Glendale City Council
September 30, 2025

A G E N D A
JOINT MEETING: GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL AND GLENDALE HOUSING AUTHORITY

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

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ACCESSIBILITY

PLEASE SILENCE CELLULAR PHONES WHILE INSIDE THE MEETING LOCATION Viewing of City Council Meetings
:
•
In-person – City Council Chambers, 613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor, Glendale, CA 91206 •
Live Broadcast via Glendale TV, viewable on Spectrum Cable, channel 6, and AT&T U-verse, channel 99. Meetings are also streamed on the City webpage, glendaleca.gov/live
, on
YouTube.com/myglendale
, and on the Cablecast app under "Glendale TV". Meetings are also archived on the City Website for viewing anytime at
glendaleca.gov/agendas
.

Joint Council/Housing meeting agenda packets, any agenda related documents, and additional documents are available at City Hall and online for public viewing on the City’s website:
https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/public-meeting-portal ADA Accessibility and Translation Services
:

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’s

office

should

be

notified

72 hours

(three
business

days)

or

as

soon

as

practicable

for

requests

regarding

sign

language

translation

and
Braille

transcription

services;

please

direct

all

accessibility

requests

to

(818)

548-2090.

For
translations,

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.

Public participation in Council meetings may occur as follows :
•
In-person – City Council Chambers
•
T elephonic participation: Call (818) 937-8100
If you have any questions about matters on the agenda, or requests for assistance including agenda email notification, please contact the City Clerk’s Office via email at [email protected], or by phone at (818) 548-2090.

1 TYPED 9/26/2025 10:29:19 AM
09 30 25
CC HA

PUBLIC COMMENT GUIDELINES
The City Council and Housing Authoirty welcome public input at City Council meetings. Public input during joint meetings is regulated by the City Council’s Rules of Order, Procedure and Decorum for the Conduct of City Council Meetings as set forth in Resolution No. 25-76, which will be summarized below.

Written Comments and Documents
:

Public comments received in writing will NOT be read aloud at the meeting but will be part of the meeting record. Written public comments can be emailed to [email protected], and will be uploaded to the City website as an attachment to the agenda item. When submitting a public comment, please make sure to include the following
:

1. Name (optional); and

2. Agenda item to which you are submitting public comment

3. Submit no later than 12:00 p.m. on the day of the City Council meeting. Correspondence received after this time may not be distributed until the following business day.

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, Room 110, Glendale, CA 91206.

Public Comments During Council Meeting
:

Public Comments during Community Event Announcements, First and Second Periods of Oral Communications and agenda items will be governed as provided in the descriptions for those items on the agenda below. Pursuant to State law, the City Council may not discuss or take action on any item not appearing on the meeting agenda, except that members of the City Council, Housing Authority or staff may ask a question for clarification or briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising public testimony rights (Government Code Section 54954.2). Staff may be asked to follow up on such items.

Submitting Speaker Cards or Calling In for Public Comment :

Speaker cards must be submitted and telephonic participants must call in and be in the call-in queue, PRIOR to the completion of the verbal staff report on the agenda item (unless waived by the Mayor). Any audio-visual files displayed by speakers must be emailed to the Clerk’s office by 12:00 pm on the day before a Council meeting.

2 TYPED 9/26/2025 10:29:19 AM
09 30 25
CC HA

SEPTEMBER 30, 2025

ROLL CALL
-
1:00 PM
-
Report of the City Clerk of the City Council and Housing Authority, re: Posting of Agenda.

The Agenda for the Tuesday, September 30, 2025 joint public meeting of the City Council and Housing Authority was posted on September 26,2025, on the Bulletin Board outside City Hall.

A

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

1:00 PM
on
Tuesday, September 30, 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: Program Proposals for Lower Income Rental/Utility Housing Assistance (Continued from August 19, 2025 Joint Meeting) a. City Council Motion Approving Preliminary Selection of Housing Assistance Programs and Authorizing Staff to Proceed with Preliminary Program Planning for Selected Housing Assistance Programs Using Anticipated LACAHSA Funding, Pending Final Funding Approval and Compliance with LACAHSA Requirements

2. Community Services and Parks, re:

FY 2019-2020, 2021-2022, 2023-2024, 2024-2025
Annual Action Plan Substantial Amendment for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), and HOME Investment Partnerships Act (HOME) to reprogram $1,424,758.38

1. City Council Motion to (1) approve reprogramming $1,328,171 between Pac/Ed Artificial Turf and Pacific Natural Grass Projects and $96,587.38 in Undesignated HUD Fund Balance between Program Years for Glendale Youth Center Project; (2) authorize the City Manager or a designee to execute all agreements, amendments, certifications, and documents necessary to carry out the reprogramming of funds; (3) authorize submission to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) of a substantial amendment to the FY FY2019-2020, 2021-2022, 2023-2024, 2024-2025 CDBG, ESG, and HOME Annual Action Plans regarding the reprogramming of funds; and (4) authorize the City Manager, or a designee, to redirect excess, cancelled, or unused program funds under $50,000 among projects with CDBG Advisory Committee approval

2. Housing Authority Motion to authorize submission to HUD of a substantial amendment to the FY FY2019-2020, 2021-2022, 2023-2024, 2024-2025 CDBG, ESG, and HOME Annual Action Plans regarding the reprogramming of $1,328,171 between Pac/Ed Artificial Turf and Pacific Natural Grass Projects and $96,587.38 in Undesignated HUD Fund Balance between Program Years for Glendale Youth Center Project

3. Resolution of Appropriation to reprogram CDBG City CIP funds totaling $1,328,171 from the Pacific Natural Grass Project to the Pac/Ed Artificial Turf Project, shift $1,328,171 in General Fund CIP funds from the Pac/Ed Artificial Turf Project to the Pacific Natural Grass Project, and appropriate $96,587.38 from Undesignated HUD Fund Balance to Glendale Youth Center CIP-ACF 19/20, to use Program Year 2019 Undesignated HUD Fund Balance instead of Program Year 2021 funds

ADJOURNMENT

3 TYPED 9/26/2025 10:29:19 AM
09 30 25
CC HA

1 25-88504

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

GLENDALE HOUSING AUTHORITY

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Program Proposals for Lower Income Rental/Utility Housing Assistance

1. City Council Motion Approving Preliminary Selection of Housing Assistance Programs and Authorizing Staff to Proceed with Preliminary Program Planning for Selected Housing Assistance Programs Using Anticipated LACAHSA Funding, Pending Final Funding Approval and Compliance with LACAHSA Requirements.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for September 30, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NOTE: This report presents a set of targeted program proposals for City Council consideration to address housing affordability and stability for Glendale renters. Since the original publication and continuance at the August 19, 2025 meeting, staff has received further direction from LACHASA regarding funding. Based on these updates and additional internal analysis of eligibility and compliance requirements, staff has made significant revisions to the report, which are included in a new Attachment 6. All other elements of this report remain the same.

If Council wishes to use LACHASA funds for any assistance program, staff recommends reviewing Attachment 6. If Council chooses to use general funds, the original report remains applicable.

The original report outlines three primary program concepts:: Housing Utility Assistance Program (in partnership with Glendale Water & Power), Low-Income Family Employment Rental Assistance Program (LIFERAP), Temporary Rental Assistance Program, with the option for a small-scale pilot. The new addendum refocuses the use of LACHASA funding.

Instead of presenting three separate programs, it proposes a more balanced, targeted, and efficient approach designed to better align with funding requirements and maximize 4 of 53

12 25-88504
6 2
6 0
impact.

This report presents a set of targeted program proposals for City Council consideration to address housing affordability and stability for Glendale renters. The proposals respond to prior Council direction to focus on seniors, persons with disabilities, low-income households, and other high-need populations, while leveraging upcoming funding opportunities from the Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency (LACAHSA) and potential City of Glendale.

Three primary programs are proposed:
Housing Utility Assistance Program – In partnership with Glendale Water & Power (GWP), this program would expand or enhance the existing Glendale Care discount for low-income renters, offer new benefits for targeted groups, or provide a one-time arrears option to prevent shutoffs for qualifying households behind on GWP bills.
Low-Income Family Employment Rental Assistance Program (LIFERAP) – A rental subsidy paired with case management and vocational support for working families with children, proposed as a 6-month rolling model. Temporary Rental Assistance Program – A short-term, flexible rental subsidy aimed at preventing immediate eviction, which could also cover back-due rent in full or part, and mediate with landlords to keep tenants housed.

Council may also consider funding a small-scale pilot program for a very specific, underserved population, such as low-income households with disabled children or recently homeless seniors.

Multiple funding allocation scenarios are provided to show how the anticipated $2.1 million in LACAHSA Renter Protection and Homelessness Prevention (RPHP) funding could be distributed across these programs, including options that emphasize broad coverage, targeted assistance, or a balanced mix. Final allocations may be adjusted to comply with LACAHSA requirements once funding terms are finalized.

RECOMMENDATION
That City Council review the proposed Housing Utility Assistance Program, LIFERAP, Temporary Rental Assistance Program, and optional small-scale pilot initiative, and provide preliminary direction on which programs to advance for implementation.

Council may choose to:
Approve funding for one or more programs, with allocations determined based on priorities for reach, target population, and impact.
5 of 53

13 25-88504
6 2
6 0
Direct staff to design a blended approach that funds multiple programs at varying levels to balance immediate eviction prevention, long-term stability, and broad utility cost relief.
Provide preliminary approval contingent on final LACAHSA funding terms, with the understanding that program design and scale may be adjusted to comply with any additional requirements (e.g., mandated allocations for legal services).

Staff further recommends maintaining flexibility in all program designs to allow adjustments in response to demand, funding constraints, and evolving community needs.

ANALYSIS
In June 2025, staff presented a comprehensive report outlining existing rental assistance efforts in Glendale and a range of conceptual program ideas for Council consideration. The report detailed existing programs both federally funded and locally developed initiatives, including Section 8, the Monthly Housing Subsidy Program (MHSP), LIFERAP, Low Income Student Rental Assistance Program (LISRAP), and Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP), along with an assessment of current gaps in coverage and unmet needs among Glendale’s renter population.

As part of that discussion, staff introduced multiple program concepts to address housing instability, including short-term rental subsidies, eviction prevention tools, relocation assistance for tenants in exempt units, and creative community-based models. While Council did not take action to fund a specific program at that time, members provided valuable guidance to help refine the City’s approach going forward.

Specifically, Council expressed interest in:
Programs that target seniors and individuals with disabilities, particularly those living on fixed incomes and facing high rent burdens;
Assistance models that address utility affordability and could be implemented in partnership with Glendale Water & Power (GWP);
Opportunities to build on the success of prior local programs, such as LIFERAP.

Staff were directed to return with more fully developed program models that reflect this feedback, included estimated budgets and implementation plans, and provided options that could be implemented either through outside funding or City resources.

Program Proposals
The proposed programs include:
6 of 53

14 25-88504
6 2
6 0
Housing Utility Assistance Program
A utility subsidy program in partnership with GWP to help reduce housing-related costs for low-income renters, (Attachment 1). The program builds on the existing Glendale Care discount program and may include:
oExpanded participation by serving more households;
oIncreased monthly bill credits for existing recipients; oNew benefit for high-need renters (e.g., seniors, persons with disabilities); and
oOne-time arrears assistance to cover overdue GWP bills for tenants at risk of shutoff.
Low Income Family Employment Rental Assistance Program (LIFERAP) A rental assistance and case management program for low-income, working Glendale families with children. LIFERAP supports housing stability and economic self-sufficiency through vocational services, financial education, and monthly trainings, (Attachment 2).
Temporary Rental Assistance Program
A flexible, short-term rental subsidy aimed at eviction prevention and emergency relief. This program can assist renters who have received eviction notices or are in the process of displacement. Assistance may include payment of back-due rent, or full/partial coverage of rent. The structure can be fixed or adaptable based on need and funding, (Attachment 3).

As part of its overall funding strategy, Council may also consider setting aside a modest amount of funding to support a very limited, highly targeted pilot program. This initiative could focus on a specific, underserved population—such as low-income households with disabled children, recently homeless seniors, or renters facing acute hardships— and provide tailored support on a trial basis.

The goal of this option would be to test a small-scale model that addresses a niche need not fully covered by the broader programs. Council could determine the scale, eligibility criteria, and form of assistance, with flexibility to expand or revise the approach based on results and available resources.

Council may choose to fund any single program or a combination of the above, 7 of 53

15 25-88504
6 2
6 0
allocating available dollars according to its goals. A blended approach can allow the City to address both immediate and long-term needs, reach diverse populations, and remain adaptable as program demand evolves.

If LACAHSA funds are used, all selected programs must comply with LACAHSA guidelines. LACAHSA-funded benefits must be provided in consecutive months, and oversight and auditing requirements may necessitate additional City staffing. LACAHSA may impose specific eligibility, reporting, or program design requirements that could limit or alter how these funds are used. As a result, some or all of the proposed programs may need to be modified to comply with final LACAHSA guidelines. Council direction should therefore be considered preliminary and flexible until funding terms are fully confirmed.

A cost and scale comparison of all program options is provided in Attachment 4 to support Council's decision-making.

LACAHSA Funding and Program Integration Opportunities
The recently approved LACAHSA funding presents a critical opportunity to launch new or enhanced support programs for vulnerable Glendale residents. Based on FY 2025– 26 estimates, Glendale is projected to receive approximately $2,105,698 under the RPHP category. An additional $356,167 may be available for Technical Assistance (TA) to support program administration and staffing. These allocations are distinct from other Measure A funding streams and will be distributed through a budget process coordinated with LACAHSA.

It is important to note that LACAHSA funding is not yet finalized and may come with additional requirements once fully approved. For example, current discussions at the County level include the possibility of requiring jurisdictions to allocate a fixed percentage of funding (e.g., 20%) toward attorney or legal services for tenants. While neither the percentage nor the requirement itself has been finalized, such conditions could affect the total amount available for direct assistance or alter program design. Staff will monitor developments and update Council as more information becomes available.

Council can provide preliminary approval for these programs now, with the understanding that final funding allocations or program details may need to be adjusted if LACAHSA requirements are adopted. Staff can begin work on any approved programs immediately, keeping flexibility in mind to ensure compliance with final funding conditions.

Funding Allocation Options
If Council elects to use the anticipated $2.1 million in LACAHSA RPHP funding, the allocation can be divided among multiple programs to maximize impact. The three primary programs under consideration include:
8 of 53

16 25-88504
6 2
6 0
Housing Utility Assistance Program (including the arrears option for back-due GWP bills)
LIFERAP (modified to a 6-month rolling cohort model)
Temporary Rental Assistance Program (short-term, high-impact aid for eviction prevention)
Additionally, Council may choose to reserve funds for a small-scale pilot program targeting a specific high-need group (e.g., low-income households with disabled children, recently homeless seniors).

The chart below illustrates three example allocation scenarios using the $2.1 million funding total. These examples are intended to show the range of possible approaches and do not represent staff recommendations. Final program mix and funding levels may be adjusted based on Council priorities, demand, and any final LACAHSA funding requirements. We also have accompanying graphs illustrating these scenarios included as Attachment 5.

Conclusion
The programs presented in this report offer Council multiple pathways to address Glendale’s housing affordability challenges, building on the City’s history of targeted, high-impact assistance. By leveraging LACAHSA resources alongside potential local funding, the City can provide meaningful relief to low-income renters, prevent avoidable evictions, and support housing stability for vulnerable populations. $520,000 $450,000
$780,000
$195,000
$455,000
$390,000
$325,000
$780,000
$325,000
$330,000
$195,000 $336,000$130,000
$420,000 $420,000 $420,000 $420,000
380,000 380,000 380,000 380,000
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D
GWP Utility Assistance Temporary Rental Assistance LIFERAP Small-Scale Pilot Program Attorney Services Staffing
LACAHSA $2 M Funding Allocation Scenarios
9 of 53

17 25-88504
6 2
6 0
Whether implemented individually or in combination, these programs can be scaled to meet Council priorities and funding availability. With preliminary direction, staff can begin program development immediately, incorporating flexibility to adapt to final funding conditions and community feedback.

It is also important to note that the RPHP category discussed here is only one component of Glendale’s total anticipated LACAHSA allocation. Additional funding streams will be available for affordable housing development, homelessness services, and related initiatives. Council’s decisions on the programs in this report should be considered within the broader context of these other funding opportunities, as a coordinated approach across all categories will provide the greatest impact on housing stability and community well-being.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Stakeholder input was not sought during the preparation of this report.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact will depend on the program(s) selected by City Council, the scale of implementation, and the final funding source(s). If funded through the anticipated $2.1 million in LACAHSA Renter Protection and Homelessness Prevention allocations, program costs could be covered without drawing on the City’s General Fund.

Example allocation scenarios included in Attachment 5 illustrate how this funding could be divided among the Housing Utility Assistance Program, LIFERAP, the Temporary Rental Assistance Program, and an optional small-scale pilot program. Depending on Council’s selected approach, direct assistance could range from serving several thousand households with modest monthly benefits to assisting a smaller number of households with higher-value, more intensive subsidies.

If LACAHSA funding is not used or is insufficient due to final requirements, Council could choose to use local funds to fully or partially implement these programs. Staff will return with a detailed budget and funding plan once program selections and funding sources are confirmed.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The preliminary selection of housing assistance programs is not a project “approval” under CEQA because it does not commit the City to a definite course of action with respect to any project that may have a significant effect on the environment. Further, the preliminary selection is not a “project” for CEQA purposes as the housing assistance programs would only be government funding mechanisms that do not involve commitment to any specific project which may have a significant effect on the environment, CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4).
10 of 53

18 25-88504
6 2
6 0

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: City Council may reject the proposed program options and direct staff to explore alternative program designs or funding strategies.

Alternative 2: City Council may elect to approve only certain programs or modify the funding allocations proposed by staff.

Alternative 4: City Council may elect to consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:

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

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Program Proposal - Housing Utility Assistance Program Attachment 2: Low Income Family Employment & Rental Assistance Program Attachment 3: Program Proposal - Temporary Rental Assistance Program Attachment 4: Program Comparison
Attachment 5: Example Funding Allocation Scenarios
Attachment 6: Addendum To Report On Program Proposals For Lower Income Rental/Utility Housing Assistance
11 of 53

MOTION
Moved by Council Member__________________________,
seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the Council approves the Preliminary Selection of Housing Assistance Programs and authorizes staff to proceed with preliminary program planning for selected Housing Assistance Programs using anticipated LACAHSA funding, pending final funding approval and compliance with LACAHSA requirements, as described in the Joint Report to the Council and Housing Authority dated September 30, 2025.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
12 of 53

Attachment 1 Page 1 of 7
Attachment 1: Program Proposal: Housing Utility Assistance Program
Overview
The proposed Housing Utility Assistance Program would partner Community Development - Housing (Housing) with Glendale Water & Power (GWP) to reduce housing-related financial burdens for low-income senior and disabled renter households by subsidizing utility costs. The program builds on GWP’s existing Glendale Care discount program, providing additional financial support to vulnerable tenants not currently assisted by federal or deed-restricted housing programs.

Program Options
The proposed program would provide funding to expand or supplement Glendale Water & Power’s existing Glendale Care utility discount program, with an option on reaching renter households who are not currently eligible under GWP’s existing guidelines.

The program may be implemented in one or more of the following ways:
•Targeted New Group Assistance
Create a new benefit tier exclusively for renter populations identified by the City as high-need and currently underserved, such as:
oSeniors aged 62+ living in unsubsidized multifamily rental housing oPersons with disabilities
oTenants who are extremely or very low-income
•Expand Participation
Funding may be used to increase the total number of households GWP can serve, raising the participation cap (e.g., from 12,000 to 13,000 households annually).
•Increase Assistance Levels
Funding may also be directed toward enhancing the level of assistance for existing GWP Glendale Care participants. Council could choose to increase the monthly bill credit for all participants (e.g., from $35 to $55 or another amount), or alternatively, target only the most financially vulnerable households within the 12,000 participants currently served. For example, Council may choose to provide the increased benefit only to seniors, persons with disabilities, or households with the highest energy burdens. 13 of 53

Attachment 1 Page 2 of 7
This targeted approach would reduce overall program cost while directing additional support to residents with the greatest need. For instance, an across-the-board increase of $50 per household for 12,000 participants would cost approximately $1.8 million over three bills (12,000 × $50 × 3 bills), whereas targeting a smaller subset, such as 3,000 high-need households, would cost $450,000 over the same period.
•Arrears Assistance for Renters with Past-Due GWP Bills: In-lieu of or in addition to monthly bill discounts, Council may consider directing a portion of funds toward arrears assistance for qualified renters who are behind on their GWP bills. This one-time support could help prevent utility shutoffs, stabilize vulnerable households, and reduce barriers to ongoing participation in programs like Glendale Care.

All participants would be required to provide proof of income and residency. The application process would be administered by GWP, with support from Housing staff as needed. Applications would be available online or in paper format, and assistance would be awarded on a first-come, first-served basis while funds remain available. If funded through LACAHSA, documentation and eligibility verification requirements may differ from current Glendale Care standards, and the program may need to be adjusted to comply with those guidelines once finalized.

While Council may support general program enhancements through GWP’s existing Glendale Care structure, the following sections focus on the development of a Targeted New Group Assistance model. This option would allow Council to define its own eligibility criteria and provide utility bill support to renter households who are not currently served by existing programs. Details provided below include potential program structure, cost scenarios, and other considerations for Council.

Program Goals
Based on Council’s direction to prioritize support for vulnerable populations such as seniors and persons with disabilities, the Housing Utility Assistance Program is designed to reduce housing-related financial pressures and promote stability for low- income renter households. The program aims to achieve the following goals:
• Offset utility costs to reduce overall housing cost burden • Support aging in place for seniors on fixed incomes
• Stabilize rent-burdened tenants not covered by other assistance programs Target Population
14 of 53

Attachment 1 Page 3 of 7
The program can be designed to serve:
• Seniors aged 62 and older
• Persons with disabilities
• Glendale residents living in multifamily rental housing • Households classified as Very Low or Extremely Low Income per HUD standards
• Households not currently receiving Section 8 or living in deed-restricted affordable housing
Council has flexibility to refine or expand these eligibility criteria as needed. For example, the program could include other vulnerable populations, such as adults with dependent children who have disabilities, or households in specific high-burden neighborhoods.

Alternatively, eligibility could be narrowed to focus exclusively on seniors or persons with disabilities who meet the most stringent income thresholds. This flexibility allows Council to customize the program to address most need and leverage limited funding availability most effectively.

Program Design
The Utility Assistance Program can be structured in three complementary ways, depending on Council’s priorities. Each option offers a different method of supporting low-income renters through Glendale Water & Power (GWP) bill relief:

Targeted New Group Assistance
Council may choose to create a new benefit tier exclusively for renter populations identified as high-need and currently underserved. This could include:
• Seniors aged 62+ living in unsubsidized multifamily rental housing • Persons with disabilities
• Tenants who are extremely or very low-income
Participants would receive a fixed discount (e.g., $35 to $100) on each GWP bill for a defined period, such as up to three billing cycles (approximately six months) if funded through LACAHSA, or longer if funded locally. For context:
• The average multi-family GWP bill is approximately $132/month in FY 2025.
• For low-income households enrolled in Glendale Care, the average bill is about $97/month, and the current $35 monthly discount reduces the bill to approximately $62.
15 of 53

Attachment 1 Page 4 of 7
This new tier could help bridge the affordability gap for vulnerable renters not currently served by existing programs.

Expand Participation
Funding may be used to increase the total number of households that GWP can serve annually, raising the participation cap (e.g., from 12,000 to 13,000 households). This would allow more eligible low-income residents, to access bill assistance without changing the existing benefit structure.

Increase Assistance Levels
Funding can also be directed toward enhancing the level of assistance for existing Glendale Care participants. For example:
• Council could increase the monthly bill credit from $35 to $55 or more for all enrolled households; or
• Alternatively, only the most financially vulnerable households—such as seniors, people with disabilities, or those with the highest energy burdens—could receive the enhanced benefit.

Arrears Assistance
This option would offer one-time payments toward past-due GWP bills for eligible low- income renters, helping to prevent utility shutoffs and housing instability. Assistance could be capped or based on actual arrears and would require proof of financial hardship and tenancy. The program could be run alongside Glendale Care or as a separate track coordinated with Housing staff.

These four program directions can be implemented independently or combined based on available funding and Council goals.

Cost and Scale
The utility assistance program can be scaled to match available funding and policy goals. Council may choose to assist a smaller number of households with a modest benefit or reach more households with a deeper level of support. The following scenarios illustrate how the program could operate at three different levels of scale, low (500 participants), mid (1,500 participants), and high (3,000 participants), using various fixed monthly benefit amounts. These are just examples, Council could choose to assist 5,000 applicants if funding permits. These estimates assume a six-month program duration and a bi-monthly billing cycle. Administrative costs are not included in the figures below but may be minimal if the program is integrated into GWP’s existing operations.
16 of 53

Attachment 1 Page 5 of 7
Scenario Households
Served
Per Bill Benefit Total Benefit (3
Bills)
Estimated
Total Cost
A 500 $35 $105 $52,500
B 500 $50 $150 $75,000
C 500 $100 $300 $150,000
D 1,500 $35 $105 $157,500
E 1,500 $50 $150 $225,000
F 1,500 $100 $300 $450,000
G 3,000 $35 $105 $315,000
H 3,000 $50 $150 $450,000
I 3,000 $100 $300 $900,000
Notes:
• These estimates assume a fixed benefit applied to each GWP bill, issued every two months.
• Actual costs may vary slightly depending on participation levels and administrative needs.
• Administrative costs are not included here
• GWP residential customers are billed every two months. LACAHSA funding limits utility assistance to a six-month period, which effectively translates to three GWP billing cycles
Additional Cost Considerations: Expand Participation & Increase Assistance Levels
If Council chooses to expand participation in the existing Glendale Care program (without creating a new eligibility group), the cost can be estimated using a simple formula: $35 multiplied by the number of new participants, multiplied by six of billing cycles. For reference, Scenarios A, D, and G in the table above reflect estimated costs for serving an additional 500, 1,500, and 3,000 households, respectively, at a $35 benefit level.

For increasing assistance levels for existing Glendale Care participants (currently approximately 12,000 households), costs will depend on the amount of the increase per household. For example, raising the monthly benefit by $50 would result in an estimated cost of:
12,000 households × $50 × 6 bills = $3.6 million
As mentioned earlier, Council may also choose to target a subset of the 12,000 participants, such as seniors or residents with the highest energy burdens. For example, 17 of 53

Attachment 1 Page 6 of 7
increasing assistance by $50 for 3,000 high-need households would result in a cost of $900,000 over six months. This approach provides general guidance for scaling funding based on Council’s preferred depth and reach of support.

Program Administration
The Housing Utility Assistance Program would be administered GWP, leveraging its existing infrastructure for application intake, eligibility verification, and billing adjustments. GWP’s current Glendale Care program already has established systems in place to process applications and apply utility discounts directly to customer accounts, which makes it well positioned to manage this benefit with minimal additional administrative overhead.

The Community Development Department would partner with GWP to assist with eligibility coordination, program oversight, and outreach efforts, ensuring that the City’s target populations are effectively reached. Community Development staff could also play a role in refining eligibility criteria, monitoring program data, and reporting outcomes to Council.

Application intake and processing would be handled primarily by GWP staff, using both its online application portal and paper submission methods to ensure accessibility for all applicants, including seniors or those who may lack internet access. Program materials, instructions, and multilingual outreach campaigns could be coordinated jointly by GWP and Community Development to maximize awareness.

Because this program builds on an existing GWP framework, no significant additional staffing is anticipated for a pilot or mid-scale rollout. However, if the program expands to thousands of new households or involves complex eligibility screening, GWP and the Community Development Department may revisit staffing and resource needs to ensure timely processing and customer support.

Funding Source
The Housing Utility Assistance Program would require a dedicated funding source to cover the cost of subsidies, as GWP funds cannot be used for this purpose. GWP’s revenues are restricted therefore cannot legally or feasibly be allocated to provide additional assistance. As a result, any City contribution would need to come from external or local funding sources, such as LACAHSA funds or the City’s General Fund.

LACAHSA Funding
LACAHSA is expected to begin allocating funds in FY 2025–26 for various rental programs of which rent and utility subsidies are allowed. If Council chooses to fund this program through LACAHSA, the assistance structure would need to be temporary, capped at 6 months per participant, as this is the maximum duration allowed under 18 of 53

Attachment 1 Page 7 of 7
LACAHSA guidelines. For a utility program, this translates to three GWP billing periods before the assistance ends, unless a new funding source is identified. This limitation means that LACAHSA funding would be best suited for a pilot or time-limited initiative.

City General Fund
Alternatively, Council could choose to fund the program using the City’s General Fund, either as a pilot project or as part of a longer-term utility assistance strategy. Using General Fund dollars would provide greater flexibility in program design, including longer durations of assistance, adjustable benefit levels, and continued support beyond the one-year sunset period mandated by LACAHSA. However, this would require a Council-approved budget allocation and may compete with other City priorities.

Council may also consider a blended approach, using LACAHSA funds to initiate a short-term pilot while evaluating long-term feasibility and transitioning to General Fund support if the program proves successful and meets community needs.

Next Steps
Council direction is requested on whether to move forward with the Housing Utility Assistance Program as one of several program options under consideration. If Council selects this option, key decisions will include:
• Whether to pursue a Targeted New Group Assistance model, expand the existing Glendale Care program, or implement a hybrid approach. • Determining the benefit amount (e.g., $35, $50, $100) and the number of households to assist (e.g., 500, 1,500, 3,000).
• Selecting the funding source (LACAHSA, General Fund, or both), and whether to begin with a pilot program before expanding. • Adjusting eligibility criteria (e.g., age, disability status, or other vulnerable groups) to ensure alignment with Council priorities.
19 of 53

Attachment 2 Page 1 of 5
Attachment 2: Low Income Family Employment & Rental
Assistance Program (LIFERAP)
Overview
LIFERAP is administered by the Verdugo Jobs Center (VJC) to provide housing and employment assistance to low-income, working families residing in Glendale. The program is designed to offer rental subsidies alongside employment training, education support, and other individualized goals identified jointly by each family and their case manager. The overarching objective is to help families build long-term financial independence by the end of their participation.

Core program components include vocational case management and time-limited rental assistance, enabling participants to improve employment advancement, training, education, and savings. While the program is traditionally structured as a 12-month intervention, it would need to be modified to a 6-month model if funded through LACAHSA due to funding restrictions.

Program Goals
Prevent displacement of working families living in Glendale Increase household income through career advancement or training Build savings capacity and improve long-term housing stability Provide comprehensive case management and life-skills training Target Population
Target Population
LIFERAP is currently designed to serve low-income, working Glendale families with children. Participants must meet the following eligibility criteria:
Household income must be at or below 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Los Angeles County
At least one member of the household must be a minor child under 18 Household must reside in Glendale
At least one adult must be a legal U.S. resident
At least one adult must be working a minimum of 32 hours per week, unless all adults in the household are disabled
Family must be living independently (not in shared housing) The unit must pass a basic habitability inspection
Applicants must demonstrate willingness to participate in vocational case management and commit to employment, training, or education goals 20 of 53

Attachment 2 Page 2 of 5
Program Flexibility
While these are the current eligibility criteria, Council may choose to modify the target population or eligibility structure to meet emerging local needs or priorities. For example, Council could expand the program to serve seniors without rental assistance, very low-income households without children, or households with documented financial hardship due to job loss or medical issues. Alternatively, multiple populations could be served under a single program framework. Any such changes would need to comply with LACAHSA requirements if LACAHSA funds are used as the primary funding source.

Program Design
LIFERAP provides time-limited rental assistance and individualized vocational case management to support income growth and long-term housing stability. The core design elements include:
Subsidy Structure: Participants receive monthly rental assistance for up to 12 months. If funded through LACAHSA, the assistance period would be limited to 6 months to comply with program restrictions. The subsidy amount is based on family need, income, and housing costs, with the goal of allowing families to redirect funds toward education, training, savings, and other stability-focused activities.
Case Management: Participants are paired with a vocational case manager who helps them identify career goals, develop a plan, and connect to training, education, or job opportunities. Families also receive referrals and access to monthly workshops on budgeting, financial literacy, career development, and tenant rights.
Eligibility Screening: All applicants are screened for income and employment eligibility, housing status, and willingness to engage in case management.

Inspections are conducted to ensure housing meets minimum standards. Application Process: The Verdugo Jobs Center (VJC) leads all outreach, intake, and administration. Applications are reviewed on a rolling basis, with program slots filled based on availability and eligibility. Flexible Design: The program is designed to be adaptable. Council may revise the duration, benefit amount, or eligibility criteria to meet specific community needs, provided changes align with funding requirements (e.g., LACAHSA rules).

Cost and Scale
21 of 53

Attachment 2 Page 3 of 5
When LIFERAP was last operated as a 12-month program, it served 95 Glendale families over a three-year period with a total program cost of approximately $1.315 million. This included:
$864,755 in direct housing subsidies (average of $9,103 per household) $201,620 for case management provided by GYA
$17,500 for program administration by VJC
Enrollment was phased over four years:
Year 1: 25 households
Year 2: 38 households
Year 3: 32 households
Year 4: 10 households (served through reallocated GCC contract funds to GYA in PY 2024–25)
While over 700 families applied, only 105 were enrolled, highlighting the program’s high demand and targeted scope.

If Council is interested in continuing a similar program structure under LACAHSA, the funding limitation of 6 months per household would require adjusting both the scope and scale.

To align with LACAHSA’s restriction of 6 months of direct financial assistance per household, the program can adopt a rolling assistance structure, supporting two rounds of 25 families per year. This structure allows for sustained engagement while complying with the funding timeline.
Round 1: 25 households receive rental assistance for 6 months Round 2: A new cohort of 25 households begins after the first group completes This would provide time-limited rental assistance to 50 households annually, while maintaining manageable caseloads for case managers and ensuring compliance with LACAHSA’s timeline restrictions.
Estimated cost for each 6-month round (25 households):
o$1,000/month per household × 6 months = $150,000 in subsidies oGYA case management (scaled to 6 months): ~$65,000
oVJC administrative costs (scaled to 6 months): ~$8,750 oTotal per round: ~$223,750
22 of 53

Attachment 2 Page 4 of 5
oTotal Annually: ~447,500
While the rental assistance would be limited to 6 months, the City could design the program to continue vocational case management, job placement support, and educational services for an additional 6 months. This would extend the total program engagement to a full year, maximizing long-term impact without exceeding LACAHSA’s financial assistance window.

Participants could be required to remain actively engaged in follow-up case management activities such as:
Career training or education programs
Financial planning workshops
Periodic check-ins with employment specialists or housing navigators This would preserve the holistic and outcomes-focused nature of the original LIFERAP model while adapting to LACAHSA’s funding framework.

Oversight and Staffing Needs
If funded with LACAHSA dollars, the City will need to meet oversight, audit, and reporting requirements. This may necessitate:
Additional hourly staffing or reallocation of duties within the Housing Division Potential hiring of a dedicated staff member for compliance, reporting, or case support
Enhanced coordination with VJC and GYA to ensure documentation and service delivery align with LACAHSA’s standards
Program Administration
The LIFERAP program would be administered through a partnership between the Verdugo Jobs Center (VJC), Glendale Youth Alliance (GYA), and the Community Development – Housing Division.
VJC would serve as the lead administrator, review eligibility, and overall program coordination.
GYA would conduct outreach, recruitment, interview, eligibility determination, inspections, provide vocational case management, including support with employment, training, financial planning, and access to community resources.

Case management may continue for up to 6 months after rental assistance ends to support long-term stability.
23 of 53

Attachment 2 Page 5 of 5
City Housing Staff would oversee final eligibility determination, authorize subsidy payments, and ensure compliance with all applicable program and funding requirements. If LACAHSA funding is used, additional oversight and reporting duties may require reallocation of staff or limited-term support.

This collaborative model mirrors past LIFERAP operations and supports a high-touch approach to addressing housing and employment needs.

Funding Sources
If the City Council chooses to continue LIFERAP using LACAHSA funds, the program must be adapted to a 6-month rental assistance timeline to comply with funding restrictions. Program costs may be covered using a portion of Glendale’s RPHP allocation. Alternatively, the program could be funded in whole or in part by the City’s General Fund.

Next Steps
To move forward, Council will need to provide direction on the following:
Whether to continue or relaunch the LIFERAP program, either in its original form or as a modified 6-month version aligned with LACAHSA funding restrictions.
Whether to fund the program using LACAHSA funds, General Fund dollars, or a combination of both.
Target population priorities—whether to maintain the existing focus on working families with children or expand to include other groups (e.g., seniors, single- parent households, or extremely low-income renters).
Whether to require continued case management or support services beyond the 6-month rental assistance period.

Following Council direction, staff will work with program partners to finalize the design, prepare necessary contracts, and return for formal approval. Budget scenarios are summarized in Attachment 4.
24 of 53

Attachment 3 Page 1 of 5
Attachment 3: Program Proposal – Temporary Rental Assistance Program
Overview
The proposed Temporary Rental Assistance Program would provide targeted, high- dollar rental subsidies to highly vulnerable renter households experiencing significant financial hardship. This program is designed as a short-term intervention to stabilize households facing acute challenges, such as loss of income, unexpected medical expenses, or other hardships, that have created significant challenges in meeting their rental obligations.

This program would focus on a small number of households to allow staff to provide personalized, hands-on support and ensure that the financial assistance is impactful enough to make households current on rent or prevent eviction. The program is intended as a pilot project, allowing staff and City Council (Council) to assess its effectiveness before considering expansion.

Program Goals
Based on Council’s interest in supporting the most vulnerable residents, the Temporary Rental Assistance Program is designed to:
Prevent eviction or displacement by covering overdue rent or upcoming rental payments.
Stabilize households that have experienced a verified financial hardship. Provide a meaningful level of assistance (e.g., $1,000 to $3,000/month) to bridge significant gaps rather than provide minimal support. Pilot a targeted, high-touch approach, with staff working directly with recipients to connect them to additional resources (financial counseling, long- term housing stability programs).

Target Population
Unlike LIFERAP, which serves working families over an extended 12-month period, the Temporary Rental Assistance Program is designed to be more flexible and responsive to urgent housing needs. The program would prioritize low-income renter households in Glendale who are at immediate risk of eviction or displacement due to unforeseen financial hardship.

Eligibility can be tailored to meet Council’s priorities. While the program may initially focus on households with an active eviction case or rental arrears, Council can expand 25 of 53

Attachment 3 Page 2 of 5
or refine eligibility to target specific groups, such as seniors, persons with disabilities, families with children, or other vulnerable populations. Requirements such as proof of eviction filing, landlord notices, or hardship documentation can be included to ensure that the program is reaching those most in need.

Within this requirement, the program can prioritize:
Seniors (62+) with no existing rental assistance
Low-income families, particularly those with children or dependents Households classified as Very Low or Extremely Low Income per HUD standards Households not receiving Section 8 or living in deed-restricted affordable housing Council can adjust eligibility to prioritize certain groups, such as families with disabled children, single-parent households, or seniors with medical needs.

This flexibility makes the program highly adaptable and capable of addressing acute situations without duplicating LIFERAP’s longer-term, workforce-focused model.

Program Design
This program is intended as a short-term, emergency intervention. Key features include:
Purpose: Designed to prevent immediate eviction by covering back rent, upcoming rent, or both—depending on need and available funding. Benefit Model: Subsidy amounts may be fixed or adjustable depending on household income, arrears owed, or time needed to secure stability. Council may also opt for a flat-rate benefit (e.g., $2,000 one-time) or tiered levels based on need.
Documentation: Participants may be required to provide proof of financial hardship, eviction notice, or a rent demand letter. Staff may coordinate directly with landlords to negotiate payment arrangements and mediate disputes. Use Cases: The program could be deployed for crisis situations—buying tenants time to avoid eviction, resolve legal disputes, or transition to other housing options or long-term assistance programs.
Duration: While ongoing monthly assistance is limited to a 6-month period under LACAHSA guidelines, one-time or lump-sum payments toward back rent are not subject to that limitation. The program can be used to pay substantial unpaid rent balances to prevent eviction, cover up to 6 months of forward rent, or a combination of both, depending on household need and risk of housing loss. 26 of 53

Attachment 3 Page 3 of 5
Cost and Scale
Costs for the Temporary Rental Assistance Program will vary depending on whether the subsidy is a set monthly amount (e.g., $1,000–$3,000 per household) or a flexible amount tailored to the tenant’s actual rent or amount owed.

For example:
A set monthly subsidy of $2,000 for 6 months could serve:
o25 households for approximately $300,000
o50 households for approximately $600,000
A flexible model could allow:
oSome tenants to receive a one-time payment for back rent totaling $5,000–$10,000
oOthers to receive partial or full rent coverage depending on urgency, pending eviction status, or household income
Given the higher monthly benefit levels, the program is intentionally designed for fewer participants to keep costs manageable and ensure deeper support per household. The table below provides sample scenarios for a 6-month pilot, serving between 25 and 50 households.

Scenario Households
Served
Monthly
Benefit
Total Benefit (6
months)
Estimated Total
Cost
A 25 $1,000 $6,000 $150,000
B 25 $2,000 $12,000 $300,000
C 25 $3,000 $18,000 $450,000
D 50 $1,000 $6,000 $300,000
E 50 $2,000 $12,000 $600,000
F 50 $3,000 $18,000 $900,000
At these higher levels of support, the estimated costs for a 6-month program would be approximately:
100 households:
o$1,000/month = $600,000 total (100 × $1,000 × 6 months) o$3,000/month = $1.8 million total (100 × $3,000 × 6 months) 200 households:
o$1,000/month = $1.2 million total (200 × $1,000 × 6 months) 27 of 53

Attachment 3 Page 4 of 5
o$3,000/month = $3.6 million total (200 × $3,000 × 6 months) Considering that Glendale’s LACAHSA allocation is roughly $2 million, a program at the higher $3,000/month level for 200 households would exceed available funding unless additional resources (e.g., General Fund) are identified. This larger rollout would still maintain a targeted, high-touch approach while reaching a greater number of residents.

If council considers a flexible ren assistance based on each households actual rent obligation, precise per-person costs will fluctuate because rent amounts and arrears vary by household. However, based on previous modeling, total costs are expected to remain in a similar range as the fixed-subsidy scenarios.

To simplify administration and budgeting, Council may choose to authorize a set funding amount (e.g., $500,000 or $1 million) and direct staff to serve as many eligible households as possible within that budget. This approach allows flexibility while maintaining fiscal discipline.

Program Administration
The program would be administered by the Community Development – Housing Division, but due to the intensive, high-touch nature of this assistance, additional staff capacity will likely be necessary to manage application review, case management, and follow-up. While existing staff can support program setup and oversight, the workload involved in evaluating hardship, coordinating payments, and providing hands-on guidance might require dedicated staffing resources to ensure the program’s success. Case Management: Staff would work closely with each recipient to review their financial situation, verify hardship, and determine the appropriate level of support. This includes direct communication with applicants, landlords, and partner organizations to ensure timely and effective assistance. Application Process: Applications will be available online and in paper format, with in-person or phone support for seniors or households with language or technology barriers.
Targeted Outreach: Outreach will involve close collaboration with local nonprofits, senior centers, and community organizations to identify eligible households and provide hands-on assistance.
Staffing Needs: Even with a small-scale pilot (25–50 households), the detailed verification and follow-up required would strain existing staff capacity. A larger rollout (100–200 households or more) will almost certainly require additional staffing, potentially including hourly support, reallocation of current staff or the 28 of 53

Attachment 3 Page 5 of 5
creation of at least one full-time case management position. The level of staffing needed will depend on Council’s expectations regarding the program’s depth, data tracking, and individualized support.

Funding Sources
The Temporary Rental Assistance Program will be funded through LACAHSA funds, the City’s General Fund, or a combination of both:
LACAHSA Funds: Available in FY 2025–26, limited to 6 months of assistance. City General Fund: Could be used to fund a pilot program or extend assistance beyond 6 months.
Blended Approach: Using LACAHSA funds to launch a small pilot while planning for potential General Fund support if the program demonstrates strong outcomes.

Next Steps
Council direction is requested on whether to move forward with this Temporary Rental Assistance Program. If Council chooses to proceed, key decisions will include:
Determining the structure of assistance, including whether to offer fixed monthly subsidies, flexible rent coverage, or back due rent payments. Setting the overall program budget and deciding whether to allocate a fixed amount to serve as many eligible households as possible. Defining the number of households to assist or allowing staff flexibility based on need and available funding.
Selecting the funding source(s)- LACAHSA, General Fund, or a combination. Establishing eligibility guidelines, including hardship criteria, documentation requirements, and priority populations (e.g., households in active eviction proceedings, seniors, families with children, etc.).

This program can be designed to meet urgent needs and complement longer-term programs like LIFERAP. Staff can return with a detailed implementation plan following Council direction.
29 of 53

Program Primary Purpose Assistance Type Benefit Level Duration Households Served (Low–High)
Estimated Total Cost
(Low–High)
Housing Utility
Assistance Program
(GWP)
Reduces GWP bill costs for
vulnerable renters; may also cover
back-due utility bills to prevent
shutoffs
Fixed monthly bill credit for 3
billing cycles (6 months)
$35–$100/month (per
bill)
Up to 3 bills (6 months
if local funds) 500–3000 $52,500–$900,000
Temporary Rental
Assistance Program
Short-term, flexible rental aid for
eviction prevention, covering arrears
or emergency rent
Flexible monthly subsidy or back
rent payment
$1,000–$3,000/month
or more Up to 6 months 25–50 $150,000–$900,000
LIFERAP (6-month
modified)
Rental subsidy + vocational case
management for working families or
other target groups
Monthly rent assistance with
employment/training support ~$4,550 per household Rolling 6-month cohorts
15–25 per round
(30–50 annually)
~$68,250–$227,500
annually
Small-Scale Pilot
Program
Highly targeted support for a specific
high-need group
Flexible subsidy assistance
model
$2,000–$5,000 per
household Flexible 10–20 $20,000–$100,000
Attachment 4: Program Comparison
30 of 53

Program Funding Est. Households Served
GWP Utility Assistance $520,000 ~1,733 households (at $100/mo for 3 bills) Temporary Rental Assistance $455,000 ~25 households (flexible rent coverage/back rent at ~$3,000/mo for 6 months)
LIFERAP $325,000 ~36 households
Attorney Services (20%) $420,000 Pending final decision from LACAHSA Staffing $380,000 Supports about three staff positions, from Associate to Analyst level, for program delivery and compliance.

Total $2,100,000 Broad + deep coverage
Program Funding Est. Households Served
GWP Utility Assistance $450,000 ~1,500 households (at $100/mo for 3 bills) Temporary Rental Assistance $390,000 ~22 households (at ~$3,000/mo for 6 months) LIFERAP $330,000 ~36 households
Small-Scale Pilot Program $130,000 6–10 households (very targeted group) Attorney Services (20%) $420,000 Pending final decision from LACAHSA Staffing $380,000 Supports about three staff positions, from Associate to Analyst level, for program delivery and compliance.

Total $2,100,000 Mix of broad utility relief, eviction prevention, employment-linked rent aid, and targeted micro-assistance
Program Funding Est. Households Served
GWP Utility Assistance $780,000 ~2,600 households (at $100/mo for 3 bills) Temporary Rental Assistance $325,000 ~18 households (at ~$3,000/mo for 6 months) LIFERAP $195,000 ~21 households
Attorney Services (20%) $420,000 Pending final decision from LACAHSA Staffing $380,000 Supports about three staff positions, from Associate to Analyst level, for program delivery and compliance.

Total $2,100,000 Large-scale utility relief + targeted rental stability Program Funding Est. Households Served
GWP Utility Assistance $195,000 ~650 households
Temporary Rental Assistance $780,000 ~43 households (flexible rent coverage/back rent at ~$3,000/mo for 6 months)
LIFERAP $325,000 ~36 households
Attorney Services (20%) $420,000 Pending final decision from LACAHSA Staffing $380,000 Supports about three staff positions, from Associate to Analyst level, for program delivery and compliance.

Total $2,100,000 Emphasis on immediate eviction prevention and housing retention, with modest utility aid and scaled-down employment-linked rent assistance The following funding scenarios are samples only, provided to give Council a visual reference for how available funds could be allocated across programs.

Council may adjust amounts, prioritize specific programs, combine multiple models, or create entirely different allocations.

All scenarios assume LACAHSA funding eligibility and requirements are finalized without additional restrictions. If final rules—such as a mandatory 20% allocation for legal services—are adopted, program budgets and scales may need adjustment. Council can provide preliminary approvals with the understanding that staff will adjust allocations as necessary.

Attachment 5: Example Funding Allocation Scenarios (Based on ~$2.1M RPHP Funding) Scenario A – Balanced Three-Program Split
Scenario B – Four Programs
Scenario C – Utility Focus with Targeted Housing Aid
Scenario D – Temporary Rental Assistance Focus
31 of 53

ATTACHMENT 6: ADDENDUM TO REPORT ON PROGRAM

PROPOSALS FOR LOWER INCOME RENTAL/UTILITY

HOUSING ASSISTANCE
Subject: Updated Program Options for Use of Anticipated Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency (LACAHSA) Renter Protection and Homelessness Prevention (RPHP) Funding
Purpose
This addendum updates and refines the program models described in the original staff report on housing assistance program proposals. Following further discussions with LACAHSA staff and internal analysis of eligibility and compliance requirements, staff recommends that Council consider a modified program approach that better aligns with funding conditions and community needs.

Background
The original report outlined three primary concepts:

1. Housing Utility Assistance Program (in partnership with Glendale Water & Power)

2. Low-Income Family Employment Rental Assistance Program (LIFERAP)

3. Temporary Rental Assistance Program, with the option for a small-scale pilot Subsequent review of LACAHSA guidelines, including potential requirements for set- asides toward legal services and program administration, highlighted the need to focus the $2.1 million allocation more strategically.

Overview
Under LACAHSA’s funding framework, Glendale is projected to receive approximately $2.1 million in Renter Protection and Homelessness Prevention (RPHP) funding. Use of these funds is subject to specific requirements:
20% Mandated for Legal Services: LACAHSA requires that jurisdictions dedicate 20% of the total allocation (approximately $420,000) to legal services/attorney support for eviction defense and housing stability cases. This set-aside is fixed and non-negotiable.
Staffing and Administration: LACAHSA further requires that program staffing and administration costs be paid out of this RPHP allocation. For Glendale, this is projected to be approximately $300,000 or more, depending on program design and oversight needs.
Remaining Balance for Direct Assistance: After these required carve-outs, an estimated $1.4 million remains available for direct rental assistance programming.
32 of 53

Updated Program Options
After accounting for LACAHSA’s required allocations for legal services (20%) and staffing/administration, approximately $1.4 million remains available for direct rental assistance programming. Within this flexible portion, staff have developed two structured program models for Council’s consideration.

Option A: Glendale Rental Assistance & Stability Program (GRASP) $1.1M allocated to GRASP, plus $300K for continuation of LIFERAP.

This model provides a multi-path rental assistance program designed to prevent evictions and stabilize households, while also maintaining LIFERAP’s employment-focused support for working families with children.

Option B: Senior Rent Stability Program (SRSP)
$1.1M allocated to SRSP, plus $300K for continuation of LIFERAP.

This model mirrors the City’s prior Monthly Housing Subsidy Program by offering predictable monthly support exclusively for seniors, combined with ongoing LIFERAP funding.

PROGRAM OPTION A: GLENDALE RENTAL ASSISTANCE & STABILITY

PROGRAM
The Glendale Rental Assistance & Stability Program (GRASP) is a layered rental subsidy model designed to address the different ways households in Glendale experience housing instability. Rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, GRASP provides three distinct but complementary arms of support, Emergency Assistance, Income-Support Assistance, and Special Assistance, which together stabilizes households during periods of financial strain, prevents eviction, and reduces homelessness risk.

The program is flexible by design, allowing the City Council to set priority participation targets (e.g., seniors, people with disabilities, extremely low-income renters) while ensuring funds reach households most at risk.

Program Structure
To qualify for assistance under the Glendale Rental Assistance & Stability Program (GRASP), applicants must meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. Imminent Risk of Eviction or Displacement
Households facing non-payment of rent or pending displacement, demonstrated by:
Eviction notice or unlawful detainer filing,
Active landlord mediation,
Documented rent arrears, or
33 of 53

Utility shutoff notice.

2. Documented Recent Hardship
Households that have experienced a significant hardship within the past 6 months that threatens their housing stability, such as:
Job loss or reduction in work hours,
Major medical expense,
Unexpected essential expense (e.g., car repair, child care, other unavoidable cost).

GRASP provides three distinct but complementary arms of support, Emergency Assistance, Income-Support Assistance, and Special Assistance.

1. Emergency Rental Assistance
Purpose: Immediate eviction prevention for households facing sudden crises such as job loss, medical emergencies, or unexpected expenses. Benefit: Up to 6 months of rent payments, typically ~$1,000–~$2,000 per month depending on rent burden. LACAHSA requires that rental assistance be limited to 6 months of support per household.
Scale: $715,000 (65% of total budget) allocated to this arm. Impact: Assists approximately 65–75 households at imminent risk of displacement.
Rationale: Deep, time-limited support can quickly stabilize a family during a financial emergency and prevent costly displacement into homelessness.

2. Income-Support Assistance
Purpose: Provides financial assistance to help eligible households meet their basic needs during temporary periods of financial
instability.
Benefit: Up to 12 months of tapered support, starting at $1,500 per month and declining over time to $500 per month as households adjust. Scale: $330,000 (30% of total budget) allocated to this arm. Impact: Assists approximately 50–60 households with sustained support that allows them to remain housed while seeking higher income, new employment, or longer-term solutions such as affordable housing placement. Rationale: Tapered assistance avoids the “cliff effect,” reduces dependency, and supports long-term stabilization.
34 of 53

3. Special Assistance
Purpose: Address niche or one-time barriers that can trigger housing loss but does not require ongoing subsidy. Examples include back-due GWP utility bills to prevent shutoff, one-time arrears, short-term expenses such as repairing a car so the tenant can maintain employment or costs tied to unique hardships. Benefit: One-time grants of ~$1,000–~$1,500.
Scale: $55,000 (5% of total budget) allocated to this arm. Impact: Assists approximately 35–45 households.
Rationale: Modest, one-time interventions can make the difference between stability and crisis, especially for seniors, fixed-income households, and families working toward self-sufficiency.

Program Targeting & Council Priorities
While LACAHSA establishes overall requirements for funding use, the City Council retains discretion to set local priorities for how assistance is targeted within the Glendale Rental Assistance & Stability Program (GRASP). Council may determine which populations should receive priority access to assistance, based on community needs and policy goals.

Possible Council Options Include:
Age/Population: Requiring that a minimum percentage of assistance go to seniors (62+) or persons with disabilities.
Income Level: LACAHSA requires that all funded households earn no more than 80% of Area Median Income (AMI). Within this cap, Council may choose to further prioritize subgroups, such as:
oExtremely low-income households (less than 30% AMI)
oVery low-income households (less than 50% AMI)
Type of Hardship: Directing that households facing imminent eviction, utility shutoff, or health/safety-related housing conditions receive priority over general applicants.
Family Composition: Prioritizing families with children or single parents.

Staff Recommendations:

Based on Glendale’s renter profile and past program performance, staff recommends a balanced approach that ensures equity across populations while addressing the most acute risks. Specifically, staff suggests:
35 of 53

2.Seniors & Persons with Disabilities: Establish a minimum participation share (e.g., 35–40%) for seniors and disabled renters on fixed incomes.

3.Extremely Low-Income Renters: Give first priority to households earning less than 30% AMI, with additional eligibility for very low-income renters (less than 50% AMI).

4.Hardship-Based Flexibility: Retain discretion for staff to approve assistance where unique hardships (e.g., medical emergencies, utility shutoffs, or job-related expenses) place a household at immediate risk, even if they do not fall within the above priority groups.

This framework allows Council to set clear policy options while maintaining the flexibility needed to respond to real-world tenant circumstances. Staff believes this combination will maximize impact, protect Glendale’s most vulnerable residents, and ensure compliance with LACAHSA’s requirements.

Application Selection
To implement the GRASP, the City must establish a fair and transparent method for selecting applicants and prioritizing assistance. Staff recommends the following method.

Priority First-Come
How it Works:

Applications are accepted on a rolling basis, similar to a first-come, first-served system.

However, households are first sorted into priority tiers based on demonstrated need:
Tier 1: Households with an eviction notice, unlawful detainer, utility shutoff notice, or income at or below 30% of Area Median Income (AMI). Tier 2: Households with rent burden greater than 50%, income at or below 50% AMI, seniors, or persons with disabilities.
Tier 3: All other eligible applicants up to 80% AMI.

Within each tier, assistance is awarded first-come, first-served. Applications may be opened in waves (e.g., quarterly or semi-annual) to prevent overwhelming demand on day one and to allow households in later hardship to still apply.

Program Administration
Households will access the Glendale Rental Assistance & Stability Program (GRASP) through a standardized intake and assessment process. When a tenant applies, staff will conduct an initial review of income, rent burden, housing status, and hardship to determine eligibility. Based on this assessment, the household may qualify for one or more of the program’s three arms, = Emergency Assistance, Income-Support Assistance, or Special Assistance. For example, a tenant facing imminent eviction may first receive Emergency Assistance, while another household with a smaller one-time need may be placed in Special Assistance. Importantly, the arms are designed to work 36 of 53

together: a tenant who begins in Emergency Assistance may transition into Income- Support Assistance if longer stabilization is needed, or a family receiving Income- Support may also receive a one-time Special Assistance grant to bridge a gap. Staff will continue to monitor progress during the life of the program and adjust the form of aid as circumstances change. In addition, tenants will be connected to other supportive resources — such as CalFresh/food stamps, Medi-Cal, or nonprofit assistance, if they are not already enrolled, and staff will coordinate with Section 8, Homeless Services, and other relevant agencies to prevent duplication of benefits and ensure households receive the most effective package of support.

Staffing
To effectively implement and administer GRASP, staff anticipate the need for three additional positions dedicated to program intake, eligibility review, case management, and compliance reporting. These positions would be hired initially on an hourly/limited- term basis to allow flexibility during the first year of program implementation.

The staffing mix would include 2 Mid-Level and 1 Entry-Level staff.

If the program proves successful and funding is renewed in future years, these positions should be converted to permanent full-time roles to ensure stability, staff retention, and consistent service delivery.

How GRASP Differs from LIFERAP
Although both programs provide rental assistance, GRASP and LIFERAP are designed to serve different populations and policy goals.

Population Focus:
LIFERAP serves working families with children, with eligibility tied to employment status and participation in vocational or case management services. GRASP serves a broader range of low-income renters, including seniors, persons with disabilities, unemployed individuals, and other households who may not qualify for LIFERAP but still face serious housing instability.

Program Design & Flexibility:
LIFERAP is a single-track rent subsidy paired with case management, with all participants following the same structured pathway.
GRASP provides three distinct forms of assistance — Emergency, Income- Support, and Special Assistance — allowing staff to tailor support to a household’s specific circumstances.

Type of Support:
37 of 53

LIFERAP is primarily an employment stability tool, helping working families remain housed while improving job readiness, income, and long-term self- sufficiency.
GRASP is a housing stability tool, focused on preventing eviction and homelessness through flexible short-term support, whether the household’s challenge is sudden income loss, chronic rent burden, or one-time barriers such as utility shutoffs or moving costs.

In short, LIFERAP is a workforce-linked rental assistance model, while GRASP is a flexible, housing-first stabilization program that can reach residents outside the workforce or facing unique hardships. Together, they provide Glendale with complementary tools to support both economic mobility and immediate housing stability.

PROGRAM OPTION B: SENIOR RENT STABILITY PROGRAM (SRSP)
The Senior Rent Stability Program (SRSP) is designed to provide predictable, short- term rental relief to Glendale’s most vulnerable senior residents. Modeled on the City’s former Monthly Housing Subsidy Program (MHSP), SRSP offers a simple monthly subsidy for up to six months, in compliance with LACAHSA’s funding requirements. The program prioritizes seniors living on fixed incomes who are experiencing significant rent burdens, ensuring that they can remain housed in the community while seeking longer- term affordability solutions.

Unlike GRASP, which is structured to address a wide range of renter needs through multiple types of support, SRSP focuses exclusively on seniors and delivers consistent monthly subsidies rather than flexible assistance arms.

Program Structure

1. Senior Rent Subsidy
Purpose: Provide short-term relief to low-income seniors facing high rent burdens but not necessarily imminent eviction.
Benefit: A flat subsidy of $500 per month for up to 6 months, consistent with LACAHSA’s requirement that all rental assistance be capped at six consecutive months per household.
Scale: $1.1 million allocated to this program.
Impact: Assists approximately 180 senior households with modest, predictable relief.
Rationale: Provides straightforward, easy-to-administer support for seniors on fixed incomes, reducing housing cost burdens in the short term.

Program Targeting & Council Priorities
38 of 53

As with GRASP, LACAHSA requires that all households assisted earn no more than 80% of Area Median Income (AMI). Within that cap, Council may set additional priorities for SRSP.

Possible Council Options Include:
Age/Population: Requiring that participants be seniors age 62 or older. Income Level: Giving preference to extremely low-income seniors (≤30% AMI) or very low-income seniors (≤50% AMI).
Type of Hardship: Allowing prioritization for seniors who demonstrate risk of displacement due to rising rents, fixed incomes, or health-related expenses.

Staff Recommendations:
Focus SRSP primarily on seniors at or below 30% AMI, with eligibility up to 50% AMI where funding allows.
Maintain a simple subsidy structure that minimizes administrative burden and ensures seniors can apply easily.
Consider reserving a share of slots for seniors with documented health, disability, or mobility challenges that heighten their housing vulnerability.

Application Selection
To implement SRSP, the City must select a fair and transparent method for enrolling seniors. Two approaches are available here:
Option 1 Needs-Based Selection: Seniors ranked by income, rent burden, and hardship, with assistance awarded to those with the highest need. Option 2 Hybrid Lottery with Priorities: A lottery among eligible senior applicants, weighted for factors such as extremely low-income status or disability.

Staff recommend Option 2: Hybrid Lottery with Priorities for SRSP. This approach balances fairness and efficiency by giving every eligible senior applicant a chance to participate, while still weighting the lottery to ensure that the most vulnerable are more likely to be selected.

Program Administration
Seniors will apply through a simplified intake process designed to minimize paperwork and barriers. Staff will verify age, income eligibility, rent burden, and hardship, and determine program placement. Once enrolled, seniors will receive the fixed $500 monthly subsidy for up to 6 months.

Staff will also:
39 of 53

Provide referrals to other resources, such as affordable housing waitlists, Section 8, CalFresh, or healthcare benefits.
Coordinate with Glendale Care and Homeless Services to prevent duplication of benefits and ensure funds are targeted efficiently.

Staffing
Administration of SRSP would require one additional staff member to manage intake, eligibility verification, and program oversight. Because SRSP is a single-track program with a uniform subsidy, administration needs are more limited compared to GRASP.

PROS AND CONS COMPARISON
Option A: Glendale Rental Assistance & Stability Program (GRASP) Pros:
Comprehensive, layered program with three arms (Emergency, Income-Support, Special) that address different forms of housing instability. Flexible design that can prioritize multiple vulnerable populations, including seniors, disabled tenants, and extremely low-income renters. Provides deeper stabilization for households at risk of eviction, preventing homelessness and giving families the chance to get back on their feet. Allows Council to set participation requirements (e.g., minimum senior share) without carving out separate budgets.

Cons:
More complex to administer, requiring staff capacity for intake, assessment, and ongoing monitoring.
Slower to stand up than a single-track model due to multiple program arms and eligibility pathways.

Option B: Senior Rent Stability Program (SRSP)
Pros:
Simple, predictable structure that is easy to administer. Directly targets seniors, one of Glendale’s most vulnerable renter groups. Provides uniform monthly assistance that seniors can count on during the program term.
40 of 53

Cons:
Limited to six months of assistance under LACAHSA rules. After that period, most participants — especially fixed-income seniors — will face the same rent burden challenges as before.
Provides shallow support ($500 per month), which may not be enough to close large rent gaps in Glendale’s high-cost market.
Excludes non-seniors, leaving out families, disabled renters under 62, and unemployed individuals.
Does not include emergency prevention or flexible one-time supports (e.g., utility arrears, deposits, car repair) that often determine whether a tenant remains housed.

CONCLUSION
The City of Glendale has the opportunity to direct approximately $2.1 million in LACAHSA rental assistance funding toward programs that prevent eviction, stabilize housing, and protect vulnerable renters. LACAHSA requires that 20% of funds be dedicated to legal services and that staffing and administration also be supported from this allocation. After these carve-outs, roughly $1.4 million remains available for direct assistance, which Council may allocate through one of two models:
Option A: Glendale Rental Assistance & Stability Program (GRASP), plus $300,000 for continuation of LIFERAP. GRASP provides three distinct but complementary arms of support (Emergency, Income-Support, and Special Assistance) to address eviction risk, chronic rent burden, and unique one-time hardships. Together with the continuation of LIFERAP for working families, Option A offers a flexible and comprehensive approach that can be tailored to multiple populations, including seniors, disabled tenants, and extremely low- income renters.
Option B: Senior Rent Stability Program (SRSP). SRSP provides a simple, uniform $500 monthly subsidy for seniors for up to six months. While easy to administer and senior-focused, it offers shallow and time-limited relief. Once the six-month assistance period ends, most participants, particularly fixed-income seniors, are likely to return to the same rent burden challenges they faced before.

After weighing the pros and cons of both approaches, staff recommends Option A:

Glendale Rental Assistance & Stability Program (GRASP) plus continued LIFERAP funding. While SRSP provides simple and predictable relief, its short duration, shallow assistance, and narrow population focus means many seniors will return to being rent- burdened once the subsidy ends. By contrast, GRASP offers a more impactful, more flexible stabilization and directly addresses eviction prevention, while LIFERAP continues to support working families in building long-term economic mobility. Together, 41 of 53

these programs maximize the City’s ability to use limited funds to keep Glendale households housed, stable, and on a path to recovery.

Importantly, this is the first year of LACAHSA rental assistance funding. Council has the opportunity to pilot these program models now, evaluate outcomes, and adjust or reallocate funds in future years if priorities or community needs shift.

Next Steps & Council Direction
At this stage, Council is being asked to provide direction on how to allocate the $1.4 million available for direct rental assistance after required LACAHSA carve-outs for legal services and administration. Specifically, Council should decide whether to:

1. Adopt Option A: Glendale Rental Assistance & Stability Program (GRASP) with $300,000 for continuation of LIFERAP – a flexible, multi-arm approach to prevent evictions, address rent burden, and respond to one-time crises across a wide range of vulnerable renters;
OR

2. Adopt Option B: Senior Rent Stability Program (SRSP) with $300,000 for continuation of LIFERAP – a simpler, senior-only subsidy model that provides modest short-term relief but limited long-term impact.

Additional Council Options: Council also retains full discretion to choose another approach, such as:
Not funding LIFERAP this cycle;
Directing all available funds into LIFERAP instead of GRASP or SRSP; Combining elements of different models; or
Deferring funds for other rental assistance strategies.

Council may also set priority participation targets (e.g., percentage for seniors, persons with disabilities, or extremely low-income households) to guide program administration.

In addition, as required by LACAHSA, 20% of Glendale’s total allocation (approximately $420,000) must be reserved for legal services to support eviction defense and housing stability. At this time, staff are not making a specific recommendation on how these funds should be distributed among potential providers. Staff will return to Council with a separate report and recommendations regarding the structure, scope, and implementation of the attorney services allocation, once additional guidance is received from LACAHSA and after consultation with legal service partners. 42 of 53

2 25-88812

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

GLENDALE HOUSING AUTHORITY

AGENDA ITEM
Report: FY 2019-2020, 2021-2022, 2023-2024, 2024-2025 Annual Action Plan Substantial Amendment for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), and HOME Investment Partnerships Act (HOME) to reprogram $1,424,758.38.

1. City Council Motion to (1) approve reprogramming $1,328,171 between Pac/Ed Artificial Turf and Pacific Natural Grass Projects and $96,587.38 in Undesignated HUD Fund Balance between Program Years for Glendale Youth Center Project; (2) authorize the City Manager or a designee to execute all agreements, amendments, certifications, and documents necessary to carry out the reprogramming of funds; (3) authorize submission to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) of a substantial amendment to the FY FY2019-2020, 2021-2022, 2023-2024, 2024-2025 CDBG, ESG, and HOME Annual Action Plans regarding the reprogramming of funds; and (4) authorize the City Manager, or a designee, to redirect excess, cancelled, or unused program funds under $50,000 among projects with CDBG Advisory Committee approval.

2. Housing Authority Motion to authorize submission to HUD of a substantial amendment to the FY FY2019-2020, 2021-2022, 2023-2024, 2024-2025 CDBG, ESG, and HOME Annual Action Plans regarding the reprogramming of $1,328,171 between Pac/Ed Artificial Turf and Pacific Natural Grass Projects and $96,587.38 in Undesignated HUD Fund Balance between Program Years for Glendale Youth Center Project.

3. Resolution of Appropriation to reprogram CDBG City CIP funds totaling $1,328,171 from the Pacific Natural Grass Project to the Pac/Ed Artificial Turf Project, shift $1,328,171 in General Fund CIP funds from the Pac/Ed Artificial Turf Project to the Pacific Natural Grass Project, and appropriate $96,587.38 from Undesignated HUD Fund Balance to Glendale Youth Center CIP-ACF 19/20, to use Program Year 2019 Undesignated HUD Fund Balance instead of Program Year 2021 funds.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for September 30, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
43 of 53

22 25-88812
6 3
7 5
To meet federal expenditure requirements and avoid potential loss of funding, staff is requesting City Council authorization to reprogram $1,328,171 in CDBG funds from the Pacific Natural Grass Project in Program Years 2019, 2023, 2024 to the Pac/Ed Artificial Turf Project by swapping it with General Fund CIP funds; and to shift, interchange or “swap” $96,587.38 in Undesignated HUD Fund Balance from Program Year 2019 with CDBG funds from Armenian Cultural Foundation’s Glendale Youth Center Project funds from Program Year 2021. This is in response to the CDBG Timeliness and the 7-Year Period of Performance requirements.

HUD’s determination of timeliness is based on whether a City CDBG entitlement community has more than 1.5 times the current entitlement remaining in the Line of Credit (LOC) balance. In years 2023, 2024 and 2025, the City was untimely with 2.06 times the current entitlement amount in the LOC. In July 2025, the City submitted a CDBG Workout Schedule demonstrating a plan to spend down funds by the April 30, 2026, deadline.

HUD has a policy of reducing future year grant allocations from cities that continue to be untimely, which may impact CIP, social services, and program administration dollars.

To meet that expenditure schedule, staff is proposing to shift funds from Pacific Natural Grass Project, which is in design phase, to a project that is closer to starting construction, and ensure the funds are expended faster. The Pac/Ed Artificial Turf Project is expected to start construction in October 2025, allowing for the Project to draw down funds before the deadline. Moving $1,328,171 to the faster project helps to reduce the LOC balance.

Also, each year, the City receives CDBG entitlement funding which has a 7-year period of performance and must be fully drawn down by September 30th of the respective year.

Any funds left in the City’s LOC beyond this deadline are recaptured by the U.S. Treasury.

On September 30, 2026, $421,307.38 unspent funds from Program Year 2019 are at risk of being recaptured. These funds are allocated to the following projects:

$324,720 currently appropriated in Pacific Natural Grass 23/24 $96,587.38 in Undesignated HUD Fund Balance (remaining funds returned to the City from completed projects).

The $324,720 is part of the $1,328,171 staff is recommending reprogramming from the Pacific Natural Grass to Pac/Ed Artificial Turf Project, by swapping it with General Fund CIP funds.

The $96,587.38 from Program Year 2019 Undesignated HUD Fund Balance is recommended to interchange with Armenian Cultural Foundation’s Glendale Youth Center Project funds from Program Year 2021.

Approval of these recommendations will safeguard the City’s allocation of CDBG funding by ensuring timely expenditure to prevent the loss of $421,307.38 in Program Year 2019 funds.
44 of 53

23 25-88812
6 3
7 5

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve:

1. A Motion to (1) reprogram $1,328,171 between Pac/Ed Artificial Turf and Pacific Natural Grass Projects and $96,587.38 in Undesignated HUD Fund Balance between Program Years for Glendale Youth Center Project; (2) authorize the City Manager to execute all agreements, amendments, certifications, and documents necessary to carry out the reprogramming of funds; (3) authorize submission to HUD of a substantial amendment to the FY FY2019-2020, 2021-2022, 2023-2024, 2024-2025 CDBG, ESG, and HOME Annual Action Plans regarding the reprogramming of funds; and (4) authorize the City Manager to redirect excess, cancelled, or unused program funds under $50,000 among projects with CDBG Advisory Committee approval.

2. A Resolution of Appropriation to reprogram CDBG City funds in the amount of $1,328,171 from Program Year 2019, 2023, 2024 Pacific Natural Grass project to Pac/Ed Artificial Turf project, and to appropriate $96,587.38 from Undesignated HUD Fund Balance to Glendale Youth Center CIP-ACF 19/20, to use Program Year 2019 Undesignated HUD fund balance instead of Program Year 2021 funds.

That the Housing Authority approve:

1. A Motion to authorize submission to HUD of a substantial amendment to the FY FY2019-2020, 2021-2022, 2023-2024, 2024-2025 CDBG, ESG, and HOME Annual Action Plans regarding the reprogramming of $1,328,171 between Pac/Ed Artificial Turf and Pacific Natural Grass Projects and $96,587.38 in Undesignated HUD Fund Balance between Program Years for Glendale Youth Center Project.

ANALYSIS
There are two factors leading to the staff recommendation to reprogram CDBG funds:

1. CDBG Timeliness Requirement

2. 7-Year Period of Performance Expenditure Requirement by U.S. Treasury CDBG Timeliness
HUD expects cities to be timely in their expenditure of CDBG program funds. It defines timeliness as maintaining a LOC balance no greater than 1.5 times the annual CDBG grant 60 days prior to the end of the program year. Failure to meet this requirement places future allocations at risk. HUD’s policy allows for reduction of subsequent grant awards if a grantee remains untimely. This means that cities cannot have more than 1.5 times their annual CDBG allocation by the end of the program year. HUD conducts the Timeliness test on April 30 each year. As of May 2, 2025, the City’s balance was 2.06 times its annual allocation, which is significantly above the requirement. 45 of 53

24 25-88812
6 3
7 5
In fiscal years 2023, 2024 and again in 2025, the City of Glendale has not been able to meet the “Timeliness” requirement; thus, HUD has required the City to submit a CDBG Timeliness Schedule outlining the City’s plan to meet HUD’s requirement to expend CDBG funds in a timely fashion. A HUD-required CDBG Workout Schedule describes a plan of action and a timeline to demonstrate how the City will meet the Timeliness requirement by the following year’s deadline.

The City has been found untimely for three consecutive years (2023-2025) as capital improvement projects are not spending down the funds as quickly as anticipated.

Entering the fourth year, it is critical to adopt proactive measures to avoid further risk of grant reductions or loss of funds.

Historically, untimely expenditure delays have been partially outside the City’s control.

Pandemic delays, facility closures, permit delays, design/redesign efforts, increases in bid estimates, bid rejections, and other factors have caused a backlog of projects on both the City and community agency sides.

Staff evaluated progress for projects that are currently funded with CDBG funds and recommends shifting funds from projects that may not expend as quickly to a project that is starting construction to help expedite the expenditure. Thus, staff proposes to shift $1,328,171 in CDBG funds from Program Years 2019, 2023, 2024 allocated to the Pacific Natural Grass Project to the Pac/Ed Artificial Turf Project, swapping it with General Fund CIP funds.

CDBG Project Funds Shifting:

Program
Year
Project Shifting FROM Amount
Shifting
Project Shifting TO
2019-2020 Pacific Natural Grass 23/24 $324,720 Pac/Ed Artificial Turf 19/20 2023-2024 Pacific Natural Grass 23/24 $633,451 Pac/Ed Artificial Turf 23/24 2024-2025 Pacific Natural Grass 24/25 $370,000 Pac/Ed Artificial Turf 24/25 Total $1,328,171
The Pac/Ed Artificial Turf Project is currently in the bidding phase and will soon begin construction, allowing the Project to begin drawing down funds, which will help reduce the City’s LOC balance at faster rate. On August 27, 2025, the City received five general contractor bids for the Pac/Ed Artificial Turf Project. City staff has reviewed bid packets and is recommending award of a contract to City Council on October 7, 2025.

Construction is slated to begin in the Fall 2025.

The Pacific Natural Grass Project has completed 60% of the design phase and will not start construction till mid-2026. To backfill the CDBG funds that will be transferred to the Pac/Ed Artificial Turf Project, $1,328,171 in General Fund CIP funds from Pac/Ed Artificial Turf project will be transferred to the Pacific Natural Grass Project. Essentially, staff recommends swapping General Fund CIP funds with CDBG funds between the two projects to allow the City to spend down the CDBG funds first. 46 of 53

25 25-88812
6 3
7 5
7-Year Expenditure Requirement
Each year, the City receives CDBG entitlement funding in the following categories:
program administration, public social services, and capital improvement. CDBG funds have a 7-year period of performance and must be fully drawn down by September 30th of the respective year. Any funds left in the City’s LOC beyond this deadline are recaptured by the U.S. Treasury.

On September 30, 2026, Program Year 2019 funds in the amount of $421,307.38 will be at risk of being recaptured by the U.S. Treasury. The breakdown is as follows:
$324,720 currently appropriated in Pacific Natural Grass 23/24 $96,587.38 in Undesignated HUD Fund Balance
The $324,720 is part of the $1,328,171 staff is recommending be reprogrammed from the Pacific Natural Grass to Pac/Ed Artificial Turf Project by swapping it with General Fund CIP funds.

To avoid losing the Undesignated HUD Fund Balance from Program Year 2019, staff also recommends interchanging $96,587.38 from Armenian Cultural Foundation’s Glendale Youth Center Project from Program Year 2021 with the Undesignated HUD Fund Balance from Program Year 2019. Essentially, staff is requesting to swap $96,587.38 of Program Year 2021 funds with Program Year 2019 Undesignated HUD Fund Balance for the Glendale Youth Center Project. This Project has completed construction and is drawing down funds. If the swap in funding source is approved, there will be an Undesignated HUD Fund Balance of $96,587.38 from Program Year 2021, which will be allocated to future projects as part of the FY 2026-2027 program planning year.

Approval of these recommendations will safeguard the City’s CDBG funding by ensuring timely expenditure and preventing the loss of $421,307.38 in Program Year 2019 funds.

The CDBG Advisory Committee approved the recommendation to reprogram $1,328,171 in CDBG funds from City CIP Pacific Natural Grass Project in Program Years 2019, 2023, 2024 to Pac/Ed Artificial Turf Project by swapping it with General Fund CIP funds; and to interchange or “swap” $96,587.38 in Undesignated HUD Fund Balance from Program Year 2019 with CDBG funds from Glendale Youth Center CIP-ACF 21/22 Project at the September 8, 2025, meeting.

Staff requests that the City Council/Housing Authority approve the proposed substantial amendment for CDBG, ESG, and HOME Annual Action Plans for program years FY2019- 2020, 2021-2022, 2023-2024, 2024-2025, which includes reprogramming funds as proposed above and recommended by the CDBG Advisory Committee, for submission to HUD for final approval.

These efforts are being made to ensure that the City meets its timeliness requirement, so HUD does not reduce future CDBG entitlement amounts in future years and avoids the recapture of funds by U.S. Treasury.
47 of 53

26 25-88812
6 3
7 5

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
A Public Notice will be published in the newspaper informing the public of the Substantial Amendment to the CDBG, ESG, and HOME Action Plans for FY2019-2020, 2021-2022, 2023-2024, 2024-2025 for a 30-day comment period before submitting the final approved Substantial Amendment Action Plans to HUD.

FISCAL IMPACT
Staff recommends reprogramming $1,328,171 in CDBG funds from the Pacific Natural Grass Project to the Pac/Ed Artificial Turf Project. To backfill the shifted CDBG funds, an equal amount of General Fund CIP funds from the Pac/Ed Artificial Turf Project will be shifted to the Pacific Natural Grass Project. This swap ensures CDBG funds are utilized first while maintaining consistent funding levels for both projects.

Additionally, staff will administratively reduce the appropriation of Glendale Youth Center CIP-ACF 21/22 Project by $96,587.38, and is requesting that the Council appropriate $96,587.38 from Undesignated HUD Fund Balance to Glendale Youth Center CIP-ACF 19/20 Project, enabling use of the Program Year 2019 Undesignated HUD Fund Balance instead of Program Year 2021 funds.

These adjustments were not included in the FY 2025-26 budget. Therefore, staff is requesting a resolution of appropriation to authorize the shifting of funds between projects and to appropriate funds from the Program Year 2019 Undesignated HUD Fund Balance. The appropriation request is outlined below:

Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account String) To (Account String) Funding Source
$324,720 52100-2010-CSP-0020-
P0000
PL: CSP00950CG
52100-2010-CSP-0020-
P0000
PL: CSP01072DG
CDBG Fund
$633,451 52100-2010-CSP-0020-
P0000
PL: CSP00950CG
52100-2010-CSP-0020-
P0000
PL: CSP01072EG
CDBG Fund
$370,000 52100-2010-CSP-0020-
P0000
PL: PWD00950EG
52100-2010-CSP-0020-
P0000
PL:CSP01072CG
CDBG Fund
$1,328,171 51200-4010-CSP-0020-
P0000
PL: CSP01072BN
51200-4010-CSP-0020-
P0000
PL:PWD00950DN
General
Fund Capital
Improvement
Fund
$96,587.38 31240-2010-CSP-0020-
P0000
PL: CSP00706BG
52100-2010-CSP-0020-
P0000
PL: CSP00706BG
CDBG Fund
Department Cost Center Program
48 of 53

27 25-88812
6 3
7 5
CSP Projects

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The activity under consideration is an implementation action relating to a project that is categorically exempt under the Class 2 Exemption of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines Section 15302, and involves no change in the project’s scope.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1. The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Onnig Bulanikian, Director of Community Services & Parks Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:

Maggie Kavarian, Community Services Manager
Tereza Aleksanian, Assistant Director of Community Services & Parks Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None.
49 of 53

1 1
2 6
2 2
MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that, with respect to the report of the Directors of Community Development and Community Services & Parks dated September 30, 2025, the City Council of the City of Glendale hereby:
(1) Approves the reprogramming of returned and undesignated Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in the amount of $1,424,758.38, awarded by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), to the Pac/Ed Artificial Turf Project in the amount of $1,328,171 and to the Glendale Youth Center CIP-ACF 19/20 in the amount of $96,587.38;
(2) Authorizes the City Manager or a designee to execute all agreements, amendments, certifications, and documents necessary to carry out the reprogramming of funds; (3) Authorizes submission to HUD of a substantial amendment to the FY 2019-2020, FY 2021-2022, 2023-2024, and 2024-2025 CDBG, Emergency Solutions Grant, and HOME Investment Partnerships Act Annual Action Plans regarding the reprogramming of funds; and
(4) Authorizes the City Manager, or a designee, to redirect excess, cancelled, or unused program funds under $50,000 among projects with CDBG Advisory Committee approval.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
50 of 53

1 MOTION
Moved by Housing Authority Member ____________________________, seconded by Housing Authority Member ___________________________, that, with respect to the report of the Directors of Community Development and Community Services & Parks dated September 30, 2025, the Housing Authority of the City of Glendale hereby authorizes submission to HUD of a substantial amendment to the FY FY2019-2020, 2021-2022, 2023-2024, 2024-2025 CDBG, ESG, and HOME Annual Action Plans regarding the reprogramming of $1,328,171 between Pac/Ed Artificial Turf and Pacific Natural Grass Projects and $96,587.38 in Undesignated HUD Fund Balance between Program Years for Glendale Youth Center Project.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
51 of 53

RESOLUTIONNO.

RESOLUTIONOFTHECOUNCILOFTHECITYOFGLENDALE

MAKINGANAPPROPRIATION
BEITRESOLVEDBYTHECOUNCILOFTHECITYOFGLENDALE:

SECTION1:Thatthesumof$2,752,929.36isherebyappropriatedand/ortransferredfromthefollowing accountstothefollowingaccounts:

ACCOUNTS
31240-2010-CSP-0020-P0000
CSPOO7O6BG

DESCRIPTIONFROMTO
Projects,GlendaleYouthCenterCIP
ACF19/20
52100-2010-CSP-0020-P0000
CSPOO7O6BG
Construction,CDBGFund,
CommunityServicesandParks,
Projects,GlendaleYouthCenterCIP
ACF19/20
$96,587.38
52100-2010-CSP-0020-P0000
CSPOO95OCG
Construction,CDBGFund,
CommunityServicesandParks,
Projects,PacificNaturalGrass23/24
$324,720.00
52100-2010-CSP-0020-P0000
CSPOIO72DG
Construction,CDBGFund,
CommunityServicesandParks,
Projects,Pac/EdArtificialTurf
Replacement19/20
$324,720.00
52100-2010-CSP-0020-P0000
CSPOO95OCG
Construction,CDBGFund,
CommunityServicesandParks,
Projects,PacificNaturalGrass23/24
$633,451.00
52100-2010-CSP-0020-P0000
CSPOI072EG
Construction,CDBGFund,
CommunityServicesandParks,
Projects,Pac/EdArtificialTurf
$633,451.00
Replacement23)24
52100-2010-CSP-0020-P0000
PWDOO95OEG
Construction,CDBGFund,
CommunityServicesandParks,
Projects,PacificNaturalGrass24/25
$370,000.00
52100-2010-CSP-0020-P0000
CSPO1072CG
Construction,CDBGFund,
CommunityServicesandParks,
Projects,Pac/EdArtificialTurf
$370,000.00
Replacement24/25
512004010-CSP-0020-P0000
CSPO10728N
Otherimprovements,Capital
ImprovementFund,Community
$1,328,171.00
ServicesandParks,Projects,Pac/Ed
ArtificialTurfReplacement
51200-4010-CSP-0020-P0000
PWDOO95ODN
Otherimprovements,Capital
ImprovementFund,Community
ServicesandParks,Projects,Pacific
NaturalGrass
$1,328,171.00
FederalGrants,CDBGFund,
CommunityServicesandParks,
$96,587.38
52 of 53

To
appropriate
Program
Year
2019
Undesignated
HUD
Fund
Balance
and
reprogram
CDBG
City
CIP
funds.SECTION
2:

The
Director
of
Finance
is
authorized
to
make
such
other
revisions,
individual
appropriation
line-items,
changes
in
summaries,
fund
totals,
grand
totals,
and
other
portions
of
the
budget
document
as
necessary
to
reflect
and
implement
the
changes
specified
in
this
resolution.

SECTION
3:

The
City
Clerk
shall
certify
to
the
adoption
of
this
Resolution.

Adoptedthisdayof
________________,
2025.

Mayor
ATTEST:

CITY
OF

GLENDALE
4j<.

DATE
9/23/2025
___________________________
rfr$P

APPROVED
AS
TO

FINANCIAL
City
Clerk

PROVISION
FOR
S
$2,752,929.38
Director
of
Finance
STATE
OF

CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY
OF
LOS

ANGELES)
SS
CITY
OF

GLENDALE)
I,Suzie
Abajian,
City
Clerk
of
the
City
of
Glendale,
do
hereby
certify
that
the
foregoing
Resolution
No.
was
adopted
by
the
Council
of
the
City
of
Glendale,
Califomia,
at
aregular
meeting
held
on
the__________
day
of
________________
2025,
and
that
the
same
was
adopted
by
the
following
vote:

Ayes:Noes:Absent:Abstain:

City
Clerk
53 of 53