Agenda packet — Glendale City Council, May 13, 2025

A G E N D A

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
Meetings

are

broadcast

live

Glendale

TV,

viewable

Spectrum

Cable,

channel

and

AT&T

U-
verse,

channel

99. Meetings

are

also

streamed

live

high

definition

(HD)

the

City

webpage,
glendaleca.gov/live
,

YouTube.com/myglendale
,

and

Apple

TV,

Roku,

Amazon

Fire,

iOS

and
Android

devices

using

free

app

called

Cablecast

and

choosing

"Glendale

TV"

from

the

menu.

Meetings

are

also

archived

the

City

Website

for

viewing

anytime

glendaleca.gov/agendas
.

Call

(818)

548-4013

for

program

schedules.

For

public

comments

and

questions

during

the
meeting,

call

(818)

937-8100.

Public

comments

specific

agenda

item

will

taken

when

that
agenda

item

discussed.

you

have

any

question

about

matters

the

agenda,

requests

for
assistance, please contact the City Clerk at (818) 548-2090 during regular business hours.

PLEASE TURN OFF CELLULAR PHONES WHILE INSIDE THE MEETING LOCATION In

compliance

with

the

Americans

with

Disabilities

Act

(ADA)

1990,

auxiliary

hearing

aids,

sign
language

translation,

and

Braille

transcripts

are

available

upon

request.

Assisted

listening

devices
are

available

same-day

upon

request.

The

City

Clerk’

office

should

notified

72 hours

(three
business

days)

soon

practicable

for

requests

regarding

sign

language

translation

and
Braille

transcription

services.

All

documents

open

session

items

this

agenda

that

are
received

less

than

72 hours

prior

this

meeting,

and

are

public

records,

will

available

for

review
in the Office of the City Clerk, 613 E. Broadway, RM 110, Glendale, CA 91206.

Translation

services

are

provided

for

meetings

through

the

use

bilingual

staff

for

speakers

who
wish

utilize

the

service

available.

Speakers

should

state

their

request

contacting

the

City
Clerk’s

office

(818)

548-2090,

least

72 hours

prior

the

scheduled

meeting

soon

as
practicable.

Please

specify

the

language

for

which

you

require

translation.

The

exclusive

use

City
provided

interpreters

not

required

and

persons

are

welcome

use

their

own

interpreter

speak
in their native language.

MAY 13, 2025

ROLL CALL

1. CLOSED SESSION
– 1:00 PM ( To Commence at 4:00 PM
)
a.

Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation. Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9:

One potential case

1 TYPED 5/9/2025 2:24:43 PM
05 13 25
CC

Conference with Real Property Negotiators: City-designated negotiators: Roubik Golanian, John Takhtalian, Michael J. Garcia, Gillian van Muyden, Bradley Calvert, Onnig Bulanikian and Mark Berry. Property Location: 1000 S. Central Avenue.

Negotiating Parties, Aria Investments, LLC. Instructions to the negotiator(s) will concern the price and terms of payment for the acquisition of property c.

Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation: Central BWB LLC v. City of Glendale et al., L.A.S.C. Case No. 25STCP01018; Central BWB LLC v. City of Glendale et al., L.A.S.C. Case No. 25STCP01018
d.

Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation: Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivisions (d)(2) and (e)(5) of Government Code Section 54956.9

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA
– 6:00 PM
Roll Call
a.

Flag Salute: Mayor Ara Najarian
b.

Invocation: Mark Witas, Director of Mission and Spiritual Care at Adventist Health c.

Report of the City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the May 13, 2025 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on May 9, 2025, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a.

Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, May 20, 2025 b.

Update on the Grayson Repowering Project
c.

Proclamation Designating May 2025, as Jewish American Heritage Month d.

Proclamation Designating May 2025, as Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Month

4. CONSENT ITEMS
(Including Minutes)
The following are Routine and May be Acted Upon by One Motion. Any Member of Council or the Audience Requesting Separate Consideration May do so by Making Such Request Before Motion is Proposed.
a.

Glendale Water and Power, re: Award of a Street Light Painting Contract to Street Light Restoration Specialist Inc. for Glendale Water & Power’s (GWP) Painting Street Light Standards on Rossmoyne Neighborhood and Honolulu Road Area Project, Specification No. 3995.

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into and execute a one- year contract with Street Light Restoration Specialist Inc., for GWP’s Painting Street Light Standards on Rossmoyne Neighborhood and Honolulu Road Area Project for the not-to-exceed amount of $269,280, plus a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $26,928
b.

Fire Department, re:

Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with North American Security and Investigations, Inc.

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Amendment No.1 to the Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with North American Background and Investigations, Inc. (Contract 8002241) extending the contract by two years to continue to provide thorough employment background investigations and polygraph

2 TYPED 5/9/2025 2:24:43 PM
05 13 25
CC

services, increasing the contract amount by $252,000 to the new total not-to-exceed amount of $400,000
c.

Community Services and Parks, re: Verdugo Workforce Development Board’s Application Submission Request for Approval of Local Area Subsequent Designation and Local Board Recertification

1. Motion to approve submission of the Verdugo Workforce Development Board’s FY 2025-2026 and FY 2026-2027 application for local area subsequent designation and local board recertification to the Governor, State Workforce Development Board and Employment Development Department.
d.

Public Works, re: Award of Construction Contract for the West Glendale Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Curb Ramp Installation and Sidewalk Repair Program Phase 1

1. Motion awarding a construction contract to Kalban, Inc. in the amount of $3,817,486, approving a 10 percent contract contingency in the amount of $381,749 and authorizing the City Manager or a designee to execute the contract

2. Resolution of appropriation to appropriate funds in the amount of $4,390,109 for the West Glendale ADA Curb Ramp Installation and Sidewalk Repair Program Phase 1 e.

Community Services and Parks, re: Approval of the Proposed Sub-recipient Funding Awards of the Homeless Initiative Measure H Funds

1. Motion to approve proposed sub-recipient funding awards for the Homeless Initiative Measure H Program, as recommended by the Continuum of Care (CoC) Board; and authorize the City Manager or a designee to execute all agreements, certifications, and documents necessary to accept and implement the funding f.

Public Works, re: Contract Award for the Design Build of the Fire Systems Improvements at Various City Facilities Project

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a contract with Glendale Fire Systems, Inc. (GFS) for the Design-Build of the Fire Systems Improvements at Various City Facilities Project in the amount of $525,000, plus a 10% contingency of $52,500

2. Resolution of Appropriation for $52,500
g.

Public Works, re: Award Contract for the Petroleum Tank Testing and Repairs Program

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to execute a five-year contract with Sun West Engineering Constructors, Inc., for the Petroleum Tank Testing and Repairs Program, Specifications No. 4012, in the amount of $546,370 and approving a 10 percent contract contingency in the amount of $54,637

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes; 5-Speaker Limit) Per Mayor Policy, This Item Also Permits Speakers Wishing to Speak Under General Oral Communications, Subject to the Three Minute Time Limit. Discussion is Limited to Matters Not on the Agenda.

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES

8. ACTION ITEMS

3 TYPED 5/9/2025 2:24:43 PM
05 13 25
CC

City Attorney, re:

Adoption of Rules Pertaining to Council Meeting Procedures and Decorum

1. Intro. of Ordinance Amending Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, Sections 2.04.080,

2.04.090, 2.04.120, and 2.04.140 and Deleting Section 2.04.150

2. Resolution Adopting Rules of Order, Procedure and Decorum for the Conduct of City Council Meetings
b.

City Attorney, re:

Review of Mayor Selection Policy Set Forth in Glendale Municipal Code Section 2.04.020 and Discussion of Alternate Provisions

1. Motion Directing Staff
c.

Management Services, re:

Appointment of Glendale’s three members to the
Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority Commission

1. Motion appointing three individuals to the Airport Commission for four-year terms commencing June 1, 2025

9. HEARINGS

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

12. DISCUSSION OF COUNCILMEMBER FUTURE AGENDA REQUESTS
a.

Councilmember Brotman’s Request to Agendize a Sponsorship of Up to $5,000 of GlendaleOUT’s Pride Event on June 7, 2024 at Adams Square Mini-Park (Continued from May 6, 2025, Council Meeting)
b.

Councilmember Asatryan’s Request to Agendize a Report Regarding Contracting Directly with Communications and Outreach Consultants for City Projects In Lieu of Subcontract Arrangements with Project Contractors and Consultants

13. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Discussion is Limited to Items NOT a Part of this Agenda. Each Speaker is Allowed 5 minutes.

Council May Question or Respond to The Speaker But There Will be no Debate or Decision.

The City Manager May Refer the Matter to the Appropriate Department for Investigation and Report.

14. NEW BUSINESS

15. ADJOURNMENT

4 TYPED 5/9/2025 2:24:43 PM
05 13 25
CC

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Award of Street Light Painting Contract to Street Light Restoration Specialist Inc. for Glendale Water & Power’s (GWP) Painting Street Light Standards on Rossmoyne Neighborhood and Honolulu Road Area Project, Specification No. 3995.

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into and execute a one-year contract with Street Light Restoration Specialist Inc., for GWP’s Painting Street Light Standards on Rossmoyne Neighborhood and Honolulu Road Area Project for the not-to-exceed amount of $269,280, plus a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $26,928.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent
Approved for May 13, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
GWP strives to provide efficient, reliable street lighting systems that enhance the character of the City’s communities. The historical cast iron street light standards in the Rossmoyne Neighborhood and Honolulu Avenue Area are rusted and require a fresh coat of paint. The size and volume of this project and lack of both trained field personnel and adequate equipment necessitate the hiring of a contractor to perform the needed painting of street light poles.

On February 5, 2025, Specification No. 3995 was advertised and was posted on the City of Glendale RFP/RFQ/BID Web Page. GWP received four bids, which are discussed in detail below, leading to the recommendation of Street Light Restoration Specialist Inc.

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to enter into a one-year contract with Street Light restoration Specialist Inc. for Painting Street Light Standards in the Rossmoyne Neighborhood and Honolulu Avenue Area Project.

ANALYSIS
The street light poles on Rossmoyne Neighborhood and Honolulu Avenue Area are rusted and require a fresh coat of paint. Painting these poles not only protects the City’s infrastructure but it also beautifies the neighborhoods and improves the City aesthetically.
5 of 130

24a
6 0
0 7
Pursuant to Specification No. 3995 and the contract to be awarded, a total of 226 single globe and double globe street light standards will be painted which will take approximately six months to complete.

On February 5, 2025, Specification No. 3995 was advertised on the City’s RFP/RFQ/BID web page. On March 18, 2025, the due date for bid submissions, four companies responded by submitting bids.

GWP staff conducted a detailed analysis of all four bids and were evaluated based on bid price, project narrative understanding, related experience and personnel, and contract and insurance compliance. During the review process, the two lowest bids were deemed non-responsive for the reasons explained below.

Table 1 below summarizes the evaluation results:

TABLE 1
BIDDERS- STREET LIGHT RESTORATION 2025

COMPANY
NAME EXPERIENCE LICENSE# LICENSING TYPE OF

WORK/TRADE BID PRICE
1 PERFECTION

PAINTING
CORP.
3 Years 1091363 B,C-33 INTERIOR/EXTERIOR
PAINTING $ 61,020
2 VARN
PAINTING INC. 17 Years 906370 C-33

DRYWALL,

ACOUSTIC CEILING

AND CMU WALLS
$183,000
3 STREET LIGHT

RESTORATION

SPECIALIST
INC.
24 Years 811227 C-61/C-
64/C-33

LIGHT POLE
RESTORATION;

TRAFFIC SIGNAL

REHABILITATION
$269,280
4 PRIME
PAINTING INC. 35 Years 717259 B, C-33 INTERIOR/EXTERIOR PAINTING $587,000
Perfection Painting Corp.’s bid did not meet the essential qualifications requirements described in the Notice Inviting Bids and the Specification which require each bidder to establish that it has successfully completed at least ten similar project(s) involving similar work within the last five years. Perfection Painting Corp.’s listed experience was three years, whereas the requirement is five years, and their experience is limited to painting the interiors/exteriors of buildings rather than streetlight painting.

Varn Painting Inc. did not meet the essential qualifications requirements described in the Notice Inviting Bids and the Specification which require each bidder to demonstrate that they are well versed and qualified for street light painting in the public right of way.

Varn Painting Inc.’s listed experience focused on drywall painting, concrete masonry unit and acoustic ceiling painting, which are all unrelated to street light painting in the public right of way.
6 of 130

34a
6 0
0 7
GWP’s review found the third lowest bidder’s bid to be responsive. Street Light Restoration Specialist Inc.’s bid meets the requirements for qualification. All of their listed projects are related to street light pole restoration and traffic signal rehabilitation. Additionally, Street Light Restoration Specialist has successfully completed at least ten projects involving similar work.

The remaining responsive bid by Prime Painting Inc., as indicated in Table 1 above, was above Street Light Restoration Specialist Inc.’s bid in price.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not Applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost for the Street Light Painting Project is $296,208, with the funding included in the proposed budget for FY 2025-26. The proposed appropriation is outlined below:

Proposed Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$296,208 GL: 43110-5830-GWP-0020
PL: Project #GWP00638AA
Electric Depreciation Fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review as a Class 1 Existing Facilities project for the operation, repair, maintenance or minor alteration of existing highways and streets, sidewalks and similar facilities pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15301.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not Applicable.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1) Not to award the contract as recommended herein, which will adversely impact the City’s efforts to upgrade and improve the streetlight poles. 2) Consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Scott K. Mellon, P.E., Acting General Manager - Glendale Water and Power Prepared by:

Daniel Scorza, P.E., Assistant General Manager - Electric Catherine Babakhanlou, P.E., Principal Electrical Engineer 7 of 130

44a
6 0
0 7
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None.
8 of 130

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ________________________________, seconded by Council Member __________________________________, that the Council of the City of Glendale, finds that Street Light Restoration Specialist Inc. is the lowest responsive bidder to furnish labor, equipment and materials for the Glendale Water & Power’s (GWP) Painting Street Light Standards on Rossmoyne Neighborhood and Honolulu Road Area Project, Specification No. 3995, and that the bid of Street Light Restoration Specialist Inc. is hereby accepted and approved as recommended by the Acting General Manager of GWP in the Report dated May 13, 2025, and that all other bids be, and are, hereby rejected. The City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to execute a one-year contract with Street Light Restoration Specialist, Inc. for a not-to- exceed amount of $269,280, plus a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $26,928. The contract shall be subject to approval by the City Attorney.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
9 of 130

4b
25-87911

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with North American Security and Investigations, Inc.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for May 13, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Fire Department requires trustworthy and honest individuals to fill its ranks. Since 2018, North American Background and Investigations, Inc. has provided thorough background checks and comprehensive reports, which are critical in ensuring the selection of qualified candidates. These reports help the Department maintain high standards in hiring individuals who are trustworthy, honest, and dedicated to serving the Glendale community. The proposed Amendment No. 1 extending the contract through July 31, 2027, will add $252,000 to the contract amount, for a new total not-to-exceed amount of $400,000.
10 of 130

4b2
25-87911
6 0
2 4

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve the motion authorizing the City Manager to amend the PSA with North American Security and Investigations, Inc. (NASI) through July 31, 2027, for continued pre-employment background investigations for Fire Department candidates, and increase the contract amount by $252,000.

ANALYSIS
Since January 1, 2018, the Glendale Fire Department has been utilizing NASI to complete their pre-employment background investigations of candidates.

NASI has consistently completed quality backgrounds within the six (6) week timeframe, with the cooperation of the candidate. Their investigations are thorough and professional, encompassing personal history, criminal and driving records, social media activity, and interviews with family, friends, neighbors, and current and past employers.

Additionally, NASI conducts polygraph examinations to ensure a comprehensive evaluation. They have the qualified personnel available to complete multiple concurrent background checks, supporting the Fire Department’s general recruitment efforts.

Thus, to continue to streamline the process and ensure a timely full comprehensive screening be conducted for future recruitments, staff is requesting to extend the PSA with NASI for an additional two years, through July 31, 2027, and add an additional $252,000 for a new not-to-exceed amount of $400,000 to cover the needs of the Department. The proposed amounts are based on current recruitment and predicted vacancy trends within each Division of the Fire Department and funds will be requested through the normal budget process.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
N/A

FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost associated with Amendment No. 1 with NASI is $252,000, inclusive of increasing the current year by $15,000 in preparation for the Firefighter Recruitment Academy. The subsequent years will cost $118,500 per year and will be included in the annual budget process. The Fire Department budget can absorb the cost for FY 2024- 25 and therefore no new appropriation is being requested at this time. The funding is outlined below:

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$15,000 GL: 43110-1010-GFD-4002-P0000- General Fund

The following amounts will be requested through the annual budget process for each Fiscal Year of the 2-year term:
11 of 130

4b3
25-87911
6 0
2 4
Budgeted Allocation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$41,000 GL: 43110-1010-GFD-4002-P0000- General Fund
$60,000 GL: 43110-1010-GFD-4001-P0000- General Fund
$2,500 GL: 43100-1010-GFD-4003-P0000- General Fund
$15,000 GL: 43110-5800-GFD-4005-P0000- Fire Communications Fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
N/A

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1) The City Council may not approve the request to amend the PSA with NASI to extend the contract, resulting in delayed hiring processes and increased overtime for vacancies.
2) The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Jeffrey Brooks, Acting Fire Chief
Prepared by:

David An, Battalion Chief
Brian Murphy, Deputy Fire Chief
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
GFD - NASI Amendment No.1 - Final
12 of 130

MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the City Manager, or her designee, is hereby authorized to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with North American Background and Investigations, Inc. (Contract 8002241) extending the contract by two years to continue to provide employment background investigations and polygraph services, increasing the contract amount by $252,000 to a new total not-to- exceed amount of $400,000. The Amendment shall be subject to approval by the City Attorney.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
13 of 130

City of Glendale Contract # 8002241
AMENDMENT NO. 1
Professional Services Agreement Between
the City of Glendale and North American Security and Investigations (NASI) Inc.

This Amendment No. 1 to the North American Security and Investigations Professional Services Agreement, City of Glendale Contract No. 8002241 ("Agreement") is made May 20, 2025, between the North American Security and Investigations Inc. ("CONSULTANT"), and the City of Glendale, a California Municipal Corporation ("CITY").

RECITALS
WHEREAS CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a contract on August 1, 2023, to provide background investigation services for Fire Department candidate employment; WHEREAS CITY wishes to extend the term of this agreement until July 31, 2027; WHEREAS CITY wishes to increase the Agreement amount to support additional candidate backgrounds through the end of contract on July 31, 2027; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows:

1. The parties hereby amend the term of this agreement from August 1, 2023 through July 31, 2027.

2. The parties hereby amend this Agreement to increase the total not-to-exceed amount by Fifteen Thousand dollars ($15,000) commencing May 20, 2025, through July 31, 2025.

3. The parties hereby amend this Agreement to increase the not-to-exceed contract amount by Two Hundred and Thirty-Seven Thousand dollars ($237,000) over the term extension.

4. CONSULTANT shall provide the services in accordance with Scope of Work (“the Services”) outlined in the original Agreement inclusive of psychological and polygraph services.

5. Except as stated above, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

Digital Signatures. A signed copy of the Agreement or any amendment thereto bearing a digital signature, shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an original executed copy of the Agreement or such amendment thereto for all purposes, and each digital signature should be given the same legal force and effect as a 14 of 130

handwritten signature.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and North American Security and Investigations Inc. have caused this Amendment No. 1 to the herein referenced Service Agreement, to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on the date(s) set forth below.

CITY OF GLENDALE: CONSULTANT:

By By (Name) _ (Name) _ (Title) _ (Title) _______________________

APPROVED AS TO FORM
NAME: __________________________
TITLE: __________________________
SIGNATURE: _____________________
DATE: __________________________
15 of 130

4c
25-87929

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Verdugo Workforce Development Board’s Application Submission Request for Approval of Local Area Subsequent Designation and Local Board Recertification

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for May 13, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Verdugo Workforce Development Board (VWDB) has a long-standing history of being a local workforce board and receiving federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) funds to support the workforce ecosystem of the Verdugo Workforce Development Area (VWDA), which consists of the Cities of Glendale, Burbank and La Cañada Flintridge. The VWDB is seeking approval to be recertified as a local workforce board and to represent the VWDA for another two-year period. The VWDB has submitted previous applications for the periods of 2021-2023 and 2023-2025. This would be the VWDB’s third application to be recertified for the period of 2025-2027. Without an approved application, the VWDB board structure and certification would be revoked. 16 of 130

4c2
25-87929
6 0
2 8

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion approving submission to the Governor, State Workforce Development Board, and Employment Development Department of the Verdugo Workforce Development Board’s request for local area subsequent designation and local board recertification, which allows the VWDB to continue to receive federal WIOA grant funds to deliver services in the Verdugo Consortium consisting of the Cities of Glendale, Burbank and La Cañada Flintridge.

ANALYSIS
The Verdugo Consortium is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) comprised of the Cities of Glendale, Burbank, and La Cañada Flintridge. The Verdugo Workforce Development Board (VWDB) is the planning and policy body for the Consortium. Its purpose is to provide employment and training programs within the three cities and to allocate and award Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) funds toward its goals. Through the JPA, the City of Glendale (City) has responsibility for the administration of all Consortium activities, including approval of federal WIOA requirements, such as submission of the Local Area Subsequent Designation and Local Board Recertification application, which allows the VWDB to continue to provide Career Services to residents and businesses in the Verdugo Workforce Development Area (VWDA) consisting of the Cities of Glendale, Burbank and La Cañada Flintridge.

WIOA Section 107 provides criteria for the recertification of Local Boards. Specifically, it requires the Governor to certify one Local Board for each Local Area in the State of California every two years. The WIOA requires that, to be recertified, the Local Board must have met WIOA membership requirements, met or exceeded performance accountability measures, and achieved sustained fiscal integrity as well as participation in Regional Planning activities. In accordance with WIOA Section 107(c)(2), the State Board will recommend recertification of a Local Board if these requirements are met.

The most recent VWDB certification is set to expire on June 30, 2025. This new application will allow the VWDB to continue to operate as a board over the local VWDA from July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2027.

On March 30, 2021, and June 27, 2023, the City Council previously approved submission of the VWDB’s Local Area Subsequent Designation and Local Board Recertification applications. This is the VWDB’s third request for approval to submit a Local Area Subsequent Designation and Local Board Recertification application. Without submission and approval of this application, the Verdugo Consortium will no longer be a designed Local Area and the local board will no longer be able to receive federal WIOA funds.

The State Board, in coordination with Employment Development Department (EDD), will verify the information provided in the application and determine whether to recommend approval or denial of the application.

Submission of an application is a mandatory requirement of the state and federal governments for the Verdugo region to remain a certified board. Disapproval of the submission of this application would result in revocation of the VWDB board structure and 17 of 130

4c3
25-87929
6 0
2 8
certification.

If approved, the Verdugo Consortium and Verdugo Board will continue to service the Cities of Glendale, Burbank and La Cañada Flintridge for another two program years from July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2027.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The Local Area Subsequent Designation and Local Board Recertification application is a federal requirement for workforce boards to continue to be certified as a workforce board representing a designated local area. As such, it was discussed at a public workforce board meeting on February 12, 2025, held at the Verdugo Jobs Center, which allowed stakeholders to participate and comment on this item.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5), as it constitutes an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment; thus, it is not subject to CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15060(c)(3).

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Onnig Bulanikian, Director of Community Services & Parks Prepared by:

Judith Velasco, Workforce Development Administrator
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Minutes of the meeting of the Verdugo Workforce Development Board, February 12, 2025.
18 of 130

4c4
25-87929
6 0
2 8
Exhibit 2: VWDB local area subsequent designation and local board recertification Application
19 of 130

MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded by
Council Member , that the Council of the
City of Glendale hereby:

1. Approves submission of the Verdugo Workforce Development Board’s (“VWDB”) FY 2025-2026 and FY 2026-2027 application to the Governor, State Workforce Development Board and Employment Development Department for local area subsequent designation and local board recertification, as more particularly described in the report of the Director of Community Services and Parks dated May 13, 2025; and

2. Authorizes the Mayor, City Manager, or a designee to execute all agreements, amendments, certifications, and documents necessary to effectuate:

A. VWDB’s local area subsequent designation and local board recertification; and
B. VWDB’s implementation of Career Services to residents and businesses in the Verdugo Workforce Development Area.

Vote as Follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
20 of 130

VERDUGO WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD

FULL BOARD MEETING MINUTES
2/12/2025
9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.

VWDB Full Board Minutes 2/12/2025 Page 1 of 3
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ara Aslanian, Sonya Kay Blake, Vicki Brannock, Alexis Carter, Marisol Espinoza, Nick Hacopian, Mary
Hamzoian, Pamela Marcello, Iskra Martinez, Michael
Ritterbrown, Veronica Romero, Soua Vang, Terry Walker
MEMBERS ABSENT: Greg Astorian, Luiza Balyan, Jose Barba, Onnig Bulanikian, Steve Kaplan, Debbie Kukta, Stephanie
O’Keefe

COMMUNITY &

OTHER AGENCY
REPRESENTATIVES:

Monica Casas, Eliza Dzhaneryan, Karine Grigoryan
STAFF PRESENT: Diana Montecino, MaryAnn Pranke, Judith Velasco, Melissa Younesian
CALL TO ORDER: 9:05 am by Chair Ara Aslanian

I. Introductions
A. Chair Ara Aslanian welcomed the members of the board and attendees to meeting.

B. Mr. Aslanian took a moment to acknowledge those affected by the wildfires and the people who lost their homes and jobs.

II. Minutes of September 25, 2025
A. Minutes presented and reviewed. MOTION: Terry Walker 2nd: Marisol Espinoza Action: APPROVED

III. Action Items
A. Approval to accept additional funds from the Lo s Angeles County Department of Economic Opportunity for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 in the amount of $35,600 for Youth@Work Program and to award additional funding to Glendale Youth Alliance in the amount of $32,929 for a total contract amount of $462,500 to provide youth employment services

B. Approval to enter into contract with Biocom Institute California in an amount not to exceed $40,000 in Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act funds to provide career exploration and professional fellowships to eligible participants interested in Life Science careers for the period of October 1, 2024 to October 31, 2025

C. Approval to enter into contract with Los Angeles Mission College for Early Childhood Education customized training for employers in an amount not to exceed $67,560 and for classroom training programs listed in the State of California’s Eligible Training Provider List in an amount not to exceed $62,440, for a total contract amount not to exceed $130,000 from January 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026

D. Approval of the certification of the comprehensive Verdugo Jobs Center and the affiliate Job Connect in Burbank as required by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014

E. Approval to Authorize the Release of a Requ est for Proposal soliciting services to utilize Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act fundi ng for In-School Youth and Out-of-School Youth, Los Angeles County Youth@Work, Student Training and Employment Program, and other grant youth funds for a three-year period: July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2028 Exhibit 1
21 of 130

VERDUGO WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD

FULL BOARD MEETING MINUTES
2/12/2025
9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.

VWDB Full Board Minutes 2/12/2025 Page 2 of 3

F. Approval to release the Verdugo Workfor ce Development Board’s Local Workforce Development Plan 2025-2028 for public review and comment

G. Approval of the submission of the Career Servi ces Application to the Governor of California, California Workforce Development Board, and the State of California Employment Development Department requesting the Verdugo Workforce Development Board to be the America’s Job Center of CaliforniaSM Adult and Dislocated Worker Car eer Services Provider for the Verdugo Workforce Development Area for the period of July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2029

H. Approval of the submission of the Local Ar ea Subsequent Designation and Local Board Recertification Application to the Governor of California, California Workforce Development Board, and the State of California Employment Development Department requesting the Verdugo Workforce Development Board to be a local workfo rce area and board for the period of July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2027

I. Approval to accept $850,000 of Workforce In novation and Opportunity Act Governor’s Discretionary 25% Additional Assistance Gr ant to continue implementing a regional biotechnology technician industry-valued credential, and to enter into contract with Los Angeles Mission College for $123,200, Biocom Institute for $200,000, Consultant Bloom Strategies Solutions LLC for $60,000, Communication Consul tant for $12,500 and a Strategic Planning Consultant for $20,000

MOTION FOR CONSENT ITEM A – I Motion: Mary Hamzoian 2nd: Alexis Carter Abstain: Vicki Brannock

IV. Director’s Report
A. Executive Director Judith Velasco provided an overview of VWDB activities and the required processes and certifications that need to be completed this program year to remain compliant with the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). Ms. Velasco also presented a brief summary of the Local Workforce Development Plan (Local Plan).

1. Los Angeles County and Los Angeles City Wo rkforce Development Boards will receive Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (W IOA) funds to assist workers who were impacted by the wildfires. The Verdugo Jobs Center (VJC) will co-enroll participants as needed.

2. The VWDB can look forward to adding members to the Executive Committee (two business members and one education member). The next scheduled board retreat for November 12, 2025.
a. Two additional business members and two labor representative are needed to meet board composition requirements and remain in co mpliance with WIOA. Board members are encouraged to reach out to Ms. Velasco if they have any recommendations.

3. This year the VWDB will need to procure an America’s Job Center of California (AJCC) Operator, submit a Career Services Provide r application and Board Recertification application, and release its Local Workforce Development Plan, all required processes under WIOA.
a. Ms. Velasco clarified that most of the data found in the Local Plan is from the 2023 US Census Bureau, which is self-reported data.
i. Mary Hamzoian stated that she can provid e the actual numbers in the labor force for the City of Burbank since the numbers that appear in the Local Plan pertain to the residents only and does not include all pe ople who work in Burbank regardless of 22 of 130

VERDUGO WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD

FULL BOARD MEETING MINUTES
2/12/2025
9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.

VWDB Full Board Minutes 2/12/2025 Page 3 of 3
residency. VWDB staff member MaryAnn Pr anke explained that the Labor Force as defined by Bureau of Labor Statistics and used by US Census, only refers to residents. ii. Sonya Kay Blake stated that it is interesting that the plan does not call for prior metric performances to demonstrate effectiveness. Ms. Velasco confirmed this information and stated that the VWDB must address specific questions as required by the California State Workforce Board.

V. Other Business and Announcements
A. The next VWDB meeting will be held in person on Wednesday, April 9, 2025.

VI. Public Comments: None

VII. Adjournment: 9:55 am
23 of 130

Page 1 of 12 ends

Local Area Subsequent Designation
and
Local Board Recertification Application
for
Program Year 2025-27

Local Workforce Development Area

Verdugo Workforce Development Board

24 of 130

Page 2 of 12 ends

Application for Local Area Subsequent Designation and Local Board Recertification
This application will serve as your request for Local Workforce Development Area (Local Area) subsequent designation and Local Workforce Development Board (Local Board) recertification for Program Year (PY) 2025-27 under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA).

If the California Workforce Development Board (CWDB) determines the application is incomplete, it will either be returned or held until the necessary documentation is submitted.

Contact your Regional Advisor for technical assistance or questions related to completing and submitting this application.

Completed applications must be submitted to the CWDB at [email protected] by 5 p.m. on Monday, April 7, 2025.

Verdugo Workforce Development Board
Name of Local Area
1255 South Central Avenue_______
Mailing Address
Glendale, CA 91204______________
City, State, ZIP
4/7/2025______________________________________
Date of Submission
Judith Velasco, Executive Director_______________
Contact Person
818-937-8081__________________________________

Contact Person’s Phone Number

25 of 130

Page 3 of 12 ends

Local Board Membership
The WIOA Section 107(b)(2)(A) through (E) states the requirements for nominating and selecting Local Board members:

1. Provide the names of the individuals appointed for each membership category listed below.

2. Attach a roster for the current Local Board.

Category: Business – WIOA Section 107(b)(2)(A) requires that business members constitute a simple majority of the Local Board, and WIOA Section 107(b)(3) states that the chairperson shall also be a member under this category. Specifically, a majority of the Local Board’s business members shall constitute the following representatives under this membership category:

• Owners of businesses, chief executives or operating officers of businesses, or other business executives or employers with optimum policymaking or hiring authority. • Representatives of businesses, including small businesses or business organizations. • Individuals appointed by those who have been nominated by local business organizations and business trade associations.

List the Local Board’s business members and identify the chairperson by typing CHAIR after their name:

26 of 130

Page 4 of 12 ends

Local Board Business Members
Name Title Entity Appointment
Date
Term End Date
Ara Aslanian* -
CHAIR
President Inverselogic, Inc. 5/16/22 5/16/25
Greg Astorian* Sr. Vice
President
ReMax Tri-City
Realty
7/21/22 7/21/25
Luiza Balyan-
Rodriguez
Assistant
Director
Pacific Clinics Head
Start
4/26/23 4/26/26
Sonya Kay
Blake
President &
CEO
The Valley
Economic Alliance
11/29/23 11/29/26
Vicki Brannock Sr. Director,
Workforce
Strategy &
Innovation
Biocom California
Institute
4/26/23 4/26/26
Marisol
Espinoza
Public Affairs
Manager
Southern California
Gas Company
7/9/24 7/9/27
Nicholas
Hacopian*
President Glen West
Management Co
6/29/22 6/29/25
Debbie Kukta* President KO Properties, Inc. 6/29/22 6/29/25 Pamela
Marcello
Sr. Director,
Government &
Public Affairs
Hollywood Burbank
Airport
2/4/24 2/4/27
Veronica
Romero
Vice President,
Client Services
PacFed Benefits
Administrators
2/3/25 2/3/28
Terry Walker Director Providence Saint
Joseph Medical
Center
7/31/24 7/31/27
Caroline Lett** Executive
Director
Warner Bros 4/7/25 4/7/28
Jaime Keyser
Thomas**
Chief Executive
Officer
Burbank Chamber
of Commerce
4/7/25 4/7/28
Kathleen
McIntrye**
Sr. Client
Advisor / Sr.

Business
Development
Manager

California
Manufacturing
Technology
Consulting (CMTC)
4/7/25 4/7/28
*Existing Board members will be reappointed.
**New Board members will be appointed.

Category: Workforce – Not less than 20 percent of the Local Board members shall be representatives from the Local Area’s workforce (WIOA 107[b][2][B]) who:

27 of 130

Page 5 of 12 ends

• Shall include representatives of labor organizations (for a Local Area in which employees are represented by labor organizations) who have been nominated by local labor federations or (for a Local Area in which no employees are represented by such organizations) other representatives of employees. California Unemployment Insurance Code (CUIC) Section 14202(b)(1) further requires and specifies that these representatives shall amount to not less than 15 percent of the Local Board membership and be subject to the following:
a. For a Local Area in which no employees are represented by such organizations, other representatives of employees shall be appointed to the board, but any Local Board that appoints representatives of employees that are not nominated by local labor federations shall demonstrate that no employees are represented by such organizations in the area.
b. Shall include a representative, who shall be a member of a labor organization or a training director from a joint labor-management apprenticeship program, or if no such program exists in the area, such a representative of a state-approved apprenticeship program in the area, if such a program exists.

• May include representatives of community-based organizations that have demonstrated experience and expertise in addressing the employment needs of individuals with barriers to employment, including organizations that serve veterans or that provide or support competitive integrated employment for individuals with disabilities. • May include representatives of organizations that have demonstrated experience and expertise in addressing the employment, training, or education needs of eligible youth, including representatives of organizations that serve out-of-school youth.

List the Local Board’s workforce members:

Local Board Labor Members
Name Title Entity Appointment
Date
Term End
Date
Jose Barba*
Business
Representative
Operating
Engineers, Local 501
11/9/22

11/9/25
Steve Kaplan
Field
Representative
The Animation
Guild, IATSE Local
839
6/19/25 6/19/28
Stephanie
O’Keefe
President Professional
Musicians Local 47
6/3/24 6/3/27
Nicole
Miller**
President AAE Local B-192 5/21/25
(scheduled)

Joel Cohen** Associate National
Executive Director
IATSE Local 800 5/21/25
(scheduled)

Andrew
Stumme**
Associate National
Executive Director
ADG 800 5/21/25
(scheduled)

28 of 130

Page 6 of 12 ends

*Existing Board member will be reappointed.
**New Board Members anticipated appointment on May 21, 2025.

Category: Education – WIOA Section 107[b][2][C] requires that each Local Board include members who represent entities that administer education and training activities in the Local Area. Specifically, the Local Board shall have education representatives under this membership category from the following entities:
• Eligible Title II adult education and literacy providers • Institutions of higher education providing workforce investment activities

Members may be representatives from local educational agencies and community-based organizations with demonstrated experience and expertise in addressing the education or training needs of individuals with barriers to employment.

List the Local Board’s education members:

Local Board Education Members
Name Title Entity Appointment
Date
Term End
Date
Michael
Ritterbrown1
Vice President,
Instructional
Services
Glendale
Community College
7/31/24 7/31/27

1Michael Ritterbrown serves a dual role representing Adult Education & Literacy as well as Higher Education.

Glendale Community College serves as the Adult School in Glendale.

Category: Economic and Community Development – WIOA Sections 107[b][2][D] and [E] require each Local Board to include governmental, economic, and community development representatives under this membership category from the following entities:
• Economic and community development organizations
• The state’s employment service office under the Wagner-Peyser Act • Programs carried out under Title I of the federal Rehabilitation Act

A Local Board may have representatives from transportation, housing, and/or public assistance agencies; philanthropic organizations; and/or an individual or representatives of entities determined to be appropriate by the local Chief Elected Official (CEO).

List the Local Board’s economic and community development members:

29 of 130

Page 7 of 12 ends

Local Board Economic and Community Development Members
*Existing Board members will be reappointed.

Performed Successfully
The Local Area hereby certifies that it has performed successfully, defined as having an Individual Indicator Score of 50 percent or higher in PY 22-23 or PY 23-24, as described in Workforce Services Directive WSD20-02, Calculating Local Area Performance and Nonperformance (September 18, 2020).

Note – Report your “performance score” rather than the “adjusted level of performance.”

PY 22-23 Scores
Indicator Adults Dislocated
Workers
Youth
Employment Rate 2nd
Quarter After Exit

72.2%

78.7%

73.6%
Employment Rate 4th Quarter
After Exit

77.2%

80.7%

76.5%
Median Earnings

$8,273

$9,440%

$4,496
Credential Attainment

86.4%

79.6%

90.5%

Name Title Entity Appointment
Date
Term End
Date
Onnig
Bulanikian
Director City of Glendale,
Community
Services & Parks
1/20/23 4/29/26
Alexis
Carter*
Deputy Division Chief Employment
Development
Department
7/6/22 7/6/25
Mary
Hamzoian
Manager City of Burbank,
Economic
Development
2/27/25 2/27/28
Iskra
Martinez*
Manager Department of
Rehabilitation
11/9/22 11/9/25
Soua Vang* Deputy Director of
Community
Development/Economic
Dev.

City of Glendale,
Economic
Development
4/13/25 4/13/28
30 of 130

Page 8 of 12 ends

PY 23-24 Scores
Indicator Adults Dislocated
Workers
Youth Overall
Indicator
Score
Employment Rate 2nd
Quarter After Exit

67.5%

70.5%

53.2%

%
Employment Rate 4th Quarter
After Exit

70.1%

76.0%

75.9%

%
Median Earnings
$8,161%

$12,805

$3,035

Credential Attainment

90.5%

91.2%

55.6%

%
Measurable Skills Gain

96.5%

97.6%

87.5%

%
Overall Program Score

---

Sustained Fiscal Integrity
The Local Area hereby certifies that it has not been found in violation of one or more of the following during PY 22-23 or PY 23-24:

• Final determination of significant finding(s) from audits, evaluations, or other reviews conducted by state or local governmental agencies or the Department of Labor identifying issues of fiscal integrity or misexpended funds due to the willful disregard or failure to comply with any WIOA requirement.

• Gross negligence – defined as a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both.

• Failure to observe accepted standards of administration – Local Areas must have adhered to the applicable uniform administrative requirements set forth in Title 2 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 (Uniform Guidance).

Certify No Violation: ☒
31 of 130

Page 9 of 12 ends

Engaged in Regional Planning
Engaged in regional planning is defined as participating in and contributing to regional planning, regional plan implementation, and regional performance negotiations. The Local Area hereby certifies that it has participated in and contributed to regional planning and negotiating regional performance measures in the following ways:

 The Verdugo Workforce Development Board’s (VWDB), Executive Director, Judith Velasco participates on all scheduled Los Angeles Basin Regional Planning Unit (LABRPU) meetings. If Ms. Velasco cannot participate, a Verdugo staff participates on behalf of the organization. This allows the VWDB to keep updated on regional planning activities and opportunities for participation in those activities.

 The VWDB and its partners participate in all regional planning activities and provide data and information to assist the writer of the regional plan. The VWDB also includes information about the regional plan in its public forums held to gather information for its local plan and modifications, as well as CAEP (California Adult Education Program) plans.

Information gathered is submitted to the regional plan writer to assist in developing the regional plan as well as its modifications. Contributions to the regional planning activities include information on industry sector strategies and career pathways in the Verdugo region and their alignment with the plan.

 The VWDB and Verdugo Jobs Center (VJC) staff participate on task forces in efforts to work with the LABRPU to align projects to the regional plan. The VWDB took the lead in establishing a strategic co -enrollment system that facilitates enrolling of participants in career pathways available through any WDB in the LABRPU.

 The VWDB and the VJC participate in multiple regional projects to serve priority of service participants, in alignment with the regional plan priorities. The VWDB contributed to the Prison to Employment (P2E) regional planning grant and its service plan. The VJC is currently working on the second round of funding received through the regional P2E grant, serving participants who have been justice involved. An additional regional grant for the same population, Helping Justice -Involved Renter Employment (HIRE) Los Angeles has been awarded to VWDB and client services has already started at the VJC.

 The Regional Equity and Recovery Partnership (RERP) is a Los Angeles Basic regional project focusing on serving low -income, English Language Learners, first -generation college attendees and other underserved populations. The VWDB has focused on expanding BioManufacturing and BioTechnology career pathway enrollments to meet the hiring needs of the BioScience companies. The VJC has enrolled and provided stipends to clients taking bioscience classes, which qualify them to take the BioTC certification exam.

32 of 130

Page 10 of 12 ends

 The VWDB previously received and implemented Slingshot 2.0 funds for strategic co - enrollments of clients with the LABRPU Boards.

 Additionally, the VWDB participated in previous Slingshot 3.0 and 4.0 implemented by Foothill Workforce Development Board, providing supportive services to clients and participating in regional workgroup to evaluate the provision of WIOA employment supports (support services) on a regional level. This effort included the fa cilitation for members of the seven workforce development boards to discuss the utilization of support services (employment supports) and support services funding levels.

 The VWDB led the coordination of a Communication Strategy on behalf of the LABRPU.

This include d managing the procurement process for selecting a communication consultant to work with all boards and ensure a consistent and effective messaging for the region. The regional website is: https://www.labwn.com.

Local Area Assurances
Through PY 25-27, the Local Area assures:

A. It will comply with the applicable uniform administrative requirements, cost principles, and audit requirements (WIOA Section 184[a][2] and [3]).

Highlights of this assurance include the following:
• The Local Area’s procurement procedures will avoid the acquisition of unnecessary or duplicative items, software, and subscriptions (in alignment with Uniform Guidance Section 200.318)
• The Local Area will maintain and provide accounting and program records, including supporting source documentation, to auditors at all levels, as permitted by law (Uniform Guidance Section 200.508).

Note that failure to comply with the audit requirements specified in Uniform Guidance Subpart F will subject the Local Area to a potential cash hold (Uniform Guidance Section 200.339).

B. All financial reporting will be done in compliance with federal and state regulations and guidance.

Highlights of this assurance include the following:
• Reporting will be done in compliance with WSD 19-05, Monthly and Quarterly Financial Reporting Requirements (December 4, 2019).
• All close-out reports will comply with the policies and procedures listed in WSD16-05, WIOA Closeout Requirements (July 29, 2016).
33 of 130

Page 11 of 12 ends

Note that failure to comply with financial reporting requirements will subject the Local Area to a potential cash hold. (Uniform Guidance Section 200.339)

C. Funds will be spent in accordance with federal and state laws, regulations, and guidance.

Highlights of this assurance include the following:
• The Local Area will meet the requirements of the CUIC Section 14211 to spend a minimum of 30 percent of the combined total of WIOA Title I adult and dislocated worker formula fund allocations on training services. • The Local Area will not use funds to assist, promote, or deter union organizing (WIOA Section 181[b][7]).

D. The Local Area will select America’s Job Center of CaliforniaSM operator(s) through a competitive procurement process, such as a Request for Proposals, unless designated or certified as an operator with the agreement of the local CEO and the Governor (WIOA Section 121[d][2][A] and 107[g][2]).

E. The Local Area will collect, enter, and maintain data related to participant enrollment, activities, and performance necessary to meet all CalJOBSSM reporting requirements and deadlines.

F. The Local Area will comply with the nondiscrimination provisions of WIOA Section 188 and Title 29 CFR Part 38, including the collection of necessary data.

G. The Local Area will engage in and contribute to regional planning and regional plan implementation (for example, the Local Area has participated in regional planning meetings and regional plan implementation efforts, and the Local Board and local CEO have reviewed and approved the regional plan and two-year modifications).

H. The Local Area will participate in regional performance negotiations.

I. The Local Area will comply with CWDB policies and guidelines, legislative mandates, and/or other special provisions as may be required under federal law or policy, including the WIOA or state legislation.

J. Priority shall be given to veterans, recipients of public assistance, other low-income individuals, and individuals who are basic skills deficient for receipt of career and training services funded by WIOA Adult funding (WIOA Section 134[c][3][E] and Training and Employment Guidance Letter [TEGL] 10-09, and TEGL 19-16). 34 of 130

Page 12 of 12 ends

Application Signature Page
Instructions – The local CEO and Local Board Chair must sign and date this form. Electronic signatures are permitted for the PY 25-27 application.

By signing the application below, the local CEO and Local Board Chair request subsequent designation of the Local Area and recertification of the Local Board. Additionally, they agree to abide by the Local Area assurances included in this application.

Local Board Chair Local CEO

Signature Signature
Ara Aslanian
Name Name
Board Chair, Verdugo Workforce
Development Board
Mayor, City of Glendale
Title Title

Date Date

35 of 130

4d
25-87787

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Award of Construction Contract for the West Glendale Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Curb Ramp Installation and Sidewalk Repair Program Phase 1. 1) Motion awarding a construction contract to Kalban, Inc. in the amount of $3,817,486, approving a 10 percent contract contingency in the amount of $381,749 and authorizing the City Manager or a designee to execute the contract.

2) Resolution of appropriation to appropriate funds in the amount of $4,390,109 for the West Glendale ADA Curb Ramp Installation and Sidewalk Repair Program Phase 1.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for May 6, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The West Glendale ADA Curb Ramp Installation and Sidewalk Repair Program Phase 1 will repair damaged sidewalk and other infrastructure improving safety and accessibility in the city. On March 18, 2025, eight bids were received for the West Glendale ADA Curb Ramp Installation and Sidewalk Repair Program Phase 1, and after a thorough review, staff found Kalban, Inc.’s bid to be a responsive bid from a responsible bidder.

Additionally, a resolution of appropriation is needed to appropriate funds from the San Fernando Corridor Tax Share Fund to fund this project.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the motion authorizing a construction contract with Kalban, Inc. for the West Glendale ADA Curb Ramp Installation and Sidewalk Repair Program Phase 1, in the amount of $3,817,486 plus a 10 percent contingency of $381,749; and approve the resolution of appropriation to appropriate funds in the amount of $4,390,109 from the San Fernando Corridor Tax Share Fund for the project.
36 of 130

4d2
25-87787
5 9
7 4

ANALYSIS
As part of the Public Works Department’s ongoing efforts to improve the condition of the city’s sidewalks, the plan and specification were prepared for the West Glendale ADA Curb Ramp Installation and Sidewalk Repair Program Phase 1.

The locations for the improvements are Maintenance Districts 4, 8, 9, 10, and 11.

The project scope of work includes the following:
•Selective removal, repair, and reconstruction of approximately 12,000 linear feet of damaged and/or new curbs and gutters, and 110,000 square feet of sidewalks, driveways, cross gutters, and alley aprons;
•Selective removal, repair, and reconstruction of approximately 16,000 square feet of damaged asphalt concrete pavements;
•Installation of 26 new ADA compliant curb ramps where none existed and reconstruction of existing ramps to meet current ADA standards.

On February 11, 2025, the City Council adopted the project plan and specification and authorized the city clerk to advertise the project for bids. The project was advertised in the Glendale Independent, the city’s website, as well as various online platforms.

On March 18, 2025, the city received eight bids from contractors as follows:

1. Kalban Inc. $3,817,486.25

2. Vart Construction, Inc. $4,800,862.00

3. CT&T Concrete Paving, Inc. $4,824,107.39

4. Environmental Construction, Inc. $5,573,316.70

5. Toro Enterprises, Inc. $5,660,184.05

6. Palp Inc. $5,964,735.50

7. FEC, Inc. $6,546,523.50

8. Los Angeles Engineering, Inc. $7,665,970.00
Upon review of the bid documents, staff finds the bid of Kalban, Inc. to be the lowest responsive bid from a responsible bidder. The bid of Kalban, inc. in the amount of $3,817,486.25 is approximately 30% lower than the Engineer’s Estimate of $5,600,000.

In addition, staff recommends a reserve for contingencies in the amount of $381,749 or 10 percent of the bid amount. The contingency is intended to address any incidental work or unforeseen field conditions that could be encountered during construction.

Furthermore, staff has budgeted approximately five percent of the construction contract amount, or $190,874 for construction management and engineering support services such as project management, project engineering, construction inspection, and quality assurance and control.
37 of 130

4d3
25-87787
5 9
7 4
West Glendale ADA Curb Ramp Installation and Sidewalk Repair Program Phase 1
Construction Bid $ 3,817,486
10% Contract Contingency $ 381,749
5% Construction Management & Engineering Support $ 190,874 Total Construction Cost $ 4,390,109
The State of California Contractor’s State License Board website confirms that the license of Kalban, Inc. is current, active, and in good standing. Additionally, staff contacted the references provided by Kalban, Inc. and found they had satisfactorily completed their projects.

The construction of this project is anticipated to begin in July 2025 and is scheduled for completion by December 2025.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
As a result of this project the public will gain improved accessibility and walkability throughout the project neighborhoods and improved safety for all users.

The contractor will be responsible for distributing two distinct door hangers to the affected addresses. One set of door hangers will be provided two weeks prior to the start of any construction activity within the project area, while the second set will be distributed three days before construction begins.

Furthermore, outreach on this project continues to occur through social media and a dedicated project website that is hosted through the City of Glendale domain. The website familiarizes the public with the project and to the project team, explains the scope of work and project locations, and provides the public with staff contact information for questions, discussion, and/or input.

FISCAL IMPACT
The construction of the West Glendale ADA Curb Ramp Installation and Sidewalk Repair Program Phase 1 will cost $4,390,109, which was not included in the FY 2024- 25 budget. Therefore, staff is requesting an appropriation of $4,390,109 from the San Fernando Corridor Tax Share Fund. The appropriation request is outlined below:

Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String) To (Account String) Funding Source
$4,390,109 GL: 24223-4100-
CDD-0000
GL:52100-4100-CDD-
0020-P0000
PL:PWD01340AN
San Fernando
Corridor Tax
Share Fund
The San Fernando Corridor Tax Share Fund is designated for improvements to San Fernando Road and its surrounding streets. This project qualifies for funding under this program as the proposed streets are located in the eligible area. 38 of 130

4d4
25-87787
5 9
7 4

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The Project is categorically exempt from environmental review because of CEQA Guidelines §§ 15301.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1) Do not approve the motion authoring a construction contract and resolution of appropriation for the West Glendale ADA Curb Ramp Installation and Sidewalk Repair Program Phase 1. Doing so, however, will not improve the condition of the city’s sidewalks.
2) The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Daniel Hernandez, Director of Public Works
Prepared by:

Huang Zheng, P.E., Civil Engineer II
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Project Location Map
39 of 130

4d
MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded
by Council Member , that the Council of the City of
Glendale hereby:

1. Authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a construction contract – subject to approval by the City Attorney – with Kalban, Inc. for the West Glendale ADA Curb Ramp Installation and Sidewalk Repair Program Phase 1, Specification No. 4006, for the amount of $3,817,486.25.

2. Authorizes a 10 percent reserve for contingency, equal to $381,749.

Votes as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

City Clerk
40 of 130

41 of 130

ELM AVE.

LINDEN AVE.

ALLEN AVE.

IRVING AVE.

THOMPSON AVE.

RAYMOND AVE.HALE ST.STANDARD
AVE.

FLOWER ST.

WESTERN AVE.

GRANDVIEW AVE.

ALAMEDA AVE.

SAN FERNANDO RD.

GLENOAKS BLVD.

WINCHESTER AVE.

JUSTIN AVE.

RUBERTA AVE.

DAVIS AVE.

ROSEDALE AVE.

NEWBY ST.

WILLARD AVE.

CLEVELAND RD.

IDLEWOOD RD.

GRAYNOLD AVE.

NORTON AVE.

GRANGE ST.

DALE AVE.

OMAR ST.

ESTELLE AVE.

ALMA ST.KELLOGG
AVE.

ARDEN AVE.

BURCHETT ST.

PATTERSON AVE.

GRANT
AVE.

W MILFORD ST.

STATE ST.

COMMERCIAL ST.CA-134
PELANCONI AVE.

WEST GLENDALE CURB RAMP INSTALLATION
AND SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM PHASE 1
LEGEND

PROJECT LOCATIONS

CITY BOUNDARY
42 of 130

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Approval of the Proposed Sub-recipient Funding Awards of the Homeless Initiative Measure H Funds.

1.Motion to approve proposed sub-recipient funding awards for the Homeless Initiative Measure H Program, as recommended by the Continuum of Care (CoC) Board; and authorize the City Manager or a designee to execute all agreements, certifications, and documents necessary to accept and implement the funding.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for May 13, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The County of Los Angeles (County) awarded the City of Glendale (City) Continuum of Care (CoC) Measure H funding totaling $464,507 for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25. Measure H funds for FY 2024-25 will be used to assist with ending homelessness focusing on three key areas: (1) Homeless Prevention, (2) Time-Limited Subsidies, and (3) Housing Navigation & Location. Programs funded will align with the City’s funding priorities as specified in the Glendale Homeless Action Plan (GHAP). The CoC Board has made funding recommendations for two homeless services agencies, totaling $390,186. The remaining $74,321 (16% of the total award) will be allocated to the CoC to cover staff salaries associated with administration of the Measure H-funded programs. 43 of 130

24e
6 0
0 3

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council pass a motion to approve the proposed Measure H Sub-recipient funding awards, and authorize the City Manager to execute all agreements, certifications, and documents necessary to accept and implement the funding.

ANALYSIS
Homeless Initiative Measure H, approved by voters in the County of Los Angeles on March 7, 2017, is a countywide quarter-cent sales tax to fund supportive services, housing, outreach, and prevention services for people experiencing homelessness. To date, the City has received a total of $2,084,761 in Measure H funds from FY 2017-24 and has allocated $294,316 for program administration to cover staff costs associated with Measure H programming. Below is a breakdown of the Measure H funding allocations from FY 2017-2024.

Table 1 Funding Allocation FY2017-24
Funding Allocation for FY 2024-25
The Glendale CoC received $464,507 of Measure H funding for FY 2024-25. The CoC will utilize funds to develop local capacity to address immediate homelessness challenges by operating the following programs in alignment with the Glendale Homeless Action Plan (GHAP) funding priorities. Below is a breakdown of the funding allocation for each Measure H eligible activity for the Glendale CoC:

Table 2 FY2024-25 Funding Allocation by Category
On November 7, 2023, the City released a Request for Proposal (RFP) to community agencies for the Measure H funds. (Exhibit 1). The RFP states that the City reserves the option to renew contracts awarded through the RFP for up to three subsequent program years, contingent upon satisfactory performance, availability of funds, demonstrated Fiscal Year Allocation
2017-20 $641,728
2020-21 $217,964
2021-22 $209,020
2022-23 $208,900
2023-24 $342,641
2024-25 $464,507
Total $2,084,761
Task Allocation
Homeless Prevention $118,067.70
Time Limited Subsidy $235,253.10
Housing Navigation/Location $36,865.20
City Admin. (16%) $74,321
Total $464,507
44 of 130

34e
6 0
0 3
needs, and project outcome to ensure continuity and efficiency of Measure H funded programs.

To maintain a fair and open process for distribution of FY 2024-25 Measure H funds, on January 24, 2025, the City required existing sub-recipients to submit an updated funding plan and performance measures for CoC Board review and approval by February 14, 2025. Two existing sub-recipients submitted updated plans. CoC staff reviewed these submissions, ensuring alignment with program goals and outcomes from their current Measure H contracts. Staff also reviewed the most recent financial audits from each agency and requested completion of a Pre-award Risk Assessment form.

On February 26, 2025, staff worked with the CoC Board to review a total of two funding plans, interview agencies, and finalize funding recommendations for the Measure H program. (Exhibit 2).

The following CoC Board members deliberated and made the funding recommendations:
•Lt. Alex Krikorian - Chair of CoC Board, Glendale Police Department •Jeffrey Brooks – Vice Chair of CoC Board, Glendale Fire Department •Melissa Younesian – Board Member, Verdugo Jobs Center
•Hagop Eulmessekian - Board Member, Glendale Unified School District

PROGRAM GOALS
Sub-recipients are required to establish program outcomes to monitor progress toward the goal of preventing and ending homelessness. Staff will track the following outcomes for participants served under the Measure H program.

1. Reducing the length of time people experience homelessness

2. Reducing the number of people who return to homelessness

3. Reducing the number of people experiencing homelessness

4. Employment and income growth for people experiencing homelessness

5. Reducing first-time homelessness

6. Homelessness prevention

7. Successful exits to permanent housing after program participation The agreement between the City and County was executed on February 23, 2025.

Following Council approval, staff will work with agencies to finalize Measure H sub- recipient agreements, effective of July 1, 2025, to begin providing services.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The targeted participants are those experiencing unsheltered homelessness or at-risk of homelessness. Potential clients will be screened through the Glendale Outreach Program, Glendale Coordinated Entry systems (CES). Measure H will provide funding for staff who will utilize best practices to engage and link individuals experiencing homelessness residing on the streets to housing and supportive services. 45 of 130

44e
6 0
0 3

FISCAL IMPACT
The Measure H funding totaling $464,507 was included as a part of the FY 2024-25 budget process. No new appropriation is being requested at this time. The City Council approved funding is outlined below:

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$464,507 GL: Various-2240-CSP-0020-P0000-
PL: CSP01337AG
Measure H Fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) as it creates a government funding mechanism or constitutes other government fiscal activities which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment; thus, it is not subject to CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15060(c)(3).

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10% interest in the company proposed for contract in this Agenda Item Report are attached in Exhibit 7, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1: Do not approve the proposed Measure H sub-recipient funding awards as recommended by the CoC Board, which will result in reduced homelessness services. 2: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Onnig Bulanikian, Director of Community Services & Parks Prepared by:

Arsine Isayan, Homeless Programs Manager
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1- Measure H Request for Proposal
46 of 130

54e
6 0
0 3
Exhibit 2- CoC Proposed Funding Recommendations
Exhibit 3- Campaign Finance Disclosures
47 of 130

1 MOTION
Moved by Council Member __________________________________________, seconded by Council Member ________________________________________, that, with respect to the report of the Director of Community Services & Parks dated May 13, 2025, the Council of the City of Glendale hereby approves the Homeless Initiative Measure H Program proposed Sub-recipient funding awards, as recommended by the Continuum of Care (CoC) Board; and authorizes the City Manager or a designee to execute all agreements, certifications, and documents necessary to accept and implement the funding.

Vote as Follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
48 of 130

CITY OF GLENDALE

COMMUNITY SERVICES & PARKS

DEPARTMENT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

HOMELESS INITIATIVE MEASURE H

FUNDING
Glendale Continuum of Care

Released: November 7, 2023
Proposals Due: December 7, 2023

Submit all application materials electronically via:

[email protected]
Community Services & Parks Department
613 E. Broadway Room 120
Glendale, CA 91206
Attention: Arsine Isayan, Homeless Programs Manager

THE CITY OF GLENDALE INTENDS TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMODATIONS FOLLOWING THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. IF SPECIAL ACCOMODATION IS DESIRED, PLEASE CALL THE COMMUNITY SERVICES & PARKS DEPARTMENT AT (818) 548-2000 49 of 130

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LOS ANGELES COUNTY HOMELESS INITIATIVE MEASURE H FUNDING

I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 2 II. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................... 6 III. PROGRAM GUIDELINES .......................................................................................................... 7 IV. CONTRACT MANAGEMENT & PROGRAM MONITORING ............................................... 12 V. PROPOSAL SELECTION AND APPEALS PROCESS ............................................................ 13 Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................................ 14 VI. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION ........................................................................................................ 15 Required Attachments ........................................................................................................... 15 VII. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................... 15 VIII. CONDITIONS AND RESERVATIONS ..................................................................................... 17 IX. CONTRACT CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................... 18 Appendix A: Glendale Coc Performance Metrics........................................................................ 23

50 of 130

2 | P a g e F Y 2 0 2 1 - 2024 M E A S U R E H R F P | H u m a n - S e r v i c e s / H o m e l e s s - S e r v i c e s

INVITATION FOR PROPOSALS - OVERVIEW

The City of Glendale seeks to support a portfolio of services designed to address the needs of our entire community, encompassing individuals and families who are sheltered, unsheltered, or at-risk of homelessness. Our primary objective is to enhance long-term stability and promote upward economic mobility for unhoused and at- risk persons. This vital work is carried out through the City's Continuum of Care (CoC), a collaborative platform committed to working alongside regional and citywide partners. Together, we seek to develop and implement equitable solutions to homelessness, underpinned by a "housing first" philosophy.

I. BACKGROUND
In March 2017, Measure H was overwhelmingly embraced by the residents of Los Angeles County. This momentous decision reflected a collective commitment to address the homelessness crisis by increasing t axes, thereby generating an estimated $355 million annually. This dedicated revenue is exclusively allocated for combating homelessness throughout the County. Measure H is comprised of different strategies aimed at conclusively ending homelessness in Los Angeles County. For the fiscal years 2021-2024, the City of Glendale has received a total allocation for the implementation of specific Measure H Strategies, as outlined below:

• A1 & A5- Homeless Prevention Services (Allocation supports homeless individuals and families.) • B3- Partner with Cities to expand Rapid Re-Housing (Allocation supports homeless individuals and families.) • E6-Countywide Outreach System.
• E7- Strengthen the Coordinated Entry System (Allocation is only to support Housing Locators and Housing Navigators.)
• E8-Enhance the Emergency Shelter System (Allocation is based only on funding for new shelter beds, including non-congregate shelters)

For further details on the Homeless Strategies implemented by the County of Los Angeles, please visit the following link: County of Los Angeles Homeless Strategies

This RFP solicits proposals for the Five (5) homeless strategies listed above. This RFP is available to all eligible applicants seeking to operate within Glendale’s jurisdiction. Projects funded under this RFP are required to participate in the Glendale Continuum of Care (CoC) Coordinated Entry System, Street Outreach efforts, and in the Gle ndale CoC Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) or an approved comparable database (applies to domestic violence programs only).

Eligible Applicants
To be eligible, applicants must meet the following conditions:
a) Applicant must be a private non-profit organization; b) Applicant must have provided same or similar services for a minimum of 24 months; c) Applicant must have a Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number; d) Applicant, its officers, and employees are not currently debarred or suspended from doing business with the Federal Government, State of California, or a local government; and Applicant does not have unresolved current or past contract non-compliance, non- performance, suspension, termination, or other adverse audit finding with one or more funders in the past five (5) years. 51 of 130

3 | P a g e F Y 2 0 2 1 - 2024 M E A S U R E H R F P | H u m a n - S e r v i c e s / H o m e l e s s - S e r v i c e s

Funding Amounts
The total amount of funding estimated to be available for this RFP is approximately $958,518.

Proposals for each Homeless Initiative Strategy Request for funding shall not exceed the amounts listed below per Homeless Initiative Strategy. Agencies may apply for one or more project types. Each project type will require a separate application.

The remaining balance of $319,645 from FY 2017 -2021 will become available to applicants once all eligible use categories have been fully obligated. The decision regarding the allocation of these funds and selection of the sub - recipient will be determined through a vote by the CoC Board.

Eligible Use Category FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Total Per Category
Prevent: Homeless Prevention
Services for Individuals &
Families
$27,537 $27,536 $ 21,574 $76,647
House: Time Limited Subsidies
(Single Adults & Families) $34,117 $34,117 $96,192 $164,426 Connect: Coordinated
Outreach $53,022 $52,920 $69,142 $175,084
House: Enhance the
Emergency Shelter System $60,902 $60,903 $60,903 $182,708 House: Housing Navigation
and Location $0 $0 $40,008 $40,008
Admin (City Use Only) $33,443 $33,424 $54,822 $121,689
TOTAL $209,021 $208,900 $342,641 $760,562
FY 2017-21 Carryover*

$319,645

GRAND TOTAL

$1,080,207

RFP REQUEST TOTAL

$958,518

52 of 130

4 | P a g e F Y 2 0 2 1 - 2024 M E A S U R E H R F P | H u m a n - S e r v i c e s / H o m e l e s s - S e r v i c e s Funding for the project(s) is contingent upon award of Measure H funds to the Cit y by the Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office. In the event that the Glendale City Council or Los Angeles County fails to appropriate the necessary funds for any fiscal year, the projects conditionally awarded for that period will either not be funded or funded at a reduced award level.

The initial contract term is for one-year. The City reserves the option to renew contracts awarded through this RFP for up to three (3) subsequent program years, contingent upon satisfactory performance, availability of funds, demonstrated need, and project outcomes.

Proposer’s Indemnification of the City
At its expense, Proposer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents, employees, and representatives from and against any and all liability, suits, actions, proceedings, judgments, claims, demands, liens, losses, damage s, costs, and expenses (including attorneys’ fees, litigation, arbitration, mediation, appeal expenses) if a dispute, lawsuit, or other proceeding arises out of any one or more of the following:
• Proposer’s submitting the Proposal;
• The City’s accepting Proposer’s Proposal; or
• The City’s awarding a Contract to Proposer in compliance with this RFP, or state, federal, or local laws.

City’s Project Representatives
The City Project Manager in charge of this Project is:

Arsine Isayan, Homeless Programs Manager
City of Glendale
Community Services and Parks Department
613 E. Broadway, Room 120
Glendale, CA 91206
Telephone: (818) 550-4474
Email: [email protected]
Schedule of Events
The following events will take place in this Project (See further explanations, below):

EVENT RESPONSIBILITY DATE
RFP Distribution City 11/07/2023
Mandatory Application Workshop City 11/27/2023
Last Day to Submit Interim Questions Proposer 11/28/2023 RFP Proposals Due by 5:00 p.m. Proposer 12/07/2023
Scoring/Ranking City 12/12/2023
Appeals Due Proposer 12/19/2023
Panel Review Proposal/Candidate Interview City 12/20/2023 Estimated Contract Award City 01/01/2024
53 of 130

5 | P a g e F Y 2 0 2 1 - 2024 M E A S U R E H R F P | H u m a n - S e r v i c e s / H o m e l e s s - S e r v i c e s

Mandatory Application Workshop
A Proposer Conference will be held virtually via teams on 11/27/2023 at 10:00 am.

OPTION 1 OPTION 2

Join on your computer or mobile app
Click here to join the meeting
Meeting ID: 295 763 156 023
Passcode: QCwarB
Download Teams | Join on the web

Or call in (audio only)
+1 323-886-7427,,891858538#
Phone Conference ID: 891 858 538#
Find a local number

Attendance at this application workshop is mandatory. If a Proposer is unable to attend, a representative must be present. Failure to do so may result in rejection of a Proposal.

Attendees or their representatives will be required to sign-in during the meeting.

The purpose of this application workshop is to ensure that Proposers have adequate information to respond fully and comprehensively to the City’s requirements. During the workshop, City staff will discuss with prospective Proposers the services to be performed and answer questions arising from P roposers’ initial review of this RFP.

Before the conference takes place, Proposers should review the RFP thoroughly and should be familiar with its content, as well as the City’s functional and technical requirements.

Withdrawal or Cancellation of a Proposal
Before the Proposal Deadline:

A Proposer may withdraw a Proposal, by giving written notice, signed by the Proposer. A withdrawal request must be addressed as follows and delivered electronically via:

[email protected]
Community Services and Parks Department
Attention: Arsine Isayan, Homeless Programs Manager
([email protected])

For a withdrawal to become effective, the City must receive the Proposer’s written request for withdrawal before the Proposal Deadline. The City will not accept or consider a Proposer’s verbal, telephonic, or facsimile, request for modification or withdrawal of a Proposal.

If a Proposer withdraws its Proposal, the withdrawal will not prejudice the Proposer’s right to submit a new Proposal, if the new Proposal is submitted: (a) in accordance with the RFP’s requirements, and (b) before the Proposal Deadline.

After the Proposal Deadline:

A Proposer must not withdraw, cancel, or modify its Proposal for a period of at least ninety (90) calendar days following the Proposals’ opening on 11/07/2023 subject to the exception described in the next paragraph below.

The City may extend the 90-day period upon the City’s written request and upon the affected Proposers’ written approval.
54 of 130

6 | P a g e F Y 2 0 2 1 - 2024 M E A S U R E H R F P | H u m a n - S e r v i c e s / H o m e l e s s - S e r v i c e s

The City may allow a Proposer to withdraw or cancel a Proposal after the opening of the Proposals, if the Proposer establishes, to the City’s satisfaction, that all of the following circumstances exist:

1. The Proposer made a mistake in its Proposal;

2. Within five (5) days after the Proposal’s opening, the City receives from the Proposer written notice of the mistake and the notice specifies in detail how the mistake occurred;

3. The mistake made the Proposal materially different from what the Proposer had intended it to be; and

4. The mistake was made in filling out the Proposal and was not due to error in judgment, or carelessness in reading the RFP or the proposed Contract.

Proposal Preparation Expenses
Expenses for developing the RFP response are entirely the responsibility of the Proposer and are not chargeable to the City in any manner. The City is not liable for any pre-contractual expenses, which are defined as expenses incurred by Proposer in:
• Preparing its Proposal in response to this RFP.
• Negotiating with the City any matter related to the Proposal. • Any other expense incurred by Proposer prior to the date of award of the Contract for this RFP.

II. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

A. Budget, Match, and Leverage Requirements: Applicants are required to submit a competitive 12-month budget as part of the application submission. The City will reimburse indirect costs to a maximum of 8% of the City Measure H funded portion of the proposed project. The City does not require match to be provided by the applicants to match the funds provided by the City through this RFP. The City recommends leveraging from other sources to enrich programming For Homelessness Prevention project budgets, 80% of the proposed budget amount must be used directly for temporary financial assistance.

B. Reporting: The agency will be required to submit quarterly performance reports on outputs and outcomes, including information on the number and demographics of participants served to date. Quarterly reports are due within 15 days of the end of each quarter for the period of program operation and shall include current quarter and cumulative data. An annual performance report will also be required within 30 days of the end of each fiscal year.

C. Coordinating with other resources: Projects supported by the Measure H Rapid Re-housing funds must coordinate and integrate, to the maximum extent practicable, Measure H-funded activities with other programs targeted to people experiencing homelessness in Glendale, mainstream benefits, housing, health, social services, employment, education, and other programs for which individuals and families experiencing homelessness may be eligible. Specifically, recipients must work in coordination with and prioritize referrals through the Glendale CES.

D. Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) Participation: All Measure H funded projects are required to participate in the Glendale HMIS, or comparable database for domestic violence providers. 55 of 130

7 | P a g e F Y 2 0 2 1 - 2024 M E A S U R E H R F P | H u m a n - S e r v i c e s / H o m e l e s s - S e r v i c e s

Program participant data entry is required daily for service coordination purposes.

E. Certification of Homelessness or At-Risk of Homelessness: The Glendale CoC has standardized certification documents to obtain necessary documentation of program participant eligibility. Funded projects are required to complete these documents as proof of program participant eligibility.

F. Confidentiality: Funded projects are required to develop and implement written policies and procedures to ensure the security and confidentiality of program participants and their protected identifying information.

This includes program participant records, releases of information, and the address or location of any housing of a program participant.

G. Housing First: Funded projects shall adhere to Housing First principles. Housing First is a model of housing assistance that prioritizes rapid placement and stabilization in permanent housing and does not have service participation requirements or preconditions, such as sobriety or a minimum income threshold.

Projects using a Housing First approach offer supportive services to maximize housing stability and prevent returns to homelessness; however, participation in these services is based on the needs and desires of program participants.

H. Universal Assessment: The agency shall utilize the universal assessment tool adopted by the Glendale CoC to assess program participants’ housing and service needs. Currently, the Glendale CoC is utilizing the Vulnerability Index-Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT).

I. Coordinated Entry System: The agency shall work in collaboration with the broader Continuum of Care (CoC) system in Glendale, including participating in the Glendale Coordinated Entry System (CES). The agency must coordinate with the local CES to ensure that any point of entry in the CoC provides participants access to housing. The agency will participate in the Glendale CES’s intake process, which includes direct service for and referrals to appropriate homeless programs, mainstream resources, and housing. The agency will participate in CoC meetings, any relevant subcommittees, training opportunities, and technical assistance that support quality service delivery within the system of care.

III. PROGRAM GUIDELINES
Strategy A1 | A5 Homelessness Prevention (24 CFR 576.103, 24 CFR 576.105-6)

1. Funds may be used to provide short-term rental assistance as necessary to help prevent homelessness for individuals and families and help participants regain stability in existing permanent housing or move the participants into other permanent housing. The homelessness prevention assistance must be provided in accordance with the HUD requirements specified at 24 CFR 576.103, housing relocation and stabilization services in 24 CFR 576.105, and the short -term and medium-term rental assistance requirements in 24 CFR 576.106, eligible costs requirements in 24 CFR 578.53, the Glendale CoC written standards, and the Program Requirements outlined in 24 CFR 578 Subpart F.

2. Eligible Program Participants
Homelessness Prevention may be provided to program participants who:

a. Meet the following criteria of the ‘‘at risk of homelessness’’ definition for the Glendale Measure H Homelessness Prevention Program,

(1) An individual or family who:
56 of 130

8 | P a g e F Y 2 0 2 1 - 2024 M E A S U R E H R F P | H u m a n - S e r v i c e s / H o m e l e s s - S e r v i c e s

i. Has an annual income between 40-50 percent of median family income for the area, as determined by LA County;
ii. Does not have sufficient resources or support networks, e.g., family, friends, faith- based or other social networks, immediately available to prevent them from moving to an emergency shelter or another place described in paragraph (1) of the “ homeless” definition in the above section; and iii. Meets one of the following conditions:

A) Has moved because of economic reasons two or more times during the 60 days immediately preceding the application for homelessness prevention assistance;

B) Has been notified in writing that their right to occupy their current housing or living situation will be terminated within 21 days after the date of application for assistance;

C) Lives in a hotel or motel and the cost of the hotel or motel stay is not paid by charitable organizations or by Federal, State, or local government programs for low- income individuals;

D) Lives in a single-room occupancy or efficiency apartment unit in which there reside more than two persons or lives in a larger housing unit in which there reside more than 1.5 persons reside per room, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau;

E) Is exiting a publicly funded institution, or system of care (such as a health-care facility, a mental health facility, foster care or other youth facility, or correction program or institution);

F) An individual or family who meets criteria in paragraphs (2) and (4) of the “homeless” definition in 24 CFR 578.3.

3. Eligible Costs and Services
Eligible Costs and Services for Homelessness Prevention under this RFP are listed below and are applicable to households with residences within the Glendale jurisdiction:

Housing relocation and Stabilization Services
a. Financial Assistance Costs (24 CFR 576.105 (a))
i. Security Deposits (24 CFR 576.105(a)(ii))
ii. Utility Deposits (24 CFR 576.105(a)(iv))
iii. Utility Payments (24 CFR 576.105(a)(v))
b. Services Costs (24 CFR 576.105 (b))
i. Housing Search and Placement
ii. Housing Stability Case Management
iii. Mediation
iv. Credit Repair
c. Use with Other Subsidies. Financial assistance cannot be provided to a program participant who is receiving the same type of assistance through other public sources or to a program participant who has been provided with replacement housing payments under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (URA), during the period of time covered by the URA payments.

Short-term Rental Assistance
a. The City of Glendale maximum period for rental assistance with Measure H funds is up to 2 months.

Rental assistance under Homelessness Prevention considers a one-time payment for up to 2 months of rent in arrears, including any late fees on those arrears. b. Use with Other Subsidies. Financial assistance cannot be provided to a program participant who is 57 of 130

9 | P a g e F Y 2 0 2 1 - 2024 M E A S U R E H R F P | H u m a n - S e r v i c e s / H o m e l e s s - S e r v i c e s

receiving the same type of assistance through other public sources or to a program participant who has been provided with replacement housing payments under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (URA), during the period of time covered by the URA payments.
c. Rent Restrictions. Rental assistance cannot be provided unless the rent does not exceed the Fair Market Rent established by HUD, as provided under 24 CFR part 888, and complies with HUD’s standard of rent reasonableness, as established under 24 CFR § 982.507. For purposes of calculating rent under this section, the rent shall equal the sum of the total monthly rent for the unit, any fees required for occupancy under the lease (other than late fees and pet fees) and, if the tenant pays separately for utilities, the monthly allowance for utilities (excluding telephone) established by the public housing authority for the area in which the housing is located.

Strategy B3 | Rapid Re-Housing (24 CFR 578.37)

1. Funds may be used to provide short - and/or medium-term rental assistance as necessary to help a homeless individuals/families/ move as quickly as possible into permanent housing and achieve stability in that housing; this assistance is referred to as rapid re-housing assistance. The RRH assistance must be provided in accordance with the HUD requirements specified at 24 CFR 578.37 , the short-term and medium-term rental assistance requirements in 24 CFR 578.51, eligible costs requirements in 24 CFR 578.53, the Glendale Continuum of Care (CoC) written standards, and the Program Requirements outlined in 24 CFR 578 Subpart F.

2. Eligible Program Participants
Rapid re-housing assistance may be provided to program participants who:
a. Meet the criteria under paragraph (1) of the ‘‘homeless’’ definition in 24 CFR § 578.3, (1) An individual or family who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, meaning:
i. An individual or family with a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings, including a car, park, abandoned building, bus or train station, airport, or camping ground; ii. An individual or family living in a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designated to provide temporary living arrangements (including congregate shelters, transitional housing, and hotels and motels paid for by charitable organizations or by federal, State, or local government programs for low-income individuals); or

iii. An individual who is exiting an institution where he or she resided for 90 days or less and who resided in an emergency shelter or place not meant for human habitation immediately before entering that institution;

b. An individual or family who will imminently lose their primary nighttime residence, provided:
i. The primary nighttime residence will be lost within 14 days of the date of application for homeless assistance;
ii. No subsequent residence has been identified; and
iii. The individual or family lacks the resources or support networks, e.g., family, friends, faith-based or other social networks, needed to obtain other permanent housing; c. Any individual or family who:
58 of 130

10 | P a g e F Y 2 0 2 1 - 2024 M E A S U R E H R F P | H u m a n - S e r v i c e s / H o m e l e s s - S e r v i c e s

i. Is fleeing, or is attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or other dangerous or life -threatening conditions that relate to violence against the individual or a family member, including a child, that has either taken place within the individual’s or family’s primary nighttime residence or has made the individual or family afraid to return to their primary nighttime residence;
ii. Has no other residence; and
iii. Lacks the resources or support networks, e.g., family, friends, faith-based or other social networks, to obtain other permanent housing.

3. Eligible Costs and Services
RRH projects may provide eligible program participants with these services (24 CFR 578.37 (a)(1)ii), 24 CFR 578.51, 24 CFR 578.53) listed below:
a. Rental Assistance (24 CFR 578.51)
i. Short-term (up to 3 months) and Medium term (up to 6 months) ii. Security Deposits (up to 2 months)
iii. First and last month’s rent
iv. Property damage
v. Hotel/Motel Vouchers
b. Supportive Services costs (24 CFR 578.53 (e)
i. Assistance with Moving Costs
ii. Case Management (limited to max .25 FTE of staff time) iii. Childcare
iv. Education Services
v. Employment Assistance/Job Training/ Food
vi. Housing Search and Counseling Services
vii. Life Skills trainings
viii. Outpatient health services (includes mental health services and substance abuse treatment services) ix. Outreach Services
x. Transportation
xi. Utility Deposit

4. Rapid Re -housing Projects supported by Measure H funds shall be administered by the City in a manner consistent with federal CoC program as set forth in 24 CFR Part 578, except as otherwise provided in these Program Requirements and the Glendale CoC Written Standards. In the event of any inconsistency between the requirements of the Glendale Measure H Rapid Re -housing Program and the HUD Rapid Re -housing Program, the guidelines for the Glendale Measure H Rapid Re-housing Program shall prevail.

Street Outreach
Funds for Street Outreach should be used to provide the full spectrum of services and activities for a Citywide Homeless Outreach and Engagement and/or Mobile Case Management Program for unhoused Populations. It is expected that the provision of services will occur seamlessly – streamlined access to services administered by the 59 of 130

11 | P a g e F Y 2 0 2 1 - 2024 M E A S U R E H R F P | H u m a n - S e r v i c e s / H o m e l e s s - S e r v i c e s

organization. The Program must focus on engaging with homeless individuals through street outreach and providing street-based case management. As Citywide Outreach Coordinators, the selected agency or agencies will be expected to proactively identify areas to provide outreach, as well as to respond to concerns from City staff, residents, businesses, and other persons as appropriate. Program staff may also be expected to attend meetings with residents, City representatives, businesses, or other persons as appropriate in an effort to address their concerns.

Applicants must demonstrate how their proposed program will adhere to th is structure and how services will be coordinated among agencies.

Street Outreach may provide eligible program participants with the following services:

1) Coordination of street outreach and engagement;
2) Locate, identify and build relationships with unsheltered people experiencing homelessness; 3) Facilitate the housing match process;
4) Maximize the use of CES & CoC Resources;
5) Address urgent physical and mental health needs through providing linkage and referral; 6) Actively connect and provide referrals for mainstream benefits and housing resources; 7) Complete initial assessment and eligibility screening; and 8) Create partnership with other outreach systems/programs.

Coordinated Entry System (Housing Navigators & Housing Locators) Funds should be used to expand housing navigation within the Glendale CoC to ensure effective housing navigation services to homeless persons who have been successfully engaged by street outreach workers, including those living in highly visible homeless encampments.

Housing Navigators & Housing Locators may provide eligible program participants with the following services:

1) Link and support people to access housing resources, including the utilization of bridge housing; 2) Assist participants in creating an individualized housing plan; 3) Address barriers identified in the plan or during other navigation activities; 4) Assisting with acquiring and completing any documentation/forms required for housing (including housing applications);
5) Housing search assistance (including attending property owner meetings or setting appointments; 6) Securing housing (including inspections, utility startups, and the actual move into housing); 7) Provide support with gathering documents and any needed process in order to obtain housing ; and 8) Assisting participants in connecting with leveraged resources including: Crisis/Bridge Housing, Employment Services, Vocational Training, Education, Benefits Connection, Legal Services, Mental Health Services, Physical Health Services, Reunification/Diversion, etc.

Persons eligible for Housing Navigation services will:

• Meet the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Category 1 definition of homelessness.
(HUD At a Glance Criteria and Recordkeeping Requirements for Definition of Homeless ) • Have been assessed using the CES Assessment tool (VI -SPDAT) resulting in an acuity score that reflects the need for housing navigation services, generally 8+, or otherwise exhibit characteristics indicative of a need for assistance to access appropriate housing options. • Priority will be given to individuals experiencing homelessness in the City of Glendale.

60 of 130

12 | P a g e F Y 2 0 2 1 - 2024 M E A S U R E H R F P | H u m a n - S e r v i c e s / H o m e l e s s - S e r v i c e s

Enhance the Emergency Shelter System (funding for new shelter beds & Capital) Funds may be used to enhance the emergency shelter system’s ability to serve by increasing bed capacity.

Adding beds to the system will decrease the gap in shelter services. The purpose of this safe, low -barrier and supportive crisis housing beds must be designed to facilitate permanent housing placement.

In addition, funds may be utilized to provide motel vouchers for homeless persons who are unwilling or unable to utilize traditional shelter. The purpose of the Motel Voucher Program is to place persons experiencing homelessness into motel rooms as temporary housing, as a way to stabilize, build trust, and engage persons who would otherwise be unlikely to accept services and thus remain on the street. The ultimate goal for each program participant placed in motel housing will be the attainment of permanent housing.

However, matching the program participant to a permanent housing resource will be an important preliminary step in that path to permanent housing.

The Motel Voucher Program must target persons who are resistant to shelter or otherwise difficult to engage, and who without the offer of motel housing would be unlikely to agree to VI-SPDAT assessment or to working with a housing navigator. Provider must identify specific areas of focus for strengthening the implementation and impact of emergency shelter. Such as:

• Promote dignity and respect for every person seeking or needing shelter • Divert people from the homelessness service system when possible • Adopt a Housing First approach and create low-barrier access to emergency shelter • Equip emergency shelters to serve as a platform for housing access

Persons eligible for motel voucher assistance will:

IV. CONTRACT MANAGEMENT & PROGRAM MONITORING

Funded agencies will be required to maintain and submit to the City of Glendale Community Services & Parks Department adequate information necessary to monitor program accountability and progress in accordance with City of Glendale requirements. These conditions include programmatic reports, invoices with supporting documentation of eligible expenditures and insurance/contract requirements as stated within the RFP.

Performance Metrics
Successful Applicants shall be required to submit Quarterly Progress Reports and participate in regular meetings with the Glendale Continuum of Care (CoC) Committee and HMIS data quality workgroup to review program performance and compliance with HMIS reporting requirements.

These meetings shall be held quarterly and shall include representatives from the grantee and the CoC. The purpose of these meetings shall be to review and discuss progress made towards achieving program outcomes, as well as to identify and address any challenges that arise.

To facilitate these meetings, the successful applicant shall be required to maintain accurate and up-to-date records in the HMIS system, including client-level data, service data, and other data elements required by the 61 of 130

13 | P a g e F Y 2 0 2 1 - 2024 M E A S U R E H R F P | H u m a n - S e r v i c e s / H o m e l e s s - S e r v i c e s

CoC. The successful bidder shall also be required to provide timely and accurate reports to the City on a monthly basis, detailing progress towards achieving program outcomes, as well as any issues or challenges encountered.

The performance measures are designed to measure Glendale CoC’s performance as a coordinated system as opposed to homeless programs operating independently of the CoC. The measures are interrelated and help to provide a holistic view of system performance for the CoC. To facilitate this perspective, the CoC team is measuring its performance as a coordinated system, in addition to analyzing performance by specific program and project. Program Components: Homelessness Prevention (HP), Street Outreach (SO), Supportive Services Only (SSO), Emergency Shelter (ES), Transitional Housing (TH) and Permanent Housing – Permanent Supportive Housing (PH- PSH), and Permanent Housing – Rapid Re-housing (PH-RRH). See Appendix A:

Glendale Performance Metrics Table

All proposals should address the alignment of proposed programs with at least two of the following system performance goals:

• Reduce the number of persons experiencing homelessness. • Reduce the number of persons who become newly homeless (first time homeless). • Reduce the length of time persons remain homeless.
• Increase successful placement in permanent housing.
• Reduce recurrence to homelessness after placement in permanent housing • Employment and income growth for people experiencing homelessness. • Increasing Successful Placements from Street Outreach

More information on the HUD system performance measures can be found at: System Performance Measures

V. PROPOSAL SELECTION AND APPEALS PROCESS
Application Threshold Requirements
An Application must meet threshold requirements as described below to be eligible for rating and ranking:

1. The application is received by the published RFP deadline

2. The applicant is an eligible applicant as described in Section I.

An application may be deemed ineligible if the application does not meet threshold requirements or if the application is incomplete and the Department cannot determine compliance with threshold requirements. The Department may also request clarification of unclear or ambiguous statements made in the application and other supporting documents when doing so will not impact the competitive scoring of the application.

Once all applications are received, proposals will be analyzed by City staff as to completeness in addressing questions in the Funding Application, or other funding requirements. Staff will be making funding recommendations to CoC Board. CoC Board will approve final recommendations for sub-recipients.

An applicant may not be recommended for funding, regardless of the merits of the application submitted, if it has a history of contract non-compliance with the requirements of the City or other funding source or poor past performance with any City funded project. The applicant may be given a provisional award with the stipulation 62 of 130

14 | P a g e F Y 2 0 2 1 - 2024 M E A S U R E H R F P | H u m a n - S e r v i c e s / H o m e l e s s - S e r v i c e s

that special terms and conditions regarding the areas of concern will be a part of the contract.

Evaluation Criteria

All applications that meet threshold requirements will be rated based on the following criteria:

1. Project Design: Demonstration of long-term sustainability and funding sources beyond the initial grant period, expansion of services, the pursuit of ambitious yet actionable outcome goals, and integration of best practices in their proposed project and the extent to which concepts, such as housing First, Harm Reduction, and Trauma- informed Care are embedded.

2. Organizational Capacity & Experience: Successful experience performing activities related to those listed in this RFP and the capacity to meet the performance outcomes.

3. Racial Equity: Specific actions the applicant has taken and will take to ensure racial and gender equity in service delivery, housing placements, and housing retention and other means of affirming racial and ethnic groups that are overrepresented among residents experiencing homelessness have equitable access to housing and services.

4. Data Collection and Program Performance: Demonstration of the extent to which the proposal is integrated with the Continuum of Care system as well as past performance as a sub-recipient.

5. Budget and Narrative: Demonstrated cost-effectiveness, feasibility, reasonableness, and optimization of the proposed budget.

6. Overall Quality, Coherence, and Completeness: Complete and accurate application with all required attachments and narratives that directly addresses questions.

Each criterion will be rated separately. A composite score will be computed for each proposal based on a weighted sum of the individual ratings.

The original proposal, the staff analysis, and the response to the staff analysis will be reviewed and evaluated by the Glendale CoC Board. In addition, representatives from proposing organizations will be required to meet with and interviewed by the Glendale CoC Board to discuss their proposals.

Appeals – Agencies that do not meet the threshold score or who are not recommended for funding may appeal and address the members of the Glendale CoC Board Appeal Panel based only on the following guidelines (agencies recommended or only partial funding are not eligible to request an appeal):

Section Points
Program Design 35pts
Organization Experience and Capacity 20pts
Racial Equity 15pts
Data Collection and Program Performance 15pts
Budget and Narrative 10pts
Overall Quality, Coherence, and Completeness 5pts
63 of 130

15 | P a g e F Y 2 0 2 1 - 2024 M E A S U R E H R F P | H u m a n - S e r v i c e s / H o m e l e s s - S e r v i c e s

a) If the project is not selected for funding, the agency has the right to appeal, provided that the appeal is based upon Glendale CoC Board violations of program regulations or errors on the part of the Board or staff. For example, reviewing members did not consistently follow the scoring criteria and process, as detailed above or there was a conflict of interest that prevented a fair review of the proposal. b) No appeals will be heard on the basis of funding level.

c) Agency’s written appeal must be submitted within the timeline indicated in the notification letter.

Each agency will have the opportunity to present the appeal to the Glendale CoC Board. Each agency will receive a written notification on the outcome of the appeal.

VI. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION
For funding consideration, all projects must meet the City of Glendale’s project eligibility requirements as defined in this RFP. Agencies and/or organizations responding to this RFP must complete the attached funding application. Agencies applying for more than one project must submit separate applications for each project proposed.

Required Attachments
The application must be submitted with all attachments as requested. Failure to submit any of these documents in the application may result in ineligibility of the application . Do not include any other attachments, brochures or information not requested in this application.

MANDATORY ATTACHMENTS | To complete Application, the following are attachments need to be submitted electronically to the City via [email protected] ☐ A. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax-exempt determination letter (501) c3 ☐ B. Most recent financial audit, including management letters and any findings or concerns ☐ C. Budget & Budget Narrative
☐ D. Pre-Award Risk Assessment Worksheet
☐ E. Housing First Policy & Program Policies and Procedures ☐ C. Board Contact Information and Current Organizational Chart ☐ D. Federal System for Award Management (SAM) Registration ☐ E. Proof of Registration with the California Secretary of State ☐ F. Résumés / Job Description of Key Staff
☐ G. Past Performance APR

VII. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Funds from this grant program may not replace funds from other sources.

B. Agencies contracting with the City may be subject to fiscal review prior to finalization of award. During such review, the agency must demonstrate appropriate administrative and financial controls as approved 64 of 130

16 | P a g e F Y 2 0 2 1 - 2024 M E A S U R E H R F P | H u m a n - S e r v i c e s / H o m e l e s s - S e r v i c e s

by City staff.

C. Projects supported by the City of Glendale funds must be of primary benefi t to homeless persons or who are experiencing at-risk of homelessness and who are living in the City of Glendale and should be focused on providing direct services to program participants. Services under these contracts must be delivered within the city limits of Glendale.

D. Operating Agreement: Applicants approved for funding will be required to sign a Contract with the City to ensure compliance with civil rights laws, and Federal Executive Orders. Funds are subject to Federal and local regulations including , but not limited to: non -discrimination, equal opportunity, accessibility, lead-based paint, audits, procurement and environmental review. RFP and the proposal evaluation process do not constitute an agreement by the City that it will actually enter into any contract with any Proposer. i. The City reserves the right to negotiate further the terms and conditions of the Contract. The Proposer whom the City Council selects must cooperate with the City in good faith to negotiate, sign, and deliver the final Contract. The City will draft the Contract and may require the selected Proposer to attend one or more Contract negotiation conferences to discuss possible:
• Revisions to the Contract’s service -related terms, conditions, requirements, specifications, or minimum performance standards, other than the insurance and the indemnity provisions; and • Additions to the Contract, by the parties’ mutual agreement, or as a City Ordinance or Resolution, the City’s Charter or Municipal Code, or any other law may require.

E. OMB Administrative Requirements and Cost Principles. Contractors will ensure that an annu al financial audit is performed in compliance with the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, set forth in 2 CFR part 200.

F. Non-discrimination in Services and Employment: Applicants approved for funding shall not, in accordance with Federal law, discriminate in the provision of services hereunder because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age or physical or mental handicap as identified in Section 109 of the Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and 24 CFR § 570.602. In addition, contractor shall not discriminate in the provision of services hereunder because of religious belief, creed, medical condition, blindness, sexual orientation, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, citizenship, gender identity, domestic partner status or AIDS or HIV status.

G. Applicants approved for funding shall certify and agree not to discriminate against any employee or person who is employed or compensated in whole or in part using funds provided under this Agreement because of race, color, creed, religion, religious belief, national origin, ancestry, citizenship, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, medical condition, physical or mental disability, gender identity, domestic partner status or AIDS or HIV status.

H. Funds may be awarded to faith or religious-based organizations performing public social service activities, provided certain contractual provisions are included in agreements between the City and the entity. The grant agreement must include contract conditions stating that the social services provided are exclusively non-religious in nature and scope, there are no religious services, proselytizing, instruction, or any other religious influences in connection with the public services and there is no religious discrimination in terms of employment or benefits under the social service project.

I. Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Requirement – Any applicant seeking funding directly or indirectly from federal agencies must obtain a DUNS number. Failure to provide a DUNS number will prevent you from obtaining an awa rd. The number can be registered or 65 of 130

17 | P a g e F Y 2 0 2 1 - 2024 M E A S U R E H R F P | H u m a n - S e r v i c e s / H o m e l e s s - S e r v i c e s

verified by calling 866-705-571. For additional information, please visit http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform.

Applicants are reminded that when registering with D&B, to be sure to use the organization’s legal name that is used when filing a return with or making payments to the Internal Revenue Service. Organizations should also provide the Zip Code, using the Zip Code plus the four additional di gits. The DUNS number used in the application must be for the applicant organization.

J. Active Registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) – All applicant organizations must have an active registration in the SAM. To register, please visit https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/; you will need your DUNS number. The SAM is an ongoing project to integrate nine government wide acquisition and award support s ystems into one system. Currently, the SAM consolidates information from four systems: the Central Contractor Registry (CCR), Federal Agency Registration (Fedreg), Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA), and Excluded Parties List System (EPLS).

K. Safeguarding Resident/Participant Files. In maintaining resident and participant records, recipients shall observe federal, state, and local laws concerning the disclosure of records that pertain to individuals.

Further, recipients are required to adopt and take reasonable measures to ensure that resident and participant records are safeguarded. This includes when reviewing, printing, or copying participant records.

VIII. CONDITIONS AND RESERVATIONS
Identifying Proprietary Information; Public Records Act A Proposer must identify and list all copyrighted material, trade secrets, or other proprietary information (“protectable documents”) that the Proposer included in its Proposal which Proposer believes should be exempt from disclosure under California’s Public Records Act, Government Code Section 6250, et seq. (See: PF:33).

By listing the documents, the Proposer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents, employees, and representatives from and against any action, claim, lawsuit, or proceeding, including costs and expenses, arising out of or connected with the City’s refusal to disclose the protectable documents to any party making a request for those items.

The City will treat any Proposer, who fails to identify documents that the Proposer believes should be exempt from disclosure, as having waived its right to an exemption from disclosure, as the Public Records Act provides.

All Proposals and other material submitted become the property of the City and may be returned only at the City’s option. The City reserves the right to use any ideas presented in any response to the RFP. Selection or rejection of the Proposal does not affect this right.

A. The City of Glendale shall not, in any event, be liable for any costs incurred by applicants prior to entering into a formal contract. The costs of developing the proposals or any other such expenses incurred by the applicant in responding to the RFP, are entirely the responsibility of the applicant, and shall not be reimbursed in any matter by the City.

B. The proposal must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this application. The City may accept amendments to Proposals after the Proposal Deadline if it best serves the City’s interests.

C. The City of Glendale reserves the right to retain all submitted applications and the applications s hall become the property of the City of Glendale. Applications may be disclosed under the California Public Records Act at a later date. Any department or agency of the City shall have the right to use any or all ideas presented in applications submitted i n response to this RFP without any change or limitation.

Selection or rejection of a proposal does not affect these rights. 66 of 130

18 | P a g e F Y 2 0 2 1 - 2024 M E A S U R E H R F P | H u m a n - S e r v i c e s / H o m e l e s s - S e r v i c e s

D. The City of Glendale reserves the right to communicate with funders or providers associated with the applicant to obtain additional clarification of design, program or agency fiscal and programmatic capacities and to utilize this information in the evaluation process. This includes verification of sources of match and leverage as stated within the application submission.

E. The City of Glendale reserves the right to conduct scheduled and unscheduled site visits of agency applicants by City staff, County, State and Federal funding entities.

F. The City of Glendale reserves the right to reject any or all applications received in answer to this RFP if deemed incomplete or inappropriate.

G. The City of Glendale makes no representation that any contract will be awarded to any applicant responding to this RFP.

H. The City of Glendale reserves the right to change application components, including services, costs, and program design, as it sees fit to better meet the City, Los Angeles County, and/or local requirements.

IX. CONTRACT CONDITIONS

A. Contractors will be required to comply with conditions set forth by the City of Glendale in this RFP. • The City’s policy is that the Contract be accepted as is. Contractors will be required to comply with conditions set forth by the City of Glendale in its executed contract with contractor and any conditions and requirements for subcontractors set forth by Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office in its executed contract with the City.

B. The City reserves the right to negotiate further the terms and conditions of the Contract. The Proposer whom the city council selects must cooperate with the City in good faith to negotiate, sign and deliver the final Contract. The City will draft the contract and may require the selected Proposer to attend one or more contract negotiation conferences to discuss possible:
• Revisions to the contract’s service-related terms, conditions, requirements, specifications, or minimum performance standards, other than the insurance and the indemnity provisions; and • Additions to the contract, by the parties’ mutual agreement, or as a city ordinance or resolution, the city’s charter or municipal code, or any other law may require.

C. City’s Reservation of Rights
This RFP and the proposal evaluation process do not:
• Obligate the City to accept or select any Proposal;
• Constitute an agreement by the City that it will actually enter into any contract with any Proposer.

When it best serves the City’s interests, the City may do any one or more of the following:
• Reject any Proposal or all Proposals at its sole discretion. • Extend the deadline for accepting Proposals.
• Accelerate the pace of the RFP process if only one or a handful of Proposals is received. • Waive any or all information, defects, irregularities, or informalities in a Proposal. • Accept amendments to Proposals after the Proposal Deadline. • Amend, revise, or change the RFP’s evaluation or selection criteria. 67 of 130

19 | P a g e F Y 2 0 2 1 - 2024 M E A S U R E H R F P | H u m a n - S e r v i c e s / H o m e l e s s - S e r v i c e s

• Cancel, withdraw, amend, revise, change, or negotiate the terms of this RFP, the proposed Contract, or both.
• Reissue a Request for Proposals.
• Conduct one or more oral interviews.
• Visit a Proposer’s facilities or business.
• Examine financial records of a Proposer to the extent necessary to ensure financial stability. • Make a partial award.
• Negotiate with one or more Proposers.
• Award contracts to one or more Proposers.
• Require a best and final offer from one or more Proposers. • Provide or perform the Services using a City officer or employee, or contract directly— without an RFP or bids— for the Services.

D. The City must have an executed contract with the funding entity and an executed contract with each subcontractor prior to reimbursement of funded activities under this RFP. Agencies will NOT be reimbursed for eligible costs incurred prior to the operational period. The City will not reimburse any agency for incurred project costs beyond the contract operational period as detailed in an executed City contract.

E. Insurance Requirements: Public and community non -profit agencies approved for Measure H funding will be required to obtain insurance, evidenced by an original certificate of insurance and endorsement.

The required insurance is as follows:

a. Comprehensive General Liability: The insurance must be written for the limits of liability specified below

(1) ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per occurrence, or the full per occurrence limits of the policy― whichever limit is greater― for bodily injury (including accidental death) to any one person;

(2) ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per occurrence, or the full per occurrence limits of the policy― whichever limit is greater― for personal and advertising injury to any one person;

(3) ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per occurrence, or the full per occurrence limits of the policy― whichever limit is greater― for property damage; and

(4) TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000) general aggregate limit, or the full aggregate limits of the policy― whichever limit is greater.

b. Automobile Liability: Insurance coverage shall include automobile coverage for projects involving the use of automobiles. The insurance must not be written for less than the limits of liability specified below or required by law, whichever coverage amount is greater:

(1) ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury (including accidental death) to any 68 of 130

20 | P a g e F Y 2 0 2 1 - 2024 M E A S U R E H R F P | H u m a n - S e r v i c e s / H o m e l e s s - S e r v i c e s

one person; and (2) ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per occurrence for property damage; or (3) TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000) combined single limit (“CSL”).

c. Workers’ Compensation: Insurance coverage for Workers’ Compensation shall be obtained and maintained through the duration of the project.

(1) Complete Workers’ Compensation insurance, meeting or exceeding the coverages and amounts that California law requires; and
(2) Employer’s Liability insurance in an amount not less than: (i) ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease; (ii) ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per employee for bodily injury or disease; and (iii)ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) policy limit.

d. Certificate and Endorsement: Awarding applicants shall provide City with a “certificate of insurance,” an “additional insured endorsement,” and a subrogation endorsement, “Waiver of Transfer to Rights of Recovery Against Others”— on forms satisfactory to the City Attorney or City’s Risk Manager, and signed by the insurance carrier or its authorized representative— which fully meet the requirements of, and contain provisions entirely consistent with, all of the Insurance Requirements.

e. Rating of Insurance Company: At all times, the insurance company issuing said policy shall be an “admitted” insurer in the State of California; shall be domiciled within, and organized under the laws of, a state of the United States; and shall carry an A.M. Best & Company minimum rating of “A:VII.”

Organization shall within thirty (30) days prior to expiration of this insurance, furnish to the City certificates of insurance and endorsements evidencing renewal of the insurance. The City reserves the right to require complete certified copies of all policies of Organization and Organization’s contractors and subcontractors, at any time.

F. Financial Requirements: Agencies contracting with the City may be subject to fiscal review prior to finalization of award. The focus of the review is to verify that the accounting system is adequate. If awarded a grant, the contractor shall establish a tracking system that will clearly and distinctly identify units of services and/or direct costs applicable to the services to be rendered under this contract. The contractor shall be required to submit invoices for the funds in a format to be established by the City.

The City’s obligation to pay any sum for any fiscal year shall be contingent upon receipt of funds and upon appropriation by the City Council of the necessary funds for such payment by the City in each fiscal year during the term of contracts awarded. In the event that the City Council of the City of Glendale fails to appropriate the necessary funds for any fiscal year, the contracts awarded for that period will not be funded and/or renewed.

The following fiscal and accounting procedures shall be required:
• Maintain a bank account and perform monthly bank reconciliation. • Designate specific employees to perform each of the following functions:

• Receipt for goods and services provided to Contractor. • Approve the purchase of goods and services for Contractor. • Approve employee time worked.
• Deposit all receipts in the bank account promptly and intact. (Do not pay any expense directly out of cash receipts.)
• Maintain bank-validated copies for every deposit slip in chronological order. Each deposit slip should include sufficient detail to explain the source of the funds being deposited. (This may be 69 of 130

21 | P a g e F Y 2 0 2 1 - 2024 M E A S U R E H R F P | H u m a n - S e r v i c e s / H o m e l e s s - S e r v i c e s

done by recording the details on the deposit slip or by attaching supporting documentation, which may have been received with the receipts.)
• Disburse all funds by check, preferably signed by two officers of the contractor, neither of who is the bookkeeper or the accounting clerk.
• Maintain documented support for every check written, which should include:
• Original invoice from vendor.
• Indication by signature and date of an authorized employee that the goods or services were received by the contractor. (This may be done on a separate receiving report, a copy of the packing slip or on the invoice itself).
• Indication that the goods or services were approved for purchase by an authorized individual (This should be by signature and date and should appear on the invoice or on the purchase requisition, if the contractor uses such).
• Maintain and file all required tax and payroll reports with appropriate Federal and State agencies. • Maintain the following records in an orderly fashion by contractor's fiscal year until audited by the City:
• Bank Statements and Bank Reconciliation
• Deposit slips and supports
• Checks and supports Payroll records
• Cash receipts and disbursements journals
• Monthly financial statements
• Requests for reimbursements from the City and appropriate supporting documents
• Maintain individual participant files in accordance with the Glendale CoC written standards to include, but not limited to, proof of homelessness, proof of disability, as applicable, income status, proof of resident rent calculations, program fees collected and/or savings programs, intake forms, assessments, HMIS exit forms, and documentation of services. • Maintain proper tracking, documentation, management and uses for program fees, client savings programs and resident rent calculations.
• Full Cooperation for an Audit by the City Auditor, as deemed necessary.

G. Contractor shall allow representatives of the City of Glendale to inspect facilities, which are used in conjunction with the contracts made to implement programs funded under this proposal.

H. Each contractor must comply fully with all the requirements specified in this RFP. The responsibility for accuracy rests entirely with the applicant.

I. Contractors shall make available to representatives of the City of Glendale upon reasonable notice, all documentation related to the program funded by this contract (i.e., case files, program files, policies and procedures). Demographic information about clients will be regularly transmitted to the City of Glendale Community Services & Parks Department in a manner consistent with agreements protecting client and/or agency confidentiality rights.

J. On the City’s application form, Contractor must disclose any prior or ongoing contract failures, and any civil or criminal litigation or investigation involving the Contractor. Failure to d isclose the required information may disqualify a proposal. The City reserves the right to reject a proposal based upon the Contractor’s prior history with the City or with any other party, which documents, without limitation, unsatisfactory performance, a dversarial or contentious demeanor, significant failure(s) to meet contract milestones or other contractual failures.
70 of 130

22 | P a g e F Y 2 0 2 1 - 2024 M E A S U R E H R F P | H u m a n - S e r v i c e s / H o m e l e s s - S e r v i c e s

K. Contractors acknowledge that, as recipients of Los Angeles County funds, they will be required to comply with regulations pertaining to the use of such funds. All regulations will be enumerated in the contract and will be incorporated by reference. It will be the contractor's responsibility to assure compliance with applicable regulations. To the extent feasible, the City of Glendale will provide the successful bidders with the applicable regulations.

L. Contractors will ensure an annual financial audit is performed in compliance with the Federal Single Audit Act and will submit a copy of the audit report to the City of Glendale Community Services & Parks Department, with the funding application and six months after the end of the contractor's fiscal year.

M. Contractors acknowledge that funds are NOT meant to replace or supplant other sources of funding and contractor will assure funds awarded are not used to replace or supplant other funds.

N. Contractors shall maintain any applicable licenses or permits, and meet any facilities code regulations required for the program(s) funded under this contract at the contractor’s expense.

O. Contractors shall participate in local CoC planning, networking, training, capacity building, advisory boards and coordination meetings as appropriate.

P. Contractors shall cooperate with related research and evaluation activities.

Q. Contractors will be required to sign certification on lobbying and debarment.

[ PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. SEE APPENDIX ON NEXT PAGE]

71 of 130

23 | P a g e F Y 2 0 2 1 - 2024 M E A S U R E H R F P | H u m a n - S e r v i c e s / H o m e l e s s - S e r v i c e s

Appendix A: Glendale CoC Performance Metrics

Performance Metrics Description Outcome Goal Applicable Projects

Achieve the target annual
outreach and engagement
numbers for homeless
individuals and families

Meet the required number
of persons to be engaged
annually

40-89 persons
minimum

Street Outreach
Reduce Length of Time
Homelessness

Number of program
participants who obtain
permanent housing within
120 days of program
enrollment
≤ 120 days Emergency Shelter, Rapid Rehousing

Time spent in homeless
Number of program
participants who remain in
shelters/ homeless
situations
≤ 270 days Emergency Shelter, Transitional
Housing
Length of time between
Client’s Project Start Date
and Move-In Date
Length of time for
program participants to
obtain an apartment since
program enrollment date
≤ 90 days Rapid Rehousing, Permanent
Supportive Housing
Reduce Recidivism

Limit returns to homelessness
within six months of program
exit

Decrease the number of
persons exiting from
permanent housing to
homelessness (includes
shelters and temporary
destinations
≤ 2%

(Less than 2%)
Rapid Rehousing, Homeless
Prevention
Successful Placements from
Street Outreach
Increase the number of
unsheltered participants
referrals and placements
in hotel/motel, shelters,
recuperative care, and
other transitional housing
destination

At least 70%
of members

Street Outreach
Bed/unit utilization rate

Increase daily utilization
of beds / project
occupancy

90%

Emergency Shelter & Transitional
Housing
Increase the number of
persons exiting to permanent
housing
Number of program
participants who obtain
permanent housing (RRH)
or retain existing housing
(HP)
RRH: 70% of
participants exit to
permanent housing

HP: 80% of
participants exit to
permanent housing
Rapid Rehousing, Homeless
Prevention, Emergency Shelter, &
Transitional Housing
72 of 130

24 | P a g e F Y 2 0 2 1 - 2024 M E A S U R E H R F P | H u m a n - S e r v i c e s / H o m e l e s s - S e r v i c e s

Performance Metrics Description Outcome Goal Applicable Projects Increased income Adults being served in
Glendale CoC projects
must increase earned
income and their other
income (i.e. GR, SSI,

SOAR, TANF, VA
Benefits) from year to
year and
between their enrollment
in the system and their
exit
15% of
participants must
increase their
income before
exiting the
program
Rapid Rehousing, Emergency
Shelter, and Transitional Housing
Retention of persons in
permanent housing
Number of program
participants who retain
permanent housing unit
after leasing up
95% All projects
Data Quality Reduce the number of
persons exiting with
Unknown Destinations
(“Client Doesn’t
know/Client Refused” or
“Data not Collected no
exit interview
completed)”

≤ 5%

All projects

73 of 130

Exhibit 2
CoC Board Proposed Funding Recommendations
Measure H
BOARD DECISIONOrganizations Budget
Agency & Project E7 HousingA1 & A5
PreventionA1 & A5 Prevention $83,994 B3 RRH E6 Outreach Location/ Navigator
Admin TOTAL MOTION
Nonprofits
(subrecipients)
Approve funding
recommendation
Younesian
B3 RRH $210,485 $74,321.00 $74,321.00 Motion:City of Glendale ‐ Admin Armenian Relief Society
Ascencia
E6 Outreach
E7 Housing
$45,420
$50,287
$211,997.55
$0.00
Motion by:
2nd by:
$49,213.70 $139,393.10 $23,390.75
Krikorian
12/26/2025
12:20:00 PM
Disqualified during first round, Ineligibile for additional funding City(recipient) Admin $74,321 Home Again Los Angeles $178,188.45 Date/Time:$68,854.00 $95,860.00 $13,474.45 Total: $464,507 TOTAL: $118,067.70 $235,253.10 $0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$36,865.20 $74,321.00 $464,507.00
$464,507.00
$0.00
TOTAL AVAILABLE:* $118,067.70
$0.00
$235,253.10
$0.00
$36,865.20 $74,321.00
Revised Budget by Board Recommendation Difference (should be $0): $0.00 $0.00 Budget
CategoryOrganizations
A1 & A5 Prevention $118,067.70
$235,253.10B3 RRH
Nonprofits
(subrecipients) E6 Outreach $0.00
E7 Housing
Location/Navigator
Admin
$36,865.20
$74,321.00City(recipient)
Total: $464,507.00
74 of 130

75 of 130

76 of 130

77 of 130

78 of 130

79 of 130

4f
25-87786

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Contract Award for the Design Build of the Fire Systems Improvements at Various City Facilities Project

2. Resolution of Appropriation for $52,500.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for May 6, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Fire Systems Improvements at Various City Facilities Project includes the replacement of the Police Building’s fire alarm panels, installation of a pre-action fire sprinkler system at the General Services Building (GSB) Radio Room, and replacement of fire sprinkler piping at Fire Station 21 Verdugo Dispatch. The intent of this item is for the City Council to approve the contract with GFS in the amount of $525,000 plus a 10% reserve for contingencies of $52,500. A resolution of appropriation is needed to provide adequate funding for the project.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the motion to authorize the execution of the contract with GFS in the amount of $525,000, plus a 10% contingency of $52,500 for Design-Build of the Fire Systems Improvements at Various City Facilities Project and a resolution of appropriation to provide adequate funding for the project.

ANALYSIS
Police Building Fire Alarm Panels
The project entails a significant degree of complexity and specialty that demands a level of expertise that a design-build approach will provide. The fire alarm control panels at the Police Building are outdated and no longer able to receive upgrades. After more than 20 years of service life, it is now necessary to install new fire system panels to maintain compliance of the fire-life-safety system at this facility. This project includes the 80 of 130

4f2
25-87786
5 9
7 3
replacement of four fire alarm panels that are manufactured by Edwards Systems Technology (EST); the new panel will be current generation EST panels in order to preserve the compatibility with the rest of the system and minimize the cost of the improvements. These four fire panels consolidate fire detection alarm points such as smoke and heat alarms, and active alert points such as strobes lights and audible alarms.

GSB Radio Room Pre-action System
Installation of a pre-action system at the GSB will provide a level of protection to the primary city-wide radio communication hardware from the building's fire sprinkler system.

The existing fire suppression system at the Radio Room is a wet-pipe system. The preferred and safer system for a data room is a dry-pipe system. The dry-pipe system provides extra protection of expensive and critical electrical equipment from potential water leaks. Since the current Radio Room was not originally designed to house data equipment, a pre-action system was not originally installed. The pre-action system installation is a retrofit within the existing fire sprinkler system that will improve the protection and reliability of the critical radio equipment.

Fire Sprinkler Piping at Fire Station 21 Verdugo Dispatch Over the past few years, the Public Works Department (PWD) has made emergency repairs to leaking fire sprinkler pipes at the Fire Station 21 Verdugo Dispatch area. While the repairs have been successful, the recurrence of leaks in this area are indicative of poor-quality pipe. To ensure the protection and reliability of the dispatch operations, it is prudent to replace a large section of the existing fire sprinkler pipe that transects the third floor.

On July 9, 2024, the City Council approved Resolution No. 24-124 authorizing the Director of Public Works to issue a request for proposals (RFP) using the design-build alternative project delivery method for the Fire Systems Improvements at Various City Facilities Project and authorizing the Director of Public Works to solicit proposals.

On February 3, 2025, an RFP was issued for the Design-Build of the Fire Systems Improvements at Various City Facilities Project. Six contractors expressed interest; however, only GFS submitted a proposal, with the remaining citing heavy current workloads as the reason for not participating. GFS proposed amount was originally $606,420, which was higher than the budgeted amount.

On March 31, 2025, Staff negotiated with GFS to lower their cost to the amount of $525,000.

Upon review of the bid documents submitted, GFS has submitted a bid in line with the current market cost considering the recent escalation in construction material and labor costs.

Staff checked the State of California Contractors License Board and found that GFS has the appropriate license that is active and in good standing. 81 of 130

4f3
25-87786
5 9
7 3
GFS has satisfactorily performed work on similar projects throughout Southern California for many municipalities in the past and received positive recommendations.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The Public Works Department will coordinate with each location to minimize any disruption to operations and the public.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Fire Systems Improvements at Various City Facilities Project will cost $577,500, a portion of which was not included as a part of the FY 2024-25 budget. Therefore, staff is requesting an appropriation of $52,500 from the Building Maintenance Fund. The funding and appropriation request is outlined below:

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$150,000 GL: 43110-4010-PWD-0020-P0000
PL: PWD00588AN
Capital Improvement Fund
$300,000 GL: 43110-6070-PWD-0020-P0000
PL: PWD01047AN
Building Maintenance Fund
$75,000 GL: 43110-6070-PWD-0020-P0000
PL: PWD00850AN
Building Maintenance Fund
Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account String) To (Account String) Funding Source $52,500 GL: 27900-6070-PWD-
0000
GL: 43110-6070-PWD-
0020-P0000
PL: PWD00850AN
Building
Maintenance Fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This project is Categorically Exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 1 and exemption pursuant state CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10 percent interest in the company submitted their proposals or recommended for contract in this Agenda Item Report are attached in Exhibit 1, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Direct staff to complete only the improvements that are required by code. 82 of 130

4f4
25-87786
5 9
7 3
Alternative 2: Consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Daniel Hernandez, Director of Public Works
Prepared by:

Arthur Asaturyan, Senior Project Manager
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Campaign Disclosure Forms
83 of 130

4f
MOTION
Moved by Council Member _____________________________________, seconded by Council Member ______________________________________, that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby:

1. Authorizes the City Manager, or a designee, to execute a contract – subject to approval by the City Attorney - with Glendale Fire Systems, Inc. for the Design- Build of the Fire Systems Improvements at Various City Facilities Project, as described in Specification 3961, for the amount of five hundred twenty-five thousand dollars ($525,000).

2. Authorizes a 10 percent reserve for contingency, equal to fifty-two thousand five hundred dollars ($52,500).

Votes as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________
City Clerk
84 of 130

85 of 130

86 of 130

87 of 130

88 of 130

89 of 130

4g
25-87976

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Award Contract for the Petroleum Tank Testing and Repairs Program

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Item
Approved for May 13, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Department (PWD) is responsible for the maintenance of 34 petroleum tanks which provide fuel to city vehicles and equipment as well as to emergency backup power generators. Testing and repairs of these tank systems citywide is provided by a third-party service provider.

On April 9, 2025, two bids were received for the Petroleum Tank Testing and Repairs Program and after a thorough review, staff found the bid from Sun West Engineering Constructors, Inc., to be a responsive bid from a responsible bidder.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the motion authorizing a five-year contract with Sun West Engineering Contractors, Inc., for the Petroleum Tank Testing and Repairs Program, in the amount of $546,370 plus a 10 percent contract contingency of $54,637.

ANALYSIS
The City of Glendale owns 34 petroleum tanks, which are subject to annual or tri-annual compliance testing. This tank infrastructure is spread across various locations and includes 9 above-ground tanks, 25 underground tanks, 23 dispensers, and 36 hoses.

The regulatory compliance program covers the following locations:
•Doran Sewer Well
•San Augustine Radio Tower
•Perkins Building Generator
90 of 130

4g2
25-87976
6 0
5 0
•Brand Park
•Verdugo Park
•Nine Fire Stations
•Utility Operation Center
•Police Department
•Civic Center Garage
•Public Works Corporate Yard
This program involves the regulation of tanks by the Certified Unified Program Agency, Air Quality Management District (AQMD), and the California State Water Board.

Compliance testing includes:
•Monitor Certification
•Overfill Prevention Device
•Precision Integrity Line Test
•SB989 Secondary Containment
•R461 Vapor Recovery System
•Veeder Root Tank Management System
A total of 58 tests are required annually to ensure the tanks and monitoring systems are in proper working order, and that any alarms can be promptly addressed.

On March 4, 2025, the City Council approved the release of Specification No. 4012 for the Annual Fuel Tank Testing and Repairs Program. These specifications were distributed to five qualified firms and advertised in both the local newspaper and on the city’s website. A mandatory pre-bid meeting took place on March 19, 2025, with representatives from four of the five firms in attendance.

On April 9, 2025, the city received two bids as follows:

Vendor 5-Year Base Petroleum
Tank Testing and Repairs
Program

1. SunWest Engineering
Constructors, Inc.
$546,370

2. Tait Environmental
Services, Inc.
$597,550
Sun West Engineering Constructors, Inc. submitted a complete and responsive bid, offering the lowest total five-year cost for the base testing and maintenance of the city's fuel tank inventory. The company demonstrates a strong track record, with sufficient experience, expertise, and performance in providing tank testing and maintenance services for various municipalities and other entities. The bid rates are aligned with the historical rates Glendale has paid for similar services.

Sun West Engineering Constructors, Inc. was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder among two competing firms. Follow-up reference checks with the City of Long 91 of 130

4g3
25-87976
6 0
5 0
Beach, City of Pasadena, and City of Huntington Beach were all positive; each agency expressed satisfaction with the contractor's performance and confirmed they would rehire Sun West for future projects.

The proposed Petroleum Tank Testing and Repairs Program contract is for a five-year period, with a not-to-exceed amount of $546,370. This will cover scheduled testing, preventative maintenance, and minor repairs of fuel tank systems, including annual monitor certifications, vapor testing, secondary containment testing, precision line integrity testing, overfill prevention device testing, battery replacements, liquid sensor replacements, and rubber boot replacements.

In addition, staff recommends a 10% reserve for contingencies in the amount of $54,637.

The contingency is intended to address any incidental repair work, unexpected retesting at some sites or unforeseen field conditions that could be encountered during the work.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The testing and repair services contracts will augment PWD maintenance staff efforts to increase the reliability and conditions of all city containment systems. By combining contractors’ access to sophisticated tools and training with staff’s onsite experience and availability, Public Works is vital infrastructure and achieve regulatory compliance.

Stakeholders include City staff and visitors to City Facilities. No public outreach for this ongoing program is needed.

FISCAL IMPACT
The five-year contract with Sun West Engineering Constructors, Inc., will cost $546,370, plus a 10% contingency in the amount of $54,637, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $601,007. The cost for FY 2024-25 is approximately $10,017, which was approved as a part of the FY 2024-25 budget. No new appropriation is being requested at this time.

The City Council approved funding is outlined below:

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$10,017 43110-6010-PWD-7509-P0000 Fleet Management Fund The funding for the remaining term of the contracts will be requested as a part of the annual budget process.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This item Items includes route maintenance and repair activities and therefore, not subject to CEQA review.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements. 92 of 130

4g4
25-87976
6 0
5 0

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1: Do not approve the motion authoring a five-year contract for the Petroleum Tank Testing and Repairs Program. The city will fall out of regulatory compliance and be susceptible to enforcement actions and fines. Additionally, the reliability of fuel containment systems will be compromised.
2: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Daniel Hernandez, Director of Public Works
Prepared by:

Lala Der-Bedrossian, Acting Public Works Manager
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None.
93 of 130

4g
MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded
by Council Member , that the Council of the City of
Glendale hereby:

1. Authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a testing, maintenance and repair contract – subject to approval by the City Attorney – with Sun West Engineering Constructors, Inc. for the Petroleum Tank Testing and Repairs Program, Specification No. 4012, for the amount of $546,370.

2. Authorizes a 10 percent reserve for contingency, equal to $54.637.

Votes as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

City Clerk
94 of 130

8a
24-86878

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Adoption of Rules Pertaining to Council Meeting Procedures and Decorum

1. Intro. of Ordinance Amending Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, Sections 2.04.080,

2.04.090, 2.04.120, and 2.04.140 and Deleting Section 2.04.150

2. Resolution Adopting Rules of Order, Procedure and Decorum for the Conduct of City Council Meetings

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for May 13, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Council received a report on January 28, 2025 on revising public comment on agenda items and non-agenda items during regular meetings, rules of order and decorum, and related meeting management issues. The Council directed staff to prepare the necessary ordinance and resolution to make modifications to the City Council meetings, including oral communications, Council deliberation and instituting rules of decorum. Staff has prepared an ordinance amending the Glendale Municipal Code and a Resolution adopting rules for order, procedure and decorum in Council meetings.
95 of 130

8a2
24-86878
6 0
2 2

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council introduce the Ordinance amending the Municipal Code and consider the proposed Resolution Adopting Rules of Order, Procedure and Decorum for the Conduct of City Council Meetings

ANALYSIS
Oral Communications and Public Comments
At the January 2025 meeting, the Council reviewed different options for providing for public comment on agenda and non-agenda items. Currently, members of the public can speak on agenda items as the items are called and on non-agenda items during Oral Communications. The Council directed staff to prepare revisions to the City’s current policy to allow two periods of oral communications. During the First Period of Oral Communications, members of the public can speak on agenda or non-agenda items.

Members of the public can speak on agenda items during the First Period of Oral Communications or when the agendized matter is called, but not both. The Second Period of Oral Communications will be for non-agenda items only. As directed, staff drafted a resolution adopting Rules of Order, Procedure and Decorum for the Conduct of City Council Meetings (“Rules”). In sum, the Rules will provide for the following with respect to public comment:
•A First Period of Oral Communications (“First Period”) will allow comment on agenda or non-agenda items;
•The First Period will be for a maximum of 30 minutes of public comment; •Members of the public can speak on agenda and non-agenda items during the First Period;
•If a member of the public speaks on one or more agendized items during the First Period, then he or she cannot speak on those agendized items when they are called;
•If a member of the public speaks on non-agenda items during the First Period, then he or she cannot speak during the Second Period of Oral Communications; •The maximum time limit for individual speakers during First Period is three minutes per speaker, which can be reduced by the Mayor depending on the number of speakers;
•Community Event Announcements will remain, subject to a three minute per speaker limitation.
•The Council had a discussion about limitations on ceding time to other speakers, leaning on requiring the people who were ceding and receiving the time to be in Chambers, but did not provide final direction. Council can provide direction on this item.
96 of 130

8a3
24-86878
6 0
2 2
Rules Pertaining to Council Debate and Deliberation
Council also directed staff to include rules governing Council debate and deliberation.

The proposed Rules will:
•Prohibit interruptions while a councilmember has the floor, unless a point of order is raised (and the Mayor/Presiding Officer rules on the point of order); •Allow every councilmember the opportunity to speak before a councilmember has a second opportunity to speak;
•Provide an initial speaking time of five minutes for initial comments by councilmembers, followed by three minutes for subsequent rounds of comments from councilmembers;
•The speaking limits will not include time utilized for questions and may be waived or extended by the Mayor; and
•There will no limit on the number of rounds of deliberation, unless a councilmember calls the question.

Councilmember Future Agenda Requests
•For Councilmember future agenda requests, Council directed staff to prepare a revision to the Rule to streamline the discussion. As directed, the proposed Rule provides that the requesting Councilmember will have two minutes to make a short presentation as to why he or she would like staff to prepare a report on the item.

Councilmember would be able to ask questions for clarification but there would be no further discussion or deliberation. After questions, it would go to a vote. •Additionally, staff recommends a modification to the Rules that will allow Council to give approval for matters like letters of support or opposition where it deems a subsequent report not necessary.

Rules for Decorum & Removal of Disruptive Individuals
As directed by Council, the proposed Rules will formalize rules for decorum and removal of disruptive individuals. The Rules will include the following:
•A prohibition on the utterance of threatening, abusive or loud language or sounds, whistling, clapping, booing, hissing, stamping of feet, repeated waiving of arms, presenting of signs that interfere with the participation of others in the audience, or other similar disruptive acts;
•A prohibition on any signs, placards, banners/flags, props or similar items larger than 8.5 x 11, illuminated, or attached to any pole, stick or other device; •A prohibition on all noisemakers;
97 of 130

8a4
24-86878
6 0
2 2
•A requirement that members of the public only address the body from the audience microphone, unless authorized by the Mayor/Chair to speak from another location;
•A requirement that members of the public direct comments to the body as a whole or the presiding officer, and not to staff, individual members of the body, or the public and that no person shall be permitted to interrupt members of the body, staff presentations, or members of the public who are at the microphone during a meeting;
•Speakers must cease speaking immediately when their speaking time has ended;
•Public comment on agenda items must relate to the subject matter of that item; and
•Non-agenda Oral Communications are limited to the matters within the City Council's subject matter jurisdiction.

The Rules pertaining to decorum and disruptions will be enforced as follows:
•The Mayor or presiding officer will provide at least one warning to a speaker that is being disruptive. The presiding officer should explain the conduct that is disruptive, and what will be the consequence of failing to abide by the warning, e.g. that the speaker will be terminated from speaking or removed from Chambers.
•After providing at least one verbal warning, if an individual continues to speak in violation of an order to cease speaking (e.g. is off-topic or has exceed the allotted time) or is otherwise disrupting the proceedings, the presiding officer may order the individual to be removed from chambers. Again, when providing the warning, the presiding officer should explain the conduct that is disruptive, and what will be the consequence of failing to abide by the warning, e.g. that the individual may be removed from the Council chambers. Before ordering the sergeant-at- arms to remove a disruptive individual, the presiding officer should give the disruptive individual the opportunity to leave chambers voluntarily. •Warnings will not be required for use of force or true threats of force. •The enforcement of rules – whether it be enforcing the requirement to stay on topic, to stop speaking when the allotted time is up, or removing individuals for disrupting the proceedings – must be neutrally applied and may not discriminate against viewpoint of the speaker/attendee.
98 of 130

8a5
24-86878
6 0
2 2
Other Agenda and Meeting Management Issues
•Cutoff Time: Council authorized a Rule that would continue remaining agenda items at 11 p.m. subject to the conclusion of the item pending as of 11 p.m. and the Council’s right to extend the meeting after conferring with the City Manager.

Additionally, the meeting will not be adjourned until completion of the Second Period of Oral Communications and New Business (closed session reporting out).
•Removal of Agenda Item After Posting of the Agenda: The Council directed preparation of a Rule that requires items to be removed from posted agendas only at the Council meeting and only if there are no objections or a vote of the Council if there is an objection.
•Removal of Agenda Preview: Council directed removal of the Agenda Preview item on the agenda in light of the publication of the Agenda Forecast. •Wide Angle of Cameras During Public Comment. At the January 2025 meeting, Council directed the showing of a wide angle of the Council dais during public comments on agenda and non-agenda items, subject to a carve-out for public hearing items. The Mayor has inquired about returning the cameras to their previous display or doing a split screen during public comment. As he was with the minority during the January discussion, a councilmember on the prevailing side would be required to reconsider this item.
•Reconsideration and Rescission. This Rule would clarify that whether a motion previously passed or failed, it would take a member of the prevailing side to request reconsideration or rescission. The proposed Rule would also permit motions for reconsideration to be raised at a subsequent meeting. Last, the proposed Rule would codify the existing interpretation of allowing a request for rescission or reconsideration to be made by a councilmember who was not on the Council at the time of the decision being reconsidered. •Rotation of Voting: Staff requests whether Council would like to incorporate a policy to rotate the alphabetical order of the votes taken on items and staff can incorporate that into the policy. Alternatively, the voting order can be randomly selected; however, that will likely require more work than simply rotating alphabetically.

Ordinance Amending Municipal Code
Staff also recommends introduction and adoption of an ordinance to amend the Municipal Code to remove the Order of Business and other changes from the Code and implement it by Resolution. The Code will refer to Council adopted resolutions but 99 of 130

8a6
24-86878
6 0
2 2
removing the Order of Business and other provisions from the Code, such as oral communications and time limits, will make future revisions easier to implement.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
N/A.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This activity involves organizational and administrative activities of the government related to election procedures and eligibility requirements, and such internal procedural and eligibility changes have no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. As such, this action is not a “project” subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15378.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1. Council can choose not to adopt the proposed Rules of Order, Procedure and Decorum.

2. Council can choose an alternative not identified by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Prepared by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
100 of 130

Page 1 of 4 ends

ORDINANCE NO. ________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA AMENDING SECTIONS 2.04.080, 2.04.090, 2.04.120 AND 2.04.140 AND DELETING SECTION 2.04.150 OF THE GLENDALE MUNICIPAL CODE, 1995,

PERTAINING TO THE ORDER OF BUSINESS, PROCEDURE AND DECORUM

FOR COUNCIL MEETINGS
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE GLENDALE CITY:

SECTION 1: Section 2.04.080 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, entitled Order of Business, is hereby amended to read:
“2.04.080 Order of Business.

A. Business shall be taken up for consideration and disposition in the following order:

Order of business:

1. Closed session — one p.m. (1:00 P.M.);

2. Regular business agenda — six p.m. (6:00 P.M.):
a. Flag salute;
b. Invocation;
c. Report of the City Clerk regarding the Posting of the Agenda

3. Presentations and appointments;

4. Consent items;

5. City Council/Staff comments;

6. Community Event Announcements (3 Minutes);

7. Adoption of ordinances;

8. Action items;

9. Hearings;

10.Reports — for information;
101 of 130

Page 2 of 4 ends

11.Written communications;

12.Discussion of Councilmember Future Agenda Requests

13.Oral Communications (5 Minutes);

14.New Business;

15.Adjournment.

B. The foregoing order of business may be altered in any instance at the discretion of the Mayor.”
The Council shall establish the order of business for regular meetings of the Council by resolution.”
SECTION 2: Section 2.04.090 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, entitled Right to address council, is hereby amended to read:
“2.04.090 Right to address council
A. Under the order of business heading "written communications," all persons interested, or their authorized representatives, may address the council in regard to any written protest, petition or communication which has been placed on the agenda by the city clerk and is then being considered by the council.

B. Under the order of business heading "oral communications," any person may address the council on any matter concerning the city's business or on any matter over which the city has control; provided, however, that each person addressing council is limited to five minutes. Any matter brought to the attention of the council under the heading oral communications may be referred to the appropriate department through the city manager for appropriate action or investigation and report to the council.

C. The five-minute limitation provided by this section may be waived in any particular instance at the discretion of the mayor.

The right of persons to submit written communications or address the council at council meetings on any matter concerning the city’s business shall be governed by the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code section 54950 et seq. and rules of order and procedure adopted by council resolution.”
102 of 130

Page 3 of 4 ends

SECTION 3: Section 2.04.120 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, entitled Sergeant-at-arms – Ejection., is hereby amended to read:

2.04.120 Sergeant-at-arms-Ejection
The chief of police shall be ex officio sergeant-at-arms of the council. Any person in the audience who uses profane language at a council meeting, or language tending to bring the council or any of its members into contempt, or any person who persistently delays or interrupts the proceedings of the council, or refuses to keep quiet or sit down when ordered to do so by the presiding officer or fails to comply with rules of order, procedure and decorum adopted by council resolution, may, upon order of the presiding officer, be ejected from the council chamber and kept out for the remainder of the meeting. The chief of police, or any police officer of the city present in the council chamber, shall carry out all orders given by the presiding officer with respect to such persons or for the purpose of maintaining order and decorum in the council chamber.

SECTION 4: Section 2.04.140 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, entitled Governing Rules., is hereby amended to read:

2.04.140 Governing rules
In all matters and things not otherwise provided for in this chapter, the proceedings of the council shall be governed by council resolution adopting rules of order, procedure and decorum. In the event there are no adopted council rules of order, procedure and decorum, or said rules are silent on a matter of order, procedure or decorum, proceedings of the Council shall be governed by the latest revised edition of under by the latest revised edition of Robert's Rules of Order., revised copy, 1952 Edition.

SECTION 5: Section 2.04.150 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, entitled Motion to reconsider., is hereby deleted in its entirety.

SECTION 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in accordance with law.
103 of 130

Page 4 of 4 ends

Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California this ____ day of May, 2025.
_____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. was passed by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the ________ day of May, 2025, and that the same was passed by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
_________________________________
City Clerk
104 of 130

1 RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,

CALIFORNIA ADOPTING RULES OF ORDER, PROCEDURE AND

DECORUM FOR THE CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Glendale (“Charter”) authorizes the Council of the City of Glendale, California (“Council”) to establish rules for its proceedings; WHEREAS, the City has from time-to-time established rules for its proceeding in ordinances, resolutions and motions; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to adopt procedural rules for the conduct of Council meetings in a single document for facilitation of use and reference.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA THAT the following rules shall govern the conduct of meetings of the Glendale City Council and related bodies:

1.TITLE AND APPLICABILITY. These Council Rules of Order, Procedure and Decorum (“Rules”) shall govern the conduct of all Council meetings, unless prohibited, preempted or superseded by federal, state, or local law. To the extent a matter is not covered by these Rules, the procedures of the Council shall be governed by the latest revised edition of Robert's Rules of Order. Robert's Rules of Order shall be subordinate to all applicable laws and these Rules to the extent they are inconsistent.

These Rules also apply to the Housing Authority, the Council sitting as another body, such as the Successor Agency, and joint meetings of the Council and the other bodies.

2.DAY AND TIME OF REGULAR MEETINGS. As set forth in Glendale Municipal Code (“GMC”) Section 2.04.010, the Council shall hold its regular meetings on Tuesday of each and every week, provided, that should any such Tuesday fall upon a legal holiday, the Council shall meet at the same hour as set forth in this section upon the next day thereafter, which is not a legal holiday. The Council may amend the meeting calendar to add or delete a regular Council meeting. The regular business agenda for regular meetings shall commence at 6:00 p.m. while closed session shall commence at 1:00 p.m. (or later than 1:00 p.m. if so stated on the agenda).

3.SPECIAL MEETINGS. Special meetings of the Council may be held at any time upon the call of the Mayor or upon the call of three (3) of the members of the Council. Notice of any such meeting shall be given to all of the members of the Council by service on each Council member at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the time fixed for holding such meeting of a written notice signed either by the Presiding Officer or the members of the Council making such call and specifying the business to be considered at the special meeting. Such service shall be sufficient if delivery of a copy of the notice is made to the office or usual address of the Council member. If a Council member is out of the City, service may be made by facsimile or email transmission if receipt is acknowledged. Notice of such meeting will be deemed received by any councilmember 105 of 130

2 who attends said special meeting.

4.ORDER OF BUSINESS – REGULAR MEETINGS; DESCRIPTIONS.

A. Order. Business on the regular meeting agenda shall be taken up for consideration and disposition in the following order:

1. Closed Session – 1:00 p.m. (or at a later time as designated on the agenda);

2. Regular Business Agenda – 6:00 p.m.;
a. Flag Salute;
b. Invocation;
c. Report of the City Clerk Regarding Posting of the Agenda;

3. Presentations and Appointments;

4. Consent Items (Including Minutes);

5. City Council/Staff Comments;

6. Community Event Announcements;

7. First Period of Oral Communications;

8. Adoption of Ordinances;

9. Action Items;

10. Hearings;

11. Reports – Information only;

12. Written Communications;

13. Discussion of Councilmember Future Agenda Requests

14. Second Period of Oral Communications

15. New Business; and

16. Adjournment
B. Adjustment of Order by Presiding Officer. The foregoing order of business may be altered in any instance at the discretion of the Presiding Officer C. Description of Specified Agenda Categories in the Order of Business.

1. Closed Session. Closed sessions of the Council are held at 1 p.m. (or such later time as designated on the agenda) on regular meeting dates. Prior to holding such closed sessions, the Council shall convene in open session for the limited purpose of receiving public comments on the closed session items. Closed sessions may also be held at other times as determined and ordered by the Council, or as otherwise called, as provided by law. Matters required to be reported out of closed session under the Brown Act will be reported out under New Business.

2. Consent Calendar. Consent calendar agenda items are routine and may be acted upon by one motion. Any member of the Council or the public requesting separate consideration may do so by making such request before a motion is proposed.

A member of the public wishing to speak on a consent calendar item must submit a speaker card or call in prior to the making of the motion. 106 of 130

3 3. Council/staff comments. This an opportunity for Councilmembers to make brief comments or announcements such as regarding community events they attended, to announce board or commission nominees or request items for future agendas. Councilmembers will also use this opportunity to make brief reports on conferences, seminars and regional meetings attended. Staff may make announcements such as for upcoming community events or programs. Comments must be brief and no discussion or action may be taken on this item.

4. Community event announcements. Members of the public will be permitted to announce – in person or telephonically - upcoming events happening in the community. Members of the public speaking under “Community event announcements” may speak up to 3 minutes per speaker.

5. Hearings. The speaking length of presentations by the Applicant(s), Appellant(s), and other members of the public during public hearings shall be determined by the Presiding Officer prior to the commencement of the first presentation, taking into account requests of the parties, the length of the agenda, the number of speakers, and the complexity of the matter is the subject of the hearing. The Presiding Officer may permit Appellant(s) and Applicant(s) to have additional rebuttal time. The total time limit approved by the Presiding Officer for the Applicant and Appellant to make their presentations shall be the aggregate for all speakers or other presentations on behalf of the Applicant or Appellant at the hearing.

6. First Period of Oral Communications. Members of the public will be permitted to address the Council, in person or telephonically, during the First Period of Oral Communications on matters either on the agenda or not on the agenda but within the Council’s subject matter jurisdiction. If a member of the public addresses the Council on a matter on the agenda during the First Period of Oral Communications, then the member of the public may not do so when the agendized matter is called. If a member of the public addresses Council on a matter not on the agenda during the First Period of Oral Communications, then he or she may not speak during Second Period of Oral Communications. The First Period of Oral Communications shall be limited to 30 minutes of speaking time in the aggregate. Individual speakers addressing the Council during First Period of Oral Communications shall be limited to a maximum of three (3) minutes unless that time is reduced by the Presiding Officer, taking into account the number of speakers wishing to speak during the First Period of Oral Communications.

7. Second Period of Oral Communications. Members of the public will be permitted to address the Council, in person or telephonically, during the Second Period of Oral Communication, only on matters not on the agenda. Members of the public who speak on non-agenda items during the First Period of Oral Communications will not be permitted to speak during the Second Period of Oral Communications.

Speaking time for Second Period of Oral Communications shall be three (3) minutes per speaker.

8. Written communications. Under the order of business heading "written communications," all persons interested, or their authorized representatives, may address the council in regard to any written protest, petition or communication which has been placed on the agenda by the city clerk and is then being considered by the council. 107 of 130

4 5.MAYOR, PRESIDING OFFICER. The Mayor, or in the Mayor’s absence, the Mayor Pro Tem, shall be the Presiding Officer and at the hour appointed for the meeting shall call the Council to order. In the absence of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, the Councilmember next in rotation as Mayor Pro Tem shall call the Council to order and shall act as the temporary Presiding Officer. Upon the arrival of the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem, the temporary Presiding Officer shall immediately relinquish the chair upon the conclusion of the business immediately before the Council.

The Presiding Officer shall preserve order at all meetings of the Council. The Presiding Officer shall decide all questions of order, subject, however, to an appeal to the Council, in which event a majority vote of the Council shall govern and conclusively determine such questions of order.

6.ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL.

A. Submission of Request to Speak. Speaker cards must be submitted, or telephonic participants must call in and be in the queue, prior to the commencement of the Community Event Announcement and First and Second Periods of Oral Communication for a speaker to be able to speak during one of those periods, which requirement may be waived at the Presiding Officer’s discretion. Members of the public speaking on an agenda item when that item is called, must submit a speaker card (or call in if participating telephonically) prior to the completion of the staff report, if any, on the item, which requirement may be waived at the Presiding Officer’s discretion.

B. Manner of Addressing Council. Each person addressing the Council shall, when his or her name is called, approach the microphone at the podium and shall limit his or her comments to the subjects and to such time as is allowed by these Rules or as designated by the Presiding Officer. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a body and not to any member thereof, the staff, or members of the public. No person, other than the Council and the person having the floor, shall be permitted to enter into any discussion, either directly or through a member of the Council, without the permission of the Presiding Officer. No question shall be asked of a Councillmember except through the Presiding Officer.

C. Points of Order Regarding Public Speakers. The Presiding Officer, any Councilmember, or the City Attorney may interrupt a speaker to raise a Point of Order if it is the contention of the Presiding Officer, Council Member or City Attorney that the speaker is addressing items that are outside the specified subjects for that item. The Presiding Officer shall rule on such Point of Order, which decision may be appealed by any Councilmember to the full Council. Upon the decision by the Presiding Officer, or by the Council upon appeal, that a speaker is addressing items that are outside the specified subjects for that period of Public Comments, the speaker shall, if time remains, be allowed to continue speaking on items within the specified subjects for that period of public comments. Any speaker who refuses to limit his or her comments to items within the specified subjects for that period of public comments may be declared out of order and be subject to the loss of the remaining time to speak and, if necessary, removal from 108 of 130

5 the chambers as specified in these Rules.

D. Ceding Time. Except as set forth herein, the speaking time contained in these Rules are personal, and may not be shared with other speakers.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, _____________________________________ E. Maximum Speaking Limits. Maximum speaking time for members of the public for Community Event Announcements and First and Second Periods of Oral Communications are set forth in Section 4(C) of these Rules. Maximum speaking times for other agenda items, including closed session, consent items, and action items is set at the discretion of the Mayor.

F. Responses to Public Comment. In response to public comments offered during Community Event Announcements or the First or Second Periods of Oral Communications, Councilmembers, the City Manager and/or the City Attorney may question or briefly respond to the speaker but there will be no debate or decision. The City Manager may refer the matter to the appropriate department for investigation and report. Response to public comment on an agendized matter can be made during discussion of the matter.

7.RULES OF COUNCIL DEBATE AND DELIBERATION.

A. Every Councilmember desiring to speak shall address the Presiding Officer, and, upon recognition, shall confine himself or herself to the question under debate, avoiding all personal comments and indecorous language.

B. A Councilmember, once recognized, shall not be interrupted when speaking unless a Point of Order is raised. If a Point of Order is raised while a Councilmember is speaking, he or she shall cease speaking until the Point of Order is decided by the Presiding Officer (subject to appeal to the full Council). Being out of order shall include, but shall not be limited to, exceeding any speaking time limit established by the Council.

C. During Council deliberation on an agenda item (except for “Discussion of Councilmember Future Agenda Requests” – see below), each Councilmember shall be permitted to speak on the item before a Councilmember gets another opportunity to speak on the item. Each Councilmember shall have up to five (5) minutes to speak on the item in the initial round of deliberations. After the initial round of deliberation, each Councilmember shall have up to three (3) minutes to speak on the item. The Presiding Officer may waive or extend these time limits, sua sponte or upon the request of a Councilmember made before deliberation begins, giving consideration to the complexity or controversy of the item, and upon the length of the remainder of the agenda. There shall be no limitation on the number of rounds of deliberation, unless a Councilmember calls the question (moves to end debate) and that motion is passed.

Speaking time during deliberation does not include questions posed by Councilmembers.

D. For Council deliberation on whether to approve a Councilmember request to direct staff to prepare a report for a future agenda under Item 12 of the regular 109 of 130

6 meeting agenda, the requesting Councilmember shall have up to two (2) minutes to present his or her reasons for the request. The other Councilmembers may ask questions for clarification and then the Council will take a vote whether to direct staff to prepare a report for a future agenda. There will be no other debate or deliberation on the item. The Presiding Officer can waive this limitation.

8.RULES OF DECORUM AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

A. The Council is a limited public forum for the purpose of facilitating public comment to the Council on agenda matters and matters within the Council’s subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, members of the public shall comply with the rules set forth below in this Section 8.

1. Speakers must cease speaking immediately when their speaking time has ended.

2. Public comment on agenda items must relate to the subject matter of that item.

3. Oral Communications is limited to the subject matter within the City Council’s jurisdiction.

4. Members of the public attending the meeting may not speak without first being recognized by the Mayor or Presiding Officer. When called to address the Council, speakers must address the Council from the podium and speak into the microphone.

5. Members of the public shall direct comments to the body as a whole or the Presiding Officer, and not to staff, individual members of the body, or the public.

6. No person shall be permitted to interrupt members of the body, staff presentations, or members of the public who are at the microphone during a meeting.

7. Yelling, screaming or shouting from the audience is not permitted.

Threatening, abusive or loud language, chatting, booing, hissing, speaking out of turn, clapping, or cheering in a manner that disturbs, disrupts or impedes the orderly conduct of the meeting is not permitted.

8. Signs, placards, banners/flags, props or similar items larger than 8.5 x 11, illuminated, or attached to any pole, stick or other device are prohibited in the Council chambers.

9. Noisemakers of any kind are prohibited in the Council chambers.

B. Enforcement of Public Participation Protocols. These Rules will be enforced as described below.
110 of 130

7 1. The Presiding Officer will provide at least one warning to a speaker that is being disruptive. The Presiding Officer will explain the conduct that is disruptive, and what will be the consequence of failing to abide by the warning, e.g. that the speaker will be terminated from speaking or removed from Chambers.

2. After providing at least one (1) verbal warning, if an individual continues to speak in violation of an order to cease speaking (e.g. is off-topic or has exceed the allotted time) or is otherwise disrupting the proceedings, the Presiding Officer may order the individual to be removed from chambers. When providing the warning, the Presiding Officer will explain the conduct that is disruptive, and what will be the consequence of failing to abide by the warning, e.g. that the individual may be removed from the Council chambers. Before ordering the sergeant-at-arms to remove a disruptive individual pursuant to the authority of Glendale Municipal Code section 2.04.120, the Presiding Officer will give the disruptive individual the opportunity to leave chambers voluntarily.

3. Warnings are not required for use of force or true threats of force.

9.LENGTH OF MEETINGS. Regular meetings of the Council shall end no later than 11:00 p.m., unless such meetings are extended by the affirmative vote of at least three (3) Council members and Council confers with the City Manager to review the status of the remaining items and determine the best manner to proceed. Notwithstanding the 11:00 p.m. cutoff, if an item is in the midst of being heard or considered at the cutoff time of 11:00 p.m., it can be completed prior to continuing the remaining items. If at the conclusion of a Council meeting agenda items remain to be considered, such items are automatically continued until the next regular meeting unless otherwise directed by the Council. Additionally, the meeting shall not be adjourned until completion of the Second Period of Oral Communications and New Business (closed session reporting out).

10.PLACEMENT OF MATTERS ON AGENDA; TIMING
A. General Policy. At a Council meeting, an individual councilmember may request that a matter be placed on a future agenda. Said matter shall be placed on the next regular meeting agenda under Agenda Item 12: “Discussion of Councilmember Future Agenda Requests.” At said regular Council meeting, Council decide whether to place the matter on a subsequent agenda in accordance with the procedure in Section 7(D) of these Rules. The Council may, with three (3) affirmative votes, direct staff to prepare a report on the matter for Council consideration and action. The timing of the placement of that matter on a future agenda shall be in accordance with subsection (2) of this Section 10 of these Rules. In the case of requests for support or opposition to any action or omission by any international, national, state, or local government agency, or any letter of support for any community event or organization, the Council may approve said action under Item 12 under the agenda without a further report to Council.

B. Timing. The Mayor shall have the discretion to control the timing of the placement on future agendas. The Mayor shall work with the City Manager regarding the timing of the placement of matters on future agendas taking into account the need to 111 of 130

8 act on a matter within a certain timeframe and the overall workload of City staff. The Council may direct the timing of the placement of an item on a future agenda only by a majority vote of the membership of the Council (three affirmative votes).

C. City Manager Role. This Section 10 pertains to the ability of individual Councilmembers’ ability to request placement of matters on future agendas. The City Manager is authorized to place matters on the agenda after consultation with the Mayor.

Other than with respect to timing, this Section 10 does not govern matters that the Council is legally required to consider at a Council meeting or matters that the City Manager must place on the agenda to facilitate the normal affairs or governance of the City. The City Manager shall also have the authority to place a report on a Council agenda to provide basic information regarding a matter and seek Council input and direction as to whether to prepare a more detailed and/or substantive report on the matter for future Council consideration.

D. Items for Reconsideration or Rescission. To ensure finality of decisions made unless a member in the prevailing side wishes to reconsider, motions to reconsider or rescind a prior action must be made by a councilmember who voted on the prevailing side (whether it was approved or defeated). Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Robert’s Rules of Order, an exception to this Rule is if the Councilmember was not a member of the Council at the time the decision was made.

Further nothwithstanding anything to the contrary in Robert’s Rules of Order, motions to reconsider need not be made at the same meeting as long as made by a councilmember on the prevailing side.

11.REMOVAL OF MATTERS FROM AGENDA AFTER POSTING. After the publication of the agenda, a matter on the agenda shall not be removed prior to the Council meeting. At the Council meeting, the item shall be read into the record and the City Manager or a Councilmember may request to remove the item from the agenda. If there is no objection from any councilmember, the matter will be removed. If there is an objection from a councilmember, whether to remove the matter, the Council shall vote on whether to remove the matter. If the matter is a public hearing item, it may be removed or continued to a future date certain.

12.NON-EXCLUSIVE RULES AND DEVIATION THEREFROM. These Rules are not exclusive and do not limit the inherent power and general legal authority of the Presiding Officer or the Council to govern the conduct of the meetings as may be considered appropriate under particular circumstances for purposes of orderly and effective conduct of City business. Any deviation from these Rules does not limit nor affect the jurisdiction of the Council or any final decision of Council on any matter, decision, permit or entitlement.

13. Resolution No. 23-50 is hereby repealed.

14. This Resolution shall become effective upon the effective date of Ordinance No. _______.
112 of 130

9 PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ___________, 2025.
_______________________
Mayor
Attest:

City Clerk
113 of 130

1 0

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale at its regular meeting held on the day of ________, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________
City Clerk
114 of 130

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Review of Mayor Selection Policy Set Forth in Glendale Municipal Code Section

2.04.020 and Discussion of Alternate Provisions

1. Motion Directing Staff

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for May 13, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 26, 2024, the City Council considered two reports regarding the City’s Mayor Selection Policy (“Policy”) set forth in Glendale Municipal Code (“GMC”) section

2.04.020 and directed staff to prepare alternatives to the Policy for the Council’s consideration and further direction. Since then, the Council has held two mayoral selections invoking the “best interest” provision of subsection (H) of Section 2.04.020 (“Best Interest Clause”).

As directed by the Council, staff presents alternatives to modify the Policy’s seniority rule by providing a preference for councilmembers who have not served as mayor, provided they have served a minimum amount of time on Council, e.g. 1 or 2 years.

Staff also provides alternatives to the provision regarding selection during the last year of a councilmember’s term, and changes to the Best Interest Clause. One option is to eliminate the “best interest” language and replace it with specified circumstances under which the Council can select a councilmember other than as otherwise required by the Policy. Another option is to retain the Best Interest Clause, but modify it to shift its apparent focus from the councilmember purportedly being “skipped over” to the best interest being served by selecting another councilmember. Legally, as the courts have held, there is no difference, but such a change could remove the stigma associated with invocation of “best interest.”
Council may also want to consider changing the mayoral selection date to sometime in July or later after municipal elections and seating of new councilmembers. Finally, an option is available to Council to repeal or scale back the Policy and revert back to the process that simply gives preference for councilmembers who have served some time on Council prior to mayor selection.
115 of 130

28b
5 7
8 7

RECOMMENDATION
Staff has no recommendation. Staff has provided alternate Code language in this Report for Council’s consideration and direction. Alternatively, the Council may also choose to repeal the Policy and revert to the previous process where the Council was only required to give preference to councilmembers who had the benefit of council experience prior to the time of selection.

ANALYSIS
Current Mayoral Selection Policy
On March 30, 2021, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 5963, amending the GMC relating to the Policy for the annual selection of the mayor. For purposes relevant for this Report, GMC Section 2.04.020 provides:

Subsection (B) – Seniority Rule and Tiebreakers
•The councilmember with the longest continuous service since last serving as Mayor shall be appointed mayor unless one of the exceptions apply. (Subsection (B)(1)).
•Tiebreakers between councilmembers with the longest continuous service are resolved in favor of the councilmember who received the most votes in the most recent election or higher percentage of votes if the councilmembers were elected in different elections. (Subsection (B)(2)).

Subsections (C), (D) and (G) - Limitations on Appointments Subsections (C), (D) and (G) address limitations on appointments. •Subsection (C) generally prohibits the appointment of a councilmember whose term would expire in the same year as the mayoral term or whose term will expire within 180 days after the date of selection may not be selected mayor. This provision is intended to prevent a councilmember from having an advantage of seeking reelection to Council while having the title of mayor. •Subsection (D) limits the sitting from mayor being reappointed to the subsequent term unless all other councilmembers decline to serve.
•Subsection (E) limits the appointment of a councilmember appointed to fill a vacancy on council to the mayorship unless there is no viable alternative.

Subsections (E) & (F) – Appointments When Mayorship Not Accepted or When Mayor Vacates or Is Removed
•Subsection (E) provides that the councilmember in line to be appointed in accordance with the Policy is unwilling or unable to serve, the council is to select 116 of 130

38b
5 7
8 7
the next eligible councilmember in line of seniority and the councilmember who deferred is placed next in the seniority line.
•Subsection (F) provides that the councilmember serving as mayor vacates or is removed from his or her council seat, the Council can choose any councilmember to be mayor and that councilmember will not be prejudiced in serving a scheduled term.

Subsection (H) – Best Interest Clause
•The “Best Interest Clause – Subsection (H) provides that “notwithstanding the provisions of this section,” the Council has the discretion to not choose the councilmember with the longest continuous service on the Council if it finds it is in the City’s “best interest” to do so and can select the next qualified councilmember.

Subsequent Implementation and Interpretation of Section 2.04.020 Subsequent to the March 2024 discussion of the Policy, the Council has held two mayoral selections. In each case, the Council selected a councilmember who was not “next in line” under Subsection B and chose another councilmember by invoking the Best Interest Clause.

The Policy and the contours of the Best Interest Clause were also the subject of litigation. Najarian v. City of Glendale, L.A.S.C. Case No. 24STCP02101. In the litigation, the Court confirmed that selection of the mayor is a legislative and political act and that invocation of the Best Interest Clause will not be overturned by a court unless the decision is arbitrary or capricious. As a legislative act, the Court found that the city “need not make explicit findings to support its action. A court cannot inquire into the wisdom of a legislative act or review the merits of a local government’s policy decisions.” (citing Federation of Hillside & Canyon Assn’s. v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 126 Cal.App.th 1180.) “Furthermore, the mental process principle “precludes any judicially authorized inquiry into the subjective motives or mental processes of legislators.” (citing County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1975) 13 Cal.3d 721, 726.) Applying this “extremely deferential” standard of review, the Court upheld the 2024 mayoral selection and the Council’s invocation of the Best Interest Clause finding that the councilmembers sufficiently stated reasons for making the best interest determination without a need to make any specific findings relative to the councilmember who was passed over.

March 26, 2024 Discussion & Alternate Code Language
Subsection B - Seniority Rule
During its March 2024 discussion, the Council expressed concern that the Policy’s seniority rule can prevent a councilmember who has never served as mayor from being 117 of 130

48b
5 7
8 7
selected during that councilmember’s first term, because he or she has less seniority than other councilmembers who have already served as mayor. In order to address this problem, the Council directed staff to present alternate language to the Policy giving a councilmember who has never served as mayor priority over councilmembers who have served as mayor, provided that the councilmember has served a certain amount of time on council. For example, the Council could decide to require that a councilmember serve at least one or two years on Council before selection to the mayorship.

Staff offers the following two alternatives for Subsection (B)(1) to address this issue:
“B. The council shall select and appoint a mayor to serve for the upcoming year in the following order of precedence:
[Alternative 1 – B(1)]
1 The councilmember with the longest, continuous
uninterrupted service on the council since last serving as mayor, and who is not serving as the mayor at the time of mayoral selection, shall be selected as mayor. The mayor shall be the most senior councilmember who has not served as mayor, or if all councilmembers have served as mayor, the councilmember who has not served as mayor for the longest period of time, provided the councilmember to be selected has served on council for at least _____ year[s].]
[Alternative 2 – (B)(1)]

1. The councilmember with the longest, continuous
uninterrupted service on the council since last serving as mayor, and who is not serving as the mayor at the time of mayoral selection, shall be selected as mayor. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, in the event a councilmember who has served at least ______ year(s) on the city council has never served as mayor, then that councilmember shall be selected as mayor over all councilmembers who have previously served as mayor.

2. ln the event of a tie between councilmembers with the longest continuous service since last serving as mayor, or a tie between two councilmembers who have served at least _____ year(s) on the city council but have never served as mayor, as set forth in subsection (B)(1), the councilmember who received the most votes in the councilmembers' most recent election shall be selected mayor. In the event the tie is between councilmembers who were elected during different elections, then the councilmember with the highest percentage of votes received in each councilmembers' most recent elections to the City Council shall be selected mayor.” Notwithstanding the election votes tiebreakers set forth 118 of 130

58b
5 7
8 7
in this subsection (B)(2), if either tiebreaker would result in a councilmember who has previously served as mayor since being elected to the council being appointed over a councilmember of equal continuous uninterrupted service who has never served as mayor since being elected to the council, then the councilmember who has not previously served as mayor shall be appointed mayor.

Subsection C – Limitation on Serving as Mayor When Council Term Will End Last Year of Mayoral Term or When Council Term Will Expire 180 Days After Mayoral Selection During the March 2024 discussion, the Council discussed whether to delete or modify Subsection (C). Deletion of Subsection (C) will present more opportunities for councilmembers to serve as mayor in their order of seniority, especially since Subsection (C) can prevent a councilmember from serving two consecutive years.

Two options are presented:

Option 1 – Delete in its Entirety
“C. A councilmember whose council term will expire in the same year that the mayor's term would also expire if said councilmember was selected mayor shall not be selected to serve as mayor. A councilmember whose council term will expire within 180 days after the date of the selection of the mayor shall not be selected mayor.”
Option 2 – Modify to Be Inapplicable to Any Councilmember Who Has Never Served As Mayor
“C. A councilmember whose council term will expire in the same year that the mayor's term or within 180 days after mayoral selection would also expire if said councilmember was selected mayor shall not be selected to serve as mayor. A councilmember whose council term will expire within 180 days after the date of the selection of the mayor shall not be selected mayor. This subsection shall not apply to a councilmember who has served at least _____year(s) on the council and has never served as mayor.”
Councilmembers also expressed concern during the prior discussion that if councilmembers are able to serve as mayor during the last year of their council term, they may choose to defer to a year that is a reelection year. Under the current GMC, a councilmember who declines to serve is placed back next in line in seniority. If the Council decides to delete Subsection (C) regarding selection in the last year of a councilmember term or reelection year, the Council could address this problem by providing that a councilmember who declines to serve will be placed back into the line of seniority unless it will place him or her to be selected in a reelection year. That language would be a revision to Subsection (E) of Section 2.04.020 as follows:
119 of 130

68b
5 7
8 7
“E. If athe councilmember is in line to be selected mayor in accordance with the procedures of this section but is unable or unwilling to serve as mayor at the time of selection, then the council shall select the next councilmember next in lineorder of precedence. and tThe councilmember who is unwilling or unable to be theserve as mayor shallwill be placed next in order of precedence; provided that a councilmember unwilling to serve will be not placed back in the line of seniority if such placement allows that councilmember to be selected as mayor when his or her council term will expire in the last year of the mayoral term or 180 days after mayoral selection.

Instead, that councilmember will be placed in the next place in order of precedence where his or her council term would not expire the same year as the mayoral term or within 180 days of mayoral selection.line for mayoral appointment under the procedure in subsection (B)(2).

Staff seeks direction from Council regarding whether Subsection (C) should be deleted from the Policy or modified and, if so, whether Subsection (E) should be modified. Staff notes that although Option 2 limits its application, Subsection (C) will still likely have the effect of precluding councilmembers who are otherwise eligible and next in line in the process.

Subsection H – Best Interest Clause
The Council also directed staff to present alternative language to the Best Interest Clause which could limit the circumstances when the Council may choose a qualified councilmember who is not next in line. Based upon a review of other cities’ ordinances, staff presents the following alternate language, which removes the phrase “best interest” and uses specific circumstances:
“H. Notwithstanding theany other provisions of this section to the contrary, in the event the council determines in its discretion that it is in the best interest of the may choose not to appoint the councilmember in line to be appointed in accordance with subsection (B) in accordance with the procedure of this section, including, but not limited to, because of reason of mental or physical incapacity significantly limiting the ability to perform mayoral duties or a criminal conviction, then the council may appoint the next qualified councilmember pursuant to subsection (B)(2) to serve as mayor. if it reasonably determines that the councilmember:
(1) Has unexcused absences for more than four (4) regular council meetings within the twelve (12) month period prior to the date of mayoral selection;
120 of 130

78b
5 7
8 7
(2) Is unable to serve as mayor because of physical incapacity due to a medical condition that will severely limit or impair the ability of the councilmember to perform the duties of mayor;
(3) Is unable to serve as mayor, because of mental incapacity (such as by reason of stroke, serious mental illness, or serious nervous breakdown) that will severely limit or impair the ability of the councilmember to perform the duties of mayor;
(4) Is convicted of a felony or any crime of violence or moral turpitude; or
(5) Is arrested or charged with a felony or any crime of violence or moral turpitude; provided that if and when the prosecution of such felony or crime of violence or moral turpitude is dismissed or otherwise terminated without a plea agreement or conviction, then the councilmember shall thereafter be placed in the highest priority for the next mayoral selection pursuant to subsection (B).

In the event the council chooses not to select a councilmember as mayor for one of the reasons stated in this subsection, it shall appoint the next qualified member.”
The Council can choose a combination or all of these options, or propose additional criteria to the list. Alternatively, if it would like to maintain the Best Interest Clause in some form, the Council could modify the language to include other concerns such as fairness, modifying the language to focus on the interests served by appointing a particular councilmember rather than the current language which appears to give a negative connotation of the councilmember next in line that is being passed over, as well as any other criteria the Council deems appropriate.

Other Considerations
Change of the Mayoral Selection Date
As required by the GMC, the mayor is currently selected at the regular meeting occurring after the first Monday in April. Mayor selection has historically occurred in April although it previously occurred later in April when the City’s general municipal elections were held in April of odd-numbered years. The City’s general municipal elections now coincide with the dates of the statewide primary elections, which are in March in presidential election years (2024, 2028, etc.) and June in non-presidential election years (2026, 2030 etc.). Thus, mayor selection is occurring prior to the seating of new councilmembers. Even after the March elections, mayor selection is occurring before new councilmembers are sworn in due to the length of time it takes Los Angeles County to certify election results.
121 of 130

88b
5 7
8 7
During a discussion of the Policy at the April 1, 2025 meeting, the Council inquired about changing the mayor selection date. To ensure mayor selection occurs after the City holds its municipal elections, the Council may want to consider mid-to-late July, or later. If the Council makes a change, it would have to decide when that change would take effect and its applicability to the current mayor’s term.

Consideration of Repeal of Policy
The Policy was adopted for the purpose of providing a level of certainty in the mayor selection process. As noted, in the last two years, the Council has utilized the Best Interest Clause to select a councilmember who was not next in line under the Seniority Rule. Suffice it to say this has caused consternation from segments of the community, especially from supporters of those councilmembers who were next in line under the current seniority rule. Although the Council may make changes to eliminate or soften the impact of the seniority rule, it is difficult to predict that a revised rule will in all circumstances result in decisions that will be deemed fair. For example, by granting preference to ensure councilmembers who have not previously served as mayor can do so during their first term, it is possible more seasoned councilmembers could get skipped over if new councilmembers come aboard every election cycle. One option for consideration is to repeal the Policy and revert to the prior ordinance which simply gave preference to councilmembers who had some experience on council prior to mayor selection. Returning to the prior policy would permit Council to choose a mayor based on who the Council feels is the appropriate choice for that particular year, without the level of angst that has occurred when it is perceived a councilmember is being “skipped over.”

Staff requests City Council direction on the above options presented, as well as on any other provisions of the currently existing ordinance which Council would like to modify.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This activity involves organizational and administrative activities of the government related to the process for selecting the mayor, and such internal procedural changes have no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. As such, this action is not a “project” subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15378.
122 of 130

98b
5 7
8 7

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff has no recommendation and seeks direction from the City Council.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Prepared by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Dorine Martirosian, Principal Assistant City Attorney
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS

1. G.M.C. Section 2.04.020
123 of 130

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member _________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that, with respect to the Report to Council dated May 13, 2025 regarding the mayoral selection policy set forth in Glendale Municipal Code (“GMC”) section 2.04.020, the Council directs the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending GMC section 2.04.020 as follows:

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
124 of 130

125 of 130

126 of 130

8c
25-87848

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Appointment of Glendale’s three members to the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority Commission

1. Motion appointing three individuals to the Airport Commission for four-year terms commencing June 1, 2025

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for May 13, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Glendale needs to appoint three representatives to the Burbank-Glendale- Pasadena Airport Authority Commission, as the terms for the current commissioners are set to expire on May 31, 2025. In accordance with the Joint Powers Agreement amongst the cities of Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena, the respective governing bodies (City Councils) shall each appoint three members to the Commission to serve four-year terms commencing June 1, 2025.
127 of 130

8c2
25-87848
5 9
9 7

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council appoint three members to the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority Commission on behalf of the City of Glendale.

ANALYSIS
The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority (“BGPAA”) is a separate government agency created under the Joint Powers Agreement (“JPA”) between the three cities of Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena in 1977 for the sole purpose of owning and operating Hollywood Burbank Airport. The mission of the BGPAA is to provide state-of-the-art regional airport facilities and related services which are efficient, safe, convenient, and user-friendly, while being a good neighbor.

The BGPAA’s governing body (the “Commission”) holds regular public meetings on the first and third Monday of the months of February, April, May, June, October. Meetings are held only on the third Monday of the months of January, March, July, August, September, November, December. The Commission has three standing committees that meet on a regular basis in the administrative offices on the second floor of the main terminal building.

The Operations and Development Committee and the Legal, Government and Environmental Affairs Committee both meet at 8:30 a.m., preceding the regular Commission meeting. The Finance and Administration Committee meets on Commission meeting dates at 9:30 a.m. or immediately following the full Commission meeting.

Executive Committee meetings are held the first Wednesday of each month at 9:00 a.m.

Commissioners receive a stipend of $200 for each regular or special standing advisory committee and each ad hoc advisory committee meeting, as well as a $75 per month travel allowance to compensate for the use of personal vehicles for travel to and from Hollywood Burbank Airport & Airport-related activities within Los Angeles County.

The current members representing the City of Glendale on the Commission are Mayor Ara Najarian, who is also serving as the BGPAA Commission President, Councilmember Elen Asatryan, and former Mayor/Councilmember Frank Quintero. All three seats have terms expiring on May 31, 2025. Under the JPA, the city councils of the three participating cities each appoint three commissioners to serve four-year terms.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1) Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff. 128 of 130

8c3
25-87848
5 9
9 7

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
Prepared by:

Domenica Megerdichian, Assistant to the City Manager
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None.
129 of 130

MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the Council hereby appoints the following individuals to the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority (“BGPAA”) Commission for 4-year terms commencing on June 1, 2025:

1. __________________________

2. __________________________

3. __________________________
The appointed commissioners shall serve for four years, unless removed sooner pursuant to the BGPAA Joint Powers Agreement, and until their successors are appointed and qualified.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
130 of 130

Glendale City CouncilMay 13, 2025

Glendale City Council
May 13, 2025