From: Ani
To: CityClerk; City Council
Subject: Re: Public comment for PHA CA114/city of Glendale (CA)"s 1st FY26-27 budget proposal meeting re use of Measure A & federal funds for EHV (or no longer?)
Date: Thursday, April 30, 2026 8:42:05 AM
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Hello, please confirm receipt of my comments sent previously for today's special City Council meeting.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 11:42 AM Ani <[email protected]> wrote:
Mayor Kassakhian, members of the City Council, and HUD colleagues, As I am enroute to Sacramento, I am submitting this written comment on Item 1 of the city of Glendale's Budget Study Session #1 regarding the General Fund Five-Year Forecast and Proposed FY 2026-27 Budget. Given that federal funds are involved in my questions, HUD contacts for Glendale are included here.
A note on the agenda packet itself also attached to this email: the Special Meeting packet posted on April 27 for this FY26-27 budget proposal meeting contains the agenda cover, public participation guidelines, and the line item for Budget Study Session #1. It does not include a staff report, exhibits, or a link to the Proposed FY 2026-27 Budget document. Members of the public seeking the document under review must navigate independently to glendaleca.gov/government/departments/finance/budget . The page
citations below reference that FY26 proposal budget document, available only in this form at:
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/82733/639122756329270000 For context ahead of the budget questions below: on April 28, the Glendale Housing Authority voted unanimously to authorize Glendale city staff to pursue a potential temporary bridge subsidy for 188 Emergency Housing Voucher households using approximately $4.1 million in federal HUD HOME funds, LA County Measure A funds, and local Homeless Services funds. None of these funds are appropriated or guaranteed for this purpose, as the body that voted is aware.
The bridge is an attempt at optionality assembled in lieu of an extant federal mechanism - the PIH 2025-19 waitlist preference waiver -that remains on the table and would require amending the Admin Plan language now under public review at next week's hearing on May 5th. The plan does not contain any language for exercising the federal waiver as an option in the future with a preference so this would require yet another round of an admin plan process (45 days minimum) in tandem with HUD's response time for such a waiver. The city's position on enacting inaction is that this is all symbolic. Peer city-run agencies treat it as concrete.
Everyone presumably agrees that good governance is clarity on the record.
Should any of the public records I am referencing here be superseded by more current information, I welcome correction; my pending CPRA requests have been routed to the City Attorney's Office under § 7922.535 extension and remain outstanding.
On April 30, the City Council will review the proposed budget that will govern the fiscal year in which that bridge is supposed to operate. I am writing because the proposed budget, as published April 15, does not appear to reflect the Council's April 28 direction, and in several places appears to contradict it while making use of LA County and federal funds.
I could of course be wrong, and I welcome correction.
For the public record, the procedural sequence framing this budget cycle is as follows:
April 28: Glendale Housing Authority voted unanimously to authorize staff to pursue a $4.1M bridge subsidy for 188 EHV households.
April 30 (tomorrow): Budget Study Session #1, General Fund.
May 4: Public comment period closes on the draft Section 8 Administrative Plan and PHA Annual Plan FY 2026-27.
May 5: Public hearing and adoption of the Administrative Plan governing the EHV program and the 188 households.
May 6: Budget Study Session #2.
May 21: Budget Study Session #3.
May 27: Budget Study Session #4.
June 23: Budget Hearing and Adoption.
Under this sequence, the Admin Plan governing the EHV program is adopted on May 5, before Council reviews any of the Special Revenue Funds (Fund 2020, 2030, 2050, 2280, 2290, 2291, 2527) that the April 28 vote identified as the source of bridge funding for that program. The governance instrument is locked before the funding instrument is reviewed. The Admin Plan is the governance instrument and the budget is the funding instrument. Both are within five days of each other and they point in opposite directions:
one assumes 188 EHV households are leaving the program, the other reflects the April 28 direction to staff to assemble a potential bridge of funds from federal and local funds.
The city is simultaneously declining to backstop that bridge through the PIH 2025-19 waitlist waiver on the grounds that doing so would be 'symbolic' and 'unfair' given the closed waitlist and the existing shortfall — despite the agency having been in shortfall since December 2024 while continuing to receive shortfall funding and portability revenue, and despite that waitlist, described publicly as 'approximately 1,000' families until very recently, actually containing 722.
I have reviewed the proposed budget. What follows are questions with specific page citations to the budget document. I realize the page numbers may be off here and there depending on your PDF viewer; verification should be straightforward from your side.
1. The budget assumes EHV is ending, GHA just voted to bridge it mixing federal
and LA county funds?
The Housing Assistance Fund (Fund 2020, page 28) narrative states: "There is a decrease in direct assistance primarily due to the ending of the Emergency Housing Voucher program. This resulted in a decrease of approximately $4.5M compared to FY 2025-26." The direct assistance line item (43112) drops from $34,233,528 in Adopted FY26 to $32,343,768 in Proposed FY27, a reduction of $1,889,760, while the narrative attributes approximately $4.5M of movement within that line to EHV termination offset by a $2.5M increase in regular HAP.
On April 28, Council voted to authorize a six-month bridge subsidy attempt for these same 188 households beyond the projected December 2026 depletion date. That bridge extends into FY 2026-27 using numerous possible potential funds.
Question: Is the proposed FY 2026-27 budget being amended to reflect the April 28 direction? If so, what is the timeline and appropriation mechanism? If not, which document controls the budget that assumes EHV families are gone, or the motion that says they are being bridged? The budget narrative explicitly reflects EHV termination and the proposed budget contains no appropriation for continuation, transition, or bridge funding for these households in FY 2026–27.
2. Bridge funding sources show 0 (zero) in the proposed budget? The April 28 staff report identified approximately $4.1 million from federal funded HOME TBRA, LA County Measure A Homeless Services, and Homeless Services funds. The proposed FY 2026-27 budget shows the following for each source:
Measure A Affordable Housing (Fund 2290, page 46): Proposed FY27 appropriation is zero.
The narrative states "The proposed FY 2026-27 budget does not include any new appropriation due to the timing of the award notification. The department will return to Council mid-year to appropriate funding based on the final award amount and programming approved by the County."
Measure A Homeless Services (Fund 2291, page 47): Proposed FY27 appropriation is zero.
The narrative contains identical language: "The proposed FY 2026-27 budget does not include any appropriation due to the timing of the award notification." Home Grant Fund (Fund 2030, page 37): Direct assistance (43112) drops 52%, from $951,089 in Adopted FY26 to $458,106 in Proposed FY27. The narrative attributes this to "a decrease in the HUD grant award for FY 2026-27."
Homeless Services (Fund 2527, page 35): Direct assistance (43112) remains flat at $300,000.
Emergency Solutions Grant (Fund 2050, page 39): Direct assistance drops 73%, from $506,942 to $152,823, due to expiration of a one-time ESG RUSH grant.
Permanent Local Housing Allocation (Fund 2280, page 45): Proposed FY27 shows zero.
The narrative states: "The Community Development Department will return to Council mid-year with a proposed budget."
Question: Which specific line items in the proposed FY 2026-27 budget reflect the $4.1 million bridge funding Council authorized on April 28? If none, when will the budget be amended and through what process? The 87,000 in salaries is to which position, for what role, in conjunction with what exactly, and through what? It numerically aligns potentially with the Gateways contract, so please clarify. If this is another provider or service, please clarify. The same amount of money in total (434,000) has been mentioned as possible sources to direct staff to attempt to make use of for EHV funding. Is this a double count?
3. Staffing is increasing while direct assistance is being cut? The Housing Assistance Fund (Fund 2020, page 36) shows headcount increasing from 20.35 FTE in FY 2025-26 to 21.1 FTE in FY 2026-27, an addition of 0.75 FTE. Total salaries and benefits increase by $293,408 (9%), with the salary line alone rising $238,960 (12%). The narrative attributes this to "MOU related cost of living adjustments, normal salary step progression, as well as redistribution of employees."
This staffing increase occurs in the same fiscal year that direct assistance is being cut by approximately $4.5M and the EHV program serving 188 households is ending.
Questions: What are the specific position classifications being added or redistributed into Fund 2020? What is the cost center and program assignment for the 0.75 additional FTE? What functions will these positions perform if the EHV program is ending? Is any of this increased staffing capacity dedicated to EHV transition planning, bridge funding administration, or waitlist management? The term "redistribution of employees" implies these positions existed elsewhere. From which fund or cost center are they being redistributed, and what is the programmatic justification for moving them into a fund whose primary program is being wound down?
Specifically for the 0.75 FTE increase, please provide the position classification title(s), bargaining unit, salary range, funding source (federal admin fee, HAP, or other), and the personnel action or council authorization under which the redistribution was approved.
The budget narrative on page 36 states that portable voucher HAP expense (line 43125) is increasing from $17,713,152 to $19,451,136 due to 'a growing number of participants choosing to port to the Glendale Housing Authority,' for which GHA receives both reimbursement and an administrative fee. This raises two questions. First, is the 0.75 FTE staffing increase attributable in whole or in part to managing this growing portability caseload rather than EHV transition? If so, the staffing increase should be characterized as portability-driven, not presented alongside the EHV wind-down narrative without distinction. Second, how are portability-related HAP reimbursements and administrative fees accounted for in HUD's $700,000 shortfall calculation? Portability HAP is reimbursed by the originating PHA and is therefore revenue-neutral to Glendale's voucher budget. If the shortfall figure includes obligations that are offset by portability reimbursements, the net shortfall available for absorbing EHV households may differ from the $700,000 figure this body has been given. The public should understand whether the stated shortfall that prevents EHV absorption is calculated before or after portability revenue.
HUD's administrative fee structure reimburses PHAs based on unit months leased. If EHV termination reduces Glendale's unit count by 188, what is the projected impact on administrative fee revenue for FY 2026-27, and how does the increased headcount reconcile with reduced reimbursable units? The budget narrative uses the word 'redistribution' without identifying the originating fund, cost center, or position. A redistribution is not a creation, it is a transfer, and transfers have paper trails. The public should be able to see where these positions came from and why they are landing in a fund that is losing its largest program.
4. The December 2025 LACAHSA appropriation & its relationship to the bridge? The Revised FY 2025-26 column for Measure A Affordable Housing (Fund 2290, page 46) shows $5,103,192 in total appropriation: $1,120,972 in Salaries and $3,982,220 in Direct Assistance. This is the LACAHSA appropriation Council adopted on December 16, 2025.
The $1,120,972 salary figure appearing in Revised FY26 for Fund 2290 corresponds to the amount I have previously identified as coded to Account 41100 (City Salaries) across fund strings CDD01556AG (GRASP) and CDD01557AG (Actual Delivery Cost) in the LACAHSA RPHP allocation.
The Proposed FY27 column shows negative salary figures (negative $187,824) with new charges appearing for hourly wages ($118,560), benefits ($15,711), and PERS ($57,473), netting to zero total Salaries & Benefits. The narrative says staff time is "being charged out to existing project appropriation from FY 2025-26."
Questions: What is the current drawdown status of the $5,103,192 LACAHSA appropriation? What specific positions are funded by the $1,120,972 in salary charges? What departments are those positions in and what direct services are they providing to EHV households or any households? Has staff produced the cost allocation plans, time studies, and position-control records that LACAHSA's Transitional Program Guidelines Section 7.b requires for administrative cost allocations? What does "charged out to existing project appropriation" mean operationally: are FY 2026-27 staff salaries being billed to FY 2025-26 LACAHSA funds, and if so, for how long can that continue before those funds are exhausted?
5. Measure A Homeless Services/Gateways?
The Measure A Homeless Services narrative (Fund 2291, page 47) confirms that FY 2025-26 funds "supported a pilot project in partnership with a local mental health center to provide residential care beds and intensive care management services for unhoused and recently homeless individuals." This is the Gateways Hospital pilot.
The Revised FY26 column shows $434,979 in total ($87,000 salaries, $347,979 direct assistance).
The April 28 staff report identified "$434,000 in Homeless Services" as part of the $4.1 million bridge.
Question: Is the $434,000 in the April 28 bridge the same $434,979 appropriated in December 2025 for the Gateways pilot? If so, is the Gateways pilot being discontinued to redirect these funds to EHV bridge subsidy, or is this amount being double-counted? If these are separate allocations, where does the Gateways funding appear in the proposed budget?
6. Aggregate direct housing assistance is declining?
Across the Community Development housing funds in the proposed FY 2026-27 budget:
Housing Assistance Fund (2020): direct assistance is down $1.89M (page 36) Home Grant Fund (2030): direct assistance down $493K, or 52% (page 37) Emergency Solutions Grant (2050): direct assistance down $354K, or 70% (page 39) Measure A Affordable Housing (2290): zero proposed (page 46) Measure A Homeless Services (2291): zero proposed (page 47) PLHA (2280): zero proposed (page 45) Homeless Services (2527): flat at $300K (page 35) The only housing-related line item showing an increase is staffing in the Housing Assistance Fund at plus $293,408.
Question: What is the aggregate proposed FY 2026-27 appropriation for direct housing assistance to households at risk of displacement, and how does it compare to FY 2025- 26? The proposed budget appears to show a net reduction in direct assistance across every housing fund while increasing administrative headcount. This body should have that aggregate figure before it during budget deliberations, particularly in light of the April 28 bridge vote.
7. Internal audit capacity?
The Internal Audit Division (Fund 1010, Cost Center 6512, page 172) narrative states: "The division has experienced significant staffing reductions in recent years due to attrition and currently operates with only one staff member. As a result, the City plans to conduct a study to evaluate the benefits of maintaining an in-house internal audit function versus outsourcing these services."
I raised this in my public comment on April 28 in the context of the HOME program, which received significant deficiency findings in its single audit two years running. The proposed bridge funding relies in part on HOME funds. The proposed budget shows the oversight function for programs with federal compliance findings is being studied for possible elimination in the same fiscal year; those programs are being asked to administer a new, time-sensitive bridge subsidy for 188 vulnerable households.
Question: Has the city considered the compliance risk of assigning additional federal fund administration to a program with back-to-back audit findings while simultaneously reducing internal audit capacity to one person, and what is the rationale that meets the burden of proof it will be successful?
These questions are submitted for the public record in connection with the first budget study session. They are also relevant to the Administrative Plan public comment period closing May 4 and the public hearing on May 5, and I will incorporate them by reference in those submissions.
Thank you for your consideration as always.
Regards,
Ani