits for Los Angeles County, as published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). These limits are used to determine eligibility for federal and local housing assistance programs, including Section 8 and City-funded subsidies. 5 of 39

14 25-87994
6 0
6 0
HUD Income Limits
Household
Size
1 2 3 4 5 6
Extremely
Low $31,850 $36,400 $40,950 $45,450 $49,100 $52,750
Very Low $53,000 $60,600 $68,150 $75,750 $81,800 $87,850 Low
Income $84,850 $96,950 $109,050 $121,150 $130,850 $140,550 These thresholds demonstrate that a large share of Glendale renters fall within HUD’s very low and extremely low-income categories, especially among seniors, single- adult households, and families in service or entry-level jobs. As Council explores future assistance models, aligning eligibility criteria with these income tiers will help ensure programs serve those most in need.

While ACS data provides a valuable snapshot of housing conditions in Glendale, it should be interpreted with some caution. Census estimates often lag behind real-time market trends and may not capture recent rent spikes or shifts in housing supply.

However, the data offers a reliable overall picture of affordability burdens, confirming that a significant portion of Glendale renters face ongoing financial strain and housing instability.

Regional Context
These challenges are not unique to Glendale; neighboring cities such as Burbank and Pasadena face similar affordability pressures, and the broader Los Angeles region continues to experience a severe shortage of affordable housing. Nationwide, rising rents and stagnant wages have contributed to record-high rent burden rates, underscoring the need for sustained local, regional, and federal responses to housing instability.

CURRENT AND PAST LOCAL HOUSING INITIATIVES
In recent years, the City of Glendale has implemented a mix of federal, local, and emergency housing programs to address affordability and rental instability. These efforts have included both long-term subsidy models and short-term pilots designed to reach vulnerable groups such as seniors, students, and low-income working families. 6 of 39

15 25-87994
6 0
6 0
Key housing assistance initiatives included:
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program: A federally funded, long-term rental subsidy program that supports over 2,600 Glendale households annually.

Despite its impact, access is limited due to a closed waitlist, high demand, and limited federal funding.
Monthly Housing Subsidy Program (MHSP): A temporary local subsidy program for extremely low-income seniors and persons with disabilities. Though impactful, its flat subsidy amount had limited ability to fully address rent burden. Low-Income Student Rental Assistance Program (LISRAP): A temporary pilot partnership with Glendale Community College to provide rental aid and wraparound support to very low-income students. Early results show improved housing and academic outcomes.
Low-Income Family Employment and Rental Assistance Program (LIFERAP): Another temporary program, combines rental assistance with job development for low-income, working, families with children. Designed to help households move toward long-term financial independence. Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP): A federally and state-funded emergency program created during COVID-19 to prevent eviction due to unpaid rent. While effective in the short term, it was time-limited and not structured for ongoing use.
Affordable Housing Development: The City continues to invest in long-term affordability through new affordable housing construction and preservation efforts. These projects increase the supply of deed-restricted units for low- income residents.

Despite these significant investments, gaps remain. Most programs are tailored by age, student status, or work requirements, leaving out many moderate-income renters who still face unsustainable housing costs but don’t qualify for targeted aid. Additionally, while seniors and students have defined programs, younger adults without dependents and low-income single renters may lack access to consistent support. And while Section 8 and MHSP assist seniors, there is still unmet need among the city’s growing population of rent-burdened working-age households, particularly those without access to wraparound services or job advancement pathways.

Closing these gaps may require expanding eligibility criteria, scaling existing models, or piloting new flexible programs that account for the wide range of household types and income tiers struggling to stay housed in Glendale’s high-cost rental market.

A detailed summary of each program is provided in Attachment A, along with a visual comparison chart in Attachment B.
7 of 39

16 25-87994
6 0
6 0

STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR PROGRAM DESIGN
Given these findings and considering existing programing, future rental assistance efforts should be designed with a targeted and strategic approach.

Targeting by Income and Demographics
Programs should prioritize households earning below 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI), as these renters are the least likely to maintain stable housing without external support. Nearly 50% of Glendale renter households earn under $50,000 per year, with over a quarter earning less than $25,000. With a median rent of $2,095, this level of income places even modest housing out of reach for many families.

Assistance must also reflect the distinct needs of different age groups:
Seniors (65+) are disproportionately rent-burdened, with more than 76% paying over 30% of their income on rent. Many rely on fixed incomes, leaving them vulnerable to even modest rent increases.
Working-age households (35–64) represent over half of all renter households and the largest number of rent-burdened tenants. Despite being employed, many fall through eligibility gaps for student or senior programs. Younger renters (<35) experience high levels of rent burden (71.2%), often due to early-career earnings or educational commitments. Transitional support may help this group build toward long-term stability.

Tailoring assistance to these demographic patterns can help maximize impact and prevent further housing instability.

Disability Considerations
Disability status intersects with rent burden, particularly among Glendale’s senior population. According to the ACS, nearly 57% of residents aged 75 and older and 29% of those aged 65–74 report at least one disabling condition. These conditions include challenges with mobility, self-care, and independent living, which often limit housing options and increase costs.

While seniors represent a significant portion of disabled renters, disabilities also affect younger residents. Programs should be designed to ensure accessibility, provide supportive services, and consider home modifications where needed. Households with disabling conditions—regardless of age—may require enhanced assistance models that combine financial support with service coordination.

Need for Long-Term and Emergency Support
To be effective, future assistance programs could balance short-term emergency support with longer-term stability strategies. Emergency rental assistance can prevent displacement during sudden crises such as job loss, unexpected medical expenses, or 8 of 39

17 25-87994
6 0
6 0
no-fault eviction. These short-term supports are especially useful for renters who typically remain housed but experience a temporary disruption.

At the same time, many Glendale households face persistent affordability challenges due to stagnant wages and rising rents. Long-term subsidies are essential for stabilizing high-need populations, especially seniors, persons with disabilities, and low-income families.

By offering both emergency and long-term rental assistance options through programs like Section 8 and the City’s investment in affordable housing development, Glendale can build a flexible system that addresses immediate threats while promoting housing security over time. Given the City's strong foundation of permanent subsidies and affordable housing units, future programming could prioritize short-term emergency relief to close gaps and prevent eviction at key moments of instability.

Council could also consider refunding and expanding the LIFERAP program, which uniquely combines short-term rental assistance with employment support for low- income working families. Its holistic model aligns with the goal of promoting long-term stability, particularly for households that may not qualify for Section 8 but are still facing housing insecurity.

Leveraging Upcoming LACAHSA Funding
Looking ahead, Glendale stands to benefit from anticipated funding through the Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency (LACAHSA). Established under Senate Bill 679, LACAHSA aims to provide enhanced funding and technical assistance for renter protections, affordable housing preservation, and new housing production across Los Angeles County.

Starting in Fiscal Year 2025-26, LACAHSA is expected to allocate approximately $100 million toward prevention initiatives, including eviction legal services, rental assistance, and relocation support for lower-income households. Glendale could potentially receive up to $2.4 million from this program allocation, that can be eligible for rental rights program initiatives, such as emergency rental assistance or relocation benefits for tenants impacted by renovictions and live in units of 4 or less, which are exempt from relocation benefits under the Rental Rights program. These funds can support a broad range of Rental Rights programming with an opportunity to revisit initiatives that were previously proposed but not funded due to fiscal limitations, initiatives like tenant attorney services. The exact funding and requirements will be clarified as LACAHSA finalizes its spending plan and contract documents. Early indications are that funding will only allow for “shallow” subsidies, rental assistance for 6 months or less, to be used as intervention.

While exact allocations and requirements are still forthcoming, the City may be eligible to use these funds for rental assistance. Council could consider introducing a small pilot program using local funds to test the design and effectiveness of a preferred program.

This would allow Council to evaluate outcomes and community impact, and potentially scale up the effort once LACAHSA dollars become available. 9 of 39

18 25-87994
6 0
6 0
Other Considerations
Avoiding Duplication of Assistance
As new assistance models are considered, Council may prioritize renters not already receiving ongoing housing support. Households currently living in affordable housing units already benefit from below-market rent levels in mostly new buildings and, in many cases, receive additional protections. Based on data from Glendale’s existing affordable housing portfolio, approximately 20% of units in eligible properties are already occupied by Section 8 recipients. In some projects, that share is as high as 70%. This overlap underscores the importance of avoiding duplicative subsidies, especially for tenants who are already receiving both rental subsidies and affordable housing benefits.

Extending new financial assistance to these households could reduce the City’s ability to support the broader population of unassisted, rent-burdened renters, particularly those in market-rate housing who lack both rent stabilization and housing subsidies. By targeting resources toward those outside the existing safety net, Glendale can ensure that assistance is both equitable and impactful, reaching those most at risk of falling through the cracks.

Staffing
Staffing is another area that Council should factor when considering a new program.

The scale and complexity of any new rental assistance program will directly impact staffing needs. Programs with broader eligibility, or high applicant volume will require more staff capacity to process applications, verify eligibility, conduct outreach, and monitor compliance. For comparison, Glendale’s MHSP program served approximately 1,200 senior households over 3.5 years with a relatively simple, fixed monthly subsidy of $300. Despite its straightforward design, the program still required dedicated staffing for intake, case management, and administrative support. MHSP, when fully staffed included 1 Senior Housing Analyst (funded through other housing programs), 3 Housing Associates, 1 customer Service Representative and a Glendale Youth Alliance student.

A larger or more complex program, especially one with varying assistance levels, urgent processing timelines, or income/resource verification requirements, may require additional case managers, support staff, and tools to ensure timely and equitable service delivery. Council should consider not only program funding but also the administrative infrastructure needed to effectively implement and sustain any future initiative.

Previously Proposed Assistance Models
In September 2024, staff presented City Council with several potential financial assistance program models aimed at addressing housing instability for Glendale renters (Attachment C). These included fixed relocation grants modeled after the City’s no-fault eviction policy, one-time rent subsidies to cover first month’s rent, and programs to assist with unpaid rent to prevent eviction. Most proposals were designed around a sample enrollment of 150 households and ranged in estimated cost from approximately $500,000 to nearly $3 million, depending on the depth of assistance provided. These models were intended to address both eviction prevention and relocation support, 10 of 39

19 25-87994
6 0
6 0
Council did not adopt any of the proposals at that time. Concerns were raised around the scope, budget implications, and long-term sustainability of the options presented.

In addition to these options, staff has attached a memo (Attachment D) previously circulated providing an overview of the MHSP program and outlining the other potential options for Council consideration. These include targeted programming for highly vulnerable populations such as seniors with adult children who have developmental disabilities, seniors at risk of homelessness, and seniors who lack family support or supplemental income. Each of these groups face unique housing challenges that may warrant a more tailored and focused form of rental assistance.

In addition to the previously presented models, staff has compiled a set of sample program concepts that combine ideas previously reviewed by Council with new exploratory options developed to address gaps in existing support systems. These concepts are provided in Attachment E. The list is intended to help inform Council’s future direction by outlining a broad range of possible approaches.

Financial Modeling Examples
To help frame the discussion, staff offer the following cost examples:

The median renter household in Glendale earns approximately $60,773 annually. To avoid rent burden (paying more than 30% of income on rent), that household should pay no more than $1,519/month. Given Glendale’s median gross rent of $2,095/month, the typical gap is $576/month.
Annual subsidy per household: $6,912
100 households: $691,200/year
1,000 households: $6.91 million/year
If we use the average subsidy of $1,500 per household for Glendale’s federally funded Section 8 program as a basis for our example, the costs would be:
Annual subsidy per household: $18,000
100 households: $1.8 million/year
1,000 households: $18 million/year
And finally using LIFERAP’s average $1,000 a month per household, we get a cost of:
Annual subsidy per household: $12,000
100 households: $1.2 million/year
1,000 households: $12 million/year
11 of 39

110
25-87994
6 0
6 0

CONCLUSION
Over the past two decades, Glendale has supported thousands of low-income households through a combination of long-term federal subsidies (such as Section 8), locally funded rental assistance programs (including MHSP, LIFERAP, and LISRAP), short-term emergency aid, and the development of deed-restricted affordable housing units. While participation levels vary by program, collectively these efforts reflect a sustained municipal commitment to promoting housing stability and responding to the evolving needs of renters.

Today, Glendale continues to serve more than 6,000 low-income households across these programs, representing approximately 13% of all renter households in the city or 1 in every 8 renter household. These figures reflect only the assistance administered directly through City-managed programs. Many Glendale residents also receive support through state, federal, and nonprofit programs that are not tracked locally, meaning the full extent of housing assistance may be even greater.

Glendale has made considerable investments in rental assistance and affordable housing, helping stabilize thousands of low-income households. However, rent burden remains widespread across all age groups and income levels, particularly among seniors, persons with disabilities, and working families. While federal programs like Section 8 provide long-term stability for some, gaps persist due to high demand, and limited resources.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
No Stake holder outreach was obtained for this informational report.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. Fiscal impacts may vary based upon Council direction on future programing.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Not applicable.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: City Council may adopt a motion providing direction on the suggestions made for possible new rental housing programs.

Alternative 2: City Council may elect to consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.
12 of 39

111
25-87994
6 0
6 0

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:

Sipan Zadoryan, Housing Supervisor
Peter Zovak, Assistant Director of Community Development Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Current and Past Local Housing Initiatives Attachment B – Current and Past Local Housing Initiatives Chart Attachment C – Financial Assistance Programs
Attachment D – Monthly Housing Subsidy Program Memo
Attachment E – Potential Program Concepts for Council Consideration 13 of 39

C:\PGCompilerServiceRelease\temp\glendale\MeetingId_10495\Packet\Pdf\58149\14559\1.docx

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ________________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________________, that the Report to Council dated June 3, 2025, regarding potential rental assistance programs, is hereby noted and filed. Council further directs staff as follows: ___________________ ____________________________________________________________________.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Abstain:

Absent:
14 of 39

Attachment A

CURRENT AND PAST LOCAL HOUSING INITIATIVES
Glendale has already taken important steps to address many of renter needs. In recent years, the City of Glendale has pursued several housing stability initiatives to support tenants facing rent burdens. While federally funded long-term housing programs such as Section 8 continue to serve residents with the greatest need, the City has also piloted its own locally funded subsidy programs to address gaps in coverage or to respond to local emergencies. In addition to these direct assistance efforts, the City has made significant investments in the development of affordable housing to expand long- term housing options for low-income residents.

Key Financial and Rental Assistance Programs Include:
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8)
Monthly Housing Subsidy Program (MHSP)
Local Income Family Employment & Rental Assistance Program (LIFERAP) Low Income Student Rental Assistance Program (LISRAP)
Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP)
Affordable Housing Development
Summary of Existing and Past Programs

1. Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program – Permanent The Section 8 program, administered locally by the Glendale Housing Authority, is a federal rental assistance program funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The program provides long-term housing support to low-income households by subsidizing the portion of rent that exceeds what the tenant can reasonably afford, based on their income.

Program Details:
Number of Glendale Households Served: 2,673.
Duration: Permanent.
Eligibility: Determined through multiple preference points system that prioritizes Glendale residents who are extremely low-income, seniors, and persons with disabilities, etc.
15 of 39

Waitlist Status: Closed; opens infrequently and is oversubscribed (Approximately 1800 applicants remain from the 2001 waiting list). Limitations: The program does not provide emergency or short-term assistance.

Participants often wait years to be served.
Budget: Federally Funded; $49 Million Annual budget.
Assistance: $1500 average subsidy.

Section 8 remains Glendale’s most substantial and effective long-term housing assistance tool. The program enables approximately 2,700 low-income households annually to secure and retain stable housing by covering the portion of rent that exceeds what they can afford based on income. For many seniors, persons with disabilities, and extremely low-income families, participation in Section 8 is the difference between stable housing and potential homelessness. The long-term and consistent nature of the subsidy offers significant protection against displacement, especially in a high-cost rental market. However, due to high demand and limited federal funding, the program's reach is constrained. Many eligible households remain on a closed waitlist for years, unable to access assistance when they need it most. Section 8 remains a critical lifeline but cannot respond quickly to urgent eviction or affordability issues.

2. Monthly Housing Subsidy Program (MHSP) – Temporary
Approved in October 2019, MHSP was Glendale’s first City-funded recurring rent subsidy program. It provided $300 a month for 24 months to low-income, disabled, senior tenants. Funded by Measure S, the program aimed to assist 1,000 senior households and was later expanded to include an additional 600 participants drawn from a waitlist.

Program Details:
Total Served at Peak: 1,200 seniors.
Duration: Temporary, 3.5 years.
Eligibility: Glendale renters who are extremely low-income, seniors, and persons with disabilities.
Limitations: Fixed subsidy amount ($300/month) provided only partial relief for many participants and was not sufficient to keep pace with rent increases or prevent deeper financial strain for higher-need households. Budget: Local funded through Measure S, $14.9 million Total Budget, $13.2 million Direct Subsidy.
16 of 39

Assistance: $300 Monthly Subsidy. Total subsidy received per tenant $12,300.

The MHSP had a meaningful but modest impact on senior renters, many of whom relied primarily on fixed incomes such as Social Security. Nearly all participants reported that the subsidy helped them afford their rent and reduced their reliance on family or outside support. However, for many households, the fixed $300 monthly subsidy was not sufficient to address the full extent of their housing cost burden, especially in the face of rising rents. Survey responses indicated that a higher monthly subsidy—closer to $500 or $600—would have better addressed their needs. Additionally, participants used the assistance primarily for rent, but some also reported improvements in their ability to pay for essentials such as food and medication. A key lesson from the program is that while broad eligibility allows for widespread reach, a more targeted program with higher subsidy amounts for the most vulnerable households may have a deeper and more lasting impact.

3. Low Income Student Rental Assistance Program (LISRAP) - Temporary The Low-Income Student Rental Assistance Program (LISRAP) was launched in early 2024 through a $1.3 million allocation of Measure S funding approved by the City Council and Housing Authority. The program was developed in partnership with Glendale Community College (GCC) and is administered through the college’s Fresh Success Program. LISRAP is designed to support very low-income Glendale residents who are currently enrolled at GCC and either living alone or with family members.

The program combines monthly rental subsidies with access to wraparound support services, including case management, food assistance, academic support, and counseling—services already provided through GCC’s Fresh Success initiative. This structure is intended to stabilize students facing housing insecurity so they can focus on completing their education. LISRAP represents one of the City’s first targeted rental assistance programs for student populations and aims to provide meaningful, long-term support to high-risk student households.
Total Students Served: 141
Duration: Temporary, 3 years.
Eligibility: Glendale resident; Very Low income; 18 Years or older; GCC Student Limitations: The program is restricted to very low-income students currently enrolled at Glendale Community College and operated through a single campus- based initiative. As a result, the number of participants is limited, and the program does not serve other low-income student populations in Glendale who may also face housing insecurity.
Budget: Local funded through Measure S, $1.3 million.
17 of 39

Assistance: 12-month, 2-month and emergency hotel vouchers, depending on need.

The program not only helped stabilize housing for some of Glendale’s most vulnerable student households, including several who were previously homeless, but also had a measurable impact on academic success. Students receiving support achieved higher grades and course completion rates

4. Low-Income Family Employment & Rental Assistance Program (LIFERAP) – Temporary
The Low-Income Family Employment & Rental Assistance Program (LIFERAP) was also approved in early 2021 with a $1.32 million budget funded by Measure S additional funding in the amount of $150,000 was allocated from LISRAP in 2024. Operated by the Verdugo Jobs Center/Glendale Youth Alliance, LIFERAP offers a combined rental assistance and workforce development model designed to help low-income working families stabilize their housing while advancing toward self-sufficiency.

Eligible families must reside in Glendale, rent their current home, and have at least one dependent child under the age of 18. Participants commit to a 12-month engagement, during which they receive case management, develop savings plans, and set personal employment or education goals.

LIFERAP addresses both housing affordability and income stagnation by integrating rental assistance with customized employment services. By the end of the 12-month period, the program aims to position families for long-term stability through increased earnings and reduced reliance on public assistance. The program was initially designed as a two-year initiative serving 25 families per year. However, due to significant remaining funds, the program was extended for two additional years. Over the four program years, a total of 106 families received assistance: 25 families in 2021–22, 39 in 2022–23, 32 in 2023–24, and 10 in 2024–25, with the final year impacted by a limited budget.
Total Families Served: 106 Families Served.
Duration: Temporary, 12-months.
Eligibility: Eligible families must reside in Glendale, rent their current home, one adult working minimum of 32 hours a week and have at least one dependent child under the age of 18. Participants commit to a 12-month engagement. Limitations: The program is not universally accessible, excluding families that don’t have at least one adult working minimum of 32 hours a week, childless households, and those receiving CalWORKs benefits. Additionally, its structure 18 of 39

requires a high level of participant commitment which may create barriers for families with limited time or capacity.
Budget: Local funded through Measure S, $1.32 million Total Budget for 4 years. Assistance: Average approximately $1,000 a month, $12,000 per family per year.

The program has been highly successful in helping families move toward financial stability and has received strong interest from the community. Staff report that it has proven to be an effective and impactful initiative.

5. Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) – Temporary - Emergency In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Glendale implemented the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) to provide immediate financial relief to renters at risk of eviction due to unpaid rent. Funded through federal and state COVID-19 relief dollars, ERAP was designed as a short-term program to stabilize tenancies during the economic disruption caused by the pandemic.

Eligible households received direct payments made to landlords on their behalf to cover rent. Priority was given to extremely low-income households and those facing imminent displacement. The program was administered with urgency to meet pressing needs and, at its peak, processed hundreds of applications in coordination with state systems and local outreach efforts.

Program Details:
Number of Glendale Households Served: 380
Duration: Emergency, 2 months’ rent
Eligibility: Glendale resident; renter; low-income; loss of income due to Covid-19 Limitations: ERAP was time-limited and tied to temporary pandemic funding sources, which have since expired. While the program helped prevent widespread eviction during a crisis, it does not serve as a model for ongoing rental assistance due to its emergency-specific design and reliance on one-time funds.
Budget: $750,000
Assistance: $1500
Although ERAP was developed in response to COVID-19, its outcomes underscore the ongoing need for emergency rental assistance programs. The program provided timely support to 380 Glendale households at risk of eviction, helping to stabilize housing 19 of 39

during a period of sudden income loss. A similar model could be adapted to address non-pandemic emergencies such as job loss, medical issues, or no-fault evictions.

6. Affordable Housing Development
In addition to direct rental assistance programs, the City of Glendale has made significant investments in affordable housing development to address long-term housing needs. The City has supported the construction and rehabilitation of deed-restricted affordable units for extremely-low, low- and moderate-income households through public-private partnerships, inclusionary housing requirements, and strategic use of local, state, and federal funding.

Recent years have seen an expansion in both new construction and preservation efforts, with Measure S funding helping to subsidize affordable housing projects and support site acquisition and predevelopment. These investments are intended to increase the City’s affordable housing stock, reduce displacement pressure, and provide permanent housing opportunities for seniors, families, and individuals with special needs.
Number of Housing Units: 1,980 (Includes density bonus and currently in development). 1349 Workforce Housing Units.
Limitations: While affordable housing development is critical to long-term housing stability, it is capital-intensive, slow to deliver, and does not immediately address urgent needs.
Budget: Varies.
Assistance: Units with below market rents.
20 of 39

Attachment B - Current and Past Local Housing Initiatives Chart Program Name Section 8 - Housing
Choice Voucher Program
Monthly Housing
Subsidy Program (MHSP)
Low Income Student
Rental Assistance
Program (LISRAP)
Low-Income Family
Employment & Rental
Assistance Program
(LIFERAP)
Emergency Rental
Assistance Program
(ERAP)
Affordable Housing
Development
Type Permanent Temporary Temporary Temporary Emergency (Covid) Ongoing Total Served 2,673 households 1,200 seniors 141 students 106 families 380 1,980 units/1349 workforce units
Eligibility
Extremely low-income,
seniors, persons with
disabilities given
priority
Extremely low-income
seniors and disabled
tenants
Very low-income GCC
students
Low-income working
families with children
Extremely low-income
and at-risk of
eviction
Extremely low, Low- to
moderate-income
households
Funding Source Federal (HUD) Measure S Measure S Measure S Federal/State COVID Funds Various
Average Subsidy $1,500 $300 Varies $1,000 $1,500 Varies Subsidy Type Monthly Rent Subsidy Monthly Rent Subsidy
12-month Subsidy/2-
month Subsidy/hotel
voucher
Monthly Rent Subsidy Rent payments to
landlords Below-market units
21 of 39

• Establish a financial assistance program for tenants facing eviction.

Persons in
Family
Extremely Low Income
Limits ($)
Very Low (50%)
Income Limits ($)
Low (80%) Income Limits
($)
1 29,150 48,550 77,700
2 33,300 55,450 88,800
3 37,450 62,400 99,900
4 41,600 69,350 110,950
5 44,950 74,900 119,850
6 48,300 80,450 128,750
7 51,600 86,000 137,600
8 54,950 91,550 146,500
Source: HUD Income Limits
Attachment C
Previously Submitted to Council - September 2024

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
One of the original ideas staff brought to Council was to establish a financial assistance program to help tenants facing evictions, providing temporary relief or rental assistance.

Creating a financial assistance program to aid tenants facing evictions involves establishing a process whereby staff determines if the root cause of the eviction qualifies the tenant for assistance, determines if assistance is necessary, how much is needed, and the best approach to providing it. The program could function by providing eligible tenants with direct financial support to help cover unpaid rent, additional relocation, or related expenses during evictions. If Council decides to pursue this program, there several key decisions that need to be made to shape the program.

Program Objectives
Program Structure - Eligibility Criteria:

Council would need to decide first who they want to serve with this type of program. By clearly defining eligibility criteria based on income levels, family size, and other relevant factors including types of evictions.

Income:

When it comes to determining eligibility based on income, staff recommends sticking to the commonly used Income Limits established by Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Council can decide which specific income levels to serve, such as Low Income, Very Low Income, and Extremely Low Income households. The chart below illustrates these income levels for clarity:
22 of 39

Council can choose to pick one income category or all to assist.

Family Size/Demographic
In addition to income levels, Council can establish family size or age as an eligibility criteria. For example, Council can choose to provide assistance to only low-income families or low-income seniors who are being evicted. This can be a determining factor to how large or small the program budget needs to be. For example a program serving only low income seniors would require a smaller budget than a program that serves low income individuals or families in general, the rational being that the more specific the requirements, the less number of people will qualify.

Types of Evictions
Another area of consideration would be the types of evictions eligible for assistance. Council can choose to provide assistance for any eviction occurring in Glendale or specifically target No- Fault Evictions.

Providing assistance to all types of evictions would mean that individuals evicted for non- payment of rent, causing a nuisance, or breaching a lease would all be eligible for assistance.

Targeting only No-Fault evictions would focus on those being evicted for reasons such as family move-ins, major rehabilitations, or other reasons not caused by the tenant's actions.

Staff recommends a hybrid approach. This approach would include:

No-Fault Evictions - Tenants Not Receiving Financial Assistance: Apply the policy to tenants who are not receiving relocation assistance, such as those living in single-family homes, duplexes, or 3 to 4 units facing rehab evictions.

Evictions Due to Financial Hardship: Extend the policy to individuals evicted for non- payment of rent if the non-payment was due to financial hardship.

This hybrid approach ensures that tenants who would not otherwise be receiving relocation assistance receive some sort of assistance and that those facing eviction due to financial hardship are given relief.

Program Structure – Assistance Options
City Council can adopt several approaches to determine the type and extent of assistance provided to tenants facing eviction. These approaches include Fixed Amount, Reimbursement, and Need-Based Assistance. Below are the detailed options for each approach:
23 of 39

Fixed Amount Assistance
Providing a fixed amount of assistance is the most straightforward approach. This option would allocate a predetermined sum based on the tenant's income level and family size. The fixed amount ensures that each eligible tenant receives a consistent level of support, simplifying the program's administration. Key considerations include:
•Income Level and Family Size: The fixed amount would vary depending on the tenant's income and the number of dependents. For example, lower-income households with more dependents might receive higher assistance.
•Predictability: Tenants can reliably know the assistance they will receive, aiding in their financial planning during the eviction process.

This approach would be best suited for tenants receiving No-Fault evictions who do not qualify for relocation assistance. If they were to qualify, the formula would be 3 x the greater of the amount of the current rent or Fair Market Rent (FMR) for a rental unit of similar size + $2,000.

And double for qualified tenants. The assistance based on this formula could be anywhere from $7,000 for a Studio to $20,000 for a 2 bedroom, per household. Council could choose to use this formula or provide a different fixed amount.

First Month’s Rent
This approach involves the program paying the first month's rent for tenants who have been evicted. This can set tenants on the right foot in their new housing situation and provide them time to find new sources of income while they transition to new housing. Specific details include:
•Eligibility Criteria: Tenants must demonstrate that they have been evicted and are securing new housing to qualify for this assistance.

Determining a budget for this approach can be challenging due to varying rent levels. The cost of paying the first month's rent will differ significantly. Fluctuations in rent prices and the varying needs of tenants will also impact costs.

Unpaid Rent Coverage
Covering unpaid rent for tenants facing eviction due to non-payment offers another form of support. This option can help tenants avoid eviction by settling overdue rent payments. This program could be designed to assist tenants in emergency situations similar to a temporary rental assistance program. Detailed aspects include:
•Eviction Prevention: Assists tenants in clearing overdue rent, potentially preventing eviction proceedings.
24 of 39

•Eligibility Requirements: Tenants must provide evidence of financial hardship and unpaid rent to qualify for this assistance.

This approach, similar to the one above, would also make it difficult to pin down a budget due to fluctuations in each unique situation.

Benefits for Property Owners
An additional feature that can be added to the program would be landlord incentives. To incentivize property owners to rent to recently evicted tenants or landlords who extend eviction dates, an additional bonus can be provided. This encourages landlords to offer housing to tenants who have faced eviction, creating opportunity for tenants. Key points include:
•Owner Incentives: A $1,000 bonus can be rewarded to property owners who rent to recently evicted tenants, providing financial motivation. •Conditions for Bonus: Property owners must sign a lease with an evicted tenant and maintain the tenancy for a specified period to qualify for the bonus.

Budgetary Considerations
Staff would need to determine the annual budget required for the program, considering factors such as the number of eligible tenants, average assistance amounts, and program reach.

Funds would need to be allocated for administrative costs, including staffing, application processing, and outreach efforts. Additional staffing would be needed to for processing, handling applications, eligibility verification, and aid distribution.

Staff has attempted to create cost estimates based on the type of assistance Council has to consider.

Fixed Amount Assistance Budget
For this example, we will see how much the budget would be if we were to take into consideration the relocation formula. First you will see the cost of serving a single household based on unit size, then we will take that number and use it to determine what the budget would be if we had 150 participants in the program. The participants are broken down based on bedroom size.
•Formula: 3 × max(current rent, Fair Market Rent (FMR) for a similar-sized unit) + $2,000 •Double the assistance for qualified tenants
Current Fair Market Rents (FMRs):
•Studio: $1,777
•1 Bedroom: $2,006
•2 Bedroom: $2,544
25 of 39

•3 Bedroom: $3,263
Assistance Estimates by Unit Size:

Unit Size Fair Market Rent (FMR) Fixed Amount Calculation Fixed Assistance Studio $1,777 3 × $1,777 + $2,000 $7,331
1 Bedroom $2,006 3 × $2,006 + $2,000 $8,018
2 Bedroom $2,544 3 × $2,544 + $2,000 $9,632
3 Bedroom $3,263 3 × $3,263 + $2,000 $11,789
Range of Assistance: From $7,331 for a studio to $11,789 for a 3-bedroom unit.

Maximum Estimated Assistance: Up to $23,578 for qualified tenants in 3-bedroom unit (double the assistance).

Assuming the average number of households per unit size per year:
•Studio: 25 households
•1 Bedroom: 50 households
•2 Bedroom: 50 households
•3 Bedroom: 25 households
Total Assistance Budget Calculation:

Unit Size Average Households Fixed Amount per Household Total Budget Studio 25 $7,331 $183,275
1 Bedroom 50 $8,018 $400,900
2 Bedroom 50 $9,632 $481,600
3 Bedroom 25 $11,789 $294,725
Total Estimated Assistance Budget for Non-Qualified Households: $1,360,500 Total Estimated Assistance Budget for Qualified Households: $2,720,000 26 of 39

Total Budget for Fixed Assistance Based on Relocation Formula – 150 Participants The total potential budget using relocation formula and 150 participants as basis would be roughly – $1,554,500 - $2,914,000 including staffing:

Total annual assistance budget: $1,360,500 - $2,720,000 Staffing, administrative, and other costs: $194,000
-Staff – 1 Housing Associate - $109,000
-Outreach - $50,000
-Admin/Supplies - $35,000
Total Budget – $1,554,500 - $2,914,000
Fixed assistance using predetermined amounts:

In this example the assistance will be based on a fixed dollar amount, taking into consideration household size. And again, this is based on 150 participants evenly distributed.

Fixed Assistance Amounts:
•Single Person: $3,500
•2-3 Persons: $4,500
•4 or More Persons: $5,500
Assumed Distribution of 150 Households:
•Single Person: 50 households
•2-3 Persons: 50 households
•4 or More Persons: 50 households
Total Assistance Budget Calculation:

Family Size Average Households Fixed Amount per Household Total Budget Single Person 50 $3,500 $175,000
2-3 Persons 50 $4,500 $225,000
4 or More Persons 50 $5,500 $275,000
Total Estimated Assistance Budget: $675,000
Total Budget for Fixed Assistance Based Predetermined amounts– 150 Participants The total potential budget using relocation formula and 150 participants as basis would be roughly – $869,000 including staffing:
27 of 39

Total annual assistance budget: $675,000
Staffing, administrative, and other costs: $194,000
-Staff – 1 Housing Associate - $109,000
-Outreach - $50,000
-Admin/Supplies - $35,000
Total Budget – $869,000
First Month’s Rent Assistance Budget
This section will show the budget breakdown for providing assistance of first month rent, again assuming 150 participants with rents ranging from $1,500 to $3,500.

Rent Level Number of Households Cost per
Household
Total Budget
Low Rent 50 $1,500 $75,000
Moderate Rent 50 $2,000 $100,000
High Rent 50 $3,500 $175,000
Total Estimated Assistance Budget: $350,000
Total Budget for Fixed Assistance Based First Month Rent– 150 Participants The total potential budget using relocation formula and 150 participants as basis would be roughly – $350,000 including staffing:

Total annual assistance budget: $350,00
Staffing, administrative, and other costs: $194,000
-Staff – 1 Housing Associate - $109,000
-Outreach - $50,000
-Admin/Supplies - $35,000
Total Budget – $544,000
Due to the fluctuation in tenants' needs, such as varying amounts of rent, the budget for providing assistance could fluctuate significantly. To manage this variability and ensure the program remains within budgetary constraints, the Council could implement a cap on the maximum amount of assistance a tenant can receive and/or a cap on number of participants. 28 of 39

Unpaid Rent Assistance Budget
This section will show the budget breakdown for providing assistance to tenants who have not paid rent, again assuming 150 participants with rental debut ranging from $2,000 to $8,500.

Rent Level Number of Households Amount per
Household
Total Budget
Low Rent 37 $2,000 $74,000
Moderate Rent 37 $3,500 $129,500
High Rent 38 $5,000 $190,000
Very High Rent 38 $8,000 $304,000
Total Estimated Budget: $697,500
Total Budget for Fixed Assistance Based Unpaid Rent– 150 Participants The total potential budget using relocation formula and 150 participants as basis would be roughly – $697,500 including staffing:

Total annual assistance budget: $697,500
Staffing, administrative, and other costs: $194,000
-Staff – 1 Housing Associate - $109,000
-Outreach - $50,000
-Admin/Supplies - $35,000
Total Budget – $891,500
Due to the fluctuation in tenants' needs, such as varying amounts of overdue rent or debt, the budget for providing assistance to prevent eviction could fluctuate significantly. To manage this variability and ensure the program remains within budgetary constraints, the Council could implement a cap on the maximum amount of assistance a tenant can receive. For instance, setting a limit of $10,000 per tenant would provide a clear threshold for financial support.

Owner Incentive
In addition to the assistance budget, if Council wishes to implement additional incentives for landlords who rent to evicted tenants, or extend eviction deadlines, an additional budget would be required. The following shows the additional amount needed based on 150 participants. 29 of 39

Incentive Level Incentive Amount
per Landlord
Number of
Landlords
Total Additional Budget
Low Incentive $1,000 150 $150,000
Moderate Incentive $2,000 150 $300,000
High Incentive $3,000 150 $450,000
The budget outlined here provides a rough estimation based on hypothetical numbers. The actual figures would depend on varies factors include the number of tenants in need or number of tenants Council chooses to assist, and the extent of financial support and need for additional staffing and marketing.

In addition to the options above, Council could also give a set budget of, for example, $500,000 and instruct staff to expand that based on need.

Conclusion
The proposed Financial Assistance Programs are designed to provide crucial support to tenants at risk of eviction by offering direct financial aid. The decisions before Council, such as setting income and family size thresholds, choosing between fixed and need-based assistance, and deciding on additional incentives for landlords, are crucial for tailoring the program effectively to the community's needs.

The Council has several distinct financial assistance programs to consider, each designed to address specific aspects of tenant evictions with unique budgetary requirements:

Fixed Amount Assistance Program
Provides a specific, predetermined amount of financial support based on the tenant's income level and family size. This model simplifies administration and offers predictable aid to eligible tenants.

First Month’s Rent Assistance Program
Assists evicted tenants by covering the cost of the first month’s rent in their new housing, helping to smooth the transition and stabilize their living situation.

Unpaid Rent Assistance Program
Offers financial support to cover unpaid rent, preventing evictions due to temporary financial hardships. This program targets tenants at immediate risk of eviction, providing rapid relief to preserve housing stability.
30 of 39

Ultimately, this program not only aids tenants in maintaining housing stability but also potentially reduces the long-term social and economic costs associated with evictions. 31 of 39

Attachment D
Previously Submitted Memo

CITY OF GLENDALE

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
TO:Golanian Roubik, City ManagerDATEJanuary 14, 2025
FROM:Bradley Calvert, Director, Community Development
BY:Peter Zovak, Assistant Director
Sipan Zadoryan, Housing Supervisor
SUBJECT: Program Review of Monthly Housing Subsidy Program

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following memo provides details on the Monthly Housing Subsidy Program, a status report on the program and some preliminary findings of the effectiveness of the program as requested by the City Council. This memo was requested in advance of a future Council report to discuss possible new rent subsidy programming to assist Glendale renter households.

In October 2019, the City of Glendale approved the Monthly Housing Subsidy which was designed to provide a $300 monthly subsidy to 1,000 senior households in Glendale. The 2-year program was allocated approximately $8.4 Million in funding with $7.2 Million for direct assistance. Marketing for the program began in November 2019, followed by application registration. Over 2,500 applicants applied of which 1,750 were drawn in a lottery to establish order for qualification. Staff began qualifying applicants in March 2020, approving them in batches until a total of 1,000 applicants were qualified.

In December 2021, the City of Glendale approved an additional 600 applicants to be drawn from the waiting list for qualification. Approval was also given to extend payments to the original 1,000 participants for an additional year. While the program was approved to support a total of 1,600 applicants, at its peak, it served 1,200 seniors with a monthly subsidy. This was due to some applicants not meeting qualification criteria, and as new participants were approved, others either passed away or became ineligible due to changes in their status.

PROGRAM REVIEW
In October 2019, City Council approved the Monthly Housing Subsidy Program as a pilot program designed to assist 1,000 low income, disabled, senior Glendale rental residents with $300 in monthly housing subsidy for 24 months.

The program originally approved $8.4 million in Measure S funding which included:
32 of 39

$3.6 Million Allocated Annually for Direct Assistance Subsidy $447,000 Allocated for Staffing
$120,000 Allocated for Program Costs
Total Budget of $4.2 Million Annually ($8.4M Total)
Additional funding was approved in December 2021 to serve the remaining applicants on the waiting list and to extend assistance to applicants already receiving the subsidy.

Funding included 5 staff members designated for the following positions:
1 Customer Service Representative
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Housing Assistant
2 Housing Associates
Under the supervision of an existing employee, five full-time, unclassified positions were initially funded to administer the program. Only three full-time salaried employees were originally hired, followed by an additional hourly employee and one Glendale Youth Alliance (GYA) employee to complete the team. The program operated with those three salaried employees, one hourly employee, and one GYA student for its first two years. As the workload for the program began to decrease, staffing gradually decreased as well. Currently, the program is managed by one Housing Supervisor and is staffed by one part-time GYA employee.

Staff demonstrated exceptional operational efficiency by effectively managing the original $1.3 million funding allocation, which was intended to support the program for three years. Due to savings achieved from not being fully staffed with five full-time salaried employees, the program was able to operate for an additional two years—sustaining operations for a total of five years. By carefully monitoring expenditures and optimizing staffing levels based on program needs, staff not only kept the program considerably under budget but also ensured the continuity of essential services for a prolonged period without requiring additional funding.

This is particularly noteworthy given the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite disruptions caused by stay-at-home orders, shifts to remote work, and increased uncertainty during the pandemic, staff remained adaptable and committed to delivering uninterrupted services to the community.

FUNDING
Funding Expenditures Surplus Budget
Staffing $ 1,341,000 $ 992,250 $ 348,750 Direct Assistance $ 13,200,000 $ 11,945,000 $ 1,255,000 33 of 39

M&O $ 360,000 $ 282,731 $ 77,269 Total $ 14,901,000 $ 13,219,982 $ 1,681,018 The program currently has 167 participants receiving payments. Staff expects to provide the final Subsidy payments before the end of the current fiscal year.

PROGRAM IMPACT ON PARTICIPANTS
Despite the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent Stay-at-Home orders, staff successfully implemented a program that had a meaningful positive impact on a highly vulnerable population. The program's timing proved to be both serendipitous and crucial during a particularly difficult period.

The MHSP has had a positive impact on the lives of the applicants it serves and the Glendale community at large. According to applicants—many of whom rely primarily on Social Security as their main source of income—they previously had to borrow money from family or friends to make rent payments. With the assistance provided by the MHSP, these applicants became less dependent on family support and were better able to cover their living expenses.

To understand the impact of the program on recipients, staff surveyed them to better understand how the subsidy payments have impacted their lives. Applicants were asked a series of questions as to their thoughts on MHSP and assistance received. Highlights of the over 600 household surveys received include the following:
98% of respondents stated that the MHSP helped them afford their rent or ensure they could make their monthly payments.
51% of respondents said that the subsidy was relative to their needs, while 48% said the subsidy was not appropriate to their needs and stated that a subsidy of $500 to $600 would be more adequate.
8% of respondents reported that receiving the subsidy allowed them to save for emergencies.
Applicants were surveyed and asked whether they had been receiving financial support from a family member prior to receiving the subsidy. Among the respondents, 17% indicated that they had received family support before the subsidy was introduced.

However, this figure decreased to 11% after receiving the $300 monthly subsidy. A majority of applicants spent their subsidies primarily on rent with some spending it on items such as bills, food and medication.
34 of 39

Survey results demonstrate that the subsidy payments have had a positive impact on the majority of applicants who received the payment. Applicants felt more comfortable financially.

The data suggests that the subsidy may have reduced applicants' reliance on financial support from their families. This could indicate that the subsidy provides sufficient assistance to cover some of their financial needs, thereby reducing the need to seek help from relatives. This has helped alleviate the financial burden on applicant’s support systems. Although the subsidy provided some level of financial comfort for recipients, the subsidy was just enough to allow recipients to maintain their quality of life but did not lead to drastic increases in savings or changes in lifestyle.

PROGRAM SUCCESS AND RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE PROGRAMING The Monthly Housing Subsidy Program (MHSP) successfully achieved its primary goal of assisting senior households in Glendale by alleviating some of the financial burden associated with high rents and rent increases. With a $300 monthly subsidy, the program provided relief to over 1,200 seniors during its peak, addressing a critical need within the community, particularly during the challenging period of the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, while the subsidy was meaningful, survey results suggest that the $300 monthly amount provided only partial relief. 48% of respondents felt the subsidy amount could have been higher, with many indicating that $500–$600 would have been more appropriate. Some participants even suggested a need for subsidies of $1,000 or more. Moreover, the assistance was sufficient to maintain participants' quality of life but did not enable significant savings for future emergencies.
44% of participants reported receiving rent increases during the program period, with 43% of those increases exceeding $100 per month, which significantly diminished the subsidy’s impact on affordability.

While the MHSP successfully delivered modest relief to a broad group of seniors, its impact was diluted by the relatively low subsidy amount and the high number of participants. Future programming could be designed to prioritize fewer recipients with larger subsidies to maximize the impact on individual households.

Key recommendations for future programming include:
1)Higher Monthly Subsidy Amounts: Future programs should increase the subsidy amount to better align with participants’ needs. A higher subsidy in the $500–$600 range would provide more substantial relief, particularly for those facing significant rent increases. 2)Targeted Support: Reducing the number of recipients to focus resources on the most financially vulnerable seniors.
a)Seniors with Adult Children with Developmental Disabilities: These households often face compounded financial and caregiving burdens, requiring tailored support to maintain housing stability.
35 of 39

b)Seniors at Risk of Homelessness: Targeting individuals at imminent risk of losing their housing would directly address the most urgent cases.
c)Seniors Not Receiving Family Support or Other Income: These individuals are entirely self-reliant and often face greater financial vulnerabilities due to a lack of supplemental resources or support systems.
3)Needs-Based Allocation: Introducing criteria to ensure subsidies address the greatest financial need, with specific consideration for seniors in high-rent or high rent to income gap.
4)Enhanced Metrics for Evaluation: Incorporating measures to track housing stability, financial independence, and quality of life, allowing the program to adapt and improve based on participant outcomes.

By focusing on fewer participants with greater need, future programs can provide more meaningful assistance, better addressing the root causes of housing instability among Glendale’s senior population. This approach represents a more effective use of the City’s resources and aligns with the goal of creating sustainable solutions for housing affordability.

On a final note, one important consideration when designing a new program to serve seniors is the ability to efficiently process applications. A unique aspect of the MHSP program was its focus on low-income, disabled seniors. Qualifying seniors by income is generally a much simpler and faster process compared to family households. Senior households typically have straightforward and consistent income sources, requiring minimal paperwork.

In contrast, family households often have multiple and sometimes sporadic income sources, making documentation more challenging. This complexity is evident in programs like Section 8.

If a new program is designed to serve families, the administrative burden, both in terms of time and staffing, will be significantly higher.
36 of 39

Attachment E
Potential Program Concepts for Council Consideration
The following list outlines potential rental assistance and housing stability programs for future Council consideration. These concepts reflect varying levels of complexity, innovation, and feasibility. Some build on existing models, while others are community- based or incentive-driven. Most are still in the early idea stage and would require further legal review, financial modeling, and administrative planning to determine whether they are viable or implementable.

These concepts reflect a broad range of approaches, including some that are unconventional or exploratory, to show the variety of directions the City could take in supporting housing stability. While not all ideas may be feasible or appropriate for implementation, they are included to spark discussion and present a full spectrum of possibilities.

No cost estimates are provided at this stage; actual budgets would depend on program design, depth of assistance, and the number of participants served. Several models could be piloted on a small scale to evaluate effectiveness and community response before full program implementation.

1.Relocation Assistance for Tenants in 3–4 Unit Properties Tenants in smaller multifamily buildings (3–4 units) currently do not qualify for relocation assistance when evicted for major rehabilitation. A targeted program could offer fixed relocation assistance to support these renters when evicted for major rehabilitation. While the annual eligible population is relatively small, costs may be significant depending on the amount of support provided.

2.Short-Term Emergency Rental Assistance Pool
Reestablish a flexible emergency rental assistance fund for tenants experiencing unexpected financial hardship (such as job loss, illness etc.). Assistance could cover one-time or short-term needs (e.g., 1–3 months) and would be aimed at renters not currently receiving other forms of ongoing support.

3.Eviction Support Fund
This program would assist tenants actively facing eviction by helping cover overdue rent, relocation costs, or security deposits for new housing. Support could be offered as a fixed amount or based on individual needs and would target tenants not already receiving mandated relocation assistance.

4.Unpaid Rent Relief
Offer one-time or limited-term support to tenants with accumulated rent debt. The program would be designed to prevent eviction by helping tenants resolve back 37 of 39

rent owed due to verified financial hardship. Eligibility would be income-based and require proof of rent arrears.

5.First Month’s Rent Assistance
Provide support to help displaced tenants secure new housing by covering the cost of their first month’s rent. This assistance would reduce upfront financial barriers, especially for tenants recently evicted or forced to relocate. Proof of new lease or housing would be required.

6.Landlord Improvement Grant Program (Affordable Rent Exchange) Offer landlords one-time grants (e.g., $30,000) to renovate units in exchange for committing to keep rents affordable for a fixed period (e.g., 3–5 years). This preserves the city’s aging rental stock while securing below-market rents. A $1 million fund could serve around 30 units. Legal and enforceability frameworks would need to be developed.

7.Utility Bill Forgiveness for Affordable Housing Residents Council could consider allocating City funds to Glendale Water & Power (GWP) to cover bills for tenants living in affordable housing developments. The City would directly subsidize utility costs, further reducing housing expenses for low- income renters already paying below-market rents.

8.Rent Subsidy for High-Rent Affordable Units
In certain affordable housing developments, tenants—despite qualifying for affordable units—may still face high rent burdens due to variability in rent limits across funding sources and affordability tiers. Council could fund a targeted rent gap subsidy to assist tenants in the highest-cost affordable units. Staff would identify developments where rents are highest relative to tenant income and design a program to reduce the rent burden for those most impacted.

9.First Lease Support Program
One-time assistance for low-income renters under 35 entering the workforce or transitioning from shared/family housing to independent living. Funds could help cover first and last month’s rent or a security deposit. Younger renters often lack savings or rental history and are locked out of housing due to upfront costs.

10.Workforce Housing Incentive Stipends
Provide small stipends ($300–$500/month) to low-income essential workers (teachers, nurses, and service staff) who live in Glendale. The goal is to help retain a stable local workforce and reward community contribution.

11.Sponsor-a-Senior Rental Relief Fund (Community Matching Model) Invite higher-income residents, local businesses, or donors to sponsor low- 38 of 39

income seniors by contributing $10, $25 or more monthly. The City could match or augment contributions, and pooled funds would be distributed monthly as rental support to low-income seniors in need.

The model fosters civic engagement and solidarity, connecting donors directly to a visible local impact. It could also serve as a low-barrier entry point for philanthropy and business sponsorship. Depending on participation, the number of seniors served could be greatly increased, potentially scaling from a small pilot to a broader support network.

However, success depends on donor engagement, administrative capacity, and fair, transparent fund distribution. Legal and privacy considerations must also be addressed.

12.Targeted Assistance for Specific Senior and/or Disabled Populations Design small-scale programs for specific senior groups, such as:
Seniors with Adult Children with Developmental Disabilities: These households often face compounded financial and caregiving burdens, requiring tailored support to maintain housing stability. Seniors Not Receiving Family Support or Other Income: These individuals are entirely self-reliant and often face greater financial vulnerabilities due to a lack of supplemental resources or support systems. Non-Senior Disabled Adults
These populations may require tailored housing stabilization strategies due to their unique vulnerabilities.
39 of 39