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

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.