From: Ani
To: CityClerk; City Council; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Asatryan, Elen; Gharpetian, Vartan; Brotman, Daniel; Najarian, Ara Subject: Public comment for budget study session #3 today: item #1 Date: Thursday, May 28, 2026 11:43:06 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.
To the City Council and City Clerk,
I respectfully submit the following written comment on Agenda Item 1, Budget Study Session #3, covering the proposed FY 2026-27 Capital Improvement Program, the Citywide Fee Schedule changes, and the AB 2561 public hearing on City vacancies and recruitment and retention. These are good-faith requests for clarification, offered to help the Council and the public understand the proposed budget. Where possible I have cited the specific slide or page so staff can respond efficiently. Could you please confirm receipt of this and the inclusion of these comments for the meeting?
On the capital improvement program:
1. The proposed FY 2026-27 capital program totals $76,773,459 (Budget Study Session #3 presentation, slide 14; Capital Projects Appropriation Detail, p. 7). The Housing Land Acquisition project (CDD00487BN) carries a life-to-date budget of $3,329,628 with the full $3,329,628 still unspent as of 3/31/26, and shows no appropriation in the Proposed FY 2026-27 column (Capital Projects Appropriation Detail, p. 1). Could staff clarify why this project receives no FY 2026- 27 appropriation, and identify any portion of the $76,773,459 capital program directed to housing?
2. The Community Development department's only proposed FY 2026-27 capital appropriation is $1,050,000 in the San Fernando Corridor Tax Share Fund (presentation, slide 12), which the detail identifies as the Faircourt Lane Improvement, a street project (Capital Projects Appropriation Detail, p. 1). Could staff confirm that no new capital is proposed for affordable housing development or preservation in FY 2026-27?
3. The Proposed Budget shows the Measure A Affordable Housing Fund (Fund 2290) with a FY 2025-26 Revised appropriation of $5,103,192 and a FY 2026-27 Proposed appropriation that nets to zero (Proposed Budget, Fund 2290 budget report, as of 04/14/2026). The Budget Study Session #2 presentation also assigns 0.40 FTE to administer Fund 2290 (slide 20), while the fund does not appear in the Community Development appropriation table (slide 21). Could staff explain why a fund appropriated $5,103,192 in the current fiscal year is proposed at zero for FY 2026-27, and identify where the bridge funding the Council directed staff to assemble for the Emergency Housing Voucher households on April 28, 2026 appears in the proposed budget, or place that direction on the June 4 agenda item for Additional Proposed Appropriation Requests and Changes (presentation, slide 26)?
4. The same Fund 2290 budget report shows the FY 2025-26 Revised appropriation comprises $1,120,972 in salaries and $3,982,220 in direct assistance (Proposed Budget, Fund 2290 budget report). Could staff identify the Measure A funding category for these personnel charges, any applicable administrative cost cap, the documentation and time-allocation basis supporting them, and confirm how the salary costs are allocable to Measure A activities rather than to general City operations?
5. The CDBG Fund (Fund 2010) includes $870,000 for the Pacific/Edison Artificial Turf Replacement, with $710,271 unspent as of 3/31/26 (Capital Projects Appropriation Detail, p. 1).
Could staff identify the CDBG national objective and the low- and moderate-income benefit basis for this expenditure?
On the citywide fee schedule:
6. The FY 2026-27 General Fund forecast includes $500,000 in new code-enforcement citation revenue, and the same slide notes the citation increases will be presented to Council on June 23 (presentation, slide 22). Could staff clarify how this revenue is included in the forecast before the underlying increases are presented to and adopted by the Council, which occurs on the same date as budget adoption?
7. Slide 19 (Cost Recovery Considerations) lists appeals as an example of fees set below full cost recovery to prevent a barrier to entry. The proposed fee schedule increases the fee to appeal a decision to the Planning Commission or City Council from $2,066 to $5,373 (Citywide Fee Schedule, Community Development, Planning Fees, Section 2), and the fee to appeal a license or permit denial or a citation from $154 to $389 (Citywide Fee Schedule, Community Development), both marked Full Cost, increases of 153 to 160 percent. Could staff reconcile these increases with the policy stated on slide 19?
8. The administrative citation processing fee increases from $27 to $108 (Citywide Fee Schedule, Community Development, Section 3: Neighborhood Services Fees). Could staff provide the cost basis for this increase?
9. The fee schedule adds a new optional Development Concierge Services Surcharge of 20 percent for the planning permit process, forecast at $700,000 (presentation, slides 22 and 23; Citywide Fee Schedule, Planning Fees, Section 2). Could staff clarify whether applicants who do not elect the surcharge experience longer processing times than those who do, and how the City ensures the optional surcharge does not create unequal access to permit review?
10. In the Housing Fees section, the Affordable Housing Workforce Monitoring Fee decreases from $2,871 to $2,702 per project; the City Coordinated Lottery, Non-Electronic Application Submittals fee increases from $82,664 to $98,161 per project; a new City Coordinated Lottery, Online Lottery fee of $9,436 per lottery is added; and the prior $91 per-unit annual Affordable Housing Monitoring Fee is deleted (Citywide Fee Schedule, Community Development, Housing Fees, Section 7). Could staff explain the basis for these changes, including why a non- electronic lottery submittal is set at $98,161 per project while the online lottery fee is $9,436, and the effect of deleting the per-unit monitoring fee on smaller affordable developments?
On vacancies and recruitment - AB 2561/government code 3502.3
11. The Vacancy Information by Bargaining Unit slide lists FROZEN as a row with 32 of 32 positions vacant (presentation, slide 33), and the 32 frozen positions are described as a budget- balancing measure taken in April and May (slide 29). Because FROZEN is not a bargaining unit, those 32 positions appear to be separated from the units they belong to, and therefore from those units' reported vacancy rates. Of course, I may be misunderstanding this. Could staff identify which bargaining units the 32 frozen positions belong to, and provide each unit's vacancy rate with those positions reattributed, so the Council can see whether any unit other than IBEW meets or exceeds the 20 percent threshold under AB 2561?
12. IBEW is shown at 34.8 percent, with a footnote stating the rate is 24.5 percent excluding 16 power-plant positions (presentation, slide 33). Could staff confirm that IBEW exceeds the 20 percent threshold under both figures, and, upon request of the recognized employee organization, provide the additional information required by Government Code section 3502.3, including the total number of vacancies, the total number of applicants, the average number of days to complete the hiring process from posting, and any opportunities to improve compensation and working conditions?
13. The 32 frozen positions are included in the citywide total of 273 remaining vacancies and the
16.5 percent year-end rate (presentation, slide 29), and are also separated into the standalone FROZEN row (slide 33). Could staff clarify whether the frozen positions are intended to be counted as vacancies, given they are included in the citywide figure but separated from the bargaining-unit rates?
14. The authorized full-time salaried positions across the bargaining units on slide 33 sum to 1,646 (16 + 655 + 352 + 9 + 17 + 158 + 252 + 155 + 32), while the summary on slide 29 states the total as 1,651. Could staff reconcile this difference of five positions?
15. The Retention slide reports 237 new vacancies in 2025, of which 8 are newly budgeted positions, 56 are internal promotions, 11 are internal transfers, 87 are Newly Reallocated Positions, and 75 are separations (28 retirement, 5 involuntary, 42 voluntary), with internal movement accounting for 65 percent (presentation, slide 32). Could staff define Newly Reallocated Positions, and clarify how many of the 273 remaining vacancies (slide 29) reflect employees who left the City as opposed to internal movements or reclassifications?
16. The vacancy report presents vacancies by bargaining unit only, with no breakdown by department or cost center (presentation, slides 29 through 33). Could staff provide the vacancy count by department or cost center? In addition, the Budget Study Session #2 presentation lists the Homeless Services cost center (1010-2527) at 0.63 FTE (slide 18), while the Proposed Budget narrative states that the same cost center supports 1.0 FTE plus hourly wages (Proposed Budget, Fund 1010, Homeless Services, p. 27). Could staff reconcile these two figures and confirm the exact staffing dedicated to the Emergency Housing Voucher transition affecting 188 households (April 28, 2026 joint Housing Authority and City Council staff report)?
17. The Retention slide reports 8 newly budgeted positions and a percentage of Staff Growth of 3 percent (presentation, slide 32). Because 8 divided by 237 new vacancies is approximately 3 percent, while 8 divided by 1,651 authorized positions is under 1 percent, could staff clarify which denominator produces the 3 percent figure, and whether Staff Growth is the correct label?
18. The year-end vacancy rate rose each month from March through December 2025, from 11.1 percent to 16.5 percent (presentation, slide 29), while the annual turnover rate was 4.6 percent (presentation, slide 32). Could staff clarify what share of the increase in the vacancy rate is attributable to the position freezes and to deferred or withheld hiring, as distinct from attrition?
I appreciate the Council's and staff's attention to these questions, and I ask that this comment be entered into the record for Agenda Item 1.
Thank you and best regards,
Ani