[music] >> Good afternoon and welcome to our Glendale City Council workshop. This meeting is for Council members to review and discuss [music] important issues, projects, and future Council meeting agenda items. It's a work study session only and allows the Council [music] to hear input from city staff. No action will be taken at this workshop and there will not be an opportunity for public comment. This meeting is streaming live on Glendale's Facebook and YouTube pages and the city's cable television station, Glendale Channel 11. Thank you for joining us. And good afternoon. Welcome to Glendale City Council workshop session, April 28th, 2026. This meeting is called order. Can you turn the volume up a little bit back there, please? We're not going to conduct a roll call cuz everybody's here if you take note of that. And with that said, Ms. Bower, would you introduce item number one, please? Downtown campus reinvestment project update. Thank you, Ms. Bower. Mayor and Council, good afternoon. On behalf of the DCRP team, this is update number 42. Uh co-presenting today with me is Thomas Atkins, Atkins, deputy city manager for City of Glendale. So, uh this update's going to focus more on where we are with Murphy Park, um some progress on the amphitheater, couple of key highlights on the first floor, and then we want to really get to uh the real talking points, which is some key dates coming up uh this month and and next month, but uh we are full speed ahead on moving forward to getting to those dates and it's an exciting time right now because if you look at the webcam a day-to-day, uh progress is not only continuing, but you can actually start to see the finish state coming to full focus now and I think one of the big things that uh we've noticed or has dramatically helped to change where we are is just putting grass in the ground. So, in this photo you see the new sod that's been placed in the amphitheater. And uh we're excited about that cuz this will be essentially a preview of how the park will become more green and this is an also extension of the design concept of bringing Murphy Park into the amphitheater, into the site, all more of a cohesive plan versus having it separated in before with the original design. So, we're really excited about that. So, um speaking of the park, right now most of the work that we have completed to date is a lot of the hardscape work. So, as you leave this civic center today and walk over to the northeast corner of the park, uh this is essentially what you will see. So, the sidewalks are in place, um the hard hardscape sidewalks that uh uh circulate around Velma Teague are now in place. So, really excited about that and as you continue to walk down that path, you can pass by the foundations that are being built currently for the for the gazebo. So, we're excited about that cuz that's moving forward. We're in shop drawing mode right now. We've done some mock-ups and the fabrication that we're doing with the architects and the contractor, but uh more to come on that later in the presentation in terms of its timing. But you can see how exciting that's coming together. Um [clears throat] this is a now an example of seeing the plaques that we've had before and their repositioning throughout the hardscape. So, as you circle about Velma Teague now in all the quadrants, we have the uh plaques essentially where they were positioned in their geography geography beforehand, that's where we best placed them today. So, we're pretty excited about that coming together and they they uh fit quite nicely and uh we're just as pleased how we were able to save those and put those back in. Uh this is a view from the southeast corner of the site looking uh towards the southeast, I should say, uh where the clock is and the retail uh uh retail um frontages. But you can see how the hardscape is now in place. We'll have seating areas for benches and so forth, but right now what we're doing is putting in the irrigation system, getting the ground in the grading put together so we can put all the planting materials in, that's trees, shrubs, etc. So, we're really close to um completing the southeast quadrant to do that. The seating bowl. So, now you can see the the entire amphitheater uh with the seating bowl in place with grass now. So, that's this was probably taken about mid-morning. So, you get a sense of the the amount of shade that's that the canopy casts on the stage and just the entire the viewing angles you get from being in the lawn. Excited about that. Here's another view from the southeast when you come out from the Glendale Avenue sidewalk walking towards the north. Um so, the southeast approach leads you to this corner. So, we have some benches there, little tree grouping, and then you can just see the vignette that it creates with just the entire canopy itself, the pavilion, if you will, uh the seating bowl, and then the backdrop of Council Chambers. And this is the stage view. Uh you get a sense for the work that's going on right now in the the uh the upper portion, the ceiling plane, which is a series of baffles. There's a lot of electrical work that's being done right now to power up a lot of the lighting schemes that we'll have uh for the shows, etc. But, it's coming along. Um the stage has been poured for a for about a 2 or 3 weeks now. But, uh all of that will be uh behind it there was the courtyard all that will be poured in the next month or so, sooner the better. Um let's go inside. So, this is the interior uh of the first floor multi-purpose area. This is the room that that uh is parallel with Glendale Avenue. So, if you're caught by the train and you turn your head and you can look inside of City Hall, especially at night, this is the room you'll see. So, we're excited about this cuz this shows you the flexibility of the space. We'll have movable furniture that can roll out and be placed. We have four display monitors there, so we can put content on there and display when we what we'd like to show um especially even 24 hours or after hours. Uh for folks that are walking by or driving by can see what's going on. And then, the level one interior as far as the city room goes, this is um we're really excited about this cuz this is the first time you'll be able to see it without furniture right now, but almost in its complete state architecturally. So, we have glass around the X bracing. Um the one-stop shop is complete, the stairs complete. The acoustic treatments are there, the floor is finished. Um it's just minor details from this point out and then furniture to come in. And the stairwells as well. So, the north stair is our showcase stair that goes through the entire uh garden level up to the fourth floor in the building. Uh it's a wood-clad stair, so this is the same wood that we've used in the the building cores, the doors, and it's an alder wood. Um it's a beautiful hue, and you can see how all the finishes come together. So, this adds a lot of warmth to this to the uh to the building and a lot of daylight into the vertical circulation. And also the meeting spaces. You've seen a lot of the office spaces before, but we've got these beautiful meeting spaces uh for collaborative purposes um just the impromptu-ness of what we do to be able to work with different departments. These are spaces that can be shared, they'll be scheduled in a shared platform. So, you get an idea of how these work, but you know, they have the ability to cast information to a display, to arrange seating on the fly. Um it really to to have those intersections between the departments to work together is really important. So, we're excited how these are turning out. Okay, so here's the more of the nitty-gritty of where we need to be. So, some key dates coming up. So, right now we're in the process of putting together our substantial completion of the City Hall and parking structure components of the building. That includes a temporary certificate certificate of occupancy for both City Hall and the parking structure. Um and that means that we're getting ready to occupy the building for May 18th. Uh we do need a an official a certificate certificate of occupancy for the entire uh project, which includes the chambers and the amphitheater along with City Hall and parking garage, and we're looking for that at the end of May. Um but, for the most part, we're able to do what we need to do on May 18th, which leads us to the next series of bullets. All the departments that are programming to the building would come in on May 18th and be operational. The continuity operations spaces such as budget and finance um that are part of the uh annex in the adult center, there's some teams there that might have some float in between. So, we're going to have to so we can cover our grounds between uh the folks that are coming in on May 18th and some of the work that needs to continue during the process of moving. So, we wanted to make sure we didn't lose any of our continuity operations between uh where we are prior and after move-in. And then, the big picture is the ribbon cutting on June 18th. So, that's our big target, a celebratory event on June 20th. And then, um so Deputy City Manager Thomas Atkins is going to walk you through that in just a few moments of our prepping for that. Uh thought this was important to also update you in the slide deck is what the site will look like on May 18th. Um so, this is Monday, the move-in day, and everything that you see in this diagram is in white is essentially available and um accessible by employees and the public. Um the shaded area is what they're really describing is um on May 18th, the amphitheater is still going to have work being done. We're installing some technical all the technology equipment, lighting, speakers, all the equipment that are associated with the performances that we'll have. That's being built in. That's an owner-provided element that's outside of Oakland's contract. So, that's why we're making sure we have some protection there. We're also doing some punch list work and finishing things up in chambers. And with the chambers not being utilized for um council meetings until August, the first meeting in August, uh we want to reserve that spot to finish up the work we need, but basically zone it off and rope it off from folks coming from City Hall needing to go into chambers. So, we want to restrict that area on May 18th cuz we will still have some construction activity going on. In the park, uh you'll notice there's a couple shades there. The big uh outline that you see around, that's just our protective fence. On June 18th or May 18th, we want to continue to protect the park because we'll still be doing work with inside the grounds themselves. We have other infrastructure work we need to complete. And the park will be essentially substantially complete in the middle of May, but there's still a lot of work to do and the gazebo is part of that activity. Regardless, we'd like to zone off the gazebo area until um not only during the May 18th period, but also in well into June. We're going to need to restrict that area until we complete the gazebo. But, on May 18th, the park itself will be uh segregated until we can finish the work we need to do there. Um so, we're excited about that because um the fence lines will be moved in, parking will be available. Um the zone that's around the amphitheater that's in bold where the lawn is, that's just to protect the lawn. We want to make sure people are not destroying the turf. We want to let that, you know, get some uh have the roots set in before June 18th. So, we want to protect the lawn. But, it's going to be open, so there won't be like a big fence or anything like that. It's just a visual uh clue that says stay off the grass essentially. Um moving ahead though, post move-in, but ahead of June 18th, yes, we would like to move the fence lines back and then pull them away um within 48 hours of our grand opening, the ribbon cutting. This is just to protect the park so that we can keep our eyes on the park and make sure everything is is there and safe and clean and ready to go. All but the gazebo area, that'll be a restricted area, but everything else will be available. So, we're going to lift the restrictions around the amphitheater, lift the restrictions around um the council chambers, and essentially just that upper corner of the park would be available for remaining construction activities that need to take place. This is our target approach right now. There's a few other things that we need to inform the council with, and that is it's hard to tell on the screen, but maybe you can spot it on your your laptops and so forth in your your handouts, there's a purple-colored coded element in um the parking garage and it where Velma Teague is. And what that is, that's post-June 18th scope. So, there's a few things that we need to take care of that um uh that are really after we get all the major construction done, but are needed in order to move forward with other um uh other functionalities that we need to have within the within the DCRP site. One of them is a solid waste enclosure. So, at the bottom of this diagram, or I should say in the middle of this diagram, go back a second here. There's in the middle where the really at the bottom of the the garage in the garden level entrance, that's where the solid waste enclosure will be. So, at some point we're going to have to block that area off to build the the enclosure. And this is to help with uh removal of of waste so that we don't go through the garage anymore. Initially, we will in the first month until we get this built. But, once we get that complete, we'll have a compactor there and trucks will be able to come in and pull the waste out cleanly without having to go inside the garage and and potentially damaging anything else within the garage structure. So, that was the reason why we want to do that. That's important, but it's an it's an added scope element that's after major construction. The other one is the um what we call the tunnel. The tunnel enclosure topping slab needs to be replaced, and part of it's because we have water infiltration coming into the tunnel from above. This is not a structural component, this is just a topping slab. We want to replace it. We've kept it in place this entire time because we needed the construction room to go back and forth. So, it's just one of those things that once we get done with construction, we'll come back and fix that piece. The Velma Teague library also has some mechanical HVAC work going on. Did that again. Here we go. And right behind it, so field operations is managing a project there um replacing the chillers and some other panel equipment and so forth. That's going to go into the summer. So, we want to protect that area as well. So, essentially, the picture for us right now is looking pretty good. We're happy with the targets that we've made, and uh we're looking forward to the May 18th move-in. And with that, I'll switch this over to Tom. >> [clears throat] >> Thank you, Eddie. Um Mayor and Council, as Eddie mentioned, we're planning a couple of celebratory events associated with the opening of our new City Hall. Um we're doing a couple events for a couple reasons. One is we wanted to make sure that we captured our city's birthday, which is June 18th. That's the birthday of our incorporation. It's a Thursday, so in the morning we're planning an official ribbon cutting ceremony that will use both our council chambers where it's a little cooler and air-conditioned and our amphitheater for the official ribbon cutting. Uh we're going to have some speakers and dignitaries invited from across the region as well as invitations to our former elected officials who have helped make our city what it is today. Associated with the ribbon cutting, we're also going to be installing a brand new time capsule and I'll talk a little bit more about that in a moment. We also wanted to make sure that we created an event that would celebrate the campus for the entire community. So on Saturday, June 20th, we are planning a large community celebration for our new City Hall. This will include musical artists. Um it will have ice cream, food trucks, the winners of our arts and essay contest and some other things associated with our America 250 celebration. All of this will culminate with a really cool drone show in the evening there. So moving on to our time capsule piece, there is an item I wanted to get council consensus on. So we uh Eddie's team has acquired a new time capsule for installation. Um the theme that we're building off of is celebrating Glendale's spirit. So as you might recall when we opened up the 1985 time capsule from the old City Hall, uh we were able to identify some really cool artifacts from our community from all the way back in 1985. And we wanted to make sure that we could capture some of those same elements in our new time capsule. So what we're proposing today is to install a new time capsule on our birthday on the ribbon cutting day, June 18th, 2026 with a proposed opening date of June 18th, 2060. That would be our 150th birthday. We picked that date for a couple of reasons. One is our birthday, but also we wanted to pick a date far enough in the future that it could be aspirational in terms of what we contribute, but not so far into the future that we won't have anybody around that was here uh when we installed it. One of the great events that happened with our opening of our 1985 time capsule, you might recall, is that we were able to have former Mayor Renner attend. He had been the mayor when the time capsule was installed. And when we opened it, he was able to read a letter that he had written to the Glendale of the future. So we are hopeful that we will have Glendale residents and staff around in 2060 to help us celebrate there. In terms of contributions, what we're looking to do is similar to what was in the 1985 time capsule. We will put out a call to our community partners for uh items that they think capture our celebrate Glendale's spirit to be included. We also want to make sure that we include items from across the geography of Glendale. Uh one of the things I noticed in our 1985 time capsule is that there didn't seem to be anything about from our council districts. Well, come to find out after talking to our clerk's office, we didn't have districts in 1985. We were still at large. The districts didn't come about till the 1988-1990 time frame. [clears throat] So we'll be working with uh council to help you identify thoughtful items from your districts that we can include in the time capsule. And lastly, not not least importantly, we want to make sure that we capture some elements from our city employees. Uh we think this is a a great opportunity. Maybe it's a city yearbook type of thing, but photographs or names of our city employees so that when it's opened, either those employees or um their descendants can uh see that and celebrate that as well. So without any further ado, we're seeking uh council consensus to move forward with these celebratory plans uh with the time capsule and we're open for any questions. Uh well, let me start off by look go move go back to that picture, would you? Uh I don't see the date on it. And I don't see anything that says time capsule. So uh Mayor, council members, uh correct. On this time capsule that was acquired, it doesn't have it, but what we are proposing would be to create a plaque that would go above where we install the time capsule that would clearly identify both the location and the planned opening of it. Uh we didn't put a date on here because we had not settled on a Okay. Yeah, I I you know, I I I think you and I uh remember the conversation we had. I think it's important that people know we have a time capsule and they don't forget about it and we accidentally find it you know, in the future 15 years late. Uh it it it'd be nice to have it where people knew what it was, but still protected too at the same time. But So I just want to make sure I understand. So there's going to be a a plaque or some sort of marker on at ground level to identify where it is and that Okay. Yes, Mayor uh Councilmember Tolmachoff, that's correct. And I forgot to mention our planned location to install the time capsule is just to the west of the amphitheater on the garden level between the council chamber building and City Hall. So there will be uh it's a walkable usable space that we'll be using and we'll have a designated easy to see plaque for folks to know what's there. Okay. Thank you. But Uh thank you and to follow up on the two previous. So we'll have a plaque, it'll say time capsule and it will say on it to be opened June 18th, 2060. Uh Mayor Councilmember Turner, that's correct. Okay. With your consent. Uh Thomas, one other question. Uh we had talked about it, but I don't know what was ever decided if a decision's been made. Are we going to incorporate the time capsule that was dug up and put back in this one or is it going to be separate? So uh Mayor, council members, at our last uh workshop where we talked about the 1985 time capsule, the guidance that I was received at time was to open that time capsule, display the artifacts inside for a certain period of time and then to later reinstall the old time capsule adjacent to this time capsule. Adjacent to, not inside of it. Correct. That one is a larger one than this one is my understanding. Yeah. Any questions on that? Okay. What else you got? You good? All good? Sounds like it. Are you done? That's it. Okay. Ms. Barr. Council item of special interest, continuity of operations spaces. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Um pleased to be with you this afternoon to discuss the council item of special interest, the continuity of operations spaces. Just in way of background, um Council did ask for this in the October 4th 14th, 2025 council workshop. This was requested by Councilmembers Tolmachoff and Guzman. Um the scope was to discuss the options and plans for the space collectively referred to as a continuity of operations. Um and this is an informational item. Consent is is not required on this item, but I I'm going to give you a lot of background, a lot of different options that we've we've developed and gone through here. >> [snorts] >> So the continuity of operations, the term really came to the city first in the December 14th, 2021 council workshop. Um at that time we were discussing how we would relocate the staff from City Hall. And one of the planning objectives was to make sure that we provided seamless experience to our customer, whether that was internal, other city employees, or to our residents. And so we wanted to make sure that we were always looking at how would we be able to serve our customers. And so what we did was we determined at that point we needed to keep certain things together and that was the elected and executive offices. We tried to keep those people together as much as possible. And we looked at uh regardless of if these were permanently relocated people or temporary, we would improve those spaces and the services employees to provide, you know, a good investment in it. So the the six we started with were the airport. We looked at um space available in the airport and what could we use that for? And that was a good option for some field related employees. Um the adult center at the time had a second floor that was um undeveloped. It was, you know, rough space, so we could easily um do tenant improvements there and move people into it. The Civic Center campus, um well, the Civic Center was largely used. We had the Beed building on this campus. We had the annex that were had some underutilized space within it or you know, the space that we could we could take over and and make sure we could provide those services. The Sign building, um we relocated an inside of the second floor. Um and so that space became available as well. Gripstick, we had some space that had prior been used as storage uh once we relocated an old health center out of it. So we put some field employees out there. We were doing a lot of uh work near the 303 at the time, so development services and inspectors out there made sense. And then Media Center at that time, um the arena management company just moved out of the Media Center and it back into the arena. And so we had some space available there. So we looked at the space available at that time. Um to go through each of those spaces in a little bit more detail though, so the Media Center, um this was owned by Westgate and it was designed to keep the elected officials um in the city manager's office kind of co-located so they would be located nearby. Um roughly 2,500 square feet. In this location, we we mainly did uh furniture. We we took the existing walls um and offices and just put people in them with new furniture. Um the Civic Center campus here, um couple buildings on it that I'm highlighting right here, the the annex and the Beed building. This was really our seamless one-stop shop experience for the customer. So if you were coming to the city and you had to pay a bill or get a permit of any type, we we try to keep you on this campus and keep our customers here in this campus. So, it was a temporary location for the the clerk development services, their planning administration, budget and finances, customer service, and special events, which now is a division of parks and recreation. It wasn't at the time, but but now it is. And so, that's that's what we did here. Um roughly 5,000 square feet of raw space in the annex. We renovated about 2,500 square feet to get the the staff into it. Uh the adult center, as I said, this was previously an improved space, previously just vacant space with exterior walls. So, we created three suites up there on the second floor. The one in blue is used for human resources today. The green is the engineering space and the reddish I don't know. Reddish type color, let's say, is budget and finance. Um so, just to give you an idea of the the space that that occupies. The HR space is roughly 6,000 square feet. So, approximately 18,000 square feet on the floor. There is a large atrium on the front end next to budget and finance that's you unoccupiable. That's actually open space down to the first floor. Other spaces we looked at, the sign building, the second floor we did use for the city attorney's office and the code compliance division of city manager's office. At the Gripstik, we took the vacant space that was prior a prior early portion of the health center, improved it to put in the development services inspectors that were doing a lot of work out at the 303 at that time. The airport cafe was deemed to be the you know, an underutilized space at the airport and the engineering inspection team, largely a field component of the engineering department, located there. The Promenade Pal Mare, we are using that currently for the mail room that serves the entire city and and then storage. So, there's secured storage over at the Promenade at Pal Mare. It's mainly clerk's files and finance files that have to be secured or required to be kept in many of those will be relocated to city hall. The other thing we did was the system of care community services was located at city hall in the past and they did not go into any of the defined continuity of operations space. They are at the system of care facility and if I understand from recent conversations with Kimberly Hall, it's a it's been a great relocation for them. They're able to serve their customers much better and they're looking at making that at least a shorter term, maybe hopefully longer term type type solution for them. So, to kind of just in summary, the spaces we looked at, kind of the the largest one in terms of number of people was the Bead building at 45 occupant spaces in it. But then if you look at the adult center, we have some large spaces up there as well. So, just kind of a summary of of the spaces that we kind of improved and moved people into, the smallest one being the the sign building on the second floor, the city attorney's office, just with seven occupant type spaces. So, you know, happy to go through any of these things, but this is kind of just meant as a summary for you. So, now, you heard from Mr. Garcia, we get some great news. We're we're relocating people back into city hall. We're getting down towards that I think we're beyond the 11th hour. So, we're looking at moving a bunch of departments back to city hall. This is a full list of departments, but we are looking at moving the mayor and council offices, they go back, city manager, city attorney, city clerk. So, all our kind of governmental functions go, budget and finance, development services, the entire list of them go back to to city hall. And the last one there on the bottom, um special events, they will be moving into the council chamber building. So, they're not moving in May. They will be moving a little bit later on, but they're that's a planned move as well. Um who's not going? Other departments that I want to talk a little bit about. Community services, they are going to stay right now at the system of care and that's their their administrative group in that group. There's still library services that will stay at the library. So, it's not all of them. Um code compliance, they do like that second floor of the sign building and the plans currently are to to leave them there. Um development services, their inspection team, we did relocate them out to Gripstik. Um they are programmed to move into the annex space and that's just the space that's occupied by special events. So, once special events moves into council chambers, this group can then move in in July or August into that type space. That move keeps them in close proximity to the administrative room, the the planning, zoning, permit part of development services, keeps them close by, but allows them to do still the field services that they need to for them. Um engineering, the inspection services that were relocated to the airport cafe, they are programmed to move to the operations campus in the future. We have no date on that yet, but they are comfortable as to where they are and they have options to come into engineering for meetings and things like that and then do the work that they need to in the field. Um the internal audit program, it has been relocated to the Foothills library, but they will have hoteling space, not a permanently identified space, but they have desk space at city hall and will be at city hall whenever they're needed to be. Some other program moves, communications, we are planning to move them to the sign building second floor. Again, just a series of dominos. Um so, we once we move the attorney's office into city hall, communications will then move to that vacated space. So, it's just a partial department move we said in July of 2026, but that can slide a little bit depending on when we can actually get the attorney's office into city hall. And the video team will remain at the media center second floor. They've got some nice technology there that they need and we're planning on leaving it there. Um the CVB, part of economic development, will move to the media center second floor. They're currently in Westgate leased space and they will move in June of 2026 after that space is vacated. The other group that we have planned to move is parks and recreation. They're currently on the second floor of the main library. This is just their administrative group, by the way, John Kennedy and his administrative team. We're planning on moving them from the main library to the adult center second floor. When the group did the programming for what would this space look like short-term and long-term, parks [clears throat] and recreation was part of that discussion and so, they're programmed right into the space where human resources and race risk management would vacate from. So, that was part of the planning back in 2022, 2023. So, we were looking to the future at that point as well. The other thing I want to touch on is leased space. So, to do all this for city hall, we did have to lease two spaces. One is at Westgate. Um that's currently occupied by economic development and the CVB. That will be vacated in June of 2026, just in time as the lease does terminate in July of 2026. So, The second [snorts] lease is the media center third floor. The plan for that is to return that space back to control with the Renaissance Hotel such that they can use it for conventions or other rentals that they may have. So, kind of just a a summary again, here's our here's our spaces. Um so, the media center second floor, we plan that when it becomes vacated, that will be the communications video team and CVB. Media center third floor is now vacated leased space and will be returned to the Renaissance. That portion of the adult center, which will be vacated by HR, is now planned for parks and recreation, their administrative function. The Gripstik inspectors space, the fire department administration team has has a need for additional space and so, they will be taking that on and that's right next to our Chief Freeburg and his administrative team up on the second floor now. Um the sign building, the space vacated by the city attorney's office will be partially occupied by sorry, our our the communications team will move over there to make them readily available to anybody at city hall that needs it. Um the sign building, the part that was code is going to remain code and then the annex, we're going to return part of that space to the civic center and then part of it will be the development services inspectors, the special events space. So, that leaves us kind of with four spaces that I want to talk about today. The Bead building, the adult center that's occupied by engineering, the adult center that's occupied by budget and finance and then the Promenade Pal Mare, the space that we've got currently for the mail room and files. Some other things though that we do need to consider, you know, we we may need space upcoming for other capital projects. Um you know, to do city hall, we actually had to relocate a a great number of people into other spaces and so, there are some um capital plans coming up in the future that we may need to relocate people to. And so, one of the things that facilities and Eddie Garcia from our engineering team do really well is they understand what our customers do and they help facilitate their business. So, um we we really need to keep that in mind. So, we have no definitive plans today that this group needs to go here, this needs to happen. So, Foothills public safety and main public safety, we've got we've got plans that we need to do to improve those buildings and so, we may be looking at and not not the fire department from Foothills, they've got a requirement where they have to respond within a certain time frame. So, we'd have to find a different one, but we may need let's say the adult center some space there to put some people into. Uh when we do main public safety, the plans for main public safety are strongly influenced by what happens with the innovation and technology department. Um they're in main public safety now and if we can relocate them out, that allows us a lot of space and planning with police that we can do. So, these aren't fully um these these plans aren't, you know, already designed and drawn out. These are just things that we need to consider. Um the other thing we have to look at is if the operations campus does go through a major remodel or renovation, we may need space for them. In the main library, we have uh plans to do those as well and so uh that's a service we do want to make sure we we continue to provide to our residents and so we may need some space for the main library coming up, too. So, with that, I did talk talk a little bit about innovation and technology. Um we are looking at can we relocate them out of the main police station and cover their needs. And so, speaking with uh Steve Martin, these are the space needs that he came up with and these are, you know, needs what ideally does that department need to to work. Um they need an open floor plan, low workstation walls, and direct sunlight. Um they are able to utilize shared spaces. He's got a great uh team going, team type atmosphere in his department, where they can share spaces. Um but they also want to be very close to their customer base. Um so, they need to be able to respond very quickly and if you think about their customers, it's not just city hall. Um it's it's the court building. It's main public safety. Um the operations campus. So, to to have them downtown or in this general area is very convenient cuz then if something happens, they can respond very quickly. They do have a lot of confidential data and operations. You know, you think the biggest threat to the the city and other businesses and that right now is cybersecurity. Um so, we want to make sure that they've always got a secured location and they're able to keep their data and operations very secure. So, we don't want them in a in a public type location where a lot of public's coming in and out of. Ideally, they do need some storage for IT equipment. Uh not specifically a data room. Um the I don't think they've got plans for servers. I think we've got a data room already in city and and some cloud storage and other type things, but you know, if if a data room's available, they might use it, but they do need definitely secured storage for IT equipment. What they do is when you know, for example, if I need a new laptop, um they deploy that laptop like it's plug and play. So, they'll go through the laptop, make sure all the applications on it already work and then they hand it off to me and I just have to sign into them. So, they do need storage for that type of equipment. And then living in Arizona, I think everybody wants covered parking and so they've asked for if they could get it, covered staff parking is always ideal. Um so, the ideal size for them would be eight offices and 48 workstations. Um I'm not an architect, so I'm going to I can't tell you what type of square footage that is, but um we'll we'll walk through the spaces and what works and what what doesn't work. So, what's not needed for them is a lobby. Um they generally don't see the public. Um they may see city staff, but a lot more often now they're coming out to different departments to make sure that they're available for us when when departments are needed. And then the the data center, the city's data center is not being moved. Um we've got the data centers currently, you know, in spaces that work for them. Um so, it's it's not needed going forward into these other spaces. So, things that we're not recommending for, innovation and technology, um these are generally the the ones that are currently, you know, already planned. We've already [clears throat] got programs. So, the media center, second and third floor, um the adult center where we've got HR, um the space for the parks and recreation, we're saying that's not recommended for them. The space at Gripstick, um the airport cafe, you know, they're a little bit small, same with the city attorney's office. Um code compliance is not moving, so that's that space doesn't not available. And then the annex, we're saying we should probably return that to the civic center. And then part of it goes to special events. So, when we looked at this, we looked at, you know, what what we currently have planned or is currently occupied and then also where there's not sufficient space. So, that really leaves for us three options and so the first one really is is the Beed building. Um currently within it, there are 41 workstations, uh nine offices and three conference rooms. Um space-wise, it's it's a little bit small. Um could we make it work? Probably, but it would require some tenant improvements. We'd we'd be going in and taking out walls that we just put in, um doing some other things like that. It is downtown and it is adjacent to covered parking. So, it it might be an option for innovation and technology. Um And I I also do want to talk, you know, one of the things that with them, um with cybersecurity and then um data and that type of thing, it's nice to have redundant fiber. And this location um is connected to the annex and then connects into the civic center main building. So, if you look at a strict definition of what's fiber redundant, um you know, two coming from different locations, it doesn't meet that, but it does have kind of a a dual feed in, um but it's not truly redundant fiber. The next space is the the adult center. Um so, getting rid of the space that we've got planned for parks and recreation admin, so I've kind of grayed that out there. Um the other two spaces, there's currently 51 workstations, nine offices, and two conference rooms. So, it would need some tenant improvements. That that that the layout doesn't work. There's a hallway right through the middle of the space. Um but some of the bigger concerns is it's not compatible with the building use. You know, this is the adult center, it's open to the public. Public come in and out, so it's it's not a secure space. Um it does not have any sort of redundant fiber to it and so there would it has a single feed coming off of the the main library. Um not a huge issue for the adult center in the way it operates, but it might be with with innovation and technology. Um it's located only 2 and 1/2 miles north of downtown, but still it's not ideal in the sense that you're getting in a vehicle and driving if there's an issue versus walking across the campus. And with this one as well, there's just not covered parking. I'm not saying, you know, some of these are deal breakers, but I'm just this is factually what's there. Um so, the third location is the Promenade at Palm Aire. Um this is currently where we have files stored for the clerk and budget and finance, as well as the mail room. Um we don't have a good floor plan for this one um because it was not city occupied in the past. It was occupied by other site. I'll show you a picture instead. Um it would need tenant improvements. It's pretty much shell space. There are some offices in there, but they're they're older offices and the prior tenant um didn't leave it in great condition in the sense that we'd have to um redo some carpeting and that type of thing. So, it would need the tenant improvements. Um the nice thing about this space is there is adequate space for all staff. Um so, it would be um just, you know, tenant improvement to be able to fit them in with room for growth as well. It is located near downtown, so it would be near their customer base. Um it is adjacent to covered parking, so uh the Bank of America parking garage is part of that complex. Um so, they could walk right into it. And a server room does exist within this space. While it's not required, it is a nice secure storage room that has that dry fire suppression. So, if something happens, you're not destroying computer equipment by adding water if there's a fire or something like that. So, it exists, so it might work well for a computer storage and that type of thing. So, as a summary, um out of those three spaces, uh you know, for adequate space, we've kind of got the adult center and the Promenade. The Beed Beed building is a little bit small for them. Um proximity to downtown, um both the Beed and the Promenade kind of work for them. Confidentiality is one where we say the the adult center doesn't just the amount of public that's in and out of there every day. Covered parking, uh same thing. The adult center does not provide covered parking, where the other two solutions might. And the final one, um I I'm not the ideal person to to talk about this, you know, I'm I'm your field operations director, but still, when we looked at kind of is there other uses for it? Um the Promenade at Palm Aire, you know, we we had had a a tenant in there um and they were in there kind of long-term, but it was a dispatch center for an ambulance company. Uh when they gave notice that they were moving out, uh that that space was marketed for over 2 years and very few people showed interest in it. So, it might have um you know, limited alternate use and that's what we looked at for that one. Where the adult center, we could easily look at, you know, is there other programming that parks and recreation may want to do? Um same with the Beed building, you know, it would be a nice location downtown. We looked at that Promenade at Palm Aire, that may not be a a good location for other type things and that's why, you know, my recommendation to you is we we look at moving innovation and technology into the Promenade at Palm Aire. So, Mayor and Council, that that kind of summarizes the presentation on your continuity of operations spaces. I said I I don't need consensus, but I'd be happy to um take any comments you have. Um thank you, Mayor. Um I'm going to focus on the second half of the presentation, which is basically the IT situation. I will say that I'm disappointed that the IT needs apparently weren't considered um when we went through the whole design process for City Hall. I know at one time we were presented with an option of adding another story to City Hall um that would have solved this problem and perhaps a few of the other uh dividing of teams and things like that between different buildings. Um I think there's another alternative that uh would better suit our community. Um So, from a City of Glendale as a corporation perspective, these options probably look fine. But from this other side of us, the City of Glendale as a community there's nothing in here for the community and it actually consumes some spaces that actually could be beneficial to the community and [snorts] to give us an option to provide some things that the community has asked for over many years. Um We've had a number of studies of the downtown over 20, 30, 40 years and each of them have a little nugget here and there of things that the community would like to have. Um just uh running through some quick notes here of things that I know have been suggested in the past that a business incubator, a restaurant incubator, a performing arts theater a one-stop executive suites for nonprofits a uh history museum, an art gallery and I'm not saying that we can satisfy all those needs, but I'm just saying that none of those needs have been considered. Um I would like us to consider uh a few of those um because I think now is the great opportunity. This is an opportunity for us to provide in our community the things that some have been asking for. Um I think the bead museum location would be an excellent opportunity for a business incubator. Um I think the uh um I think the promenade on Palm Aire um would be an excellent location for an art gallery uh showcasing the city-owned art uh maybe in 2/3 of it and then 1/3 of it being a monthly revolving community art show uh for community groups or city employees, anything like that. We used to have one out at Westgate and it seemed to be pretty popular. And uh another one like that in our downtown would give an opportunity for a uh opening night every month uh with a new uh a new show of art plus also the constant show um maybe on a very slowly rotating basis, but of all the great art that the residents of Glendale have purchased over the years, but very rarely get get to see. Um it's uh mostly in city buildings and employee spaces and things like that. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I'm just saying that the public really never gets to see the art they own. And I I think that that would be an excellent space for it and create a destination of visitation destination for downtown. And the benefits to the area to the north of it, the Callan Court area uh could be significant for building foot traffic and um for shopping and for lunching and those sorts of things. I mean, that would certainly also, you know, play well to our more historic downtown uh to the south. The uh um I think that the adult center spaces uh part of that could uh certainly work for a uh executive suites con- uh concept for nonprofits that maybe are um operating under the burden of of monthly rental expenses uh and duplication of equipment and all of that that they wouldn't necessarily need if they were co-located um each with their own office, but with shared reception and shared uh copying and and uh internet and all of those kinds of things. Um I think there's just a number of them in the social services arena particularly that might be able to benefit from that. Um And those are the ones I see as the real opportunities for us at this point, but that still begs the question, what do we do with IT? And I would suggest that we look strongly at this land the city owns immediately east of our public safety building where they are currently located. It's the lots that um our uh prosecutors used to be in. There's temporary buildings there that are totally insufficient and >> [snorts] >> were were insufficient long before we moved the prosecutors out, but uh um we have that space there in which we could build new and to suit exactly what IT would need. It's immediately adjacent to where they're at, which means that the the uh fiber connections and all that they need are are certainly in the area. And if they're already using the covered parking in the public safety parking garage, this is only right across the street, so they would continue to be able to assume to be able to use that covered parking there that's ready for them. Um I think we'll see later that we have uh significant fund balance at this time in which we could finance that project or there may be other sources of of money available, but I think then we start getting some win-win-wins. Uh it's a win for IT, it's a win for the community as far as having both the business uh incubator and also the uh art gallery. So, that's where I'd be on this. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Um Can you explain um on slide 18 you you've got like a diagram of the second floor of the adult center, but I'm not sure uh budget and finance and HR and everybody that's going to be vacated, right? Mayor and Council, Councilmember Tomashoff, that's that's that's correct. Um so, the spaces I show you there, the green is what's currently occupied by engineering and the reddish one is currently occupied by budget and finance. I've kind of grayed out the area um that HR is in today that cuz that's planned for uh parks and recreations admin team. Okay, so the plan you're presenting with us though is to leave the rest of that space vacant? There's no no other city uh departments that could use that space? Um Mayor and Council, Councilmember Tomashoff, there's no plan for people to move in there today. The thought is that space may or may not be needed in the future if we do let's say uh you know, we main public safety at Foothills would would please potentially need it or would um you know, a department that's on the operations campus potentially need it. Um the other thoughts that we had was that um this space in the in the past we thought that always might be an expansion of the programs that the adult center uses and so by moving parks and recreations admin team up there, maybe we could activate the space that way. But um no, this is just the the the green and red are the is a space available that we didn't have programmed for anything immediately or planned. Okay, my immediate thought was what what have was the sign building looked at a spot a spot that would work for IT? I know we put uh I believe we put covered parking over there and moving code compliance over to the adult center. So, Mayor and Council, Councilmember Tomashoff, um I'm just pulling up Cuz it's a it's a very large space. I mean, in code works, you know, all over the city. Yeah. So, the the sign building is approximately 8,000 square feet. Um so, it's not quite big enough and if we leave code compliance there and just look at the attorneys half, it's not big enough. Um so, we were looking at to move IT into we were looking at spaces that were in that 10,000 to 11,000 range would be ideal for them just based upon their current headcount and needs that they have. So, it it would not quite be big enough. Okay, who's going to be left in the sign building? The code compliance division. And who else? Uh we would be moving the communications, their team that's not the video team. The video team would stay at the second floor of the media center. The rest of communications would move over to the sign building. >> Right, cuz I mean, we've toured the sign building before. There's quite a bit I mean, I can't imagine communications is going to need that all of that space and there could be shared spaces for you know, uh restrooms, lunches, lunch rooms, that sort of thing. I I feel like that might and I know I know I believe anyway that the tech technology's been upgraded in the sign building, hasn't it? It's been completely renovated within the last couple years. Mayor and Council, the sign building was renovated for um the attorney's office and code compliance. I didn't specifically ask if that has a redundant fiber, but I believe technology's been updated in there. Yeah, I would like to have seen an exercise or maybe it's still possible to see an exercise whether there was a way to make that work. Um and and move uh code compliance into the into the adult center. I don't know whether anybody else is interested in seeing whether whether or not that would work and and putting IT in the sign building. Um just to see if that was even a a possibility. I think that that leaving the second floor of that adult center for a TBD um I mean, it's a great work space. I think it would there's plenty of room there for code. It would work for codes. And it would kind of put them more in the middle of the city than I mean, I guess it's only a few miles from from down here. But I would I don't know whether anybody else is interested in seeing that, but I think that might be a something that we could at least take a look at before we make a final decision on whether or not uh the promenade is a uh the ideal spot to move them. I don't know where anybody else, like I said, is on that, but I think we should at least see. Um and the sign building is is completely upgraded building within the last couple of years. I know um it's secure because we we've had the city attorney I'm for I get who else is uh who else is over there? Uh Mayor and Council, the first floor is a prosecutor's division of the city attorney's office and the second floor. >> so there's a high level of security already in that building because of the prosecutor. So it might be and I I think you know a worth the exercise to actually look and see whether that would work for IT before we make a final decision on that. That's kind of where I'm at. Thank you. >> And I think she's they're asking for us to make a decision. You didn't need a decision. This is for just information. Michelle You did not need >> that that's correct. There are no there are no no immediate plans for this. This was just what the what the city staff had planned to do. >> Um so we're just looking at what's what's the ideal location what what we could do options for the future. What would So this is going to be coming back to us? I've I'd like if it's going to be coming back to us I'd like it to come back with the questions asked and and let them research it a little bit more. That would that would be ideal. I I mean honestly because we have the prosecutors in there which I know they need. Um that was one of the things that we needed to make sure we had with security for the prosecutors coming and going the city attorneys. And um so I mean it seems like it would be if you could figure out how to make the space work because you're separating communications to two different locations. Um if you could So they're going to have the second floor of the media center you could make the function in downtown space-wise so that it might be able to accommodate IT. Um and like I said it's pretty much a brand new building. And we would then we wouldn't have to do all the tenant improvements. I mean we could configure it to work for IT and then still figure out at some point whether what what might work for the for the promenade whether we could once things start to happen [clears throat] down here that would be another thing give us an opportunity for if we're going to bring in a consultant to do an evaluation and make recommendations about town it still leaves that as a blank slate of other other things to drive business and foot traffic into downtown. So I'd like to at least take a look at that. Thank you. The Mayor and Council so I just pulled up this slide. So if we look at the bottom two lines on the slide that's a sign building city attorney's office and the side building echo division and so combined it's uh 34 people in that occupant spaces. And so with uh innovation and technology needing over 50 I think it's 60 some uh that that space is too small for them. When you think about the sign building other than the the restrooms there is a a staircase that comes in and so that does take up a fair bit of space in it. So that's it's not totally all occupiable space. Um but looking at these numbers and just you know going through my mind I think the reason we we didn't look at the sign building second floor was just uh the size of it um being under 8,000 square feet and and needing more more space for more people is what we looked at for innovation and technology. Mayor. Yeah. Michelle uh uh one other question. The amount of people do we have that many parking spaces? If if they were to move in or would we have enough parking spaces? So Mayor Mayor if I Yeah and I'm not going to remember this correctly. So we we did a partial covered parking. So not the entire parking lot there is covered. We built some shade structures. Um so it would not it does not cover the entire 34 people that are in there today and Michael Bailey's ignoring me so he's not nodding. But I don't I don't think all 34 of the people occupants today have covered parking there. Okay and and that's that's not the most important thing to me. I'm just curious because that was a request. Do you have a question? Um Mayor and Council just briefly. Yeah it's a portion that's covered but also the remainder of the parking is public parking. So there are days when that's not available for employees as well. Yeah Mayor. No I was going to make that same uh statement about on page eight it shows that the sign building doesn't have enough spaces and if you go to slide of 15 I believe is where it's at. It says space needed the ideal size would be eight offices and 48 stations. So there there isn't enough room there to even consider moving them over there. I I I guess the thing is if you uh may maybe research this to death and and then bring us back if there's any other options or if this is what we're going to have to make a decision on. Mayor if I could. I and I think there's more private offices with for the city attorney's office in there would probably need to be for I mean you're going to configure IT's a lot more like workstations are smaller than offices. So I don't know whether you could reconfigure it to fit in an extra and then there's shared spaces too conference rooms other spaces that you might be able to combine into you know one conference room or a couple of smaller conference rooms. Um I mean it is a pretty good size building. I don't know what the square footage is but um um as compared to what what the square footage is I'd be interested to know that. How many square feet are you talking about? And then also how much would it cost us to move them over to the that's not included here either. Like what would the cost be to um do the tenant improvements in the promenade? Uh so Mayor and Council um I apologize I was just going through the notes. So the the sign building you know one of them 6,000 square feet one of the suites and the other was 4,000 square feet. So it's it Sorry both of them are 4,000 square feet. So 8,000 square feet at the second floor of the sign building. Um so not adequate um space but the other thing and and this is just a consideration that we go through kind of in facilities when we're talking about space planning. We took the code compliance group um that reports up through the city manager's office we moved them out of city hall. We told them hey this is your space work with them on it. Um so we also have to consider that we're it's it's it's people and we're we're disrupting their their work environment we're disrupting and these people take it very personal. We're disrupting their lives. So what we look also looked at was what's the fewest moves we can make. We've had a lot of dominoes falling a lot of changes so we looked at if we can we've moved somebody once and you don't want to continually move them every other month and I know we're not planning on doing that but we looked at can we move you and put you into a a permanent space and that's what we told the the code compliance when we were moving them into the sign building that this was their space. And so to move them again without a good reason for it we we'd want to we're we're it's just a consideration that we have. I'm not [clears throat] saying we can't do it it's just it's a consideration we look at. Because I didn't know any decisions had been made about you know space and I mean everybody else is moving twice. Moving out of city hall into some space and then moving back into whatever the new space is. So I think most the majority of the employees are are making at least two two moves to vacate out of city hall or other spaces that we had to vacate and then to move wherever your assignment is. So I mean I I I get it if there's not enough space. I don't think that's a reason. I didn't I that's the first I heard that that was permanently assigned to code. Was the sign building cuz Mayor and Council Councilman Thompson I didn't say permanently assigned it's just it's a consideration we have. We don't want to continually be moving people. You said they were told that that's where they would they would be. So Mayor. Mayor. Um on page eight where it gives the different buildings the bead building uh it says that there's 41 workstations four offices three rooms and 45 well total of 45 occupant spaces. What what's the footage of the bead building? And I know we're we're not making any decisions today. It's just I'm just curious as what the square footage is. So I I know I have that number somewhere. Um Yeah I I have unfortunately a number that's amount of square footage of the raw space we built out so I don't have the full Okay that's fine. That's fine I'll get it to you later. The what? I said that's fine if she doesn't have it that's fine. All right. Yes Mayor. Um I wanted to ask uh about the lobby space in the bead museum because on page 17 it shows the layout and um it said that uh the IT won't be public facing so it won't need the lobby. So could that um tenant improvement be used to well obviously there's fire code and things like that. But there's also a small conference room large conference room. Um could those could any of those spaces um be converted into work spaces to have the adequate amount of work space and then what I'm getting at as well as going back to um the the the graph on page eight when it comes to the promenade obviously there's zero workstations there now so that's a good question about how much money it would it cost to create all of those 45 workstations inside the Promenade um as compared to adjusting some space in the Beat Museum with those 41 um workstations that are already there. So, I'd like to see the the budget impact of of both of them. Thank you. Go ahead, Ray. Uh thank you, Mayor. Um uh based on again um considering mainly the recommendations for uh the uh folks moving into the potential Beat Museum or other places. Um I'm looking at the uh overall presentation and I'm going There's a lot of thought put into this. I mean, this wasn't just something you just came up with. Uh you've studied it, you've evaluated it, you have engineers look at it, you've had everybody look at and say this is what we recommend based on everything we see. And so, I'm comfortable with what you presented here. I think it it works. Uh I think you've spent a lot of time coming up with these thoughts and ideas. Uh it's not uh I I don't I'm not an expert in space utilization. Uh if I could see something stick out at me that really really uh didn't sound appropriate, I would say something, but to me uh this all looks very good to me and I think uh your recommendation I could go along with. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. Um one other thing that I noticed in the presentation is that uh the consideration for returning the third floor at the Media Center back to the Renaissance. Um I think it might be worth talking to the Renaissance and seeing really if they have any use or need for it. I as my recollection from prior to uh um from the first half of my career here was that that space was really really underutilized. They had very little use for it. Um there were rare occasions that the city would have a uh West Valley type event or something like that, but mostly it sat empty. It originally been designed and envisioned to be uh space for um visiting sports casters and things like that that would come and set up during our mega events, but as it turns out, they don't it's not utilized like that. Um uh so, it just really has been a terrifically underutilized space for them, and if [snorts] we could better utilize it, um maybe we can make an agreement with them on that. Um that uh would be beneficial to both of us. Uh to me, it's a place where if we're going to split communications in half, maybe we wouldn't need to if we had that space there and could keep communications uh all together. Um it could also be used perhaps in our uh um development services uh or economic development. They have a lot of business they're doing in the Westgate and farther west area, and that might actually be a more efficient uh location for them uh either for their core operation or for a satellite facility for them so that um not every one of uh every one of those businesses wanting to do business with the city would have to come all the way into downtown Glendale. They could uh quickly go back and forth to that Media Center location. So, I think that ought to be considered. Thank you. I I'll finish up. Um my hopes would be whatever decision you bring us that it's something that's planned for the next 20 years. Uh I think everybody gets tired of moving. Uh the amount of time it takes to figure out where things are and and that habit that you develop uh knowing where stuff is without thinking about it, uh very disruptive when you when you continue to move. I know in the past we've had a lot of different departments move because they've grown or because of access or um all sorts of different reasons. I would just hope that whatever your decision is that and I'm sure that you're already doing that, but but think think long-term, not short-term, please. Uh and give us the opportunity that uh whatever you bring us that uh our decision will will allow people to kind of get a home and stay there for a while. One final thing? One final thing, Mayor. I just um and I my my my thought process on leaving the um Promenade space available at least for now is that we haven't concluded the conversation on Velma Teague Library. And while I wasn't necessarily super excited about putting the library in there, we haven't decided for sure whether or not that's going. I know the Mayor would like that idea. So, um I just would like to explore other options for um IT before we decide that that's where they're going because we haven't decided the final decision on what what we're going to do with Velma Teague Library. If we if we move ahead in that direction, then now that's off the table when that conversation is has not been finished yet. Thank you. Very good. Thank you, Michelle. Thank you. Next item. Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget Workshop. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Uh so, the first slide is our budget calendar. As you see in uh highlighted in a red, that's where we are today. It's workshop number four. And today we'll be presenting the entire budget uh for fiscal year '27, which includes operating budget, capital improvement plan, debt, and contingency. And then the three remaining uh budget items are at the voting meeting. So, next up May 12th, we have tentative budget adoption followed by the final budget adoption on June 9th. And then on June 23rd, we have the voting meeting for property tax adoption. Uh today's agenda today, uh we'll review some of the follow-up items that were mentioned during the prior budget workshops. We'll update on the CIP and then adjustment that we made to the operating budget. Then we'll go over the highlights of the fiscal year '27 budget. And then we'll review the fiscal year '27 general fund transfers. And then we'll give you an overall view of the entire fiscal year '27 budget. And then the last slide will be the 5-year forecast for the general fund. Uh so, just last week on the 23rd, a memo was emailed to Council with the following updates from the operating budget workshop that was held on March 30th. Uh in that memo, we provided some information about the citywide custodial services supplemental increase and the estimated expenses for the current fiscal year. We provided a link to the department the department's performance measures found in the fiscal year '26 annual budget book. And then the updated performance measures will be in the upcoming fiscal year '27 annual budget book, which we expect to be complete in August. And then we provided a chart showing the funding source and timing of the Glendale Operations Campus, which has remained unchanged since it was presented to Council at the CFU workshop on March 3rd. And that chart is also in this presentation that we'll review in a moment. And then the Police Department provided stats as it relates to the detention officer and communication specialist. And so, during the 5-year forecast presentation in January, question was asked how the incorporation of Santan Valley and the federal income tax reduction would affect our state shared revenue. Uh so, the first column in the bar graph in that grayish blue color uh displays our total estimated state shared revenue for years fiscal year '27 through '30. And in the smaller column in purple is the estimated loss due to the Santan Valley incorporation and the federal income tax reduction. Uh those numbers are represented in millions. And then that orange line you see represents the percentage of loss compared to state shared revenue. And if you add up those purple amounts for fiscal years '27 through '30, an estimated total loss of $12.4 million. Can I interrupt you for a second? >> Yes. I heard you say Santan Valley and I was out on the first part of that. Uh I know that we were expecting a loss, but then I seemed like I just last week heard that something happened that we're actually not going to have as much loss as what we expected. Is that correct? Any- anybody know for sure? Mayor, Council, uh so, the state um has done a new count, if you will, of total number of residents. Um it's not quite a mid-decade census, uh but they've changed the estimated numbers that will be in Santan Valley. Obviously, the the formula for how money is divvied up is based on total number of residents. That's gone down, but they still will need to do an updated census uh to determine the final numbers. So, while the loss is not as great um based on that estimate, uh it's still a a loss. We haven't seen those numbers uh from the league yet, uh but we hope to get those soon. Okay, so I was correct that what we anticipated it actually less. S- Slightly, yes. >> Okay. Okay. But again, it will change once they do the mid-decade census numbers as well. And that's expected this year or next year? Probably next year. Okay. Well, the loss right now, then we know what that'll be, right? Okay. All right, thank you. Thank you, Levi. All right. So, during the operating budget budget workshop on March 30th, we were asked to highlight the council stipend and car allowance expenditures. So, this slide show represents the council stipend budgets and expenditures by district. Each district has an annual stipend budget of $10,800. The purplish color represents fiscal year '25 actual expenditures, and the gray bar next to it represents year-to-date for fiscal year '26, and that's through the month of March. In fiscal year '25, most districts fully utilized their stipend budgets. You'll notice the Barrel District shows no expenditures in either fiscal year '25 and '26. And then also, so far this year, uh both Barrel and Cactus have elected not to receive the stipend so far this fiscal year. >> [clears throat] >> And this slide shows council car allowance. Uh each district has an annual car allowance budget of $5,400. The first bar graph in light blue represents fiscal year '25 uh expenditures, and the gray rep- represents fiscal year '26 year-to-date through March. In fiscal year '25, most districts fully utilized their stipend budgets. Uh but you'll again, you'll notice the Barrel District has no expenditures in either '25 or '26, and then very small amount uh fiscal year '26 for the Castle Cactus District. Uh next, we'll go over the capital improvement plan changes since we last met. Uh so, a new capital improvement project has been added to our 10-year CIP. The name of this new project is Gripstick Fire Recruit Academy Enhancement, and it aims to support ongoing maintenance and capital expenditures related to the Fire Academy. The requested budget for fiscal year '27 is $241,000. This budget will be offset by revenue received from the non-Gripstick partners participating in the Fire Recruit Academy. And then, as always, um during this time of the budget process, we update the CIP carryover. And so, the departments the budget and finance will work with all the departments to get that number updated. And so, the new carryover amount for the fiscal year '27 adopted CIP proposed CIP is 234 million, which is up 17 million from when we first shared it on March 1st. And as I mentioned in the follow-up um items, this was presented in that memo. This is a slide showing the Gleno Operating Campus and the two projects that make up um that project. And then so, you can see the funding's the same. We have transportation sales tax, geo bonds, water and solid waste, and the years as a programmed. And then, the blue amounts represents additional um bond authorities needed. And then, this slide shows the indoor shooting range project um and potential funding source, project phase, and the year it's allocated. Mayor, I'm sorry. Can I interrupt? I have a question. So, does this does this include, I believe uh um property where the um evidence the the land was sold, the Lazy J land was sold that was owned by water services. So, and uh the amount this would be the projected amounts that each would have to contribute to the uh renovation of the Ops Campus, and I it's my understanding that the money wasn't put back in water services, but they would be credited for the amount of whatever the land value was. Does this include that? Mayor, excuse me. [clears throat] Mayor and members of the council, Council member Tomich, the land was not sold. The land was purchased by water. >> And um and so, there was a a um there is the thought that they would get credit for it, but that amount hasn't been determined. So, this is the way it's budgeted. How how everyone ends up when we get a final estimate of the full cost of the project, um that'll have that'll have to be figured out. But no, it's not it hasn't been determined. So, it's being basically carried somewhere as a credit to a water services or Mayor and members of the council, in a sense, yes. It's something that we are aware that at some point we need to probably give water some type of credit for, but that amount hasn't been determined. We haven't gone back to determine how it's going to be valued, for example, cuz it wasn't sold and it was bought a long time ago. So, all that has to be kind of worked out. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Rios. Uh so again, this slide is the indoor shooting range and the Thank you. Uh the budget has been placed in fiscal year '28, and we added three phases: study, design, and construction. And the funding [clears throat] is highlighted in blue to indicate bond authorization will be needed for this project. Mayor, yeah. Mayor, I feel strongly that this does not belong in fiscal year 20 28. We clearly don't have the funding already for what we need to do in fiscal year 2028, and continuing to put projects without a identified funding [clears throat] source, and basically not it almost in the next fiscal year. We're almost at fiscal year 2027. I think sets unrealistic expectations. Um and there's a lot more to be decided uh and the and learned about this shooting range before we move forward with it. Um I wanted to clear clear something up because I had a conversation with another council member yesterday, and just so that the council members that are supporting this understand is that if the Department of Defense decides to participate with us with this, and we we they don't pay us back, they amortize to repay us over a period of I I think it would be 10 years. So, we would be getting $3 million or somewhere in that neighborhood a year over a period. We would not get a a lump sum of money that we could now reinvest in another major project to fund it. It would be they amortize it because otherwise, it would require an appropriation from Congress. This way, they can just fig- put it in the budget for Luke's operating budget and pay us back [clears throat] annually over time. Um if they they they would need an appropriation from Congress, I believe. That's how this works in order to literally just pay us back a lump sum. Is that correct? Uh Mayor and members of the council, we believe that is correct if it's similar to what we did with the uh sewer interconnect when we took over their sewer treatment. We uh entered into agreement with them, or you you entered into an agreement with them uh to pay the capital cost of that over a 10-year period, but they did they are paying it with interest. Right. I mean, I'm not I wouldn't be worried that they would pay us back, but I just want to make sure that like [clears throat] we're not going to get a check for $30 million from the Department of Defense. It's just uh they amortize it and include it in Luke's budget over the whatever the repayment schedule is, and it an additional amount in their budget to pay us back. Um and there's a lot there's it's my understanding that I mean, I know there was a visit. The mayor said he went with our intergov and some people from the police department. They've gone and visited this place, and that Luke hired a consultant, and there's been quite a bit of uh preliminary information and findings. None of that's been shared with us. Um one of the things I have learned in talking to some people is that Luke wants dedicated lanes, which I don't have a problem with, but that would mean that this wouldn't be shared. Their lanes wouldn't be shared with our police department. They would need if they needed 10 lanes or five lanes, those are they want dedicated lanes 40 hours a week for their uh airmen. It's my understanding that they everybody does training, so they I I believe they do need it. Um but we would need additional lanes for our police department. So, that I mean, like I said, there's I know there's information out there that's been already provided. We don't have that information other than the uh presentation that was done. Mr. St. John at the time, it was Mr. Lee. I forget who else did that There was a presentation just kind of on a concept um of that, you know, we're we're talking about doing this. But that's to me, that's what this is. This is a concept. This isn't something that belongs in fiscal year 2028. Um I think it belie- belongs in the CIP. I'm absolutely supportive of it being in the CIP, but I absolutely object to it being listed as a project for fiscal year 2028. We've got fire station 1510. We've got the forensics lab. We've got already identified council priorities and already identified priorities by voters who approved the bonds um that these are these are things that are in fiscal year 2028 that [clears throat] we shouldn't be adding another huge project in there that we're basically still just in the concept and discussion phase and there's a lot more information to to come. I would be fine with parking at parking it in there in the out years, but I think it's completely unrealistic and irresponsible to put it in fiscal year 2028. Thank you. Um I'll respond. I might disagree um for multiple reasons. One, it's not a dedicated lanes only for Luke Air Force Base for 40 hours a week. It's managed by the city under the agreement if we kept that agreement uh that they tell us their needs, we accommodate them first and the city of Glendale uh gets the use of the facilities afterwards. Uh it working just fine up north, working very very well in fact. Uh at the same time we have issues uh out at our landfill that uh we have uh bullets if I'm not mistaken deflecting into the landfill so we're losing a shooting opportunity right now for our police to Chief, am I correct? Did he leave? Mayor, uh the question was whether or not we're having uh fragments deflect into the landfill, correct? Yeah, that that is currently being addressed. We are going into construction in the next month or so to try to address that. Okay, but currently right now we have nothing and we're hoping that that does work. But again, this is still completely outside in the weather, no protection, you can't simulate uh nights uh during the daytime. Um you're you're really at the the mercy of the weather, is that correct? That is correct, Mayor. Okay. All right, thank you. >> can I just clarify? I'm not saying I object to the shooting range. I absolutely support the concept of a shooting range. I object to the concept that we're going to be able to do anything in fiscal year 2028 and that it doesn't belong in fiscal year 2028. I absolutely think it should be in the CIP, not in fiscal year 2028. We would literally have to scrap other projects to be able to accommodate this year. It's not realistic for with our um our bond capacity or other projects that the voters have already approved for this to be in fiscal year 2028. So just to clarify, I'm not saying no that I don't support it. I do support it. But it I did there's literally I mean it you can see all the red here on the slide. It doesn't belong in fiscal year 2028. We have a lot of things we need to work there before we're ready to move ahead. Um and if somehow things materialize sooner than fiscal year 2029, 2030, 2031, [clears throat] we can move the project up. But I mean I know the city manager said that he was going to be looking into uh regional partnerships. We've got a lot of things. I'd love for the information that's already been shared with the Luke consultant to be shared with the council since we're being asked to put this in our CIP, but we've not seen any of that information. Um but I I support the idea and the concept of getting a shooting range built for our police officers and in a partnership with Luke Air Force Base, but I there's no we don't have the $30 million and putting a project that we don't have an identified funding source for in a fiscal year that's literally less than a year away or just a year away, I think is irresponsible. So I think it belongs further out in the CIP than where than fiscal year 2028. And I feel very strongly about that because you're putting it up with in competition essentially with projects that the voters approved in our last bond election. >> you're repeating yourself now. I I understand your concerns, but just the same as if you put it out in 2030, you could bring it forward. By putting this in 28, we can move it backward. It doesn't change anything. What it does change is the fact that if the Department of War decides to award the contract to Glendale, we have to have it basically available. If we put it off till 30 or 40 or whatever year you're talking about, uh we risk the chance of of the Department of War going, "You guys aren't ready to do this. We're going to go somewhere else." I think we need to leave our options open. It doesn't cost us anything and it does uh give us the opportunity as our next issue, I believe, is our bond election. Uh we have to seriously look at not only our libraries, uh the parks, but we need to look at public safety. Did we bond enough for public safety? We did. >> And I'm I'm going to make this statement when we get there, but I think public safety is what's going to carry your bonds in your other elections. I don't think that your other ones are going to carry it by theirself and I'm getting off track, but I'm going to quit talking about that now. Uh I agree with you. I mean if I could, I think that's exactly my point. >> me finish if you will. >> That's fine. That's fine. Please continue. Mayor, I just had a comment. >> Um Uh again, we're we're not approving today uh the expenditure. The any anything beyond the 27 calendar year is not approved in our budget. So when we say we support something in the future, doesn't mean we're approving it today. We're not approving this project. However, I I agree with the concept that if we're going to try to go out to the federal government, to the to the departments uh uh and and try to get this money, uh have them support it, they've got it we've got to show that we're willing to do it and it's got to be on our books somewhere. Um but until that happens, we're not going to be spending any of this money. We've got to first get their approval and they and they would say, "Yes, we indeed support this and we will go into contract with you and we will reimburse you over the next X number of years and pay that all back if you enter into this this contract." Then as a council, we have to come back and say, "Okay, we have now a contract before us. Do we want to enter into it? Do we want to actually build this facility? And this is what it would take to do it and if it would take uh the amount of money we're suggesting here, if we decide to move forward, we would have to come up with for that fiscal year that it happens, we'd have to come up with that money. So I can support this in concept because we are simply asking the federal government, "Will you support paying us back for this project if we put it on the books?" If they say no, this goes away and it and it and and it never is on the books again. But if they say yes, it still has to come back to this council and this council still has to say next year in our 28 budget, we have to say, "Yes, we will fund it." or "No, we will not fund it." And if we say yes, we're going to fund it, staff will have to figure out how that's going to happen. But if we don't have the money to fund it, we won't fund it. Uh and we'll have to make some decisions at that point in time. So the reason I supported is because we're not making a decision today to do it. We're simply making a decision to give us the opportunity to do it. And if if that's uh a problem, uh I can understand that and I can understand the issue of the the the budget because in the budget uh I've had conversations about this. Uh there are we have a lot of CIP in our budget that we are not funded for. There's a lot of unfunded budget items. Not just a year out some of it, but even a year out we don't we have things that will not that are not funded yet. So um I I I understand that concept uh and I understand we need to be very conservative in that sense. Uh but these are simply placeholders and I don't have a problem with a placeholder uh in an attempt to get $30 million from from uh source that we otherwise wouldn't have. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor. Go ahead. Uh I am also uh in favor I I don't have a problem with doing a pay uh placeholder uh as long as, you know, we're not committing to or well, obviously we're not committing to the project right now. We don't have the money. But if it requires us to put it in the CIP as a placeholder so that the DOD Department of or Department of War looks at it and sees that we are serious about it, I I can support that. It's kind of ironic also that we're talking about this today because I had several uh residents call me uh in the last couple of weeks that some uh misinformation was being put out on social media that we had already approved this project and uh that it was a secret shooting range and that ICE was going to be training their officers there. So um that's not the case. >> [laughter] >> I just want to have that on the record. We are discussing this here. Uh ICE has nothing to do with it and um I am support I am in support of putting it as a placeholder. Thank you. >> [clears throat] >> Thank you, Mayor. Um I guess one one of the biggest problems I have is that there's been a lot of information and analysis already done and we're being asked to make a decision without having I'm I'm sure the mayor's probably seen it. Maybe the city manager could provide Well, I believe there's a lot of information in the city's M Drive that Luke could had a hired a consultant that's done an in-depth analysis of what this would look like, how this would work and we haven't seen any of that. And I think since we're being asked to put this in our CIP and make a not a firm commitment, but a placeholder in our budget where there's a lot of competition for money in our CIP that we should have access to all of the information that's available on this topic and I would appreciate having that before we vote on this budget. Right. Mr. Burke. Thank you. [clears throat] Um interesting um to that point uh Councilmember Tomich off our Council code of conduct does require that we all share information among ourselves so that we're all operating off of the same level of of background information and making the best decisions possible. Um uh for all of our for the city as a whole and none of us should be keeping information in the up their sleeve or in their pocket. Um it dis- it disappoints me to think that perhaps that's being done. Um I'd certainly have to certainly would certainly would be painful to make a public records request of our own mayor if in fact it seems that's what's happening. >> you to do that. Uh if I need to >> something to say, say it to me. If I need to Well, you're in the room, aren't you? And um another concern I have about this uh screen 11 that uh is is up right now is that um this whole $30 million is pegged to occur in '28, but we never do a project this size where we can start and finish it all the way from study to construction in a year. Everything is drawn is allocated out over the years in which it would potentially occur. And um I'm not sure why we didn't do that this way, but maybe just because it's such a pie in the sky uh concept at this point that uh it doesn't really matter if we project any farther. Um and then I will say that last time we discussed this, mayor asked me not to call it a vanity project, so I'm not going to call it a vanity project, but I don't want anybody to mistake that my opinion about this has changed. Thank you. And to be clear, if anybody has any questions about me hiding any information, I've shared everything that I've been told and that's from a meeting that we had well over a year ago. Well over a year ago. I have no other information today other than the fact that DOD has not made the award and they're coming back and asking for people to bid it again. That's it. That's the whole thing. I have nothing to share with anybody. You want to do a public records request, knock yourself out. Thank you. I don't need your permission. I'll do it if >> I understand that. Yeah. I understand that. >> Mayor, can I ask you Did you have a Did you have a statement? Uh I do, mayor, but if you guys want to finish your dialogue. >> you you were holding your hand up next. We'll do you and then we'll go to Okay. Um on this matter to kind of uh go back to our first conversation about that this is in a very early stage of exploration and understanding of potential partnerships with Luke Air Force Base, potential other agencies in the valley, locations, cost. Um it's all preliminary and and a lot of it could change drastically on depending on if Luke uh would get engaged in this, if other partners would come to the table, that number could drastically drop. This is our best estimate of a of a range of the size uh and uh facility type um that would be necessary to accommodate our needs. I have had some conversations with Vicky and Levi uh initial. We're going to talk about this for the upcoming fiscal year. Uh to Councilmember Molnar's point, there are a number of projects in our 5-year CIP that are not actually funded. Um and so for any of those items, um they can't proceed and in fact the only thing you're voting on is the upcoming fiscal year '26 budget, I'm sorry, '27 budget uh and nothing else beyond that. But there's a lot of things and I think there's a better way for us to structure this going forward so it's very clear as to projects that are funded with with identified funding that we feel confident in and projects that we continue to do exploratory work in various stages of understanding um that would then be brought forward in whatever the appropriate fiscal year is for Council consideration. Um and and there's been a lot of good dialogue in regards to studies and conversations. Um we are at an early stage of understanding this project and understanding potential partnerships and and and uh as we mentioned, um it will be something staff will continue to work on in the coming fiscal year to to better define this and and hopefully um find some partners, um some substantial partners that would make this something that's financially feasible for our community and a benefit to our department, but we're at a very early stage and so wherever it's placed in the CIP does not uh make it any less or any more viable uh than any of our other projects that are unfunded and currently in the CIP, but we are going to look uh something to bring forward the next fiscal year for consideration um to maybe represent these types of matters differently. Thank you, mayor. Uh and I wasn't saying I don't know whether you have this report or not, but it's my understanding that it may be still in draft form is that there is uh Luke hired a consultant to do a lot of an analysis on this and that there is a lot of information available. I don't know who has it, whether it was with our intergovernmental people, whether it was with uh public safety people. I know I don't know who has it, but I would sure like to have an opportunity to review it if we're going to proceed with this. I think we should as the Council have access [clears throat] to that information. I was told that it was shared with the city. I don't know where it is right now. I apparently you haven't seen it either, but I think we should have an opportunity to review it exactly what from the military perspective on what this type of partnership would even look like. That's all I and I just need I think that's a reasonable request that we should be able to review that report. Thank you. Mayor. Right. Um >> [clears throat] >> I I understand um your concern, Lauren. But if this is just a placeholder, I I don't see what difference it's going to make. And then we're not voting on it, we're not approving it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, as we move forward, I do agree that we should get the information, but I don't see how it'll make any difference right now cuz we're not actually [clears throat] voting on anything. We're just discussing it and it would be just as a placeholder. Um like Councilmember Molnar said, we have a lot of projects in the CIP that don't have money including Heroes Park. So uh Yeah. You done? [clears throat] All right. We're done? Okay, this uh table you see here is highlights our remaining geo bond authorization. Uh we presented this at the March 30th uh budget workshop, but it has been updated uh to reflect the addition of the shooting range and the potential bond issuance related to that project. Uh the table shows the remaining bond authorization across all of our bond funded programs through fiscal year '20 or '36. And the numbers in red or parentheses indicate where uh projected spending will exceed remaining authorizations, which signals future voter authorization may be needed. And now I'll turn over to Ms. Lindsey for the remainder of the presentation. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Good afternoon, mayor and Council. Um I will walk you through um basically putting the fiscal year '26 '27 uh total budget together and changes that have been made since the last time you've seen it. Uh so this first slide, the storm water as part of the fiscal year '27 budget, the storm water division uh will move from the sewer fund to a new storm water fund to align services and revenue. Uh additionally, $180,000 has moved from the general fund in uh parks and recreation over into that storm water division as well. The next two slides show updated position reclassifications. Uh human resources is converting one benefits analyst position into two lower grade positions, uh an HR specialist and an HR technician. And the fiscal impact of that change is about $55,000. [clears throat] And transportation will eliminate two vacant part-time transit operator positions, which equal 1.5 FTEs, and then convert seven part-time operators to full-time by increasing each FTE by 2.5 by 0.25, resulting in a net increase of 0.25 FTEs and the fiscal impact of that change is about $24,000. >> [clears throat] >> Fire services will reclassify two positions without increasing their FTE count. Uh there's a fleet maintenance coordinator uh that will become a CIP and engineering project manager and the fiscal impact of that change is about $23,000. And a senior service worker will be converted to a lead fleet journeyman technician, uh which also has a fiscal impact of about 17.8 thousand dollars, $17,800. Sorry. So that brings us to the total of FTE increase for fiscal year 27, which is 29.75, which then brings the city wide FTE count to 2,109.25. Um, as mentioned during the operating budget workshop, 21 and a half of these new positions are either a conversion from a current contract or temp position to a permanent position or is offset by grant funding such as the cops grant. Are you Are we moving on from this slide? Okay, Mayor. >> Unless you have questions. >> I do have a question, Mayor. I know we had a lot of discussion over the last couple times we've had a discussion about code. And I don't know whether um I know they haven't finished with their you know, with the new culture and how they're doing things [clears throat] and they don't have their new software. But would it be wise to put a placeholder in here for a couple of employees in code that they could just be vacant, but that that we have a placeholder in the budget in the event we decide that what we really need is a couple more bodies in code rather than moving ahead with the budget without adding just a at least a placeholder for We know They never really answered the position. I know the Mayor brought up a couple of times, no matter what we do, it looks like we need more people, but we're not including an opportunity to add more people in the budget. So I don't know whether we need to talk about that. I don't know if anybody's even here from code. Yeah. Um I thought I thought I saw him, but I thought he had a skate, but Mayor, excuse me. Mayor, remember the council while he's coming up. Um, in the past, I just wanted to remind myself and uh council that in the past, we'll say like, I don't know, probably 10 years out of my 12 that I've been here, we never added positions mid-year. But a couple of years ago, we got away from that practice and agreed as a group that that could be done. So I just want to remind you because we can put them here now as you've suggested, but also we could add them in December or November or what during the budget later if needed also once that's been done. So we we have done that now and and agreed that we could do that if necessary. Mayor, Councilmember Tomalchoff, was there a specific question? I mean, we had we hadn't you know, the things that the council had asked for for the improvements in code that were looking forward to with the new software and with the new leadership, but there was a lot of question even among the council about whether or not that would be something that could be accomplished without adding bodies. So and I know and I know uh Miss Rios just mentioned that we could do a mid-year, but then doesn't that affect the the the overall budget for code where you're adding FTEs when it really wasn't planned for in the budget? So I'm not saying that these need to be filled, they could just be vacant, but if that we find out, you know, in three or four months from now is that with all the analysis that's been done and taking a look at what the expectations are of the council and the community, we need more bodies, but we don't have any a placeholder for any more FTEs for code. So I guess I'm asking I mean, you haven't determined whether or not you're going to need more people, have you? >> [clears throat] >> Mayor, Councilmember Tomalchoff, no, we have not. We have recently selected a a company for our case management software. And so we're working with that company now for a as fast an implementation as we can get. And then Miss Jefferson, your code official, has a new plan for how we're going to uh saturate areas of our community where there are known higher levels of violations. So we know that there are certain areas in our community that have more violations than others. Some of it's because there are sections that are HOA regulated, and some of it's just because of the age of the neighborhood. So we're She has, I should say, developed a plan to put more people into those areas more frequently that have higher rates of violation. And we're using an AI software uh to kind of figure that out, but it's all in process right now. So what I had said, I think it was last month or so in one of our budget meetings, is as a deputy city manager, I can't sit here and tell you if you give me two new bodies, here's what I can do. I don't know what the efficiencies of the new software will create as far as opportunity, and I don't know what this new plan of attack where getting our inspectors into the community where they're needed more often, I don't know uh what results I [clears throat] can produce. So I think we're still there today, but I also understand uh the comment that maybe there should be a placeholder in case we do find out four or five months from now that more bodies would be beneficial and would accomplish the council's mission. But I also think that uh what Miss Rios brought up and that adding bodies mid-year is an option. It worked for the police department when we did that for the uh misdemeanor repeat offender program, if you remember, we added several officers and a sergeant mid-year. First time we had done that in my career, uh but it worked well uh and it didn't impact the budget of the police department, nor would a mid-year increase in FTEs impact code's budget. It would come from likely non-departmental or some other pension. >> Mhm. Yeah. What Mayor, Councilmember Tomalchoff, um I agree it it I have done that in my career in the past. Typically, it's atypical, um but adding mid-year FTEs for very defined reasons is something that we have the option and availability to do. Code enforcement, I know, is something that the entire council um has a uh particular area of um focus on, and I would have not had a chance to sit down with Rick and the team yet in follow-up from the goal setting for myself for the upcoming fiscal year, but that is one of the items that I want to look at a very what our our plan of attack is, what are some of the best practices and approaches we can take, and we may well come back to it mid-year with additional requests not only for bodies, but potentially additional dollars for for programs to try to address this issue in our community. Okay. Uh that's fine with me as long as it's on, you know, on our radar and that the council's willing to add bodies if that's what it's going to take so that you can you guys can do, you know, be effective in what you're doing. That we're willing I I think we clearly indicated that we have we have a consensus [snorts] to give give code what they need. Um so I just was I had was surprised that I didn't see um I know you don't know yet. That's why I wanted to ask the question. I think there's more questions. Thank you, Mayor. What? Uh thank you. If we did refrain from adding uh two FTEs at this point, but we decided but it was determined that there was good cause mid-year, would that come back to the council for discussion? Mayor, Councilmember Tenney, yes. Yes. >> Thank you. So that brings us to a couple of uh changes that we've made to the operating budget since it was presented to council back on March uh 30th. Uh the vehicle replacement fund carryover uh was assessed and increased by $130,000. Uh the compensation and classification market study that the human resources and risk management department was was doing, uh that increased by about $1.1 million, and and the fire services timekeeping solution was added. It's a transition from on-premise database software to a cloud-based solution, and that uh cost is $143,000. That brings [clears throat] us to the fiscal year 26 to 27 budget highlights. Uh I'll highlight several key elements of the budget. We continue to use a conservative approach uh to forecasting to keep the budget stable. There are no property tax increases, and the tax rate continues to decrease under the flat levy policy. It dropped from uh $2.26 $0.20 in fiscal year 16 to $1.39 in fiscal year 27. Our priorities this year remain focused on employee retention, public safety, and maintaining and improving city infrastructure, including streets and water systems. We are recommending a competitive employee pay adjustments, including a 3% cost of living increase for non-represented employees and up to a 2% merit increase along with funding for the compensation and classification market study that I mentioned earlier. We also have increases in public safety, which are in accordance with the negotiated memorandums of understanding. So council, we we provide this slide every year to council so they can see the see you guys can see the transfers that are going in and out of the general fund. Um on the left are the transfers into the general fund, which total $48.7 million, and those transfers in are coming from the public safety sales tax funds for both the for both police and fire. And the $82.5 million transfer out, which is on the right-hand side of the slide, uh include transportations to the vehicle replacement fund, uh the airport, the community action program grant, public housing, uh the grip stick uh fund, maintenance of effort transfers, which are otherwise known as the general fund loan, general fund capital projects, and debt service payments for both the certificates of participation and MPC and excise tax bonds. And that brings us to the total uh budget appropriation for fiscal year 26-27. The total budget appropriation is 1.41 billion dollars, which is a 3.5% decrease from the fiscal year 26 budget of 1.46 billion. The operating budget is 714 million, capital is 441 million, contingency is 142 million, and debt is 113 million. This slide shows the total fiscal year 26-27 operating budget by fund type. The general fund is almost half of the budget at 342 million. Enterprise funds are 20% of the total operating budget totaling 146 million. Internal service funds at 18% or 126 million of the total budget. Special revenue funds at 12% or 87 million, and the vehicle replacement fund is 2% or 13 million. This slide is the fiscal year 26-27 general fund operating budget by function. The total general fund operating budget is 342 million. Public safety accounts for 65% at 221 million. Next, we have the other departments at 17 million. Those that piece of the pie includes budget and finance, development services, city court, human resources, and economic development. Parks and rec You know, let me stop you for a second. If you go back one slide, you don't have to go back there, but you said this budget is 3% lower than last year. Mayor and council, that's correct. >> Exactly, how many dollars are we talking about? Approximately 50 million dollars. >> 50 million? Mhm. Okay. All right, thank you. Parks and recreation is 24 million or 7% of the general fund operating budget. Public works, which basically is field operations, transportation, and engineering is combined at 11 million, and community services is 11 million. Non-departmental is 3% or 9 million. That brings us to the fiscal year 26-27 capital improvement plan. So again, this is the first year of the CIP. The total is 441 million dollars. This slide is broken out by project type. Streets is the is 91 million, which is followed by public safety at 67 million. Facility maintenance at 52 million, parks at 41 million, drainage 34 million, waste water at 31 million, and it goes down from there. Water and public safety are both 67 million. The [clears throat and cough] total of this budget of the 441 million of that dollar amount 269, almost 270 million is carryover. I apologize. It's 217. So that brings us to the slide that shows the general fund five-year forecast including all the changes that we've made to the budget throughout all these throughout the budget process. We're estimating a fiscal year 27 beginning fund balance of 299.8 million dollars. This estimated beginning fund balance is based on the current fiscal year 26 projected revenues and expenditures. The next line in the table is the fiscal year 27 projected operating revenue of 363 million. Followed by the budgeted expenditures for fiscal year 27. Ongoing expenditures are at 338 million, and one-time expenditures are at 2.3 million. The one-time expenditures include one-time supplementals and IT projects. Total operating expenditures for the general fund for fiscal year 27 are 340 million dollars. Next is the net transfers for fiscal year 27 at 33.8 million dollars. The individual transfers included in this amount were on slide 22 previously in the presentation. General fund contingency is budgeted at 5 million dollars for fiscal year 27, and the surplus deficit for fiscal year 27 is 11.2 million demonstrating the drawdown of fund balance. Then we have the assigned fund balances for CIP and pension reserves, which total 38.5 million. And the projected fiscal year ending fiscal year 27 ending fund balance of 250 million dollars. Our fund balance policy again is 25% of ongoing operating expenditures. And that brings us to the budget calendar slide. So again, this is workshop number four. The next meeting will be the tentative budget adoption on May 12th, followed by final budget adoption and the property tax levy on June 9th, and then property tax adoption on June 23rd. And with that, we can answer any questions that council may have. Mayor, I have a question on slide number six. The 7,892 dollars for the council stipends. In Cap 11, which is city administrative policy 11, the first two sentences said says council members incur personal incidental expenses not covered by the city. These costs include, but are not limited to the cost to provide and maintain a home office, technology and internet connections, office supplies, office equipment, incidental meals, mileage, and repairs. I wanted to ask if if we could propose a policy where that 7,892 dollars could be elected to be added to our district improvement funds if the council member elects not to have it included in their in their paycheck. I would like to have an additional 7,892 dollars for my district to purchase benches, to plant trees, to do back to school drives, philanthropic donations. So I would like for the city staff and the city council to consider that suggestion. Thank you. Thank you. I have a question. Mayor. Go ahead. Thank you. Um in this area of the stipends and car allowance when these first were created, I it seemed to me that they were the money was being allocated out of the city manager's budget, then later subsequent years, they started showing up, I think, in the lump sum of council administration or something like that. How are they going to how are these expenses allocations going to be accounted? How are they going to appear in this year's budget document, and we'll let you know, see about going forward. Mayor, members of the council. They are in together with the salaries of the council assistants. They're all in a council administration budget. That's for ease of of separating them from your district funds. So in your council district budget are just your district funds, and then everyone's salaries, benefits, and all of that are in this other council administrative budget. That's just for for ease of tracking your spending of your district funds. It seems to me that they ought to be allocated by district. And so that the public can accurately see how much they are per council member and and who's using it and who's not and that sort of thing. Mayor Members of the council, it's really up to It really is up to you if you would like to see it done differently. We can always report out on it in any manner, you know, if there is a request for that. It makes it a little bit easier on the accounting side to keep them. That's why we put it that way, but it it can be done any way that the council would like it to be. Well, Mayor, if I still have the floor, I guess I guess in a way it does make sense to keep them together with salaries because that's really what they are. So I won't fight that. So Mayor, members of the council, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but what I'm saying is all of the other salaries including the council assistant salaries and that are in the are are in the administration, not just salaries. Thank you. Discussion of community survey results on a potential 2026 election for geo bond authority. Excuse me, Mayor, members of the council. Uh Our item we're going to talk today is about the potential for a 2026 bond election. So I'm going to go over the survey results from the surveying that we did of the public about the bond election. Mr. Gibson is actually going to talk about geo bond issuance capacity, which is a little bit different subject. Then because of the way the bond committee was structured, we're going to talk about the recommendations of both the library advisory board, the parks and recreation Advisory Commission, and the Bond Committee. And then, Council uh we're going to ask for a consensus of what Council wants to do. Uh previewing that and keeping in mind what we need to or what the Council needs to decide today is whether to notify the county of its intent to hold an election. We're not deciding the dollar amounts or necessarily the topics that will be there or the potential questions. It's just a discussion today and what we need today to notify the county of whether or not you intend to hold an election. That's because the deadline to do that is by May the 7th. Mayor. Go ahead. Um if we should decide today that we want to or we want to hold the poss- keep the possibility of having that, can we change that at some point in the future without any penalty? Mayor, um I consulted with Ms. Bauer on that and she consulted with the county. There is no penalty. So, if you notify them and then later decide not to refer questions, you just don't refer the questions. There is no penalty. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, starting with the survey results, uh we used a different company to do the survey this time and uh that was in conjunction with the Trust for Public Land. And so, the survey was done by New Bridge Strategies. They um did a survey of uh 400 registered voters. And the survey was actually administered uh either by telephone or by text invitation. Um ironically, I got the text invitation because I'm a Glendale voter. So, it was kind of interesting to get it and see how it worked for what's. Um the surveys were done during the week of February 28th through March the 4th. And they were distributed proportionately throughout the city and set quotas for certain types of demographics and adjusted for those. Uh when you look at the numbers, if it's a full uh survey including everyone, the margin of error is about plus or minus 5%. When we start looking at some of these subgroups because it's a smaller group of the voters, um then the margin of error goes up. So, it could be as high as, you know, 10% margin of error when you're talking about a smaller group of uh voters. And these are the demographics of the voters that were contacted. And so, uh some of the slides later, you'll see us sort these by different types of demographics. It's just to give you an idea of how it could have been sorted, but we haven't sorted it every way that it may have been possible. So, they start the survey off with something we call I call kind of like a um a warm-up question. And they ask uh do you um have confidence in how the city of Glendale handles its money? And so, here what you're seeing is if if a if a respondent said they have a they are confident or have a great deal of confidence, they're included [clears throat] in that pink box. And if they said anything from they had no opinion or they had some confidence or no confidence, they're included in the gray box. And so, the 57% of the voters said they have a either confidence or a great deal of confidence. And then, on the right-hand side, you can see different subgroups. Um and this is just typical again of ways that it could be uh sorted and um just showing you Democrat women tend to be more confident and uh college age plus men tend to be less confident, but overall, it's a it's a good uh result. We did want to show you um the last time we did a survey and kind of compare and you so you can see a comparison in your mind. So, in 2025 when we asked a similar question, are you headed is Glendale headed in the right direction, we had um 62.8% say totally in the right direction. Again, these are both considered to be um very good scores, but there is uh some indication of a slight erosion of just trusting government in general is what this indicates. So, the survey then moved on to um the parks bond measures. And this question was asked in two different ways. One half of the people surveyed were asked a question of a bond election for $80 million for parks and recreation. But the $80 million would not include the aquatic center, the recreation aquatic center at Heroes Park. The reason we did this is to see if it made any difference. Did it make a difference to voters whether it was included or not included? And so, you can see without it included, the response was 45% who said yes or definitely yes. 41% who said no or definitely no, and 14% is undecided. I did want to point out in this uh question, this is the first time that we've done this, but um Trust for Public Land and the pollster uh that were doing it suggested we put in this language about some accountability. So, it says that the um expenditures would be overseen by the city's Parks and Recreation Commission, and it would be subject to the city's annual independent audit. Again, that those are things that exist anyway, and we the voters tend to be more in favor if there is some type of accountability measure. Um however, we didn't really see a big uh change here. Uh the larger measure that included Heroes Recreation and Aquatic Center actually does slightly better at 48% who said yes or definitely yes, 32 who say no or definitely no, and 20 who were un- uh 20% undecided. And then, we combine the results back together. So, now you're seeing the entire uh 400 uh person uh poll. Um overall, with both questions being considered, the yes or definitely yes was 47%. No or definitely no or undecided at 36%. This is one way of sorting the information by um political party. And this is typically what you see with bonds in general. You see greater support from Democrats, less support from the Republican Party, and the Independents right in the middle. Again, we wanted to show you um the results from when we did similar survey a year ago in 2025. And you can see it's almost the same result that uh we had then. This one is uh actually this is library. Let me go forward. We we got these mixed up. So, I'm going to just advance forward. We have the top labeled incorrectly. So, this is the parks result at 46%. Um it's labeled as libraries, but they were interchanged. Uh but it's still very similar. It doesn't quite meet 50%, which is what we would need to pass. And typically, we would want to see these results results closer to 60%, especially considering the margin of error. So, I'm going to go back real quick. Oops. Okay. So, then just from the people um that were supporting or said yes or definitely yes, they would uh approve the ballot measure. Uh these are comments that they made about why that why they would vote yes. And their comments were it's good to improve parks and recreation or parks and public spaces. The parks need it. It increases your quality of life. It improves the community. Uh they liked the idea of water conservation, places for kids to play. They liked the idea of it potentially making parks safer, feeling like Glendale is growing, and that it would help increase Glendale's property values. Those who were polled who said no, that they would not be in favor of it, most of their concerns are about cost. That people's taxes are already too high, some distrust of us in managing the funds. Uh there are other important uh issues that they felt were more important or that the cost of living is just uh too high to raise taxes at this time. Again, just showing some overall Democrat demographics, we tend to see younger women younger female voters more in favor as our younger men compared to say uh older women or older men. So, the parks measure tends to go better poll better with the younger women. And also some information by district. Uh Yucca voters in both the Yucca and Barrel districts were a little bit more supportive. But these numbers are pretty consistent across all the districts. So knowing that the council has a policy that they will not authorize the issuance of the bonds if it would raise property taxes and people's concerns about the cost, we asked a question, would you vote yes then if you knew that the council had this policy and we you know the pollster reads the policy. That gets you just a little bit better response at just over 50% at 52. Um still not quite where we would like to see it closer to 60, but it does improve so that just indicates that that is something that is important to the voters. And then they go through a series of questions to ask people of these items which are most important to you. And these are things that the park bonds would be used for so it's trying to get an idea of what is important to the voters and and to our residents about what we would be using the park bonds for. In this case in the pink what you see is people who ranked this as extremely important and in the gray is they answered either extremely or very important. So you can see the water conservation measures are the most important to people followed by improving the safety but with lighting, shade, other types of recreation amenities energy efficient lighting, playgrounds ensuring more accessibility and they just they continue to kind of go down from here meaning these are less important as you go towards the bottom of the list. Um of note is the recreation center at Heroes and Heroes Regional Park was the least of the importance. However, again going back it did make the polling slightly better so that's a little bit of a mismatch there. What we find and what we have found in the past is when you start naming specific parks like Soar Ranch Park or Heroes Park the importance sort of tends to go down in the voters mind because they may not recognize the name of that park, they don't know where it is, it's not their neighborhood park so they just tend to not have find it as extremely or very important when we start naming specific parks and that's been consistent over all the polling that we've done over the last 5 years or so. And then they do also some polling of statements that could be things that would be in support of the bonds just again to get an idea of what do what types of things do people find important. The one that is most convincing is um that it gives children parks give children places where they can run and play and get off their screens which is kind of an interesting and it improves park and and improves our health and well-being seems to be what people are most impressed by. The fact that it's been over 26 years since they passed a park bond is somewhat convincing. Different recreation programs being available and maintaining them and the sense of community that parks and recreation and amenities create is important and not taking care of the parks because if you don't take care of them now they'll be more costly in the future is somewhat convincing or important to people and just the fact that we should build and invest in parks for our children and grandchildren is also somewhat convincing. So then having heard all of these questions the pollsters go back and ask having heard all of this information is there any change in your opinion and we see that initially again we had about 47% who said yes or definitely yes they would vote in favor of the bonds we see that decline just a little bit from 47 to 46% that again that's not statistically significant it's still within the margin of error so we the reality here is we just didn't see any change after um asking all of these various questions. Then they moved on to the bond question about libraries. >> Hey Vicky before you go there is there any questions on what she just went over? Okay. All right. Okay, good. And then we went on the to a library question, would you be in favor of issuing up to $50 million in general obligation bonds to improve and renovate libraries? Again we added these um sort of accountability measures that the expense expenditures would be overseen by the library advisory board and subject to the city's annual audit. And we got 45% who said yes or definitely yes, 39 no or definitely no and 16% undecided. This again is very similar I have to go back to the earlier slide because we have them reversed. If you go back to the earlier slide it's very similar to what we saw for libraries in 2025. Similar result about 46%. Uh again those who said yes they would support it or definitely support it their reasons for doing so libraries are vital community resources, they support children's education and reading, the upgrades are needed, the libraries again foster education and literacy they're a good investment, they help your property values and they have an economic benefit people use the libraries they feel they're important for people to be able to have access to those resources for some people who can't afford them, they're community hubs and they have events and create neighborhood cohesion and the need to improve the libraries to put in digital access and modern infrastructure. Those persons who said they would not support the bond again most of these comments have to do with affordability, people's concerns about the cost of living people's concerns that this is not the most important things that we should be spending money in other ways some that libraries are outdated and declining use and just the notion that people on fixed incomes cannot afford tax increases. Similar as I said to what you see on the park side you'll see as typical Democrats tend to be more in support, Republicans less in support and independents right in the middle. Similar result to parks you have women younger women in the age of 18 to 44 a little bit more supportive as are younger men. When we ask questions about what people you know find to be convincing about potential support of the bond, libraries are valuable as safe accessible community gathering spaces is fairly important, library programs such as story times and teen programs are important modern libraries continue to workforce development and long time learning library improvements are important to the future of Glendale and improved library facilities would increase my likelihood of using library services. These are the things that people find to be important about libraries. So as we look at sort of a summary of the results what we can say is that regardless of the dollar amount neither of the parks measure hits 50% which would be what you would need to pass the measure and again we we as a staff would recommend something closer to 60% because of the margin of error. Um that's what we would like to see. In talking with the pollsters and the um gentleman from Trust for Public Land what their bottom line was this would be what they called a heavy lift so if council decides to go forward with an election it will take a a lot of work to um to get it passed. Um and again we can't use city resources to do that but that's just a way of thinking of it because of these poll results. People really like the idea of water conservation we saw that. Um if you knew that the that the election was going to have a lot of Democrats and young women that might be a factor but for the most part these don't meet what you would want to be at above 50% to pass. Um. The library is the same. It doesn't really fall above the 50% threshold. People are concerned about affordability of the measures and again as I said passing the bonds would likely be a heavy lift. I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Gibson. He's going to talk about the capacity to issue bonds. Thank you Ms. Rios. Mayor and Council. So this slide is really meant to represent our total ability as a city to issue debt based on the flat levy policy. And under the current flat levy policy we have the ability to issue about 50 million dollars annually of general obligation bonds. So over a [snorts] 10 year period of the CIP that would represent about 500 million dollars within the current 10 year CIP that as proposed there is approximately 616 million dollars of projects. Now as we look at the chart and we go uh down along the bottom that represents the projects in each fiscal year. And the red line in the middle represents that 50 million dollar ability. Now this chart is regardless of current authorization is just represents the total 10 year CIP as is currently proposed. And as you can see within fiscal year 27 we have the ability to issue all the bonds that are currently proposed. As we move past fiscal year 27 there are significant projects that we are unable to fund with that 50 million dollar levy. One thing to note is as you heard in the prior presentation typically we have a significant amount of carryover in capital each year and so one way of thinking about that is while a project is planned to begin and finish in a certain time frame often times it gets pushed out. Um, the other point of this chart is to represent that the majority of the 10 year CIP is within the first five years. Um, and so one of the things that I think needs to occur in the future is to essentially um spread that out better over that 10 year period in a I'll call it a a more equal approach across the the fiscal years. Um, with that I'll go to the next slide. So this slide really represents our ability to deliver the 10 year CIP if limited to issuances of 50 million dollars annually and so currently with that 616 million proposed in the 27 fiscal year it would take us 13 fiscal years to complete the the CIP the 10 year CIP. Um, I think one of the important things to note is that this is assuming that nothing changes in that 10 years no cost increases and that the issuance stays at 50 million. So that's I would call it a base case with no assumptions that things go up in the future even though more than likely they will. So we are able to deliver the CIP it just will take longer than initially planned. And with that I'll turn over the presentation to Ms. Rios. Um, I just want to make a comment on this slide. This is something that I asked Mr. Gibson to put together to give you an idea. This is just it's 100% smoothed out and we're taking the CIP and and dividing it by 50 million and saying well how many years would it take you to do. If you go back again to the previous slide you can see I would say in general what we would call this is a front loaded CIP. Everything is in the beginning and then in the outer years we don't have as much debt being issued. And so as Mr. Gibson said it needs to be significant work needs to be done on prioritizing this and smoothing it out into something that is more deliverable. Okay. So uh I want to make something a little bit clear. These last two slides that we showed you and talked you about we haven't shared this information with the library advisory board or the bond committee or those people cuz we just kind of put it together for you. Um, but we did take the polling information and the survey information to the library advisory board and after what I would be you know worth your while potentially to go listen to their read their minutes or listen to it but after much discussion I can say that they then did vote unanimously to recommend to the bond committee cuz remember they they are making you ask for them to make a recommendation to the bond committee and they did make the recommendation to the bond committee that they call for the election. Uh, similarly we took the information to the parks and recreation commission. Again much robust discussion ultimately leading in them to vote unanimously to recommend to the bond committee that they call for the or that they recommend to you to call for the election. It's kind of double recommend. Uh, then that information plus the information and the survey information all was presented to the bond committee on April 15th. Um, they were asked to accept or not accept the recommendations of the library advisory board and the parks commission and then they were asked to then give a recommendation to you based on you know all of the information that they had. So there were five votes yes and one no to accept the library advisory board's recommendation. It was a unanimous vote to accept the parks commission recommendation. Um, and then unanimous of those in attendance at least to recommend from the bond committee to you to yes notify the county of of a call for an election in November 2026. Again there was some discussion about which questions and how much the dollar amounts be and which projects and all that. But what we explained to the bond committee similarly to how I started the conversation here today is that at this point all you're deciding is to call for the election. How much the specific language what it looks like which projects in which years is all still to be determined between now and June when we'd have to actually refer those measures to the ballot. Um, and so with that I'll turn it back to you just knowing again we would have to notify the Ms. Bauer would notify the county if you decide to move forward and then during May we would go back through the process of meeting with the library advisory board the parks and recreation committee and then the bond committee to talk about dollar amounts which projects which types of authorities should be in the election. And then by June the 8th the ballot language is due to the county. That's in timing with your May 26th meeting unless you call for a special meeting. The the likely vote on that ballot language would occur on May the 26th. With that I'll turn it over to you for discussion. >> Rios. So I just want to make sure that I got this correct. If we made the decision today that we wanted to go ahead and do this and we decided later on that we're not going to do that we can do that fine there's no penalty. Is that correct? Mr. Mayor as long as you decide before June 8th when the ballot language is due. Once we send the ballot language to the county then they start creating the ballot and it would be difficult to get off by then. >> Okay. So okay. And that's I guess I should have just finished the rest of that. Yes. I I don't know why we wouldn't at this point go ahead and and move forward with this knowing that we can change this because I have a lot of questions that I'm not going to be able to get answered today. But I don't want I don't want to say no and then find out two weeks from now that we could have maybe done this. I just I'd like that little bit of window open so we can get a little bit more information. That's me personally. So I'll open it up once talk. Thank you Mayor. Um, [clears throat] I don't see the harm in that because we're literally I mean we're we're going to run out of time if we don't go ahead and at least notify the county. But I would like to see this go back to I don't know whether we need to go back to the parks and recreation committee but but at least the bond committee with this additional information that I mean it doesn't really look like we have the capacity to even issue bonds. I mean if they if we have we got parks and library bonds approved we don't base until we re-prioritize or right size our CIP however you want to phrase it um I wouldn't want to go to out for a bond election and not be able to deliver on the projects because they don't have the capacity to actually issue the bonds to do the work. So, I think I feel like we have a lot of work to do before we go out for a bond election. And so, I think because um they they didn't have all this you didn't have this information to present to them when you met with them. I would like to have the bond committee at least have you probably isn't time to go to the parks and recreation and the library advisory board. If if there's not, but at least go back to the bond committee and explain to them what this what the situation is with the CIP and our really our inability to actually be able to deliver on a lot of projects that are already in our CIP. Um and give us and then let them make a recommendation based on that information whether they think maybe it'd be a better idea to do a bond election in in an in another year while we gives us time to go do the work that we need to do before we go out to voters. So, I think that but it doesn't hurt to go ahead and tell the county yes, but we're going to have to move quickly so we don't because that would be What are our meeting dates in June? We'd have to we'd have to notify the county by the end of May, I would think, right? Cuz that's right. So, we wouldn't have a lot of time. Yeah. So, mayor, members of the council, the way the bond committee language was set up, yes, we would have to go back to the library advisory board and the parks and recreation commission and then to the bond committee. But but we can do that. We set it up with the ability to do that and based on their meeting schedules. Um and so, yes, we would take this back to them and repeat the process, get, you know, the um get their recommendations, give them to the bond committee, and then get a recommendation for you again. But but thank you, mayor. Um I uh I'm in favor of going forward with the bond election. Um The the numbers I'm I'm seeing that really stick out to me are that um are on in essence slide 22 and 24 that for parks um 47% in favor to 36% opposed. So, that's a significant ahead. And uh it doesn't add up to 100 because we have the undecideds and all of that out there. But if they should if they fall in proportionately with what the others that have decided, then it's still a win. And [clears throat] the same on slide 24 for the libraries, it's 45% in favor to 39% opposed. And this is before there's any campaigning done. And this is before we've made the case, not we, the council, but we, the community that's in favor of this has made the case for for you know, why we want them to vote yes, why it's in their interest. I think this survey also clearly delineates as to um where the campaign effort can be most uh uh return the most reward. And I it's it's good that you've got you know, for if you're campaigning this it's good that there's clear data on that shows you where you need to spend your campaign effort. And I think that this this survey shows us that. Um uh I do think that that's key that we explain we they the whoever would be um supporting this measure explain how it is that the city keeps um taxes level while we still can add projects and because we're replacing uh debt that's retiring with new debt so we can continue to provide the same or better level of service. Um the uh the um I was trying to remember the point that was just made that keeps slipping away from me. Um oh, about the the CIP. It's from these last two slides, which I don't think any of us have seen before, um it's clear that as was suggested, we need to reprioritize our CIP CIP. And I myself would rather uh prioritize it with parks and libraries in the mix if the voters so choose than to reprioritize it without that in the mix. So, I say let's go find out what the public says and then we do the hard work of reprioritizing and making this uh designing a CIP program that can uh can actually occur logically over the 10-year life. And then I have a question. Is there any way is there anything we can do to raise the level of indebtedness that the city can undertake? School districts have bond overrides or stuff like that. Do we have anything that we can use? Mayor, members of the council, yes, it's it's entirely up to you. You can raise your property tax rate. Um that's at your, you know, discretion and purview. And if you raise the property tax rate, it generally gives you more borrowing power. Now, having said that, it's not unlimited because it's just you know, is what it is what it is. I wouldn't recommend, oh well, let's skyrocket it in some manner. That wouldn't be very fiscally responsible. But there are ways that you can raise it or you can in fact um keep your rate the same and um that kind sort of takes advantage of the increase in property values as they go up. Many cities do it that way. Many cities keep their property tax rate the same uh especially on the secondary property tax. And then as property values go up, it gives them a little bit more um borrowing capacity. So, we can um you know, talk about that. Your council I'm sorry, your policy of using a flat levy policy is what is sort of uh causing the constraint. That's why those slides are put together saying under a flat levy policy, if you had a different type of policy um then yes, you'd have more borrowing power. So, I hope that answered your question. If I may, the cuz the public in general public may not be well aware, but who knows who else might not be, that the difference between the tax rate and the tax levy. Um if you if you wanted to have a levy of 100 if you needed to raise 100 units well, let's just say $100 and you had 100 people to raise it from, then it's going to be a dollar per person. And if next year you still you've you've adopted the flat levy of $100, but now you have 110 people then that the amount per person is actually going to fall, which is what we've seen. So, we have a flat levy, we don't have a flat tax. Whereas if we had a flat tax and at 100 at a dollar per person, the second year when you get 110 people, now you would have $110. And what we've adopted is the flat levy which is creating a decreasing tax rate as opposed to a flat tax which would allow more money to be collected as more property gets developed and the values of it go up and all of that. It's not just that the value of an individual's home goes up. It's the value of all of the the real assets in the community goes up. Then flat tax, but more money coming in satisfy the [clears throat] needs of the community. Did I get that right? Mayor, members of the council, yes, it it is kind of complicated, but you described it very well. Well, thanks. Maybe somebody should transcribe that. Um And and that's certainly a question, you know, for the council to look at as to what we do. But also, I think it should be recognized that property tax as a part of our budget as a whole is not a very big piece of our budget, right? And adopting the flat tax versus the flat levy may not get us very far out of the get us very far down the road with our CIP, would it? Or do you know? Uh mayor, members of the council, Council member Turner, we we have a little bit of analysis of that that we've undertaken, but it's not fully uh ready to it's just conceptually, but yes, you have two parts of your property tax also. So, you have the primary rate which you can have a different policy for the primary rate than you do for the secondary rate. So, in the case of the secondary rate this is what we're really talking about because it's what pays the debt service on those bonds. You could have a flat levy policy for the primary rate and a flat rate policy for the um secondary rate. You could have them both There's a lot of different ways that that you could could do it. And each of those different methodologies uh will generate a different amount of of revenue for the city. But it is as you said, it is not a huge part of our budget, but it is a significant source of funding for this type of capital. Well, then and I wouldn't ask you to present something that you weren't hadn't fully worked through yourselves. So, not for today, but maybe at some point in the future when when you've uh got a better clearer idea and a clear way to communicate it to us, you could do that. Yes, that that is the plan is to come back uh especially as part of that uh prioritization as I've spoken with the city manager, you know, we we changed methodologies and I think it was pointed out earlier and we've moved projects into those first five years of the CIP that we know don't have funding and you can see on those charts the red that you that was a new practice that we started and and I think we're leaning towards going back to the practice of anything that's in the first five years is considered funded and the rest of it we we push out so that and that's probably a GFOA best practice and again something but it will call create the need to re-prioritize the entire CIP so we can be clear about what is funded and what is not funded. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Uh thank you, Mayor. When you presented these projects to like for instance library board, did they did you give them specific projects say this is this is what this bond money would cover? Uh how did how did that go? Members of the council, yes, we gave them the current or the proposed CIP that you'll be you know coming and we explained that it may change because you haven't adopted it yet, but we gave them the projects in the current CIP or the upcoming CIP. Okay, very good. Yeah, and when you go back to them I think it's very important that you you really make help them understand this this limit on our bond ability using our current tax our property tax policy so that they understand that even if we issue bonds this year or or get them approved, we may not be able to use them for a number of years. We don't know what those are yet, but it's not like we're going to be able to start doing these projects right away under our current policy. And I think if they saw that they may um suggest that perhaps we do postpone doing this bond for a year or two. And I agree with the concept of moving forward with it at this point time, but I think once we get the recommendations back from the committees, once they see this this process of the limit on the the capacity that they may change their mind and give us a different recommendation and if not, you know, we'll move forward as is. And the idea of looking also at our bond capacity and our current policy, I agree that we should review that and see where we can still be very uh conservative in in not increasing taxes, but at the same time not necessarily decreasing taxes every year as we have done in the past cuz it now has started to show that uh going forward that could cause some problems. So thank you, Mayor. Mayor. Mayor. I just want to make sure that I'm following this. So from what I'm hearing is the way we have our policy right now it is sort of hindering the city from allowing to have a larger capacity to finish more CIP projects even if we extend the CIP projects. That's what I'm hearing. Is that correct? Mayor, members of the council, that's correct. I think in my mind you know, to simplify it, everything will get done. Everything can be done. It will just take longer under the current policy. Okay. >> And again because thing when things take longer, they do tend to also cost more. It it there's a balance there that needs to be struck and understood. Okay, and you are going to come back to us to discuss that issue, right? Yes. Yes. >> Mayor, Council member Kusman, if I could jump in, yes, we're going to take a look at that and how we're categorizing our CIP projects as previously mentioned. So the five projects in the five-year window are ones where we have identified funding for and the other projects that are still priorities and and directed by Mayor and Council to for staff to work on finding funding solutions or or bringing and advancing those projects so [clears throat] that it's clear that those are priorities for the organization as well. And then for the funding, we will bring back a deeper study and for the council's understanding and consideration to potentially move from a flat levy to a flat rate which would have the effect net effect of with the rising assessed valuation of the community allowing us to issue more debt to to advance these projects in a more timely manner. Okay, so if if we do that from what I'm hearing we probably would not be putting placeholders within a five-year period if we're going to be only doing that with projects that have the funding. Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. We would still have those projects then identified as projects we're working on to bring forward for council consideration and potential funding sources, but they would not be listed in the five-year CIP itself. They would be in outer years until that funding and council's given direction to advance it. Okay, so they'd be in the outer years. Okay. Can we have a presentation on this the second meeting of next month? I give you a couple weeks uh solid to to get all the information you need, but second meeting. By the by the first meeting we have to make a decision or is it >> Mayor, members of the council I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but on this same topic as far as the call for the election >> Right. Yes, we would need to have it by May 26th, which is the second meeting of next month in order to approve the um the language to then send to the county. It has to be done by Yes, but Mayor That was my question. I I want to give you enough time to to get all the information, but I'd like like some examples also if if we were able if we were able to come up with a different way of taxing what the capacity be and and just give us some examples of of real stuff that we're looking at. Yes. If it if it's being put off for five years if that new thing could happen, then what would that be? And then the other question is are we limited by we limited by total money, we limited by a percentage, we limited by cash? What what is what's the what's the actual limit that they look at? We have a cap and and so what is that cap? Is it is it based off a percentage of of your total money? How do they figure this out? We got to find out. Mayor, Council, there are statutory limitations in Arizona. It's based on your total assessed population and then the maximum amount of debt you could issue on that. >> That was that was the question I was And for a community the size of Glendale, that number would be quite high. I can't see our council authorizing debt issuance to to that amount, but there is a statutory cap. >> But we have got a a margin in there that we could >> got a huge margin. >> Okay, that was my question. Yeah, okay. >> I'll answer that slightly different. The the cap is it's a constitutional limit and it's a 20% of assessed net assessed valuation for certain types of debt and then which is like water, sewer, that kind of thing. And then there's a 6% limit based on net assessed valuation for other types of general government, parks, etc. We're well below the cap, so that that's not a concern. The the concern is the revenue to pay the debt at this point. Okay. All right. Mayor. I just want clarification from Julie. If we were to go forward and say that yes, we're going to go uh with the bond election, we have until did you say June the 8th if we change our mind? That is correct, Council member Guzman, because that's when we have to have the ballot language to the county. Okay. Once [clears throat] that's submitted and they start working on the ballot, it just gets harder and harder to to say we're not going to participate. >> All right, thank you. All right, anybody else? Yeah. Yeah, I did hear a consensus, correct? Okay. Thank you. All right. Okay, city manager report. Thank you, Mayor, members of the council. We've got a lot to celebrate this month and here's a few highlights to share with you. First remarkable milestone as Maria Rascon, an account specialist in community services, recently celebrated 40 years with the city of Glendale. Kind of dedication is incredibly rare and we are fortunate to have someone who's chosen to serve this community for four decades. Congratulations, Maria, and thank you for your commitment to Glendale. We also have some several outstanding achievements. Cassandra Johnston, our traffic education program manager, received the 2026 Howard Pyle Safety Award from the National Safety Council. She has expanded the Alive at 25 program to all nine Glendale high schools reaching more than 2,000 students and making a meaningful impact on youth and community safety. And Maylea Acosta, our second-year Jane Morris Fellow serving the city through ASU's School of Public Affairs, was named the first recipient of the Dr. Robert Denhardt Just Plain Good Management Award. It's a fitting honor that reminds us great public service is about integrity, hard work, and putting other people others first. It's our people who make the difference and this month is a great reminder of just how strong our Glendale team is. Thank you. Michael? No report, thank you. Councilman special interest, Mr. Baldenegro. None today, sir. Mr. Conscious. None. Councilman. None today, sir. Councilman Damchyan. Nothing today, Mayor. Councilman Turner. Got a roll going, nothing today, Mayor. Vice Mayor. Nothing today. Okay, nothing for me. Can I get a motion to go into an exact? So moved. Second. Motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor will vote aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. Your eyes have it, do have it, so ordered.