Agenda packet, first session — Glendale City Council, June 10, 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.

JUNE 10, 2025

ROLL CALL

1. CLOSED SESSION
– 1:00 PM (T o Commence at 3:00 PM
)

1 TYPED 6/5/2025 6:44:25 PM
06 10 25
CC

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

Two Potential Cases
b.

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

Conference with Labor Negotiators. The City-designated negotiator attending the closed session is: Mayor Ara Najarian. The unrepresented employee position is:

City Attorney

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

Flag Salute: Council Member
b.

Invocation: Steve Wiebe, Senior Pastor, Glendale Presbyterian Church c.

Report of the City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the June 10, 2025 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on June 5, 2025, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a.

Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, June 17, 2025 b.

Proclamation Declaring June 12, 2025, National Control Room Workers’ Day Honoring Water and Power Employees
c.

Proclamation in Honor of Juneteenth
d.

Proclamation Declaring June as Men’s Health 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.

Libraries, Arts, and Culture, re:

Arts and Culture Commission recommendation to
fund performances and film screenings for the Alex Theatre's 100th Birthday Celebration in an amount not to exceed $240,000 dispersed from the Urban Art Fund

1. Motion approving the funding of performances and film screenings for the Alex Theatre’s 100th Birthday Celebration in an amount not to exceed $240,000 dispersed from the Urban Art Fund to Evensong Collective
b.

Libraries, Arts, and Culture, re:

Continuation of contract with Midwest Tape, LLC
(Contract No. C106741A) for the use of hoopla digital services for a new total amount not to exceed $175,000

2 TYPED 6/5/2025 6:44:25 PM
06 10 25
CC

1. Motion authorizing the continuation of contract with Midwest T ape, LLC (Contract No.

C106741A), for the use of hoopla digital services for a new total amount not to exceed $175,000
c.

Public Works, re:

Solid Waste Collection Rates Update

1. Motion to note and file this report on the Solid Waste Collection Rates Update

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
a.

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
b.

Management Services, re:

Consideration of Submitting a Grant Application for the U.S. Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) FY25 Improving Criminal Justice Responses (ICJR) Program

1. Motion Directing Staff

9. HEARINGS

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

12. DISCUSSION OF COUNCILMEMBER FUTURE AGENDA REQUESTS

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

3 TYPED 6/5/2025 6:44:25 PM
06 10 25
CC

4a
25-88075

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Arts and Culture Commission recommendation to fund performances and film screenings for the Alex Theatre's 100th Birthday Celebration in an amount not to exceed $240,000 dispersed from the Urban Art Fund

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for June 10, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 20, 2025 the Arts and Culture Commission approved the proposed FY 2025- 26 Work Plan which included the funding of performances and film screenings for the Alex Theatre’s 100th Birthday Celebration in an amount of $120,000.

On May 15, 2025, the Arts and Culture Commission approved a Motion to recommend that City Council approve the funding of performances and film screenings as part of the Alex Theatre’s 100th Birthday Celebration at the Alex Theatre, in an amount not to exceed $120,000 dispersed from the FY 2024-25 Work Plan. The total funding for the Alex Theatre’s 100th Birthday Celebration would be $240,000 over the course of two fiscal years (FY 2024-25 and FY 2025-26) dispersed from the Urban Art Fund. 4 of 104

4a2
25-88075
6 1
0 3

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council approve the funding of performances and film screenings as part of the Alex Theatre’s 100th Birthday Celebration in an amount not to exceed $240,000 dispersed from the Urban Art Fund to Evensong Collective.

ANALYSIS
For 100 years, the Alex Theatre has been a cultural landmark in Glendale, bringing people together through arts, music, films, dance - a legacy of entertainment. Many community members have voiced their expectations to Evensong Collective (Alex Theatre management company), that the City should support the Alex Theatre’s 100th Birthday Celebration since this is an un-paralleled opportunity to honor the City’s legacy of supporting arts and cultural initiatives.

This anniversary is more than just a milestone—it’s a chance to shine a spotlight on Glendale as a thriving cultural hub, bringing in visitors and strengthening community pride.

On March 20, 2025, during the Regular Meeting of the Arts and Culture Commission, the Commission approved the FY 2025-26 Work Plan in an amount of $2,200,000 which included programs and projects for the fiscal year. The FY 2025-26 Work Plan included funding for the Alex Theatre’s 100th Birthday Celebration in an amount of $120,000 to support performances and film screenings.

On May 15, 2025, during the Regular Meeting of the Arts and Culture Commission, the Commission approved an additional $120,000 from the current FY 2024-25 Work Plan to support performances and film screenings as part of the Alex Theatre’s 100th Birthday Celebration. Evensong Collective has created a funding proposal that includes a season of special programming that showcases Glendale’s rich artistic heritage and connects with our diverse community which will be reviewed for the Council’s consideration.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Evensong Collective has invited community members to participate in the Alex Theatre’s 100th Birthday Celebration Advisory Committee, which includes two Arts and Culture Commissioners, Arlene Vidor and Mark Marat Hay.

FISCAL IMPACT
The funding for performances and film screenings as part of the Alex Theatre’s 100th Birthday Celebration will cost $240,000. $120,000 is pending approval as part of the proposed FY 2025-26 budget. Additional funding of $120,000 was approved as part of the FY 2024-25 budget.
5 of 104

4a3
25-88075
6 1
0 3
FY 2024-25 Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$120,000 43110-2100-LAC-0010-P4148 Urban Art Fund
FY 2025-26 Proposed Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$120,000 43110-2100-LAC-0010-P4148 Urban Art Fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
CEQA does not apply to projects where the lead agency determines "with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment." CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs.) § 15061(b)(3). Here, the action involves approval of funding in support of the Alex Theatre’s 100 th Birthday Celebration where food, activities and entertainment will be provided for the community. There is no possibility that the action may have a significant effect on the environment.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: The City Council may decline to adopt the Motion.

Alternative 2: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Lessa Pelayo-Lozada, Director of Library, Arts & Culture Prepared by:

Jennifer Fukutomi-Jones, Principal Library, Arts & Culture Administrator Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
EXHIBIT A – Alex Theatre’s 100th Birthday Celebration Proposal EXHIBIT B – ACC_032025 – FY 2025-26 Work Plan Motion
EXHIBIT C – ACC_051525 – Alex Theatre’s 100th Birthday Celebration Funding Motion 6 of 104

MOTION
Moved by Council Member _______________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the City Council hereby approves the funding of performances and film screenings as part of the Alex Theatre’s 100th Birthday Celebration at the Alex Theatre, in an amount not to exceed $240,000 dispersed from the Urban Art Fund to Evensong Collective, as more fully outlined in the June 10, 2025 Report by the Library, Arts & Culture’s Principal Arts & Culture Administrator.

Vote as Follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
7 of 104

CELEBRATING 100 YEARSOF THE ALEX THEATRE

EXHIBIT A
8 of 104

OPENING NIGHT - SEPTEMBER 4, 1925
9 of 104

OVER THE RHINEOCT 25

SPONSORSHIP BENEFITS

LOGO INCLUDED INPROMOTIONALMATERIALS
LINK ON THE ALEX100SEASON LANDING PAGE

ARTICLE IN THE SEASONPROGRAM BOOK
10 of 104

VIG ZARTMAN - ONE WORLD STORY
11 of 104

IVETA MUKUTCHIAN
12 of 104

13 of 104

14 of 104

15 of 104

1920s

C E N T U R Y F I L M S E R I E S
16 of 104

1930s
17 of 104

1940s
18 of 104

1950s
19 of 104

1960s
20 of 104

1970s
21 of 104

1980s
22 of 104

1990s
23 of 104

2000s
24 of 104

2010s
25 of 104

2020s
26 of 104

CELEBRATING 100 YEARS OF THE ALEX THEATRE
27 of 104

EXHIBIT B
28 of 104

EXHIBIT C
29 of 104

4b
24-86906

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Continuation of contract with Midwest Tape, LLC (Contract No. C106741A) for the use of hoopla digital services for a new total amount not to exceed $175,000

1. Motion authorizing the continuation of contract with Midwest Tape, LLC (Contract No.

C106741A), for the use of hoopla digital services for a new total amount not to exceed $175,000.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for June 10, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Midwest Tape, LLC provides patrons access to a variety of electronic materials, including eBooks, eAudiobooks, comics, movies, and TV shows through its hoopla digital service.

Although other services provide access to similar materials, no other service currently provides access to the wide variety of electronic materials through a single digital portal.

Library, Arts & Culture patrons have been using the service regularly for many years and it is a standard service offered by many libraries across the country. 30 of 104

4b2
24-86906
5 6
6 1

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council authorize the continuation of contract with Midwest Tape, LLC (Contract No. C106741A), for the use of hoopla digital services for a new total amount not to exceed $175,000.

ANALYSIS
Glendale Library, Arts and Culture (“LAC”) has been using Midwest Tape, LLC services since 2018. Midwest Tape, LLC provides access to a wide variety of electronic material for patron use through the existing contract with an open term. In FY 2023-24, 2,168 patrons downloaded and streamed 16,445 eBooks, eAudiobooks, comics, and TV shows and movies through Midwest Tape, LLC’s hoopla digital service (“hoopla”). LAC added 1,029 new patrons to the service that year. Although other services exist that provide similar materials, LAC would need to contract with multiple vendors to provide access to the wide variety of materials hoopla offers, resulting in additional operational costs in managing those additional vendors and more platform fees incurred for each service. The total actual expenses for the last three fiscal years are as follows: 2022: $25,832; 2023:
$26,086; 2024: $28,780.

The current contract amount is $145,000 and LAC needs an additional $30,000 to continue using Midwest Tape, LLC’s services for FY 2024-25 and cover remaining invoices.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
hoopla, provided by Midwest Tape, LLC, is utilized by a significant number of Glendale Library, Arts & Culture patrons with a circulation of 16,445 items by 2,168 patrons in FY 2023-24. Usage demonstrates patron need and demand for electronic materials and informal patron feedback indicates a desire to continue these services in a familiar platform.

FISCAL IMPACT
The current contract amount for Midwest Tape, LLC (C106741A) is $145,000.

Continued use of Midwest Tape, LLC’s services for FY 2024-25 will cost $30,000, resulting in a new not to exceed amount of $175,000, which can be absorbed by LAC’s General Fund budget for this fiscal year, as outlined below.

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$30,000 45101-1010-LAC-6012-P4121 General Fund

4b3
24-86906
5 6
6 1
consists of digital services and there is no possibility that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.

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 2, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Deny the request to continue the contract with Midwest Tape, LLC for the use of hoopla digital services for a new total amount not to exceed $175,000. Denial of the request will result in the cancellation of Hoopla, decreasing the amount of available materials to patrons by at least 25% through the end of FY24-25.

Alternative 2: City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Lessa Pelayo-Lozada, Assistant Director of Library, Arts & Culture Prepared by:

Armineh Hoonanian, Principal Administrative Officer
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Midwest Tape, LLC Contract
Exhibit 2: Campaign Disclosure Form
32 of 104

1 2
9 5
3 M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ________________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________________, that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby authorizes the continuation of contract with Midwest Tape, LLC (Contract No. C106741A), for the use of hoopla digital services for a new total amount not to exceed $175,000.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
33 of 104

r
i

MIDWEST
TAPE

UBRARIANS
SOURCE
hoopla®
Service
Agreement
This
hoopla
Service
Agreement
(‘Agreement”)
is
made
as
of
this—
day
of
________,
201_
(“Effective
Date”)
by
and
between
Glendale
Public
Library
(the
“Library”),
and
Midwest
Tape,
LLC.

Whereas,
Midwest
Tape
offers
its
hoopla
digital
service
(“hoopla,”
the
“Service,”
or
the
“hoopla
Service”)
to
libraries
to
allow
authorized
library
patrons
to
access
digital
media
content
using
smart
phones,
tablets,
computers,
and
web
browsers;
Whereas,
the
Service
is
comprised
of
a
digital
media
platform
that
includes
content
in
multiple
formats
(e.g.,
movies,
television
programs,
music,
audiobooks,
eBooks,
and
comics)
and
is
designed
to
be
accessible
24/7
in
accordance
with
circulation
limits
(if
any)
and
other
settings
established
by
the
user’s
library
system;
andWhereas,
the
Library
wishes
to
make
hoopla
available
to
the
Library’s
authorized
users
(“Patrons”);
Now,
therefore,
in
consideration
of
the
promises
and
mutual
covenants
contained
in
this
Agreement,
and
for
good
and
valuable
consideration,
the
receipt
and
sufficiency
of
which
are
hereby
acknowledged,
the
Library
and
Midwest
Tape
(each
a
“Party”
and
collectively
the
“Parties”)
agree
as
follows:

DEFINITIONS.

The
following
definitions
apply
wherever
those
terms
appear
in
this
Agreement:
“Digital
Media
Application”
means
one
or
more
computer
programs
maintained,
owned,
and/or
used
by
Midwest
Tape
to
provide
access
for
limited
periods
to
Digital
Titles
(including
the
ability
to
browse,
borrow,
stream,
download,
and/or
return
such
titles)
using
certain
smart
phones,
computer
tablets,
and/or
other
mobile
devices.

The
Digital
Media
Application
currently
bears
the
name
“hoopla.”
“Digital
Media
Platform”
means
one
or
more
computer
programs
owned,
maintained,
and/or
used
by
Midwest
Tape
to
provide
access
to
Digital
Titles
and/or
to
allow
the
Library
to
manage
its
offering
and
Patron
use
of
Digital
Titles,
including
the
Digital
Media
Application,
hoopla
digital
Website,
and
hoopla
Library
Administration
Website.
“Digital
Titles”
means
any
and
all
movies,
television
programs,
music,
audiobooks,
eBooks,
comics,
and
other
audio
or
visual
works
that
Midwest
Tape
makes
available
to
the
Library
and
its
Patrons
via
the
Digital
Media
Platform
during
the
Term
of
this
Agreement.
“hoopla
Library
Administration
Website”
means
a
Midwest
Tape
website
that
may
be
accessed
and
utilized
by
the
Library
to
manage
content
available
to
Patrons
in
the
Digital
Media
Platform,
and
to
administer
Library
policies
in
regard
to
Patron
use
of
the
Service.
“hoopla
digital
Website”
means
a
Midwest
Tape
website
(currently
www.hoopladigital.com)
that
may
be
used
to
access,
browse,
borrow,
stream,
download,
and/or
return
Digital
Titles.
“Intellectual
Property
Rights”
means
all
rights
in
and
to
patents,
trademarks,
service
marks,
trade
names,
copyrights,
trade
secrets,
technology,
software,
designs,
algorithms,
know-hoW,
a
Well
as
rnorl
rights
and
all
other
intellectual
and
proprietary
rights
of
any
type
under
the
laws
of
any
governmental
authority.
“Library
Website”
means
a
website
owned,
maintained,
and/or
used
by
or
for
the
Library
for
the
purpose
of
providing
information
to
Patrons
and/or
the
general
public
about
the
Library
and
its
various
content
offerings,
policies,
objectives,
initiatives,
and
procedures.
1/2017
Page
1 Exhibit 1
34 of 104

()
MIDWHAP!
UBPARANSØMEDIASOURCE
“Marks”meansanytrademarks,servicemarks,tradenames,logos,designs,icons,characters,coverart, styles,andtradedressassociatedwithanyDigitalTitles,includingwithoutlimitationalltranslationsor transliterationsoftheforegoinginanylanguage,oranycolorableimitationsormodifiedversionsthereof. “MidwestTape”meansMidwestTape,LLCandanyofitsparents,subsidiaries,oraffiliatedentitiesthat areengagedinthebusinessofdistributingmediacontentindigitalformtolibrariesandlibraryusersviathe DigitalMediaPlatform.
“ServicePartners”meansanythirdpartiesthatprovidedigitalstorage,webhosting,ITservices,data analysisandprocessing,ordistributionorotherservicestoMidwestTapeinconnectionwiththeService. “TitleSummaryandPromotionalData”means,withrespecttoeachDigitalTitle,thefollowing informationanddatathatismadeavailabletoLibrarypursuanttothisAgreement:(i)title;(ii)author(s), publisher,illustrator(s),narrator(s),actor(s),director(s),producer(s),studio(s),andsimilardescriptive information;(iii)ifcommerciallyused,thedigitalobjectidentifier;(iv)narrativedescriptionorsummaryof thework;(v)coverartandimage,graphics,andotherimages;(vi)copyrightnotice;and(vii)anyother identifyinginformation.
“Vendor”meansanysuppliertoMidwestTapeof(i)DigitalTitle(s);(ii)TitleSummaryandPromotional Data;and/or(iii)technologyorservicesnecessaryforMidwestTapetoprovidetheServicetotheLibrary.

II.LIBRARYRIGHTS&OBLIGATIONS.

Rights.DuringtheTerm,andsubjecttoallthetermsandlimitationssetforthinthisAgreement,Midwest TapegrantstotheLibrarythenon-exclusiveandnon-transferrablerighttodisplayandaccesstheDigital MediaPlatformandTitleSummaryandPromotionalDataforthelimitedpurposeof:(a)allowingPatronsto access,view,andborrowDigitalTitlesthroughtheServiceandpursuanttothisAgreement;(b)promoting awarenessandauthorizeduseoftheService,includingviapostingsontheLibraryWebsite(s);and(c) establishingandimplementingLibrary-specificpoliciesinregardtouseoftheServicebytheLibraryand Patrons,consistentwiththisAgreementandtherequirementsoftheDigitalMediaPlatform.

Limitations.Exceptforthelimited,non-exclusive,non-transferrablerightsexpresslygrantedtotheLibrary aboveinthisSectionII,theLibraryshallhavenorightinorto,orownershipof,theService,DigitalTitles, DigitalMediaPlatform,hoopladigitalWebsite,hooplaLibraryAdministrationWebsite,DigitalMedia Application,Marks,TitleSummaryandPromotionalData,oranyotherartworkormaterialsdeliveredby MidwestTapeinconnectionwiththisAgreement.TheLibraryshallhavenorighttoaccess,use,modify, orreproduceanyportionofanysourcecoderelatingtotheServiceand/ortheDigitalMediaPlatform,orto make,sell,ordistributeanyvariationsorderivativeworksoftheServiceand/ortheDigitalMediaPlatform.

TheLibraryagreestothesupportandprotectionofIntellectualPropertyRights(includingbutnotlimitedto copyrightandtrademarkprotections),toprohibitPatronsfromengaginginactivitiesthatinfringeonthese rights,andtorefrainfromfacilitatingsuchactivities.Inaddition,theLibrarywillcomplywithallother requirementscommunicatedbyMidwestTapewithrespecttoanyIntellectualPropertyRightsandthe Marks.

NoPublicPerformanceRights.TheLibraryshallhavenopublicperformancerightsintheDigitalTitles.

Accordingly,theLibrarymaynotofferanyDigitalTitlesasaperformanceinordertoenticePatronsorthe generalpublictocometoanevent,sponsoredbytheLibraryorotherwise.

GeneralObligations.TofacilitatethesuccessfulintroductionoftheServiceto,anduseoftheServiceby, Patrons,theLibraryshall:(a)regularlycommunicatetostaff,Patrons,andthegeneralpublicservedthat theServiceisavailabletoPatrons;(b)providesuitabletrainingopportunitiestoappropriateLibrarystaff members,sothattheyunderstandtheServiceandcanassistinthepromotionandtheuseoftheService byPatrons;(c)regularlyfeatureprominentlinksandreferencestopopularDigitalTitlesandthehoopla 1/2017Page2
35 of 104

r
fl

MIDWEST
TAPE
Ll8RARANSØj1MEOlA
SOURCE
digital
Website
on
the
Library
Website’s
homepage;
(U)
incorporate
MARC
record
data
regarding
Digital
Titles
in
the
Library’s
catalog
to
enhance
the
discoverability
of
key
content
available
in
the
Service;
(e)
manage
all
funds
designated
or
appropriated
for
use
of
the
Service;
(f)
participate
in
the
implementation
of
the
Service
at
the
Library,
including
without
limitation
by
providing
Midwest
Tape
with
sufficient
and
accurate
information
to
identify
Patrons
of
the
Library
who
are
authorized
to
utilize
the
Service;
(g)
provide
Primary
Support,
as
defined
below;
(h)
perform
requested
linkage
between
the
Service
and
the
Library
Website,
as
well
as
reasonable
technical
services
to
support
and
maintain
the
Service
during
the
Term;
and
(i);
notify
Midwest
Tape
at
least
three
(3)
business
days
before
any
change
in
any
RSS
links,
ILS
configuration,
URL
updates,
or
other
equipment
or
technology
that
could
adversely
impact
the
Service
and/or
the
use
of
the
Service,
including
any
changes
that
could
impact
the
process
of
Patron
authentication.

Network
Connectivity.

The
Library
is
responsible
for
providing
a
suitable
network
and
Internet
system
for
integration
of
the
Service
into
the
Library
Website
or
other
systems.

Use
of
the
hoopla
Library
Administration
Website.

The
Library
agrees
that
it
is
solely
responsible
for
managing
its
use
of
the
hoopla
Library
Administration
Website
and
using
that
website
as
designed,
including
by
establishing,
verifying,
and
maintaining
any
settings
and
controls
regarding
use
of
the
Service
by
Patrons
(e.g.,
limitations
on
circulations,
content
restrictions,
reporting
preferences,
etc.).

Library
Website.

The
Library
is
solely
responsible
for
all
aspects
of
catalog
integration,
operation,
training,
support,
and/or
maintenance
necessary
for
the
operation
of
the
Library
Website.

This
may
include
obtaining
a
SIP2
or
similar
protocol
software
license(s)
from
a
third-party
vendor
in
order
to
support
direct
integration
of
the
Service
with
the
Library’s
own
Library
Website
or
other
systems,
as
well
as
the
cost
for
customized
MARC
records
it
may
obtain
from
a
third-party
supplier
such
as
OCLC.

The
Library
shall
keep
its
hoopla
account
information
current
with
Midwest
Tape
and
promptly
alert
Midwest
Tape
to
any
significant
changes
relating
to
the
Library
Website,
including
but
not
limited
to
changes
of
personnel
that
could
impact
the
support,
functionality,
and/or
performance
of
the
Service.

Primary
Support.

The
Library
is
responsible
for
providing
its
Patrons
with
‘Primary
Support,”
which
includes
assisting
Patrons
with
the
use
of
the
Service,
responding
to
Patron
questions
regarding
the
functionality
and
technical
requirements
of
the
hoopla
digital
Website
and
the
Digital
Media
Application,
and
helping
Patrons
with
the
process
of
communicating
with
Midwest
Tape
where
necessary
and
appropriate
to
obtain
additional
support
and
technical
assistance.

No
Warranties
or
Representations
to
Others.

The
Library
represents
and
agrees
that,
except
for
the
representations,
warranties,
and
promises
made
to
Midwest
Tape
in
this
Agreement,
neither
the
Library
nor
any
of
its
employees,
agents,
or
others
acting
under
its
direction
has
made
or
will
make
any
representations
or
warranties,
expressed
or
implied,
to
anyone
concerning
the
Service,
Digital
Titles,
Digital
Media
Application,
Digital
Media
Platform,
hoopla
digital
Website,
and/or
hoopla
Library
Administration
Website.Compliance
with
Applicable
Laws
and
Regulations.

The
Library
will,
at
its
own
expense,
comply
with
all
applicable
laws,
ordinances,
rules,
regulations,
and
other
legal
requirements
in
connection
with
the
Library’s
performance
under
this
Agreement.

Costs
and
Expenses.

The
Library
is
responsible
for
all
of
its
own
expenses
and
costs
related
to
its
performance
under
this
Agreement.

Midwest
Tape
has
no
obligation
to
reimburse
the
Library
for
any
expenses
or
costs
incurred
by
the
Library
related
to
this
Agreement
or
to
the
performance
of
the
Library’s
obligations,
including
but
not
limited
to
any
expenses
and
costs
incurred
in
the
preparation,
systems
integration,
or
use
of
the
Digital
Media
Platform,
hoopla
Library
Administration
Website,
hoopla
digital
Website,
and
Digital
Media
Application.
1/2017
Page
3 36 of 104

MIDWEST
TAPE
LlBPARNSØj
tMEDIA
SObRCE
UI.

FEES,

PAYMENTS
&
REPoRTING.

Per
Circulation
Program.

The
Library
shall
pay
Midwest
Tape
a
Per
Circulation
Fee
for
each
Circulation
of
a
Digital
Title.

A
“Circulation”
occurs
when
the
Library
or
a
Patton
using
the
Service,
via
the
Digital
Media
Application
or
the
hoopla
digital
Website,
selects
‘borrow’
and
thereby
obtains
the
opportunity
to
access,
view,
stream,
or
temporarily
download
a
Digital
Title
for
a
specific
period
of
time
that
is
terminated
either
(i)
upon
expiration
of
the
applicable
borrowing
period
for
that
Digital
Title,
or
(ii)
when
the
Digital
Title
is
returned
before
the
end
of
the
applicable
borrowing
period
for
that
Digital
Title.

Midwest
Tape
shall
be
entitled
to
payment
of
afee
for
each
Circulation,
regardless
of
whether
the
Digital
Title
is
actually
accessed,
viewed,
streamed,
or
downloaded
during
that
circulation
period.

The
“Per
Circulation
Fees”
for
individual
Digital
Titles
are
listed
in
the
hoopla
Library
Administration
Website
and
are
subject
to
change
from
time
to
time.

The
Service
allows
for
an
unlimited
number
of
Circulations
of
each
of
the
Digital
Titles
that
are
available
to
the
Library’s
Patrons,
so
that
multiple
Patrons
may
access
the
same
Digital
Title(s)
simultaneously
via
multiple
transactions.

Invoicing
and
Payment.

Midwest
Tape
will
invoice
the
Library
by
Invoice
Period.
“Invoice
Period”
means
a
calendar
monthly
period,
recorded
in
UTC
time,
in
which
Circulations
occur.

Payment
of
each
invoice
will
be
due
within
thirty
(30)
days
from
the
date
of
the
invoice.

Reporting.

Through
the
hoopla
Library
Administration
Website,
the
Library
will
have
access
to
certain
reports
summarizing
Patron
usage,
circulation
data,
and
purchase
activity
for
the
Digital
Titles.

Taxes.

The
Library
is
required
to
provide
a
sales
tax
exemption
certificate,
ifapplicable,
to
Midwest
Tape
as
part
of
the
on-boarding
process.

If
the
Library
is
not
exempt
or
does
not
do
so,
Midwest
Tape
will
add
(and
collect)
sales
taxes
to
any
purchases
made
pursuant
to
this
Agreement.

IV.

TERM
AND
TERMINATION.

Term.

The
term
of
this
Agreement
(the
“Term”)
begins
on
the
Effective
Date
and
continues
for
a
period
of
24 months
thereafter.

Upon
expiration
of
the
Term,
this
Agreement
will
automatically
renew
and
the
Term
will
be
extended
for
successive
renewal
periods
of
12 months
(each
a
“Renewal
Term”),
unless
either
Party
has
provided
at
least
sixty
(60)
days’
advance
written
notice
of
non-renewal.

Termination.

This
Agreement
may
be
terminated
in
either
of
the
following
ways:

By
Notice.

Either
Party
may
terminate
this
Agreement,
with
or
without
cause,
by
providing
the
other
Party
with
sixty
(60)
days’
advance
written
notice.

Due
to
Breach.

Either
Party
may
suspend
its
performance
or,
at
that
Party’s
sole
option,
terminate
this
Agreement
by
providing
the
other
Party
with
written
notice
of
such
action
in
the
event
of
(i)
the
other
Party’s
material
breach
of
this
Agreement,
which
breach
continues
uncured
for
a
period
of
thirty
(30)
days
after
written
notice
of
such
breach;
or
(ii)
the
Library’s
failure
to
perform
its
payment
obligations
under
Section
III
of
this
Agreement
for
a
period
of
at
least
thirty
(30)
days.

Upon
termination
of
this
Agreement,
the
Library
shall
immediately
(i)
cease
distribution
and
use
of
the
Service,
Digital
Media
Application,
Digital
Media
Platform,
Digital
Titles,
Marks,
Metadata,
and
Promotional
Postings;
and
(ii)
pay
all
amounts
due
to
Midwest
Tape.

MIDWEST
TAPE
RIGHTS
&
OBLIGATIONS.

The
hoopla
Service.

Midwest
Tape
and/or
its
Service
Partners
will:
(a)
host
and
support
the
Service
as
provided
in
this
Agreement;
(b)
designate
an
implementation
specialist
(“hoopla
Coordinator”)
to
be
1/2017
Page
4 37 of 104

MIDWEST
TAPE
SOURCE
available
for
customer
support
to
the
Library
in
connection
with
the
launch
and
implementation
of
the
Service;
and
(c)
provide
the
Library
with
access
to
the
hoopla
Library
Administration
Website,
which
offers
tools
to
enable
the
Library
to
manage
use
of
the
Service,
including
in
regard
to
Patron
borrowing
limits,
lending
policies,
title
blocking,
ratings-
and
user-advisory
settings,
usage
dashboard,
and
reporting.

Ownership
of
Vendors’s
Intellectual
Property.

Subject
to
the
provisions
of
this
Agreement,
Vendors
retain
all
of
their
Intellectual
Property
Rights
in
and
to
the
Vendor’s
Digital
Titles,
Metadata,
Marks,
and
Promotional
Postings,
artwork,
and
other
property
that
may
be
utilized
or
accessed
in
connection
with
the
Service.Ownership
of
Midwest
Tape’s
Intellectual
Property.

As
between
the
Parties,
Midwest
Tape
owns
and
retains
all
Intellectual
Property
Rights
in
and
to
the
Service,
Digital
Media
Platform,
Digital
Media
Application,
hoopla
digital
Website,
hoopla
Library
Administration
Website,
Midwest
Tape
and
hoopla
and
hoopla
digital
trademarks,
and
all
other
Midwest
Tape
intellectual
property,
including
but
not
limited
to
all
modifications,
updates,
or
improvements
made
thereto.

The
Library
acknowledges
Midwest
Tape’s
ownership
of
such
Intellectual
Property
Rights.

Modifications
to
Digital
Media
Platform.

Midwest
Tape
has
the
right
to
modify,
at
any
time,
the
Service,
Digital
Media
Platform,
Digital
Media
Application,
hoopla
digital
Website,
hoopla
Library
Administration
Website,
and
other
aspects
and
features
of
hoopla
in
Midwest
Tape’s
sole
discretion,
in
order
to
develop,
modify,
or
improve
operations,
performance,
or
functionality.

Addition,
Removal,
and
Modifications
of
Digital
Titles.

Midwest
Tape
has
the
right
to
take
any
or
all
of
the
following
actions
with
respect
to
any
Digital
Title(s)
at
any
time
and
in
its
sole
discretion:
(a)
add
or
remove
Digital
Titles
to
or
from
the
Service;
(b)
set
or
adjust
the
applicable
Per
Circulation
Fee(s);
(c)
replace
content
files,
Metadata,
and/or
Promotional
Postings;
and
(d)
edit
or
modify
editorial
content
or
designs.

The
Library
will
be
notified
by
email,
the
hoopla
Library
Administration
Website,
or
other
means
of
major
modifications
to
the
functionality
of
the
Service.

Promotion
of
the
Service.

Midwest
Tape
may,
at
its
own
expense
and
in
its
own
discretion,
publicize
the
Service
and
communicate
with
the
general
public
and
Patrons
regarding
the
availability,
features,
and
use
of
the
Service,
Digital
Titles,
Digital
Media
Platform,
and
Digital
Media
Application.

Support.

Midwest
Tape
will
support
the
Service
by
maintaining
help
files,
information,
and
other
appropriate
documentation
and
training
materials.

Midwest
Tape
will
undertake
reasonable
efforts
to
help
the
Library
perform
the
Library’s
obligation
to
provide
Primary
Support
to
Patrons,
including
by
offering
periodic
training
opportunities
to
Library
staff,
updating
the
Library
regarding
system
changes,
and
providing
the
Library
with
answers
to
“frequently
asked
questions”
related
to
the
Service.

Midwest
Tape
will
supply
activation
support,
including
assisting
with
the
implementation
of
any
software,
and
reasonable
levels
of
continuing
support
to
assist
the
Library
in
its
use
of
the
Service.

Midwest
Tape
will
make
technical
support
personnel
available
for
feedback,
problem-solving,
and/or
general
questions.

Technical
support
services
to
the
Library
include:
(i)
reasonable
efforts
to
identify,
correct,
and/or
circumvent
errors
in
the
System
Digital
Media
Platform
Digital
Media
Application
hoopla
digital
Wbsit
and
hoopla
Library
Administration
Website;
and
(ii)
supplying
updates,
enhancements,
and
new
versions
of
the
Service
as
they
become
available
(the
Secondary
Support”).

Midwest
Tape
has
no
obligation
to
provide
Primary
Support
to
Patrons
and
any
support
provided
by
Midwest
Tape
to
Patrons
will
be
in
Midwest
Tape’s
sole
discretion.

Midwest
Tape
will
use
reasonable
efforts
to
provide
continuous
service.

Permissible
down-time
includes
periodic
unavailability
due
to
matters
such
as:
maintenance
of
the
server(s);
installation
or
testing
of
software,
public
or
private
telecommunications
services,
or
internet
nodes
or
facilities;
and
failure
of
1/2017
Page
5 38 of 104

MIDWESTTAPE
U8RARANSqJ[EDASOURCEi
equipmentorservicesoutsidethecontrolofMidwestTape.Scheduleddown-timewilloccurperiodically andattimesdesigned,inMidwestTape’ssolediscretion,tominimizeinconveniencetohooplausers.

VI.MIscELLANEous.

Indemnities.EachParty(“IndemnifyingParty”)agreestodefend,indemnify,andholdharmlesstheother PartyanditsServicePartnersfromandagainstanyandallthird-partyclaims,demands,suits,legal proceedings,andcausesofactionthatariseoutoforrelatetoanybreachbytheIndemnifyingPartyofany ofitsrepresentationsandwarrantiesasstatedinthisAgreement(collectively,“IndemnifiableClaims”), includingbutnotlimitedtoalldamages,costs,expenses,reasonableattorneys’fees,judgments,and settlementsresultingfromsuchIndemnifiableClaims;provided,however,thatnoIndemnifiableClaimmay besettledwithouttheexpresswrittenconsentoftheIndemnifyingParty.

IndemnityProcess.ThePartyseekingindemnificationmustprovidepromptwrittennoticetothe IndemnifyingPartyofanyIndemnifiableClaimforwhichindemnificationwillbesought.TheIndemnifying PartymayelecttocontrolthedefenseandsettlementofanyIndemnifiableClaimswithcounselofits choosing.ThePartyseekingindemnificationwillcooperatewiththeIndemnifyingParty’sdefenseagainst theIndemnifiableClaims.IfanyIndemnifiableClaimiscoveredinpartbutnotentirelybyaParty’s indemnificationobligationhereunder,theIndemnifyingPartywillonlyberesponsibleforcoststotheextent attributabletothecoveredportion.

DISCLAIMEROFWARRANTIES.EXCEPTFORANYWARRANTIESEXPRESSLYPROVIDEDBY

MIDWESTTAPEINTHISAGREEMENT,MIDWESTTAPEMAKESNOWARRANTIESOFANYKIND,

WHETHEREXPRESSORIMPLIED,INCLUDINGBUTNOTLIMITEDTOANYIMPLIEDWARRANTYOF MERCHANTABILITYORFITNESSFORAPARTICULARPURPOSE.

LIMITATIONOFLIABILITY.EXCEPTASEXPRESSLYPROVIDEDOTHERWISEINTHIS

AGREEMENT,INNOEVENTWILLEITHERPARTYBELIABLEFORANYINDIRECT,INCIDENTAL,

CONSEQUENTIAL,SPECIAL,EXEMPLARYORPUNITIVEDAMAGES,INCLUDINGBUTNOTLIMITED

TOLOSTPROFITSORLOSTBUSINESSOPPORTUNITY,ARISINGOUTOFORRELATINGTOTHIS

AGREEMENT,EVENIFSUCHDAMAGESAREFORESEEABLEANDREGARDLESSOFWHETHER SUCHPARTYHASBEENADVISEDOFTHEPOSSIBLITYTHEREOF.

ConfidentialInformation.“ConfidentialInformation”meansanynon-publicinformationofeitherPartythat isdisclosedtotheotherPartyinconnectionwiththisAgreementeitherdirectlyorindirectly,inwriting,orally, electronically,orbyinspectionoftangibleobjects,andthatisdesignatedinwritingas“Confidential”atthe timeofdisclosureorwithinfive(5)daysthereafter.ConfidentialInformationincludes,withoutlimitation,any andallnon-publicbusinessplans,customerinformation,pricing,contractterms,availablecontentand sales,marketingand/orfinancesofthedisclosingParty.EachPartyagreestoholdtheConfidential InformationoftheotherPartyinconfidenceandtorefrainfromdisclosingsuchConfidentialInformationto anythirdparty,excepttotheextentrequiredtobedisclosedpursuanttogovernmentalorjudicialprocess, providedthatnoticeofsuchprocessispromptlyprovidedtothedisclosingPartyinorderthatitmayhave everyopportunitytointercedeinsuchprocesstocontestsuchdisclosureorseekanappropriateprotective order.ConfidentialInformationisthepropertyofthedisclosingParty,andthereceivingPartywillnotbe deemedbyvirtueofitsaccesstoConfidentialInformationtohaveacquiredanyrightorinterestinortoany suchConfidentialInformation.ConfidentialdoesnotaffecteitherParty’srighttouseordiscloseinformation thatisnotConfidentialInformation,includinginformationthatisinthepublicdomainorthatthereceiving Partycanshowwasknowntoitwithoutanyconfidentialityobligationpriortothedisclosurebythedisclosing Party.

Assignment.Exceptasprovidedherein,neitherPartymay,byoperationoflaworotherwise,assign, sublicense,orotherwisetransferanyofitsrightsorobligationsunderthisAgreementwithouttheprior writtenconsentoftheotherParty,whichmaynotbeunreasonablywithheldordelayed.EitherPartymay 1/2017Page6
39 of 104

MIDWEST
TAPE
LlBRARIANSHEDASOURCE
assign,transfer,orotherwisedelegateanyorallofitsrightsandobligationsunderthisAgreementtoany successorcarryingonthatpartofthebusinesstowhichthisAgreementrelatesortoanypurchaserofall orsubstantiallyalloftheassetsorstockofsuchParty.EachPartymayappointcontractorstoperformpart ofitsobligationshereunder,providedthatthePartyremainsfullyresponsibleforsuchcontractors performance.ThisAgreementbinds,benefits,andisenforceablebyandagainstbothPartiesandtheir respectivesuccessorsandpermittedassigns.

Notices.NoticesrequiredbythisAgreementmustbesentbyUnitedStatesmail,aswellasbyelectronic mail(orbyfacsimile),directedasfollows:

MidwestTape,LLC:Library:
__________________________
6950HallStreet
_________________________________
Holland,Ohio43528
________________________________
infotmidwesttapes.com
_______________________________
1(800)875-2785
________________________________
Amendment.Noamendment,modification,addendum,orrevisiontothisAgreementisvalidunlessitis inwritingandsignedbyallPartiestothisAgreement.

Arms-LengthNegotiations.ThisAgreementwasnegotiatedatarm’slengthwitheachPartyreceiving advicefromindependentlegalcounsel,andhasbeenexecutedanddeliveredingoodfaith.Itistheintent ofthePartiesthatnopartofthisAgreementshouldbeconstruedagainstanyPartybecauseoftheidentity ofthedrafter.

Counterparts.ThisAgreementmaybeexecutedincounterparts,eachofwhichtakentogetherconstitutes onesingleAgreementbetweentheParties.

EntireAgreement.ThisAgreementisanintegratedAgreementcontainingtheentireunderstanding betweenthePartiesregardingthesubjectmatterofthisAgreement,and,exceptfortherepresentations, warranties,andpromisesexpresslysetforthinthisAgreement,norepresentations,warranties,orpromises havebeenmadeorrelieduponbyeitherPartyasaninducementtoenterintothisAgreement.This AgreementprevailsoverallpriorcommunicationsoragreementsbetweenthePartiesortheir representativesregardingthesubjectmatterhereof.
[Remainderofpageintentionallyleftblank.]
1/2017Page7
40 of 104

a
MIDW.
.1
TAPE
Ll8RARiANSEOA
SOURCE
Force
Majeure.

No
Party
may
be
considered
in
default
or
to
have
incurred
any
liability
hereunder
due
to
any
failure
to
perform
this
Agreement
should
such
failure
arise
out
of
causes
beyond
its
reasonable
control,
including,
without
limitation,
work
stoppages,
fires,
riots,
accidents,
floods,
storms,
unavailability
of
utilities
or
fuel,
Internet
or
other
communication
failures,
or
other
similar
failures
or
occurrences.

The
time
for
performance
will
be
extended
for
a
period
equal
to
the
duration
of
such
conditions.

WITNESS

WHEREOF,
the
Parties
hereto
have
caused
this
Agreement
to
be
executed
by
their
duly
authorized
representatives
as
of
the
Effective
Date
first
written
above.

ACCEPTED
AND
AGREED

ACCEPTED
AND
AGREED
Name
of
ary
__________________

MIDWEST
TAPE,
LLC
By:
_____________________________
By:

Print
Name:

Print
Name:
%L2
Title:

Zy)t14/
4Xy
iAn—
Title:________________
Date
Signed:
_____________________
Date
Signed:
__________________
EASSenior
ia’Rity
Attort
/
DATE
4 \
4fvif
1€’O,OOO.ot
1/2017
Page
8 41 of 104

Exhibit #2
42 of 104

43 of 104

4c
25-87638

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Solid Waste Collection Rates Update

1. Motion to note and file this report on the Solid Waste Collection Rates Update

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for June 10, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 6, 2023, the City Council passed a resolution setting residential solid waste collection rates for the upcoming five years. At the time, the City Council requested annual updates on the implementation of the new approved rate structure.

MSW Consultants developed the original Cost of Services Analysis (COSA), that was the basis for the five-year refuse rate adjustment plan approved by the City Council. MSW Consultants recently analyzed actual revenue and expenditures for FYs 2023 & 2024, to evaluate how they compared against the COSA projections. They then used this analysis to re-project future revenue, expenditures and resulting cash balances for the fund.

The original COSA projected that if the recommended refuse disposal rates were implemented, the Refuse Disposal Fund would experience annual operating deficits from FY 2023-2025, and then first realize a surplus in FY 2026. In their recent analysis, MSW Consultants determined that the Refuse Disposal Fund continued to operate in annual deficits for FYs 2023 & 2024 and they project another annual deficit for FY 2025 which is consistent with the original COSA. However, because actual revenue so far exceeds the original COSA projections and actual expenditures so far has come in below these projections, the amount of the total deficit is less than projected in the original COSA.

Because the Refuse Disposal Fund continues to experience annual operating deficits and because another annual deficit is projected through FY 2025, proceeding with the next adjustment scheduled on July 1, 2025, is justified.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a motion to note and file this report on the Solid Waste Collections Rate Update. 44 of 104

4c2
25-87638
5 9
1 4

ANALYSIS
The City Council approved five-years of rate adjustments, with the first having been applied on July 1, 2023, at various percentages dependent upon cart size, and the second on July 1, 2024 at a 45% increase consistent for all cart/bin sizes. The remaining increases are scheduled to be applied on July 1st of years 2025, 2026 and 2027 at an increase rate of 25%, 10%, 10%, for all cart/bin size, respectively.

MSW Consultants’ mid-year review found total revenue in the Refuse Disposal Fund for both FYs (2023 & 2024), exceeded the amount of total revenue projected in the COSA by approximately $3.6M, or 12.4%. Over the same period, total expenditures came in under the projected amount by approximately $5.6M or 11.8%. Despite this, the Refuse Fund operated at a deficit for these two fiscal years and is projected to complete FY 2025 in an annual deficit as indicated in the attached mid-year report (Exhibit 1).

The actual two-year shortfall for the Refuse Disposal Fund was determined to be $9.3M as opposed to the original projected shortfall of approximately $18.4M. This is due to several factors. MSW Consultants noted that AB 939 revenue was significantly more than projected and that the city experienced less expenses for disposal and processing than what was projected. The cumulative cost of organics and green waste recycling has been less than projected over these two fiscal years due to less tonnage than originally anticipated. However, disposal costs and other expenses have subsequently increased in FY 2025 and we expect year-end expenditures for FY 2025 to be significantly higher than for FY 2024.

While the COSA does project that under the adopted rate structure, the Refuse Disposal Fund will never experience a deficit, the city generally projects deficits related to a fund’s unrestricted fund balance while the COSA tracks the fund balance as cash on hand.

According to the consultant, setting rates related to maintaining cash on hand is more common in the waste management private industry. Therefore, after adjusting for all liabilities and expenses, the unrestricted balance for the Refuse Disposal Fund is currently in the negative as shown the city’s Annual Comprehensive Finance Report for FY 2024. However, the fund still currently has over $5.2M in cash earning interest. The COSA projects a loss of cash of about $5M in FY 2024-25 and then an increase of $1.1M in FY 2025-26.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
In conjunction with the original COSA and rate adjustments from 2023, extensive notification was provided to all residential refuse customers as required by state law. No additional outreach was performed related to this report on Solid Waste Collection Rates Update.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. However, if the scheduled rates are not implemented on July 1, 2025, the Refuse Disposal Fund will continue to operate in annual deficits.
45 of 104

4c3
25-87638
5 9
1 4

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This item is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and, therefore, an environmental review is not required pursuant to Section 21080(b)(8) of the California Public Resources Code and Sections 15272(a) and 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 because CEQA does not apply to the establishment, modification, restructuring, or approval of rates and other charges by public agencies for purposes such as those set forth herein.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1. Do not approve a motion to note and file this report and provide direction to staff regarding residential refuse rates.

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:

Orlando Urquidez Jr., Senior Public Works Management Analyst Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS

1. 2025 Update – Mid-year review of 2023 Solid Waste Cost of Service Analysis (COSA)

2. Rate Adjustment Table

3. 2023 Solid Waste Cost of Services Analysis Study
46 of 104

4c
MOTION
Moved by Council Member _____________________________________, seconded by Council Member _____________________________________, that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby notes and files the Solid Waste Collection Rates Update as outlined in the Report to Council dated June 10, 2025.

Vote as Follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
______________________
City Clerk
47 of 104

Solid Waste Consultants
To Local Government
1 of 10
Date: May 22, 2025
To: Dan Hardgrove - City of Glendale
From: David Davis - MSW Consultants
Subject: 2025 Mid-year review of 2023 Solid Waste Cost of Service Study Background
In 2022, the City divested a significant portion of its commercial collection operations as part of franchising the business sector of the City’s solid waste operat ions. Also in 2022, CalRecycle adopted regulations that implemented SB1383, which created significant upward pressure on the cost of solid waste collection. Prior to 2022, the City had not adjusted refuse rates since 2010. As a result of these circumstances, the City’s Refuse Disposal Fund was incurring significant annual shortfalls, and rapidly depleting its cash reserve.

In 2023, the City conducted a cost of service study of the Refuse Disposal Fund. As a result of the cost of service study, the City approved a five -year plan to adjust refuse collection rates. That five year rate adjustment plan entailed the rate adjustments shown below in Table 1 These rate adjustments were intended to over time reverse the annual shortfalls and stem the depletion of cash in the Refuse Disposal Fund.

Table 1 – Proposed Rate Adjustment from 2023 Cost of Service Study Description Current Rate
Proposed
Rate Effective
July 1, 2023
Proposed
Rate Effective
July 1, 2024
Proposed
Rate Effective
July 1, 2025
Proposed
Rate Effective
July 1, 2026
Proposed
Rate Effective
July 1, 2027
Automated Cart Service - Single Family
Monthly Rate Standard 64 gallon cart $11.72 $11.72 $28.78 $41.73 $52.16 $57.38 $63.12 Adjustment Amount $17.06 $12.95 $10.43 $5.22 $5.74
Adjustment Percent 146% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Monthly Rate - Standard 96 gallon cart $18.34 $18.34 $32.34 $46.90 $58.63 $64.49 $70.94 Adjustment Amount $14.00 $14.56 $11.73 $5.86 $6.45
Adjustment Percent 76% 45% 25% 10% 10%
Exhibit 1
48 of 104

Solid Waste Consultants
To Local Government

2 of 10
Chart 1 below shows the projected operating results and cash balance in the Refuse Disposal Fund through fiscal 2028 resulting from the proposed rate adjustments.

Chart 1 – Projected Operating Results from 2023 Cost of Service Study

Objectives
The objectives of this mid-year review are to:
• Review the operating results (i.e., revenues and expenditures) for fiscal 2023 and 2024 in the Refuse Disposal Fund that were projected in the 2023 cost of service study, and compare them to the revenues and expenditures that were actually incurred for those two fiscal years.
• Based on the actual operating results for fiscal 2023 and fiscal 2024, update the projections of revenues and expenditures for fiscal years 2025 through fiscal 2028.
• Based on the updated projection of operating results, evaluate whether, and to what extent, the 25% rate adjustment planned for July 1, 2025 should be implemented.

Findings
Based on our review, we found:
49 of 104

Solid Waste Consultants
To Local Government

3 of 10
Finding #1 – For the two fiscal years ended June 30, 2024, actual operating results were significantly more favorable than the operating results that were projected in the cost of service study. Instead of a projected shortfall of approximately $18.4 million, the Refuse Disposal fund incurred an actual shortfall of approximately $9.3 million; a favorable difference of approximately $9.2 million.

Table 2 below shows the projected and actual operating results for the combined two years ended June 30, 2024 (fiscal years 2023 and 2024) . Table 2 shows that for the two years ended June 30, 2024, the Refuse Disposal Fund was projected to incur a shortfall of approximately $18.4 million. However, the Refuse Disposal Fund actually incurred a shortfall of $9.3 million, which was a more favorable result by an amount of $9.2 million.

Table 2 – Operating Results – Projected vs. Actual

The more favorable actual operating results were due to a combination of greater actual revenues and fewer actual expenditures than projected. Table 2 shows that for the two fiscal years ended June 30, 2024, actual total revenue in the Refuse Disposal Fund exceeded the amount of total revenue projected in the cost of service study by approximately $3.6 million, or approximately 12.4%.

Projected Actual Variance Percent
Revenue
Rate Revenue $19,287,376 $19,940,274 $652,898 3.4%
Other Revenue 9,731,631 12,669,293 2,937,662 30.2% Total Revenue $29,019,007 $32,609,567 $3,590,560 12.4%
Expenses
Labor $17,444,043 $16,554,539 ($889,504) -5.1%
Vehicles 7,865,312 7,625,087 (240,225) -3.1% Disposal/Processing 14,336,800 8,982,857 (5,353,943) -37.3% Overhead 7,806,809 8,700,739 893,929 11.5% Total Expenses $47,452,964 $41,863,222 ($5,589,742) -11.8% Surplus/(Shortfall) ($18,433,957) ($9,253,655) $9,180,302 -49.8% Two Years Ended June 30, 2024
Description
50 of 104

Solid Waste Consultants
To Local Government

4 of 10
This was primarily due to greater actual AB 939 franchise fee revenues than projected.

AB 939 fee revenue is received from the private franchised haulers, and is calculated based on a percent of the gross receipts they collect from their commercial custom ers.

The other revenue shown above in Table 2 is comprised mainly of AB 939 fee revenue.

Table 2 shows that f or the two fiscal years ended June 30, 2024, actual total operating expenditures in the Refuse Disposal Fund were less than the amount of total operating expenditures projected in the cost of service study by approximately $5.6 million, or approximately 11.8%. This favorable variance was primarily due to fewer actual expenses incurred for disposal and processing than was projected.

Finding # 2 – As of June 30, 2024, the cash balance in the Refuse Disposal Fund was greater than the cash balance projected in the cost of service study . The cash balance was projected to be approximately $5.5 million as of June 30, 2024. Instead, the actual cash balance as of June 30, 2024 was approximately 10.2 million; a favorable variance of approximately $4.7 million.

Table 3 – Changes in Cash Balance – Projected vs. Actual

The favorable variance in the cash balance was primarily due to the approximate $9.2 million in favorable operating results and approximately $2.8 million in other favorable changes to cash not related to the fund’s operating results. Other changes to cash not Projected Actual Variance Percent
Beginning Cash Balance - June 30, 2022 $26,199,052 $24,474,000 ($1,725,052) -6.6% Surplus/(Shortfall) - 2 yrs ended June 30, 2024 (18,433,957) (9,253,655) $9,180,302 -49.8% Capital Expenditures - 2 yrs ended June 30, 2024 (5,535,000) (7,829,000) ($2,294,000) 41.4% County Host Fee Reimbursement $3,292,609 $0 ($3,292,609) -100.0% Other Changes to Cash - 2 years ended June 30, 2024 $0 $2,837,655 $2,837,655 Ending Cash - June 30, 2024 $5,522,704 $10,229,000 $4,706,296 85.2% Description
As of June 30, 2024
51 of 104

Solid Waste Consultants
To Local Government

5 of 10
related to operating results include such things as fluctuations in accounts receivable, accounts payable, and other changes in the balance sheet of the Refuse Disposal Fund.

The favorable variances to the change in the cash balance were offset by approximately $2.3 million in actual capital expenditures that exceeded those projected in the cost of service study, and by a host fee reimbursement of approximately $3.3 million expected from Los Angeles County that was not received. As a result of the combination of these variances, the actual ending cash balance in the Refuse Disposal Fund as of June 30, 2024 was approximately $4.7 million greater than the cash amount that was projected.

Finding #3 - Although the actual cash balance was more favorable than projected, due to the circumstances described above, the cash balance in the Refuse Disposal Fund has decreased significantly since June 2022. This has corresponded with a significant decrease over the same period of time with the unrestricted net position in the Refuse Disposal Fund.

Table 4 on the following page compares the actual balance sheets of the Refuse Disposal Fund from June 30, 2022 through June 30, 2024. Table 4 shows that as of June 30, 2022, the cash in the Refuse Disposal Fund was approximately $24.5 million, and that as of June 30, 2024, the cash balance was approximately $10.2 million (which corresponds to the actual cash balance above in Table 3.

Table 4 also shows that the net position in the Refuse Disposal Fund has decreased significantly from June 30, 2022 to June 30, 2024. Table 4 shows that, as of June 30, 2022, the net position in the Refuse Disposal Fund was approximately $30.3 million. As of June 30, 2024, the net position had decreased to approximately $15.7 million.

The net position in the Refuse Disposal Fund represents the difference between assets and deferred outflows of resources, and liabilities and deferred inflows of resources. The net position is comprised of two components: 1) net investment in capital assets, and 2) unrestricted net position. Net investment in capital assets, essentially consists of capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation and amortization, reduced by non -debt capital 52 of 104

Solid Waste Consultants
To Local Government

6 of 10
related liabilities, added or reduced by any deferred outflows/inflows of resources that is capital debt related.

Table 4 – Comparison of Balance Sheet, Cash and Net Position

FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024
ASSETS
Current assets:

Pooled cash and investments $31,258 $24,474 $16,968 $10,229 Accounts receivable, net 4,145 6,721 2,665 3,564
PPP receivable -- -- -- 70
Interest receivable 117 120 123 74
Total current assets $35,520 $31,315 $19,756 $13,937
Noncurrent assets:

PPP receivable -- -- 124 53
Capital assets, net 9,426 10,724 13,314 14,404
Capital assets, not being depreciated 1,639 1,639 1,639 1,638 Total noncurrent assets 11,065 12,363 15,077 16,095
Total assets $46,585 $43,678 $34,833 $30,032

DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB -- -- 15 12 Deferred outflows of resources related to pensions 1,842 1,812 4,540 4,102 Total assets and deferred outflows of resources $48,427 $45,490 $39,388 $34,146

LIABILITIES
Current liabilities:

Accounts payable 1,364 1,972 1,512 807
Deposits 155 107 94 124
Subscriptions payable -- -- -- --
OPEB liability -- -- -- 12
Wages and benefits payable 562 268 307 357
Total current liabilities $2,081 $2,347 $1,913 $1,300
Noncurrent liabilities:

OPEB liability -- -- 397 273
Net pension liability 16,030 10,003 16,070 16,350
Total noncurrent liabilities 16,030 10,003 16,467 16,623 Total liabilities $18,111 $12,350 $18,380 $17,923

DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB -- -- 62 155 Deferred inflows of resources related to pensions 10 4,077 573 284 Deferred inflows of resources related to PPP -- -- 122 123 Total liabilities and deferred inflows of resources $18,121 $16,427 $19,137 $18,485

NET POSITION
Net investment in capital assets 11,065 10,817 14,549 16,042 Unrestricted 19,241 18,246 5,702 (381)
Total net position $30,306 $29,063 $20,251 $15,661
Comparison of Changes in Cash and Unrestricted
Net Position
Change from
FY 21 to FY 22
Change from
FY 22 to FY 23
Change from
FY 23 to FY 24 Cummulative
Change in Cash ($6,784) ($7,506) ($6,739) ($21,029)
Change in Unrestricted Net Position ($995) ($12,544) ($6,083) ($19,622) Balance as of June 30th:

Description
53 of 104

Solid Waste Consultants
To Local Government

7 of 10
The unrestricted portion of net position is the difference between all the Refuse Disposal Fund’s assets, liabilities and deferred inflows and outflows of resources, and excluding net capital assets. Over time, increases or decreases in unrestricted net position serve as an indicator of whether the financial condition of the Refuse Disposal Fund is improving or deteriorating.

The table at the bottom of Table 4 shows how the unrestricted net position in the Refuse Enterprise Fund has decreased over time to a negative balance , and how this decrease largely corresponds to the decrease in cash over the same period of time. As a result of this comparison, we found that here is a high degree of correlation between the decrease in cash in the Refuse Disposal Fund and the decrease in unrestricted net position.

Finding #4 – If the City continues to implement the planned rate adjustments from the cost of service study , the Refuse Disposal Fund is projected to continue to incur a shortfall in fiscal 2025, followed by modest surpluses in fiscal years 2026, 2027 and 2028.

Table 5 on the following page shows the updated projected operating results if the City were to continue to fully implement the rate adjustment plan set forth in the cost of service study.

54 of 104

Solid Waste Consultants
To Local Government

8 of 10
Table 5 – Updated Projection of Operating Results

Finding #5 – If the City continues to implement the planned rate adjustments from the cost of service study, the cash balance in the Refuse Disposal Fund is projected to continue to decrease in fiscal 2025, followed by modest surpluses in fiscal years 2026, 2027 and 2028.

Table 6 on the following page shows the updated projected changes in the cash balance in the Refuse Disposal Fund.

2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Revenue
Rate Revenue $13,067,387 $18,947,711 $23,684,639 $26,053,103 $28,658,413 Other Revenue $6,749,585 6,225,809 6,202,608 5,964,954 6,294,611 Total Revenue $19,816,972 $25,173,520 $29,887,247 $32,018,057 $34,953,024 Expenses
Labor $8,428,310 $10,245,271 $10,552,629 $10,869,207 $11,195,284 Vehicles $4,027,187 $4,602,228 $4,740,294 $4,882,503 $5,028,978 Disposal/Processing $5,023,474 $5,371,790 $5,532,943 $5,698,932 $5,869,900 Overhead $4,694,125 $6,341,530 $6,531,776 $6,727,729 $6,929,561 Total Expenses $22,173,095 $26,560,818 $27,357,642 $28,178,371 $29,023,723 Surplus/(Shortfall) ($2,356,122) ($1,387,298) $2,529,605 $3,839,685 $5,929,301 Fiscal Year
Description
55 of 104

Solid Waste Consultants
To Local Government

9 of 10
Table 6 – Updated Projection of Cash Balances

Chart 2 below compares the projected cash balances from the cost of service study with the updated projected cash balances if the City were to continue to fully implement the rate adjustment plan from the cost of service study.

Chart 2 – Projected and Updated Projected Cash Balance

2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Beginning Cash Balance $16,968,000 $10,229,000 $5,676,702 $7,739,950 $7,192,910 Surplus/(Shortfall) ($2,356,122) ($1,387,298) $2,529,605 $3,839,685 $5,929,301 Capital Expenditures ($3,324,000) ($3,165,000) ($466,357) ($4,386,726) ($3,320,241) County Host Fee Reimbursement
Other Changes to Cash ($1,058,878) $0 $0 $0 $0
Ending Cash - June 30, 2024 $10,229,000 $5,676,702 $7,739,950 $7,192,910 $9,801,970 As of June 30th:

Description
56 of 104

Solid Waste Consultants
To Local Government

10 of 10
Recommendation
We recommend that the City continue to implement the planned rate adjustments originally set forth in the cost of service study.

Although the cash balance in the Refuse Enterprise Fund is projected to be greater than originally projected in the cost of service study, the decrease in cash over time has led to a negative balance in the unrestricted net position in the Refuse Disposal Fund. This is an indicator that the financial condition of the Refuse Disposal Fund is deteriorating over time. If the City were to implement rate adjustment percentages that were less than the rate plan in the cost of service study, it would risk further decreases, and further negative balances, in the unrestricted net position. As a result, we recommend that the City fully implement the rate adjustment percentages as set forth in the cost of service study. 57 of 104

Exhibit 2
58 of 104

Exhibit 3
59 of 104

60 of 104

61 of 104

62 of 104

63 of 104

64 of 104

65 of 104

66 of 104

67 of 104

68 of 104

69 of 104

70 of 104

71 of 104

72 of 104

73 of 104

74 of 104

75 of 104

76 of 104

77 of 104

78 of 104

79 of 104

80 of 104

81 of 104

82 of 104

83 of 104

84 of 104

85 of 104

86 of 104

87 of 104

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 June 10, 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.
88 of 104

28a
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 89 of 104

38a
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 90 of 104

48a
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 91 of 104

58a
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:
92 of 104

68a
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;
93 of 104

78a
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.
94 of 104

88a
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.
95 of 104

98a
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
96 of 104

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member _________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that, with respect to the Report to Council dated June 10, 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:
97 of 104

98 of 104

99 of 104

8b
25-88192

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Consideration of Submitting a Grant Application for the U.S. Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) FY25 Improving Criminal Justice Responses (ICJR) Program

1. Motion Directing Staff

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for June 10, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report seeks City Council authorization to submit a grant application for the U.S.

Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) FY25 Improving Criminal Justice Responses program. The grant provides federal funds over three years to improve the criminal justice system’s response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The City would apply for $500,000 (for a City of our size) in partnership with YWCA Glendale and Pasadena, with support from other city/community partners.
100 of 104

8b2
25-88192
6 1
3 5

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council authorize the City Manager to prepare and submit a grant application for the U.S. Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women FY25 Improving Criminal Justice Response (ICJR) program in partnership with YWCA Glendale and Pasadena.

ANALYSIS
At the request of Councilmember Asatryan, staff explored the opportunity to apply for the U.S. Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) FY25 Improving Criminal Justice Responses (ICJR) grant, which provides funding to improve responses to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The grant offers up to $1,000,000 over a 36-month project period, with no local match required.

Partnerships
To meet eligibility requirements, the City would apply in partnership with YWCA Glendale, a qualified victim services provider. Additional collaboration may include Glendale Police Department, Armenian Relief Society, and other city/community organizations. While the Police Department cannot serve as the lead applicant, it has offered staff support in developing and implementing the program.

Grant Submittal Options Explored
Staff explored three options in considering the grant application:

1. Submitting a grant application with SafeYOU as the technology solution.

2. Submitting a grant application with an undetermined technology solution.

3. Submitting a grant application without a technology component.

Below are the pros and cons of each option explored:

1. Submitting a grant application with SafeYOU as the technology solution Pros:
Provides a ready-to-deploy, survivor-centered digital tool that aligns with the grant’s emphasis on technology to enhance victim safety. Strengthens the competitiveness of the application by demonstrating an actionable and innovative approach.

Cons:
Involves a proprietary vendor, requiring sole source procurement justification and scrutiny regarding transparency and fairness.
Raises concerns about data privacy, oversight of a third-party platform, and the City’s responsibility to ensure full compliance with federal confidentiality and victim protection laws.
101 of 104

8b3
25-88192
6 1
3 5
Introduces potential liability for the City if the vendor’s technology fails, is misused, or compromises survivor safety or data security.

2. Submitting a grant application with an undetermined technology solution Pros:
Preserves flexibility to competitively procure a technology provider post- award in alignment with City policies.
Reduces potential concerns about favoritism or vendor-specific partnerships in the application phase.

Cons:
Weakens the application by presenting a vague solution. Could delay project implementation if the City must conduct a formal procurement process after award.

3. Submitting a grant application without a technology component.

Pros:
Simplifies the project scope, reducing risk related to procurement, vendor oversight, and compliance with data privacy laws.
Focuses the application on training, victim services, and interagency coordination, which are core allowable activities under the grant.

Cons:
Misses the opportunity to demonstrate innovation through technology, which is a stated priority area in the grant guidelines.
Weakens the application compared to proposals that offer integrated, tech- enabled solutions for survivor support.

Recommended Option
After reviewing these three options, staff recommends Option 2 as the most balanced approach. Option 2 allows the City to present a strong proposal that anticipates the integration of a digital safety tool while preserving the flexibility to conduct a competitive procurement process post-award. This approach ensures alignment with City policies, mitigates concerns about vendor favoritism, and provides time to evaluate multiple technology options that best meet the needs of survivors and partner organizations.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund associated with submitting the grant application. If awarded, the grant would provide funding of $500,000 to support domestic violence prevention and response efforts. City matching funds are not required. If awarded, staff will return to Council to appropriate the funds. 102 of 104

8b4
25-88192
6 1
3 5

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This item relates to fiscal activity of the City in applying for a grant and is therefore exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1. Authorize submission of the grant application with the inclusion of SafeYOU app.

2. Delay submission pending additional review of technology. This alternative will not allow sufficient time to conduct the review and be able to submit the grant by the submittal deadline.

3. Decline to pursue the grant application.

4. Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Roubik R. Golanian, City Manager
Prepared by:

Elena Bolbolian, Chief Innovation Officer
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None
103 of 104

1 3
2 4
1 MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , that with respect to the Report to Council dated June 10, 2025 pertaining to Consideration of Submitting a Grant Application for the U.S. Department Justice Office of Violence Against Women FY25 Improving Criminal Justice Responses Program, the Council directs as follows:

Vote as Follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
104 of 104

Glendale City CouncilJune 10, 2025

Glendale City Council
June 10, 2025