MAYOR
David Fredendall, District 2
MAYOR PRO TEM
Karen Davis, District 4
COUNCILMEMBERS
Michael Allawos, District 1
Shaunna Elias, District 3
Mendell Thompson, District 5
CITY COUNCIL
Workshop 3: Funding Options and Next Steps
6:00 PM SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday, September 15, 2026
Glendora Public Library Bidwell Forum
140 S. Glendora Avenue, Glendora
AGENDA
As a courtesy to others attending this meeting, please turn off or place in silent mode all cell phones and other communication devices while in the Council Chamber. Thank you.
Hybrid Meeting Access
Members of the public may attend this meeting in person at the location above, or participate remotely by phone or video.
Remote attendees are given the same opportunity to comment as those attending in person.
Join by Phone: +1 669 444 9171
Webinar ID / Meeting Code: 932 924 7224
Join by Video cityofglendora.gov/zoom (https://us06web.zoom.us/s/9329247224) For general information about attending meetings, translation tools, and email notifications, see the Guide to Public Meetings at www.cityofglendora.gov/citymeetings.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Workshop 3: Funding Options & Next Steps
Recommended Actions for the City Council:
— 1. Receive and file the report on potential funding and revenue options for the City's major capital facility needs, including the Glendora Public Library and the City Corporate Yard; — 2. Provide direction to staff regarding which funding and revenue strategies should receive further evaluation and analysis;
— 3. Provide direction to staff regarding a funding strategy for the Phase 1 Corporation Yard improvements identified in the 2026 IDS Phasing Report, consistent with City Council direction provided at Workshop No. 2 on July 21, 2026;
— 4. Provide direction, as necessary, on the potential formation, scope, structure, membership, and timing of a citizen advisory committee to further study the City's facilities, infrastructure needs, and/or related funding strategies; and
— 5. Provide any other direction to staff as deemed appropriate, including direction on next steps and an implementation timeline.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Accessibility and Accommodation Requests:
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to participate in this meeting may request such accommodation from the City Clerk’s Office at (626) 914-8210 or [email protected]. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting (48 hours for assisted listening devices) will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility.
Levine Act Disclosure: Pursuant to the Levine Act (Government Code § 84308), any party to a proceeding involving a license, permit, contract, or other entitlement for use before the City Council is required to disclose on the record any campaign contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $500 made to a Councilmember within the preceding twelve (12) months.
Broadcasting: This meeting is broadcast live at cityofglendora.gov/citymeetings, on YouTube.com/cityofglendoraca, and on Spectrum Channel 3 and Frontier Channel 32, and is replayed the following week on the same channels. On-demand replays are available online at any time.
In‐Person Public Comment: Members of the public may address the governing body on any agenda item, or during the Public Comment portion of the meeting, by completing a Public Comment Card, available in the lobby or at the podium, and submitting it to the City Clerk before Public Comment or the Public Hearing closes. When your name is called, step to the podium and state your name before beginning.
Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes, speaking once, on both on- and off-agenda items, unless, upon motion, such time is extended by the legislative body. Providing your name, city of residence, mailing address, or other identifying information beyond your name is voluntary; if you would like a follow-up from the City, please provide contact information.
Written Comment: To submit a written comment on an agenda item or during Public Comment, email [email protected] with the subject line “Public Comment” followed by the name of the governing body, meeting date, and agenda item number or brief description, or mail your comment to 116 E. Foothill Blvd, Glendora, CA 91741, ATTN: City Clerk’s Department, RE: “Public Comment.” Comments are forwarded to the City Clerk and made part of the public record.
Remote Participation (SB 707): Pursuant to Senate Bill 707 and Government Code §§ 54953.4 and 54954.3, members of the public may provide public comment in real time either in person or remotely through the two-way telephonic/video service identified below. Remote commenters receive the same time allotment as those commenting in person; remote comments on items not on the agenda will be heard following the in-person Public Comment period.
Remote Public Comment: To provide public comment remotely, press *9 if participating by telephone, or use the “Raise Hand” feature if participating by video. When called upon, you will be unmuted and given your allotted time to speak; telephone participants may press *6 to mute or unmute. Remote speakers must be present in the queue when called and are responsible for ensuring they remain connected and able to hear the meeting.
Join by Phone: +1 669 444 9171
Webinar ID / Meeting Code: 932 924 7224
Join by Video cityofglendora.gov/zoom (https://us06web.zoom.us/s/9329247224). Please be advised the City does not guarantee this link will work or that there will not be technical difficulties; the only way to guarantee real-time participation is via in-person comment or telephone call-in.
Remote Access Disruption: If a disruption prevents the public from participating remotely, the meeting will recess for at least one (1) hour while staff makes good-faith efforts to restore service, per City Council Policy No. 1.45 (Technological Disruption of Remote Participation Services). If service is not restored within that time, the City Council will take a roll-call vote confirming that good-faith efforts were made and that the public interest in continuing outweighs further delay.
Technical Assistance: Meeting staff will monitor remote access during the meeting. If you experience remote access issues, please notify the meeting host as soon as possible.
Supplemental Materials (Government Code § 54957.5): Materials related to an item on this agenda that are distributed to the governing body after the agenda packet is posted are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office, 116 E. Foothill Blvd, Glendora, California, during normal business hours, and on the City’s website.
Recording: Members of the public may record any portion of this meeting using an audio or video recorder, or a still or motion picture camera, provided the device is operated in a non-disruptive manner.
Meeting Recording: Testimony given before the governing body is recorded. The timer light at the podium, on the iPad will turn yellow when the speaker has 30 seconds remaining, and red when the speaker’s time has expired.
Certification of Meeting Notice and Agenda Posting This notice and agenda were posted on the City’s website and at the locations identified in the Guide to Public Meetings at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date, in compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.
Date Posted: September 10, 2026 07:41 pm
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and Council Members DATE: September 15, 2026
FROM: Public Works DISTRICT(S): Citywide
SUBJECT: Workshop 3: Funding Options & Next Steps
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:
1. Receive and file the report on potential funding and revenue options for the City's major capital facility needs, including the Glendora Public Library and the City Corporate Yard;
2. Provide direction to staff regarding which funding and revenue strategies should receive further evaluation and analysis;
3. Provide direction to staff regarding a funding strategy for the Phase 1 Corporation Yard improvements identified in the 2026 IDS Phasing Report, consistent with City Council direction provided at Workshop No. 2 on July 21, 2026;
4. Provide direction, as necessary, on the potential formation, scope, structure, membership, and timing of a citizen advisory committee to further study the City's facilities, infrastructure needs, and/or related funding strategies; and
5. Provide any other direction to staff as deemed appropriate, including direction on next steps and an implementation timeline.
STRATEGIC FOCUS AREAS
Goal 3 – New + Revitalized Facilities
Goal 4 – Sustainable Infrastructure
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report concludes the three-workshop series unanimously authorized by the City Council on March 24, 2026, and framed in detail on April 28, 2026. Workshop No. 1 (June 16, 2026) established the foundation for the workshop discussion. It highlighted the City’s significant financial and operational improvements, five years of strategic planning, community engagement, and facility assessments. The meeting produced City Council consensus on the use of approximately $11.88 million in one-time funds for streets and existing City facilities.
Workshop No. 2 (July 21, 2026) addressed the City's two largest facility needs, the Glendora Public Library and the City Corporate Yard; the discussion confirmed that neither project can be addressed through annual maintenance budgets or available one-time capital funding. Further, the City Council provided unanimous consensus on staff’s work to continue pursuing state funding from Senator Perez, develop a cost estimate for a major Library rehabilitation project (e.g. structural improvements, modern library spaces, waterproofing, major system upgrades, and a patio/canopy over the Bidwell Plaza), and develop a funding plan for phase 1 of the Corporate Yard project.
Workshop No. 3 addresses the most significant question that remains: How will the City pay for the work that has now been well documented and thoroughly discussed?
Consistent with the framework adopted on April 28, 2026, and the direction provided at Workshop No. 2, this report is organized around two principal topics:
Funding and Revenue Options — one-time funding, grants, land sales, issuance of debt, public-private partnerships, philanthropic endeavors, ballot measures, and other funding options; and Citizen Ad-Hoc Committee — the potential formation, scope, structure, membership, and timing of a citizen advisory body.
Again, staff notes at the outset that no single existing funding source is likely to fully fund either the Library or the Corporate Yard. As stated in the Workshop No. 2 staff report, successful implementation will likely require a combination of funding strategies developed over multiple fiscal years. The purpose of this workshop is to allow the City Council to identify which of those strategies it wants staff to pursue, in what sequence, on what timeline, and what the potential impacts of those decisions are.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY / PREVIOUS ACTIONS
Over the last several years, the City Council and other boards/committees have held numerous discussions on the City’s infrastructure, including streets, water, parks, and facilities. Below is a summary of recent actions. While not comprehensive, the 20+ meetings identified below provide a general framework for the types of policy conversations and actions that have recently been taken.
Date Action
October 13,
2020
City Council adopted the 2020–2023 Three-Year Strategic Plan with six goals, including goal five to "Improve and Maintain the City's Infrastructure and Facilities." April 1, 2023
AKM Consulting Engineers finalized the Water Master Plan, identifying $350 million in capital improvement needs: $158M for vertical facilities, $183M for pipe replacement, and $9M for hydraulic improvements.
April 11, 2023
City Council adopted the 2023-2025 Strategic Plan with seven goals, including goal five to “Improve and Maintain the City’s Infrastructure and Facilities.” May 9, 2023
City Council considered project options and authorized the City Manager to submit a Round 2 application to the California State Library's Building Forward Library Facilities Improvement Program; cost estimates ranged from $5.1M–$7.65M for basic repairs to $35.8M–$71.6M+ for new construction.
January 9,
2024
City Council received a detailed presentation on the results of the Myers Houghton and Partners (MHP) structural analysis and programmatic visioning study of the Glendora Public Library.
August 27,
2024
True North Research presented results to City Council: 53% initial support for the $150M facilities bond (14 points below the two-thirds threshold); 45% for the $70M library bond; 86% rated quality of life excellent/good; 83% satisfied with City services. True North did not recommend pursuing a bond for November 2024.
November 12,
2024
City Council approved an agreement with IDS Group, Inc. for architectural, engineering, and consultant services for the Corporate Yard Improvement Project; preliminary cost estimate for full construction was approximately $12.6 million.
March 11,
2025
Staff presented the initial comprehensive report on City facilities capital needs and funding options, identifying more than $50 million in deferred maintenance and more than $250 million for a full facility revamp. The report discussed bond issuance scenarios, financing options, and revenue measures. Motion carried 5–0 directing staff to return with a refined assessment.
April 22, 2025
City Council adopted the 2025-2027 Strategic plan with five goals and 105 major indicators.
The plan included Goal 3, New + Revitalized Facilities, and Goal 4, Sustainable Infrastructure.
September 9,
2025
City Council received updated Civic Center conceptual renderings and rough order of magnitude (ROM) construction cost estimates of approximately $125 million prepared by the DLR Group, together with updated structural and seismic context. Motion carried unanimously.
December 9,
2025
City Council received the 2025 Pavement Management Program Final Report (Bucknam Infrastructure Group), reporting a citywide weighted PCI of 63.2 (“Fair”), down from 65.4 in 2020, across 163.4 miles and a $439 million network replacement value, with 46% of streets rated Poor to Very Poor.
December 11,
2025
The City received a Notice of Intent to Circulate a Petition for a parcel tax to fund the construction, repair, rehabilitation, and improvement of City facilities, with a targeted election date of November 2026.
January 13,
2026
City Council adopted the updated conceptual Civic Center renderings as the baseline for future community conversations. City Council reviewed four funding methodology options and adopted Option 3 — a “wait and see” approach relative to the citizen revenue measure, while continuing to encourage staff to seek other revenue opportunities such as grants and earmarks. City Council directed staff to return at the mid-year budget update with one-time funding options. Motion carried 5–0.
February 24,
2026
City Council received the FY 2025-26 mid-year budget review and a report on anticipated onetime discretionary funding opportunities. City Council voted 5–0 to receive and file; no direction was given on the use of one-time funds.
March 24,
2026
Staff presented a report on citizen ad-hoc committees, City Council subcommittees, and direction on the use of one-time funds. A motion to immediately fund the Corporate Yard in phases did not move forward. A subsequent motion to conduct a series of three City Council workshops passed unanimously 5–0.
April 28, 2026
City Council received the detailed workshop framework and a presentation on available onetime funding. City Council voted 5–0 to accept Option C (approximately $8–$12 million). The Library and Corporate Yard were excluded from the one-time funding discussion and reserved for a separate workshop.
June 16, 2026
Workshop No. 1 – Foundation & Funding. City Council reached consensus on 72 items totaling approximately $11.88 million in one-time funding: $8.73 million for streets and roads and $3.15 million for existing City facilities.
July 14, 2026
City Council appropriated the first $3,000,000 to begin implementation of the projects approved through Workshop No. 1 direction.
July 21, 2026
Workshop No. 2 – Library and Public Works Yard. City Council directed staff to continue working with Senator Pérez's Office on State funding; to prepare an updated comprehensive cost estimate for renovation and modernization of the existing Glendora Public Library by November 2026; and to return to the City Council at Workshop No. 3 with a funding strategy for the Phase 1 Corporation Yard improvements presented in the 2026 IDS Phasing Report.
August 25,
2026
City Council appropriated $9,000,000 to fully fund all projects approved through Workshop No.
1. September 22,
2026
Future Item: City Council will receive the first quarterly update on projects approved through Workshop No. 1.
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS TAKEN AT WORKSHOP NO. 1 (JUNE 16, 2026) Purpose and Scope
Workshop No. 1 was structured around two components identified in the April 28, 2026 framework:
(1) How We Got Here — An overview of the City’s significant financial and operational improvement, historical infrastructure challenges, strategic plans, community surveys, polling, and infrastructure and facility needs shared with the public over the preceding five years; and
(2) One-Time Funding — a finalized dollar amount, an adopted list of specific projects, and associated timelines.
Consistent with the direction provided on April 28, 2026, the Library and Corporate Yard were intentionally excluded from the Workshop No. 1 funding discussion as each represents a major standalone capital investment requiring separate policy direction and a dedicated funding strategy.
City Council Consensus
City Council reached consensus on 72 items totaling approximately $11.88 million:
Category Amount
Street and Roads $8,725,000
Existing City Facilities $3,153,669
TOTAL $11,878,669
Streets and Roads - $8.73 Million
Segments were selected using the 2025 Pavement Management Program (Bucknam Infrastructure Group), and were prioritized based on coordination with planned water main replacement work, major corridor status, low PCI scores, standalone project readiness, and community benefit:
Corridor Segments Area (SF) Treatment Est PCI Gain Cost Route 66 (Barranca – Grand;
Pasadena – Elwood;
Compromise Line – Cataract)
3 833,000 2″ Grind &
Overlay
+1.74 $4,600,000
Sunflower Avenue (Arrow –
Juanita; Juanita – Gladstone;
Gladstone - 210 Fwy)
3 270,000 2″ Grind &
Overlay
+0.57 $1,850,000
Juanita Avenue (Glendora–San
Dimas Wash; Wash–Bonnie
Cove; Bonnie Cove–Sunflower)
3 186,000 Grind & Overlay /
Slurry
+0.39 $975,000
Valley Center Avenue (Arrow
Hwy–Juanita Ave)
1 85,000 2.5″ Grind &
Overlay
+0.18 $800,000
Slurry Seal Program (Citywide) — — Type II Slurry
(expanded)
— $500,000
Total 11 items 1,374,000 — +2.87 $8,725,000
The selected work represents the largest single one-time pavement investment the City has ever funded and is estimated to produce a gross increase +2.87 points in the citywide PCI, measured against a static 2025 baseline of 63.2. Final calculation of the net citywide PCI change, accounting for planned projects less annual deterioration, remains underway.
Existing City Facilities — $3.15 Million
City Council reached consensus on 61 near-term repair and replacement items across 13 City sites and parks, all drawn directly from the Bureau Veritas Facility Condition Assessment (FCA) for the 2026–2030 period.
Site Items Key Work Funded Subtotal
La Fetra Center 6 Foundation repair, roof, HVAC, kitchen $1,056,401 Crowther Teen & Family
Center
3 Gym roof, parking lots, exterior paint $573,200
Finkbiner Park 11 Snack bar, roofs, HVAC, paint, fences $372,942 Library/Police Station 3 Generator, electric panel, HVAC $247,666 Big Dalton Canyon 12 Roofs, restrooms, retaining wall, paint $205,515 City Hall 1 HVAC replacements $194,789
Bus Plaza 3 Area lighting, drinking fountain, backflow $150,348 Dawson Park Tennis
Complex 1
Parking lots: grind, overlay, stripe $109,693
Louise Pompei Memorial
Sports Park
8 Snack bar fixtures & kitchen equipment $98,220
Recreation & Human
Services 3
Admin roof, HVAC, garage electrical $82,049
South Hills Park 7 Restroom upgrades & park amenities $39,747 Gladstone Park 2 Roof, drinking fountains, toilets $20,322 Old Chamber of Commerce 1 Toilet replacement $2,777
Total 61 13 City sites & Parks $3,153,669
Implementation Status Since Workshop No. 1
July 14, 2026: City Council appropriated the first $3,000,000, allocated from the proceeds of the sale of the San Jose site into a project account in Fund 301, to begin funding the streets and facilities work.
Streets: The City has engaged TransTech to lead street engineering and design. Bid packages and engineering are to be completed within 60–90 days, with the work tentatively out to bid in early fall and construction commencing in late 2026 to early 2027.
Facilities: Staff is packaging the facility projects, with scope confirmed across the 61 items at 13 City sites and parks, and bid and contract documents in preparation. A detailed implementation timeline will return to the City Council for verification.
La Fetra Center Foundation: The City condemned a portion of the building in 2005 following an assessment that found the older portion of the building lacked a functional foundation. Structural drawings were completed and subsequently approved by the City Council in March 2006. Following award of the contract in May 2006, construction repairs, including foundation work were completed and the City Council accepted the Notice of Completion in November 2006. The 2023 Bureau Veritas report identified cracking in the basement and in the walls, and ceiling of the floors above, near where the aforementioned work was completed. Based on the appearance of the cracking, the report recommended further evaluation to determine whether any additional structural work was necessary.
Repairs to the walls and ceilings have since been completed. A third-party review will be requested to ensure the remaining basement cracks are not indicative of any structural concern. . Assuming the review confirms the City’s expectation that no further corrective work is needed, the City Council could reallocate the remaining funds to other street or facility improvements, including the work at the Library or Corporate Yard.
August 25, 2026: City Council appropriated the remaining $9,000,000:
$3,100,000 from General Fund Contingency Reserves;
Reprioritized $900,000 set aside for the GUSD pool contribution; and Reprioritized $5,000,000 in previous capital projects in Fund 301 Reporting: Staff will report to the City Council on the progress of the one-time funding investment on a quarterly basis. The first quarterly report will be held on September 22, 2026.
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS TAKEN AT WORKSHOP NO. 2 (JULY 21, 2026) Purpose and Scope
Workshop No. 2 provided the City Council with an update on the condition, long-term needs, and potential funding strategies for the City's two most significant existing capital facility projects: the Glendora Public Library and the City Corporate Yard. Both facilities are essential to the City's ability to deliver reliable public services. The Library is one of Glendora's most heavily used public facilities and serves as the City's designated Emergency Operations Center (EOC), while the Corporate Yard is the operational hub for Public Works, supporting Fleet Services, Streets, Facilities Maintenance, materials storage, emergency response, and the future consolidation of Parks, Landscape Maintenance, and Urban Forestry divisions. Subject to planning and funding, a potential Traffic Management Center will also be included in the project.
Glendora Public Library
The Library was completed in 1972 as part of the Civic Center complex. For more than five decades, the City has worked to address recurring water intrusion with Bidwell Plaza, which forms the roof over portions of the Library below. Additionally, the City has worked to address structural issues associated with building design, and other intrusions in many areas of the building. Historical records show these concerns began shortly after the building opened and have been evaluated repeatedly through engineering studies, repairs, and rehabilitation efforts.
Despite those investments, many of the same underlying issues remain.
Workshop No. 2 presented the results of the 2026 MHP structural update, which incorporated additional historical records, evaluated the building under current building code requirements, and confirmed previous cost estimates.
The updated report concluded that the primary structural concerns have remained generally stable over the last 2-3 years, but recommend near-term structural repairs to prevent further deterioration than has already been experienced since the 2003 and 2004 structural repairs.
City Corporate Yard
The City Corporate Yard, located at 1250 South Vladimir Street, was originally built in 1965 and developed throughout the 1970s/1980s. The facility serves as the operational center for the Public Works Department. Aging infrastructure, limited operational space, outdated buildings, and changing regulatory requirements have significantly reduced the site's efficiency and functionality.
The conceptual project consists of four primary buildings, expanding the site from approximately 8,270 square feet to 18,310 square feet:
Building Proposed Use Existing SF Proposed SF
Building 1: Office Offices for Facilities,
Streets, Parks, Trees, and
Landscape; potential
traffic control center and
alternate EOC
1,203 +/- 7,500 +/-
Building 2: Garage / Fleet
Maintenance
Fleet office, maintenance
garage, repair space, car
wash station
4,346 +/- 5,510 +/-
Building 3: Sign & Tire
Storage
Paint/sign shop and tire
storage
1,200 +/- 1,800 +/-
Building 4: Facility Shops Workshop space for wood
and metal work
1,521 +/- 3,500 +/-
Total 8,270 +/- 18,310 +/-
As the Corporate Yard must remain operational throughout construction, the City directed IDS Group to develop a phased implementation strategy. The project is organized into four phases:
Phase 1A: Construction of site improvements northwest of the Big Dalton Wash, including grading, storm drain improvements, Low Impact Development facilities, paving, and material storage areas.
Phase 1B: Construction of the new Administration Building together with employee parking, primary circulation routes, and major utility infrastructure.
Transition Zone: Completion of shared utility improvements necessary to maintain uninterrupted operations while preparing for demolition of the remaining facilities.
Phase 2: Demolition of the existing buildings followed by construction of the Fleet Maintenance Building, Maintenance Shops, Sign and Tire Storage Building, vehicle wash facilities, parking areas, landscaping, emergency generator, and all remaining site improvements.
The phased approach is currently estimated to cost approximately $13.6 million, reflecting the additional expense associated with inflation and maintaining operations throughout construction.
Previous work, including design and construction drawings are complete, at a design cost of $725,581 under the Professional Services Agreement with IDS Group, Inc (May 12, 2026).
City Council Direction at Workshop No. 2
On July 21, 2026, the City Council provided the following direction for City staff:
1. State Funding: In line with past City Council direction from January 2026, continue to move forward with working with Senator Pérez's Office for State funding.
2. Library Cost Estimate: Direct staff to prepare an updated comprehensive cost estimate for renovation and modernization of the existing Glendora Public Library by November 2026 that incorporates the items listed below:
A. Structural repairs identified in the 2023 MHP Phase 1 Structural Report and the 2026 MHP Structural Update;
B. Bidwell Plaza waterproofing improvements recommended in the 2023 MHP Phase 1 report; C. Mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection, accessibility, roofing, flooring, window, and other building system upgrades identified in the 2022 Facility Condition Assessment and the 2023 MHP Phase 2 Visioning Report;
D. Interior renovations and facility improvements necessary to support modern library programming, flexible community spaces, technology enhancements, children's services, meeting rooms, and evolving community needs as noted in the 2023 MHP Phase 2 Visioning Report; E. Additional improvements necessary to support the Library's continued function as the City's Emergency Operations Center, as noted in the 2026 MHP Structural Update; and F. Evaluation and inclusion of the previously studied Bidwell Plaza shade/patio structure first evaluated in 2021 and 2022. The shade/patio structure should be similar in scope to the preliminary design shared during Workshop No. 2.
As authorized by the City Council at Workshop No. 2, staff has engaged MHP to prepare updated cost estimates for the Library Project based on the direction provided. Following the workshop, staff also obtained the preliminary concept drawings for the Bidwell Plaza patio/shade structure prepared by Robert A. Carter, Architect and presented during the meeting public comment period by resident Michael Matthews. The drawings depict the general concept and preliminary dimensions but do not include structural calculations; foundation and connection details; material specifications; construction details; evaluation of the structure’s interface with the existing plaza, waterproofing, and drainage systems; identification of associated electrical, lighting, or other site improvements; a code and accessibility analysis; or a comprehensive cost estimate for the structure and related work.
To support development of a more complete scope and reliable cost estimate, and to ensure that the analysis does not misrepresent the patio/shade structure proposal, staff will be arranging a coordination meeting among MHP, City staff, architects, and others involved in the earlier patio/shade structure evaluation. The meeting is intended to confirm that prior assumptions, available documentation, site constraints, and related improvements are identified and incorporated into MHP’s updated evaluation and cost estimate.
3. Corporate Yard Funding Strategy - Directed staff to return to the City Council at Workshop No. 3 with a funding strategy for the Phase 1 Corporate Yard improvements presented in the 2026 IDS Phasing Report.
DISCUSSION
The Funding Challenge in Context
Over the past decade, Glendora has restored its financial stability by addressing a $3.5–$4 million structural deficit through voter-approved sales tax measures, pension restructuring, organizational efficiency measures, reinvestment of efficiency savings into preventative street and facility maintenance, and stronger reserve and capital funding policies. The City’s efforts have also been bolstered by significant grant awards. In total, these reforms earned the City a AAA bond rating and enabled generational investments in infrastructure, public safety, and homelessness response. The City has made over $60 million in improvements over the past seven years, including water projects, new streets and sidewalks, major park renovations, and facility upgrades, while aggressively pursuing grant funding whenever opportunities have been available.
Despite that progress, the documented need remains substantial:
Need Source/Date Magnitude Progress
City facilities; deferred
maintenance March 11, 2025 $50 million+
In 2022, the City established a dedicated
Facilities Division to centralize facility
maintenance and implement projects identified in
the Facility Condition Assessment.
Approximately $4 million in facility improvements
has been completed since FY 2023–2024,
averaging more than $1 million annually.
Workshop No. 1 also directed approximately
$3.15 million toward 61 priority improvements at
13 City facilities and parks, with implementation
underway.
City facilities; full
modernization
March 11, 2025 $250 million+
Long-term modernization needs continue to be
evaluated through the capital facilities workshop
process; no citywide modernization program is
currently funded.
Pavement network;
replacement value
December 9,
2025 (2025
PMP)
$439 million+
The City is working toward increasing the
average citywide PCI from 63.2 to 70 over seven
years. Achieving this goal requires funding an
estimated annual funding gap of approximately
$3 million. The one-time priority pavement
projects identified through Workshop No. 1 are
estimated to produce a gross citywide PCI
increase of 2.87 points across the pavement
network.
Water system; 30 - year
repair/ replacement
need
September 12,
2023 (Water
Master Plan)
$350 million
Approximately $30 million is programmed during
the first five years, including major water-main
projects along Glendora Avenue, Colorado
Avenue, and Cypress Avenue.
Civic Center - ROM
construction estimate
September 9,
2025 (DLR
Group)
$125 million
Conceptual planning and a rough order of
magnitude (ROM) construction estimate were
completed by DLR Group; no design or
construction funding is currently committed.
Corporate Yard -
phased construction
July 21, 2026
(2026 IDS
Phasing Report)
$13.6 million
The 2026 IDS Phasing Report established a
phased improvement plan. Workshop No. 2
directed staff to return at Workshop No. 3 with a
funding strategy for Phase 1, which is included in
this report ($6.5 to $7 million).
Glendora Public Library
November 2026
(pending)
To be
determined.
($4.0 - $4.5
million for
essential
rehabilitation
works)
Following Workshop No. 2, MHP is preparing an
updated comprehensive cost estimate
addressing structural, waterproofing, buildingsystem, modernization, EOC, and Bidwell Plaza shade/patio improvements. Completion is
anticipated by November 2026 in accordance
with City Council direction.
Based on an initial cost estimate for construction
only (excluding design, environmental, etc.), a
$10.6 million funding request dated September
2, 2026, was submitted to Senator Perez’s office.
Two structural constraints frame every option discussed below. First, Proposition 13 limits the City's property tax capacity and imposes supermajority voter requirements for City-initiated property taxes and infrastructure bonds.
The Library and Corporate Yard, for example, could not be built today by the same financial practices utilized in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. For example, in the late 1960’s the City moved the Fire Department responsibilities to the County. The County raised property taxes on Glendora property to pay for fire services; the City did not lower its property tax revenue to offset the increases charged by the County. Instead, the excess revenue the City continued to receive was used to pay down the debt for the bonds issued to build the current Library. None of the actions undertaken by the City and County required a vote of the citizens of Glendora.
Second, the City has no dedicated funding source for either the Library or the Corporate Yard, and available annual resources must be balanced against many other capital priorities. Further, any operational funds redirected to facilities must be weighed against the loss of services provided to the community.
TOPIC 1: FUNDING AND REVENUE OPTIONS
Consistent with past City Council direction, this section addresses grants, land sales, issuance of debt, one-time funding, public-private partnerships, and ballot measures.
A. One-Time Funding
One-time funding remains the City's most immediately available resource and the only funding decision on which the City Council has already acted in this workshop series.
Available one-time discretionary funding as presented at the June 16, 2026 Workshop:
Funding Source FY 2025-27 FY 2027-29 FY 2029-31
Available Fund Balance /
Reserve
$7,020,000 $376,030 $470,000
Reallocation of CIP / Reprioritization of Projects $5,900,000 — — Property Sales $5,120,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000
Pension Set Aside $14,500,000 $215,000 $210,000
OPEB Set Aside $4,360,000 $78,000 $90,000
Totals $36,900,000 $4,669,030 $4,770,000
These amounts are categorical totals existing across several funds, including the General Fund, Measures E/Z, GUSD JUA, and Pension Reserve; they are additive.
Based on the allocation of $12 million in projects in Workshop No. 1 and actions taken by City Council authorizing supplemental appropriations in the amounts $3 million and $9 million on July 14, 2026 and August 25, 2026, the following amounts are now available in one-time funding:
Funding Source FY 2025-27 FY 2027-29 FY 2029-31 Notes
Available Fund Balance /
Reserve
$3,910,000 $376,030 $470,000
$3.11 million of General Fund
Reserve was allocated to Workshop
1 projects. Reserve from 40% to
35% of operating expenditures.
Reallocation of CIP / Reprioritization of Projects
$0 $0 $0
$5.9 million of CIP Reserves were
allocated to Workshop 1 projects.
Property Sales $2,130,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000
$2.99 million from the Sale of San
Jose/Woodland was allocated to
Workshop 1 projects.
Pension Set Aside $14,500,000 $215,00 $210,000
OPEB Set Aside $4,360,000 $78,000 $90,000
Totals $24,900,000 $4,669,030 $4,770,000
Amounts allocated from Workshop
1 total $12 million
Fiscal Guardrails
Any additional one-time funding the City Council may wish to consider for the Library or Corporate Yard would draw from deeper within the City's reserve structure, most notably the pension set-aside. This represents a fundamentally different fiscal posture than Workshop 1, and staff recommends the City Council review a recommend guardrail framework before considering additional allocations:
One-time funds may only be applied to distinct, one-time capital scopes; Any reserve draw must be paired with an identified replenishment source at the time of appropriation; The timing risk of that replenishment source must be explicitly evaluated; and A minimum pension reserve floor should be established that is not available for capital purposes under any circumstances.
The strategic use of pension set-aside funds can be beneficial when structured as a bridge between documented capital needs and known future revenues. Under this approach, the City Council could deploy $4 to $6 million from pension reserves toward the Library or Corporate Yard and backfill those dollars with future development proceeds. For example, approximately $2 million associated with the Dale development and approximately $4 million associated with the Barranca development are anticipated over the next two fiscal years. The Library and Corporate Yard needs are documented, designed (Corporate Yard), and subject to ongoing construction cost escalation. At the same time, the development proceeds are anticipated but arrive on the market's timeline rather than the City's.
Bridging the facility needs with reserves allows the City to capture current construction pricing on bid-ready work and restore the reserves as development proceeds are received, effectively converting idle reserve dollars into avoided escalation costs without new taxes or debt issuance. As the timing of development revenue is not within the City's control, staff can develop a probability-weighted timing range for each backfill source, size any reserve draw to the expected case rather than the best case, and return to the City Council with a restoration plan should a backfill source slip materially beyond its expected close.
The City Council should also weigh the trade-off inherent in this strategy: reduced financial flexibility during an economic downturn. The pension set-aside functions as the City's recession shock absorber and ability to pay off portions of it’s pension obligation bonds early (2029/2030), which would add cashflow savings of approximately $1 to $1.5 million for a five-to-seven-year period beginning in 2030. In a mild recession, the City could strategically draw pension reserve funds to absorb elevated CalPERS contributions or a temporary revenue decline without reducing service levels, buying the City Council time and preserving service delivery levels. Deploying $4 to $6 million of that reserve for facilities thins this buffer until development proceeds are received.
Overall, the City's multi-year forecasts remain positive and CalPERS has experienced three straight years of higher than anticipated returns. As such, the consequence of using pension reserve funds is not fiscal distress but rather timing: in a downturn occurring during the bridge period, policy-level service questions would come before the City Council sooner than they otherwise would. For example, in a recession, the current pension reserve levels would allow the City Council to defer community service level reductions for 18–24 months. With reduced pension reserves, a recession would require the City Council to make service level reductions within the first budget cycle of a downturn. The cost of this strategy is therefore measured less in dollars than in service levels; the recommended guardrails are designed to keep that reduction in flexibility bounded and temporary.
Among the legislative efforts, City staff is currently monitoring Assembly Bill 1383, Public Employees’ Retirement Benefits (AB 1383). AB 1383, if signed into law, will increase the City’s operating costs for employee pensions for active employees (both the employee and employers share) and groow the City’s unfunded liability.
AB 1383 raises the PEPRA pension compensation cap (Miscellaneous and Safety) and lets Safety employees reach their top benefit factor two years earlier (age 57 to 55). Changes apply only to service earned on or after January 1, 2027; benefits already earned are unchanged. CalPERS has not prepared the specific impacts for each agency. AB 1383 is awaiting the Governor’s signature as of August 30, 2026. The Governor has until September 30, 2026, to sign or veto the bill. If the Governor does not take any action by September 30, 2026, AB 1383 automatically becomes law.
Policy Question for the City Council
The question before the City Council is not simply whether to spend reserves, but whether to trade a defined, temporary reduction in recession flexibility for the permanent avoidance of construction cost escalation on two welldocumented facility needs (or other needs), supported by a named repayment source. If the City Council finds the Dale and Barranca development proceeds credible and the pension reserve floor is maintained, the strategic use of $4 to $6 million in pension set-aside funds represents a defensible and disciplined approach. If the City Council is not comfortable with the timing risk associated with future development proceeds, the fiscally disciplined alternative is to defer additional allocations until those proceeds are received, accepting construction escalation as the cost of preserved flexibility.
Based on conversations with the City’s financial consultants, the City would likely be able to allocate another $4 to $6 million in one-time funding with identified repayment without impacting the City’s AAA bond rating.
B. Grants and State/Federal Community Project Appropriations The City has pursued grant funding aggressively and continues to do so ($62 million since 2020 across all types of capital improvements). Grant funding is attractive because it generally requires no repayment; it is limited because it is competitive, generally restricted in eligible use, frequently requires local match, and funding amounts may not cover all project costs.
Relevant history:
2023 — City Council authorized an $8,000,000 application to the State's Building Forward Library Facilities Improvement Program for waterproofing, electrical, HVAC, plumbing, and structural repairs at the Library. The application was not selected for funding; efforts were unsuccessful because the grant criteria favored communities with higher poverty rates.
1998 — The City sought funding through Proposition 14, the California Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act. Although the proposal would have funded structural repairs, renovation, and expansion of the Library, the program was ultimately oversubscribed and expired, and no comparable statewide funding program exists today. Historical City Council minutes also mention the City pursued similar funding in the late 1960’s for the development of the current Library and was unsuccessful. 1990 – Approved by the voters of California in 1988, the Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act authorized the State to issue a $75 million bond for libraries. The City sought funding through this program in 1990 to facilitate improvements (deck replacement, seismic work, expansion, remodeling, and architectural services) totaling $4.38 million. The City’s application was not selected for funding. 1969 – The City submitted an application for funding under the Library and Construction Act program to facilitate construction of a new library. The City’s application was not selected for funding. 2023 - Measure W — The Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project ($23,755,692) demonstrates the City's ability to secure large restricted-revenue funding where an eligible program exists.
Categories to pursue:
A. State budget appropriations and earmarks. Consistent with City Council direction from January 2026 and July 2026, staff continues to work with Senator Pérez's Office on a State budget appropriation for the Library.
This remains the most promising near-term outside funding avenue for the Library.
B. State competitive grant programs. Staff will continue to monitor for the reauthorization of a statewide library construction bond program or successor to the Building Forward Library Grant Program. Under this Program, the State Library provided $489 million in funding for 279 local libraries over two funding rounds. Glendora’s application is one of 104 applications ($276 million), that were not approved for funding.
C. Federal programs. Congressional Community Project Funding requests and federal infrastructure and resiliency programs, particularly those tied to the Library's Emergency Operations Center function and the Corporate Yard's emergency response role. The City has submitted applications for various City projects through this funding opportunity in years past, including for the Library, parks facilities, radios for the Police Department, as well as first/last mile project, among others. While most applications have not been selected for funding, including for the Library, the City has received funding for some; most recently, the City received $1.25 million for improvements to the sports fields at Sandburg Middle School.
D. Emergency management and resiliency funding. Because the Library serves as the City's designated EOC and the Corporate Yard supports emergency response, seismic and hazard mitigation programs may present eligibility that general facility programs do not.
E. Stormwater / Low Impact Development funding. Phase 1A of the Corporate Yard includes grading, storm drain improvements, and LID facilities that may qualify for Measure W or other regional stormwater funding.
C. Future Development and Land Sales
Future Development
Current Development Activity – Public Benefit Policy
Future development has been projected as the single largest category of future one-time discretionary funding available to the City ($4 million in FY 2027-2029) and ($4 million in FY 2029-2031). These funds would be generated through public benefit dollars the City has previously negotiated or is currently negotiating. Generally, in return for a rezoning of a property, the City would collect public benefit funding, which would allow the City Council to allocate funding for one-time items, such as streets/roads, city facilities, parks, etc. that benefit the quality of life for Glendorans.
Azusa Unified School District (AUSD) Site is located at the southeast corner of Barranca Avenue and Galatea Street, and is approximately 9 acres. Site address is 1133 S. Barranca Avenue, and previously housed the Azusa Adult Education Center and San Gabriel Valley Regional Occupation Program. A development application has been received from Melia Homes for 163 market rate for sale units, consisting of 136 attached townhomes and 27 single-family detached homes.
Glendora Unified School District (GUSD) Site is located at 350 W. Mauna Loa Avenue (Whitcomb Continuation High School), and is approximately 9 acres. Details about the number of units, or product type, are not available as staff is awaiting a development application from Lewis Group of Companies (Lewis).
Based on preliminary conversations with GUSD and Lewis, staff anticipates the possibility of between 140 to 150 for sale units.
Future Development Activity
Glendora is a “built-out” community with new development primarily consisting of small-scale infill residential and commercial development. The City’s major corridors (Arrowy Highway and Route 66) have experienced the majority of recent development activity. New development typically involves the reuse of older commercial sites for townhome residential development. This development pattern is consistent with general plan and zoning changes that the City has made over the past 25 years to attract investment.
Current residential development activity includes 188 dwelling units under construction; 151 dwelling units entitled and in construction plan review; and 411 units in entitlement review. New commercial development is comparatively less active with current construction primarily consisting of the rehabilitation of existing buildings.
A comprehensive update to the general plan is in the beginning stages. The update is a generational opportunity to do long-range development planning and envision growth over a 25 to 30 year period. The City’s general plan was last comprehensively updated between 2005 and 2007. The City Council has previously provided staff with direction to investigate zoning changes along the City’s major corridors that could produce additional community benefit funding.
Development Related Revenue
Development creates revenue generation for the City’s General Fund and Measure E/Z Fund. It is important to note that the City receives the lowest allocations of sales tax amounts paid on purchases and near the lowest allocation of amounts paid for property tax.
Sales Tax: If future development includes a retail portion, the City will receive a portion of those sales tax proceeds. The existing 10.75% rate in Glendora is allocated as such:
State: 6%
County of Los Angles: 2.75%
City of Glendora: 2% (includes Bradley-Burns 1% and combined 1% for Measure E and Z) Effective October 1
st
, the County Measure ER, which the City of Glendora took an opposition position, will raise the sales tax rate in Glendora to 11.25% through October 1, 2031. When this occurs, the County will receive another 0.5%, raising their total to 3.25% For perspective, for each $1,000 in taxable sales, the City of Glendora receives approximately $20. These revenues pay for key services such as public safety, parks/recreations, library services, and trees/landscaping.
Property Tax: In California, the base 1% property tax base rate, as required by Prop 13, is allocated to various taxing agencies. In Glendora, the amounts are generally allocated as follows:
County of Los Angeles, including Sanitation, Fire, Flood Control, and other County Agencies: 45% State of California, including various education programs: 24% Glendora Unified School District, Charter Oak Unified School District, or Azusa Unified School District:
18%
City of Glendora: 10%
Citrus College: 2%
Three Valley’s Municipal Water District: 1%
For perspective, for every $100 million in assessed valuation of new development, the City of Glendora will receive approximately $100,000 annually. These revenues pay for key services such as public safety, parks/recreations, library services, and trees/landscaping.
Development Fees
User Fees – As part of the City’s Master Schedule of Fees for Services, Glendora has adopted fees for construction permits and inspections. These permit fees are designed to cover the cost of reviewing plans for compliance with development and construction standards. Additionally, the fees cover the cost of inspections during construction.
Impact Fees – The City has adopted two development impact fees: a “Park Development Fee,” and a “Community Art Program (CAP)” fee.
Park Development Fee
Project Type Fee
Residential $2,273 / unit
Additional beyond 3 bedrooms $200 / bedroom
Second dwelling, apartment, condominium unit $1,591 / unit Commercial Construction $0.62 / square foot
Community Art Program
Project Type Fee
Commercial (BPV $375,000+) 1% of Building Permit Value (BPV) Tenant Improvements (BPV $375,000+ 0.5% of Building Permit Value (BPV) Residential 11+ units 0.025 of Building Permit Value (BPV) Property Sales
The sale of City property is not a new idea for generating one-time revenue for major City needs. In November 2019, the City Council received the Final Report of the Ad-Hoc Citizens Advisory Committee on Revenue Options and Expenditures of the City’s General Fund; the Preliminary Report issued in September 2018 recommend the pursuit of Measure E. The 20-member committee discussed several properties the City Council should consider further study on, including, Glen Oaks Golf Course, San Jose, South Hills Wilderness Park, and the Carlyle E.
Linder Equestrian Park. Since the report was issued, the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), has amended its rules regarding the disposition of property. Additionally, the use of park land for future development is a difficult and potentially net loss endeavor, given the requirements to replace that parkland.
Surplus Land Act
Surplus Land Sale Process
Before selling most City-owned property, the City must formally declare it surplus or exempt surplus land at a public meeting. If declared surplus, the City must then provide a Notice of Availability to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), specified public agencies, and qualified affordable-housing developers.
Interested entities generally have 60 days to respond. If a qualified entity expresses interest, the City must negotiate in good faith for at least 90 days. The proposed transaction must also be submitted to HCD for review before the property is sold or leased.
The Surplus Land Act does not require the City to sell property or accept less than fair market value. However, the process can extend the transaction schedule and increase legal, administrative, appraisal, and carrying costs.
Affordable-Housing Covenant
Current Surplus Land Act requirements generally require a covenant to be recorded against surplus property, including city property initially sold for commercial development. If the property is later developed or converted to include 10 or more housing units, at least 15 percent of those units must generally be affordable to lower-income households.
Although the covenant may not affect the immediate commercial use, it can reduce the property’s future redevelopment potential and the amount a purchaser is willing to pay. The restriction may narrow the buyer and lender pool, reduce the value of future residential development, and create additional underwriting and compliance obligations.
Accordingly, the City may receive fair market value for the property as restricted, but that value may be less than the value of comparable unrestricted property. Based on the City’s experience, the affordable housing covenant significantly reduces the value of the property.
Comparison With School Districts
School districts are not entirely exempt from the Surplus Land Act, but they have broader statutory authority than cities to retain or use property for commercial, investment, or revenue-generating purposes when those uses support district operations. School districts also benefit from certain education-specific exemptions, including not having to include an affordable-housing covenant, which materially increases the value of the property.
As a result, school-district property transactions are not directly comparable to municipal property sales. Cities generally have less flexibility to classify commercial or revenue-generating property as necessary for agency use.
Parkland and Open Space
Parkland and open space should be evaluated separately because the terms describe different types of property and may be subject to different disposal requirements.
Parkland generally consists of land formally dedicated, acquired, developed, or actively used for public recreation, such as neighborhood parks, sports fields, playgrounds, and community recreation facilities. Discontinuing a dedicated municipal park may require public hearings, a supermajority vote of the City Council, and voter approval.
When parkland is converted to another public use, state law may also require replacement property with substantially equal acreage, comparable recreational characteristics and facilities, and a location serving generally the same users.
Open space is a broader category that may include hillsides, natural areas, habitat, drainage areas, trails, scenic land, watersheds, and substantially unimproved property retained for conservation, resource protection, public enjoyment, or recreation. California law defines open-space purposes to include public recreation, enjoyment of scenic beauty, and conservation or use of natural resources.
Open space is not automatically subject to the municipal park-discontinuance process merely because it is undeveloped or identified as open space. The restrictions depend on how the property was acquired, designated, funded, and encumbered. Open-space property may be difficult to sell or develop when it is subject to:
A recorded conservation or open-space easement.
A deed restriction, reversionary clause, or dedication.
State, federal, or regional grant requirements.
Habitat mitigation or endangered-species obligations.
General Plan, zoning, voter-approved, or local initiative protections.
Conditions requiring the property to remain in a natural, scenic, recreational, or conservation use.
A conservation easement is generally perpetual, runs with the land, and limits successive owners to uses consistent with retaining the property in its natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, forested, or open-space condition.
Therefore, parkland is generally presumed to be an active public recreational asset and may be subject to formal discontinuance, voter-approval, and replacement requirements. Open space may not require park replacement solely because it is open space, but recorded restrictions, conservation obligations, grants, habitat requirements, or voter-approved protections may impose equal or greater limitations.
Neither parkland nor protected open space should generally be considered a practical source of near-term revenue without a parcel-specific review of title, acquisition history, dedications, grants, easements, General Plan designations, environmental restrictions, and applicable voter-approval requirements.
Parking Lots and Other Property
An underused parking lot may be sold, leased, or retained for revenue generation. An outright sale provides immediate one-time proceeds and eliminates future maintenance costs, but the City permanently loses control of the property, future land appreciation, parking capacity, and potential civic or redevelopment uses.
A long-term ground lease may provide upfront and recurring revenue while preserving City ownership. However, leases longer than 15 years generally remain subject to the Surplus Land Act.
Converting free parking to paid parking ordinarily does not involve a sale or disposition of land and therefore generally does not trigger the Surplus Land Act. Paid parking can generate recurring revenue while retaining ownership and future development flexibility. Net revenue must account for equipment, enforcement, transaction fees, maintenance, security, signage, administration, and possible effects on nearby businesses and neighborhoods.
Other monetization opportunities may include short-term leases, shared parking, event parking, solar canopies, electric-vehicle charging, telecommunications facilities, concessions, advertising, and temporary commercial uses.
Past Transactions
Route 66 and Amelia Ave - Former Frozen Ropes Building: The Glendora Redevelopment Agency purchased the Route 66 and Amelia Ave site in 2009 for $2.3 million. In 2020, the Successor to the Glendora Redevelopment Agency sold the property to Emanate Health for $2.4 million. Escrow closed in August 2020, with net proceeds totaling $2,391,109.74. Sale proceeds were distributed pursuant to the redevelopment dissolution law. The City of Glendora received approximately 10% or $239,000. Emanate Health is currently constructing site and tenant improvements to operate administrative offices.
Parker Drive and Route 66 – Former Redevelopment Property: The Glendora Redevelopment Agency purchased the Parker site in 2008 for $1.2 million. In 2019, the Successor to the Glendora Redevelopment Agency entered escrow to sell the property for $900,000. Escrow closed in 2021, with net proceeds totaling $868,313.00. Sale proceeds were distributed pursuant to the redevelopment dissolution law. The City of Glendora received approximately 10% or $86,831. A mixed-use development is currently under construction.
San Jose/Woodland site: The City sold the San Jose/Woodland site to the Olson Company for $3.9 million on December 17, 2025. The City Council previously allocated $1 million of the sale proceeds to achieve initiatives in accordance with the City’s Economic Development Action Plan. The remaining balance of $2.9 million was appropriated on July 14, 2026 into a project account in the Capital Projects Fund 301 to begin funding the Workshop No. 1 streets and facilities work.
Current Transactions
1762 Dale Road / Mercy Housing — The City Council's use of an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement and a City Council subcommittee on this affordable housing project provides a recent template for structured negotiation of a City property transaction. Staff anticipates possible funding received through the sale and development of land owned by other local agencies over the next five years, with an estimated $2.1 million to be received at the close of construction in 2029. Under the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with Mercy Housing, a land entitlement application was received and is in process. In the meantime, the City is starting the process to declare the property “exempt” from the Surplus Land Act (SLA). Once the land entitlement application is approved, the City and Mercy will execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA). The PSA will incorporate final terms of the sale, including close of escrow and payment of the purchase price.
Current Study Areas – South Hills
One of the most widely inquired about development opportunities is the South Hills Wilderness Park. Perhaps no other City owned property has been subject to more conjecture on value, historical development plans, and panacea for financial challenges than South Hills. Conversations about South Hills development potential centers around the City owning approximately 275 acres of property, and the fact that a future development would benefit from an already constructed freeway offramp at Sunflower Ave.
The 2025 Community Opinion Survey conducted by True North Research, Inc. included a dedicated question on South Hills development. When presented with a hypothetical scenario proposing that the City sell approximately 50 acres of the South Hills property adjacent to the 210 Freeway for commercial and residential development with a developer-funded requirement to improve trails and recreational amenities throughout the broader South Hills area, approximately 57% of respondents expressed support for the proposal, 32% opposed the proposal, and 11% were undecided, providing the City Council with a community-informed basis for proceeding with the feasibility analysis.
On June 9, 2026, the Glendora City Council unanimously approved a Professional Services Agreement with T&B Planning, Inc. for a South Hills Development Feasibility Analysis at a contract value of $130,000. The study covers approximately 275–276 acres of City-owned property located north of the 210 Freeway and east of Glendora Avenue, generally south of Big Dalton Wash, and west/southwest of existing residential subdivisions off Hunters Trail, Los Cerritos Road, and Elwood Avenue. The firm has teamed with QTative Development Solutions, a land development advisory firm specializing in land value assessment, grading feasibility, and site analysis, to bring focused technical expertise to the hillside property's complex topography and access challenges. The contract falls in line with the City’s 2025-2027 Strategic Plan to further evaluate possible development in the South Hills based on the results of a scientifically valid community survey questions.
The scope of work was structured as a five-phase analysis:
Phase 1 involves a Physical and Regulatory Assessment, including an existing conditions report, review of applicable Glendora Municipal Code hillside development standards, General Plan policies, Surplus Land Act considerations, due-diligence environmental review, and procurement and review of title reports and legal descriptions to map easements and other encumbrances.
Phase 2 covers a Development Potential Analysis evaluating three realistic maximum-yield scenarios:
commercial-only, mixed commercial and residential, and residential-only development, paired with a civil and physical feasibility review addressing grading, drainage, utilities, and circulation.
Phase 3 will estimate land development costs and generalized land value implications across four stages of development readiness.
Phase 4 will produce illustrative site plans to visually communicate how each alternative scenario would appear relative to the site's topography, trails, and access points.
Phase 5 will conduct a fiscal analysis through market outreach and pro forma-based valuation modeling to assess demand, pricing, absorption, and which development scenarios offer the strongest economic potential. As of the writing of this report, the consultant team continues to proceed on all five phases of the development feasibility analysis. Notably, preliminary title research and a thorough review of existing conditions found that the principal impediments to development are the site's physical characteristics and the regulatory, environmental, infrastructure, and property issues associated with developing this mountainous area. Preliminary research finds that approximately 57 percent of the study area, or 156.1 acres, has slopes of 35 percent or greater, making grading and construction particularly challenging. In addition, prohibition of development within 35 percent slope areas has been a development standard since at least the early 2000s which is aimed at preserving steep slope areas from development. Similar general plan policies exist which also prohibit development on ridgelines. Any proposal to allow development within these steep slope areas or along ridgelines would require amending these standards and policies. The property also contains biological and drainage resources, wildfire considerations and utility and transmission easements. A preliminary title research, some of which included documents as far back as the 1890s, also found unresolved title and ownership matters which staff and the consultant continue to research.
It should be noted that any development, if deemed feasible, would likely take years, if not decades, to come to fruition. Accordingly, any potential development revenue should be viewed as a long-term opportunity rather than an immediate source of City proceeds, with the timing of revenue dependent upon the City’s ability to establish a legally and physically developable site, obtain required approvals, complete infrastructure and site improvements, and successfully phase and market any resulting development.
To address these issues discovered during preliminary research, the City could commission an updated ALTA survey and complete title review; resolve ownership and easement questions; determine whether federal or grant restrictions apply; evaluate the requirements of the Surplus Land Act; and conduct geotechnical, grading, drainage, infrastructure, biological, environmental, and fire-access studies. The City could also evaluate necessary General Plan and zoning amendments and potential hillside ordinance relief, if the Council desires. Once these issues are resolved, any development program, costs, financing, timing, and developer return can be better understood to determine the actual residual land value—in other words, the amount that could reasonably be paid for the land after all of the costs and risks necessary to make the project successful have been taken into account.
Past Study Area – Carlyle Linder Equestrian Park
As previously mentioned, the Ad-Hoc Citizens Advisory Committee discussed several properties the City Council should consider further study on, including the Carlyle E. Linder Equestrian Park.
Located at 1000 N Glendora Mountain Rd, the Carlyle Linder Equestrian Park has been utilized for equestrian purposes for more than 60 years; over that time the underlying zoning has been open space and parkland . The property is located in a FEMA Flood Zone, adjacent to spreading grounds and a flood catch basin, both of which are owned by LA County. In fact, portion of the park to the South is on land owned by LA County. Additionally, LA County has several easements running to the west and south of the park which are necessary for access to their water facilities.
The site’s designation as a park could potentially present a hurdle to its disposition. City records note the site being identified as City property in 1965, although no acquisition instrument has been identified yet. At the request of Corral #35 (a local equestrian group) the City Council voted to designate the site as a City park in 1972. This could result in land replacement requirements outlined in the Government Code for the conversion of park land.
These conditions could reduce the usable or developable area because LA County easements and access rights would need to be preserved.
Require substantial coordination and approvals from LA County for grading, drainage, access, or development near flood-control facilities.
Increase flood-related development costs through drainage studies, floodplain mitigation, engineering, and potentially higher construction and insurance requirements.
Create title, boundary, and access complexities that would need to be resolved before a purchaser could confidently determine development potential.
Reduce the property's market value, as a buyer would likely account for these restrictions, additional studies, approval uncertainty, infrastructure costs, and development risk when determining what it is willing to pay.
Property value reduction from the State of California HCD surplus land process which requires a 15% affordability covenant before the City can sell the property.
Accordingly, affordability covenants, the property's proximity to major flood-control infrastructure, FEMA designation, possible park replacement requirement and existing County easements, create significant uncertainty regarding both development feasibility and ultimate land value.
Options Within This Category:
A. Outright Sale of Surplus Property: Sales of City-owned real property are subject to the Surplus Land Act and related State requirements, which constrain both how the property can be disposed and developed. SLA prioritizes that properties be used for affordable housing development and open space purposes. Sale proceeds can be dedicated to a capital project account. Properties less than half an acre and not contiguous to property owned by the City used for open-space or affordable housing may be exempt.
B. Ground Lease: The City can choose to retain properties and generate ongoing revenue through ground leases. However, 2023 amendments to the Surplus Land Act requires that long-term ground leases longer than 15 years are now subject to the Surplus Land Act process. Meanwhile, short-term ground leases of less than 15 years will be reviewed by HCD. Cities that have successfully used ground leases for revenue have been acquiring properties over a 20 year period with the intent of maximizing property value.
C. Joint Development or Public-Private Partnership: A private or agency partner contributes capital in exchange for development rights, an approach with local precedent in the Mercy Housing transaction. The City of Santa Cruz, population 62,000, has a current Library project under development through a public-private partnership agreement. In general, the City contributed a parking lot and dedicated library parcel tax funds ($20 million) to a housing developer who is constructing a housing project (124 units), new modern library with an observation deck (41,000 sq ft), new parking parage (240 spaces), and childcare center. The project is currently under construction.
D. Lease of Surplus Capacity: Currently, City facilities are generally at full capacity with staff. A possible example could be a coffee shop in a dedicated space of a modernized library. Often times, retail space within a City facility provides subsidized rent to support business growth and success.
Attachment C to this staff report provides a summary of City owned property that is currently being studied, or could be studied in the future.
D. Issuance of Debt
Debt financing is a mechanism capable of delivering the full cost of a major facility project in a single construction period. It is also the mechanism that has the ability to most directly constrain the City's future operating budget, because debt service is a fixed obligation paid from ongoing revenues. The City Council adopted the City’s Debt Issuance and Management Policy on September 11, 2018 (Administrative Policy 3.16). This policy provides written guidelines for issuing debt and guidance to policy makers regarding the timing and purposes for which debt may be issued, types and amounts of permissible debt, and method of sale that may be used. Adherence to a debt policy helps ensure the debt is prudently issued and managed in order to maintain a sound financial position and optimal credit ratings (Attachment D).
Most Common Instruments available:
Instrument Voter Approval Repayment Source Notes
Lease Revenue Bonds None required General Fund / Measures E/Z
Discussed January 13,
2026 for the Civic Center;
no new tax required, but
obligates existing
operating revenue that
would require service
reductions equal to the
amount of funding
needed.
Certificates of
Participation (COPs)
None required General Fund lease
payments
Functionally similar to
lease revenue bonds;
commonly used for city
facilities, such as police
headquarters, city hall,
library, and public works
facilities. While no new
tax is required, it is
possible that Lease
Revenue Bonds and
COPs are issued with the
backing of a new revenue
source.
General Obligation (GO)
Bonds
Two-thirds Dedicated ad valorem
property tax override
Does not draw on the
General Fund, but
requires a supermajority
under Proposition 13
(66%+1)
Interfund / internal
borrowing
None required General Fund / Measure
E/Z / other funding
identified and eligible to
pay for a portion of the
projects
Precedent exists: the City
Council authorized a
General Fund or Measure
E/Z loan of approximately
$601,000 at 0% interest
over 30 years to the
proposed antique
streetlight district in March
2023. Two main
constraints, needed
funding to repay the loan,
and a fund with enough
fund balance to finance a
project without impacting
operations.
Private Placement None required General Fund / Measure
E/Z / other funding
identified and eligible to
pay for a portion of the
projects
Private placement debt is
a direct, unrated loan from
a single bank or private
investor instead of a public
bond sale, offering cities
lower upfront issuance
costs and faster
execution. Precedent
exists City issued 2009
Pension Obligation Bonds
through Bank of America
to pay-off the Safety Side
Fund created by CalPERS
restructuring.
Current Market Conditions and Context From Prior City Council Reports:
On January 13, 2026, staff reported that preliminary debt service on a $125 million Civic Center project would be approximately $9–$10 million annually. For context, $9 million annually is approximately 16% of total expenditures for the General Fund and Measures E/Z combined. In service-level terms, $9 million is approximately the total cost of total combined operations for the Administrative Services (Finance/HR/Risk), City Manager’s Office, City Clerk’s Office, Library, and Recreation/Human Services Departments. Alternatively, the Police, Public Works, and Community Development departments comprise approximately 70% of all General Fund and Measure E/Z expenditures.
The City Council was advised that if the City were to issue debt without a revenue measure, the City Council would need to consider possible service level impacts. Depending on the amount of funding needed to service the debt, the service level impacts may be significant.
Two debt financing structures were evaluated to create the table below. (1) Tax-exempt lease revenue bonds: a public offering secured by a General Fund lease, rated one notch below the City's 'AAA' issuer rating (implied 'AA+'), requiring only a Council majority (no election) and not subject to constitutional debt limits under the lease exception. The lower rating is due to the absence of pledged revenue for repayment. (2) A private placement: a privately placed, taxable-style loan that funds quickly, is prepayable, and avoids rating, trustee, and underwriting fees, but carries a higher interest rate.
Par Amount Estimated Annual Debt Service Share of Combined General Fund and Measures E/Z Expenditures
$25 million $1.8 – $2.0 million Approximately 3% to 4%
$50 million $3.5 – $4.0 million Approximately 7% to 8%
$75 million $5.0 – $6.0 million Approximately 9% to 11% $125 million $9.0 – $10.0 million Approximately 16% to 19% The tax-exempt lease revenue bond provide a lower true interest cost of roughly 4.5%-4.6% over 30 years than the private placement fully-amortizing loan of roughly 6.46% at 30 years. Additionally, the tax-exempt lease revenue bond incurs up-front costs the private placement loan avoids - underwriter's discount plus bond/disclosure counsel, municipal advisor, rating agency, trustee, and statutory fees - estimated at roughly $0.4M-$0.7M, or about 1.5% of par at $25M declining to under 1.0% at $75M as fixed costs spread over a larger issue. Even after these costs, the tax-exempt rate advantage leaves the bond the lower all-in cost of capital over a 30-year term.
As of early September 2026, benchmark rates remain elevated versus the past decade but have eased from their peak. Tax-exempt municipal yields continue to price below comparable Treasuries, which is why the City's indicative 30-year tax-exempt cost (~4.5%) sits below the 30- year Treasury (~5.25%) and well below taxable direct-lending rates. All figures are preliminary, indicative, and for discussion purposes only, final pricing is set at issuance and may differ.
Policy Impacts
Without project modifications, it is likely that debt financing is the only mechanism available to the City that can provide the full cost of a major facility project within a single construction period. Debt may also be used to fund a portion of a project as part of a broader funding strategy.
As previously reported, without a voter approved funding source, debt service would be paid from the City’s existing operating revenues and would reduce the resources available for ongoing services. Debt service is a fixed and recurring obligation. Each dollar committed to repayment is unavailable for service delivery for the term of the financing.
Accordingly, the question before the City Council is not simply whether to issue debt, but whether the City Council is prepared to make the related policy decisions regarding service delivery that would be required if debt is issued without a new revenue source. The extent of those impacts will depend on the terms of the financing, including the amount borrowed, interest rates at the time of issuance, and the repayment period. Together, these factors determine the annual debt service obligation and its impact on the operating budget.
A fundamental budget principle is that a recurring obligation should be supported by a recurring funding source. If existing operating revenues are used to support debt service for 15, 20, or more years, any corresponding expenditure reductions must also be permanent and structural. One-time measures such as deferring purchases, drawing from reserves, relying on vacancy savings, or delaying maintenance may provide temporary budget relief, but they do not permanently reduce the City’s ongoing cost structure and therefore cannot provide a sustainable source for long-term debt service.
Structural reductions require changes to the City’s ongoing expenditure base. Depending on the amount of debt issued, these changes could include eliminating positions, discontinuing or modifying programs, restructuring service delivery, or reducing the City’s involvement in functions determined to be a lower priority. Any reductions identified to support debt service should be capable of remaining in place throughout the repayment period rather than relying on actions that provide savings for only the first several budget cycles.
This distinction is also important from a credit perspective. The City’s credit rating directly affects its cost of borrowing, and changes in the City’s rating can materially increase or decrease total interest costs over the life of an issuance. Rating agencies evaluate whether recurring revenues are sufficient to support recurring expenditures, the strength of the City’s reserves, debt affordability, financial policies, forecasting practices, and the City’s demonstrated ability to make and sustain difficult financial decisions.
Maintaining reserves at levels consistent with City policy is also an important consideration. Using reserves on an ongoing basis to offset operating deficits or to compensate for expenditure reductions that cannot be sustained may negatively affect the City’s financial position and could influence future credit evaluations. Other debt affordability measures considered by the credit markets may include annual debt service as a percentage of General Fund expenditures, debt per capita, and debt relative to assessed valuation. The City’s explanation of its financial strategy and the permanence of any expenditure reductions would also be an important component of the financing process.
If expenditure reductions are required, a targeted approach is generally preferable to uniform reductions across all departments. Across the board reductions distribute impacts equally without necessarily reflecting the City Council’s service priorities. They may also reduce the effectiveness of high-priority services while preserving lower priority activities. In addition, uniform reductions can be difficult to sustain over time as departments seek to restore funding through subsequent budget requests. Finally, given that many programs are funded through multiple funding sources (e.g. General Fund, water, capital, grants, etc.), not all funding reductions are eligible to be pledged against debt.
A targeted, program by program review provides the City Council with the opportunity to establish priorities and make specific policy decisions regarding which services should be maintained, modified, reduced, or discontinued.
This approach can produce more durable savings because the underlying service model and cost structure are changed rather than temporarily reduced. It also provides greater transparency to the community by allowing residents to understand and participate in decisions regarding specific programs and service levels.
From a credit perspective, a deliberate and sustainable restructuring of expenditures may also be viewed more favorably than temporary or broadly distributed reductions that do not address the City’s underlying cost structure.
The objective should therefore not simply be to identify a percentage reduction sufficient to make a debt payment, but to establish an operating structure that can support both the City’s priority services and the required debt service for the full term of the financing.
If the City Council determines that a facility project warrants a long-term commitment of existing operating revenues, debt financing may be a viable tool for funding the full project or a defined portion of the project. The amount issued should be consistent with the level of annual debt service the City Council is willing to support and the permanent service and expenditure changes necessary to maintain a structurally balanced budget.
If the City Council is not prepared to identify and sustain corresponding structural expenditure reductions or establish a new recurring revenue source, the more fiscally prudent approach would be to limit debt issuance to an amount that can be absorbed within the existing operating budget without material service impacts, or to defer issuance until a dedicated repayment source is secured.
In summary, debt financing can provide the resources necessary to complete a major facility investment, but it does not create additional financial capacity. In the absence of new revenue, it reallocates existing financial capacity from operations to capital investment for the duration of the financing. The principal policy decision for the City Council is therefore the amount of existing operating capacity it is willing to commit to a facility project and the corresponding service and expenditure decisions necessary to sustain that commitment.
E. Ballot Measures
As Proposition 13 constrains the City's property tax capacity, a voter-approved revenue measure is the only mechanism that creates a new, dedicated, and recurring funding stream of the magnitude the documented needs require for a comprehensive infrastructure program that addresses decades of underinvestment. It is also the only mechanism under which the City can incur a major obligation without displacing existing services.
Local Precedent
Over the last seventy years, several revenue and infrastructure measures have been placed before Glendora voters. The record is instructive in both directions: the community has approved sales tax measures twice in the last seven years, approved all water bonds, and has declined most property-based measure placed before it.
Measure Date Rate Result
Water Revenue Bonds April 26,
1955 Water Revenue Bonds principal sum of $650,000.
APPROVED
(Yes 93% / No
7%
Library GO Bond November
29, 1955 TBD after approval.
FAILED
(Yes 32% / No
68%)
Water Bond November 3
1964
Water Revenue Bonds principal sum of $1,200,000.
APPROVED
(Yes 9,539 /
No 1,850)
4.6 to 1 win
Police Department GO
Bond June 8, 1965 TBD after approval
APPROVED
(Yes 86% / No
14%)
Open Space and Legacy
of Parks
March 14,
1972
Reso. calling election approved March 14, 1972, no
election date specified other than the election will be held within 180 days of receiving a grant. The City
canceled the election and instead temporarily raised
property tax by $0.50 per $100 in assessed valuation
(0.5%) for one year to raised funds necessary to
purchase land in South Hills. This raised the City’s
portion of property tax from $1.38 to $1.88 per $100
in assessed valuation (1.88%).
No Election
Water Bond March 14,
1972
Reso. calling election approved March 14, 1972; no
election date specified other than the election will be held within 180 days of the receipt of a grant for
water infrastructure. The City didn’t receive the grant and a bond issuance election was never held.
No Election
Hillside Protection
(Measure A)
April 10,
1990
$0.20/$100 in assessed valuation. Avg. single family
value of $250,000 would be $500 annually. Rebate
for qualified income restricted owners. Tax duration
would be 3 years.
FAILED
(Yes 7% / No
93%)
Measure D March 7,
2000
Shall the Glendora Commercial Specific Plan and
related zone change be adopted for the Glendora
Marketplace Project, allowing up to 474,000 square
feet of retail and commercial space to be developed
on the vacant 48 acres at the northwest corner of
Lone Hill Avenue and Gladstone Street.
APPROVED
(Yes 63% / No
36%)
Measure C
March 3,
2009
Shall an initiative entitled, "An Initiative to amend the Glendora Commercial Specific Plan (Glendora
Municipal Code Chapter 21.08) to allow additional
retail uses in Planning Area B and increase the
building area that could be used for the additional
retail uses in Planning Area B."
APPROVED
(Yes 70% / No
30%)
Measure E March 5,
2019 0.75% transactions and use tax
APPROVED
(Yes 54% / No
46%)
Measure Z November 5,
2024 0.25% transactions and use tax
APPROVED
(Yes 58% / No
42%)
Voter Approval Thresholds
The applicable approval threshold depends on the type of measure and, critically, on who places it on the ballot.
Proposition 13 (1978) capped property taxes at 1% of assessed valuation, limited annual increases in assessed valuation to 2% absent a sale or substantial improvement, and imposed a two-thirds voter approval requirement for new local taxes, including bond measures funded by property taxes. Proposition 46 (1986) reaffirmed the ability of local governments to issue general obligation bonds funded by property tax increases for capital improvements, but retained the two-thirds requirement. The citizen-initiative pathway derives from City of Upland v. California Cannabis Coalition (2017) and subsequent litigation, which established that measures placed on the ballot by voter petition are subject to a simple majority rather than the two-thirds threshold applicable to measures placed by a governing body.
Measure Type Placed on Ballot by City Council Placed on Ballot by Citizen Initiative
General Obligation bond (ad
valorem property tax) Two-thirds (66.7%) Simple majority (50% + 1) Special tax or parcel tax
dedicated to a stated purpose Two-thirds (66.7%) Simple majority (50% + 1) General tax (unrestricted; cannot
be legally dedicated) Simple majority (50% + 1) Not applicable - general taxes areplaced by the governing body School district general obligation
bond (Proposition 39)
55% (shown for reference only) Not applicable
General Obligation Bond Measure Compared to Parcel Tax Measure At the March 11, 2025 meeting, the City Council asked staff to provide additional information distinguishing general obligation bond measures from parcel tax measures. With the assistance of the City Attorney's Office, that comparison and two sample ordinances were provided as attachments to the June 24, 2025 report. The comparison is reproduced below:
Feature GO Bond Tax Measure Parcel Tax Measure
Purpose / use of
funds
Capital improvements only (buildings,
roads, parks)
Capital projects and operating expenses,
including maintenance
Funding
mechanism Bonds issued and repaid over time Tax revenue collected directly from parcels Tax type
Ad valorem tax based on assessed
property value, square footage, parcel
type, or similar basis
Typically a flat rate or tiered formula per parcel
Who pays Property owners based on tax type
All parcel owners regardless of value;
exemptions may include income-qualified
owners
Voter approval
threshold
Two-thirds for cities (55% for school
bonds under Proposition 39); possibility
of 50% plus one on a citizen initiative
Two-thirds under Proposition 13 for a City
Council-approved measure; 50% plus one for a
citizen initiative
Flexibility of use Restricted to voter-approved
infrastructure projects
Flexible; may fund capital projects, programs,
maintenance, services, and debt
Debt involvement Yes — the City takes on debt and
repays it over time
Proceeds may be pledged to a lease financing
or installment sale financing associated with a
revenue bond or certificate of participation
Duration / term Typically 15 to 40 years May be temporary (for example, 10 to 40 years) or ongoing
Security / backing
Backed by an ad valorem tax levied
every year; legally obligated to repay Optional; funds collected annually Polling
On August 27, 2024, True North Research presented the Glendora Facilities Measure Survey results. Survey results showed there was a 53% initial support for a $150 million citywide facilities bond, approximately 14 points below the two-thirds threshold. Additionally, there was a 45% support for a $70 million Library-specific bond.
Overall, 86% rated quality of life excellent or good; 83% satisfied with City services. The two highest-ranked quality of life improvements were improving infrastructure and roads (17.8%) and addressing homelessness (17.2%). True North did not recommend pursuing a bond measure for the November 2024 election.
Since the August 2024 polling results were released, the City Council as had many conversations about infrastructure, including facilities and streets/roads. The City Council may wish to provide direction to staff on additional polling options based on these conversations.
Citizen Initiative
On December 11, 2025, the City received a Notice of Intent to Circulate a Petition for a parcel tax to fund the construction, repair, rehabilitation, and improvement of City facilities. Key features:
Applies to developed and vacant parcels within the City based on square footage, with variable rates based on property type;
Revenues restricted to capital improvements for City-owned facilities; Accountability measures include independent audits, annual public reporting, and a citizen oversight committee;
Staff estimates the measure could generate between $8 million and $9 million annually, depending on final levy rates and exemptions;
The City Attorney prepared and submitted a ballot title and summary on December 22, 2025; proponents have 180 days from issuance to gather the required signatures, estimated at approximately 3,700 registered voters;
Proponents have identified a targeted election date of November 2026.
At the May 12, 2026 City Council meeting, an announcement was made that an administrative notice had been sent to the City Clerk to officially announce the citizens group was no longer pursuing the initiative ordinance.
Citizen Initiative Procedural Requirements
Requirement Standard
Governing law California Elections Code sections 9200 – 9226 and 9600 – 9610
Signature threshold 10% of the City's registered voters, based on the most recent county registration report
Registered voters of record
35,909 as of the February 2025 Voter Registration
Report, yielding approximately 3,600 valid signatures.
The January 13, 2026 report estimated approximately
3,700. The applicable figure should be confirmed by
the City Clerk.
Circulation period 180 days from issuance of the ballot title and summary Recommended submission
A minimum of 134 days before the election, to allow for legally required processing. The June 24, 2025 report
references both 134 days and 144 days; confirmation is
recommended.
Qualification deadline
All processing — signature verification, City Clerk and County Elections Official review, City Council action,
and required public notifications — must be completed
no later than the 88th day before the election
Signature verification Conducted by the Los Angeles County RegistrarRecorder/County Clerk within 30 business days of filing Withdrawal A proponent may withdraw an initiative at any time before the 88th day before the election
Estimated total process duration 12 to 18 months from initiation to election State Legislative and Legal Developments
California’s legal framework governing local taxes has developed through a series of constitutional amendments and court decisions that have progressively defined when local revenues require majority, 55 percent, or two-thirds voter approval.
Proposition 13, approved in 1978, limited the general ad valorem property tax rate to 1 percent of assessed value, generally limited annual increases in assessed value, and established a two-thirds voter-approval requirement for local special taxes. Proposition 46, approved in 1986, subsequently authorized local governments to levy property taxes above the Proposition 13 one-percent limit to repay qualifying general obligation bonds, provided the bonds receive two-thirds voter approval. Proposition 218, approved in 1996, further clarified the local tax structure by requiring majority voter approval for general taxes and two-thirds approval for special taxes; taxes whose proceeds are dedicated to specified purposes. Proposition 39, approved in 2000, created a separate 55-percent voterapproval threshold for qualifying school and community college facility bonds.
Citizen-Initiated Special Taxes
A significant change in the practical application of these requirements followed the California Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland. The Court concluded that certain Proposition 218 requirements directed at a “local government” did not necessarily restrict voters exercising their constitutional initiative power. Subsequent appellate decisions extended that reasoning to voter-approval thresholds, producing the current framework under which a bona fide citizen-initiated local special tax may be approved by a simple majority, while the same special tax placed on the ballot by a city council or other local governing body generally requires two-thirds approval. The Legislative Analyst’s Office continues to recognize this distinction in its analysis of current law.
2024 Proposition 5
The November 5, 2024 election, did not alter this framework. Proposition 5, which originated as ACA 1 and was subsequently amended by ACA 10, would have lowered the voter-approval threshold from two-thirds to 55 percent for certain local general obligation bonds used for affordable housing and public infrastructure. It did not generally lower the voter threshold for city special taxes. Proposition 5 was defeated statewide, receiving approximately 45 percent Yes and 55 percent No, leaving the existing two-thirds requirement for these local bonds in place.
November 2026 – Proposition 43 and the Howard Jarvis Compromise The most significant current development involves the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) and the November 3, 2026 statewide ballot.
In 2025, HJTA advanced the Local Taxpayer Protection Act to Save Proposition 13, which qualified for the November 2026 ballot. Among other provisions, the initiative would have required two-thirds voter approval for citizen-initiated local special taxes, limited certain charter-city real estate transfer taxes, and invalidated certain existing voter-approved property-related taxes that did not satisfy the proposed requirements after a two-year transition period. The Legislative Analyst estimated that the measure could have resulted in annual local government revenue losses of up to several billion dollars, with the largest effects concentrated in certain charter cities.
That measure has now been withdrawn following a June 2026 agreement between state legislative leaders and HJTA. As part of the compromise, the Legislature approved ACA 22, HJTA agreed to withdraw its broader initiative, and the Legislature separately removed ACA 13 from the November ballot. HJTA has described the agreement as preserving the principal objective of its initiative; the restoration of a uniform two-thirds voter-approval requirement for local special taxes, while eliminating the broader provisions contained in its original proposal. The Secretary of State formally recorded the HJTA initiative as withdrawn on June 25, 2026.
ACA 22 will appear on the November 3, 2026 ballot as Proposition 43, “Limits Voters’ Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.” The outcome of Proposition 43 will have a direct effect on local revenue strategies. Beginning January 1, 2027, Proposition 43 would require any new, increased, or extended local special tax proposed through the citizeninitiative process to receive two-thirds voter approval. Local-government-sponsored special taxes are already subject to the two-thirds requirement. Accordingly, passage of Proposition 43 would effectively eliminate the simplemajority citizen-initiative pathway that developed following Upland and subsequent court decisions.
If Proposition 43 fails, the existing legal framework would remain in place. City-sponsored special taxes would continue to require two-thirds voter approval, while qualifying citizen-initiated special taxes could continue to receive approval by a simple majority under existing case law. The citizen-initiative pathway would therefore remain an important consideration in future local revenue discussions, although additional litigation or future statewide ballot measures could revisit the issue.
F. Additional Funding and Revenue Options Identified in Prior Reports The following options appear in prior City Council reports and are included here for completeness, consistent with City Council direction to evaluate a full range of alternatives.
A. Service level modifications. Identified as Option 2 in the January 13, 2026 report; reducing or restructuring operating costs to create ongoing General Fund capacity for debt service.
B. Assessment districts. Available in concept, but the 2023 antique streetlight result (65% opposed, following failed efforts in 2007 and 2008) counsels caution.
Measure Date Rate Result
Antique Streetlight
Assessment District February 13, 2007
Property assessment of
$378.98/single family
residence and
$138.33/multi-family unit
FAILED
(Yes 8% / No 92%)
Antique Streetlight
Assessment District April 22, 2008
Property assessment of
$141.90/single family
residence and
$48.26/multi-family
FAILED
(Yes 38% / No 62%)
Antique Streetlight
Assessment District June 13, 2023
Property assessment of
$117/single family
residence and multi-family
varied based on size of
development.
FAILED
(Yes 35% / NO 65%)
Examples of assessment districts in other agencies include a citywide property assessment for specific items, based on property tax, for libraries, public safety, street improvements, etc. Currently, the City has two types of assessment districts in place
Landscape Maintenance: The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 permits cities to establish assessment districts for the purpose of installing and/or constructing new public improvements, or servicing and maintaining certain existing public improvements within the proposed district. The City of Glendora established its first Landscape and Streetlight Maintenance District in 1976. The District consists of seven zones, with six that may be adjusted annually as high as the March-to-March CPI ratio for the Los AngelesLong Beach-Anaheim Area for All Urban Consumers in an amount not to exceed 5%. The CPI index for March 2026 compared to March 2025 equates to a rate adjustment of 3.4% per EBU.
Benefit Zone FY 2026/27 Levy/EBU
Zone 1 – Highland Dr. & Oak Knoll Dr. $556.41
Zone 4 – Glendora Mountain Rd. & E. Palm Dr. $397.68
Zone 5 – E. Hampton St. & E. Gladstone St./S.
Sunflower Ave.
$75.00
Zone 7 – N. Loraine Ave. & E. Palm Dr. $43.22
Zone 8 – Glendora Mountain Rd. & Boulder Springs Dr. $236.11 Zone 12 – Glendora Bougainvilleas & 437 E. Bennett
Ave.
$155.42
Zone 16 – Hidden Springs Ln. $61.68
Lighting District: The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 permits cities to establish assessment districts for the purpose of installing and/or constructing new public improvements, or servicing and maintaining certain existing improvements within the proposed district. Glendora established its first Landscape and Streetlight Maintenance District in 1976. The Streetlight District includes 2,996 public streetlights and 65 signalized intersections with safety lights. The public streetlights include 2,744 owned and maintained by Southern California Edison (SCE) for a flat monthly fee. Private streetlights such as those owned by homeowners’ associations within gated communities, public safety lights positioned atop traffic signals, or traffic signals themselves are not currently funded by the District. The City assumes certain costs for maintaining and servicing safety lights and traffic signals as a general benefit expense, and District funds are only used to maintain and service the “special” benefit portions of public streetlights.
Parcels within the District are divided into two different “Benefit Zones.” Benefit Zone B includes parcels within gated communities that are served by no public lighting other than perimeter lighting, and Benefit Zone A includes all other parcels in the District. The District assessment rate may be adjusted annually as high as the preceding year’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) ratio for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Area for All Urban Consumers, up to a maximum of 5%, without being considered a rate increase that would require a Proposition 218 hearing.
The CPI index for March 2026 compared to March 2025 equates to a rate adjustment of 3.4% per EBU. The assessment rate in FY 2025/26 was $50.63 per EBU, and with the CPI adjustment, will be $52.35 per EBU in FY 2026/27 (detailed below).
Land Use
Assessment Rate
Benefit Zone "A" Benefit Zone "B"
Single Family Resident $52.35 / Unit $2.61 / Unit
Multi-Family Residence $15.44 / Unit $0.78 / Unit
Non-Residential $202.64 / Acre $10.15 / Acre
Undeveloped $67.53 / Acre $3.40 / Acre
C. Public-private partnerships and joint development. Discussed above under land sales; also relevant to any future Civic Center approach.
D. Philanthropic and Community Fundraising. Not previously analyzed by the City Council, but a common component of library capital campaigns statewide. This option has not been evaluated in any prior report and would require direction before staff returns with additional information on options. Typically, a philanthropic or community fundraising campaign takes shape upon adoption of a final project (e.g. new library, library renovation, etc.).
TOPIC 2: CORPORATE YARD PHASE 1 FUNDING STRATEGY
On July 21, 2026, the City Council specifically directed staff to return at Workshop No. 3 with a funding strategy for the Phase 1 Corporate Yard improvements, as presented in the 2026 IDS Phasing Report.
Background
The City Corporate Yard, located at 1250 South Vladimir Street, was originally built in 1965 and developed throughout the 1970s/1980s. The facility serves as the operational center for the Public Works Department. Aging infrastructure, limited operational space, outdated buildings, and changing regulatory requirements have significantly reduced the site's efficiency and functionality.
The conceptual project consists of four primary buildings, expanding the improved site from approximately 8,270 square feet to 18,310 square feet. As the Corporate Yard must remain operational throughout construction, the City directed IDS Group to develop a phased implementation strategy. The project is organized into four phases:
Phase 1A — Construction of site improvements northwest of the Big Dalton Wash, including grading, storm drain improvements, Low Impact Development facilities, paving, and material storage areas.
Phase 1B — Construction of the new Administration Building together with employee parking, primary circulation routes, and major utility infrastructure. Offices for Facilities, Streets, Parks, Trees, and Landscape; potential traffic control center and alternate EOC. Includes modern facilities, including staff areas and restrooms.
Total Phase 1 Costs: $6.5 million
Transition Zone — Completion of shared utility improvements necessary to maintain uninterrupted operations while preparing for demolition of the remaining facilities.
Phase 2 — Demolition of the existing buildings followed by construction of the Fleet Maintenance Building, Maintenance Shops, Sign and Tire Storage Building, vehicle wash facilities, parking areas, landscaping, emergency generator, and all remaining site improvements.
Total Phase 2 Costs: $7.1 million
The phased approach is currently estimated to cost approximately $13.6 million, reflecting the additional expense associated with maintaining operations throughout construction. On May 12, 2026, the City Council received confirmation that design and construction drawings are complete, at a design cost of $725,581 under the Professional Services Agreement with IDS Group, Inc.
Why Phase 1 First
Phase 1A (site improvements northwest of the Big Dalton Wash, including grading, storm drain, LID facilities, paving, and material storage) and Phase 1B (the new Administration Building with employee parking, circulation, and major utility infrastructure) can be constructed without disrupting current Public Works operations, because they occur on portions of the site not presently occupied by the buildings that must remain in service. Phase 1 therefore represents the logical first increment of investment.
Funding Strategy.
Staff recommends a layered approach rather than reliance on any single source.
L
ayerSourceAmountRationale
1 Existing onetime
discretionary
funds: pension
reserve
$4,000,000
Immediately available; no
repayment obligation; future
development projects at GUSD and
AUSD school sites will replenish
funding over next two to four years.
One-time funding section in this
report provides recommended City
Council guidelines.
2 Existing onetime
discretionary
funds: water
capital project
fund
$1,500,000
New Administrative Building will
serve as utility operations center –
current facility is subject to frequent
power outages and is located in a
very high fire hazard severity zone.
Building can also serve as a
necessary SCADA backup to
ensure water operations remain
operational during an emergency.
3 La Fetra
Foundation Work
Funding
Reallocation
$500,000
City condemned a portion of the
building in 2005. Structural
drawings were completed in early
2006. Construction repairs,
including foundation work, was
completed in late 2006. The 2023
Bureau Veritas report identified
cracking in the basement, walls and
ceiling where the aforementioned
work was completed. The
recommendation for work approved
by the City Council was for a
structural assessment to be
completed first and determine if
additional work is necessary. 4
Measure W
(Municipal
Program)
$1,000,000
On the November 2018 ballot, Los
Angeles voters approved the Safe
Clean Water Parcel Tax of 2.5 cents
a square foot of “impermeable
space.” Any use of Measure W
funds will be for eligible
expenditures as outlined in Chapter
16 of the Los Angeles County Flood
Control District Code. In general, to
be eligible the project expenditures
must increase stormwater or urban
runoff capture and/or reduce
stormwater and urban runoff
pollution and improve the quality of
the stormwater/urban runoff.
TOTAL $7,000,000 Includes a contingency of
$500,000 (7.7%)
The question before the City Council is not simply whether to spend reserves, but whether to trade a defined, temporary reduction in recession flexibility for the permanent avoidance of construction cost escalation on the corporate facility, supported by a named repayment source.
As discussed above in the “One-Time Funding” section, approximately $2 million associated with the Dale development and approximately $4 million associated with the Barranca development are anticipated over the next two fiscal years. If the City Council finds the projected Dale and Barranca (AUSD) development proceeds credible and the pension reserve floor is maintained, the strategic use of $4 million in pension set-aside funds represents a defensible and disciplined approach. If the City Council is not comfortable with the timing risk associated with future development proceeds, the fiscally disciplined alternative is to defer additional allocations until those proceeds are received, accepting construction escalation as the cost of preserved flexibility.
The City’s Water Yard, and main pumping facilities are located in very high fire hazard severity zones. One of the issues identified in the recent Eaton Fire just to the West of Glendora and past Colby Fire (2014), is the lack of a utility operations center and SCADA (water system) backup location that would be accessible during a fire emergency in the foothills. The Corporate Yard Phase 1B office building would allow for this needed and critical capability.
Included in the funding strategy is $500,000 of contingency for items such as environmental issues, undocumented underground utility challenges, and infrastructure inflationary impacts. Despite the lack of identified construction funding, the City has worked diligently on the Corporate Yard project, including a complete set of construction documents, to ensure staff could move quickly if given the ability to do so.
TOPIC 3: CITIZEN AD-HOC COMMITTEE
On March 24, 2026, the City Council received a comprehensive report on citizen ad-hoc committees and City Council subcommittees, prepared in response to direction given on February 24, 2026. That report, together with its decision matrix (Attachment C to the March 24, 2026 report), remains the governing background for this discussion and is summarized and updated below.
What Citizen Advisory Groups Do
Citizen advisory groups, variously called advisory boards, commissions, ad-hoc committees, or task forces, are bodies composed primarily of residents that:
Study specific issues or policy areas;
Gather input, research, and community feedback;
Provide recommendations to the City Council (or staff) on policies, plans, or programs; and Do not have significant decision-making authority; they are advisory in nature, not legislative.
The City currently maintains several ongoing committees and boards, including the Planning Commission, Water Commission, Library Board, Recreation and Human Services Commission, and the Business Improvement District Board.
An ad-hoc committee is distinguished from a standing committee in that it is not permanent, but rather temporary, formed to address a specific short-term task or project, and dissolves once the issue is addressed or completed.
Council Member Participation
As a general rule, council members cannot serve as voting members or active participants on advisory boards, commissions, or committees appointed by the City Council. This avoids conflicts with the City Council's role in policy making and oversight; allowing city council members to vote would blur the line between legislative policy decision-making and citizen advisory input. While not common, some cities — including San Ramon, Dublin, and Beverly Hills have appointed City Council liaison(s) to citizen advisory bodies in conjunction with other City Council assignments.
For a City Council subcommittee, the City Council may form sub-committees or sub-groups that include one or two council members at the City Council's direction. In order to avoid Brown Act violations, no more than two council members can serve on a city council ad-hoc committee at one time.
Glendora Precedent
Citizen Ad-Hoc Committee: Revenue Options and Expenditures (April 2018 – December 2020) During a strategic planning workshop on January 25, 2018, the City Council and Executive Team discussed the concern that current revenue sources and longer-term projections would not keep pace with anticipated expenditure trends, as multi-million dollar shortfalls were anticipated beginning in FY 2018-19. On April 10, 2018, then-Mayor Thompson and former Council Member Nelson formally presented an agenda item recommending creation of an ad-hoc citizen's advisory committee to evaluate:
Why there may be a [revenue] problem;
How and/or what might be recommended to create new revenue sources; and Are there other ways to address the “problem.”
Structure and outcomes:
Recommended composition of 15–21 persons with diverse backgrounds; a financial background, especially with public entities, was highly valued;
Open to city residents and city business owners; the vast majority of appointments were ultimately residents; Each City Council member appointed two members; remaining seats were selected similar to the appointment process for the City's commissions/boards;
An appointed chair and vice-chair; primary staff liaisons were the Finance Director and Community Development Director;
On May 16, 2018, 20 members were appointed; Michael Holmes was appointed Chair and Cliff Hamlow ViceChair; Other members included: Sandra Blaydown, William Bresee, Timothy Cremins, John Doan, Rukshan Fernando, Anita Gutierrez, Linda Herman, Bob Kun, Jennifer Leos, James Martindale, Gene Morrill, Gene Murabito, Wendy Seyfert, Joseph Ward, Tomoko Toland, Brian Ursettie, Margaux Gibson, and Carol Ann Walls-Sandell
First meeting June 7, 2018; the group met approximately twice per month through early September 2018; A preliminary report was presented September 11, 2018, recommending the City immediately take steps to conduct a special election for a sales and use tax initiative; a final report was delivered in November 2019; On December 8, 2020, the City Council held a follow-up agenda item on the November 2019 Final Report as part of the 2020–2023 Strategic Plan. The final report included, but was not limited to, historical staffing levels, outsourcing opportunities, land sales, and revenue measures. Several of the additional items in the report (e.g., San Jose, South Hills, and outsourcing) have been topics of conversation and action since issuance of the report in 2019. The City Council noted the option for the group to be reengaged, if needed, in the future.
This precedent is directly relevant to today. The 2018 Committee's charge included revenue options, land sales, and expenditure strategies, closely parallels the subject matter of this workshop. The Committee noted that while Measure E will assist the City in addressing its significant structural deficit, it warned that Infrastructure costs (especially streets), future environmental compliance (e.g. federal waste water), and the economy would be considerable area of future concern. Many of the items in the 2019 Final Report have been implemented, including land sales, modernization of City operations, strategic outsourcing, and re-investment into preventative maintenance for streets and facilities. See Attachment E for a summary of the Committee’s recommendations and City’s actions.
Ad-Hoc Antique Streetlights Citizen Committee (May 2022 – June 2023) On May 10, 2022, the City Council authorized staff to develop an ad-hoc process for a group of no more than 11 people to begin a feasibility dialogue around restoration of the City's antique streetlights and the creation of an assessment district. On August 23, 2022, nine applicants were appointed, one seat was reserved for a Glendora Historical Society representative, and Patrick Hollanders was appointed Chair. The committee met on six occasions in 2022; each meeting was open to the public, broadcast virtually via Zoom, with agendas and supporting materials published to a dedicated project webpage that also included meeting schedules, historical information, the timeline of City Council actions, and responses to questions posed by committee members. The subsequent district vote failed on June 13, 2023, with 65% opposed.
This precedent is instructive on both process transparency and outcome risk.
City Council Subcommittee (2025–2026)
The City Council recently appointed Mayor Pro Tem Davis and Councilmember Allawos to a subcommittee focused on the 1762 Dale Rd. affordable housing project with Mercy Housing. The group was appointed in mid-2025 and provided insight to the City Council in early 2026, with a typically monthly meeting cadence among both council members, staff, and Mercy Housing. The City Council used the subcommittee's insight during project negotiations associated with the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement, informing direction on the project, funding options, housing mix, and community engagement.
Comparable Agencies
Rancho Palos Verdes – Civic Center Advisory Committee (CCAC) Created by the City Council in March 2017 to help guide development of a long-term plan for the City's Civic Center campus at Upper Point Vicente Park. The seven-member committee was formed following a 2016 citywide survey showing resident interest in improving or redeveloping aging civic facilities. Comprised of resident appointees serving in an advisory role, the CCAC provides recommendations on the design, program, and financial considerations associated with redevelopment. The committee generally meets monthly in public meetings that generally adhere to Brown Act regulations, where members review conceptual designs, evaluate potential civic and community facilities, and discuss financing and implementation strategies. Meetings often include presentations from consultants and staff, along with opportunities for public input. The City Council approved the Civic Center Master Plan program framework in October 2019.
Hermosa Beach – Civic Facilities Project Advisory Group Formed by the City Council in February 2024 to assist the City Manager in evaluating options for addressing aging municipal facilities, after the Council identified significant concerns with City Hall, the Police Department building, and the Public Works maintenance yard. The group consisted of approximately a dozen volunteer community members selected by the City Manager for professional experience in municipal management, construction, engineering, finance, planning, and community leadership. Rather than forming a formal Brown Act committee, the City structured the advisory group as an informal working group, allowing members to collaborate and review technical information outside of traditional public meeting requirements. The group met several times over roughly eight months, reviewing prior facility assessments, touring civic buildings, evaluating operational needs, and discussing financing strategies and redevelopment scenarios.
The group's recommendations are notably applicable to Glendora's circumstances: it concluded that replacement of the Public Works maintenance yard should be the City's highest near-term priority, citing operational limitations and safety concerns; identified renovation/expansion, new consolidated construction, or a phased hybrid approach for the broader civic campus; and recommended that the City pursue one major civic facilities project at a time and continue additional cost analysis and community outreach before making final decisions.
Policy Considerations for the City Council
Historically, the City Council has provided specific direction to citizen ad-hoc committees and City Council subcommittees regarding the scope of review and recommendations. If established, the work plan and financial guardrails of such a group will determine the amount of staff resources, use of consultants, and timeline.
The draft decision matrix presented on March 24, 2026 (Attachment C to that report) is organized by policy question. The principal questions before the City Council are:
Step 1: Does the City Council wish to establish a group to study the City's facilities and/or infrastructure needs? Option Policy Implication
A. Yes – establish a review group May allow for deeper analysis and community input, but extends the timeline
B. No – continue review through regular and additional
Council meetings
Handling within City Council maintains speed and
direct policy control
C. Combination – City Council makes certain decisions
now and establishes a review group to study specific
issues/topics
Preserves momentum on decided items while studying
open questions
Step 2: If yes, what structure should the group have?
Option Policy Implication
A. Citizen Ad-Hoc Committee May increase community engagement and provide additional technical input
B. City Council Subcommittee
Allows direct Council oversight and faster coordination with staff; could meet with staff from time to time to
solicit input and recommendations
C. Combination – Citizen Ad-Hoc Committee with City
Council liaison(s)
Blends community input with Council connectivity,
consistent with the practice in San Ramon, Dublin, and
Beverly Hills
Step 2A: If a Citizen Ad-Hoc Committee, what qualifications should applicants possess? Establishing qualifications ensures expertise while maintaining community representation. The March 24, 2026 report identified experience in:
Large-scale infrastructure projects;
Public Contracts / Prevailing Wage;
Transportation / streets;
Engineering or construction management;
Finance / capital planning;
Project management; and
Community representation.
Additional Questions the City Council May Wish to Address Beyond the matrix, staff recommends the City Council provide direction on the following if a group is established:
A. Charge and scope — Should the group study funding and revenue strategies, capital project prioritization and phasing, or other?
B. Size and appointment method — The 2018 committee used 20 members with two appointed by each council member; the streetlight committee used 11; Rancho Palos Verdes uses 7; Hermosa Beach used approximately 12 selected by the City Manager.
C. Brown Act applicability — A formally appointed advisory body created by City Council action is generally subject to the Brown Act; an informal working group convened by the City Manager, as in Hermosa Beach, generally is not. This choice materially affects transparency, staff workload, and the group's ability to review technical material efficiently.
D. Term and sunset — Ad-hoc committees dissolve once the issue is addressed. Staff recommends a defined term with a specified reporting deadline.
E. Staffing and budget — The 2018 committee was staffed primarily by the Finance Director and Community Development Director. The City Council should identify the lead department and whether consultant support (e.g., financial advisor, polling) is authorized.
F. Meeting cadence and public engagement — The 2018 committee met approximately twice monthly; the streetlight committee met six times over four months with a dedicated project webpage; Rancho Palos Verdes meets monthly. Staff recommends that any group established maintain a dedicated project webpage consistent with the antique streetlight committee practice.
G. Relationship to existing bodies — Whether and how the group would coordinate with the Library Board of Trustees, given the Library's central role in the remaining work.
TOPIC 4: ITEMS FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Based upon the information presented in this report and the direction provided at Workshops No. 1 and No. 2, staff recommends that the City Council:
A. Receive and file this report on funding and revenue options and citizen advisory committee structures.
B. Identify which funding and revenue strategies should receive further evaluation: one-time funding (remaining and future); grants and State/Federal local community project appropriations; land sales, and leases; issuance of debt (lease revenue bonds, COPs, general obligation bonds, etc.); ballot measures; and other options identified in this report.
C. Provide direction on a funding strategy for Phase 1 of the Corporate Yard, including whether staff should move forward with the funding recommendations or return with additional options.
D. Provide direction on whether to establish a citizen ad-hoc committee, a City Council subcommittee, a combination, or neither, and if so, on the scope, structure, membership qualifications, term, and staffing of that body.
E. Provide direction on community engagement, including whether staff should conduct updated community survey or polling work.
F. Provide direction on next steps and an implementation timeline, including quarterly updates, timing of the updated Library cost estimate due in November 2026 and any subsequent follow-up workshop or agenda items.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving and filing this report. Any future appropriation of one-time funding, property disposition, financing action, ballot measure, citizen ad-hoc committee formation, or other policy action will be brought back to the City Council for consideration, at which time the fiscal impact of the specific action will be evaluated and presented.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Receiving and filing this report is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act because it does not approve construction, authorize physical improvements, or commit the City to a specific project. Future project approvals for the Library and Corporate Yard or sale of land, will include appropriate environmental review prior to approval of construction or other discretionary actions.
Prepared By: Adam Raymond, City Manager
Concurs With: Not Applicable
Reviewed By: Moises Lopez, Assistant City Manager
Certified to Availability of Funds: Kyle Johnson, Finance Director/City Treasurer Approved By: Adam Raymond, City Manager
Legal Review: Danny Aleshire, City Attorney
CEQA Review: Not Applicable
Attachments
A_Workshop_1_Presentation.pdf
B_Workshop_2_Presentation.pdf
C_City_Owned_Property_List.pdf
D_Debt_Issuance_and_Mgmt_Policy.pdf
E_2019_AdHoc_Committee_Recommendations_Matrix.pdf
F. Possible Attachment_Property Tax.jpg.pdf
G. Possible Attachment Sales Tax.jpg.pdf
H_Workshop_3_Presentation.pdf
WORKSHOP 1: FOUNDATION AND FUNDING
June 16, 2026
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
What Staff Is Recommending
That the City Council:
1 Provide direction on how one-time funds should be
allocated among major categories, specific projects or
priorities, or a combination of both.
Scope of tonight's decision: Allocation of $8–$12 million in one-time funds, directed to streets and existing City facilities. Per prior City Council direction, the Library and Public Works Yard are not part of this discussion; they are the focus of Workshop 2.
CityofGlendora.gov 2
F Y 2 0 2 5 – 2 0 2 7 S T R A T E G I C P L A N
Strategic Focus Areas
G O A L 3
New + Revitalized Facilities
Develop new and enhanced facilities including a modern civic center and improved Public spaces that foster connectivity, accessibility, and civic pride.
G O A L 4
Sustainable Infrastructure
Sustainable Infrastructure Plan and construct infrastructure that enhances street conditions, expands trail connectivity, improves traffic safety and mobility, upgrades water systems, and ensures compliance with regulatory standards for a
resilient and accessible community
Strategic Plan progress to date
53 Actions completed
(50%) 48 In progress (46%) 4
Not yet started
(4%) 105 Total plan actions
CityofGlendora.gov 3
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
Where Glendora Stands Today
Stability restored
Organizational modernization, Measures
E & Z, and pension restructuring
eliminated a $3.5–$4M deficit and earned
a AAA bond rating.
Needs remain
Significant facility, street, and
infrastructure needs persist — well
documented through years of studies and
assessments.
A rare opportunity
Fiscal prudence created one-time funding
capacity to address a meaningful share of
those needs — without a new tax.
CityofGlendora.gov 4
A M U L T I - Y E A R D I S C U S S I O N , B R O K E N I N T O T H R E E F O C U S E D M E E T I N G S A Three-Workshop Series
01 Y O U A R E H E R E
Workshop 01 • June 16
Foundation & Funding
Reviews how five years of strategic planning,
public engagement, and facility assessments
shaped today's priorities. City Council to
provide direction on $8–$12M in one-time
funds for streets and/or facilities.
02 Workshop 02 • July 21
Library & Public Works
Yard
The City's two most significant facility needs —
structural assessments, repair vs. replacement
costs, phasing options, and service-continuity
considerations.
03 Workshop 03 • Sept 15
Funding Options & Next
Steps
Grants, land sales, and debt issuance to pay
for the work — plus the potential structure of a
citizen-led advisory committee.
CityofGlendora.gov 5
W O R K S H O P 1 A N S W E R S T W O Q U E S T I O N S Where We've Been — and What Comes Next
1 How did the City get here?
Five years of strategic planning, community
surveys, facility assessments, infrastructure
studies, pavement data, and Council
direction. This is not the beginning of the
conversation — it is the culmination of years
of diligent work.
2 How should $8–$12M be
allocated?
City Council provides policy-level direction
on allocation among major categories,
specific projects or priorities, or a
combination of both.
CityofGlendora.gov 6
1 How We Got Here
S E C T I O N O N E
A fiscal turnaround, five years of study and engagement, and a deliberate decision to reinvest savings back into the City's core assets.
L O S A N G E L E S T I M E S • J U L Y 5 , 2 0 0 2
“Upscale Suburb Warned Its Beauty Is Only Skin Deep”
“
It's a fairly well-to-do suburb with multimilliondollar mansions in the foothills and a bustling commercial center, but Glendora's
infrastructure is crumbling, and the city
cannot afford repairs.
— Los Angeles Times, July 5, 2002
~$100M in repairs identified for the cityowned water system $22M more needed for City streets
$15.6M total in reserve — the City could
not afford the work
“The sewer pipes are collapsing, the water pipes are collapsing… nothing's being done. This isn't Watts, this is Glendora.” — former councilman, 2002 CityofGlendora.gov 8
T H E S A M E N E E D S — A D I F F E R E N T P O S I T I O N T O A C T F R O M What Has Changed Since 2002
Then — 2002
An auditor identified ~$122M in water and
street needs the City could not afford.
Just $15.6M in reserve; a $4M water fund.
Officials “long aware” of the problems but
“unwilling to act.”
Statewide, infrastructure spending had fallen
75% since the 1960s.
Now — 2026
A $3.5–$4M structural deficit eliminated; a
AAA bond rating earned.
Voter-approved Measures E & Z plus pension
restructuring stabilized finances.
Organizational modernization (2019–21)
freed ~$2M/year for reinvestment.
For the first time in a generation, the City can
fund $8–$12M of needs now.
CityofGlendora.gov 9
T H E F O U N D A T I O N B E N E A T H T O D A Y ' S D I S C U S S I O N The Fiscal Turnaround
Over the past seven years, Glendora restored financial stability by addressing a structural deficit through voter-approved measures, pension restructuring, organizational efficiencies, and stronger financial policies. $3.5–$4M
structural deficit eliminated
AAA
bond rating earned
E & Z
voter-approved measures
(2019, 2025)
+$2M
reinvested in maintenance
annually
Organizational Modernization, 2019–2021
Since 2018, the City restructured departments, centralized functions, outsourced landscape maintenance, and created a dedicated Facilities Division. These reforms didn't just balance the budget — they generated recurring savings the City Council deliberately reinvested into public safety, streets, parks, and facilities.
CityofGlendora.gov 10
E F F I C I E N C Y S A V I N G S , R E I N V E S T E D I N T H E C O M M U N I T Y The Modernization Dividend
Public Safety
Measure E/Z funded the Police Department's
Community Impact Team — 16.5% drop in serious
(Part A) crime from 2023–2025.
A Dedicated Facilities Division
Created and staffed entirely through efficiency
savings — moving the City from reactive repairs to
planned, assessment-driven maintenance.
Preventative Maintenance
Net annual maintenance investment increased by
~$2M: facilities from $350K to $1.4M, and street
preservation from $15K to $1M.
A Stable Workforce
All bargaining units settled through 2028; ~15
“boomerang” employees returned, citing culture
change and professional management.
CityofGlendora.gov 11
T H I S I S N O T T H E B E G I N N I N G O F T H E C O N V E R S A T I O N Years of Study, Engagement & Direction
JA N 2 023
Library Structural
Analysis
In-depth structural
evaluation of the Library
awarded to Myers Houghton
& Partners.
S EP 202 3
Water System
Assessment
Identified $350M+ in
projects over 30 years;
~$30M programmed in the
first five.
JA N 2 024
Facility Needs + Survey
City Council directs a
Citywide facility condition
analysis and a community
survey.
A UG 2024
True North Survey
Community priorities and
revenue-measure feasibility
presented to the City
Council.
F EB 2025
Mid-Year Update
~$50M in current facility
needs; $250M+ in estimated
modernization documented.
MA R 202 5
Capital Needs Report
Comprehensive report on
facility needs, deferred
maintenance, and funding
options.
A P R 2025
FY25–27 Strategic Plan
Goals 3 & 4 adopted: New +
Revitalized Facilities and
Sustainable Infrastructure.
DE C 2025
2025 Pavement Program
City Council directs staff to
find $3–$3.5M/yr to raise
PCI from 63 to 70 in seven
years.
JA N 2 026
Civic Center Renderings
City Council adopts
renderings as a starting
point and directs grant
pursuit.
A P R 2026
Workshop Framework
City Council approves the
three-workshop series and
an $8–$12M one-time
funding range.
CityofGlendora.gov 12
Audited. Every Year.
S E C T I O N T W O
Every dollar is reviewed by independent auditors and regulatory agencies — confirming that the City follows the rules and spends responsibly.
F Y 2 0 2 4 – 2 5 A U D I T & O V E R S I G H T E N G A G E M E N T S Seven Layers of Independent Review
Clean
“Unmodified” opinion on
the Annual
Comprehensive Financial
Report
AAA Bond rating — the
highest available 7
Independent audit &
agreed-upon-procedure
engagements
1 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) 2 Single Audit of Federal Grants 3 CA Housing Successor Compliance Audit 4 GANN Appropriations Limit (Prop 111) 5 City Investment Policy compliance 6 Metro Local Funds (Prop A/C, Measure M/R) 7 AQMD / AB 2766 Clean Air Fund
Conducted under GAAP, GASB, and Government Auditing Standards by Badawi & Associates, CPAs. The Measure W (Safe Clean Water) fund is audited within the ACFR, with added oversight from LA Metro and SCAQMD. Measure E/Z spending is reported line-by-line for full transparency.
CityofGlendora.gov 14
The Decision Before You
S E C T I O N T H R E E
Fiscal discipline created a one-time opportunity. The question for City Council is how to direct it toward the community's most enduring priorities.
T R U E N O R T H R E S E A R C H — C O M M U N I T Y S U R V E Y S S I N C E 2 0 1 1 What the Community Is Telling Us
84%
rate Glendora's quality
of life excellent or good
#1
streets & roads — the
most durable priority
since 2011
55%
satisfaction with road
maintenance — down 8
points since 2022
70%
say the City manages its
finances well
Priorities and cost-sensitivity, together
Residents consistently rank streets and infrastructure as the top quality-of-life priority, and view aging facilities as well beyond their service life, favoring basic repairs, safety, and code compliance.
At the same time, “taxes are already too high” was the leading reason residents hesitated on a bond measure (53% support; below the two-thirds threshold). This is exactly why one-time funding fits this moment: it addresses the community's most enduring priorities without a new tax burden.
CityofGlendora.gov 16
P R E S E N T E D F E B R U A R Y 2 4 , 2 0 2 6 — R E C E I V E D & F I L E D 5 – 0 One-Time Funding Capacity
Funding Source FY 25–27 FY 27–29 FY 29–31
Available Fund Balance / Reserve $7.02M $0.37M $0.47M
Reallocation of CIP / Reprioritization $5.90M — —
Property Sales $5.12M $4.00M $4.00M
Pension Set-Aside $14.5M $0.22M $0.21M
OPEB Set-Aside $4.36M $0.078M $0.09M
Totals $36.9M $4.67M $4.77M
$46.34M
estimated one-time funds
available by the end of FY
2031 if no action is taken.
City Council has framed
$8–$12M for streets and
facilities.
Not all sources carry the same flexibility, timing, or risk. Pension and OPEB set-asides, property sales, and reserves each come with their own considerations — staff will match the right source to each project.
CityofGlendora.gov 17
City Facilities
S E C T I O N F O U R
For the first time in decades, the City is maintaining its buildings on a plan — not just reacting to the next failure.
B U R E A U V E R I T A S F A C I L I T Y C O N D I T I O N A S S E S S M E N T ( F C A ) A Plan for Every Building
The FCA reviewed roofing, exteriors, accessibility, safety, electrical, HVAC, plumbing, and site systems across City facilities — documenting deferred maintenance and projecting repair needs over time. ~$50M
in maintenance needs identified
over 20 years
$10.5M
recommended for the
2026–2030 period
Updated Cost
Basis
adjusted to reflect recent project
pricing — the original cost
estimates proved too low
Covers City Hall, the Library/Police Station, La Fetra Center, Finkbiner Park, Crowther Teen & Family Center, Big Dalton, and other City-owned sites — a structured, five-year starting point for prioritizing near-term work.
CityofGlendora.gov 19
A N E W O P E R A T I N G M O D E L F O R F A C I L I T Y M A I N T E N A N C E From Reactive to Planned
The Old Way
Largely reactive — the City fixed what broke,
when it broke.
No dedicated maintenance team and no
structured work plan.
Deferred maintenance accumulated quietly
for decades.
Costs escalated as small problems grew into
major failures.
The New Way
A dedicated Facilities Division: a Supervisor,
a Lead, and Maintenance Workers.
~75% of the team's time directed to
assessment-identified priorities.
Flexibility retained for urgent safety, code,
and operational needs.
Created and staffed entirely through
reinvested efficiency savings.
CityofGlendora.gov 20
T H E I N V E S T M E N T B E H I N D T H E N E W M O D E L Maintaining Like We Haven't in Decades
4x increase in annual facilities maintenance
spending since 2018.
$1.4M invested in facility maintenance each year —
up from ~$350K.
$4M in facility projects already completed across
the City (FY23/24–FY25/26).
CityofGlendora.gov 21
N O T E V E R Y R E P A I R W A S I N T H E A S S E S S M E N T — N E E D S A R I S E $4 Million Already Invested
Real work, already done
Roof and HVAC replacements,
electrical and plumbing upgrades,
ADA and safety improvements,
asbestos remediation, security
systems, and LED retrofits
— across 19 City facilities.
Some were assessment-driven;
others arose unexpectedly from
safety, code, or service needs.
CityofGlendora.gov 22
A S I G N A T U R E N E E D — T O B E D E T A I L E D I N W O R K S H O P 2 The Library: Built 1972
Today — ongoing water intrusion & structural deficiencies Built in 1972
Bidwell Plaza serves as the roof over most of the
lower/main floor.
Water intrusion
Historic and ongoing water infiltration on the main library floor.
Structural analysis
An in-depth evaluation assessed suitability for
renovation and a future second story.
Per City Council direction, one-time funds are NOT being used for the Library or Public Works Yard — those are the focus of Workshop 2.
CityofGlendora.gov 23
T H E S C A L E O F W H A T R E M A I N S
Even After All of This — Still Not Enough
~$50M
in current facility needs
documented to Council
$250M+
in estimated longer-term
modernization needs
% / yr
construction inflation is outpacing
original FCA assumptions
The completed work and increased investment are real and meaningful — but they address a fraction of the total need. The one-time funding decision is about how far we can responsibly stretch the resources we have.
CityofGlendora.gov 24
Streets & Roads
S E C T I O N F I V E
The community's most durable priority — and the place where sustained reinvestment has finally flattened the curve of deterioration.
2 0 2 5 P A V E M E N T M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M ( B U C K N A M ) A $439 Million Asset
$439M
estimated network
replacement value
163.4
centerline miles of
streets & alleys
63.2 Citywide PCI — a “Fair”
network
30.6M
square feet of pavement
Condition of the network today
32% 22% 46%
Good to Very Good Fair Poor to Very Poor
46% of the network is now Poor to Very Poor — more than half of local streets require overlay or reconstruction.
CityofGlendora.gov 26
T H E H E A D L I N E O F T H E S T R E E T S S T O R Y We Finally Flattened the Curve
Holding the line is the
win
PCI fell to 59 in 2018 — the low
point before reinvestment.
Recent arterial investment lifted
the network back into “Fair” and
has held it there.
Without that work, the network
would have slid into the “Poor”
range.
CityofGlendora.gov 27
D I R E C T R E S U L T O F R E I N V E S T E D M O D E R N I Z A T I O N S A V I N G S We Put Real Money Behind It
Annual preventative street maintenance grew from $15,000 in 2018 to $1,000,000 today — a deliberate policy to preserve good streets before they fail.
CityofGlendora.gov 28
T H E E C O N O M I C S O F P A V E M E N T
Why We Treat Good Streets First
$1 : $6–10
Every $1 spent early on preservation
avoids $6–$10 in reconstruction once
a street fails.
“Good streets are the cheapest to
preserve and provide the highest
return on investment.”
CityofGlendora.gov 29
A C O O R D I N A T E D I N F R A S T R U C T U R E A P P R O A C H Proposed Street Segments
How segments were selected
Coordinate with water work
Combine street and water projects so mains are replaced before paving — never cut into new pavement.
Address low-PCI streets
Treat deteriorating segments before they slide further and require costly reconstruction.
Prioritize major corridors
Route 66, Grand Avenue, and Valley Center Avenue serve
residents, businesses, commuters, and visitors citywide.
Standalone-ready segments
Streets with no near-term water work are the best candidates for immediate paving.
~$18.175M
in total street options — intentionally larger than
the $8–$12M range, to give City Council a full
menu to choose from.
Why Citywide PCI barely moves
Even meaningful corridor investments touch only
a fraction of 163.4 miles and 30.6M sq. ft. The
rest of the network keeps aging — so sustained
annual funding, not one-time projects alone, is
what raises the Citywide score.
CityofGlendora.gov 30
A N D Y E T — I T I S S T I L L N O T E N O U G H
The Gap Still to Bridge
$3M annual shortfall between current funding
($5.4M) and the $8.4M needed to reach PCI
67–70.
53% of the network — 86.6 miles — now requires
overlay or reconstruction.
7 yrs of sustained $8.4M/year investment needed to
move from “Fair” to “Good.”
CityofGlendora.gov 31
P R E L I M I N A R Y P R O J E C T O P T I O N S — T H E A L L O C A T I O N Q U E S T I O N How Should $8–$12M Be Allocated?
Streets & Roads
A preliminary menu of street segments totaling
~$18.175M — selected by PCI, community
benefit, project readiness, and coordination with
planned water work.
Additional allocation toward slurry seal project.
City Facilities
~$10.5M of FCA-recommended maintenance for
2026–2030 across City Hall, La Fetra, Finkbiner,
the Teen Center, and other sites.
Not part of this decision: Consistent with City Council direction, one-time funds will not be used for the Library or Public Works Yard. Those projects — with their own phasing and long-term funding implications — are the focus of Workshop 2.
CityofGlendora.gov 32
F O R T H E R E C O R D
Fiscal Impact & Environmental Determination
Fiscal Impact
There is no immediate fiscal impact from receiving this report or participating in Workshop 1. Future City Council direction on the use of one-time funds will require fiscal analysis based on the amount, source, timing, and purpose of the funding.
Environmental Determination
This workshop and report are not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) — the action consists of receiving information, discussing priorities, and providing direction. Any future project approvals will be evaluated for environmental review as required.
Next steps: Following Council direction, staff will refine project scopes and cost estimates, confirm utility coordination and sequencing, identify funding sources, and return with the necessary budget, CIP, or projectspecific actions.
CityofGlendora.gov 33
CityofGlendora.gov 34
Workshop 1: Foundation & Funding
Questions & City Council discussion
WORKSHOP 2: LIBRARY & PUBLIC WORKS YARD
July 21, 2026
RECOMMENDATION
What Staff Is RecommendingThat the City Council:
1 Receive and file the updated reports on the Glendora Public Library and the City Corporate Yard.2 Provide direction to staff on prioritization and funding strategies for these two critical facility projects.
Scope of tonight's discussion: This workshop does not award a construction contract or appropriate full project funding. It provides the full context of the City's two largest outstanding facility needs, clarifies the magnitude, and prepares for Workshop 3, where funding strategies will be discussed based on tonight's direction.
CityofGlendora.gov 2
A MULTI-YEAR DISCUSSION, BROKEN INTO THREE FOCUSED MEETINGS A Three-Workshop Series
01 Workshop 01 • June 16 — COMPLETE
Foundation & Funding
City Council directed approximately $11.88M in one-time funds to streets and current facility needs. The first $3M was appropriated July 14, 2026 to initiate the approved street work.
YOU ARE HERE
02 Workshop 02 • July 21
Library & Public Works Yard
Tonight: the City's two most significant facility needs – condition, history, cost estimates, phasing options, and service-continuity considerations. 03 Workshop 03 • Sept 15
Funding Options & Next Steps
Grants, land sales, debt issuance, and other strategies to pay for the work, shaped by the direction provided tonight.
CityofGlendora.gov 3
WORKSHOP 1 RECAP — HOW THE CITY EARNED THIS CONVERSATION A Turnaround Two Decades in the Making
$3.5–$4M
structural deficit eliminated
through modernization,
Measures E & Z, and pension
restructuring
AAA
bond rating earned — the
highest available
$2M+/yr
in efficiency savings
deliberately reinvested into
maintenance
$11.88M
in one-time funds directed to
streets and facilities —
without a new tax
Fiscal discipline created the capacity. Workshop 1 put it to work.In 2002, the Los Angeles Times warned that Glendora's infrastructure was crumbling and the City could not afford repairs. It took organizational modernization, voter-approved measures, and years of disciplined budgeting to change that. On June 16, 2026 the City Council directed nearly $12 million toward streets and current facility needs – the first meaningful strike against decades of underinvestment. The first $3 million was appropriated on July 14, 2026 to begin the approved street work. Tonight addresses the two projects that were intentionally set aside from that discussion because they are too large for it: the Library and the Corporate Yard.
CityofGlendora.gov 4
WORKSHOP 2 ANSWERS TWO QUESTIONS
Two Facilities — One Decision Framework
1 What is the true condition – and cost – of the Library and the Corporate Yard?Decades of assessments, updated reports (2026), and current cost estimates – from a $3.2M structural repair to a $42.5M new library, and a $13.6M phased Corporate Yard. 2 What direction will shape the funding strategy for Workshop 3?City Council identifies which Library scenario to evaluate further – repair, modernization, expansion, replacement, or EOC-ready – and confirms the Corporate Yard phasing approach.
CityofGlendora.gov 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Two Essential Facilities, One Common Thread
Glendora Public Library — 1972One of the City's most visible and heavily used public facilities, and its designated Emergency Operations Center. Water intrusion and structural concerns date to the year the building opened.
City Corporate Yard — c. 1965The operational hub for Public Works: fleet, streets, facilities, materials, and emergency response support —with Parks, Trees, and Landscape operations planned to consolidate here.
The common thread: Both facilities are essential to City operations, both are far beyond the scope of routine maintenance budgets, and neither has a dedicated funding source. Per City Council direction (April 28, 2026), both were intentionally excluded from the Workshop 1 one-time funds allocation.
CityofGlendora.gov 6
FY 2025–2027 STRATEGIC PLAN — GOAL 3: NEW + REVITALIZED FACILITIES This Moment Didn't Happen by Accident
We studied the problemThe City Council directed a Citywide facility condition analysis, in-depth Library structural evaluations (2021–2026): a Corporate Yard site analysis, and community surveys — replacing assumptions with engineering and data.This is in addition to the studies, evaluations, work, and improvements previously completed.
We planned deliberatelyThe Strategic Plan made new and revitalized facilities a formal City goal. The City Council adopted the Civic Center vision as a public starting point, approved the three-workshop framework, and set the one-time funding range.
We chased every dollar1990 California Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act; 2023 Building Forward application, a $10M State budget request.Nearly $50M invested in capital projects since 2020.Standing City Council direction (January 2026): pursue all state and federal grant funding.
The through-line: these workshops are the strategy – a structured, public process to confront facility needs that have been documented for decades, with the community in the room. Tonight is the second of three deliberate steps.
CityofGlendora.gov 7
SECTION ONE
The Glendora Public Library
A 27,000-square-foot community anchor and a 50-year story of water, concrete, and hard funding choices.
PHOTO
ONE LARGE PHOTO — full-bleed hero image of the Library
(dramatic exterior with Bidwell Plaza, or the iconic sculpted tree view)
THE GLENDORA PUBLIC LIBRARY
Completed 1972 – one of the City's most visible and heavily used public facilities, and its Emergency Operations Center. 9 THE GLENDORA PUBLIC LIBRARY
The Building Today
PHOTO
Main library floor — public reading area beneath the plaza CityofGlendora.gov 10
COMPLETED 1972 AS PART OF THE CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX
The Library at a Glance
1972
two-story reinforced
concrete & masonry
27,000
square feet of
building area
EOC
serves as the City's
Emergency Operations
Center
$2.95M
current annual
operating budget
The plaza is the roofThe Bidwell Plaza sits directly above the occupied Library space and serves as part of its roof structure. The condition of the Plaza – and its drainage system – is directly tied to the water intrusion and structural concerns inside the Library below. Water intrusion was first documented shortly after the building opened, and the issues have been studied and repaired repeatedly for five decades without a comprehensive permanent solution.
CityofGlendora.gov 11
THIS IS NOT A RECENTLY DISCOVERED ISSUE
Fifty Years of Study & Repair
1983
Slab &
Waterproofing Study
Plaza deck cracking and water intrusion; recommended removal and replacement of slab and waterproofing. 1988
Structural
Soundness Review
Identified concrete girder cracking and structural load concerns (the same core finding confirmed in 2023). 1990
Prop 85 Grant Effort
Grant application for repairs, renovation, and expansion; grant program has since expired. 2003–04
Voluntary Upgrade
Reinforced portions of the building and resurfaced the plaza; water intrusion and cracking later continued. 2021
Preliminary
Assessment
Shade-structure study revealed visible cracking and water intrusion –prompting deeper evaluation. 2022
CDA Condition
Assessment
Confirmed cracking exceeding allowable standards (0.016"; some over 0.06") and water intrusion. 2023
MHP Phase 1 + 2
In-depth structural analysis ($2.87M repair estimate) plus visioning: seven workshops, 50,000 sq. ft. target. 2023
State Grant
Application
$8M Building Forward request; competitive but not selected – criteria prioritized disadvantaged communities. 2023–24
Bureau Veritas FCA
$6.96M in building systems and component costs identified over 20 years (3% annual inflation). 2026
MHP Update
Structural strengthening and waterproofing remain needed. Updated cost estimate: $3.2M.
CityofGlendora.gov 12
THE GLENDORA PUBLIC LIBRARY
2004 Renovations
CityofGlendora.gov 13
Rear Wall Reinforcement Column Reinforcement
THE GLENDORA PUBLIC LIBRARY
2004 Plaza Resurfacing
CityofGlendora.gov 14
DOCUMENTED CONDITIONS 2021 TO 2026
2022 CDA Condition Assessment
PHOTO
Water intrusion & staining on the main library floor
(interior ceiling/wall staining photos)
PHOTO
Bidwell Plaza deck surface conditions
(deteriorated waterproofing membrane areas)
PHOTO
2003–04 repair areas — epoxy-repaired cracks now leaking (before/after or current condition)
CityofGlendora.gov 15
DOCUMENTED CONDITIONS 2021 TO 2026
2022 CDA Condition Assessment
CityofGlendora.gov 16
DOCUMENTED
CONDITIONS
2021 TO 2026
2022 CDA
Condition
Assessment
Annotation from
visual survey in
March 2022 (not
comprehensive)
PHOTO
Water intrusion & staining on the main library floor
(interior ceiling/wall staining photos)
PHOTO
2003–04 repair areas — epoxy-repaired cracks now leaking (before/after or current condition)
CityofGlendora.gov 13
MHP STRUCTURAL EVALUATION — UPDATED JULY 2026
The 2026 MHP Update
Site ConditionsCracking of main beams and girders appears stable – does not present an immediate concern under current loading. Waterintrusion areas should be addressed nearterm to prevent further concrete damage.
Seismic AnalysisThe main structural system generally meets essential-facility standards. The exception: the Bidwell Forum – needing wall anchorage, fiber-reinforced wrapping around supporting beams, and new shear walls.
Foundation ImprovementsFour central pier foundations must be enlarged (one foot of concrete around the full perimeter) to support a 100-psf live load at essential-facility standards.
Non-Structural / EOCIf the Library is to remain the Emergency Operations Center, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, IT, and ceiling systems require further review and anchorage (not in the current repair scope). $3.2M
Updated construction cost for
structural strengthening and
Bidwell Plaza waterproofing
(Sept 2027 start).
Excludes soft costs, broader
modernization, comprehensive
waterproofing, interior
improvements, and EOCrelated non-structural work.
CityofGlendora.gov 18
DOCUMENTED CONDITIONS
2021 TO 2026
2023 and 2026
MHP Assessments
PHOTO
Water intrusion & staining on the main library floor
(interior ceiling/wall staining photos)
PHOTO
2003–04 repair areas — epoxy-repaired cracks now leaking (before/after or current condition)
CityofGlendora.gov 13
2023 and 2026
MHP Assessments
PHOTO
Water intrusion & staining on the main library floor
(interior ceiling/wall staining photos)
PHOTO
2003–04 repair areas — epoxy-repaired cracks now leaking (before/after or current condition)
CityofGlendora.gov 13
DOCUMENTED CONDITIONS
2021 TO 2026
2023 and 2026
MHP Assessments
PHOTO
Water intrusion & staining on the main library floor
(interior ceiling/wall staining photos)
PHOTO
2003–04 repair areas — epoxy-repaired cracks now leaking (before/after or current condition)
CityofGlendora.gov 13
DOCUMENTED CONDITIONS
2021 TO 2026
P2S MEP ASSESSMENT (2023) + BUREAU VERITAS FCA
Beyond Structure: The Rest of the Building (2023)
MechanicalBoth original air handlers are ~53 years old – well past their 15-year useful life –with major leaks and rusted casings. The chiller plant runs at maximum capacity with zero room for expansion. Ductwork is embedded in structural beams.
ElectricalThe 1,600-amp main switchboard and panels are 1970 originals – obsolete, with uncertain replacement parts and no spare circuit capacity. Two interior transformers lack code-required overcurrent protection.
PlumbingThe 2-inch water service is inadequate for any addition (minimum 4 inches needed). Water pressure exceeds the 80-psi code maximum, and the sanitary drainage line is already at capacity.
PHOTO
1970 main electrical switchboard
$6.96M (2026) in building systems and component improvement costs identified by the Bureau Veritas FCA over the next 20 years (mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire, flooring, roofing, windows — assuming 3% annual inflation).
CityofGlendora.gov 22
FROM REPAIR TO REPLACEMENT — THE FULL RANGE
The Menu of Library Options
Option Description Estimate (2023)
$2.9M (recommended project budget: $4.0M) 1 Structural strengthening and repairs 1a Option 1 plus plaza hardscape and green roof $3.2M
2 “The Deck” expansion concept $20.6M
3 “The Paseo” expansion concept $23.0M
4 New building (50,000 sf vision) $42.7M
Context: Estimates prepared in 2023 as part of the Visioning (MHP/Pfeiffer) $2.9M baseline addresses structural repair only and leaves identified MEP deficiencies substantially unaddressed. A new standalone Library is estimated at $39M to upward of $72M.
Hard construction estimates by Cumming; excludes soft costs (design, plan check, permits, inspection).
CityofGlendora.gov 23
“The Deck” expansion “The Paseo” expansion
MHP / PFEIFFER VISIONING — 2023
Two Visions for an Expanded Library
PHOTO
PHOTO OPTION A — “The Deck” concept rendering
(Pfeiffer visioning graphic)
PHOTO
PHOTO OPTION B — “The Paseo” concept rendering
(Pfeiffer visioning graphic)
OPTION 1 — “THE DECK” • $20.6M OPTION 2 — “THE PASEO” • $23.0M CityofGlendora.gov 24
Visioning was non-architectural in nature, only massing and general use of space(s)
IF THE LIBRARY MUST CLOSE FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD
Keeping Library Services Running
Option 1Rental facility of at least 7,000 sf
$3.15M
estimated Year One cost – approx. $900k in
one-time funding
Highest service continuity — study space, programming, staff functions all continue.
Option 2One portable location (2,160 sf) + two outreach vehicles $3.41M
estimated Year One cost – approx. $1M in onetime funding Core services continue; no study, programming, or staff space on site.
Option 3Two temporary locations (4,320 sf) + one outreach vehicle $3.78M
estimated Year One cost – approx. $1.3 million
in one-time funding
Adds limited study space back; still no programming or staff space.
For scale: the Library's entire annual operating budget is approximately $2.95M. All options assume a two-month relocation, current staffing levels, mobile-service purchases in year one, and long-term storage of collection unavailable to the public.
CityofGlendora.gov 25
HOW THE LIBRARY WAS PAID FOR — AND WHY IT CAN'T HAPPEN AGAIN A Financing Model Frozen in Time
Then — 1970● A 1955 library bond failed 68% to 32%; state and federal grants were denied.
● The City formed a JPA with the school district and issued approximately $950K in lease revenue bonds (no voter approval required). ● Fire services transferred to LA County, but the City kept the property tax capacity that had funded them.
● That freed-up tax capacity to make the annual lease
payments.
Now — 2026● Proposition 13 (1978) ended a city's ability to set or retain its own property tax rates.
● Cities can no longer create new repayment capacity by reallocating property taxes after a service transfer.
● Any significant new revenue source now generally requires voter approval (Props 13, 218, 26).
● JPAs and lease revenue bonds remain legal tools – but the revenue behind them must come from somewhere.
CityofGlendora.gov 26
SIX DECADES OF PURSUING OUTSIDE MONEY
Grant Efforts — Past and Present
Late 1960sState & federal construction grants sought to reduce local financing for the new library. Applications were denied, forcing the JPA lease-revenue approach. 1990 – Proposition 85Approximately $650K sought for structural repairs, renovation, and modest expansion under the state library bond act. The program has long since expired; no comparable program exists today. 2023 – Building Forward Grant$8M request for waterproofing, electrical, HVAC, plumbing, and structural repairs. Technically competitive but was not selected; the program prioritized disadvantaged communities.
NOW — FY 2026/27 State Budget RequestStaff is working with Senator Pérez to secure an allocation as part of Fiscal Year 2026/27 State budget; initial figure identified is $10 million, based on the scope of the previously submitted Building Forward grant (critical maintenance including mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural, and weatherproofing repairs). Pending City Council direction tonight, staff will meet again with the Senator's office and submit a formal funding request. Pursuing this appropriation does not preclude future competitive state, county, or federal opportunities.
CityofGlendora.gov 27
SECTION TWO
The Corporate Yard
Built around 1965 — the operational engine behind every street, park, tree, and City facility.
THE CITY CORPORATE YARD Built c. 1965 — the operational hub behind every street, park, tree, facility, and emergency response in Glendora. 29 1250 ST. VLADIMIR STREET — 2.8 ACRES
The Yard Today
CityofGlendora.gov 30
FACILITIES DIVISION
STREETS DIVISION FLEET DIVISION
1250 ST. VLADIMIR STREET — 2.8 ACRES
The Yard Today
CityofGlendora.gov 31
THE OPERATIONAL HUB OF PUBLIC WORKS
The Corporate Yard at a Glance
c. 1965
original construction — six
decades of service
2.8 acres at
1250 St. Vladimir Street
8,270
square feet of existing
building area
$2.12M
in deferred maintenance
identified by Bureau Veritas
What runs through this siteFleet Services, Streets, Facilities Maintenance, materials and equipment storage, vehicle operations, and emergency response support, with Parks, Landscape Maintenance, and Urban Forestry planned to consolidate here. A centralized yard improves coordination, reduces travel time, shares equipment, and strengthens emergency response.
PHOTO
Site plan or aerial with building labels
(existing 4-building layout)
CityofGlendora.gov 32
THE IDS GROUP SITE ANALYSIS
Why Repair Isn't the Answer
The condition problem● $2.12M in deferred maintenance: deteriorated roofing, exterior deficiencies, pavement failures.
● Aging electrical, sewer, and stormwater infrastructure requiring substantial upgrades.
● But fixing all of it still would not fix the yard.
The obsolescence problem● Buildings are functionally obsolete; the site layout is inefficient.
● Inadequate office, training, storage, staging, and employee support space.
● IDS conclusion: demolition and reconstruction is more costeffective and operationally efficient than renovation.
CityofGlendora.gov 33
IDS GROUP DESIGN — FROM 8,270 SF TO 18,310 SF
The Proposed New Corporate Yard
Proposed
SF
Existing
SF Building Proposed Use
1,203 7,500
Facilities, Streets, Parks, Trees & Landscape offices; future traffic control center / EOC potential (1) Office
4,346 5,510 Fleet office, maintenance garage, repair space, car wash station (2) Garage / Fleet Paint/sign shop and tire storage 1,200 1,800 (3) Sign & Tire Storage 1,521 3,500 Workshop space for wood and metal work (4) Facility Shops Total 8,270 18,310
$12.6M
2024 preliminary construction estimate
$13.6M
2026 estimate with phased construction
Design status: City Council approved the IDS design agreement on Nov. 12, 2024; work has advanced through design and construction documentation.
CityofGlendora.gov 34
SIX DECADES APART
The Yard Today — and the Yard Tomorrow
PHOTO
PHOTO A — existing Corporate Yard buildings
(functionally obsolete structures, aging conditions)
TODAY — BUILT c. 1965 TOMORROW — 18,310 SF MODERN CAMPUS CityofGlendora.gov 35
BUILDING IT WITHOUT STOPPING OPERATIONS
The Phasing Strategy
Phase 1ANorthwest of the Big Dalton Wash: selective demolition, new storm drain infrastructure, LID facilities, material storage bins, grading, and paving.Phase 1BSoutheast of the Wash: the new Administration Office (Building 1), employee parking, primary circulation, and major utility infrastructure.Transition ZoneShared utility connections and infrastructure to keep operations running continuously between Phase 1 and Phase 2.Phase 2Demolish remaining buildings; construct Fleet Maintenance, Sign & Tire Storage, and Maintenance Shops, plus all remaining site improvements. Why phasing costs more: temporary operations, mobilization, sequencing, utility transitions, and escalation add ~$1M to the project.
CityofGlendora.gov 36
SECTION THREE
The Decision Before You
Two essential facilities, no dedicated funding source. Tonight's direction shapes the Workshop 3 funding conversation.
DIFFERENT FROM ROUTINE FACILITY MAINTENANCE
Why These Projects Need Their Own Strategy
Too big to absorbNeither project fits in annual maintenance budgets. The Library's near-term structural work alone is approximately $3.2M (construction only) – and that isn't modernization. The Corporate Yard is $13.6M and may grow with escalation and market conditions.
More than repairsThe Library requires a decision about its long-term role – including whether it remains the Emergency Operations Center. The Corporate Yard is a decision about how Public Works operates for the next several decades.
Citywide significanceThe Library is a major community asset and gathering space; the Yard underpins daily operations and emergency response. Deferring either means higher future costs, continued inefficiency, and growing facility risk.
CityofGlendora.gov 38
TRUE NORTH BOND FEASIBILITY SURVEY — 600 LIKELY VOTERS (MAY 2024) The Funding Reality
45%
support for a Library-only
bond measure
53%
support for a Citywide
facilities bond
66.7%
voter approval required to
pass a G.O. bond
$0
dedicated funding source
exists for either project
Every option stays on the table● State & federal grants and state budget appropriations (including the approximately $10M request with Senator Pérez)● Available one-time funds, if directed by City Council, and proceeds from potential land sales● Capital project debt financing and re-prioritization within the Capital Improvement Plan● Phasing improvements over several years, future revenue measures if directed, or a combination of sources CityofGlendora.gov 39
THE DIRECTION STAFF IS SEEKING TONIGHT
Setting Up Workshop 3
For the LibraryWhich scenario should staff evaluate further?● Repair only ($4.5+M recommended budget)● Broader modernization (MEP + structural)● Expansion (“The Deck” / “The Paseo”)● Replacement (“Civic Center Vision” – new building)● EOC-ready facility (adds non-structural scope) For the Corporate Yard● Confirm the phased construction approach ($13.6M)● Direct staff to continue refining phasing and updated construction cost estimates
● Weigh the trade-off: phasing preserves operations and spreads cost over years — but adds expense through mobilization, sequencing, and escalation Workshop 3 – September 15: Funding strategies, prioritization, phasing, and potential future City Council actions, built on tonight's direction.
CityofGlendora.gov 40
FOR THE RECORD
Fiscal Impact & Environmental Determination
Fiscal ImpactThere is no fiscal impact associated with receiving and filing this report. Any future appropriation, funding plan, design modification, construction award, or financing action will be brought back to the City Council for consideration.Environmental DeterminationReceiving and filing this update is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it does not approve construction, authorize physical improvements, or commit the City to a specific project. Future project approvals for the Library or Corporate Yard will include appropriate environmental review.
Next steps: following tonight's direction, staff will refine scenarios and cost estimates, advance the state budget request, and return for Workshop 3 with funding strategies and a recommended roadmap.
CityofGlendora.gov 41
BEFORE THE DISCUSSION
The Record is Clear. The Need Remains.
The Need Has Been Carefully EvaluatedDecades of assessments, decades of improvements, updated 2026 engineering, seven public visioning workshops, community surveys since 2011, and a deliberate three-workshop process. The City has studied the problem thoroughly and the record is clear.Funding Opportunities Have Been PursuedGrants pursued in the 1960s, 1990, and 2023. A $10+M state budget request underway today. Voter-approved Measures E & Z. Efficiency savings reinvested year after year. Nearly $50M in capital projects delivered since 2020 and nearly $12M more directed in Workshop 1. $12M that resulted from operational efficiencies, strong financial management, and the support of the community.Planning For Future GenerationsThe Library's water intrusion was documented the year it opened…54 years ago! Every decade of deferral has raised the price. Investing in these facilities is not about today alone – it is about ensuring they continue to serve the community for future generations. 42 Workshop 2: Library & Public Works Yard
Questions & City Council discussion
CityofGlendora.gov 43
Workshop 3 – City Owned Property ATTACHMENT C
Property Description Size (square
feet/acre)
Zoning
Parking Lot 1 Village Public Parking Lot (South
of Meda between Vista Bonita
and Wabash)
22,239 sf (0.51
acre)
Village Core
Parking Lot 9 Village Public Parking Lot
(Northwest corner of Vermont
and Mountain View)
7,434 sf (0.17
acre)
Village Core
Parking Lot 10 Village Public Parking Lot (South
of Meda between Vermont and
Glendora)
13,655 sf (0.31
acre)
Village Core
Parking Lot 11 Village Public Parking Lot (South
of Meda adjacent to Vista Bonita)
13,228 sf (0.30
acre)
Village Core
Parking Lot 12 Village Public Parking Lot (South
of Meda adjacent to Vista Bonita)
36,074 sf (0.83
acre)
Village Core
Parking Lot 14 Village Public Parking Lot (North
of Foothill between Glendora
and Vista Bonita)
10,804 sf (0.248
acre)
Village Core
Parking Lot 17 Village Public Parking Lot (North
of Foothill adjacent to Vermont)
10,764 sf (0.247
acre)
Village Core
Parking Lot 18 Village Public Parking Lot (North
of Foothill between Vermont and
Glendora)
6,825 sf (0.16
acre)
Village Core
201 W. Gladstone
Street
Glen Oaks Golf Course 741,513 sf (17.02
acre)
Other
200 W. Dawson
Avenue
Glendora Arboretum 100,551 sf (2.31
acre)
Other
1800 Big Dalton
Canyon Road
Equestrian Center 2,173,681 sf (49.9
acres)
Other
South Hills Open Space 276 acres Other
Workshop 3 – City Owned Property ATTACHMENT C
Golf Course and Arboretum Parcels
Workshop 3 – City Owned Property ATTACHMENT C
City-Owned Village Parking Lots
Workshop 3 – City Owned Property ATTACHMENT C
Equestrian Center
Workshop 3 – City Owned Property ATTACHMENT C
South Hills
Meda Ave. Meda Ave.
ATTACHMENT E
2019 AD-HOC CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE — RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION STATUS Revenue Options and Expenditures of the City's General Fund (Final Report, November 2019) • Status as of September 2026 In November 2019, the City Council received the Final Report of the Ad-Hoc Citizens Advisory Committee on Revenue Options and Expenditures of the City's General Fund. The 20-member, City Council-appointed committee met eleven times over eleven months and issued five formal recommendations, together with three cautionary observations following the passage of Measure E. The matrix below summarizes each recommendation, the actions taken by the City Council and staff since issuance of the report, and the current status. The record demonstrates not only that the Committee's recommendations have been substantially implemented, but that the City has in several areas exceeded them. For example, the City has layered pension reserves onto the bond refinancing, built fund-level expenditure transparency and multi-year projections for each revenue measure, implemented strategic outsourcing operational efficiencies, and converted land sale proceeds directly into the preventative maintenance investments the Committee called for. That record continues to inform the policy questions before the City Council at Workshop No. 3. 2019 Committee
Recommendation
Actions Taken (2019–2026) Outcome / Result Status
1. Pension Obligation
Bonds
The Committee
concurred with the City
Council's course of action
to issue Pension
Obligation Bonds (POBs)
to address the City's
$57.5 million CalPERS
unfunded accrued
liability, building on the
City's earlier pension
reforms (a second benefit
tier adopted before
PEPRA required it, and
increased employee costsharing across all
employment groups).
POBs were issued in August 2019 following City Council authorization on March 12, 2019. Standard & Poor's assigned the City a 'AAA' credit rating in connection with the bond sale — one of only fifteen California cities with outstanding debt to achieve that rating at the time.
On December 8, 2020, the City Council received a follow-up report confirming estimated savings of $30 million or more over the life of the bonds.
The City did not stop at the refinancing. It layered on a dedicated Pension SetAside Reserve, now approximately $14.5 million (FY 2025–27), plus an OPEB Set-Aside of approximately $4.36 million — nearly $18.9 million in combined retirement-related reserves above required contributions.
The set-aside preserves the option to pay off portions of the POB early in 2029, generating approximately $1.5 million in annual cash flow savings for a 5–7 year period beginning in 2030, and provides an estimated 18–24 months of servicelevel protection in a recession. CalPERS has posted three consecutive years of higher-than-anticipated returns, further strengthening the funded position.
The draft Workshop No. 3 fiscal guardrail framework extends this discipline: any capital use of pension reserves requires a discrete one-time scope, a named replenishment source, an explicit timing-risk evaluation, and a minimum pension reserve floor unavailable for capital purposes under any circumstances.
The Committee endorsed one
transaction; the City built a
complete pension strategy
around it:
• refinanced debt;
• AAA rating achieved
and maintained;
• $30M+ in confirmed
savings;
• $18.9M in retirement
reserves;
• An early payoff option
achieving annual
savings of $1 to $1.5
million; and
• A proposed guardrail
framework now before
the City Council at
Workshop 3.
COMPLETE /
EXCEEDED
2019 Committee
Recommendation
Actions Taken (2019–2026) Outcome / Result Status
2. Outsourcing of City
Services
The Committee
recommended the City
Council and staff
recognize potential cost
savings by outsourcing
any of four departments:
Police, Library,
Community Services, and
Public Works, subject to
significant study and
community input.
The December 8, 2020 follow-up report identified outsourcing opportunities for further evaluation.
The City has since pursued strategic outsourcing and operational modernization where cost-effective, building on the services already outsourced before 2019.
Documented actions include centralizing citywide facilities contracts (landscaping, tree maintenance, HVAC, janitorial, elevator maintenance), streamlining City services and engaging private entities where it makes sense, a comprehensive purchasing policy review, and implementation multiple information systems (GIS, ERP, Permitting, Payroll, CAD, Camera, 311, etc.) Core in-house services, including the Police Department and Library, were retained, consistent with the Committee's own findings that community sentiment strongly favored local police services and that the City operates its library at lower cost than the County. Further investments made in PD, including, the Community Impact Team, Dispatch, Code, and sworn staff have help to reduce major crime by 16.5% over the last two years.
Selective, strategic
outsourcing implemented; full
departmental outsourcing not
pursued. Community survey
results (86% quality-of-life
rating; 83% service
satisfaction of all city services,
2024) support the retained
service model. ADDRESSED
3. Sales Tax Measure
(Measure E)
The Committee's most
significant
recommendation:
presented via preliminary
report on September 11,
2018, urging the City to
immediately conduct a
special election for a
0.75% transactions and
use tax.
Measure E was approved by voters on March 5, 2019 (54% Yes / 46% No), raising the local rate from 9.5% to 10.25% with all revenue staying under local control.
Building on this foundation, voters approved Measure Z on November 5, 2024 (58% Yes / 42% No), adding 0.25% and bringing the City's locally controlled sales tax share to 2.00%. Measure Z was placed on the ballot unanimously and preceded by informational presentations to the Planning Commission, Library Board of Trustees, and Community Services Commission. The City Council also took an oppose position on Measure A, the homeless sales tax initiative by LA Country during the same election.
Combined Measures E/Z revenue is projected at $11,704,000 in FY 2026/27.
The structural deficit identified
by the Committee $2M+), was
evaluated further and was
found to be closer to $4
million. Measure E and later
Measure Z were foundational
to keep City services desired
levels, while eliminating the
structural deficit. The City's
multi-year forecasts are now
positive, and Measures E/Z
fund police services, streets,
homelessness response,
preventative maintenance, and
infrastructure.
COMPLETE
4. Measure E
Accountability and
Expenditure
Transparency
The Committee
recommended the City
Council consider
appointing a group of
representative residents
to periodically review
The underlying objective, public accountability for how measure dollars are spent, was implemented immediately and has expanded steadily. The very first post-Measure E budget (FY 2019–21, adopted June 25, 2019) included a Measure E Report Card publicly detailing spending on service levels, personnel retention, and capital projects.
Transparency has increased with each cycle: Measures E and Z are each accounted for separately from the General Fund, with detailed expenditures and their own multi-year financial projections presented alongside the General Fund forecast. The February 24, 2026 mid-year review publicly reported Measure E/Z The recommendation's intent
has been fulfilled through fundlevel expenditure transparency and multi-year projections for
each measure that go beyond
a periodic committee review,
every dollar of Measure E/Z
revenue and expenditure is
presented publicly, every
budget cycle. The specific
resident-committee format
INTENT
FULFILLED
2019 Committee
Recommendation
Actions Taken (2019–2026) Outcome / Result Status
Measure E expenditures,
with a five-year sunset.
transfers to the General Fund of $3–$5.6 million annually with positive multi-year outlooks for each measure.
Ongoing public reporting includes annual and mid-cycle budget adoptions, independent audits, quarterly CIP updates, scientifically valid community surveys (2024, 2025), and beginning September 8, 2026, quarterly reports on the onetime funding investment.
On December 8, 2020, the City Council noted the option for the Ad-Hoc group to be reengaged if needed. Workshop No. 3 (Topic 2) now places the formation of a citizen advisory body squarely before the City Council. remains an open option,
directly teed up by the
Workshop 3 citizen ad-hoc
committee discussion.
5. City-Owned Property
— One-Time and
Ongoing Revenue
The Committee identified
four properties for further
study as potential
sources of one-time sale
revenue and recurring
property tax: the San
Jose tract, South Hills
Wilderness Park, Glen
Oaks Golf Course, and
Carlyle E. Linder
Equestrian Park.
San Jose/Woodland site: SOLD to the Olson Company for $3.9 million. $1 million was allocated to Economic Development Action Plan initiatives; the remaining $2.9 million was appropriated on July 14, 2026 to Fund 301 as the first tranche funding the Workshop No. 1 streets and facilities program; a direct line from the Committee's recommendation to pavement and facility work now going to bid.
South Hills: The 2025 True North community survey showed 57% support for a hypothetical 50-acre sale scenario with developer-funded trail improvements. On June 9, 2026, the City Council unanimously approved a $130,000 Professional Services Agreement with T&B Planning, Inc. for a five-phase Development Feasibility Analysis of the 275–276-acre property, due no later than October 2026.
Glen Oaks Golf Course and Equestrian Park: No disposition action; both remain constrained by parkland discontinuance, replacement, and multi-year lease agreement (golf course only). Additionally, the Glen Oak Golf Course, no longer costs the City money; the revised lease agreements and mandated property improvements paid by the leasee, have generated positive cash flow for the City and a community asset used by families; a large need identified in recent Community Surveys. Recently, the City negotiated additional restaurant space and a new putting course on the property, completely paid for by the leasee.
Post-2019 amendments to the Surplus Land Act (HCD) have added process requirements and affordable housing covenants affecting all City property dispositions.
The Committee's land strategy
has been directly
implemented: San Jose sale
proceeds funded a portion of
Workshop 1 projects, and
South Hills is under
professional feasibility analysis
for the first time, replacing
decades of conjecture with a
publicly available, researchbased document.
INPROGRESS
COMMITTEE WARNINGS FOLLOWING PASSAGE OF MEASURE E
After Measure E passed, the Committee reconvened and cautioned that, while the measure would balance the structural deficit, three significant financial issues remained on the horizon. Each has since materialized or been quantified and each has been met with a documented City response, culminating in the Workshop 1 investments approved and fully appropriated in summer 2026. 2019 Committee
Warning (Measure E
Follow-Up)
How the Concern Has Materialized City Response Status
Street and
Infrastructure Costs:
the Committee cited
approximately $60 million
needed to meet best
practices of street
maintenance.
The concern was validated and quantified: the 2025
Pavement Management Program (Bucknam Infrastructure
Group) reported a citywide weighted PCI of 63.2 (“Fair”), down from 65.4 in 2020, across 163.4 miles with a $439
million network replacement value and 46% of streets rated Poor to Very Poor. Comprehensive assessments between
2022 and 2025 identified nearly $1 billion in long-term infrastructure needs citywide, including $350 million in water system needs and $50 million+ in deferred facility
maintenance.
The City responded with additive preventative
maintenance rather than deferral: over $60 million in
improvements delivered over the past seven years;
an annual slurry seal program expanded by
$500,000 through Workshop 1; centralized citywide
facility maintenance contracts; water rates
modernized in 2024 funding a $30 million 5-year
water CIP; and quarterly CIP reporting throughout.
Workshop No. 1 (June 16, 2026) then produced City
Council consensus on 72 items totaling $11.88
million — $8.73 million to streets (est. +2.87
citywide PCI; the largest single one-time pavement
investment in City history) and $3.15 million across
61 facility items at 13 City sites drawn directly from
the Bureau Veritas FCA. The City Council fully
funded the program within ten weeks: $3 million
appropriated July 14, 2026, and the remaining $9
million on August 25, 2026, with TransTech
engaged for street engineering, construction
beginning late 2026, and the first quarterly progress
report delivered September 8, 2026.
VALIDATED /
SIGNIFICANT
PROGRESS
ACHIEVED /
FULLY
FUNDING
NEEDS AN
ONGOING
CHALLENGE
Sources: Ad-Hoc Citizens Advisory Committee Final Report (November 2019); FY 2019–21 Adopted Budget and Measure E Report Card (June 25, 2019); City Council follow-up report (December 8, 2020); 2020–2023 Strategic Plan Update; FY 2025–26 Mid-Year Budget Review (February 24, 2026); Workshop No. 1 results and appropriations (June 16, July 14, and August 25, 2026); Workshop No. 2 staff report (July 21, 2026); Draft Workshop No. 3 staff report (September 15, 2026); 2025 Pavement Management Program; Bureau Veritas Facility Condition Assessment; True North Research community surveys (2024, 2025). 2019 Committee
Warning (Measure E
Follow-Up)
How the Concern Has Materialized City Response Status
Federal Wastewater /
Environmental
Compliance: the
Committee warned of
potential costs in the
millions.
Regional stormwater compliance obligations continue under Measure W and related mandates. The City demonstrated
its ability to secure large restricted-revenue funding where an eligible program exists, capturing $23,755,692 for the Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project, and is
developing a Stormwater Master Plan ($250,000).
Corporate Yard Phase 1A incorporates storm drain and Low Impact Development facilities that may qualify for Measure W or other regional stormwater funding.
Compliance costs are being addressed through
restricted revenue capture rather than the General
Fund, consistent with the layered funding strategy
presented at Workshop No. 3.
MANAGED
Recession Risk: the
Committee warned the
economy will eventually
enter a recession,
affecting sales tax
revenues.
No recession has yet tested Measure E/Z revenues, but the City weathered COVID-19 budget adjustments (FY 2020–21
CIP postponement), multi-million dollar insurance increases, and a flattening of sales tax revenue without structural damage. The concern now frames the central policy
question of Workshop No. 3: the Pension Set-Aside (~$14.5 million) provides an estimated 18–24 months of servicelevel protection in a downturn, and any strategic draw for facilities purposes would shorten that window until
development proceeds replenish the reserve.
The City built the recession buffer the Committee's
warning called for: a AAA bond rating, positive multiyear forecasts for the General Fund and each of Measures E and Z, General Fund reserves at 35 to
40% of operating expenditures, and pension/OPEB
set-asides totaling approximately $18.9 million.
Staff's proposed fiscal guardrails (minimum pension
reserve floor, named replenishment source, timingrisk evaluation) are designed to keep any reduction in that flexibility bounded and temporary.
PREPARED
WORKSHOP 3: FUNDING OPTIONS & CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE September 15, 2026
The Final Meeting Of The Three-Workshop Series On The City’s Capital Facilities
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
What Staff Is Recommending
CityofGlendora.gov 2
That the City Council:
1 Receive and file the report on potential funding and revenue options for the City's major capital facility needs, including the Glendora Public Library and the City Corporate Yard. 2 Provide direction on which funding and revenue strategies should receive further evaluation and analysis. 3 Provide direction on a funding strategy for the Phase 1 Corporate Yard improvements identified in the 2026 IDS Phasing Report, consistent with Workshop 2 direction.
4 Provide direction, as necessary, on the potential formation, scope, structure, membership, and timing of a citizen advisory committee.
5 Provide any other direction deemed appropriate, including next steps and an implementation timeline.
Scope of Tonight’s Discussion: This workshop concludes the three-part series. It does not award a contract or appropriate funds, it identifies which funding strategies the City Council wants staff to pursue, in what sequence, on what timeline, and with what trade-offs.
A M U L T I - Y E A R D I S C U S S I O N , B R O K E N I N T O T H R E E F O C U S E D M E E T I N G S A Three-Workshop Series
CityofGlendora.gov 3
01 Workshop 01 • June 16 — COMPLETE
Foundation & Funding
The City Council reached consensus
on 72 items totaling $11.88M in onetime funds for streets and existing facilities.
The full $12M was appropriated by
August 25, 2026.
02 Workshop 02 • July 21 — COMPLETE
Library & Public Works Yard
The City's two most significant facility
needs: condition, history, cost
estimates, phasing, and service
continuity.
The City Council set three directives
that help shape tonight.
Y O U A R E H E R E
03 Workshop 03 • Sept 15
Funding Options & Next Steps
Grants, land sales, debt, ballot
measures, and other strategies to pay
for the documented work + the citizen
advisory committee question.
W O R K S H O P 1 R E C A P — J U N E 1 6 , 2 0 2 6
Workshop 1 Delivered and Fully Funded
CityofGlendora.gov 4
$11.88M
One-time Funds. 72 items
reached by City Council
consensus
$8.73M
Streets & Roads. Est. +2.87
citywide PCI, the largest onetime pavement investment in City history
$3.15M
Existing Facilities. 61 items
across 13 City sites and parks,
drawn from the Bureau Veritas
FCA
10 weeks
from consensus to full funding
— $3M on July 14 and $9M on
August 25, 2026
Implementation Is Underway
• Streets: Design consultant engaged for engineering and design; bid packages completed within approximately 60 days; Currently open for construction bidding with a closing date of 09/17/2026; Construction planned for early 2027. • Facilities: scope confirmed across all 61 items; bid and contract documents are in preparation; a detailed implementation timeline will be returned to City Council for verification.
• Funding: $3.11M General Fund reserve, $5.9M reprioritized CIP, $2.99M San Jose sale proceeds, $900K reprioritized GUSD pool setaside, and $100K in other sources. • Accountability: Quarterly progress reports to the City Council; the first on September 22, 2026.
Why It Matters Tonight: Workshop 1 proved a funding model: documented needs, City Council consensus, immediate appropriation.
Tonight applies that discipline to the two projects too large for one-time funds alone.
W O R K S H O P 2 R E C A P — J U L Y 2 1 , 2 0 2 6
Workshop 2 Set Tonight's Agenda
CityofGlendora.gov 5
1 · State Funding
Continue working with Senator Pérez's
Office on a State budget appropriation
for the Library. A $10.6M funding request
(construction only) was submitted on
September 4, 2026.
2 · Library Cost Estimate
Comprehensive renovation &
modernization estimate due November
2026; MHP engaged.
Scope: structural repairs, Bidwell Plaza
waterproofing, building systems, modern
library spaces, EOC function, and the
plaza shade/patio structure.
3 · Corporate Yard
Return at Workshop 3 with a funding
strategy for the Phase 1 improvements
in the 2026 IDS Phasing Report.
That strategy is Topic 2 of tonight's
presentation.
Both Facilities Are Essential to Daily Service Delivery The Library is one of Glendora's most heavily used public facilities and the City's designated Emergency Operations Center. The Corporate Yard is the operational hub for Public Works through Fleet, Streets, Facilities, materials storage, and emergency response; future operational hub of Parks, Landscape, and Urban Forestry operations.
T H E O N E Q U E S T I O N T H A T R E M A I N S
Tonight Is About How to Pay For It
CityofGlendora.gov 6
“How will the City pay for the work that has
now been well documented and thoroughly
discussed?”
— The Central Question of Workshop 3
Topic 1 · Funding & Revenue Options
One-time funds, grants, land & development, debt, ballot measures, and other options, including capacity, timing, and trade-offs of each.
Topics 2 & 3 · Yard Strategy + Advisory Committee
A recommended $7M layered funding plan for Corporate Yard Phase 1, and the formation question for a citizen advisory body.
No Single Source Will Do It: No existing funding source is likely to fully fund either the Library or the Corporate Yard. Successful implementation will require a combination of strategies developed over multiple fiscal years. Tonight, the City Council can begin to identify which funding options, in what sequence, and on what timeline.
Organized per the framework adopted April 28, 2026 and the direction provided at Workshop 2.
T H E F U N D I N G C H A L L E N G E I N C O N T E X T A Decade of Discipline Created This Capacity
CityofGlendora.gov 7
$3.5–$4M
structural deficit eliminated
through Measures E & Z,
pension restructuring, and
organizational modernization
AAA
bond rating earned and
maintained; the highest
available and one of 15 cities
in California (General Fund)
$60M+
in improvements over seven
years: water, streets,
sidewalks, parks, and facilities
$62M
in grants secured since 2020
across all types of capital
improvements
Despite That Progress, the Documented Need Remains Substantial Efficiency savings were deliberately reinvested into preventative street and facility maintenance, reserves and capital policies were strengthened, and the City now averages $2 million more in annual preventative street and facility improvements. Annual budgets maintain what exists; they cannot absorb generational capital projects. The next slide shows the full magnitude of what has been documented, and what has been done about it so far.
The Bottom Line: The City earned the financial credibility to take on major facilities. What it has never had is a dedicated funding source for them.
W H A T T H E S T U D I E S S A Y — 2 0 2 3 T O 2 0 2 6 The Documented Need, In One Table
CityofGlendora.gov 8
Need Source / Date Magnitude Progress to Date
City Facilities: Deferred maintenance March 11, 2025 $50M+ $4M in facilities upgrade completed since FY 2023–24; Workshop 1 directed $3.15M to 61 priority items.
City Facilities: Full modernization March 11, 2025 $250M+ Evaluated through this workshop process; no citywide program funded Pavement Network: Replacement
value Dec 9, 2025 (2025 PMP) $439M Goal: PCI 63.2 → 70 in 7 years ($3M to $3.5M/yr gap); Workshop 1 adds est. +2.87 PCI Water System: 30-year need Sept 12, 2023 (Water Master
Plan) $350M $30M programmed in first five years (Glendora, Colorado, Cypress mains) Civic Center: ROM construction Sept 9, 2025 (DLR Group) $125M Conceptual renderings adopted as baseline; no design or construction funding committed
Corporate Yard: Phased construction July 21, 2026 (IDS Phasing Report) $13.6M Design complete; Phase 1 strategy ($6.5–7M) is Topic 2 tonight Glendora Public Library November 2026 (pending) TBD Essential rehab est. $4.0–4.5M; MHP full estimate due Nov 2026; $10.6M state request submitted Sept 4, 2026
W H Y T H I S I S H A R D
Two Structural Constraints Frame Every Option
CityofGlendora.gov 9
1 · Proposition 13 (1978)
• Caps the City's property tax capacity at 1% of assessed value. • Requires two-thirds voter approval for City-initiated property taxes and infrastructure bonds.
• The Library and Corporate Yard could not be built today using the financial practices of the late 1960s and early 1970s.
• Funds used to purchase portions of South Hills in 1972 could not be done today using the same financial practices of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.
2 · No Dedicated Funding Source
• Neither the Library nor the Corporate Yard has a dedicated revenue stream.
• Available annual resources must be balanced against many other capital priorities.
• Any operating funds redirected to facilities must be weighed against the loss of services to the community.
How the Current Library and a Portion of South Hills Was Actually Paid for — A History Lesson In the late 1960s, the City moved fire services to the County. The County raised property taxes on Glendora properties to pay for fire protection, while the City did not lower its own rate to offset the increase. The excess revenue the City kept was used to pay down the bonds that built the current Library. None of those actions required a vote of Glendora citizens. Under Proposition 13, that playbook no longer exists, which is why tonight's menu of options looks the way it does.
In March 1972, the City Council adopted a resolution to call an election for an open space property tax, subject to a HUD gra nt being received. Later in 1972, the City was awarded a HUD grant and canceled the election. In lieu of the election, the City Council voted to temporarily add $0.50 per $100 in assessed valuation tax increase, which increased the City’s property tax rate from $1.38 per $100 in assessed valuation to $1.88 per $100 in assessed valuation. For perspective, the $0.50 per $100 is 5x more than the current amount of property tax currently allocated to the City.
T O P I C O N E
Funding & Revenue Options
Six Categories of Tools: one-time funds, grants, land and development, debt, ballot measures, and additional options. Each has different capacity, timing, and trade-offs.
CityofGlendora.gov 10
T O P I C 1 O V E R V I E W
Six Ways to Pay — At a Glance
CityofGlendora.gov 11
A
One-Time Funding
Available now and already proven in Workshop 1; amounts are finite, and deeper draws reach the pension set-aside.
B
Grants & Appropriations
No repayment; the City has captured $62M since 2020;
however, amounts are competitive, restricted for specific uses, and never guaranteed.
C
Land & Development
Public benefit dollars and property sales are episodic, market-timed, and constrained by the Surplus Land Act.
D
Issuance of Debt
The only tool capable of delivering a full project in one construction period. It’s also the tool that may directly impact the operating budget and service levels.
E
Ballot Measures
The only mechanism that creates a new, dedicated,
recurring revenue stream; requires voter approval.
F
Additional Options
Service-level changes, assessment districts, public-private partnerships, and philanthropy.
Where This Ends Up: Topic 1 closes with a side-by-side comparison of all six categories before we turn to the Corporate Yard strategy.
O P T I O N A — O N E - T I M E F U N D I N G
What Remains After Workshop 1
CityofGlendora.gov 12
A B C D E F
Funding Source FY 2025–27 FY 2027–29 FY 2029–31 Notes
Available Fund Balance /
Reserve $3,910,000 $376,030 $470,000 $3.11M allocated to Workshop 1; reserve moves from 40% to 35% of operating expenditures Reallocation of CIP /
Reprioritization — — —
$5.9M of CIP reserves allocated to Workshop 1
projects
Property Sales $2,130,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $2.99M from San Jose/Woodland sale allocated to Workshop 1. Future property sales – Dale/Barranca
Pension Set-Aside $14,500,000 $215,000 $210,000 The City's recession shock absorber — see guardrails, next slide
OPEB Set-Aside $4,360,000 $78,000 $90,000 Retiree healthcare set-aside available for required contributions
Totals $24,900,000 $4,669,030 $4,770,000 Workshop 1 allocations total $12M The Posture Has Changed: Workshop 1 spent reserves the City had positioned for exactly that purpose. Any additional draw now reaches deeper, most notably into the pension set-aside funds. Staff recommends the guardrail framework on the next slide before considering it.
O P T I O N A — O N E - T I M E F U N D I N G
Four Guardrails Before Any Further Draw
CityofGlendora.gov 13
A B C D E F
1 One-time Scopes Only
One-time funds may be
applied only to distinct, onetime capital scopes, never to recurring obligations.
2 Named Replenishment
Any reserve draw must be
paired with an identified
replenishment source at the
time of appropriation.
3 Timing Risk Evaluated
The timing risk of that
replenishment source must
be explicitly evaluated, sized
to the expected case, not the
best case.
4 A Pension Reserve Floor
A minimum pension reserve
floor should be established
that is not available for
capital purposes under any
circumstances.
A Watch Item: AB 1383 (Public Employees' Retirement Benefits) City took an opposed position to this legislation for financial reasons. If signed, AB 1383 raises the PEPRA compensation cap and lets Safety employees reach their top benefit factor at 55 instead of 57, which increases pension costs for service earned on or after January 1, 2027 and growing unfunded liability. The Governor has until September 30, 2026 to act; inaction means it becomes law.
Why Guardrails Matter: The pension set-aside preserves 18–24 months of service-level protection in a recession. Additionally, current pension reserve levels provide the option to pay off a portion of the pension bonds early in FY 2029/30; this maneuver is worth $1M to $1.5M per year in cash flow savings for five to seven years.
O P T I O N A — O N E - T I M E F U N D I N G
A Bridge: Reserves Now, Development Proceeds Later
CityofGlendora.gov 14
A B C D E F
D E P L O Y
$4–6M
from the pension set-aside toward the
Library or Corporate Yard, capturing
current construction pricing on bidready, documented work →
B U I L D
Now
avoid ongoing construction cost
escalation on projects that are
designed (Corporate Yard) and
documented (Library)
→
B A C K F I L L
$6M
restore reserves from anticipated
development proceeds: $2M (Dale /
Mercy Housing) + $4M (Barranca /
AUSD site) over the next two fiscal
years
The Effect: Idle Reserve Dollars Become Avoided Escalation Without New Taxes or New Debt Development proceeds arrive on the market's timeline, not the City's. Staff can develop probability-weighted timing ranges for each backfill source, size any draw to the expected case, and return with a restoration plan if a source slips materially beyond its expected close.
Credit Check: Based on conversations with the City's financial consultants, another $4–6M in one-time funding with an identified repayment source would likely not impact the City's AAA bond rating.
O P T I O N A — O N E - T I M E F U N D I N G
The Trade-Off: Recession Flexibility
CityofGlendora.gov 15
A B C D E F
With Reserves Intact
• The pension set-aside functions as the City's recession shock absorber. • In a mild recession, the City can absorb elevated CalPERS contributions or a temporary revenue decline without reducing services. • The City Council can defer community service-level reductions for an estimated 18–24 months.
• Preserves the option to pay off portions of the pension obligation bonds early (2029/30); $1–1.5M per year in savings for 5–7 years beginning 2030.
During the Bridge Period
• Deploying $4–6M thins the buffer until development proceeds are received.
• In a downturn during the bridge, policy-level service questions come to the City Council sooner than they otherwise would; within the first budget cycle.
• The consequence is not fiscal distress; it is timing. Multi-year forecasts remain positive and CalPERS has posted three straight years of higherthan-anticipated returns. • The guardrails are designed to keep the reduction in flexibility bounded and temporary.
The Cost is Measured in Service Levels, Not Dollars: The recommended guardrails: one-time scopes, named replenishment, timingrisk evaluation, and a pension floor — exist precisely to keep this trade-off defined and temporary.
Remember the Context
Overall, the City's multi-year forecasts remain positive. The question is not whether the City can afford the bridge, it is how much recession flexibility the City Council is willing to trade, for how long, and against how credible a repayment source.
O P T I O N A — O N E - T I M E F U N D I N G
The Policy Question for the City Council
CityofGlendora.gov 16
A B C D E F
The Question Is Not Simply Whether to Spend Reserves
It is whether to trade a defined, temporary reduction in recession flexibility for the permanent avoidance of construction cost escalation on two well-documented facility needs supported by a named repayment source.
If the City Council finds the timing credible …
• … and the Dale and Barranca development proceeds are
treated as a reliable backfill,
• … and the pension reserve floor is maintained,
• then the strategic use of $4–6M in pension set-aside funds represents a defensible and disciplined approach.
If the City Council is not comfortable with the timing risk … • … the fiscally disciplined alternative is to defer additional allocations until development proceeds are actually received, • accepting construction cost escalation is the price of preserved flexibility.
Direction Sought: Should staff further develop the reserve-bridge approach, with the four guardrails, for a future appropriation decision?
O P T I O N B — G R A N T S & A P P R O P R I A T I O N S The Grant Record and the Library's Grant History
CityofGlendora.gov 17
A B C D E F
$62M
in grants secured since 2020 across all
types of capital improvements
$23.76M
Measure W — Finkbiner Park Stormwater
Capture: large restricted-revenue capture
where an eligible program exists
0 for 4
library construction grant attempts
selected for funding since 1969
T H E L I B R A R Y ' S G R A N T H I S T O R Y
1969
Library Services &
Construction Act:
Application to build a new
library. Not selected.
1990
Prop 85 Library Bond Act
(1988): $4.38M request for
deck, seismic, expansion,
remodel. Not selected.
1998
Prop 14 Library
Construction &
Renovation Bond:
Program oversubscribed
and expired. Not
selected.
2023
Building Forward Program: $8M request
for waterproofing, MEP, and structural
repairs. Not selected; criteria favored
higher-poverty communities. Glendora
was one of 104 applications ($276M) left
unfunded.
The Honest Takeaway: Grant funding is attractive because it requires no repayment. Grant funding is also limited because it is competitive, restricted in use, often requires local match, and may not cover full project costs. Grants belong in the strategy discussion; in a perfect world, they are not be the entire strategy.
O P T I O N B — G R A N T S & A P P R O P R I A T I O N S Five Avenues Staff Will Keep Pursuing
CityofGlendora.gov 18
A B C D E F
State Budget Appropriations &
Earmarks
Continue working with Senator Pérez's Office per January and July 2026 direction. A $10.6M request (Library construction only) was submitted September 4, 2026.
State Competitive Grant Programs Monitor for reauthorization of a statewide library construction bond or a Building Forward successor. The last program funded $489M across 279 libraries in two rounds.
Federal Programs
Congressional Community Project Funding and infrastructure/resiliency programs. Mixed record, but the City recently helped GUSD receive $1.25M for the Sandburg Middle School sports fields and $5+ million for the People Movement Project.
Emergency Management & Resiliency
Funding
The Library is the City's designated EOC and the Corporate Yard supports emergency response; seismic and hazard-mitigation programs may offer eligibility that general facility programs do not.
Stormwater / Low Impact Development
Corporate Yard Phase 1A includes storm drains and LID facilities that may qualify for Measure W or other regional stormwater funding; Measure W funding discussed in the Corporate Yard Phase 1 Funding strategy.
O P T I O N C — L A N D & D E V E L O P M E N T
Future Development: The Largest Projected One-Time Source CityofGlendora.gov 19
A B C D E F
AUSD Site: 1133 S. Barranca Ave (9 acres)
• Former Azusa Adult Education Center / SGV Regional
Occupation Program site.
• Application received from Melia Homes: 163 market-rate forsale units (136 townhomes + 27 single-family detached). • Anticipated public benefit: $4M
GUSD Site: 350 W. Mauna Loa Ave (9 acres)
• Whitcomb Continuation High School site; application from Lewis Group of Companies pending.
• Preliminary conversations suggest roughly 140–150 for-sale units.
• Anticipated public benefit: $4M
188
dwelling units under
construction citywide
151
units entitled and in
construction plan review
411
units in entitlement review
25–30 yrs
planning horizon of the
General Plan update now
beginning
A Built-Out City’s Pattern: Glendora's growth is small-scale infill; mostly reuse of older commercial sites along Route 66 and Arrow Highway for townhomes. Council has directed staff to investigate major corridor zoning changes that could produce additional community benefit funding.
O P T I O N C — L A N D & D E V E L O P M E N T
Where Development Dollars Actually Go
CityofGlendora.gov 20
A B C D E F
$20
returned to the City for
every $1,000 in taxable
sales (2% of the 10.75%
rate)
$100K/yr
Returned to the City for
every $100M in new
assessed valuation (10% of
the 1% base)
11.25%
the Glendora sales tax rate
effective Oct 1, 2026 under
County Measure ER. The
City opposed the measure;
the added 0.5% goes to the
County. The City Council
also opposed the County’s
Measure A
Why It Matters: Development revenue supports services citywide, including Public Safety, Recreation & Human Services, and the Library. By itself, development cannot generally fund major facilities.
O P T I O N C — L A N D & D E V E L O P M E N T
Selling City Property: The Rules Have Changed
CityofGlendora.gov 21
A B C D E F
The Surplus Land Act Process
1. Declare property surplus (or exempt) at a public meeting
2. Notice of Availability to HCD, public agencies, and affordable-housing developers
3. 60 days for interested entities to respond
4. 90 days minimum of good-faith negotiation if interest is expressed
5. HCD review before sale or lease closes
The SLA does not force a sale or below-market pricing — but it extends schedules and adds legal, administrative, appraisal, and carrying costs.
The Affordable-Housing Covenant
• Generally recorded against surplus property — even property first sold for commercial use.
• If later developed with 10+ housing units, at least 15% must be affordable to lower-income households.
• Narrows the buyer and lender pool, reduces future redevelopment value, and adds compliance obligations.
• Based on the City's experience, the covenant significantly reduces property value.
• School districts enjoy education-specific exemptions — their transactions are not comparable to the City's.
Parkland
• Formally dedicated / actively used recreation land.
• Discontinuance may require public hearings, a supermajority Council vote, and voter approval — plus replacement land of equal acreage and comparable facilities.
Open Space
• Not automatically subject to park rules — but easements, deed restrictions, grant conditions, habitat obligations, and voter protections can impose equal or greater limits.
• Neither category is a practical near-term revenue source without parcelspecific title and restriction review.
O P T I O N C — L A N D & D E V E L O P M E N T
Land Sales: Track Record and Pipeline
CityofGlendora.gov 22
A B C D E F
Transaction Status Proceeds What It Shows
Route 66 & Amelia — former Frozen
Ropes (RDA) Sold 2020 to Emanate Health $2.4M sale — City received 10% ($239K) Redevelopment-dissolution law distributed
most proceeds to other agencies
Parker Dr & Route 66 (RDA) Sold 2021 $868K sale — City received 10% ($87K)
Same dissolution constraint; mixed-use project
now under construction
San Jose / Woodland site Sold Dec 17, 2025 to Olson
Company
$3.9M — City retained full
proceeds
$1M to Economic Development initiatives;
$2.9M funded Workshop 1 streets & facilities
1762 Dale Rd — Mercy Housing
ENA in place; entitlement in
process; SLA exemption
underway
$2.1M expected at close of
construction (2029)
The live template: structured negotiation with a
City Council subcommittee — and Phase 1's
backfill source
Timing Reality: Land proceeds are episodic and arrive on the market's schedule; useful as replenishment sources and project layers, not as a program's foundation.
Attachment C: The staff report includes a full inventory of City-owned property that is being studied or could be studied — Village parking lots, the Glen Oaks Golf Course, the Arboretum, the Equestrian Center, and South Hills.
O P T I O N C — L A N D & D E V E L O P M E N T
South Hills: From Speculation to Analysis
CityofGlendora.gov 23
A B C D E F
275–276 ac
of City-owned property north of
the 210, under a five-phase
feasibility analysis
57%
community support for a
hypothetical 50-acre sale
scenario
(2025 True North survey)
57%
of the study area,156.1 acres,
has slopes of 35% or greater
$130K
T&B Planning contract
approved unanimously June 9,
2026; all five phases underway
The Five-Phase Study
1 Physical & Regulatory Assessment: title, easements, hillside standards, SLA
2 Development Potential: commercial, mixed, and residential yield scenarios
3 Land development costs and generalized land value
4 Illustrative site plans for each scenario
5 Fiscal Analysis: market outreach and pro forma valuation What Preliminary Research Found
• Current slope and ridgeline development prohibitions date to at least early 2000’s; changing them requires amending
standards and General Plan policies.
• Biological and drainage resources, wildfire considerations, and utility/transmission easements are present.
• Unresolved title and ownership matters. Some records date to the 1890s and remain under research.
Timing Reality: Any development, if feasible at all, would likely take years — if not decades. South Hills is a long-term opportunity, not a near-term funding source for the Library or Corporate Yard.
O P T I O N C — L A N D & D E V E L O P M E N T
Carlyle Linder Equestrian Park: Why It's Hard
CityofGlendora.gov 24
A B C D E F
The Site — 1000 N. Glendora Mountain Rd
• Used for equestrian purposes for more than 60 years; zoned open space and parkland throughout.
• Designated a City park by Council vote in 1972 at the request of Corral #35; potentially triggering parkland replacement requirements on a 1:1 ratio.
• Located in a FEMA flood zone, adjacent to County-owned spreading grounds and a flood catch basin; a portion of the park sits on County land.
What a Buyer Would Price In
• County easements and access rights reduce the usable or developable area.
• Grading, drainage, or access near flood-control facilities requires substantial County coordination and approval.
• Flood studies, mitigation, engineering, and insurance raise development costs.
• Title, boundary, and access complexities must be resolved first. • The 15% affordability covenant further reduces value.
The Conclusion in the Staff Report
Affordability covenants, proximity to major flood-control infrastructure, the FEMA flood zone designation, possible park replacement requirements, and existing County easements create significant uncertainty about both development feasibility and ultimate land value.
Pattern to Note: Every “common sense” land solution, including South Hills, the Equestrian Park, the golf course, carries restrictions that compress value or extend timelines. Parcel-specific diligence comes before any disposition decision.
O P T I O N C — L A N D & D E V E L O P M E N T
The City-Owned Property Inventory — Attachment C
CityofGlendora.gov 25
A B C D E F
Property Location Size Zoning Where It Stands Tonight
Village public parking lots — 8
lots (1, 9–12, 14, 17, 18)
Meda Ave., Foothill Blvd.,
Vermont & Vista Bonita
frontages
~121,000 sf (~2.8
ac combined)
Village
Core
Sale, ground lease, paid parking, solar/EV, and event uses — the next slide
Glen Oaks Golf Course 201 W. Gladstone St 17.02 acres Other Flagged for further study by the 2019 Revenue Committee; parkland replacement rules apply
Glendora Arboretum 200 W. Dawson Ave 2.31 acres Other Community open-space asset; recorded restrictions would require parcel-specific review
Carlyle Linder Equestrian
Center
1800 Big Dalton Canyon
Rd 49.9 acres Other Detailed one slide back — FEMA flood zone, County easements, 60+ years of equestrian use South Hills Open space 276 acres Other Five-phase feasibility analysis underway – detailed two slides back.
Twelve properties 348 acres Every parcel requires its own review of title, acquisition history, dedications, grants, and easements
The Caveat That Governs the List: Parkland is presumed an active public recreational asset, subject to discontinuance, voter-approval, and replacement requirements.
Protected open space can carry equal or greater restrictions. None of these items are a practical near-term revenue source without parcel-specific analysis and long-term planning.
O P T I O N C — L A N D & D E V E L O P M E N T
Four Ways to Monetize — With or Without Selling
CityofGlendora.gov 26
A B C D E F
Outright Sale of Surplus Property
Immediate one-time proceeds; permanent loss of the asset, its appreciation, and future civic uses. Subject to the SLA; parcels under a half-acre may be exempt. Proceeds can be dedicated to a capital project account.
Ground Lease Upfront and recurring revenue while the City keeps ownership. 2023 SLA amendments: leases over 15 years follow the full SLA process; shorter leases are reviewed by HCD.
Joint Development / Public-Private
Partnership
A partner contributes capital for development rights; local precedent in Mercy Housing. Santa Cruz (pop. 62,000): a parking lot + $20M in parcel-tax funds produced a 41,000 sf library, 124 housing units, a 240-space garage, and childcare; now under construction.
Lease of Surplus Capacity &
Parking Assets
Retail within a facility (e.g., a coffee shop in a modernized library). Paid parking generally does not trigger the SLA; solar canopies, EV charging, telecom, events, and concessions are additional recurring options.
Direction Sought: Which land and development strategies, if any, should staff bring back with parcel-specific analysis? O P T I O N D — I S S U A N C E O F D E B T
The Instruments Available
CityofGlendora.gov 27
A B C D E F
Instrument Voter
Approval
Repayment
Source Notes
Lease Revenue Bonds None required General Fund / Measures E & Z
Discussed Jan 13, 2026 for the Civic Center; no new tax, but obligates existing operating revenue. Requires service reductions equal to the funding needed Certificates of
Participation (COPs) None required General Fund lease payments Commonly used for city halls, police HQs, libraries, and public works facilities.
Functionally similar to lease revenue bonds; either can be paired with a new revenue source.
General Obligation Bonds Two-thirds Dedicated ad valorem property tax override
Does not draw on the General Fund — but requires a Prop 13 supermajority (66.7%)
Interfund / Internal
Borrowing None required General Fund / Measures E & Z / other eligible funds Precedent: $601K at 0% over 30 years authorized for the streetlight district (2023).
Needs a repayment source and a fund with sufficient balance.
Private Placement None required General Fund / Measures E & Z / other eligible funds
Direct, unrated loan from a single bank or investor; borrower generally experiences lower issuance costs, faster execution, higher rate. Precedent: 2009 Pension Obligation Bonds via Bank of America.
Governed By Policy: Administrative Policy 3.16 — the Debt Issuance and Management Policy adopted by the City Council September 11, 2018; guides timing, purposes, permissible types and amounts, and method of sale.
O P T I O N D — I S S U A N C E O F D E B T
What Debt Service Costs — In Service Terms
CityofGlendora.gov 28
A B C D E F
Par Amount Estimated Annual Debt
Service
Share of Combined GF +
Measures E/Z Expenditures
$25 million $1.8 – 2.0 million ≈ 3% – 4%
$50 million $3.5 – 4.0 million ≈ 7% – 8%
$75 million $5.0 – 6.0 million ≈ 9% – 11%
$125 million $9.0 – 10.0 million ≈ 16% – 19%
What $9M/year Means
Roughly the total combined operating cost of
Administrative Services (Finance / HR / Risk),
the City Manager's Office, City Clerk, Library,
and Recreation & Human Services.
Police, Public Works, and Community
Development already comprise 70% of GF +
E/Z expenditures.
Market conditions — early September 2026
• Tax-exempt lease revenue bond: 4.5–4.6% true interest cost over 30 years (rated one notch below the City's AAA; implied AA+).
• Private placement: 6.46% at 30 years; faster and prepayable, but taxable-style pricing.
• Up-front bond costs of $0.4–0.7M (≈1.5% of par at $25M, under 1% at $75M); the bond remains the lower all-in cost of capital.
• All figures are preliminary and indicative; final pricing is set at issuance.
The Constant: Every dollar of debt service is
a fixed obligation, unavailable for services for
the full financing term.
O P T I O N D — I S S U A N C E O F D E B T
Debt Without New Revenue = Permanent Service Decisions
CityofGlendora.gov 29
A B C D E F
A Recurring Obligation Needs a Recurring Source
• One-Time Measures: deferring purchases, drawing reserves, vacancy savings, and delayed maintenance provide temporary relief only.
• Sustaining debt service requires permanent, structural changes. Examples include, eliminating positions,
discontinuing or restructuring programs, or reducing City involvement in lower-priority functions.
• Not all reductions are pledgeable; many programs are funded from multiple sources (water, capital, grants).
Targeted Reductions Beats Across-the-Board Reductions
• Uniform reductions ignore the City Council's service priorities, erode high-priority services, and rarely hold as departments seek restoration through political and operational pressure. • A program-by-program review changes the underlying cost structure; more durable savings, more transparency for
residents.
• Credit agencies view deliberate, sustainable restructuring more favorably than temporary or broadly distributed cuts. The rating directly affects borrowing cost.
Two Disciplined Paths If New Revenue Is Not on the Table Limit issuance to an amount the existing operating budget can absorb without material service impacts or defer issuance until a dedicated repayment source is secured. Debt does not create capacity; without new revenue it reallocates existing capacity fr om operations to capital for the life of the financing.
The Principal Policy Decision: How much existing operating capacity is the City Council willing to commit to a facility project and which permanent service and expenditure changes would sustain that commitment? O P T I O N E — B A L L O T M E A S U R E S
Seventy Years of Glendora Ballot History
CityofGlendora.gov 30
A B C D E F
Measure Date What It Asked Result
Water Revenue Bonds Apr 1955 $650,000 principal APPROVED — 93% Yes Library GO Bond Nov 1955 Library bond; rate set after approval FAILED — 32% Yes Water Bond Nov 1964 $1,200,000 principal APPROVED — 78% Yes Police Department GO Bond Jun 1965 Police facility bond APPROVED — 86% Yes Hillside Protection (Measure A) Apr 1990 $0.20 / $100 AV for 3 years (~$500/yr avg. home) FAILED — 7% Yes
Measure E — 0.75% sales tax Mar 2019 Transactions & use tax APPROVED — 54% Yes Measure Z — 0.25% sales tax Nov 2024 Transactions & use tax APPROVED — 58% Yes The Pattern: Sales taxes approved twice in seven years; water bonds approved every time; most property-based measures declined. In 1972 the City skipped an election entirely, temporarily raising its pre-Prop 13 property tax rate to fund South Hills land purchases. Landuse measures (2000, 2009) also passed comfortably (Glendora Market Place and Diamond Ridge).
O P T I O N E — B A L L O T M E A S U R E S
The Thresholds Depend on Who Places the Measure
CityofGlendora.gov 31
A B C D E F
Measure Type Placed by City Council Placed by Citizen Initiative General Obligation bond (ad valorem property tax) Two-thirds (66.7%) Simple majority (50% + 1) Special tax / parcel tax dedicated to a stated purpose Two-thirds (66.7%) Simple majority (50% + 1) General tax (unrestricted — cannot be legally
dedicated) Simple majority (50% + 1) Not applicable — general taxes are placed by the governing body School district GO bond (Prop 39) — reference only 55% Not applicable How the Law Got Here
Prop 13 (1978) capped property tax and set the two-thirds bar • Prop 46 (1986) reaffirmed GO bonds above the 1% cap at two-thirds • Prop 218 (1996) codified majority for general taxes, two-thirds for special taxes • Prop 39 (2000) created the 55% school-bond path • Upland (2017) and later court cases opened the simple-majority citizen-initiative path.
Why This Matters Tonight: A City-sponsored facilities measure needs 66.7%. Polling showed 53%. The only sub-two-thirds pathway is a bona fide citizen initiative and Proposition 43 could close that option on January 1, 2027.
O P T I O N E — B A L L O T M E A S U R E S
GO Bond Measure vs. Parcel Tax Measure
CityofGlendora.gov 32
A B C D E F
Feature GO Bond Tax Measure Parcel Tax Measure
Use of funds Capital improvements only (buildings, roads, parks) Capital projects and operating expenses, including maintenance
Tax type Ad valorem — based on assessed value or similar basis Typically a flat rate or tiered formula per parcel Who pays Property owners based on tax type All parcel owners regardless of value; income-qualified exemptions possible
Voter threshold Two-thirds (Council-placed); 50%+1 possible via citizen initiative Two-thirds (Council-placed); 50%+1 via citizen initiative Debt involvement Yes — bonds issued and repaid over time; legally obligated ad valorem levy
Optional — proceeds may be pledged to a lease
revenue or COP financing
Duration / flexibility Typically 15–40 years; restricted to voter-approved projects
Temporary (10–40 years) or ongoing; more flexible in
use
Sample Ordinances Exist: Both measure types, with sample ordinances, were provided as attachments to the June 24, 2025 report; the legal groundwork is already done if the City Council chooses this path.
O P T I O N E — B A L L O T M E A S U R E S
What the Community Has Said — 2024 Polling
CityofGlendora.gov 33
A B C D E F
53%
initial support for a $150M
citywide facilities bond — 14
points below the two-thirds
threshold
45%
support for a $70M Libraryspecific bond
86%
rated Glendora's quality of life
excellent or good
83%
satisfied with the City services
they receive
What Else the Survey Said
The two highest-ranked quality-of-life improvements were improving infrastructure and roads (17.8%) and addressing homelessness (17.2%). True North did not recommend pursuing a bond for the November 2024 election. Residents consistently pair strong satisfaction with cost sensitivity; support rises when a measure addresses the community's most enduring priorities without reading as a new tax burden.
A Question For Tonight: Since August 2024, the City Council has held two years of infrastructure conversations, approved Workshop 1's $11.88M program, and advanced the Library and Corporate Yard analyses. Does the City Council wish to direct updated community survey or polling work?
O P T I O N E — B A L L O T M E A S U R E S
The Citizen Initiative: Filed, Then Withdrawn
CityofGlendora.gov 34
A B C D E F
What Was Proposed: December 11, 2025
• A parcel tax on developed and vacant parcels, based on square footage with variable rates by property type.
• Revenues restricted to capital improvements for City-owned facilities.
• Accountability: independent audits, annual public reporting, and a citizen oversight committee.
• Staff estimated: $8–9M annually, depending on final rates and exemptions, which could have reduced by 50% or more based on City Council direction.
• Ballot title and summary issued December 22, 2025; targeted November 2026 election.
The Procedural Path (any future initiative)
• Signatures: 10% of registered voters; roughly 3,600 to 3,700 based on recent registration reports.
• Circulation: 180 days from issuance of the title and summary. • Submission: 134 days before the election recommended; all processing complete by the 88th day.
• Verification: LA County Registrar, within 30 business days of filing.
• Total process: an estimated 12–18 months from initiation to election.
Withdrawn: On May 12, 2026, an administrative notice to the City Clerk officially announced the citizens group was no longer pursuing the initiative ordinance.
Why it Still Matters
The initiative demonstrated both community interest and challenges when facing facilities and the scale of needed repairs that have existed for decades. Whether the simple-majority initiative pathway survives depends on Proposition 43.
O P T I O N E — B A L L O T M E A S U R E S
Proposition 43 Changes the Math — November 3, 2026
CityofGlendora.gov 35
A B C D E F
How it Got to the Ballot
In 2025, HJTA qualified the 'Local Taxpayer Protection Act,' which would have required two-thirds for citizen-initiated special taxes and invalidated certain existing taxes; estimated local revenue losses of up to several billion dollars statewide. Under a June 2026 compromise with the State of CA, HJTA withdrew that measure (recorded June 25, 2026) and the Legislature approved ACA 22, now Proposition 43: 'Limits Voters' Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services.' If Proposition 43 PASSES
• Beginning January 1, 2027, any new, increased, or extended citizen-initiated local special tax requires two-thirds voter approval.
• City Council-sponsored special taxes already require twothirds. • The simple-majority citizen-initiative pathway that developed after Upland is effectively eliminated.
If Proposition 43 FAILS
• The existing framework remains: City Council-sponsored special taxes at two-thirds; qualifying citizen-initiated special taxes at a simple majority.
• The initiative pathway remains an important consideration in future revenue discussions
Timing-Critical: The outcome on November 3, 2026 directly shapes which ballot strategies remain realistic for Glendora — a reason some direction tonight may reasonably wait eight weeks.
O P T I O N F — A D D I T I O N A L O P T I O N S
Options Identified in Prior Reports
CityofGlendora.gov 36
A B C D E F
Service Level Modifications
• Option 2 in the January 13, 2026 report: reduce or restructure operating costs to create ongoing General Fund capacity for debt service.
• This is the mechanism behind 'debt without new revenue' — the structural reductions described under Option D.
Philanthropic & Community Fundraising
• A common component of library capital campaigns statewide. • Never analyzed in a prior Glendora report — staff would need direction to return with options.
• Typically takes shape upon adoption of a final project (e.g., new library or library renovation).
Assessment Districts — A Cautionary Record
• Antique streetlight assessments failed three times
(2007 — 8% Yes • 2008 — 38% Yes • 2023 — 35% Yes)
• The City successfully operates two existing districts:
Landscape Maintenance (7 zones, est. 1976) and the
Streetlight District (2,996 lights; FY 26/27 rate $52.35/EBU after a 3.4% CPI adjustment).
Public-Private Partnerships
• Discussed under Option C (land and development) — the Santa Cruz library project is the working model.
• Also relevant to any future Civic Center approach.
• Local precedent in structure: the Mercy Housing ENA and City Council subcommittee.
T O P I C 1 S Y N T H E S I S
Putting the Toolbox Together
CityofGlendora.gov 37
Option Near-Term Capacity What It Requires Key Constraint A · One-Time Funding $4–6M strategic draw
(of $24.9M remaining)
City Council appropriation +
guardrails
Thins recession flexibility until
backfilled
B · Grants &
Appropriations
$10.6M state request pending; other
opportunities
Eligible programs + competitive
success
Not guaranteed; restricted; may
need match
C · Land &
Development
$6M projected FY 27–31 (Dale +
Barranca); sales episodic Market timing + SLA process Covenants and restrictions compress value D · Issuance of Debt Full project cost in one construction period A recurring repayment source Without new revenue: permanent service reductions E · Ballot Measures $8–9M/yr scale demonstrated by the
2025 initiative
66.7% (City Council) or 50%+1
(initiative — pending Prop 43)
Polling at 53%; Prop 43 may close
the majority path Jan 1, 2027
F · Additional Options Situational — service changes,
assessments, P3, philanthropy
Project adoption first
(philanthropy); voter tolerance
(assessments)
Assessment history: three failures
since 2007
The Through-Line: No single source fully funds the Library or the Corporate Yard outside of a ballot measure and issuance of debt. A workable strategy layers immediate tools (A, B, C), while Council decides whether the long-term answer includes debt (D) or a voterapproved revenue stream (E). Topic 2 shows exactly what layering looks like.
T O P I C T W O
Corporate Yard: Phase 1 Funding
The specific direction Workshop 2 requested — a funding strategy for the first increment of the phased $13.6 million Corporate Yard project.
CityofGlendora.gov 38
T O P I C 2 — C O R P O R A T E Y A R D
The Project, Recapped
CityofGlendora.gov 39
1965
original construction at 1250 S.
Vladimir St — the operational
hub of Public Works
18,310 SF
proposed modern campus, up
from 8,270 SF across four
buildings
$13.6M
total phased cost — $6.5M
Phase 1 + $7.1M Phase 2
100%
design & construction
drawings complete
($725,581, IDS Group)
Phase Scope Cost
Phase 1A Site improvements NW of the Big Dalton Wash — grading, storm drains, LID facilities, paving, material storage
Phase 1 total:
$6.5M
Phase 1B New Administration Building + employee parking, circulation, and major utilities — offices for Facilities, Streets, Parks, Trees & Landscape; potential traffic control center / alternate EOC (with 1A above) Transition Zone Shared utility improvements to keep operations uninterrupted while preparing demolition — Phase 2 Demolish existing buildings; build Fleet Maintenance Building, shops, sign & tire storage, wash facilities, parking, landscaping, generator $7.1M
Why Phased: The Yard must remain operational throughout construction; the phasing adds cost but protects daily service delivery.
T O P I C 2 — C O R P O R A T E Y A R D
Why Phase 1 First
CityofGlendora.gov 40
Buildable Without Disruption
• Phases 1A and 1B occur northwest of the Big Dalton Wash — on portions of the site not presently occupied by buildings that must stay in service.
• Construction can proceed while Fleet, Streets, and Facilities operations continue uninterrupted.
• Complete construction documents mean the work is bid-ready — the City can capture current pricing quickly once funding is directed.
A Fire-Resiliency Imperative
• The City's Water Yard and main pumping facilities sit in very high fire hazard severity zones.
• The 2025 Eaton Fire (just west of Glendora) and the 2014 Colby Fire exposed a gap: no utility operations center or SCADA (water system) backup accessible during a foothill fire emergency.
• The Phase 1B office building provides exactly that critical capability.
Ready to Move
Despite the lack of identified construction funding to date, the City has kept the project moving; a complete set of construction documents ensures staff can act quickly if given the ability to do so. Related facilities (e.g. water yard) are also subject to frequent power outages, adding urgency to the operations-center function.
Workshop 2 Direction:
Return at Workshop 3 with a funding strategy for the Phase 1 improvements presented in the 2026 IDS Phasing Report T O P I C 2 — C O R P O R A T E Y A R D
The Recommended Layered Strategy — $7.0 Million
CityofGlendora.gov 41
Layer Source Amount Rationale
1 One-time discretionary
funds — pension reserve $4,000,000 Immediately available; no repayment obligation; GUSD and AUSD development proceeds replenish over 2–4 years, under the Option A guardrails 2 One-time discretionary
funds — water capital
project fund
$1,500,000 The new building serves as the utility operations center and SCADA backup — the current facility faces frequent outages in a very high fire hazard severity zone 3 La Fetra foundation work —
funding reallocation $500,000 Wall/ceiling repairs complete; if the third-party review confirms basement cracks on previous foundation work pose no structural concern, funds can be reallocated 4 Measure W (Municipal
Program) $1,000,000 Phase 1A grading, storm drain, and LID facilities are eligible expenditures under the LA County Safe Clean Water Program (Flood Control District Code Ch. 16) TOTAL $7,000,000 Includes $500,000 contingency (7.7%) for environmental issues, undocumented utilities, and inflationary impacts
Design Principle: Every layer matches a funding source to what it can legally and logically pay for; restricted dollars to eligible scope, flexible dollars to the gap, and a named backfill for the reserve draw.
T O P I C 2 — C O R P O R A T E Y A R D
The Decision Before the City Council
CityofGlendora.gov 42
The Question, Restated For the Corporate Yard
Not simply whether to spend reserves, but whether to trade a defined, temporary reduction in recession flexibility for the permanent avoidance of construction cost escalation on the Corporate Yard, supported by a named repayment source: approximately $2M (Dale) and $4M (Barranca) anticipated over the next two fiscal years.
If the proceeds are credible …
• … and the pension reserve floor is maintained,
• …and the strategic use of $4M in pension set-aside funds is a defensible and disciplined approach
• … then the policy decision can capture today's pricing on fully designed, bid-ready work for a critical City facility
If the timing risk is uncomfortable …
• … and the fiscally disciplined alternative is to defer additional allocations until development proceeds are received
• …then accepting construction escalation as the cost of preserved flexibility is a smart policy option.
Direction Sought Tonight: Should staff move forward with the recommended $7M layered funding strategy for Phase 1 or return with additional options?
T O P I C T H R E E
Citizen Ad-Hoc Committee
Whether to establish a citizen advisory body to further study facilities, infrastructure needs, and funding strategies — and if so, its scope, structure, membership, and timing.
CityofGlendora.gov 43
T O P I C 3 — C I T I Z E N A D - H O C C O M M I T T E E What an Advisory Body Is and Isn't
CityofGlendora.gov 44
What Citizen Advisory Groups Do
• Study specific issues or policy areas.
• Gather input, research, and community feedback.
• Provide recommendations to the City Council (or staff) on policies, plans, or programs.
• They are advisory, not legislative — no significant
decision-making authority.
Ad-hoc vs. Standing. City Council’s Role.
• An ad-hoc committee is temporary: formed for a specific shortterm task, dissolved when it is complete. • Council members generally cannot serve as voting members of City Council-appointed citizen bodies — some cities (San Ramon, Dublin, Beverly Hills) appoint Council liaisons instead. • A City Council subcommittee may include one or two members — never more, to avoid Brown Act violations.
Glendora’s Existing Advisory Infrastructure
The City already maintains several ongoing bodies: the Planning Commission, Water Commission, Library Board of Trustees, Recreation & Human Services Commission, and the Business Improvement District Board. The question tonight is whether a temporary, purposebuilt group should be added for facilities and funding.
Background: The comprehensive March 24, 2026 report on citizen ad-hoc committees and City Council subcommittees, with its decision matrix, remains the governing framework for this discussion.
T O P I C 3 — C I T I Z E N A D - H O C C O M M I T T E E Glendora Has Done This Before — Three Times
CityofGlendora.gov 45
Citizen’s Ad-Hoc Committee
2018 – 2020
• 20 residents; two appointed by each
City Council member; chaired by
Michael Holmes.
• Met twice monthly; staffed by the
Finance and Community Development
Directors.
• Sept 2018 preliminary report urged the
special election that became Measure
E (approved March 2019).
• The 2019 final report's
recommendations have been
substantially implemented — see
Attachment E.
Antique Streetlight Committee
2022 – 2023
• 11 seats; nine applicants appointed
plus a Historical Society seat; chaired
by Patrick Hollanders.
• Six public meetings, Zoom broadcast,
dedicated project webpage with
materials and Q&A.
• The assessment vote still failed in June
2023 — 65% opposed.
• Instructive on both process
transparency and outcome risk.
Dale Road City Council
Subcommittee
2025 – 2026
• Mayor Pro Tem Davis and
Councilmember Allawos; Five monthly
meetings with staff and Mercy Housing.
• Informed ENA negotiations — project
direction, funding options, housing mix,
and community engagement.
• The fast, Council-connected model for
a single defined transaction.
Directly Relevant: The 2018 committee's charge: revenue options, land sales, and expenditure strategies closely parallels tonight's subject matter.
T O P I C 3 — C I T I Z E N A D - H O C C O M M I T T E E What Comparable Cities Did
CityofGlendora.gov 46
Rancho Palos Verdes — Civic Center Advisory Committee
• Created by the City Council in March 2017 after a citywide survey showed interest in improving aging civic facilities. • Seven resident appointees; advisory role on design, program, and financing for the Civic Center campus.
• Meets monthly in public meetings generally adhering to the Brown Act, with consultant and staff presentations and public input.
• Council approved the Civic Center Master Plan framework in October 2019 — about 2.5 years in.
Hermosa Beach — Civic Facilities Advisory Group
• Formed February 2024; ~a dozen volunteers selected by the City Manager for expertise in construction, engineering, finance, planning, and civic leadership.
• Structured as an informal working group — outside traditional public-meeting requirements; met several times over roughly eight months.
• Concluded: replace the Public Works maintenance yard first, pursue one major civic project at a time, and continue cost analysis and outreach before final decisions.
Notably Applicable: Hermosa Beach's recommendations parallel Glendora's circumstances — yard first, one project at a time — and its informal structure traded some transparency for speed and technical depth. The structural choice is the City Council's to make.
The Brown Act Choice Matters: a formally appointed body is generally subject to it; an informal City Manager working group generally is not — affecting transparency, staff workload, and how efficiently technical material is reviewed.
T O P I C 3 — C I T I Z E N A D - H O C C O M M I T T E E The Decision Framework — Two Steps
CityofGlendora.gov 47
S TE P 1 — S H O UL D A G R O UP B E E S TA B L I SH E D ? Option Policy Implication
A · Yes: Establish a review group May allow deeper analysis and community input — but extends the timeline
B · No: Continue through regular and additional City Council meetings Maintains speed and direct policy control within the City Council C · Combination: Decide certain items now; refer specific topics for study Preserves momentum on decided items while studying open questions S TE P 2 — I F Y ES , W H AT S T RU C T UR E ?
Option Policy Implication
A · Citizen Ad-Hoc Committee May increase community engagement and provide additional technical input
B · City Council Subcommittee Direct City Council oversight and faster coordination with staff C · Combination: Citizen committee with Council liaison(s) Blends community input with City Council connectivity — the San Ramon / Dublin / Beverly Hills practice
Precedent on Scope: Historically, Council has given its committees specific direction on scope and timeline. These items plus the work plan and financial guardrails will determine staff resources and consultant usage.
T O P I C 3 — C I T I Z E N A D - H O C C O M M I T T E E If a Group Is Formed — Seven Design Questions
CityofGlendora.gov 48
Charge & Scope Funding and revenue strategies? Capital project prioritization and phasing? Both? Something else? Size & Appointment Precedents: 20 (two per City Council member, 2018) · 11 (streetlights) · 7 (RPV) · ~12 (Hermosa, City Manager-selected).
Brown Act Posture Formal City Council-created body → generally subject; informal City Manager working group → generally not.
Term & Sunset Ad-hoc bodies dissolve when the task is complete — staff recommends a defined term and reporting deadline.
Staffing & Budget Identify the lead department; authorize consultant support (financial advisor, polling) or not.
Cadence & Engagement Twice monthly (2018)? Monthly (RPV)? Staff recommends a dedicated project webpage in any case.
Existing Bodies How the group coordinates with the Library Board of Trustees, given the Library's central role.
Qualifications Identified March 24: large-scale infrastructure · public contracts / prevailing wage · transportation & streets · engineering / construction management · finance & capital planning · project management · community representation.
T O P I C F O U R
Direction & Next Steps
The specific items on which staff seeks City Council direction tonight, the calendar ahead, and the required fiscal and environmental findings.
CityofGlendora.gov 49
T O P I C 4 — D I R E C T I O N & N E X T S T E P S
Items for City Council Consideration Tonight
CityofGlendora.gov 50
1 Receive and file this report on funding and revenue options and citizen advisory committee structures. 2 Identify the strategies that should receive further evaluation: one-time funding, grants and appropriations, land sales and leases, debt issuance, ballot measures, and other options. 3 Corporate Yard Phase 1: Move forward with the recommended $7.0M layered funding strategy, or direct staff to return with additional options.
4 Citizen Advisory Body: Determine if the City should establish a citizen ad-hoc committee, a Council subcommittee, a combination, or neither; and if formed, determine the scope, structure, membership qualifications, term, and staffing. 5 Community Engagement: Determine whether staff should conduct updated scientifically valid community survey work on a topic or topics.
6 Next Steps & Timeline: quarterly updates, the November 2026 Library cost estimate, State Budget process, and any follow-up workshop or agenda items.
T O P I C 4 — D I R E C T I O N & N E X T S T E P S
The Road Ahead
CityofGlendora.gov 51
Sept 4, 2026 State Budget Request Letter — $10.6M for Library construction submitted to Senator Pérez's office; advocacy continues through the FY 2027–28 state budget process
Sept 22, 2026 First quarterly progress report on the Workshop 1 streets and facilities program Sept 30, 2026 Deadline for the Governor to act on AB 1383 (pension benefits) — inaction means it becomes law Fall 2026 South Hills feasibility analysis proceeds on all five phases; street work out to bid; construction begins late 2026 – early 2027
Nov 2026 MHP comprehensive Library cost estimate due — structural, waterproofing, systems, modernization, EOC, and the plaza shade/patio structure
Nov 3, 2026 Proposition 43 statewide vote — determines whether the simple-majority citizen-initiative pathway survives past January 1, 2027
FY 2027–29 Dale ($2M) and Barranca ($4M) development proceeds anticipated — the named backfill for any reserve draw; Mercy Housing close of construction ~2029
Following Tonight: Staff will refine scopes and estimates for the strategies Council selects, advance the state budget request, and return with the necessary budget, CIP, or project-specific actions.
F O R T H E R E C O R D
Fiscal Impact & Environmental Determination
CityofGlendora.gov 52
Fiscal Impact
• There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving and filing this report. • Any future appropriation of one-time funding, property disposition, financing action, ballot measure, citizen ad-hoc committee formation, or other policy action will be brought back to the City Council with the fiscal impact of that specific action or actions.
Environmental Determination
• Receiving and filing this report is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act — it approves no construction, authorizes no physical improvements, and commits the City to no specific project. • Future approvals for the Library, the Corporate Yard, or any sale of land will include appropriate environmental review prior to construction or other discretionary actions.
Special Thanks: Staff from Community Development, Public Works, Finance, City Clerk's Office, and City Manager’s Office worked diligently to prepare the staff report and presentation.
C L O S I N G T H E T H R E E - W O R K S H O P S E R I E S The Work Is Documented. The Tools Are on the Table.
The Need Has Been Carefully Evaluated
Decades of assessments and three deliberate workshops, plus condition reports, structural updates, phasing plans, and cost estimates. The City has studied the problem thoroughly.
Every Category of Funding Has Been Laid Out
One-time funds with guardrails, current $10.6M state request, development proceeds with named projects, land strategies with honest constraints, debt priced in service terms, and the full ballot landscape, including Proposition 43's November deadline.
What Remains is Direction
Which strategies to pursue, in what sequence, on what timeline. Direction is needed for revenue options to pursue and/or further investigate, the Phase 1 Corporate Yard plan, the advisory committee question, and the engagement work that supports whatever path the City Council chooses.
CityofGlendora.gov 53
Workshop 3: Funding Options & Citizen Advisory Committee Questions & City Council Discussion
CityofGlendora.gov 54