Minutes — Glendale City Council, July 1, 2025

M I N U T E S

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

(STAFF ACCESS ONLY) COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206

Welcome

Glendale

City

Hall.

Meetings

are

broadcast

live

cable

channel

6 (GTV6)

and
rebroadcast

throughout

the

week.

Call

(818)

548-4013

for

program

schedules.

Meetings

are

also
archived

the

City

Website

for

viewing

anytime

https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/public-
meeting-portal
.

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 COUNCIL CHAMBER.

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.

least

48 hours

(or

two

business

days)

notice

required

for
requests

regarding

sign

language

translation

and

Braille

transcription

services.

All

documents
related

open

session

items

this

agenda

that

are

received

less

than

72 hours

prior

this
meeting,

and

are

public

records,

will

available

for

review

the

Office

the

City

Clerk,

613

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

24 hours

prior

the

scheduled

meeting.

Please

specify
the

language

for

which

you

require

translation.

The

exclusive

use

City

provided

interpreters

not
required and persons are welcome to use their own interpreter or speak in their native language.

JULY 1, 2025

ROLL CALL

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

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

One Potential Case
b.

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

Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation: Topadzhikyan v. City of Glendale, L.A.S.C. Case No. 22SSTCV36445
d.

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. 25STCP01144
e.

1 07 01 25
CC

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

City Manager and City Attorney

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

Flag Salute: Council Member
b.

Invocation: Will Clawson, Elder, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints c.

Report of the City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the July 1, 2025 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on June 27, 2025 , on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a.

Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, July 8, 2025

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.

City Clerk, re: Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings of June 4, 2025, June 10, 2025, June 12, 2025 and June 24, 2025.
b.

Glendale Water and Power, re: Plans and Specifications for the Emerald Isle 1850 Tank and Cooks Canyon Tank Rehabilitation Project.

1. Resolution adopting Specification No. 4008 and Plan No. 7000-E-1 for the Emerald Isle 1850 T ank and Cooks Canyon Water T ank Rehabilitation Project, and directing the City Clerk to Advertise for Bids
c.

Public Works, re:

Roll-up Door Replacement Project

1. Resolution adopting Specification No. 3996 for the Roll-up Door Replacement Project and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids
d.

Community Services and Parks, re:

Amendment Seven for FY 2025-2026 Los
Angeles County Aging and Disabilities (AD) Baseline and Modernizing Older Californians Act (MOCA) Funding for Supportive Services Program (SSP)

1. Motion to accept $95,373 in baseline and MOCA funding from Los Angeles County AD for FY 2025-2026 Supportive Services Program; and authorize the City Manager or a designee to execute Amendment Seven to the SSP232404 Subaward period July 2025 – July 2026 to accept and implement funding

2. Resolution of Appropriation to appropriate $30,273 in baseline funding for SSP senior case management
e.

City Attorney, re: 2025-2026 Insurance Renewals

1. Motion authorizing the annual renewal of insurance policies for the City's property, excess liability, workers' compensation, cyber liability, and other miscellaneous coverages for 2025-26 fiscal year, in an amount not-to-exceed $9,206,520.00

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

2 07 01 25
CC

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.

Fire Department, re:

Standardization of Knox Corporation Products

1. Resolution to dispense with competitive bidding to establish the Knox Corporation as the City's standard narcotic safe manufacturer and authorizing the Deputy Director of Finance/Purchasing to procure related software, hardware, parts, maintenance, and services
b.

City Attorney, re:

Review of Mayor Selection Policy Set Forth in Glendale Municipal Code Section 2.04.020 and Discussion of Alternate Provisions (Continued from 6/10/2025)

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
a.

Councilmember Brotman's request to discuss submitting a letter of opposition, unless amended, for Assembly Bill (AB) 306 (Schultz, Rivas)

15. ADJOURNMENT

3 07 01 25
CC

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Plans and Specifications for the Emerald Isle 1850 Tank and Cooks Canyon Tank Rehabilitation Project.
1) Resolution adopting Specification No. 4008 and Plan No. 7000-E-1 for the Emerald Isle 1850 Tank and Cooks Canyon Water Tank Rehabilitation Project, and directing the City Clerk to Advertise for Bids.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for July 1, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Specifications and Plans have been completed for the tank rehabilitation of Emerald Isle 1850 Tank and Cooks Canyon Water Tank. This report requests the City Council to adopt the project specifications and plans and authorize advertising for bids.

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to adopt the specification and plan for the Emerald Isle 1850 Tank and Cooks Canyon Water Tank Rehabilitation Project and direct the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

ANALYSIS
The City of Glendale owns and operates 28 potable water reservoirs/tanks and five recycled water tanks in the water system. During regular inspections, some tanks were found to be in need of repairs to extend their service life and comply with current safety standards.

In July 2016, the City hired Harper & Associates Engineering (Harper) to evaluate a number of welded steel water storage tanks for both the potable and recycled water systems. Harper prepared evaluation reports outlining the condition of the tank coating systems and with recommendations to repair and/or upgrade structural and safety deficiencies. The evaluation report also included interior and exterior photographic surveys and laboratory analysis on the chemical components of the existing coatings.

Based on the findings and recommendations, the Water Division has implemented a capital improvement program to systematically rehabilitate these water storage tanks. 24b
6 1
2 0
Emerald Isle 1850 Tank and Cooks Canyon Water Tank have been selected for the rehabilitation in Fiscal Year 2025-2026.

The proposed work at the selected tanks includes abrasive removal of existing paint, application of new coating systems, structural repairs, and installation of new safety features.

To ensure competitive bids, the project will be advertised in local newspaper, the Glendale Independent, prior to bid opening, as well as on eBidBoard, a construction services company. In turn, eBidBoard will send the project advertisement to several other project posting sites that do not require subscription (i.e. Bid America, Blueprint Express, Construction Data Corp, Direct Connection, F.W. Dodge, etc.).

Specification No. 4008 and Plan No. 7000-E-1 are on file and available at the Glendale Water & Power - Water Engineering Service Counter.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
The engineer’s estimate for the construction work of this stage of the project was $600,000 per tank, for a total of $1,200,000, which was included in the FY 2025-26 budget as outlined below. Staff will return to City Council to award a contract to the lowest responsive bidder.

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$1,200,000 GL: 52100-5930-GWP-0020
PL: GWP01066AN
Water Depreciation Fund
(5930)

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The action requested herein, which is the adoption of Specification and Plan and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids, is not a project subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. The proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review as a Class 1:

Existing Facilities pursuant to the California Code of Regulations.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not applicable.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1)Not to adopt the specification and plan which will result in postponement of the project, with the probable impact of increasing the risk of further protective coating deterioration, structural failure, and potentially increasing the cost of the 34b
6 1
2 0
project in the future.
2) Consider another alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

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

Chisom Obegolu, Assistant General Manager - Water
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None.
4c
25-88048

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Roll-up Door Replacement Project

1. Resolution adopting Specification No. 3996 for the Roll-up Door Replacement Project and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for July 1, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There is an immediate need to remove and replace existing roll-up doors at various Fire Stations, as they have surpassed their useful life. The purpose of this project is to adopt the provided specification and solicit bids for the replacement of 13 roll-up doors at Fire Stations 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 29. The project involves the removal of the current doors and the installation of new, high-performance doors that meet fire safety standards, enhance station security, and reduce maintenance requirements.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Resolution adopting Specification No. 3996 for the Roll-up Door Replacement Project and direct the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

ANALYSIS
The replacement project involves upgrading 13 roll-up doors at various fire stations to modern direct-drive operations. These enhancements will improve functionality and reliability across the facilities.

The existing roll-up doors have been in service for decades and have reached the end of their operational lifespan. The new direct-drive systems will provide enhanced durability, reduced maintenance, and improved efficiency.

Installation will be completed in phases to ensure uninterrupted station operations and maintain safety. The project also includes the replacement or upgrade of associated hardware, ensuring seamless integration with the stations' current infrastructure. 4c2
25-88048
6 0
9 1

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The work will be coordinated with the contractor and Glendale Fire Department staff to minimize disruptions to operations and the public.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. The Roll-up Door Replacement Project is estimated to cost $585,000, a portion of which was approved as a part of the FY 2024-25 budget. Staff will determine if additional appropriations will be requested or if funds can be shifted from another project at the time of contract award.

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

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Do not approve the resolution adopting the specifications for this project.

The dependability of vital rollup doors at fire stations could be compromised.

Alternative 2: Consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Daniel Hernandez, Director of Public Works
Prepared by:

Sean Toro, Assistant Project Manager
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None.
4d
25-88327

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Amendment Seven for FY 2025-2026 Los Angeles County Aging and Disabilities (AD) Baseline and Modernizing Older Californians Act (MOCA) Funding for Supportive Services Program (SSP).

2. Resolution of Appropriation to appropriate $30,273 in baseline funding for SSP senior case management.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for July 1, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Los Angeles County AD is providing grant funds in the amount of $95,373 in baseline and MOCA funding for FY 2025-2026 to provide senior case management services through the Community Services & Parks (CSP) Department.

Los Angeles County AD baseline and MOCA grant funding will allow the SSP to provide case management services to seniors 60 years of age and older in the SSP program.

SSP provides annual assistance for up to 80 unduplicated seniors which includes: initial intake, in-home assessment, care plan, information and referral services, purchase of goods/services, annual reassessments, and well-being checkups.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council accept and authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment Seven to the SSP232404 subaward period July 2025–June 2026 to accept and implement $95,373 in baseline and MOCA funding from Los Angeles County AD for the FY 2025-26 SSP and appropriate $30,273 in funds for senior case management services. 4d2
25-88327
6 1
8 1

ANALYSIS
CSP has been operating SSP, better known as senior case management, since 1992.

The SSP provides comprehensive, long-term services to seniors 60 years of age and older, that utilize a case manager’s professional skills and competence to serve senior clients and link them to a full range of appropriate services including service coordination, care planning, purchase of goods/services, benefits enrollment, and referral services.

The primary goal is to assist the elderly in maintaining their independence and living in their own homes. The SSP is operated through the Senior Services Unit which also provides long-term services that include the Elderly Nutrition Program, Emergency Meals, and Telephone Reassurance Program.

Los Angeles County AD originally awarded CSP an SSP subaward through a noncompetitive process whereby the City enters into a subaward agreement for a one- year term, commencing July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024, with three additional options to renew annually for an anticipated total subaward term of four years. Baseline funding for the program requires a 12% cash match. Amendment Seven is part of year three of the four-year subaward term and commences July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2026. No cash match is required for MOCA funding.

SSP MOCA funds are allocated from the State of California to provide assistance of case managers in the daily operations of the program including home visits, case planning, monitoring, contract compliance, invoicing, purchase of goods/service, and data tracking and direct assistance to seniors for case management services. Examples of direct assistance include payment of a utility bill, home cleaning, respite, and purchase of small appliances, clothing, medical equipment/supplies, etc.

SSP assists up to 80 unduplicated seniors sixty years of age and older each fiscal year, with the following senior case management services: initial intake screening, in-home assessment, service authorization, care plan, and connecting to other services. Service areas for SSP include Glendale, La Crescenta, Montrose, and Verdugo City.

The period that MOCA funding is available for use is from July 1, 2025, through February 28, 2026.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The SSP is part of the Senior Services Unit which operates out of the Adult Recreation Center. Program services are advertised quarterly in the CSP Leisure Guide, CSP Newsletter, on the Department website and social media, and outreach is conducted with community agencies to ensure the public is aware of the available services.

FISCAL IMPACT
Los Angeles County AD awarded the City $95,373 in SSP baseline and MOCA grant awards from for FY 2025-26. $65,100 was appropriated as part of the FY2025-2026 budget process; thus, staff is requesting that the Council appropriate an additional $30,273 from grant revenue to SSP baseline.
4d3
25-88327
6 1
8 1
The additional appropriation request is outlined below:

Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String)
To (Account String) Funding Source
$30,273 31240-2700-CSP-
0020-P0000
CSP01171AG
41300-2700-CSP-
0020-P0000
CSP01171AG
Nutritional Meals
Grant Fund

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

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1: Do not approve acceptance of $95,373 in baseline and MOCA funding from Los Angeles County AD for FY 2025-26 SSP, which will result in less direct assistance to seniors in the Supportive Services Program.
2: The City Council may consider any alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

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

Maggie Kavarian, Community Services Manager
Aylin Isayan, Community Services Supervisor
Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$65,100 Various-2700-CSP-0020-P0000
CSP01171AG
Nutritional Meals Grant Fund
4d4
25-88327
6 1
8 1
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None
4e
25-88345

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: 2025-2026 Insurance Renewals
Motion authorizing the annual renewal of insurance policies for the City's property, excess liability, workers' compensation, cyber liability, and other miscellaneous coverages for 2025-26 fiscal year, in an amount not-to-exceed $9,206,520.00.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Item
Approved for July 1, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff seeks Council approval for annual renewal of liability insurance policies for excess liability, property, workers’ compensation, cyber liability and other miscellaneous policies. 4e2
25-88345
6 1
9 0

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council authorize the renewal of the excess insurance policies for the City’s excess liability, property, Workers’ Compensation, cyber liability and other miscellaneous coverages for a total “not-to-exceed” amount of $9,206,520.00.

ANALYSIS
The City is self-insured for various losses, with self-insured retention amounts ranging from $10,000 to $2 million. The following is a brief description of the various lines of insurance coverages the City currently has and intends to renew:

Property
Property insurance covers loss, theft, or damage to City-owned property. An example of this type of loss includes damages caused by fire, wind, vandalism, etc. In order to secure the most advantageous rates for this insurance, the City purchases two separate policies.

The first policy covers property owned by Glendale Water & Power because of the nature of the property and equipment. The broker for this policy specializes in utility operations and can obtain a lower price for this insurance. The second policy provides coverage for all other City property.

Excess Liability
The excess liability policy provides coverage for damages for a loss as a result of an act, or failure to act, by a City of Glendale employee. Examples of this type of loss include automobile accidents, dangerous conditions of public property, police liability, employment claims etc.

This year we have been offered an Individual Member Corridor Deductible (IMCD). This is option is for members with good loss experience and offers a way to maintain a lower premium without increasing the overall Self-Insured Retention (SIR). While the SIR remains at $2M for each and every claim, the IMCD sits above the SIR, and erodes as claims are paid for the policy period. For claims that go above $2M, the City covers the cost of the claim until the $1M IMCD is spent. Once that $1M corridor is exhausted, PRISM resumes full payment for any claim above the City’s $2M SIR. In short, the corridor deductible is like a “buffer zone” the City takes on temporarily. Once that buffer is used up, the regular coverage rules go back into effect and PRISM picks up anything above the City’s $2 million SIR. Utilizing the IMCD will reduce the excess liability premium by approximately $1 million, making it an economical yet risk-justified approach for excess coverage.

Workers’ Compensation
This coverage pays costs for Workers’ Compensation claims that exceed the City’s SIR. 4e3
25-88345
6 1
9 0
Fine Arts
The fine art insurance covers losses to artwork owned by the City, as well as the periodic art exhibitions held at the Brand Library and Art Center.

Aviation
Aviation coverage provides protection for the City's liability due to the Police Department’s Helicopter Operations.

Crime
This policy covers losses associated with employee theft, fraudulent activity, and other criminal acts.

Verdugo Crime Lab
This insurance covers losses from a claim in the event an error or omission is made by an employee working at the Verdugo Crime Lab.

Cyber Liability
The cyber liability policy is designed to cover the costs associated with a compromise of electronic data. Examples of this could include unauthorized access to sensitive data, information released as a result of human error or equipment malfunction, intentional theft of data, etc. Recoverable costs include the costs to retrieve lost or stolen data as well costs associated with assessments and training to prevent future losses.

The City’s insurance brokers have been working with PRISM and other carriers to secure the best rates for the City (a copy of the proposed rates is attached hereto). A majority of the policy rates have remained steady (Fine Arts, Aviation, Verdugo Crime Lab). The worker’s compensation coverage had a slight increase, but only due to an increase in payroll, not due to claims or other factors. Finally, as expected, the excess liability policy has the greatest increase, due in part to claims, but mostly due to market conditions. The premium amounts listed are “not to exceed amounts” and the final cost may be less than the maximum amount of $9,206,520.00. Funding for the insurance premiums is currently budgeted for in the Liability, Workers’ Compensation and Department budgets. Additional appropriation of funds is not necessary. GWP property insurance will be charged to GWP (Electric Works Revenue and Water Works Revenue Funds), Fine Arts insurance will be charged to Library (General Fund), and Verdugo Crime Lab will be charged to Police (General Fund) via a journal entry. Aviation insurance will be directly charged to Police and is budgeted for in the Joint Air Support Fund.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
N/A
4e4
25-88345
6 1
9 0

FISCAL IMPACT
The insurance premiums will cost no more than $9,206,520.00, which was requested as a part of the FY 2025-26 budget, as outlined below. No new appropriation is being requested at this time.

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$63,363 46012-6020-GPD-7004-P0000 Joint Air Support Fund $735,238 45630-6140-HRD-5004-P0000 Workers’ Compensation Insurance Fund
$8,407,919 45630-6120-CAD-1004-P0000 Liability Fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(a) as it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonable foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Even if it is a project, it is exempt pursuant to 14 C.C.R. § 15061(b)(3).

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1. Choose not to authorize renewals, but in such event the City would be without insurance which is not recommended.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Prepared by:

Ann Maurer, Chief Assistant City Attorney
Veronika Padron, Risk & Insurance Service Analyst
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS

1. Table of Coverages
8a
25-88175

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Standardization of Knox Corporation Products

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for July 1, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Glendale Fire Department requests approval to designate Knox Corporation (Knox) as the exclusive vendor for secure narcotic access and storage solutions. This request is due to the need to replace outdated narcotics safes in the emergency response fleet and the long-term goal of standardizing equipment for security, efficiency, and interoperability.

The current safes have exceeded their service life and lack necessary security features required for compliance with regulations. The Fire Department, in collaboration with the IT Department, has piloted three Knox narcotic safes on multiple emergency apparatus resources over the last year and these safes have shown reliability and ease of use, with benefits such as reduced access time in emergencies and improved inventory tracking.

Knox is recognized for providing secure access solutions for first responders at both regional and national levels, with a reputation for quality and durability, and have proven to be considered the gold standard for our narcotic storage needs. The Fire Department has used Knox products for key storage solutions over multiple decades and has always been satisfied with their products and service and have been equally pleased with their narcotic safe products in the past year.

RECOMMENDATION
Dispense with competitive bidding establishing Knox Corporation as the City standard manufacturer and authorizing the Deputy Director of Finance-Purchasing to procure related software, hardware, parts, maintenance, and services. 8a2
25-88175
6 1
3 2

ANALYSIS
The Glendale Fire Department must maintain a narcotic storage system in accordance with State and Federal regulations. When the current narcotic storage system vendor was sold to a new company after approximately ten years of use, our hardware was deemed to have reached the end of life and would therefore not be supported by the new company.

In collaboration with the IT Department, Staff then researched the best replacement solution and has determined through a pilot program that the Knox product is the gold standard for our narcotic storage needs. Given the stringent regulations enforced by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and other regulatory authorities, it is imperative that our equipment is reliable in both hardware and software. Our current mixed fleet of safes presents a risk to our accountability; however, transitioning to an exclusive fleet of Knox products would mitigate this concern. The current safes have surpassed their service life and lack critical security features necessary for regulatory compliance. Knox safes offer essential features such as PIN/password access, detailed audit histories, and tamper- evident designs. These are crucial for ensuring secure and accountable handling of controlled substances, minimizing diversion risks, and maintaining compliance.

Pilot Program: In collaboration with the IT Department, the Fire Department successfully piloted three Knox narcotic safes on multiple emergency apparatus resources.

Evaluation: The pilot program included a comprehensive evaluation of the Knox safes' performance. Key aspects evaluated were ease of use, reliability, security features, and system integration.

Compliance: The compliance of Knox safes with DEA regulations and other relevant laws was verified.

Cost-Benefit Analysis: A cost-benefit analysis compared the costs of maintaining the current mixed fleet versus converting to an exclusive fleet of Knox products. The analysis revealed that the long-term benefits of standardizing Knox products—including improved security, reduced maintenance costs, and enhanced efficiency—outweigh the initial investment.

By converting to an exclusive fleet of Knox products, the Glendale Fire Department will enhance its ability to securely and efficiently manage controlled substances, ensure regulatory compliance, and improve overall operational effectiveness.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
N/A

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding has already been approved as a part of the FY 2024-25 budget; therefore, no additional appropriation is being requested at this time. Funding for the remaining years will be addressed during the annual budget process. The City Council approved funding is outlined below:
8a3
25-88175
6 1
3 2
Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$95,000 GL: 51000-6030-ISD-0020-P0000-
PL: ISD01179AN
Infrastructure Fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
N/A

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Approve as requested by the Fire Department.

Alternative 2: Deny the Fire Department’s request.

Alternative 3: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Jeffrey Brooks, Acting Fire Chief
Prepared by:

Jason Miller, Assistant Chief Information Officer
Todd Tucker, Deputy Chief
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Click or tap here to enter text.
8b

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 July 1, 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.
28b
5 7
8 7

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

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

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

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

Subsections (E) & (F) – Appointments When Mayorship Not Accepted or When Mayor Vacates or Is Removed
Subsection (E) provides that the councilmember in line to be appointed in accordance with the Policy is unwilling or unable to serve, the council is to select 38b
5 7
8 7
the next eligible councilmember in line of seniority and the councilmember who deferred is placed next in the seniority line.
Subsection (F) provides that the councilmember serving as mayor vacates or is removed from his or her council seat, the Council can choose any councilmember to be mayor and that councilmember will not be prejudiced in serving a scheduled term.

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

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

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

March 26, 2024 Discussion & Alternate Code Language
Subsection B - Seniority Rule
During its March 2024 discussion, the Council expressed concern that the Policy’s seniority rule can prevent a councilmember who has never served as mayor from being 48b
5 7
8 7
selected during that councilmember’s first term, because he or she has less seniority than other councilmembers who have already served as mayor. In order to address this problem, the Council directed staff to present alternate language to the Policy giving a councilmember who has never served as mayor priority over councilmembers who have served as mayor, provided that the councilmember has served a certain amount of time on council. For example, the Council could decide to require that a councilmember serve at least one or two years on Council before selection to the mayorship.

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

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

2. ln the event of a tie between councilmembers with the longest continuous service since last serving as mayor, or a tie between two councilmembers who have served at least _____ year(s) on the city council but have never served as mayor, as set forth in subsection (B)(1), the councilmember who received the most votes in the councilmembers' most recent election shall be selected mayor. In the event the tie is between councilmembers who were elected during different elections, then the councilmember with the highest percentage of votes received in each councilmembers' most recent elections to the City Council shall be selected mayor.” Notwithstanding the election votes tiebreakers set forth 58b
5 7
8 7
in this subsection (B)(2), if either tiebreaker would result in a councilmember who has previously served as mayor since being elected to the council being appointed over a councilmember of equal continuous uninterrupted service who has never served as mayor since being elected to the council, then the councilmember who has not previously served as mayor shall be appointed mayor.

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

Two options are presented:

Option 1 – Delete in its Entirety
“C. A councilmember whose council term will expire in the same year that the mayor's term would also expire if said councilmember was selected mayor shall not be selected to serve as mayor. A councilmember whose council term will expire within 180 days after the date of the selection of the mayor shall not be selected mayor.”
Option 2 – Modify to Be Inapplicable to Any Councilmember Who Has Never Served As Mayor
“C. A councilmember whose council term will expire in the same year that the mayor's term or within 180 days after mayoral selection would also expire if said councilmember was selected mayor shall not be selected to serve as mayor. A councilmember whose council term will expire within 180 days after the date of the selection of the mayor shall not be selected mayor. This subsection shall not apply to a councilmember who has served at least _____year(s) on the council and has never served as mayor.”
Councilmembers also expressed concern during the prior discussion that if councilmembers are able to serve as mayor during the last year of their council term, they may choose to defer to a year that is a reelection year. Under the current GMC, a councilmember who declines to serve is placed back next in line in seniority. If the Council decides to delete Subsection (C) regarding selection in the last year of a councilmember term or reelection year, the Council could address this problem by providing that a councilmember who declines to serve will be placed back into the line of seniority unless it will place him or her to be selected in a reelection year. That language would be a revision to Subsection (E) of Section 2.04.020 as follows:
68b
5 7
8 7
“E. If athe councilmember is in line to be selected mayor in accordance with the procedures of this section but is unable or unwilling to serve as mayor at the time of selection, then the council shall select the next councilmember next in lineorder of precedence. and tThe councilmember who is unwilling or unable to be theserve as mayor shallwill be placed next in order of precedence; provided that a councilmember unwilling to serve will be not placed back in the line of seniority if such placement allows that councilmember to be selected as mayor when his or her council term will expire in the last year of the mayoral term or 180 days after mayoral selection.

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

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

Subsection H – Best Interest Clause
The Council also directed staff to present alternative language to the Best Interest Clause which could limit the circumstances when the Council may choose a qualified councilmember who is not next in line. Based upon a review of other cities’ ordinances, staff presents the following alternate language, which removes the phrase “best interest” and uses specific circumstances:
“H. Notwithstanding theany other provisions of this section to the contrary, in the event the council determines in its discretion that it is in the best interest of the may choose not to appoint the councilmember in line to be appointed in accordance with subsection (B) in accordance with the procedure of this section, including, but not limited to, because of reason of mental or physical incapacity significantly limiting the ability to perform mayoral duties or a criminal conviction, then the council may appoint the next qualified councilmember pursuant to subsection (B)(2) to serve as mayor. if it reasonably determines that the councilmember:
(1) Has unexcused absences for more than four (4) regular council meetings within the twelve (12) month period prior to the date of mayoral selection;
78b
5 7
8 7
(2) Is unable to serve as mayor because of physical incapacity due to a medical condition that will severely limit or impair the ability of the councilmember to perform the duties of mayor;
(3) Is unable to serve as mayor, because of mental incapacity (such as by reason of stroke, serious mental illness, or serious nervous breakdown) that will severely limit or impair the ability of the councilmember to perform the duties of mayor;
(4) Is convicted of a felony or any crime of violence or moral turpitude; or
(5) Is arrested or charged with a felony or any crime of violence or moral turpitude; provided that if and when the prosecution of such felony or crime of violence or moral turpitude is dismissed or otherwise terminated without a plea agreement or conviction, then the councilmember shall thereafter be placed in the highest priority for the next mayoral selection pursuant to subsection (B).

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

Other Considerations
Change of the Mayoral Selection Date
As required by the GMC, the mayor is currently selected at the regular meeting occurring after the first Monday in April. Mayor selection has historically occurred in April although it previously occurred later in April when the City’s general municipal elections were held in April of odd-numbered years. The City’s general municipal elections now coincide with the dates of the statewide primary elections, which are in March in presidential election years (2024, 2028, etc.) and June in non-presidential election years (2026, 2030 etc.). Thus, mayor selection is occurring prior to the seating of new councilmembers. Even after the March elections, mayor selection is occurring before new councilmembers are sworn in due to the length of time it takes Los Angeles County to certify election results.
88b
5 7
8 7
During a discussion of the Policy at the April 1, 2025 meeting, the Council inquired about changing the mayor selection date. To ensure mayor selection occurs after the City holds its municipal elections, the Council may want to consider mid-to-late July, or later. If the Council makes a change, it would have to decide when that change would take effect and its applicability to the current mayor’s term.

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

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

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This activity involves organizational and administrative activities of the government related to the process for selecting the mayor, and such internal procedural changes have no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. As such, this action is not a “project” subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15378.
98b
5 7
8 7

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Prepared by:

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

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS

1. G.M.C. Section 2.04.020

Glendale City CouncilJuly 1, 2025

Glendale City Council
July 1, 2025