From: Ani
To: Liang, Jack
Cc: CityClerk; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara; Brotman, Daniel; Asatryan, Elen; Gharpetian, Vartan; Golanian, Roubik; Takhtalian, John; Garcia, Michael J.; Cervantes-Vazquez, Karina Subject: Complete set of questions to answer about taxpayer money & public comment for budget study session #4 - Re:
Public comment for budget study session #3 today: item #1 Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 1:08:57 PM
Attachments: COG_120Anniversary_Signature_128.pnginline1 CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Mr. Liang,
Thank you for your June 2 email and the offer to take these directly. I notice your office has now included staff from the City Manager's office. That is good. It keeps everyone on the same record.
I am submitting this email as written public comment for Budget Study Session #4 on June 4, and I ask that it be entered into the record for that session and carried into the June 23 budget hearing.
I am going to be direct, perhaps more than usual, because I have asked versions of these questions for months, through every proper channel, and I need complete answers in one place My questions for you begin in bold below.
For everyone on this email, I am not interested in wasting any further of my time. I am not interested in the artful dodge. If there are no issues, the records will show it plainly. It should be abundantly clear by now to your colleagues I know how to read financial statements and regulations, so if they can respectfully stop with the bureaucratic delays while 188 families wonder how they will be housed, that would be much appreciated. I know your salaries are guaranteed and you do not have to worry about housing the way they do, and I am aware there are mechanisms I can pursue other routes for all the work I am doing unpaid that your colleagues receive taxpayer money for.
On timing, let me also be very clear that I am not interested in receiving records the night before the June 23 hearing. I need them well in advance, with time to review before the city adopts this budget. I know your office is very busy. So am I. So are other offices engaged on this issue.
I also want to be transparent that the public record reflects the one time the City actually answered a question of mine on the record, the answer turned out to be a transposition error on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is also my understanding that the City Manager's office, copied here, is responsible for facilitating the differences between what the City Council appropriated, what the City submitted to HUD and LACAHSA, and what was ultimately drawn down and spent, which remains opaque. Put simply: the record of opacity with taxpayer money, while your colleagues are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, is not lost on the public. I note today is June 3rd, and the projected end for EHV funding is September 2026 per my latest email exchange with Mr. Bolbolian - who - please correct me if I'm wrong - has a spouse working in the city manager's office as well? So everyone is well aware. I am also going to flag for the umpteenth time the city continues to posture as if there is no tangible measure A LACHASA money that could be used as direct aid to these households with vague replies about waiting on federal funds. This is untrue and has been confirmed multiple times by other offices - there is money on the table that could go to the EHV households, but it appears through the decision it makes, the city just wants to keep it for itself. Of the other funds locally it could use to help them, it is tied up into a program that is draconic and makes no sense. And now there is a creative song and dance going on with other federal funds instead of using money on the table. I see through all the structures that are being crafted here to set-up delays or prevent funds from extending out of the city, and this is not clever. It's an abject failure of a civil service doing its job while ensuring it gets paid for itself, so I'll just repeat that on the record here.
For the record, here is my engagement to date:
Beginning April 16, 2026 and continuing through June 2, 2026, multiple California Public Records Act requests on the budget, LACAHSA funding, and related matters.
April 23 and April 28, 2026, written analyses presented to the City Council, including a peer-city comparison and a review of the federal tools available for the EHV shortfall.
May 5, 2026, the FY 2026-27 PHA Annual Plan adopted with my eight formal challenges and the City's responses included in the federal record.
May 8, 2026 and following, HUD PIH Notice 2026-12 on EHV Shortfall Prevention funding raised with staff and Council, with follow-ups on May 11, 21, 28, and 30.
May 20, 2026, public comments on the HOME-ARP Parkview and HOME CHDO substantial amendments, the latter since withdrawn by staff.
May 28, 2026, Budget Study Session #3 public comment on the Capital Improvement Program.
June 2, 2026, additional public records requests and this set of budget questions.
An open matter before the California Department of Housing and Community Development's Housing Accountability Unit, and active engagement with HUD on the EHV shortfall.
Across these months, more than seventy written questions to City staff and Council, many of which remain unanswered or only partially answered.
Now, here are my questions which are also going to be submitted along with this email as a part of the public written comment for the budget study session #4 tomorrow.
Questions:
"Direct assistance" appears in the June 4 additional appropriations as a category label. I need to know what it means in practice, who receives the money, and how.
I also need the full salary detail behind each of these funds, including everything charged to Account 41100. Please provide the following for both FY 2025-26 (adopted, revised, and year-to-date actuals) and FY 2026-27 (proposed), so the trajectory is clear.
For each of Fund 2040 (Continuum of Care), Fund 2290 (Measure A Affordable Housing), and Fund 2291 (Measure A Homeless Services):
1. The full appropriation broken out by object or account code. Show every category, including direct assistance, salaries (Account 41100), benefits, administration, and contractual services, with the dollar amount in each.
2. What "direct assistance" funds in practice. Identify the specific program or programs, the delivery mechanism, meaning whether payments go to landlords, to households directly, or to a contractor or subrecipient, the number of households or individuals served, the per- recipient amount, and the duration of assistance. If it is the GRASP program, I need granular details on all of it. In other words, I need details on everything about how money is being funded and spent.
3. The salaries and benefits charged to the fund, including all amounts in Account 41100 (City Salaries). For each position, provide the job title, the full-time equivalent or percentage of time charged to the fund, the object or account code, and the total salary-and-benefit dollars. State how many employees are paid, in whole or in part, from the fund. For Fund 2290, also state how the percentage of each position's salary charged to Account 41100 was determined, and identify any correction made to that allocation.
Additionally:
4. The complete schedule of General Fund salary and cost charge-outs to grant, restricted, and enterprise funds for FY 2026-27, with the receiving fund, the position or contract, and the amount for each. The April 30 presentation listed several of these, including "Salary Charge-outs to Grants" at $50,000, but only as a partial summary.
5. The location of the $3,700,000 in HOME Tenant-Based Rental Assistance described in the April 28 Housing Authority staff report. The FY 2026-27 Home Grant Fund (Fund 2030) is budgeted at $1,326,822. Identify the fund and account where the $3,700,000 is appropriated, or confirm it is not appropriated and identify the substantial amendment required.
6. For Funds 2290 and 2291, which carry identical descriptions: state which Measure A dollars flow through LACAHSA under the Renter Protections and Homelessness Prevention, Production and Preservation, and Technical Assistance categories, which dollars are County homeless-services or Local Solutions funds outside LACAHSA, and the fund each is booked to.
7. The status of the HOME CHDO set-aside. Staff withdrew the substantial amendment that would have committed $683,361 in CHDO funds, which exceeds half the entire FY 2026- 27 Home Grant Fund appropriation. State where the accumulated CHDO set-aside sits in the budget or Annual Action Plan, the commitment deadline under 24 CFR 92.500(d), and whether any portion is at risk of recapture.
8. The City's contract with Gateways Hospital and Mental Health Center: the total amount, the term, the scope of services, the procurement method, the fund and account it is paid from, and the number of households served. Include both FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27, and state whether the FY 2026-27 appropriation in Fund 2291 renews or expands this contract.
To support these answers, please also provide the underlying records: the budget working papers and object-code detail reports for each fund, the position and cost-allocation schedules, the grant award letters and approved budgets, and the agreements for any contractor or subrecipient delivering the "direct assistance," including Gateways.
I have asked related questions repeatedly over the past several months. I am asking now for complete, granular answers in a single response, before the budget is adopted on June
23. If the records are clean, they will show it. If this continues, and I hope this does not ring a particular bell, but if money is not being used appropriately, then there is compounding interest on scrutiny that results in recourse beyond long emails from an engaged citizen.
Thank you,
Ani
On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 11:04 AM Liang, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
Good morning, Ani.
My name is Jack Liang, and I am the Director of Finance at the City of Glendale. My staff in the Finance Department received a copy of your questions from the City Clerk, and we are working on drafting responses to you. We appreciate your interest in the City’s budget and your list of very thoughtful questions. Collecting the detailed information requires some time and coordination with other departments. We should be able to complete the responses in the next two weeks and will share them with you as soon as they are completed.
For future budget or finance related questions, please feel free to reach out to me and my office directly. We would be happy to provide you information to assist your understanding of the City’s financial operations.
Have a nice day!
Jack Liang | Director of Finance
Finance
141 N. Glendale Avenue, 3rd Level, Rm. 346, Glendale, CA 91206 [email protected] | GlendaleCA.gov | Follow us! 120 Years of Service to Our Community
From: Ani <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 11:42 AM
To: CityClerk <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Gharpetian, Vartan <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]> Subject: Public comment for budget study session #3 today: item #1
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