[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6533769,"mediaKeyId","3658872-b0d3fc4dfa26eb371e48f78e52d5e016","parentId",3658872,"title","Council hears range of revenue options; firefighters urge public‑safety impact fee","audioSeconds",4766,"startMs",5169000,"endMs",9935000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3658872-b0d3fc4dfa26eb371e48f78e52d5e016&start=5169&end=9935","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3658872-b0d3fc4dfa26eb371e48f78e52d5e016/thumbnail_5169000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6533769/Glendale/Los-Angeles-County/California/Council-hears-range-of-revenue-options-firefighters-urge-publicsafety-impact-fee","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6533769-f6c6aada0a39274d302a0ebc3ae44276/orig.mp4?Expires=1771171088&Signature=RJlnvoS6P9oNqSazRmotTBZ0U2MwB2RiTHUtWjH6jFyE-4xWFM2SZvss1FzyWocRwveH92LCvtiQgI80dUp-Vj6Ybm1SzOjaFdXrBeINIiQx-I5F1Ox8o1klRNF5LiNeb7kOpDij~MNWGMgT8orxfYHcHqRYxmi8PfGSs4kE-YzBmZok4g1v0P2~ON-CcZUpTIvnaQ-GUikF65nTasqW~dWfC0Xj7ndWwmdYGOfk0u8CdA0LGmp1Lwg0NJRh-D07mEgEX-ajpUTxWsy~MZIoCd8lxuD7m0PSMzN607rNhtxxQ5VNOI29pOgXQmRU~KFJT6Q6sTcYoMGvErqfxAGDag__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Glendale","date","2025-06-04T15:45:17Z","article","City staff reviewed a menu of potential revenue measures on June 4 as part of the FY25‑26 budget study process and heard public comment urging a public‑safety development impact fee.

What staff presented
Staff outlined high‑level revenue options along with rough model ranges: a quarter‑cent sales tax that could generate an estimated $8–10 million annually if placed on the ballot; options for a business license tax with modeled revenue between roughly $2.1 million and $4.8 million (depending on the metric used, for example per‑employee or per‑square‑foot formulas); transfer‑tax estimates ranging widely by scenario from roughly $3.4 million up to $13.4 million; parcel‑tax modeling that produced a theoretical $20–30 million range depending on per‑parcel rates; and a modest boost from increasing the hotel/transient occupancy tax (estimates in staff slides ran from roughly $1 million to $2.5 million depending on the rate chosen).

Other proposals included a private‑parking gross receipts (parking) tax (discussed separately), digital billboards on government‑owned freeway frontage, the possibility of transfer of development rights or ground leasing of city property (staff estimated $3–7 million annual potential depending on how leases are structured), and a commercial vacancy tax (staff warned of legal challenges in other jurisdictions and noted legislation under consideration at the state level).

Public safety impact fee request
Chris Jernigan, vice president of the Glendale Firefighters Association Local 776, urged the council to adopt a public‑safety development impact fee to help fund fire, police and emergency services that scale with new development. “This policy is not just fiscally responsible. It is essential for ensuring that our city grows, our public safety departments grow with it,” Jernigan said, noting calls per year have risen and daily on‑duty staffing has not kept pace in recent decades. City staff later estimated a public safety impact fee would generate about $45,000 per year using the permit activity in 2024 — a figure staff said was muted by Glendale’s permit mix compared with some neighboring cities that saw larger multifamily permit counts during the study window.

Caveats and next steps
Staff repeatedly cautioned the council that most of these measures would require deeper legal, fiscal and policy study, and many require voter approval. Several councilmembers suggested a staged approach and prioritized measures that would secure the largest revenue with the least regressive impact. Council and staff agreed that further outreach to stakeholders — business groups, neighborhood associations and partners such as the Chamber of Commerce — would be needed before any measure advanced to a ballot or ordinance.

No final decisions were made; staff will return with further analysis of items council wants studied in greater detail.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Special City Council - 6/4/25","oneSentenceSummary","Staff presented a spectrum of revenue ideas — from a quarter‑cent sales tax to business license fees, transfer tax, parcel tax, hotel tax changes and ground leasing — and a firefighters’ representative urged a public‑safety development impact fee at the June 4 study session.","taxTitle","Glendale, Los Angeles County, California","taxId",4651,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6533774,"Glendale staff propose higher Brand Boulevard meter rates and outline parking‑tax option",65,801000,866000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3658872-b0d3fc4dfa26eb371e48f78e52d5e016&start=801&end=866","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3658872-b0d3fc4dfa26eb371e48f78e52d5e016/thumbnail_801000.jpg","/articles/6533774/Glendale/Los-Angeles-County/California/Glendale-staff-propose-higher-Brand-Boulevard-meter-rates-and-outline-parkingtax-option","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6533774-e5a3a8ea17da0d01eb34040daf17a3e1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771171088&Signature=Hl66zZxGQzhUWDcy43-Bnkusq6MRSWSgAGv9cMEt5UUzf1oZZhmcsYLX7Bi1aLxKJf6hXUqkKP2Z5PJLMfcnx~QT9dx75wi9-N9B2XqdfAcolmqpBDtuEEwu7cc5f2K5BlaTJ6R0gBR7MckyJ92pOXITLjJHiHKJsWUeLQC9F1d44zaMIMQ-vxt4q8gaRg0e8gsFe6LvqgoU67hcH0ZgFkP93QwcLQXy5nOSx2mcmC1BiUfY3dqSAgpowpF5Fb8cuGF1sx7GjwKrRwYfX1SKLvnSZutX3-kIIE-8mgGmkAuIIAzmsGi1kz7PuiwqR55XcoFj3PD0Tt5sPwm3nxknOw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff proposed targeted parking rate increases and presented consultant estimates for a private‑parking gross‑receipts (parking) tax during the June 4 budget study session.

The proposal on rates: Tad Dombrowski, public works parking staff, said Brand Boulevard hourly rates would rise from $2 to $3, on‑street and city‑owned surface lot rates from $1.50 to $2, monthly employee garage passes from $70 to $90 and the daily maximum garage rate from $9 to $12. Dombrowski said the changes are intended to align price with convenience and demand while keeping garage rates competitive with private operators.

Why it matters: Brand Boulevard is the primary downtown corridor with the highest demand and the most limited on‑street supply. Staff said higher priced on‑street spaces should improve turnover and free parking for short‑term visitors while preserving lower garage prices to encourage use of more distant parking supply.

Parking tax analysis: staff engaged two consultants to model a potential private‑parking gross receipts tax. For a 10% tax on private parking operators, one analysis estimated about $2.2 million in annual revenue at current occupancy and up to about $3.0 million as occupancy rises. HDL, another consultant, ran a scenario model and produced a range that centered higher — about $2.7 million to $3.4 million annually — using randomized demand and rate scenarios. Staff emphasized that the proposals are at the concept stage and that adoption of a parking tax would require a ballot measure.

Council questions and next steps
Councilmembers asked whether proposed short‑term free validations or 90‑minute validations at certain garages would interact with the rate changes and whether tenant validations reduce the effectiveness of turnover pricing. Staff noted lease and validation arrangements (for example, in marketplace garages) can complicate simple rate changes and suggested they would analyze impacts.

Dombrowski said the proposed rate changes are consistent with neighboring cities and that any revenue from rate increases would be folded into future budget projections if council approved the changes. The parking tax analysis was presented as an option that would require further legal, policy and public outreach work and a voter measure before the city could enact it.","Staff recommended raising Brand Boulevard meter rates to $3 per hour, bumping on‑street and surface lot rates to $2 per hour and raising monthly garage employee parking from $70 to $90; consultants also estimated a 10% private‑parking tax could yield roughly $2.2M–$3.4M annually but would require voter approval.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6533783,"Glendale utility outlines $9.3M PBC plan, expands rebates and EV incentives",1091,348000,1439000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3658872-b0d3fc4dfa26eb371e48f78e52d5e016&start=348&end=1439","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3658872-b0d3fc4dfa26eb371e48f78e52d5e016/thumbnail_348000.jpg","/articles/6533783/Glendale/Los-Angeles-County/California/Glendale-utility-outlines-93M-PBC-plan-expands-rebates-and-EV-incentives","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6533783-a0b1b8f0f46d8dc4904e76bccadcf30b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771171088&Signature=Nsev-P4iQtVt~lMjRT4smUP4UrCB0ZwLQpCLorltkN38l3IGDaNiV-2WoFJeCYts1s0by5j1uD90zJVX7D2qqTTYQ5hNyassmab-JiKHoV6qs4pc6Z2zHuhRECw8khlGZMAWTolvYliqIUh7vunAqDAixf2qEw2PhGARgSU8gGUK1Np3YhCG3veB0UY6WxwIeWJhV-4tQtQB9PqSIJU1GNz~OmWQvjbANha-OcLD8y1IH1yGlrCACrv1q-6Qx5MrhcKBDJkOBIi0MqtPxwBnct2eFP-9nwVLLjv0aHUn5dyoThyqqZfhScbwcrjisGT2LK3CmxbATaN9czh9RFJPXA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Glendale Water & Power (GWP) staff presented a two‑year package of clean‑energy programs funded through the utility’s public benefit charge (PBC) and California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), asking the City Council on June 4 to approve program design and preliminary budgets ahead of final budget adoption June 24.

The PBC portfolio shown to the council proposed $9,300,000 for fiscal year 2025–26 and $11,500,000 for fiscal year 2026–27, with large shares directed to energy bill assistance for income‑qualified customers and new or expanded rebates for heat‑pump water heaters, heat‑pump HVAC systems and electric‑panel upgrades, GWP said.

Why it matters: the PBC is paid through a utility surcharge and is earmarked for energy‑efficiency, renewables and low‑income assistance. The council questioned whether the fund balance and the proposed pace of program roll‑out matched community needs and asked staff for plans to scale programs that show strong uptake.

GWP clean energy staff said the portfolio aims to balance customer outreach, equity and cost‑effectiveness. “Our portfolio is built to provide diverse programs to all customers in Glendale, empowering them to reduce consumption and actively support decarbonization goals,” Ruzan Soloyan, GWP clean energy officer, told the council. Soloyan said state law directs utilities to invest in multiple categories and that the PBC programs are presented to council biennially.

Program highlights from the PBC presentation included:
- Home energy and water rebates for ENERGY STAR appliances and measures, with proposed increases in rebates for heat‑pump water heaters (from $1,000 to $4,000) and for heat‑pump HVACs (from $500 to $1,000 per ton), plus a new rebate for electric panel upgrades needed for electrification.
- A direct‑install turf replacement pilot for 10 sites in disadvantaged communities and home retrofit services offering LED lighting, sensors and window film.
- Business incentives, including a Business Energy Solutions program and commercial water‑ and energy‑saving rebates (some rebates described as covering up to roughly 90% of the cost for smaller appliances in specific cases).
- Expanded EV incentives: proposed increases in the off‑peak EV charging monthly incentive from $12 to $15 in FY25‑26 and to $20 in FY26‑27, residential and multifamily charger rebates, and a planned used‑EV rebate program (income‑qualified) budgeted at $500,000 for FY26‑27 to support an estimated ~380 incentives annually.

On LCFS funding, staff recommended budgets of roughly $2.1 million for FY25‑26 and $2.9 million for FY26‑27 to continue transportation electrification programs, including public charging infrastructure, multifamily charger rebates and an expected ramp of 15–25 new public charging ports per year. Brian Salazar, GWP staff presenting LCFS programs, said the utility had sold credits recently and retains a credit balance to fund the next year’s programs.

Council members repeatedly pressed staff on timing and scale: Councilmember Brotman noted the PBC fund balance (staff said about $10,000,000) and asked why more money wasn’t put into peak‑shaving or R&D. Staff responded that the portfolio is being rolled out in phases so programs can be designed, launched and monitored for cost‑effectiveness before additional allocations are made.

On verification and program effectiveness, staff said usage data from advanced meters (AMI) and third‑party statistical analyses are used to measure savings for home energy reports and other offerings. For the off‑peak EV incentive, staff explained the program uses AMI meter signatures to confirm charging times and provides “forgiveness” for a limited number of monthly peak events.

Council direction and next steps: staff said the proposed budgets and program outlines will be included in the final staff report for the June 24 budget hearing and that they will return with implementation details, communications plans and options to reallocate funds if uptake justifies scaling. No formal vote or ordinance was taken during the presentation.

Council members also asked for greater business outreach and coordination with chambers, and suggested leveraging partnerships (for example, with financial institutions) to help residents finance larger electrification measures such as HVAC replacements.

Staff cited state guidance including references in the presentation to Senate Bill 1037 and AB 2021 as framing requirements and forecasts for energy‑efficiency planning. Metropolitan Water District regional programs were cited as partners on water‑efficiency rebates.

The council will consider the staff report and final budget adoption on June 24, when any adjustments to the amounts or program scope would be finalized.","Glendale Water & Power proposed a $9.3 million PBC portfolio for FY25‑26 (and $11.5 million proposed for FY26‑27) to expand income‑qualified bill assistance, appliance rebates and EV incentives, and staff told council the programs will be rolled out in phases and refined based on uptake and cost‑effectiveness.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6533779,"Glendale staff outline CIP cuts, deferrals as city faces multi‑million dollar deficit",605,5013000,5618000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3658872-b0d3fc4dfa26eb371e48f78e52d5e016&start=5013&end=5618","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3658872-b0d3fc4dfa26eb371e48f78e52d5e016/thumbnail_5013000.jpg","/articles/6533779/Glendale/Los-Angeles-County/California/Glendale-staff-outline-CIP-cuts-deferrals-as-city-faces-multimillion-dollar-deficit","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6533779-bcf2ec3565ceda09f036e18acb09f9c2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771171088&Signature=kJ8wJGi~qCN2S~sA8cweiCvgsI0PhDGHQUL48rHhNsUTeBMqXqafqkrFZ~ropY0PUcNj8-VXt3QneNqQPUmF~OppX3s3tpm74hCUTFPqW-EDEQcFjmOR34BPl-W28f1OUDFvgA7lD0MVFNm3tSPllslwQcHkrlpSFcM7V3YxKP3McYTZXthyqDfEozHVKJEj4O1l~WF8Ei5wNTJehsrymcwrK6yNm9QU6uhNlXERa237V324VCvT~mpTpMq5C9NTCk0dudYlQmf-zSnrqMYVQ0pA4q9TctAVKGsjEZkJQYIBUvYAmYJXFHh~u4Gon~PA3p8-e250StsjnFsNWT55iA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff presented a review of the General Fund capital improvement program (CIP) on June 4 and proposed a combination of deferrals, reductions and cancellations of previously approved projects to free resources for higher‑priority 2025–26 needs.

Why it matters: The city faces a structural shortfall in the coming budget year and in subsequent years, and staff said they are recommending staged project changes instead of immediate, across‑the‑board cancellations in order to preserve key projects and maintain momentum on high‑priority work.

Assistant City Manager and Acting Finance Director John Takhtalian summarized the city’s position: “This time last year, we entered our budget study discussions with a total fund balance in our general fund CIP of $52,300,000,” he said, noting that earlier transfers and mid‑year changes reduced available resources. Takhtalian added the city is facing a larger deficit in FY25‑26 and beyond and described the consequent tradeoffs staff recommended to keep a subset of CIP projects moving.

What staff proposed
- Rephasing or delaying projects rather than outright cancellation where possible. Staff said they had identified $6.2 million of reductions and project closeouts in FY24‑25 that provided roughly $7.4 million of available resources for FY25‑26.
- Specific project changes cited by staff included delaying Verdugo Park South renovation ($200,000 reduction), shifting portions of the Alex Theatre multi‑year project, pausing Casa Verdugo library renovations ($450,000), and canceling some city hall lobby/entrance improvements to free funds.
- A large reduction ($2.5 million) to seismic and functional retrofits of fire stations was proposed with the caveat that the fire master plan work will guide future steps.
- Staff also proposed shifting some playground replacement funding to Measure A and identified a package of parking lot improvements to proceed within available funds.

Staff said these adjustments reduce the immediate CIP ask from roughly $20.6 million to an appropriations list closer to $12.6 million, allowing about $8 million of projects to be appropriated in FY25‑26 within available resources. Takhtalian cautioned that the city still faces a year‑end CIP gap on the order of several hundred thousand dollars and emphasized that the city typically runs a small CIP deficit because many projects span multiple years.

Council reaction and process
Council members asked for targeted briefings on large or controversial projects and asked staff to provide clear cost consequences of deferring work (for example, whether prices rise if construction is delayed). Several council members urged a focused approach—\"less programs, more impact\"—and asked staff to provide documentation and communications so councilors could review projects ahead of the next study session.

Next steps
Staff said they will present the full list of all general‑fund‑related CIP projects and the proposed deferrals/reductions in the next budget meeting, and will include any council direction in the June 24 budget adoption staff report. No formal votes were taken on project deletions or deferrals during the session.

Clarifying background: staff described the accounting moves that fed available resources: an administrative reduction of a previously authorized $10 million transfer to the CIP down to $9 million; reclassification of some projects into other funds (for example, some EV charger work planned for fleet funds), and identification of projects with small remaining balances that could be closed out. Staff emphasized that many projects remain council‑approved and would only change with explicit council direction.","City staff described delays, cancellations and rephasing of capital projects to free $7.4 million for FY25‑26 while warning of multi‑year deficits. Projects reduced include Verdugo Park South, selected library and civic projects, and a $2.5M reduction to fire station seismic work; employees stressed that these are proposed changes to be finalized","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council hears range of revenue options; firefighters urge public‑safety impact fee

Glendale staff propose higher Brand Boulevard meter rates and outline parking‑tax option

Glendale utility outlines $9.3M PBC plan, expands rebates and EV incentives

Glendale staff outline CIP cuts, deferrals as city faces multi‑million dollar deficit