Agenda packet — Glendale City Council, March 24, 2026

A G E N D A

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
MARCH 24, 2026
– 6:00 PM

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ACCESSIBILITY

PLEASE SILENCE CELLULAR PHONES WHILE INSIDE THE MEETING LOCATION Viewing of City Council Meetings
:
•
In-person – City Council Chambers, 613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor, Glendale, CA 91206 •
Live Broadcast via Glendale TV, viewable on Spectrum Cable, channel 6, and AT&T U-verse, channel 99. Meetings are also streamed on the City webpage, glendaleca.gov/live
, on
YouTube.com/myglendale
, and on the Cablecast app under "Glendale TV". Meetings are also archived on the City Website for viewing anytime at
glendaleca.gov/agendas
.

City Council meeting agenda packets, any agenda related documents, and additional documents are available at City Hall and online for public viewing on the City’s website:
https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/public-meeting-portal ADA Accessibility and Translation Services
:

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;

please

direct

all

accessibility

requests

(818)

548-2090.

For
translations,

please

specify

the

language

for

which

you

require

translation.

The

exclusive

use

of
City

provided

interpreters

not

required

and

persons

are

welcome

use

their

own

interpreter

or
speak in their native language.

Public participation in Council meetings may occur as follows :
•
In-person – City Council Chambers
•
T elephonic participation: Call (818) 937-8100
If you have any questions about matters on the agenda, or requests for assistance including agenda email notification, please contact the City Clerk’s Office via email at [email protected], or by phone at (818) 548-2090.

1 TYPED 3/20/2026 10:28:06 AM
03 24 26
CC

PUBLIC COMMENT GUIDELINES
The City Council welcomes public input at City Council meetings. Public input at Council meetings is regulated by the City Council’s Rules of Order, Procedure and Decorum for the Conduct of City Council Meetings as set forth in Resolution No. 25-76, which will be summarized below.

Written Comments and Documents
:

Public comments received in writing will NOT be read aloud at the meeting but will be part of the meeting record. Written public comments can be emailed to [email protected], and will be uploaded to the City website as an attachment to the agenda item. When submitting a public comment, please make sure to include the following
:

1. Name (optional); and

2. Agenda item to which you are submitting public comment

3. Submit no later than 12:00 p.m. on the day of the City Council meeting. Correspondence received after this time may not be distributed until the following business day.

All documents related to open session items on this agenda that are received less than 72 hours prior to this meeting, and are public records, will be available for review in the Office of the City Clerk, 613 E. Broadway, Room 110, Glendale, CA 91206.

Public Comments During Council Meeting
:

Public Comments during Community Event Announcements, First and Second Periods of Oral Communications and agenda items will be governed as provided in the descriptions for those items on the agenda below. Pursuant to State law, the City Council may not discuss or take action on any item not appearing on the meeting agenda, except that members of the City Council or staff may ask a question for clarification or briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising public testimony rights (Government Code Section 54954.2). Staff may be asked to follow up on such items.

Submitting Speaker Cards or Calling In for Public Comment :

Speaker cards must be submitted and telephonic participants must call in and be in the call-in queue as follows:
•
Community Event Announcements or First or Second Period of Oral Communications: PRIOR TO the commencement of the specific comment period
•
Consent Calendar Items: BEFORE a motion is made on the consent calendar •
Other agenda items, including Action items: PRIOR to the completion of the verbal staff report (unless waived by the Mayor)
Any audio-visual files displayed by speakers must be emailed to the Clerk’s office by 12:00 pm on the day before a Council meeting.

2 TYPED 3/20/2026 10:28:06 AM
03 24 26
CC

MARCH 24, 2026
– 6:00 PM

ROLL CALL

1. DISCUSSION OF COUNCILMEMBER FUTURE AGENDA REQUESTS

2. CLOSED SESSION
– 1:00 PM (T o Commence at 6:00 PM
)

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

Flag Salute:

Mayor Ara Najarian
b.

Invocation:

W
ill be delivered by
Rev. Dr. Angela Galanis Price
,
First United
Methodist Church
c.

Report of the City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the March 24, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on March 19, 2026, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

4. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS

5. 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.

6. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
(Including reports from conferences and regional
meetings)

7. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS
(3-minutes per speaker)
Members of the public will be permitted to announce upcoming events taking place in the community.

8. FIRST PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
(Maximum 3 minutes per speaker, 30-minute
aggregate speaking time limit)
Members of the public may address the Council on agenda items or non-agenda items within the City Council’s subject matter jurisdiction. If a speaker addresses the Council on an agenda item during the First Period of Oral Communications, they may not speak again when the agenda item is called. A speaker who addresses the Council on non-agenda items during the First Period of Oral Communications may not speak during the Second Period of Oral Communications.

3 TYPED 3/20/2026 10:28:06 AM
03 24 26
CC

9. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES
a.

Community Services and Parks, re: Amendment No. 1 to the Standard Lease between the City of Glendale and Babak B. Golbahar for the Verdugo Jobs Center (VJC) facility located at 1255 South Central Avenue to extend the Lease for an 18- month period from April 1, 2026 to September 30, 2027

1. Adoption of Ordinance authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into and execute Amendment No. 1 to the Standard Lease, Contract No. 8002055, between the City of Glendale and Babak B. Golbahar for the Verdugo Jobs Center (VJC) facility located at 1255 South Central Avenue, Glendale, CA 91204 to extend the Lease for an 18-month period from April 1, 2026 to September 30, 2027

10. ACTION ITEMS
a.

Public Works, re: Award of a Service Agreement for Tree Maintenance Services to West Coast Arborists, Inc.

1. Resolution awarding a six-year agreement for tree maintenance services to West Coast Arborists, Inc., selected through a best value RFP process based on qualifications and lowest cost; dispensing with lowest competitive bid process, in the amount not to exceed nineteen million, two hundred and fifty thousand, four hundred dollars ($19,250,400)
b.

Public Works, re: Bulky and Abandoned Item Collection Services, Quality Assurance and Digital Service Request System Review

1. Motion to note and file this report and provide staff direction on expanded Bulky and Abandoned Item Collection Services
c.

Management Services, re: Chess Tournament Sponsorship Request

1. Motion approving a $18,000 sponsorship for the California State Open Chess T ournament and authorize the City Manager to execute any necessary agreements with the event organizers

2. Resolution of Appropriation to appropriate $18,000 for a sponsorship for the California State Open Chess T ournament
d.

Management Services, re:

Voting Delegate for the 2026 Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) General Assembly

1. Motion Designating a Voting Delegate and Alternate Representative(s) for the 2026 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) General Assembly e.

City Attorney, re:

Charter Review - Update and Direction on Potential Charter Amendments Pertaining to Council Districts, Directly Elected Mayor, Council Compensation, Civil Service System, Elected vs. Appointed City Clerk and City Treasurer, and Miscellaneous Matters

1. Motion to Note and File, and Provide Direction to Staff

11. HEARINGS

12. REPORTS - INFORMATION

13. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

14. SECOND PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Discussion is limited to items NOT a part of this agenda. Each speaker is allowed 5 minutes.

4 TYPED 3/20/2026 10:28:06 AM
03 24 26
CC

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.

15. NEW BUSINESS

16. ADJOURNMENT

5 TYPED 3/20/2026 10:28:06 AM
03 24 26
CC

ORDINANCE NO. ____________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,

CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE STANDARD
LEASE, CONTRACT NO. 8002055, WITH BABAK B. GOLBAHAR FOR THE VERDUGO JOBS CENTER (VJC) FACILITY LOCATED AT 1255
SOUTH CENTRAL AVENUE, GLENDALE, CA 91204 TO EXTEND THE
LEASE FOR AN 18-MONTH PERIOD FROM APRIL 1, 2026 TO
SEPTEMBER 30, 2027
WHEREAS, the Verdugo Jobs Center (VJC) has been operating workforce services of the Community Services & Parks (CSP) department from its location at 1255 South Central Avenue, Glendale, CA 91204 since 1999; and WHEREAS, the existing lease for the VJC facility will expire on March 31, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the City and the property owner desire to extend the lease for an 18- month period from April 1, 2023 through September 30, 2027; and WHEREAS, Glendale Charter Article VI, Section 15, requires the council to adopt an ordinance for the lease of property for a period longer than five (5) years; and WHEREAS, the cumulative amount of time the City has leased this property exceeds five (5) years, accordingly adoption of this ordinance is required by Glendale Charter prior to execution of the proposed Amendment No. 1 to the lease.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct.

SECTION 2. The extension of the City’s lease of the real property located at 1255 South Central Avenue, Glendale, California, with property owner Babak B. Golbahar, as more particularly outlined in the March 3, 2026 Report to the City Council, is hereby approved for an 18-month period from April 1, 2026 to September 30, 2027.

SECTION 3. The City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to enter into and execute Amendment No. 1 to the Standard Lease, Contract No. 8002055, with Babak B.

Golbahar for the Verdugo Jobs Center facility located at 1255 South Central Avenue, in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in the March 3, 2026 Report to the City Council, to extend the lease for an 18-month period from April 1, 2026 to September 30, 2027, subject to the approval of the City Attorney.

SECTION 4.This ordinance shall become effective within thirty days from the date of its adoption.
6 of 106

Passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on the _______ day of ________, 2026.
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Dr. Suzie Abajian, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. _______ was adopted by a majority vote of the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _______ day of ________________, 2026, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
____________________________
City Clerk
7 of 106

9a
26-89582

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Amendment No. 1 to the Standard Lease between the City of Glendale and Babak B. Golbahar for the Verdugo Jobs Center (VJC) facility located at 1255 South Central Avenue to extend the Lease for an 18-month period from April 1, 2026 to September 30, 2027.

1. Introduction of Ordinance authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into and execute Amendment No. 1 to the Standard Lease, Contract No. 8002055, between the City of Glendale and Babak B. Golbahar for the Verdugo Jobs Center (VJC) facility located at 1255 South Central Avenue, Glendale, CA 91204 to extend the Lease for an 18-month period from April 1, 2026 to September 30, 2027.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Ordinance Introduction
Approved for March 3, 2026 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Verdugo Workforce Development Board (VWDB) has a long-standing history of designing and implementing workforce services that create the workforce that employers need in the Verdugo Workforce Development Area, which consists of the Cities of Glendale, Burbank and La Cañada Flintridge. Since 1999, the VJC has been operating workforce services from its location at 1255 South Central Avenue.

The current lease for the VJC facility will expire on March 31, 2026. The proposed lease amendment extends the term of the lease from April 1, 2026 through September 30, 2027.

The price per square footage remains the same at $2.50 square foot, which equals $58,135 a month, $697,620 annually.

VWDB’s Full Board approved the use of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act funds to cover the costs associated with the lease amendment at their meeting on February 11, 2026.
8 of 106

9a2
26-89582
6 6
5 0

RECOMMENDATION
Introduce the Ordinance authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into and execute Amendment No. 1 to the Standard Lease, Contract No. 8002055, between the City of Glendale and Babak B. Golbahar for the Verdugo Jobs Center facility located at 1255 South Central Avenue to extend the Lease for an 18-month period from April 1, 2026, to September 30, 2027.

ANALYSIS
The Verdugo Consortium is a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) comprised of the Cities of Glendale, Burbank, and La Cañada Flintridge. The Verdugo Workforce Development Board (VWDB) is the planning and policy body for the Consortium. Its purpose is to provide employment and training programs within the three cities and to allocate and award Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) funds toward its goals. Through the JPA, the City of Glendale (City) has responsibility for the administration of all Consortium activities, including the execution of contracts, including the lease agreement for the Verdugo Jobs Center (VJC) facility. As the administrative entity for the Verdugo Consortium, the City Council on behalf of the City of Glendale approves all agreements.

Since 1999, the VJC has been operating workforce services from its location at 1255 South Center Avenue. This site is a 2-story, 23,254 square foot facility with office space, meeting/conference rooms and ample parking spaces that fulfills the program needs of the workforce section. The VJC consists of employment counseling, job search, job listings, self-service, workshops, business outreach, customized recruitment, and job training programs. The current lease (the “Lease”) for the VJC facility expires on March 31, 2026.

The lease negotiation has been a steady process since last year with the assistance of Overland, Pacific & Cutler, LLC (OPC), a real estate service company previously procured through the City of Glendale’s Community Development Department. Under the guidance of OPC and the assistance of City Attorney’s office, the terms of the lease were finalized with the property owner, Mr. Babak B. Golbahar.

Under the proposed Amendment No. 1 to the Lease (Amendment No. 1), the current lease rate remains the same at $2.50 a square foot, through the 18-month lease extension period from April 1, 2026 to September 30, 2027. This translates to a monthly rent payment of $58,135.00. Currently, the Workforce Section pays for forty-three percent (43%) of the monthly rent which equals $24,772.97 a month, and the State of California Employment Development Department (EDD) pays the remaining fifty-seven (57%) of the cost which equals about $33,362.03 a month. The Workforce Section does not anticipate any changes to EDD’s percentage contribution to the monthly rent in upcoming sublease negotiations, which is approximately for 9,451 square footage of the useable space. The VJC programs are part of an integrated workforce system with EDD. As a result, EDD has been co-located in the center for over twenty years.

All original terms of the lease remain in effect, including the owner’s responsibilities for interior improvement and building systems that include HVAC maintenance, roofing 9 of 106

9a3
26-89582
6 6
5 0
repairs, painting, flooring, and pest control. Staff will work with the owner to ensure ongoing accountability of these items.

During the Verdugo Workforce Development Board (VWDB) – Full Board meeting on February 11, 2026, the VWDB provided its approval to use Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) funds to cover the costs of Amendment No. 1 for the monthly rent amount at the VJC as provided in Exhibit 1.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The VJC assists the most vulnerable populations. The VWDB promotes WIOA services to the Verdugo region. With established partnerships with organizations in the region, the VWDB will work collaboratively to promote WIOA services to those with limited access to services and with multiple barriers, so they are connected to WIOA programs offered at the VJC.

FISCAL IMPACT
Amendment No. 1 will extend the Lease for an 18-month period from April 1, 2026 to September 30, 2027 and will have an overall cost $1,046,430. The cost for the remaining three months of the fiscal year is $174,405, which was approved as a part of the FY 25-26 budget. The funding for future years will be requested as a part of the annual budget process. No new appropriation is being requested at this time. The City Council approved funding is outlined below:

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$174,405 GL: 47180-2060-CSP-0020-P0000-
PL: CSP01227AG-LEASES-0000-2060
Workforce Fund
Department Cost Center Program
Community
Services &
Parks
Projects
The State of California Employment Development Department is co-located in the center, and as a result pays fifty-seven percent (57%) of the cost. The Workforce Section does not anticipate changes to their contribution to the monthly rent in upcoming sublease negotiations.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Because no possibility exists that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA review under the common sense exemption set forth in 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3). 10 of 106

9a4
26-89582
6 6
5 0

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
In accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744, 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 ten percent interest in the company proposed for contract in this agenda item Report are attached in Exhibit

3. ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: The City Council does not introduce the ordinance and authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Lease for Verdugo Jobs Center facility, resulting in the VJC ceasing workforce services at its location at 1255 South Center Avenue, and disrupting its ability to support vulnerable populations.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

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

Judith Velasco, Workforce Development Administrator
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Amendment No. 1 to the Lease
Exhibit 2: VWDB Meeting Minutes 2-11-2026
Exhibit 3: Campaign Disclosure Form from Babak B. Golbahar Exhibit 4: Lease
11 of 106

CONTRACT NO. 8002055

1 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO STANDARD LEASE
CONTRACT NO. 8002055

BETWEEN
BABAK B. GOLBAHAR, LESSOR
AND

CITY OF GLENDALE, LESSEE

1255 South Central Avenue, Glendale, CA 91204

THIS AMENDMENT No. 1 (“Amendment No. 1”) to the Standard Lease, Contract No. 8002055, dated March 30, 2023 (“Lease”), is made an entered into on April 1, 2026 (“this Amendment No. 1’s Effective Date”), between Babak B.

Golbahar, an individual (“Lessor”), and the City of Glendale, a California municipal corporation (“City ” or “Lessee” ), (collectively, “Parties” or individually, “Party”).

RECITALS

1. On March 30, 2023, Lessor and City entered into the Lease for City’s rental of 23,254 square feet of office space, located at 1255 South Central Avenue, Glendale, CA 91204, as more specifically described in the Lease.

2. The Lease is set to expire on March 31, 2026 .

3. Lessor and City desire to amend the Lease to extend the term for an 18- month period — beginning April 1, 2026, and ending September 30, 2027.

AGREEMENT

In consideration of their mutual promises, and for valuable consideration, the Parties agree as follows:

I. Paragraph 2 is amended to read as follows:

2. Term: The term of this Lease shall commence on April 1, 2023, and shall end on September 30, 2027, with such rights or termination as may be hereinafter expressly set forth.

II. Paragraph 3 is amended to read as follows:

3. Rent: Rental Payments shall be paid by the City, from legally available funds and subject to the California Constitution, in arrears on the last day of each month during said term as follows:

FIFTY-EIGHT THOUSAND AND ONE-HUNDRED THIRTY-FIVE AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($58,135.00) FLAT RATE beginning April 1, 2023, up to and through September 30, 2027.

Rent payable hereunder for any period of time less than one month shall be determined by prorating the monthly rental herein specified based on the actual number of days in the month. Rental shall be paid to Lessor at the address specified in Paragraph 4 (Notices) or to such other address as the Lessor may designate by a notice in writing.

III.

Severability. The invalidity, in whole or in part, of any term of this Amendment No. 1 will not affect this lease remaining terms.

IV. Lease Remains in Effect. Except as provided above, all other provisions, terms, and conditions of the Lease remain unchanged and continue in full force and effect.

V. Counterparts. This Amendment No. 1 may be executed in counterparts, each of which is an original, Exhibit 1
12 of 106

2 but all of which constitutes one and the same document. The Parties shall sign a sufficient number of counterparts, so that each Party will receive a fully executed original of this Amendment No. 1 .

VI. Digital Signatures. The Parties deem a copy of this Amendment No. 1 that bears a digital signature as having the same legal effect, for all purposes, as delivery of a signed original, and each digital signature will have the same legal force and effect as a handwritten signature.

VII. Representations – Authority. The Parties represent that:

A. They have read this Amendment No. 1, fully understand its contents, and have received a copy of it;

B. Through their duly authorized representative, they are authorized to sign this Amendment No. 1, and they are bound by its terms; and

C. They have executed this Amendment No. 1 on the date opposite their signature.

Executed at Glendale, California.

LESSOR:

BABAK B. GOLBAHAR,
an individual

Date:

Babak B. Golbahar

LESSEE:

CITY OF GLENDALE,
a California charter city and municipal corporation

Date:

Roubik Golanian
City Manager

APPROVED AS TO FORM

NAME:

TITLE:

SIGNATURE:

DATE:

13 of 106

VERDUGO WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD

FULL BOARD MEETING MINUTES
2/11/2026
9:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.

VWDB Full Board Minutes 2/11/2026 Page 1 of 2
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ara Aslanian, Sonya Kay Blake, Vicki Brannock, Alexis Carter, Nick Hacopian, Debbie Kukta, Iskra Martinez,
Kathy McIntyre, Nicole Miller, Michael Ritterbrown,
Veronica Romero, Terry Walker
MEMBERS ABSENT: Luiza Balyan, Jose Barba, Onnig Bulanikian, Marisol Espinoza, Steve Kaplan, Caroline Lett, Mary Hamzoian,
Jamie Keyser, Pamela Marcello, , Soua Vang

COMMUNITY &

OTHER AGENCY
REPRESENTATIVES:

Karine Grigoryan, Jesse Maldonado
STAFF PRESENT: Diana Montecino, Judith Velasco, Melissa Younesian CALL TO ORDER: 9:32 am by Chair Nick Hacopian

I. Introductions
A. Chair Nick Hacopian welcomed the attendees.

II. Minutes of September 24, 2025
A. Minutes presented and reviewed. MOTION: Debbie Kukta 2nd: Alexis Carter Abstain: Ara Aslanian

Action: APPROVED

III. Action Items

A. Approval of the sole source authorization for consultant services for David K. Shinder for BioPharma III Grant for the period of December 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026 with the option of an extension through November 30, 2028

B. Approval to enter into contract with David K. Shinder for the period of December 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026 in an amount not to exceed $20,000 to provide consultant services for BioPharma III Grant

C. Approval to enter into contract with Biocom Institute California in an amount not to exceed $10,000 in Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act funds to provide career exploration and professional fellowships to eligible participants interested in Life Sci ence careers for the period of January 1, 2026 to June 30, 2026

D. Approval of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Verdugo Workforce Development Board and Local Partners

E. Approval to use Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) funds for rental payments as specified in the lease amendment between the City of Glendale and the property owner, Babak B. Golbahar for the Verdugo Jobs Center facility located at 1255 South Central Avenue, Glendale, CA 91204 for an 18-month period, April 1, 2026 to September 30, 2027

Exhibit 2
14 of 106

VERDUGO WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD

FULL BOARD MEETING MINUTES
2/11/2026
9:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.

VWDB Full Board Minutes 2/11/2026 Page 2 of 2
F. Approval of the recommendation for John Acosta to be appointed to the Verdugo Workforce Development Board, in compliance with State and Federal requirements under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014

MOTION FOR CONSENT ITEMS A – F Motion: Ara Aslanian 2nd: Terry Walker Abstain for Item C : Vicki Brannock

IV. Director’s Report
A. Executive Director Judith Velasco announced that the Healthcare Job Fair was a great success with over 300 attendees and 20 participating employers.

1. A key takeaway is that people enjoy job fairs if employers have open positions and are hiring.

2. Board members provided positive feedback from attendees they had referred and suggested ideas for future events.

B. Ms. Velasco reported that next year ’s workforce formula funds are predicted to be at level funding and that there are no proposed legislation changes to the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA).

1. Some states are moving to consolidate into a single board, which ultimately appears to be a revenue-driven decision by the state.

2. Apprenticeships continue to be a priority, but employers appear to prefer internships.

C. Mrs. Velasco thanked the board members for their attendance at the November retreat.

1. The board members expressed that the retreat was well executed and that the discussions had resulted in various ideas that the board can implement.

D. The following requests were made of the board members:

1. Recommendations for a labor member nomination.

2. Participation in implementing key takeaways from the board retreat.

3. Information on how federal funds are impacting their respective industries.

V. Other Business and Announcements
A. The next VWDB will be held on Wednesday, April 22 at 9:30 am at Glendale Community College.

II. Public Comments: None

III. Adjournment: 10:22 am

15 of 106

Exhibit 3
16 of 106

17 of 106

Exhibit 4
18 of 106

19 of 106

20 of 106

21 of 106

22 of 106

23 of 106

24 of 106

25 of 106

26 of 106

27 of 106

10a
26-89586

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Award of a Service Agreement for Tree Maintenance Services to West Coast Arborists, Inc.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for March 24, 2026 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To maintain public safety, tree health, and service levels citywide, Public Works strategically uses a combination of contractual tree maintenance services and in-house Certified Arborists. Contractor services support the city’s preventative grid maintenance program and capital improvement projects (CIPs), while Public Works staff respond to individual service requests and support young tree maintenance. The current six-year tree maintenance contract is set to expire in July 2026.

The city issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to provide tree maintenance services.

Following evaluation of the proposals received, staff recommends awarding a six-year contract to West Coast Arborists, Inc. to continue citywide tree maintenance operations and supporting annual pruning requirements, including expanded palm maintenance needed to meet Glendale Fire’s Vegetation Management Program. 28 of 106

10a2
26-89586
6 6
5 4

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council award a six-year agreement for tree maintenance services to West Coast Arborists, Inc., selected through a best value RFP process based on qualifications and lowest cost; dispensing with lowest competitive bid process, in the amount not to exceed $19,250,400.

ANALYSIS
Glendale’s city trees are valued at $192,700,000 based on current appraisal methods and represent a long-term public asset that increases in value with age when properly maintained. Healthy, routinely maintained trees provide substantial environmental benefits including energy conservation, water retention and filtration, and interception of pollutants. Economic benefits include increased property values, higher rental occupancy rental rates, and stronger commercial activity. Ongoing care and maintenance help maximize these benefits while minimizing long-term costs to the city.

The Public Works Department maintains an established program to trim each tree approximately once every six years and prune every palm tree annually, which is consistent with tree care industry best practice recommendations. Provided adequate funding is available, the contractor will be primarily responsible for ensuring the city maintains this schedule through a citywide grid maintenance program. A six-year contract term supports the completion of a full pruning cycle without interruptions that would otherwise increase costs or disrupt service levels.

Several factors are contributing to increased service demands and associated costs under the proposed contract. These include changes to State prevailing wage regulations that affect contracted tree maintenance work across public agencies.

In addition, the city maintains a program to plant 750 trees annually. Under the proposed contract, these trees would be warrantied for three years for the first time, which increases up-front costs, but is expected to reduce long-term costs by improving survival and establishment rates and reducing the need for additional replacement and maintenance.

Over the last ten years, most palm pruning and removal of dead fronds, fruit, and flowers have been performed annually. While this has increased costs, it has also reduced risk associated with falling fronds, fronds contacting high voltage lines, storm debris accumulation after storms, and resident service requests. Due to the expanded high fire severity threat maps, Public Works must now prune approximately 5,100 palm trees annually to ensure public safety and to comply with Glendale Fire’s Vegetation Management Program. Staff also anticipate an increase in off-cycle resident service requests due to expanded fire areas and increased private insurance requirements related to tree canopy clearance.

The proposed contract includes an option for up to two, three-year extensions upon expiration of the initial term, which would allow the city to complete additional full citywide grid maintenance pruning cycles, if needed.
29 of 106

10a3
26-89586
6 6
5 4
In previous years, the city dispensed with the standard bid process in favor of a RFP process selection. Article VI, Section 9 of the Glendale City Charter authorizes the City Council to dispense with competitive bidding where the City Council finds that it is in the city’s best interest to do so.

The city places great value in its urban forest and faces the unique challenges of a Southern California urban environment. Due to the specialized nature of this work, it is in the best interest of the city for the City Council to dispense with competitive bidding and select its tree maintenance contractor through an RFP process. This allows the city to weigh numerous criteria other than strict contract cost, to determine which vendor provides the best overall value to the city. Specifically, with its size, scope, and complexity of needs, an outside contractor’s corporate philosophy and approach to the city’s urban forest are important factors to consider. The RFP process also allows the city to consider the following factors: ability to provide sufficient and substantial after-hours and emergency responses; usage of state-of-the-art trade techniques to maintain the city’s urban forest, including understanding of contemporary legal and industry issues, which require the ability and commitment to continuing education and training of its employees; capability to update and utilize the city’s precise and comprehensive internet-based tree database; and ability to provide qualified trade staff and resources for the wide range of species and sizes of the city’s trees. Therefore, dispensing with a competitive bidding is in the city’s best interest.

On September 15, 2025, the city issued RFP No. 4017, to provide tree maintenance services. Five companies attended the mandatory pre-proposal conference, including United Pacific Services, Greenfield Landscaping, Great Scott Tree Care, Inc., West Coast Arborists, Inc., and Mario’s Tree Service, Inc. Two of the companies subsequently submitted proposals prior to the due date of November 5, 2025.

A three-person evaluation team comprised of management staff from Public Works and Community Services and Parks reviewed and rated both proposals on the criteria below:

Evaluation Criteria Weight of Score
Qualifications and Business History 35%
Workplan, Project Approach, and Corporate Capability 30% RPF Quality and Overall Responsiveness 15%
Proposal Price 20%
30 of 106

10a4
26-89586
6 6
5 4
The two companies received the following cumulative and weighted scores:

Proposing Company Score
West Coast Arborists Inc. 96.60
Great Scott Tree Care Inc. 90.86
West Coast Arborists, Inc. currently holds the city’s existing tree maintenance services contract and has demonstrated experience supporting large municipal programs. Great Scott Tree Care, Inc., is primarily based in southern LA County and Orange County.

While both proposers were competitive and within staff expectations, the evaluation team determined that West Coast Arborists, Inc. demonstrated strong qualifications, staffing capacity and the best project approach. West Coast Arborists’ team demonstrated a thorough understanding of applicable industry and regulatory requirements, including tree health care, invasive pest management, accident reporting and response protocols, and wildlife protection measures. West Coast Arborists also offers enhanced emergency response capabilities and dedicated staff resources to support program implementation and, ultimately provided the lowest proposal price.

Additionally, for tree maintenance services, West Coast Arborists is well-established throughout Southern California and maintains multiple comparable municipal contracts of Glendale’s size or larger. Great Scott Tree Care, Inc. identified fewer contracts of comparable size and scope and has more limited equipment and staffing resources available for deployment. Based on these considerations, staff concludes that West Coast Arborists, Inc. is best prepared to meet Glendale’s operational needs and maintain continuity beginning day one. In addition, their proposal represented the lowest cumulative cost to the city across the range of tree services included in the scope of work.

The following table below shows the six-year funding plan for the tree maintenance contract with West Coast Arborists, Inc. Adequate funding for this contract will be requested each year as part of the annual budget process.

Cost Center
Program /Funding
Source
Account
Number FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 Projects / Gas Tax 51200-4020-
PWD-0020
$610,000 $610,000 $610,000 $610,000 $610,000 $610,000
Street Maintenance
/General Fund
43110-1010-
PWD-7507-
P8022
$1,779,900 $1,779,900 $1,779,900 $1,779,900 $1,779,900 $1,779,900 31 of 106

10a5
26-89586
6 6
5 4
Street Maintenance
(ITO/Parks)
/General Fund
43110-1010-
PWD-7507-
P8023
$316,000 $316,000 $316,000 $316,000 $316,000 $316,000
GWP Electric OH &
UG / Elecworks
O&E
43110-5820-
GWP-4660-
P0000-
T0000-F1580
$452,500 $452,500 $452,500 $452,500 $452,500 $452,500
Street Tree
Maintenance /San
Fernando LMD
43110-2530-
PWD-7507
$50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
FY Totals: $3,208,400 $3,208,400 $3,208,400 $3,208,400 $3,208,400 $3,208,400

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The project was advertised on the City’s website and the Glendale Independent News Press. The City hosted a mandatory pre-proposal meeting on October 8, 2025, and attendees included representatives from five tree maintenance companies.

FISCAL IMPACT
The contract for tree maintenance services will cost $19,250,400, or $3,208,400 annually, beginning July 1, 2026. The current year’s adopted budget includes $1,076,600 in the General Fund for tree maintenance services. Entering into this contract will result in a recurring annual increase of $1,019,300 from the General Fund.

Funding for FY 2026-27, and all future years thereafter, will be requested as part of the annual budget process. The FY 2026-27 Proposed Appropriation request is outlined as follows.

Proposed Appropriation for FY 2026-27
Amount Account
String
Funding
Source
Department Cost
Center/Program
$610,000 51200-4020-
PWD-0020-
P0000
PL:

PWD01039AA
State Gas Tax
Fund
Public Works Projects
$1,779,900 43110-1010-
PWD-7507-
P8022
General Fund Public Works Street Tree
Maintenance/
Forestry
$316,000 43110-1010-
PWD-7507-
P8023
General Fund Public Works Street Tree
Maintenance/
Indigenous Tree &
Park Tree
32 of 106

10a6
26-89586
6 6
5 4
Maintenance
$452,500 43110-5820-
GWP-4660-
P0000
Electric Works
Revenue Fund
Glendale
Water and
Power
GWP Electric OH &
UG
$50,000 43110-2530-
PWD-7507-
P0000
San Fernando
Landscape
District Fund
Public Works Street Tree
Maintenance

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This item is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15304 entitled “Minor Alterations to Land”, which exemption consists of “minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes”, and subsection (b) “New gardening or landscaping.” The contract is for tree maintenance operations and annual pruning requirements, which are minor public alterations of vegetation that do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes.

1. ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Do not approve the resolution which will result in the discontinuation of contractual tree maintenance operations following July 1, 2026, putting the health and safety of the city’s urban forest at risk.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Daniel Hernandez, Director of Public Works
Prepared by:

Dan Hardgrove, Assistant Director of Public Works
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Campaign Disclosure Form
33 of 106

RESOLUTION NO. ___________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,

CALIFORNIA, DISPENSING WITH COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR A DESIGNEE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC. FOR GLENDALE TREE

MAINTENANCE SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of Glendale’s trees are valued at $192,700,00 and the City places great value in its urban forest and faces the unique challenges of a Southern California urban environment; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works department strategically uses a combination of in-house- staff and contractual tree trimming services to maintain public safety, tree health, and service levels citywide; and
WHEREAS, Council can determine it is in the best interest of the City to dispense with competitive bidding; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City for the City Council to dispense with competitive bidding and select its tree maintenance contractor through an RFP process as it allows the City to weigh numerous criteria, other than strict contract cost, to determine which vendor provides the best overall value to the City. Specifically, the RFP process allows the City to consider the following factors: a contractor’s corporate philosophy and approach to the City’s urban forest; ability to provide sufficient and substantial after-hours and emergency responses; usage of state-of-the-art trade techniques to maintain the City’s urban forest, including understanding of contemporary legal and industry issues, which require the ability and commitment to continuing education and training of its employees; capability to update and utilize the City’s precise and comprehensive internet-based tree database; and ability to provide qualified trade staff and resources for the wide range of species and sizes of the City’s trees; and WHEREAS, on September 15, 2025, the Public Works Department issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 4017 “To Provide Tree Maintenance Services within the City of Glendale”; and
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2025, five companies — United Pacific Services, Greenfield Landscaping, Great Scott Tree Care, Inc., West Coast Arborists, Inc., and Mario’s Tree Service, Inc — attended a mandatory pre-proposal conference and by November 5, 2025, Great Scott Tree Service, Inc. and West Coast Arborists, Inc. submitted proposals; and WHEREAS, on November 13, 2025, a selection team — consisting of City management staff from Public Works and Community Services and Parks — reviewed the proposals; and WHEREAS, the team based its evaluation on the following criteria: (1) Qualifications and Business History, (2) Workplan, Project Approach, and Corporate Capability, (3) RFP Quality and Overall Responsiveness, and (4) Proposal Price; and
34 of 106

WHEREAS, the selection team determined that West Coast Arborists, Inc. demonstrated strong qualifications, staffing capacity and the best project approach; and WHEREAS, West Coast Arborists, Inc. also demonstrated a thorough understanding of applicable industry and regulatory requirements, including tree health care, invasive pest management, accident reporting and response protocols, and wildlife protection measures; and WHEREAS, West Coast Arborists offers enhanced emergency response capabilities and dedicated staff resources to support program implementation; and WHEREAS, West Coast Arborists, Inc. ultimately submitted the lowest proposal price through the RFP process; and
WHEREAS, given the foregoing findings and facts, it appears that adequate justification exists and it is in the City’s best interest ― upon recommendation of the Director of Public Works ― to (1) dispense with competitive bidding, and (2) authorize the City Manager or a designee to enter into and execute a six year contract with West Coast Arborists, Inc., to provide tree maintenance services in the City of Glendale for an amount not to exceed $19,250,400.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:

1. The foregoing facts are deemed to be true and correct and are a basis for dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing the execution of an agreement with West Coast Arborist, Inc.

2. The Council hereby dispenses with competitive bidding and authorizes the City Manager or a designee to enter into and execute a six year contract with West Coast Arborists, Inc., to provide tree maintenance services in the City of Glendale for an amount not to exceed $19,250,400, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney.

Adopted this _____________ day of __________________________, 2026. ___________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________
City Clerk
35 of 106

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Dr. Suzie Abajian , City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. _______________ was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the day of , 2026, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
____________________
City Clerk
36 of 106

City of Glen dale
DISCLOSURE • CAMPAIGN FINANCE ORDINANCE
The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 57 44, ·campaign Finance Ordinance," which became effective on September 9, 2011, and amended it with Ordinance No. 5768, which became effective on March 15, 2012 ("the Ordinance"). The Ordinance prohibits: ( 1) A contractor• (includin �
a subcontrador .. )-who has a contract with the City
of Glendale ("City"), Economic Development Department ("EbD"), or the Hous,ng Authority of the City of Glendale "HA") and that contract is subject to approval by the City Council, EDD, or HA-from making a contribution to a City Council member, EDD member, HA member, City Cler , or City Treasurer; and (2) Council members, EDD members, and HA members from voting on matters concerning a contract with a person who has provided a campaign contribution.

The Ordinance applies to a contractor whose contract requires the City Council's, EDD's, or HA's approval. A contract with the City, EDD. or HA is known as a "City Contract." The Ordinance also applies to a subcontractor who has a subcontract through a City Contract. The Ordinance excludes a competitively bid contract awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.

To assist members of the City Council, EDD, and IHA before they vote on a matter regarding a City Contract, the Ordinance requires City staff to prepare this report which discloses certain information about the contractor receiving the City Contract, and the subcontractor(s) working under the City C�tract.

A contractor mustnrovide the information listed below when: A subcontractor must nrovide the information listed below when: II • The City Contract has a total anticipated or actual value of $50,000 or more; or • The subcontract through a City Contract has a to/El anticipated or actual value contract awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. ,of $25,000 or more; or • A combination or series of City Contracts have a value of $50,000 or more. • A combination or series of subcontracts, for the same or different projects, have an aggregate value of $25,000 or
more. Information that must be disclosed: • Name of the person, entity, or organization (i.e., the Contractor or Subcontractor) • Name of the Chief Executive Officer/President
• Chief Operating Officer
• Chief Financial Officer
• Chairperson
• All members of the Board of Directors
• All persons who own more than 10% of the person, entity, or organization • Name of any campaign committee owned or controlled by the person, entity, or organization Please complete the following disclosure form:

Contractor(s)'·
Name Address
Full Name Title Business Address Citv State ZiD
Chairperson
Chief Executive Officer/ President
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Fina ncial Officer
Board of Directors
More than 10% interest owner
• "Contractor" is the person, entity, or organizati·on that is the party, or prospective party, to the contract with the City, EDD. or HA or any member of that person's, entity's, or organization's Board of Directors. its Chairperson, Chief Executive Ofticer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, any person with an ownership interest of more than ten percent (10%) in that person, entity, or organization, and any campaign committee that is owned or controlled by that person, entity, or organization. Above please disclose these persons' name and business address. 37 of 106

Subcontractor(s) ..

Name Address
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Chairperson
Chief Executive Officer/ President
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Board of Directors
More than 10% interest owner
•• "Subcontractor" is the person, entity, or organization that has entered into a contract for the performance of all or a portion of the work undertaken under .an agreement with an architect. design profession.al, engineer, or general or prime contract, usually by a general or prime contractor. Subcontractor includes a.ny member ot that person's, entity's, or organization's Board of Directors, its Chairperson, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, any person with an ownership interest of more than ten percent (10%) in that person, entity, or or ganization, and any campaign committee that is owned or controlled by that person, entity, or organization. Above please disclose these persons' name and business address.

Campaign Committee owned or controlled by: ______________________ _ I
Business Address
I
City
I
State I Zip

CERTIFICATION
On behalff of the above-named O Contractor O Subcontractor:
• I acknowledge that I have a continuing obligation to update this disclosure form if I substitute- or if I select additional- architects, design professionals, contractors, or subcontractors within ten (10) days of the selection or change; and • I hereby certify that:• I have identified all persons for which the Ordinance requires disclosure; • The information in this disclosure form (and any attachment to this form) is true, accurate, correct, and complete; and • I have been legally authorized to submit this disclosure form.

In total, this disclosure form (including attachments) is ___ pages.

Executed on: ______________ , 20 __ , at: ___________________ , California.

Signature: _____________________ _ Print Full Name: ___________________ _ Address:------------------------------------------------- Phone Number: _____________ _ E-mail Address: ________________ _ Dou &;1711')
38 of 106

10b
26-89706

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Bulky and Abandoned Item Collection Services, Quality Assurance and Digital Service Request System Review

1. Motion to note and file this report and provide staff direction on expanded Bulky and Abandoned Item Collection Services

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for March 24, 2026 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff conducted a review of Glendale’s commercial Franchise Hauler (FH) operations, specifically the quality assurance testing of service request systems, analysis of operational practices, review of franchise audit findings, and evaluation of potential program alternatives. This report summarizes staff’s findings and provides context regarding current service levels, contractual limitations, and potential considerations moving forward.

The review evaluated bulky and abandoned item collection services, service-related charges, and customer service practices. Particular attention was given to differences in service levels between Single Family Residences (SFRs), which receive unlimited City- provided bulky item pickups, Commercial Multi-Family (MFRs) and commercial accounts serviced by FHs, which are limited to four permitted pickups per year under existing franchise agreements.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a motion to note and file this report and provide staff with direction on the Bulky and Abandoned Item Collection Services.

ANALYSIS
Staff conducted a review of service request systems, operational procedures, franchise performance data, and potential program alternatives.

First, staff undertook a QA/QC test of all digital service request systems for the city and each of the FHs. Phone calls and emails were not included in this review. This was followed by a direct email inquiry to each of the haulers. Staff identified minor 39 of 106

10b2
26-89706
6 6
8 8
deficiencies and areas for improvement, including translation system enhancements, Any concerns found from this effort have been followed up with involved in-house staff and each of the respective haulers.

Also, staff took advantage of a previously planned hauler audit completed by our consultant, R3, to get additional information.

Finally, staff explored different alternatives to the current status quo for bulky collections for both Residential and Commercial services to address the differences between them.

Bulky/Abandoned Metrics and General Observations
Prior to implementation of the commercial franchise program, bulky and abandoned items were collected exclusively by city crews for both residential and commercial accounts, with unlimited bulky item pick-ups. While continued progress can always be made in addressing bulky and abandoned materials in the public right-of-way, staff’s observations indicate that overall street cleanliness has improved since the beginning of the commercial franchise program.

Staff’s findings from the tonnage data tracked for bulky and abandoned item collection support this observation. Between 2017 and 2021, prior to the franchise program, city crews collected an average of 216 tons per month of bulky and abandoned material.

The commercial franchise program began in late November 2021. By 2023, total bulky and abandoned tonnage collected by both FHs and city crews decreased to an average of 181 tons per month. Through 2025, this downward trend continued, with average monthly tonnage declining to 175 tons, or approximately 2,100 tons annually.

This represents a 19% reduction in bulky and abandoned materials collected citywide compared to peak levels under city-only collection, equating to nearly 500 fewer tons of bulky material annually.

Quality Assurance and System Review
Digital Service Request System Review
Staff conducted a quality assurance review of the city’s and each FHs digital service request system by submitting test bulky item requests. Staff also submitted follow-up inquiries directly to each hauler regarding specific concerns raised.

The service request platform on the city’s website was found to be intuitive, clearly organized, and accessible to users. Test requests were submitted using the standard public interface, and staff found that instructions were easy to follow, required fields were clearly identified, and confirmation responses were generated promptly. The MyGlendale platform provides mobile functionality and includes features that assist users in identifying their assigned hauler which is available for city and FH customers.

While the FHs platforms varied in user interface design, all were functional and allowed customers to submit service requests. Minor usability issues identified during testing were communicated to the respective haulers, and each has since addressed those issues. Some examples of the usability issues encountered and corrected were for one 40 of 106

10b3
26-89706
6 6
8 8
of the haulers, the link to the bulky items request from would scroll down directly to bottom of the opening page where “Request a service” form is found. The webpage offers easy to find translation options, but since the link goes directly to the Request for Service form one has to scroll back up to find it. Another hauler had an easy to find translation feature on their webpage, but they didn’t offer an Armenian translation.

Operational Procedures for Bulky and Abandoned Collection Each FH maintains comparable operational procedures for addressing both scheduled bulky pickup and unscheduled abandoned items in their respective zones.

Scheduled bulky item pickups are requested by account holders (property owners or managers) and are typically serviced within a couple of days to a week of the request.

Abandoned items are identified through public reports, route driver observations, or field supervisor inspections and are dispatched for collection through established work order systems.

Collection route drivers are generally unable to remove bulky items encountered during routine collection routes due to equipment limitations which are not suitable for bulky collection. Additionally, because it not only would significantly disrupt the timeliness and thoroughness of their assigned routes. Instead, route drivers document and route their observations to dedicated bulky collection vehicles for efficient batch removal. Each hauler deploys supervisory or roving personnel to regularly inspect (1-2 times per week) service zones and identify abandoned materials. Roving vehicles are responsible for monitoring the entire service zone and documenting abandoned items. These items are entered into the service request system and assigned to dedicated bulky collection vehicles for removal.

Staff found these operational procedures to be professional, structured, and consistent with industry best management practices.

Customer Service
Based on responses received from the FHs through the QA/QC effort, staff found that Glendale’s communication structure is consistent with standard practice used by all four haulers in other jurisdictions they service. In most cases, there is no system that bypasses the City unless a customer contacts the hauler directly.

While some smaller cities serviced by a single exclusive hauler may provide direct links to one hauler’s service platform, Glendale’s structure reflects its size and the presence of four exclusive franchise zones. The city’s website includes a “Who’s My Hauler?” feature, contact information and direct links to each of the four haulers, which staff determined to be an effective way to connect customers with their respective haulers.

In addition, if a FH related service request is received by the City, the Integrated Waste Management Division’s Call Center staff document the request and promptly transfer it to the appropriate hauler for resolution.

Application of Extra Service Fees
41 of 106

10b4
26-89706
6 6
8 8
Beyond base collection rates, the franchise agreements authorize additional fees for service outside standard collection. Commercial customers pay based on the frequency, number of containers and size of containers. The franchise agreements also include a list of extra fees for various services beyond regular collection. Staff reviewed whether such fees were being applied inflexibly or without consideration of customer circumstances.

Based on responses and documentation reviewed as part of this QA/QC assessment, staff found that all four FHs generally demonstrated flexibility and acceptable customer service practices in addressing routine service issues, such as blocked bins/carts or late set-outs, before assessing charges. When additional fees are applied, they appear to be consistent with franchise agreements provisions and are typically associated with repeated violations, non-responsiveness, or specialized service requests. 2024 Franchised Haulers Performance Audit
The franchise agreements require periodic performance audit, the first of which was conducted in calendar year 2022. The most recent audit, completed by the consultant group R3 in January 2026 for calendar year 2024, evaluated a range of operational and customer service metrics which coincide with the inquiries addressed in this report.

In the 2024 report, R3 found that, “all four haulers operate competent and professional customer service operations. Customer Service Representatives (CSRs) at all four companies appear to be responsive, courteous, knowledgeable, dedicated, and qualified. CSRs and their managers are held to high expectations, and technology and data tracking systems appear to be sufficient to meet general expectations.” Consideration of Alternatives to Current Bulky Item Programs The difference in bulky item service levels between the city’s SFRs and commercial MFR accounts reflects differences in service delivery models, objectives, and rate structures, rather than unequal treatment of similar customers.

The City directly provides unlimited bulky item collection to SFR customers as a municipal service intended to reduce illegal dumping and maintain neighborhood conditions. Because the city directly manages this program, it retains flexibility in determining service levels.

In contrast, bulky item collection for commercial accounts is provided by private franchise haulers pursuant to the negotiated agreement. Those agreements include service limits that were established to manage cost exposure and discourage misuse of the program for disposal of material in the public right-of-way.

With this difference understood, in considering the way the current bulky item programs function for SFRs and MFRs, staff evaluated three potential alternatives:

1. Modify the Commercial Bulky Program
FHs were presented with concerns over the bulky program in Glendale during the January 14, 2026, hauler meeting, and asked for feedback or variations on their bulky 42 of 106

10b5
26-89706
6 6
8 8
programs in other communities. All four FHs stated that providing any level of free service for bulky item programs for commercial customers is unique to Glendale and that commercial accounts are almost always charged for any level of bulky collection service.

FHs proposed potential modifications to the current commercial bulky item program to address differences between small and large MFR properties, which are currently limited to four free pickups per year regardless of size. One option would be to negotiate a structure allowing one free pickup per MFR unit annually (e.g. a 30-unit property would receive 30 pickups per year). Another option would be to establish a proportional model, such as one free pickup for every ten units (e.g., a 60-unit property would receive six pickups per year). Transitioning to a unit-based or proportional bulky item allocation would likely increase service levels for larger MFR properties and may require corresponding rate adjustments. A Proposition 218 process would be required if the change results in increased costs or modifies the allocation of costs among ratepayers.

The City Attorney’s office affirmed that modifying the commercial bulky item program to provide unlimited or any other number of pickups per year would require amending the franchise agreements as this is a material term in the agreements.

2. Limit Residential Bulky Pickups
Another alternative is the discontinuation of unlimited pick-ups for residential customers and limiting SFRs pick-ups per year. While this alternative would reduce city costs, it would also reduce service levels for SFR customers and may increase illegal dumping activity. If service costs decrease, existing rate revenues would exceed the cost of providing the reduced level of service, as customers would be paying for a service no longer offered. This imbalance would be evaluated during the next rate study cycle.

3. City Assumes Commercial Bulky Collection
The third alternative would have the city take over the FHs responsibilities for bulky item pick-ups for commercial customers and provide unlimited pick-ups per year. Since Integrated Waste staffing and equipment assets were eliminated when the city franchised the commercial program, expansion of the city’s responsibilities to include a bulky and abandoned collection programs for the franchise accounts would involve re- investing in additional staff and equipment resources. Staff determined that this alternative would require the purchase of one additional rear loader truck (approximately $400,000), one additional stake bed truck (approximately $120,000), one additional full- time Integrated Waste Truck Operator and four additional full-time Integrated Waste Workers at an annual cost of $714,844, plus additional overhead associated with customer service, supervision and ongoing equipment maintenance. In addition, this alternative would also require amending franchise agreements to remove the service obligations from the haulers.

Each alternative presents operational, contractual, or financial considerations. At this time, staff recommend maintaining the current program structure.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
43 of 106

10b6
26-89706
6 6
8 8
No additional outreach was performed related to this report on Bulky Item Collection Services.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This item is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and, therefore, an environmental review is not required.

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.

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:

Daniel Hardgrove, Assistant Director of Public Works
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None
44 of 106

MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded by
Council Member , that the Council of the City
of Glendale authorizes the City Manager or a designee to note and file the Staff Report of March 24, 2026, regarding Bulky and Abandoned Item Collection Services, Quality Assurance and Digital Service Request System Review.

Votes as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

City Clerk
45 of 106

6 7
2 6

AGENDA ITEM

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Report: Chess Tournament Sponsorship Request
1) Motion approving a $18,000 sponsorship for the California State Open Chess Tournament and authorize the City Manager to execute any necessary agreements with the event organizers.
2) Resolution of Appropriation to appropriate $18,000 for a sponsorship for the California State Open Chess Tournament.

COUNCIL ACTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A $18,000 sponsorship request has been received for the 2026 California State Open Chess Tournament. If approved, this annual event would take place in the City of Glendale for the second year in a row. Held from September 4 to September 7, 2026, the tournament is expected to attract approximately 500 players and 1,200 spectators throughout the weekend. This event supports Glendale’s goal of promoting education, arts and culture, and community engagement. It also presents a timely opportunity to align with Glendale Tech Week and boost the local economy through tourism and media exposure.

Sponsorship will support venue costs, security, community outreach and advertising, and hospitality for players and volunteers.

RECOMMENDATION
That Council consider the request of a $18,000 sponsorship request for the 2026 Southern California State Open Chess Tournament, and authorize the City Manager to execute any necessary agreements with the event organizers.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The City of Glendale, in partnership with the American Chess Academy, California Chess Federation, and dot818, will host the California State Open Chess Tournament from September 4 to September 7, 2026 at the Glendale Hilton hotel. Previously hosted in San Diego and Los Angeles, this is the second annual event being held in the Glendale.

This event builds upon the success of last year’s 2025 chess event, expanding the footprint Item Type: Action
Approved forMarch 24, 2026 calendar
46 of 106

2 of the event. This event positions Glendale in the Arts and Culture space, positioning the City as a destination for competitive chess, and welcoming families, students, and international visitors.

The tournament is expected to deliver community and economic benefits:
Educational & Cultural Enrichment: Chess is a symbol of strategic thinking and is strongly rooted in Glendale’s diverse communities.
Economic Impact: With hundreds of out-of-town participants, the event will generate hotel stays, restaurant visits, and retail spending.
Positive Media Exposure: This event offers opportunities to showcase Glendale’s commitment to education, innovation, and youth development. Strategic Timing: The tournament leads directly into Glendale Tech Week, allowing for a coordinated message that positions Glendale as a center for critical thinking and innovation.

Event organizers have requested a $18,000 sponsorship from the City to support venue costs, security, community outreach and advertising, and hospitality for players and volunteers. For the 2025 event, City staff provided in-kind services at a value of $3,000, which included GTV coverage of the event, communications, and media relations services.

In addition to the financial sponsorship request for the 2026 event, the event organizers have requested the additional in-kind support and assistance for this year’s event as well.

FISCAL IMPACT
Sponsorship for the California State Open Chess Tournament will cost $18,000, which was not included in the FY 2025-26 adopted budget. The request for appropriation is outlined below.

Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String)
To (Account String) Funding Source
$18,000 25300-1010-000 43112-1010-MSD-
6504-P0000
General Fund
Department Cost Center Program
Management
Services
City Manager

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1) Council may choose to not sponsor this event.
2) Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
1) 2026 sponsorship request
47 of 106

MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby approves an $18,000 sponsorship of the California State Open Chess Tournament, as more particularly described in the Report to Council dated March 24, 2026. The Council authorizes the City Manager or his designee to execute any necessary agreements with event organizers, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney.

Vote as Follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
48 of 106

RESOLUTIONNO.

RESOLUTIONOFTHECOUNCILOFTHECITYOFGLENDALE

MAKINGANAPPROPRIATION
BEITRESOLVEDBYTHECOUNCILOFThECITYOFGLENDALE:

SECTION1:Thatthesumof$18,000isherebyappropriatedand/ortransferredfromthefollowingaccounts tothefollowingaccounts:

ACCOUNTSDESCRIPTIONFROMTO
25300-1010-000-0000-P0000-UndesignatedFundBalance,GeneralFund$18,000 43112-1010-MSD-6504-P0000-DirectAssistance,GeneralFund,$18,000 ManagementServices,CityManager
ToappropriatefundingforsponsorshipfortheCaliforniaStateOpenChessTournament.

SECTION2:TheDirectorofFinanceisauthorizedtomakesuchotherrevisions,individualappropriation line-items,changesinsummaries,fundtotals,grandtotals,andotherportionsofthebudgetdocumentas necessarytoreflectandimplementthechangesspecifiedinthisresolution.

SECTION3:TheCityClerkshallcertifytotheadoptionofthisResolution.

Adoptedthisdayof
________________,
2026.

Mayor
ATTEST:

CITYOFGLENDALE
DATE3/16/2026
__________________________

APPROVEDASTOFINANCIAL
CityClerk\‘$JPROVISIONFORS18,000
w
DirectorofFinance

STATEOFCALIFORNIA)

COUNTYOFLOSANGELES)SS

CITYOFGLENDALE)
I,SuzieAbajian,CityClerkoftheCityofGlendale,doherebycertifythattheforegoingResolution No.wasadoptedbytheCounciloftheCityofGlendale,California,ataregularmeetingheldon the__________dayof
________________,
2026,andthatthesamewasadoptedbythefollowingvote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

CityClerk
CE
49 of 106

Hello Mayor Najarian,
Thank you again for your leadership and support in bringing the Southern California Open Chess Tournament to Glendale. The City’s $12,000 sponsorship was instrumental in covering essential venue and event costs and played a critical role in the tournament’s overall success.

As you noted in the City’s press release, “It’s events like these that reflect the spirit of our city— welcoming, competitive, and globally connected.” That sentiment proved especially true this year. The tournament drew significant attention within regional and national chess news and is now recognized as the largest chess tournament of its kind in California. The level of participation and coverage exceeded expectations and reinforced Glendale’s reputation as a hub for serious chess competition.

For 2026, we are expanding the event significantly and have secured a new venue at the Hilton Glendale to accommodate projected growth. The venue upgrade reflects both increased demand and our commitment to elevating the tournament experience. We have reserved 150 hotel room nights (approximately 50 rooms per night) at an average rate of $200 per room, directly generating an estimated $30,000 in hotel revenue within the City.

We anticipate approximately 500 players and an additional 1,200 spectators throughout the weekend.

Based on conservative estimates of $100 per day in local spending per attendee on dining, shopping, and transportation, the tournament is projected to generate substantial direct economic activity for Glendale businesses. With over 1,700 total attendees across multiple days, the cumulative local impact is expected to exceed several hundred thousand dollars in visitor spending.

Beyond the economic benefit, the tournament continues to position Glendale as a premier destination for competitive chess and as a welcoming city for families, students, and international visitors. Many attendees travel from outside the region, bringing new visibility and foot traffic to our Jewel City and strengthening Glendale’s reputation as a place to work, live, and play.

As we plan for the 2026 tournament, and in light of the expanded venue and anticipated growth, we respectfully request $18,000 in City support. The overall cost of the event exceeds $100,000, offset in part by corporate and individual sponsorships and entry fees. City partnership remains essential to ensuring the event’s continued success and growth.

As in prior years, City funding would be directed toward the elements most critical to the event’s success, including venue costs, security, community outreach and advertising, and hospitality for players and volunteers.

Thank you for your continued commitment to events that bring people together, elevate Glendale’s profile, and generate meaningful economic activity for our local businesses. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to building on this year’s momentum.

Respectfully,
Armen Ambartsoumian
American Chess Academy
David Tonoyan
Dot818, LLC
50 of 106

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Voting Delegate for the 2026 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) General Assembly

1. Motion Designating a Voting Delegate and Alternate Representative(s) for the 2026 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) General Assembly

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for March 24, 2026 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), established as an association of local governments that convene to address regional issues, holds an annual gathering (General Assembly) to consider budget, governance, proposed amendments and resolutions brought forth by member agencies. SCAG has asked that each City Council appoint a Voting Delegate and Alternate Representative(s) for the General Assembly and Regional Conference taking place on May 7-8, 2026.
51 of 106

6 7
2 7

RECOMMENDATION
Designate a Voting Delegate and Alternate Representative(s) to represent Glendale during the 2026 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) General Assembly and Regional Conference.

ANALYSIS
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is established as an association of local governments and agencies that convene to address regional issues.

Under federal law, SCAG is designated as a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and under state law as a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of Governments (COG). The City of Glendale is a member of SCAG.

SCAG holds an annual gathering (General Assembly), during which, SCAG’s membership consider and act on items, such as adoption of the budget, ratification of board officers, proposed amendments to bylaws, and any proposed resolutions.

SCAG has asked that each City Council appoint a Voting Delegate and Alternate Representative(s) for the General Assembly through formal Council action.

The detailed agenda for the meeting will become available later in the Spring. The general agenda is listed in Exhibit 1.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
N/A

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
N/A

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1. Council may choose to not select any member of Council to serve as a voting delegate or alternate. With this alternative, Glendale’s voice will not be represented during the annual regional conference.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Roubik R. Golanian, City Manager
52 of 106

6 7
2 7
Prepared by:

Domenica Megerdichian, Assistant to the City Manager
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS

1. Tentative Agenda for Annual Conference
53 of 106

MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the Council of the City of Glendale, California hereby designates the following individuals as the voting delegate and alternate representative(S) for the 2026 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) General Assembly and Regional Conference taking place on May 7-8, 2026:

VOTING DELEGATE: _________________________
ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE(S): ____________________

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
54 of 106

EXHIBIT 1
2026 SCAG Regional Conference & General Assembly
May 7-8, 2026 | JW Marriott Desert Springs Resort & Spa Agenda

May 6 | Wednesday
3:00 PM Executive/ Administration Committee Meeting
6:00 PM President’s Reception (Invitation Only)

May 7 | Thursday
8:00 AM Registration, Networking, Continental Breakfast 9:00 AM Regional Council Meeting
10:00 AM Welcome and Opening Remarks
11:00 AM General Assembly Meetings
12:15 PM Sustainability Awards Luncheon
2:15 PM Breakout Sessions I
2:15 PM Students Showcase
3:15 PM Break and Networking
3:45 PM Breakout Sessions II
3:45 PM Students Showcase
5:30 PM Evening Reception

May 8 | Friday
8:00 AM Registration
8:30 AM Breakfast
9:00 AM Welcome
9:10 AM Students Showcase
9:30 AM Keynote Address
10:00 AM Plenary Panel Session
11:15 AM Conference Wrap-Up
55 of 106

10e
26-89762

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Charter Review - Update and Direction on Potential Charter Amendments Pertaining to Council Districts, Directly Elected Mayor, Council Compensation, Civil Service System, Elected vs. Appointed City Clerk and City Treasurer, and Miscellaneous Matters

1. Motion to Note and File, and Provide Direction to Staff

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for March 24, 2026 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The report provides an update on the work of the Charter Review Committee (“Committee”) following the Council’s November 4, 2025, discussion of potential Charter amendments. At that time, the Council did not direct staff to place any measures on the June 2026 ballot, leaving November 2026 or March 2028 as the next opportunities for voter consideration. The Committee generally recommends maintaining the City’s current governance structure—five at-large councilmembers with a rotating mayor— while proposing targeted amendments in other areas. These include requiring periodic review of council compensation, allowing certain administrative updates (e.g., meeting locations and outdated language), and considering additional reforms related to civil service and governance practices.

The Committee spent a significant amount of time on proposed Civil Service amendments. The Committee recommends clarifying hiring practices through a revised “Rule of Three,” allowing limited flexibility in probationary periods (while maintaining a 12-month cap for sworn personnel), and streamlining promotional reallocations for specialized positions. The Committee also reviewed the City Manager’s proposal to transition Department Heads to at-will status and remove Council approval of their hiring and dismissal, but ultimately recommended no changes in these areas while supporting the addition of a non-interference clause to reinforce the council–manager form of government.

Finally, this Report outlines ongoing and future considerations, including potential changes related to the City Clerk and Treasurer (which is still an ongoing discussion for the Committee), exploration of an independent audit committee, and additional Charter 56 of 106

10e2
26-89762
6 7
0 6
clean-up items. It also highlights timing and cost implications for placing amendments on future ballots, noting that Civil Service changes must appear on a statewide general election ballot.

RECOMMENDATION

1. With respect to the Committee’s recommendations pertaining to the Civil Service system, staff concurs with the Committee’s recommendations pertaining to the Rule of Three, Length of Probationary Period, and Position Reallocations. Staff are still engaged in the meet-and-confer process with one of the associations with respect to some of these provisions.

2. With respect to the Council’s and City Manager’s roles pertaining to the City’s administrative functions, staff agree with the Committee’s recommendation to propose to the voters a provision prohibiting councilmember interference in the administrative process.

3. Notwithstanding the Committee’s recommendation, the City Manager recommends that the Council submit to the voters a proposed Charter amendment that will remove Department Heads from Civil Service for Department Heads hired after the effectiveness of the Charter amendment and give the City Manager sole authority over the hiring and termination of department heads.

4. Staff concur with the Committee’s recommendations regarding location of Council meetings, obsolete job titles and positions, and cleanup language to the provision related to the holding of compensated City office or City employment after Council service.

5. Staff have no recommendations pertaining to Council districts, an expanded City Council, a directly elected mayor, and Council compensation.

6. Staff have no recommendation regarding timing of placing matters on the ballot, other than to note that the California Elections Code requires amendments pertaining to the Civil Service system be held at a statewide general election.

7. Staff seek further direction on the Committee’s remaining scope of work.

ANALYSIS
On November 4, 2025, the Council received a status update on the activities of the Committee regarding consideration of Charter amendments relating to Council districts, directly elected Mayor, Council compensation matters and some miscellaneous matters. (Exhibit 1). The Council provided no direction on placing any Charter amendments on the ballot for the June 2, 2026, general municipal election. The next elections in which the Council may place Charter amendments on the ballot are the November 2026 statewide general election or the March 2028 general municipal election that is consolidated with the statewide primary election. Cost and timing considerations are discussed further below in this report.

A full description of the Committee’s discussions and recommendations pertaining to Council districts, a directly elected Mayor, and Council compensation, as well as the pros and cons of Charter amendments on these issues, is provided in the November 4, 2025, staff report. For summary purposes, the Committee’s recommendations are set 57 of 106

10e3
26-89762
6 7
0 6
forth below.

Council Districts and Directly Elected Mayor - The Committee recommends no changes to the current structure of five councilmembers elected at-large with a rotating mayoral appointment. In the event the Council is inclined to pursue Council districts and a directly elected mayor, the Committee has no recommendation on the size of the Council or the role and duties of a directly elected mayor.

Council Compensation - The Committee recommends a Charter amendment that requires the Council to determine within a year following each general municipal election and at least once every two years whether to adjust Council salaries in accordance with the Government Code. The amendment would provide as follows:
“Article IV Officers and Employees Generally
§ 3 Compensation.
(1) Compensation and increase in compensation of council members.

Compensation for council members is hereby set, and from time to time shall be changed, in accordance with the schedule and procedure for adjustment applicable to the City of Glendale set forth in the provisions of the Government Code relating to salaries of council members in general law cities. No later than one year following each general municipal election, and no less frequently than once every two years, the council shall determine at a public meeting whether and the extent to which compensation for council members shall be changed in accordance with the Government Code. Any such determination shall be supported with written findings setting forth the basis for the decision, including any reasons for maintaining the current compensation. The compensation of council members may also be increased during the terms of their respective offices by vote of the electors.”
Miscellaneous Charter Amendments – The Committee recommends miscellaneous Charter changes to permit special meetings of the Council to occur outside the Council Chambers, eliminate obsolete job title references, and clarify language pertaining to the holding of other compensated City office or employment while on Council and during the two-year period after Council service.

Council Discussion and Direction from November 4, 2025
Council Districts and Directly Elected Mayor
Two Councilmembers (Gharpetian, Najarian) expressed a desire to maintain the current structure and not put forth a Charter amendment to transition to districts and a directly 58 of 106

10e4
26-89762
6 7
0 6
elected mayor, while three Councilmembers (Asatryan, Brotman, and Kassakhian) needed more time to assess whether to put the issue before the voters (while expressing general support for districts conceptually).

Council compensation
Two Councilmembers (Najarian, Gharpetian) expressed general agreement with the Committee’s recommendation. Three Councilmembers (Asatryan, Brotman, Kassakhian) expressed varying levels of interest in modifying the charter to establish a new formula for setting compensation. There was not a consensus on a specific criterion or approach, but interest was expressed for area median income (80% AMI for councilmembers with 100% AMI for the Mayor) or the compensation committee model.

For reference purposes, set forth in Exhibit 2 is a table previously provided to Council of the different approaches and formulas used by other charter cities for setting Council salaries.

Miscellaneous Amendments
The Council expressed general support for the miscellaneous items, although Councilmember Kassakhian expressed qualms about allowing action items (even at a special meeting) from taking place outside of Council Chambers other than in the case of emergency or unavailability of the Chambers.

Discussion of Civil Service Amendments
Since the November 4, 2025, Council meeting, the Committee engaged in an extensive discussion regarding potential amendments to the Charter as it pertains to the Civil Service System.

Proposed amendments to the Charter’s Civil Service provisions that affect the terms or conditions of employment of employees represented by the City’s bargaining unit trigger the “meet-and-confer” process with the City’s recognized employee bargaining units.

The City has engaged in this process during the discussions with the Committee and the summaries below indicate where there is agreement and where additional discussions may be required.

The Committee recommends three revisions to the City Charter pertaining to the Civil Service regarding the Rule of Three, Length of Probationary Periods, and Promotional Reallocations.

Rule of Three - The Committee recommends Charter language to clarify how candidates are ranked and selected from eligible lists. Currently, the Charter allows the Civil Service Commission (Commission) to establish rules for eligibility lists provided that the hiring manager may appoint only from among the three highest ranked candidates. The proposed revision would allow appointments to be made from candidates within the Rule of Three Whole Score system. Under the Rule of Three 59 of 106

10e5
26-89762
6 7
0 6
Whole Scores, candidates are ranked based on their examination scores, and the appointing authority may select from among candidates who fall within the top three distinct score levels (or “whole scores”), rather than being restricted to only the top three ranked individuals. For example, if candidates receive scores of 99, 98.6, 98.4 98.2, 95, and 93, the “three whole scores” would be 99, 98, and 95. All five candidates who achieved those scores would be eligible for selection. This approach allows hiring managers some flexibility while preserving the integrity of a merit-based ranking system.

Rule of Three - Proposed Language
“(6) “For the appointment of any person from among those one of the three persons standing within the three highest whole scores on the appropriate eligible list, except when competition has been suspended as provided in this article; provided that the appointing agency may appoint a person from an eligible list containing less than three names; and provided further that any person whose name has been certified three times without appointment shall have his name dropped to the end of said list. For the purposes of this section, a "whole score" shall mean a total examination score, after the application of any veterans’ preference, and all persons receiving the same whole score shall be deemed to occupy the same rank upon the eligible list.”
The City’s recognized bargaining groups have all expressed agreement with the proposed three whole scores language.

Length of Probationary Period - The Commission established rules for probationary periods but, under the Charter, probationary periods may not exceed twelve months. Generally, the Civil Service Rules provide for 12-month probationary periods for managers/supervisors and sworn personnel, and 6-month probationary periods for non-managers. Occasionally, there is a need for a supervisor or department head to extend probation beyond the 12-month period to determine whether deficiencies can be addressed in an extended period of time. This Charter change would grant the Commission the authority to write a rule to allow the extension of the 12-month probationary in specified circumstances.1 The bargaining groups representing sworn personnel state that a 12-month probationary period is sufficient time to assess the continued employment of a police officer or firefighter and thus requested that probation for sworn personnel be limited to 12 months without additional extensions. Staff, the Committee and the Commission all agreed with this assessment; thus, the proposed language specifies the maximum probationary period for sworn personnel is 12 months.

Length of Probationary Period – Proposed Language
“(7) Probation Period. For a period of probation not exceeding 1218 months, 1 Pursuant to Article XXIV, Section 2 of the City Charter, the City Council must review and approve proposed amendments to the Civil Service Rules and Regulations. 60 of 106

10e6
26-89762
6 7
0 6
except for positions for sworn personnel in which case the maximum probationary period shall not exceed 12 months, before appointments or promotions are made complete.”
Four of the City’s five recognized bargaining groups have expressed agreement with the proposed probationary period language. The International Brotherhood of Electric Workers, Local 18 (IBEW) has raised concerns that the draft language provides broad authority to extend probationary periods without clearly defining the circumstances under which an extension may occur. (Exhibit 2). The Civil Service Rules currently provide guidance for extending probationary periods when an employee is on an approved leave of absence. Should the Charter amendment be adopted, the Rules would need to be revised to address the rare and exceptional situations in which a probationary extension may be requested when an employee has not been on an approved leave of absence.

Promotional Reallocation Process - The Civil Service Rules define promotion as an advancement to a higher classification. The Rules also define a promotional examination as an examination that provides an equal employment opportunity to City employees who have completed at least six months of service in their current classification. Under a longstanding interpretation of the Charter, a reallocation of an existing classification (position) to a higher classification is deemed to be a “promotion,” requiring a competitive examination. Frequently, however, the proposed reallocation is intended to procure candidates with specific skills and experience within that particular department’s operations. Yet, candidates Citywide often apply and compete for what is plainly an internal promotion. While this process can be viewed as an open, transparent and a competitive-based effort at promotions, it is burdensome and can be viewed as superfluous and even a sham process. The Committee agrees with a recommendation to propose Charter language that will allow the appointment of a person with specialized knowledge and experience unique to the reallocated position, provided a vacancy does not exist:

Reallocation Process - Proposed Charter Language
“(3) In a case where a vacancy does not exist, the rules shall provide for a process for the chief examiner to authorize the appointment of a person who has attained specialized knowledge or experience unique to the reallocated position. Such authorization shall be based upon documented evidence of the employee’s demonstrated proficiency, technical competence, and familiarity with the specific functions of the reallocated position. This provision shall not be construed to permit general suspension of competition, but only to recognize exceptional or unique qualifications developed through service.”
Promotional reallocations seldom apply to public safety classifications; therefore, those two bargaining groups have not taken a formal position on the proposal and have indicated they do not oppose the proposed language. Within public safety, promotions 61 of 106

10e7
26-89762
6 7
0 6
resulting from reallocation of a position are rarely considered unless an eligible list has already been established. The Glendale Management Association (GMA) and the Glendale City Employees’ Association (GCEA) support the concept and have expressed no objection to the language as currently proposed.

The IBEW opposes the proposed Charter amendment, expressing concern that it may weaken merit-based hiring principles. Specifically, IBEW contends that suspending the examination process and allowing promotion following a position reallocation, without clearly defined safeguards to ensure fairness and equity, could create the potential for inconsistent application.

Department Heads in Civil Service
Under the Charter, Department Heads are part of the classified service. The Charter contains an exemption to the Civil Service process whereby the City Manager may hire persons filling offices created by ordinance (which includes many Department Head positions) and where the appointing authority determines the appointee is a person of “recognized attainments.” Other than this exemption related to hiring, Department Heads have similar rights pertaining to Civil Service, including requirements that discipline including discharge may be imposed only when cause exists and subject to due process rights including notice and hearing. Additionally, the City Manager’s decisions on the hiring and discharge of Department Heads is subject to the approval of the City Council.

Both aspects of this framework for Department Head positions are rather unique to Glendale, as cities comparable to Glendale grant the City Manager exclusive authority over the decisions relating to the hiring and dismissal of executives, although some city councils of general law and charter cities retain the authority for approval over the Police Chief position.

City Department Heads are executive-level employees responsible for the leadership, management and oversight of their respective departments. Reporting directly to the City Manager, they are responsible for, among other things: translating city council priorities and city manager direction into projects and departmental plans, developing and managing annual operating and capital budgets, and supervising and mentoring senior departmental managers.

There are important considerations for transitioning City Department Head positions from classified (Civil Service) to unclassified (at-will). The designation of Department Heads as members of the classified service is outdated, inconsistent with modern government practices and out of line with the practices of cities comparable to Glendale.

In the years since Glendale’s Civil Service system was established, the roles of Department Heads have transformed significantly. When the current system was established, the City’s workforce and budget were smaller, and compliance with regulatory requirements of federal and state law was significantly less burdensome. As the City’s work, workforce and budgets have grown significantly, so have the 62 of 106

10e8
26-89762
6 7
0 6
Department Heads’ roles. They oversee large numbers of employees, ensure that services are properly delivered to the public, and have responsibility over substantial public revenues.

With these expanded roles and responsibilities comes greater accountability. The City has the right to expect outstanding performance from the City’s Department Heads, something it is getting from the current Executive team. Under the Civil Service system, employees who have obtained permanent status have a property interest in continued employment and may only be disciplined or discharged for cause. This requires notice, whether for malfeasance or poor performance, and the right to an administrative appeal, which includes the right to a hearing. After an administrative hearing, an employee may then challenge any decision in court. This process can be lengthy, sometimes 1-2 years if the matter goes to court. Civil Service rules also require progressive discipline, meaning discharge can only occur after lesser discipline or remedial action has taken place to correct poor performance, absent a compelling reason such as a blatant case of misconduct. Such an extensive process for removal of a Department Head is not in the City’s interest where it must ensure that services are being delivered by departments and must adapt quickly to changed circumstances.

The City Manager is accountable to the City Council to ensure its priorities are being implemented. Having the City’s Department Heads as part of the classified service can pose challenges to the City Manager’s ability to hold them accountable for performance that does not meet the City’s expectations of outstanding performance. Having clear managerial control and rapid alignment of leadership with priorities of the City Council and City Manager is common in council-manager systems where the Manager appoints and supervises Department Heads.

It may be necessary for the City Manager to replace a Department Head where he or she determines that the Department Head is not acting in alignment with the City’s priorities, organizational goals or management philosophy. While such alignment is not necessary or appropriate in the context of Civil Service, it is a common feature of council-manager form of government with respect to Executive team governance.

It can be a challenging problem in the context of Civil Service to establish that an Executive employee is not performing at the level and in alignment with the Manager’s priorities. For example, assume a disagreement exists between the City Manager and an Executive regarding management style, operational performance or leadership abilities. If the City Manager decides a Department Head is not up to par with his or her expectations and decides to make a change, deference to that decision in the council- manager form of government should be left to the discretion of the City Manager. Yet, under Civil Service and the due process protections afforded employees with Civil Service protections, the City Manager will be given no such deference and will have the burden to prove to five Civil Service Commissioners that the Executive – who may not be what one thinks of as incompetent or a “poor performer” and has not engaged in malfeasance – is not performing at the level expected of a City Executive. In theory, this may seem simple; in practice it is not.
63 of 106

10e9
26-89762
6 7
0 6

Most cities in Glendale’s relevant labor market and other cities surveyed by staff have at-will Department Heads. Department Heads in Beverly Hills, Burbank, Long Beach, Pasadena, Santa Monica (except City Clerk), Anaheim, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Santa Ana (except Police), and Ventura are at-will, while Torrance and Inglewood are Civil Service.

Further, at-will status for Department Heads does not leave them without legal protection. When the existing Civil Service system was established, there were very few laws protecting employees from being disciplined or discharged for inappropriate or unlawful reasons. Thus, Civil Service protection for Department Heads may have made more sense to protect those employees from being treated unfairly. Now, there are effective laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, national origin, or religion, retaliation for asserting legal rights, as well as laws protecting whistleblowers who report unlawful conduct.

Staff recognize that there are important factors to consider whether to maintain Department Heads within the classified service, including limiting the day-to-day interference with the operations of the City and preventing arbitrary or retaliatory discipline and terminations. Maintaining Department Heads as part of Civil Service may limit political interference with Department Heads and their operations. There may be risks of politicization, impacts on candor from Department Heads, and overall stability in some situations. This may especially be true in communities with significant or frequent turnover on the city council or in the city manager position.

These considerations notwithstanding, it is the view of the City Manager – as the person held directly accountable to the City Council for the performance of the organization and for meeting the Council’s goals – that it is necessary to have the flexibility to change course when necessary if an assigned department head is not performing at the high level expected to move the department and organization forward. Making this change will align Glendale with similarly situated cities and further the Council’s goals of maintaining Glendale as a high-performing organization.

Application to Sitting Department Heads
California case law holds that public employment is governed by statute (legislation) and the voters of a charter city may revise their governance to apply new rules to existing employees. Nevertheless, in the interest of fairness and with an understanding that sitting Department Heads would be hired into the classified service, the City Manager proposes that any amendment be applicable to only those Department Heads hired after the election date of a proposed Charter amendment. This would allow the conversion of Department Heads positions to at-will positions on a gradual basis, as new Department Heads come onboard with the full understanding that new hires will be at-will.

Council Authority over Hiring and Discharge of Department Heads 64 of 106

10e10
26-89762
6 7
0 6
Another unique feature of Glendale’s Charter is that the hiring and discharge of Department Heads are subject to Council review and approval. While this approval authority can be seen as oversight of hiring critical personnel, it is also unusual in the council-manager form of government. Of the cities identified above related to the Civil Service question, only one other charter city (Anaheim) and one general law city (Beverly Hills) require Council approval for appointment of department heads.

Additionally, although Council involvement in the hiring or removal of Department Heads is limited to approval or disapproval, it is inconsistent with a principal purpose of the council-manager form of government: to make the City Manager accountable to the Council for the performance of the Executive team. In the council-manager form of government, the experienced and trained City Manager is best situated to assess the type of performer necessary to manage and direct the assigned department. The City Manager also has the experience and knowledge to assess the needs of the department and organization to determine the best fit to run a particular department and serve on the City Manager’s Executive team. Incorporating a Council approval process into the selection or discharge of a City executive requires the City Manager to take into account political considerations that may not be in the best interests of the department and organization.

For these reasons, staff recommend that any Charter amendment proposal that removes Department Head positions from the classified service be coupled with an amendment to provide the City Manager with the sole authority to appoint and dismiss Department Heads. (The appointment and dismissal of deputies and assistants of the City Attorney is also subject to Council review and approval. To the extent that a Charter amendment is advanced to provide the City Manager with sole authority to appoint and dismiss Department Heads, a consistent amendment should provide the City Attorney with sole authority to appoint and dismiss deputies and assistants.

Notably, of the cities identified above related to the Civil Service question, none require Council approval for appointment and dismissal of the City Attorney’s deputies or assistants).

Non-Interference Clause
Finally, a common feature in a council-manager form of government such as Glendale is a provision in the Charter or municipal code that limits Council interference in the administrative function of the government. The council-manager form of government as outlined in the Charter delineates between the policymaking role of the Council and the day-to-day operational role that the City Manager holds. To further implement this separation of powers, staff proposes language that expressly limits City Council interference in administrative functions of the City.

Article IX, Sec. 5. Non-Interference in administrative matters Except for the purpose of inquiry, the council and its members shall deal with the 65 of 106

10e11
26-89762
6 7
0 6
administrative function of the City government solely through the city manager or his or her designated assistant, and neither the council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinates of the city manager, either publicly or privately. Neither the council nor any of its members shall direct or request the appointment of any person to, or their removal from, an office by the city manager or by any of their subordinates, or in any manner take part in the appointment or removal of officers and employees, except as specifically authorized in this Charter.

In addition to being a “good governance” practice, this provision would also address concerns about political interference with Department Heads and departmental operations. In accordance with First Amendment principles, this provision would not prevent councilmembers from making inquiries or strongly expressing opinions to staff.

It applies to the bright line of councilmembers individually directing or ordering staff regarding the administrative function within the City Manager’s purview or directing or requesting the appointment or removal of City employees. See Levy v. City of Santa Monica (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1252.

Staff recommend the non-interference provision regardless of whether other provisions pertaining to Department Heads are made part of the proposed Charter Amendments.

Bargaining Groups’ Position on Department Head Provisions While the process pertaining to the Department Heads is outside the scope of representation of the bargaining units, the City sought and received their input. With the exception of the IBEW, the bargaining groups all oppose the transition of Department heads within the Civil Service. They expressed their belief that maintaining Department Heads within Civil Service will maintain their independence from political interference. In addition, the GPOA expressed its view that, if the Council is inclined to propose a Charter revision that would take the Department Head positions out of Civil Service, then it requests consideration to make an exception for the Chief of Police. This is based on the unique circumstance of maintaining independence and impartiality in the chief law enforcement officer position. (See Exhibit 3 for GPOA’s position). The IBEW concurs with the GPOA’s recommendation regarding the Police Chief.

While the associations support maintaining the current system of Department Heads in Civil Service and requiring Council approval over Department Head hires, they favor the non-interference clause. Additionally, GPOA requests that if Council approval of hiring and discharge of Department Heads is generally removed from the Charter that an exception be made for the Chief of Police.

Charter Review Committee Recommendations on Department Heads The Committee voted to recommend no change to the Charter language pertaining to Department Heads in Civil Service and the requirement for Council approval of the City Manager’s hiring and firing decisions related to Department Heads. The Committee 66 of 106

10e12
26-89762
6 7
0 6
voted to recommend inclusion of the non-interference provision.

The Committee’s rationales for keeping the current structure include the opinion that City Manager should be able to establish clear goals and expectations and be able to exercise accountability for those goals within the Civil Service system. Committee members felt that keeping the current structure with the inclusion of the non-interference provision will help Department Heads make good decisions in a political environment without the threat or specter of job action. Committee members also expressed support for maintaining Council approval over the hiring of Department Heads as an “advise and consent” type of oversight, as well as to ensure a comfort level from the City’s board of directors regarding the Department Heads being chosen to run City departments.

Civil Service Provisions Reviewed with No Recommended Changes The Committee considered additional Civil Service provisions and reached consensus to recommend no changes to the following:
• Eligibility list duration
• Bumping rules during layoffs
• Duration of layoff and reinstatement lists
• Placement of Department Heads within Civil Service
• Council approval authority regarding the hiring and removal of Department Heads
Civil Service Commission Review of Proposed Civil Service Amendments On March 11, 2026, the Commission considered a report concerning the proposed Charter amendments relating to the Civil Service Rules. The Commission generally supports the proposed changes, with the exception of the Rule of Three Whole Scores.

Two Commissioners recommended removing the Rule of Three from the Charter entirely and instead addressing it within the Civil Service Rules. The remaining three Commissioners supported retaining the Rule of Three Whole Scores (as recommended by the Committee) in the Charter to discourage frequent modifications to the hiring practices. However, they emphasized the need for a clearer and more detailed explanation of how this rule would be implemented. One criticism of Rule of Three Whole Scores is that there may be an overly large candidate pool who fall within the top 3 whole scores. It was noted that the Civil Service Rules could be written such that an overly large candidate pool can be reviewed by the Civil Service Commission for adjustments of a more manageable number, without changing the requirement in the Charter.

City Clerk and City Treasurer
At the direction of the Council, the Committee has taken up a review of amendments to the Charter to make the City Clerk and City Treasurer appointed positions. In conjunction with that discussion and in learning about the roles of the City Clerk and City Treasurer, the Committee is also exploring minimum qualifications for City 67 of 106

10e13
26-89762
6 7
0 6
Treasurer and reviewing the Charter’s provisions related to compensation of the City Clerk and City Treasurer.

At its March 5, 2026, meeting, the Committee voted to recommend that the Council not place a Charter amendment on the ballot to make the Clerk and Treasurer into appointed positions.

The Committee is still reviewing potential minimum qualification requirements for the City Treasurer position. The Committee is also considering proposing an amendment to the City Charter that would prohibit the City Clerk’s or City Treasurer’s salary from being reduced beginning 30 days before nominating papers can be filed, and through the official’s term of office. Lastly, the Committee is considering whether to propose term limits for the City Clerk and City Treasurer positions.

Other Work of the Charter Review Committee
In establishing the Committee, the Council directed that it first address the priority matters discussed in this Report but also authorized it to discuss other matters as directed by Council or as may be desired by the Committee. To date, the Committee has requested information and a discussion on one additional item – a Charter- authorized, independent audit committee. The Committee will take up discussion of that matter at an upcoming meeting, unless Council provides alternate direction. There is also additional cleanup language staff have identified, as well as cleanup of the Charter’s finance provisions to ensure consistency with generally accepted accounting principles and best practices. Staff seek direction on future work of the Committee.

Timing and Cost Issues
If the Council desires to put forth some or all the proposed Charter amendments on the ballot for voter consideration, it can place them on the ballot for the (i) 2026 statewide general election on November 3, 2026, (ii) the 2028 statewide primary (which coincides with the City public) or the 2028 statewide general election (November 2028). However, proposals to amend the Civil Service provisions in the Charter must occur at a statewide general election (e.g. November 2026, November 2028) because they appear to “alter procedural or substantive protections, rights, benefits or employment status” of local government employees. (Elections Code §1415.)
If the Council desires to place Charter measures on the November 2026 ballot, it will have to call a special election to be consolidated with the statewide general election that is run by the County. The cost to have a consolidated special election in November 2026 for ballot measures only is roughly estimated to cost the City between $525,000 and $585,000. Placing measures on the ballot during the March 2028 statewide primary election (which coincides with the City’s general municipal election) is roughly estimated to cost the City an additional $70,000 and $115,000 above the costs the City will have to bear for its general municipal election.
68 of 106

10e14
26-89762
6 7
0 6
Additionally, if the Council desires to place Charter amendments on the November 2026 ballot, it must do so no later than August 5, 2026. If the Council desires to consider Council districts for the November 2026 election with a district map as previously proposed, it would need to be brought back up to speed on the draft maps and review, consider and select a proposed district map (assuming the Council intends to have the voters approve the map as part of the district transition process). In that regard, the City’s election counsel advises having at least one additional community or public outreach meeting for additional input on the proposed map, given the amount of time that has lapsed since the prior public outreach on the maps in 2023-24. Staff are further advised that some additional data review of the 2023-24 maps would be necessary based on updates to citizen voting age population data and new election data (not at a significant time or expense), but that those maps remain population-balanced.

During the November 2025 Council discussion on this item, some councilmembers expressed disagreement or dissatisfaction with maps and mapping process of 2023-24.

As an alternative, if Council wants to pursue districts, it could propose a Charter amendment for districts and a directly elected mayor that approves the Charter language, but not the maps, and have the maps approved by Council resolution if the Charter amendment is approved and after conducting a new map selection process.

Conflict of Interest Form – Form 700
Councilmember Kassakhian inquired as to whether the Committee members were required to file an FPPC Form 700 and whether they should be required to file. Form 700 Conflict of Interest Forms which require disclosure of public officials’ financial interests (sources of income, real property, business entity interest etc.) Form 700s are required to be submitted by public officials, as required by statute (City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney) and for those public officials identified in the City’s Conflict of Interest Code (which applies to most boards and commissions). The City’s Conflict of Interest Code does not require the Committee to submit Form 700s. At the time of the creation of the Committee, it was not required as it was anticipated to be a temporary, ad hoc committee (although the City could have required it at the time).

Council may provide direction as appropriate. Staff note, however, that the Committee may be nearing the end of its work and members of appointed boards and commissions required to complete the Form 700 usually have the opportunity to withdraw before commencing service on the board or commission.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The Charter Review Committee is comprised of 12 Glendale residents representing a broad cross-section of the community. The meetings are open to the public and are televised on GTV6.

10e15
26-89762
6 7
0 6
seats and adjustments to Council compensation will have fiscal impacts that will be provided if Council provides direction to move forward with Charter amendments incorporating any of those components of potential Charter revisions. Staff will provide an assessment of fiscal impacts if Council directs staff to finalize and submit Charter amendment language to the Council.

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

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1. Council may choose among the options and recommendations provided by staff.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Prepared by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Paula Adams, Chief Human Resources Officer
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS

1. Staff Report on Update on Activities of Charter Review Committee, November 4, 2025

2. Summary Table of Council Compensation Models – Charter Cities

3. Letter from IBEW Regarding Civil Service Amendments

4. Letter from Glendale Police Officers’ Association Regarding Civil Service Amendments.
70 of 106

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member _________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that regarding the Report to Council dated March 24, 2026 regarding - Charter Review: Update and Direction on Potential Charter Amendments Pertaining to Council Districts, Directly Elected Mayor, Council Compensation, Civil Service System, Elected vs. Appointed City Clerk and City Treasurer, and Miscellaneous Matters - the Council directs staff as follows:

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
71 of 106

72 of 106

9a
25-88801

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Status Update on the Activities of the Charter Review Committee Pertaining to Council Districts, Directly Elected Mayor, Council Compensation and Miscellaneous Matters

1. Motion Providing Direction

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for November 4, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Glendale Charter Review Committee, established in 2024, was tasked with reviewing potential amendments related to Council districts, a directly elected mayor, council size, Council compensation, Civil Service, and other Charter provisions. After extensive study and deliberation in 2025, the Committee voted 7–5 to recommend maintaining the current at-large election system and five-member Council, opposing a shift to district-based elections and a directly elected mayor. While arguments in favor of districts emphasized increased representation, lower campaign costs, and stronger neighborhood voices, those opposed highlighted risks of divisiveness, parochialism, and diminished citywide accountability. The Committee declined to provide recommendations on the number of districts or mayoral duties should Charter amendments nevertheless be placed on the ballot, given its position to retain the existing system.

Beyond governance structure, the Committee recommended amending the Charter to require the City Council to review councilmember compensation at least once every two years, maintaining alignment with state law while ensuring regular accountability. It also recommended smaller updates, including allowing special meetings outside Council Chambers, removing obsolete job titles, and clarifying post-service employment restrictions. Further issues currently under review by the Committee include Civil Service modernization.

Staff seeks feedback relative to districts, directly elected mayor, Council size and Council compensation and any other matters related to Charter amendments the Council chooses to provide.
73 of 106

9a 2
25-88801

RECOMMENDATION
Staff has no recommendation. Staff seeks direction and feedback regarding potential Charter amendments related to the matters discussed.

ANALYSIS
I. Background
On May 2, 2023, the Council adopted a resolution declaring its intent to transition to City Council districts, with an expanded Council size, and a directly elected mayor, for consideration by the City’s voters at the March 2024 election. The Council also directed staff on preparation of a Charter amendment pertaining to the compensation of the mayor and councilmembers. After continued discussion on these topics through 2023 and 2024, the Council deferred placing these issues on the ballot for either of the March or November 2024 elections, subject to further consideration for placement on the ballot in a future election. The Council established the Charter Review Committee (“Committee”) in 2024 to study potential amendments relating to the Charter.

II. Establishment of Charter Review and Appointment of Members The Council established the Committee by resolution on February 27, 2024. The Council resolution establishing the Committee directs the Committee to prioritize review of City Council districts, expanded Council size, directly elected mayor and the Civil Service system and provide a report and recommendations on those items. The Council appointed 12 members to the Committee in May of 2024.

The Committee commenced meetings in Fall of 2024 and spent the Fall meetings receiving training, receiving an overview of the Charter, and addressing three concrete Charter provisions related to location of Council meetings, removal of obsolete job titles from the Charter, and a clarifying amendment to the provision relative to councilmembers holding City employment after leaving Council (discussed further below).

Districts and Directly Elected Mayor
The Committee commenced the study, review and deliberation of Council districts in January 2025. The Committee received presentations on the council-manager form of government, council districts, forms of governance involving directly elected mayors, including the roles and duties of directly elected mayors, the California Voting Rights Act and provisions of the Elections Code addressing council districts. On April 3, 2025, after deliberation, the Committee held a vote on a motion to recommend that the Council place a Charter amendment on the ballot to transition to a directly elected mayor and six council districts. That motion tied 5-5 (with two members absent). Subsequently, the Committee held another vote at the August 7, 2025, meeting with a full Committee. That motion was to recommend that the Council not place a Charter amendment on the ballot to transition to a directly elected mayor and council districts, i.e., to preserve the status quo. That motion passed with 7 members in favor and 5 against. Thus, the effect of the Committee’s 74 of 106

9a 3
25-88801
recommendation would be to retain the current system.

The following is a representative list of arguments raised by Committee members regarding a transition from an at-large method to elect councilmembers to a district-based method of election, and establishment of an office of mayor separately elected from councilmembers. The Committee generally viewed a directly elected mayor in conjunction with transitioning to a district-based method of election, such that fewer arguments were independently raised in favor of and against a directly elected mayor.

Council Districts - Arguments Against
 Glendale is not required by law to switch to districts  In an at-large system, residents can turn to any councilmember rather than the councilmember of their district; this is especially important if the constituent and the district councilmember do not agree on an issue or do not get along.  A from-district councilmember cares more for their district than the City as a whole  Conflict is created where district councilmembers place competing demands on the City
 Districts could lead to greater divisiveness within the community  Councilmembers should be elected by a majority of people rather than those in a section of the City, and be responsible for the City and everyone in it, rather than those in their districts
 There are major issues and priorities in Glendale upon which Council should focus (e.g., budget and electricity rates)
 There are ways other than districts to make the public feel they have representation
 Glendale is a medium-size city where residents have more in common than in other cities, like L.A, where there is greater strata in terms of economics and neighborhoods
 Have not found a reason for the City to transition to district-based elections, and by extension, a directly elected mayor
o Does not know what issue switching to districts will solve  A minor issue in a particular district could be a significant issue to the rest of the City, and not receive appropriate attention
 City has broad, citywide issues that need to be deliberated in a broad, citywide way
 Not convinced that funding is the only impediment to candidates from underrepresented areas like South Glendale
Council Districts/Expanded Council - Arguments in Favor  Fair chance at representation, because it costs less to run in a district campaign than a citywide election (ex: renters have a better chance at getting elected) o A councilmember can elicit support from a much smaller constituency, which makes for a cheaper election, in turn making government more representative
75 of 106

9a 4
25-88801
o Society is better when people can more easily participate in the system; and, by that measure, districts are preferable
o Expanding the size of Council gives more people the opportunity to have a voice on the Council
 Districts will make it easier for the most vulnerable to have representation and voice their concerns (easier to voice your concern to a neighbor)  Glendale is a full-service city and the level of complexity warrants more people who can devote time to the City’s issues
 Districts ensure that the interests of different parts of the City are represented on Council
o Policies beneficial to a particular area are likely to be overlooked without districts
 The same group of people cannot elect all five councilmembers o If a resident perceives all councilmembers to be the same, they will not talk to any of them about their issues
 It is easier for residents to unseat an incumbent councilmember representing a single district
 A council districts/elected mayor model supports the kind of government that the community wants to see in 10-15 years, which is government that is more responsive, representative, and democratic
 Expanding the size of Council without districts will run a risk down the road of exacerbating any polarization
Directly Elected Mayor - Arguments Against
 A directly elected mayor does not work unless there are districts  One person setting the Council agenda for the entire mayoral term can have negative consequences
Directly Elected Mayor - Arguments in Favor
 A significant, citywide issue requires a point-person in a directly elected mayor who speaks for the City and to whom residents can turn
 The at-large mayor will provide balance to district councilmembers o If there are districts, residents can go to the mayor in addition to their councilmember with their concerns
During Committee discussions on council districts and mayor, staff requested feedback for recommendations on the number of districts and the role and duties of a directly elected mayor even if the Committee were inclined not to recommend a change from the current at-large system. At the September 4, 2025, meeting, the Committee discussed this point and voted to table the discussion, with many members expressing that they would not feel comfortable making recommendations on a governance system with which they did not agree, while others believed the discussion would take time from other matters the Committee still has to discuss, including Civil Service. Hence, the Committee has no recommendations on the number of districts or the role and duties of the directly 76 of 106

9a 5
25-88801
elected mayor if the Council is inclined to move forward with these proposals.

Council compensation
Article IV, Section 3 of the Charter establishes Council compensation in accordance with the “schedule” and “procedure for adjustment” applicable to Glendale in the California Government Code provisions for general law cities, Government Code Section 36516.

Section 36516 was amended in 2023 (eff. 1/1/24). As amended, the “schedule” is set forth in subsection (a), which allows a city council of a city with more than 150,000 and up to 250,000 in population to adopt an ordinance to establish a salary in an amount up to $2,550 per month. The salary of $2,550 per month may be increased by amendment to the ordinance that does not exceed the greater of (i) 5% per year since the operative date of the last adjustment in salary when the ordinance or amendment is enacted, or (2) an amount equal to inflation since January 1, 2024 based upon CPI, which shall not exceed 10 percent per year. Pursuant to State law and the Charter, salary adjustments adopted by Council do not become effective until after the next general municipal election after the adjustment is adopted. The current Council salary established under a prior version of Section 36516 is $1,430 per month, established by Ordinance No. 5764 adopted in 2011 and effective in April 2013.

The Committee took up the study, consideration and deliberation of Council salaries and compensation starting at the May 2025 meeting. The Committee reviewed the different compensation models that were presented to Council in 2023. The Committee initially considered a proposal for a Charter amendment that would establish a Charter-created Council Compensation Commission that would review Council compensation issues at least every two years. However, consensus on this concept did not materialize and a consensus coalesced around a Charter amendment that would simply require the Council to consider adjustments in accordance with the Charter, and incorporated State law provisions at least once every two years. The proposed Charter language recommended by the Committee is as follows:
“Article IV Officers and Employees Generally
§ 3 Compensation.
(1) Compensation and increase in compensation of council members.

9a 6
25-88801
council members may also be increased during the terms of their respective offices by vote of the electors.” (See also Exhibit 1)
The Committee expressed its opinion that maintaining the current structure utilizing the State law schedule and procedure for adjustment for salary setting is the best approach, with a requirement for a biennial check-in, for the following reasons:

 The Charter currently provides a mechanism for the Council to adjust compensation; the recommendation cures avoidance of the subject by requiring the Council to regularly address it
 Requiring the Council to regularly determine whether to adjust compensation changes the status quo because compensation has not been adjusted for 12 years  Requiring the Council to regularly determine whether to adjust compensation affords the public an opportunity to voice whether councilmembers are paid too much, too little, or appropriately
 Requiring the Council to make findings in order to adjust compensation would serve posterity and benefit future councils as well as the public Other Charter Provisions
The Committee also recommended revisions to a couple of other smaller, more finite Charter provisions (Exhibit 1).
 Location of Council meetings: The Charter currently requires all Council meetings to be held in the Council Chambers absent an emergency. Any Council item requiring deliberation and a Council vote must occur in Chambers. As recommended by the Committee, this requirement would remain for regular meetings of the Council, but the Charter would be amended to allow flexibility for special meetings to occur outside of Chambers in the community.  Obsolete job titles and positions : This amendment would remove some obsolete job titles from the Charter – including Director of Administrative Services (now Director of Finance), Maintenance Services Administrator, and City Assessor.  Holding Compensated City Office or City Employment After Council Service: This proposed amendment would confirm the current interpretation of a current provision of the Charter that the prohibition on holding compensated City office or employment within two years of Council service does not apply to the elected positions of Clerk or Treasurer or that of a councilmember appointed to Council in the event of a vacancy.

Additional Issues for Committee Review
The Committee will be reviewing the following matters, either per the Council direction or upon its own request:
 Civil Service: As previously discussed, the City is reviewing potential amendments 78 of 106

9a 7
25-88801
to the Charter relating to the Civil Service in an attempt to modernize or provide flexibility to the current system. The Committee will review and provide recommendations. Any potential changes will also require meet-and-confer with the City’s employee associations and review by the Civil Service Commission prior to consideration by Council. Among the topics to be studied are the Rule of Three, limitation on the probationary period to 12 months, length of eligibility lists, department heads in Civil Service, bumping rules during layoffs, and duration of layoff and reinstatement lists.
 Appointed City Treasurer: The Committee recently asked to have a discussion of making the City Treasurer an appointed position. The Committee had previously asked to have a discussion about adding to the qualifications of the Treasurer, presumably if the position remains as an elected position.  Elected City Attorney: The Committee asked to have a discussion of making the City Attorney an elected position.
 Gender Neutral Terms : In several places, the Charter uses masculine gender terms such as “his” or “him.” The Charter was amended in 2005 to provide that the “masculine gender shall include the feminine.” Article I, Sec. 2. However, there may be a desire to further address this issue.
 Financial Provisions: A request was made to study a cleanup of antiquated language in the Charter pertaining to finance and accounting.

Timing and Procedural Considerations
There are timing and procedural issues the Council should consider. The City’s voters may approve Charter amendments at a general municipal election, statewide general election or statewide primary election. However, pursuant to Elections Code §1415, any “Charter proposal that proposes to amend a Charter alter any procedural or substantive protection, right, benefit, or employment status of any local government employee” must be placed on the statewide general election ballot, e.g., November 2026, 2028. Because any amendments to the Charter Civil Service provisions (or at least some of them) implicate substantive protections, rights, benefits or status of local government employees, those amendments – if the Council chooses to pursue them – will have to be considered at the November 2026 election.

Additionally, if the Council chooses to pursue a plan involving Council districts and directly elected mayor and chooses to do so by picking the maps subject to voter approval of the Charter amendments (as previously discussed), given the time gap since the last public outreach and education effort on the proposed maps, it is advisable to conduct additional public outreach on those maps. The Council may choose to start the district map process anew, with the understanding of incurring additional costs in doing so. It is worth noting if the Council is inclined to defer Charter amendments to the November election, it will have more time to consider the direction it wants to provide related to council districts and a directly elected mayor if different than the Committee.

The next statewide primary election is June 2, 2026, which is also the date of the City’s general municipal election, and the statewide general election date is November 3, 2026. 79 of 106

9a 8
25-88801
The last date to place Charter amendments on the ballot for the June 2, 2026, election is Tuesday, March 3, 2026, and the last date to place Charter amendments on the ballot for the statewide general election is Tuesday, August 4, 2026.

Direction – Options
The Committee will continue its work through the remainder of 2025 and into 2026 per Council direction and provide a final report and recommendations for Council consideration. Given the additional staff work and outreach that may be required related to Charter amendments related to districts, expanded Council size, directly elected mayor, and Council compensation, staff seeks feedback and direction.

Council Districts/Directly Elected Mayor
The Council may:
 Accept the Committee’s recommendation to make no change to the City’s at-large election system and five-seat City Council, and direct staff to take no further action relative to Council districts and a directly elected mayor  Reject the Committee’s recommendation to not transition to Council districts and have a directly elected mayor, and direct staff to return with proposed language on districts and a directly elected mayor, including the role and duties of the mayor  Reject the Committee’s recommendation to not transition to Council districts and have a directly elected mayor, and refer the matter back to the Committee to make recommendations on the size of the Council and role and duties of the Mayor  The Council can choose an alternative not identified by staff Council compensation
The Council may:
 Accept the Committee’s recommendation to submit a measure to the voters that would amend the Charter to require the City Council to review Council compensation at least once every other year
 Reject the Committee’s recommendation and direct staff to prepare Charter language on alternative proposals for Council compensation  Reject the Committee’s recommendation and direct staff to take no further action on a Charter amendment pertaining to Council compensation  Choose an alternative not identified by staff
80 of 106

9a 9
25-88801
Other Charter provisions
 The Council can accept some or all of the Committee’s recommendations to amend the Charter pertaining to location of Council meetings, removal of obsolete titles/positions, and City employment after Council service.

Other Matters
The Council can provide whatever other direction it deems appropriate on other matters being reviewed by the Committee.

Timing
Although the Council is not being asked to make any specific decision at this meeting to place Charter amendments on any particular election ballot, Council may provide feedback or input on the timing of placement of these measures on the ballot for planning purposes. To summarize, the options will include:
 Council may place all Charter amendments on the ballot at the November 2026 election
 Council may place potential Civil Service amendments on the ballot at the November 2026 election and other Charter amendments, including districts, directly elected mayor, and compensation on the ballot at the June 2026 election;  Council may choose a mix of the above options as long as potential Civil Service amendments are placed on the November 2026 ballot
 Council may choose not to place any potential Charter amendments on the ballot  Council may choose an alternative not identified by staff

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The Charter Review Committee is comprised of 12 Glendale residents representing a broad cross-section of the community.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. Creation of an office of directly elected mayor, establishment of council districts, an expansion of the number of council seats and adjustments to Council compensation will have fiscal impacts that will be provided if Council provides direction to move forward with Charter amendments incorporating any of those components of potential Charter revisions. Staff will provide an assessment of fiscal impacts if Council directs staff to prepare Charter amendments.

9a 10
25-88801
environment. As such, this action is not a “project” subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15378.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
There is no staff recommendation. Staff seeks direction or input as discussed above.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Prepared by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Aaron M. Israel, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Sylvia Quach, Assistant City Attorney
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS

1. Charter Amendment Language Approved by Charter Review Committee Related to location of Council meetings, obsolete job titles, City employment after Council service, and Council compensation

2. Minutes and Draft Minutes of Charter Review Committee Meetings 82 of 106

EXHIBIT 2 – Charter City Salaries
City Councilmember
Salary/Month
Mayor Salary/
Month
Charter Requirement
Alameda $25,997.00 $25,997.00 Annual salary not to exceed 30% of the salary for all "Occupations, United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, San Francisco- Oakland-Hayward Area.” The specific salary amount and
payment details will be determined by a Council resolution.

Alhambra $917.00 $993.00 $50/mo. for Council; $75/mo. for Mayor; Adjusted per State Law.

Anaheim $1,500.00 $1,500.00 State Law
Burbank $1,548.00 $1,548.00 State Law
Carlsbad $2,264.18 $2,364.18 Charter Silent; Salaries Established By Ordinance Chula Vista $5,085.84 $12,714.59
(the directly
elected Mayor
is a full-time
position)
Mayor: 66% of the salary of Superior Court judges in the State; Council: 40% of the salary of the Mayor
Compton $600.00 $600.00 Charter: $600 per month
Culver City $485.12 $485.12 State Law
El Cajon $2,194.00 $3,176.00 State Law.

Fresno $6,666.67 $10,833.33
(the directly
elected Mayor
is a full-time
position and
has strong-
mayor elements
in the role)
Charter allows Council to establish by ordinance
Hayward $2,081.25 $3,330.00 Charter allows Council to establish by ordinance Inglewood $5,055.01 $9,275.25 Initially set by ordinance not to exceed average household income in Los Angeles County. Subsequent adjustments
83 of 106

permitted in an amount not to exceed the 5% annual cap set in State Law.

Irvine $880.00 $880.00 State Law
Lancaster $600.00 $600.00 Council can adopt ordinance by 4/5ths vote Long Beach $3,540.00 $14,158.00
(the directly
elected Mayor
is a full-time
position)
(a) Commencing with the first Mayor to assume the office of Mayor on or after July 1, 1988, the Mayor shall receive an annual salary of Sixty-seven Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars ($67,500.00), which salary shall be automatically adjusted on July 1, 1989, and on July 1 of each year thereafter equivalent to the most recent upward change in the annual average of the Consumer Price Index as published by the United States
Department of Labor for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim metropolitan area.

For purposes of calculating the annual adjustment under this section the base year shall be that year ending with the quarter ending December 31, 1988. The Mayor's salary shall first be adjusted on July 1, 1989, and annually thereafter, based on the annually calculated change from the base year.
(b) Each member of the City Council shall receive a salary which shall be twenty-five percent of that provided for the Mayor under Subsection (a) of this Section 203.

Modesto $2,000.00 $3,600.00 Upon Recommendation of Citizen’s Salary Setting Commission Oceanside $1,932.75 $2,107.92 Charter Silent
Palmdale $759.00 $1,265.00 Charter Silent
Palo Alto $1,000.00 $1,000.00 State Law
Pasadena $1,742.65 $2,613.78 Initially established by a compensation commission.

Adjustments permitted every two years not to exceed 5% per year.

Pomona $819.00 $1,638.00 Council salaries established pursuant to limits in state law.

Adjustments per CPI. Mayor’s salary twice that of Council. 84 of 106

Richmond $1,402.50 $3,875.00 Charter Initially Set Mayor’s Salary at $3,000. Subject to adjustment by five votes of Council, not including the Mayor.

Council salary established and adjusted per State Law.

Riverside $3,448.00 $6,897.00 Per the Charter, the Council reviews salaries of Council and Mayor in January of every odd-numbered year. It may adjust salaries in an amount not to exceed 5 percent.

Salinas $276.92 bi-weekly $369.23 bi-
weekly
State Law
Sacramento $8,566.08 $13,683.75
(Mayor is full-
time)
Compensation Commission established by Charter shall meet at least once a year. Compensation must be reasonable and consistent with other cities similar in size and structure.

San Bernardino $3,125.00 $4,166.67 Established/adjusted by Council ordinance following a public hearing and giving due recommendation to an advisory
commission charged with periodic review of compensation for elected positions. Compensation of Mayor shall be
commensurate with that for a full-time position.

San Luis Obispo $987 bi-weekly $1,244 bi-
weekly
By ordinance. Reviewed in even-numbered years. Mayor to receive greater compensation than councilmembers.

Santa Ana $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Established per the formula in State Law. No adjustments without voter approval.

Santa Barbara $4,671.33 $5,839.17 Beginning July 1, 2005, Mayor’s salary set at 100% of Area Median Income (AMI). Councilmembers salary set at 80% AMI.

Compensation reduced by $25 per meeting of Council,
including study sessions, missed.

Santa Clara $2,000.00 $2,500.00 Effective July 1, 2017, Council salaries set at $2,000 per month and Mayor’s salary set at $2,500. Commencing on July 1, 2019, Council and Mayor salaries set by Salary Setting
Commission.

Santa Cruz $1,710.35 $3,420.68 Council salaries established at $1,000 per month and Mayor salary established at $2,000 per month. Adjustments permitted by Council not to exceed 5% per year.

Santa Maria $1,956.90 $1,956.90 Charter Silent. Salaries set by Municipal Code. 85 of 106

Santa Monica $1,385.00 $1,661.00 Council salaries initially set at $750 per month and Mayor salary initially set at $900 per month. Automatic increases on July 1 of each year set to CPI.

Santa Rosa $800.00 $1,200.00 State Law
Stockton $2,447.04 $7,540.30 Salary of Council and Mayor adopted by Council upon recommendation of a Salary Setting Commission. Council may adopt the Commission’s recommendation or a lesser amount, but not a greater amount. The Mayor’s compensation shall be greater than the Council.

Sunnyvale $2,913.38 $3,884.52 Effective January 1, 2012, salaries of Council established at $2,088.64 per month and Mayor at $2,784.86 per month.

Annual CPI increases thereafter.

Torrance $100.00 $100.00 Charter limitation of $100 per month.

Vallejo $1,225.00 $1,225.00 State Law.

Ventura $600.00 $700.00 Established amounts per the Charter.

Vista $2,955.00 $3,067.00 Charter Silent. Established by Municipal Code. 86 of 106

1 February 2, 2026
Charter Review Committee
City of Glendale
613 E. Broadway
Glendale, California 91206
RE: Written Comments Regarding Proposed Civil Service Amendments (Article IV, Section 4 and Article XXIV Civil Service Provisions) Dear Members of the Charter Review Committee:

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 18 has reviewed the proposed redline Charter language put forth by the City of Glendale, as well as the accompanying Staff Report dated December 11, 2025, and submits the following written comments in support and opposition where noted.

ARTICLE XXIV
Civil Service
§ 2. Duties of civil service commission generally; rules.

Eligible Lists – Alternative 1 – Length Established by Commission IBEW Local 18 opposes these proposed revisions. It is the position of IBEW Local 18 that the proposed language is too vague and gives too much authority to the commission to establish or cancel lists without specific parameters. Removal of the language that addresses timeframes (e.g., “not longer than two years nor less than one year….”) gives too much authority to cancel eligible lists prematurely which may result in wasted resources and inequitable opportunities for those who have passed an examination.

Eligible Lists – Alternative 2 – At Least One Year
Likewise, the reasoning for removing the timeframe that limits the list to two years as proposed in both Alternatives 1 and 2 is unclear. The case has not been made to edit this language. IBEW Local 18 opposes changes to the Charter language as written.

Procedure as to Appointments – Alternative 1 – Discretion in Rules IBEW Local 18 opposes the removal of three whole scores language on the basis of equity and merit-based hiring.
87 of 106

2 Procedure as to Appointments – Alternative 2 – Rule of Three Whole Scores (6) IBEW Local 18 agrees with the removal of “one of three persons” in favor of the proposed replacement language “three highest whole scores”.
(7) Probation Period. IBEW Local 18 opposes this draft language, on the basis that it gives broad authority to extend the probationary period without specifically articulating what exceptions may be considered (e.g., leaves of absence or training programs and apprenticeship programs). This is especially important since Labor does not currently participate in the Commission selection process.

Furthermore, the Charter language and the City of Glendale should follow the law as it pertains to military “no harm” clauses outlined in the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). The law states in part that service members can return to their civilian jobs with the same status, pay, and benefits they would have attained if they had not been absent due to military service.
(9) Transfer; Demotion; Reinstatement. IBEW Local 18 supports this addition of language that permits employees who “voluntarily resign” to be reinstated to their former position within one year provided the separation in service is without fault or delinquency on their part (e.g., an employee marked willing to rehire).
(10) Promotion. IBEW Local 18 opposes this proposed addition to the Charter language on the basis that it impacts merit-based hiring. Suspending an exam process and promoting without a mechanism to determine equity allows for too much opportunity for abuse. § 5. Suspension of competition.

IBEW Local 18 does not oppose the language change from “administrative services” to “finance”.
§ 7. Application of article; exception as to unclassified service.

IBEW Local 18 has no objection to the updates in title and removals suggested by these proposed Charter revisions outlined in this section.
§ 9b. Abolishment of positions.

IBEW Local 18 does not oppose this proposed Charter revision, with the caveat that work history records management citywide must be strengthened such that seniority is firmly established.

§ 10. Procedure as to appointments.

IBEW Local 18 does not oppose the language change from “administrative services” to “finance”.

88 of 106

3 Staff Report Entitled “Department Heads in Classified Service and Authority Regarding Appointment and Dismissal of Department Heads” (December 11, 2025)

On this matter, IBEW Local 18 takes the position that designating a sole authority to appoint, discipline, and dismiss Department Heads without the approval of Council creates an environment wherein there are no checks and balances in place to prevent abuse. Other models of government, including that of the City of Los Angeles, allow for the review by elected officials of appointments to the highest positions held in a given Department. The Los Angeles City Council has the authority to confirm or reject appointments and is involved in the appointment process of Department heads and other positions.

IBEW Local 18 therefore supports changes to the Charter that follow the model for hiring and removing at-will Department Heads, subject to City Council approval, to be effective upon the existing civil-service protected Department Head attrition. IBEW Local 18 concurs with the Glendale Police Officers’ Association (GPOA) position that the Police Chief Position may be excluded from this revision, on the basis that a compelling case has been made for professional independence in law enforcement.

In conclusion, it is the position of IBEW Local 18 that any changes to these hiring processes outlined in the Charter are subject to meet and confer and bargaining before any such changes are introduced for voter consideration.

In addition, the Meyers-Milias-Brown-Act (MMBA) requires the City to meet and confer with IBEW Local 18 before the City Council moves forward any ballot measure altering matters within the scope of representation, including hiring, promotion, and probationary period. Gov.

Code, § 3505; People ex rel. Seal Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Seal Beach (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 591, 601. For the absence of any doubt, IBEW Local 18 does not waive its right to meet and confer by submitting this response, nor is the City relieved from its duty to meet and confer by IBEW Local 18’s submission of this response. IBEW Local 18 reserves its right to engage in such meet and confer at the appropriate time.

Sincerely,
_________________________________
Martin Marrufo
Business Manager
IBEW Local 18
c: Glendale City Council
Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Michael Garcia, City Attorney

89 of 106

GPOA Written Comments – Charter Review Committee

Page 1 of 17 ends

GLENDALE POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
Proudly Representing the Men and Women of the Glendale Police Department 131 N. Isabel Street, Glendale, California 91206
December 31, 2025
Charter Review Committee
City of Glendale
613 E. Broadway
Glendale, California 91206
RE: Written Comments Rega rding Proposed Civil Service Amendments (Article IV, Section 4 and Article XXIV Civil Service Provisions) Dear Members of the Charter Review Committee:

On behalf of the Glendale Police Officers Association ("GPOA" or "Association") and our members—the sworn men and wo men who protect the residents and visitors of the City of Glendale—we submit these writte n comments in opposition to se veral proposed amendments to the City Charter concerning civil service protections and the appoi ntment authority over Department Heads, including the Chief of Police.

The GPOA has reviewed the Staff Re port dated December 11, 2025, the proposed redline amendments to Article XXIV, and the concerns raised by our fellow employee organization, the Glendale City Employees As sociation (“GCEA”). We share many of those concerns and write separately to address the unique implications these proposed changes have for law enforcement personnel and public safety operations.

I. THE POLICE CHIEF POSITION WARRANTS COUNCIL OVERSIGHT The Staff Report proposes eliminating the requi rement in Article IV, Section 4, that Department Head appointments and removals be "subject to the approval of the council." While this change would affect all Department Head s, its impact on the Police Chief position raises distinct concerns that warrant separate cons ideration. For the reasons outlined below, the Association urges the Committee to find that, on balance, the interests of the city and its employees are best served by exempting the police chief from this proposed change.

A. The Police Chief Exercises Unique Authority Over Civil Liberties The Chief of Police is not simply another Department Head. The Police Chief exercises extraordinary authority that directly affects the constitutional rights of every person in Glendale. The Chief sets use-of-force policies, determines deployment strategies, establishes community policing priorities, and makes decisions that implicate the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights of residents and visitors alike. No ot her Department Head position carries comparable authority over civ il liberties. For this reason, the California 90 of 106

GPOA Written Comments – Charter Review Committee

Page 2 of 17 ends

Constitution expressly identifie s "the constitution, regulation, and government of the city police force" as a municipal affair over which charter cities may exercise plenary authority.1 For this reason, even jurisdictions that grant City Managers broad authority over other executive positions frequently retain Council involvement for the Police Chief. The City of Los Angeles, for example, requires that the Ma yor's Police Chief appointee be "subject to confirmation by the Council" and permits the Council to remove the Police Chief by two-thirds vote after a public hearing.2 The Staff Report acknowledges this reality, noting that "some city councils of general law and charter cities retain the authority for approval over the Police Chief position." This common practice reflects sound judgment: Democratic oversight of police leadership is essential to maintaining public trust.

B. Federal Authorities Recognize the Importance of Civilian Oversight The President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing—the most comprehensive federal examination of police practices in recent decades—emphasized that building trust and legitimacy is the foundational pr inciple of effective policing. 3 The Task Force specifically recommended that "[s]ome form of civilian oversight of law enforcement is important to strengthen trust with the community" and th at "[e]very community should define the appropriate form and structure of civilian oversight to meet the needs of that community."4 Council approval of the Police Chief provides precisely this kind of civilian oversight.

When residents know that thei r elected representatives approved the Police Chief—and can hold them accountable for that decision at the ballot box—it crea tes legitimacy that cannot be replicated by an unelected City Manager alone.

C. California Case Law Recogniz es Charter Authority Over Police Leadership
California courts have long recognized that charter provisions allocating authority over police leadership are fundamental to municipal governance. In Brown v. City of Berkeley, the Court of Appeal analyzed a charter that gr anted the city manager authority to "appoint, discipline or remove all heads or directors of departments, chief officials," and emphasized that charter provisions must be strictly followed—even when the electorate seeks to alter them by

1 Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b)(1) (expressly identifying "the constitution, regulation, and government of the city police force" as a municipal affair over which charter cities may exercise plenary authority). 2 See, e.g., Los Angeles City Charter § 575(a) (requiring Mayor's Police Chief appointee to be "subject to confirmation by the Council"); id. § 575(e) (permitting Council to remove Police Chief by two-thirds vote after public hearing).
3 President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Final Report of the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing 1 (Washington, D.C.: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, May 2015), available at https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/taskforce_finalreport.pdf. 4 Id. at Recommendation 2.8 ("Some form of civilian oversight of law enforcement is important in order to strengthen trust with the community. Every community should define the appropriate form and structure of civilian oversight to meet the needs of that community."). 91 of 106

GPOA Written Comments – Charter Review Committee

Page 3 of 17 ends

initiative.5 The court held that an initiative ordinance conflicting with charter provisions regarding police department governance was invalid to the extent of the conflict.6 The principle from Brown is instructive here: charter provisions regarding who appoints, supervises, and removes the Police Ch ief are not mere administrative details—they are fundamental allocations of governmental au thority that should not be lightly altered.

Glendale's current charter represents a deliberat e choice to retain C ouncil oversight, and that choice should be respected absent compelling justification for change.

II. AT-WILL STATUS FOR THE POLICE CHIEF POSITION THREATENS ITS ESSENTIAL PROFESSIONAL INDEPENDENCE.

The Staff Report also proposes removing Department Heads, including the Police Chief, from the classified civil service and converting these positions to at-will employment.

Combined with the elimination of Council approval, this change would allow a single unelected official to terminate the Police Chief without cause, without a hearing, and without any public deliberation.

A. Professional Policin g Requires Independence from Political Pressure A central tenet of professional law enforcement is that policing decisions must be made based on law, policy, and professional judgment—not political considerations. When a Police Chief serves entirely at the pleasure of a City Manager, who in turn serves at the pleasure of the Council, there is pressure to make decisions that satisfy political interests rather than professional standards.

Civil service protection provides Police Chiefs with the independence to make difficult decisions—to investigate allega tions against politically connected individuals, to resist pressure to under-enforce or over-enforce in particular neighborhoods, to maintain professional standards even when those standards are inc onvenient. An at-will Police Chief who can be terminated without cause has diminished capacity to resist inappropriate pressure.

B. California Law Recognizes the Im portance of Stable Police Employment The California Legislature enacted the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act based on express findings that "effective law enforcement depends upon the maintenance of stable employer-employee relations between public safety employees and their employers."7 While POBRA's procedural protections apply to our members below the rank of Chief, the

5 Brown v. City of Berkeley (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 223, 231-232 [analyzing charter provisions granting city manager authority to "appoint, discipline or remove all heads or directors of departments, chief officials" and holding that charter provisions regarding police department governance must be strictly followed]. 6 Id. at 233.
7 Cal. Gov't Code § 3301 ("The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the rights and protections provided to peace officers under this chapter constitute a matter of statewide concern. The Legislature further finds and declares that effective law enforcement depends upon the maintenance of stable employer-employee relations, between public safety employees and their employers."). 92 of 106

GPOA Written Comments – Charter Review Committee

Page 4 of 17 ends

same principles—protection agains t arbitrary action and assurance of fair process—apply with equal force to police leadership.8
C. Police Leadership Affects Officer Safety and Morale
The selection of the Police Chief directly a ffects the safety and working conditions of every GPOA member. Chiefs determine staffing levels, equipment procurement, training priorities, and tactical protocols that impact whether officers return home safely at the end of each shift. Chiefs also set the tone for intern al discipline, promotional opportunities, and the department's overall culture.

Under the current system, Council approval provides a forum where the Association and its members can learn about candidates for Police Chief a nd provide input through their elected representatives. Eliminating Council appr oval would remove this avenue for officer voice in a decision that profoundly affects their professional lives and physical safety. At a minimum, if the Committee is inclined to reco mmend removal of Council approval for other Department Heads, it should retain the current approval requirement for the Chief of Police.

III. THE “ALIGNMENT WITH CITY PRIORITIES OR PHILOSOPHY"

STANDARD IS CONSTITUTIONALLY INFIRMED
The Association understands that the propos ed amendments would permit the City Manager to remove Department Heads, including the Police Chief, based on a determination that the Department Head is not "in alignment with the city's priorities or philosophy." This standard is both unconstitutionally vague and violates the First Amendment protections afforded to public employees.

A. The First Amendment Prohibits Termination Based on Political or Philosophical Alignment
The United States Supreme Court has firmly established that public employees cannot be terminated solely because their political beliefs or affiliations differ from those of their supervisors. In Elrod v. Burns , the Court held that "[p]atronage dismissals severely restrict political belief and association, which constitute the core of those activities protected by the First Amendment, and government may not, w ithout seriously inhibiting First Amendment rights, force a public employee to relinquish his right to political association as the price of holding a public job."
9 The Court reinforced this principle in Branti v. Finkel , explaining that "conditioning continued public employment on an employee's having obtained support from a particular political party violates the First Amendment because of 'the coercion of belief that necessarily flows from the knowledge that one must have a s ponsor in the dominant party to retain one's

8 Cal. Gov't Code §§ 3300-3313 (Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act). 9 Elrod v. Burns (1976) 427 U.S. 347, 359-360 (plurality opinion) ("Patronage dismissals severely restrict political belief and association, which constitute the core of those activities protected by the First Amendment, and government may not, without seriously inhibiting First Amendment rights, force a public employee to relinquish his right to political association as the price of holding a public job.").

93 of 106

GPOA Written Comments – Charter Review Committee

Page 5 of 17 ends

job.'"10 The Court articulated the controlling test: "[T]he ultimate inquiry is not whether the label 'policymaker' or 'confidential' fits a particular position; rather, the question is whether the hiring authority can demonstrate that party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office involved."11 In Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois , the Court extended these protections beyond termination to all adverse employment acti ons, holding that "[e]mployees who do not compromise their beliefs stand to lose the considerable increases in pay and job satisfaction attendant to promotions... and even their jobs if they are not rehired after a 'temporary' layoff.

These are significant penalties and are imposed for the exercise of rights guaranteed by the First Amendment."(“Rutan”)
12 Critically, the Rutan Court made clear that legitima te governmental interests can be served without resorting to ideological litmus tests: "A government's interest in securing effective employees can be met by discharging, demoting, or transferring persons whose work is deficient, and its interest in securing employees who will loyally implement its policies can be adequately served by choosing or dismissi ng high-level employees based on their political views."
13 This distinction is crucial: the City may terminate employees for deficient performance, but not for philosophical disagreement.

B. "Philosophy" and "Priorities" Are Proxies for Protected Political Belief The proposed "alignment with c ity priorities or philosophy" standard is, in practical effect, a requirement of political and ideological conformity. What are "priorities" and "philosophy" if not political judgments about how government should operate? A Police Chief who believes community policing should take precedence over a ggressive enforcement has a different "philosophy" than a City Manager who prefers the opposite. A Police Chief who prioritizes officer safety equipment over admin istrative technology has different "priorities." These are precisely the kinds of policy disagreements that the First Amendment protects.

The proposed standard, however, invites ex actly this kind of impermissible inquiry.

When a City Manager determines that a Police Chief is not "aligned" with the city's "philosophy," that determinati on necessarily involves an asse ssment of the Chief's beliefs,

10 Branti v. Finkel (1980) 445 U.S. 507, 517 ("[C]onditioning continued public employment on an employee's having obtained support from a particular political party violates the First Amendment because of 'the coercion of belief that necessarily flows from the knowledge that one must have a sponsor in the dominant party in order to retain one's job.'").
11 Id. at 518 ("[T]he ultimate inquiry is not whether the label 'policymaker' or 'confidential' fits a particular position; rather, the question is whether the hiring authority can demonstrate that party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office involved."). 12 Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois (1990) 497 U.S. 62, 74-75 ("Employees who do not compromise their beliefs stand to lose the considerable increases in pay and job satisfaction attendant to promotions... and even their jobs if they are not rehired after a 'temporary' layoff. These are significant penalties and are imposed for the exercise of rights guaranteed by the First Amendment."). 13Id. at 76 ("A government's interest in securing effective employees can be met by discharging, demoting, or transferring persons whose work is deficient, and its interest in securing employees who will loyally implement its policies can be adequately served by choosing or dismissing high-level employees on the basis of their political views.").

94 of 106

GPOA Written Comments – Charter Review Committee

Page 6 of 17 ends

values, and policy preferences. This is cons titutionally indistinguishable from the patronage practices condemned in Elrod, Branti, and Rutan.

C. The Standard Is Unconstitutionally Vague
Even setting aside First Amendment concerns, the "alignment with city priorities or philosophy" standard fails the void-for-vagueness test. In Grayned v. City of Rockfor d, the Supreme Court explained that "[v]ague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly."14
"Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforc ement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application."15 The Kolender v. Lawson Court reinforced that standards must "define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that or dinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement."
16 The Court struck down the challenged statute because it "vests virtually complete discretion in the hands of the police" and "entrusts lawmaking to the moment-to- moment judgment of the policeman on his beat."17
The "alignment" standard suffers from the same constitutional infirmity. What specific conduct demonstrates a lack of alignment? How does a Department Head know whether they are sufficiently aligned? The City's "priorities" and "philosophy" are not codified anywhere— they exist only in the subjective judgment of whoever happens to occupy the City Manager position. This is precisely the standardless, mo ment-to-moment discretion that the vagueness doctrine prohibits.

D. The Standard Undermines Merit System Principles
Civil service systems exist precisely to protect public employees from the arbitrary, politically-motivated terminations that the "alignment" standard would authorize. The foundational principle of merit-based employment is that personnel decisions should be based

14 Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972) 408 U.S. 104, 108-109 ("Vague laws offend several important values.

First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly.").
15 Id. at 109 ("Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.").
16 Kolender v. Lawson (1983) 461 U.S. 352, 357-358 (holding that standards must "define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement"). 17 Id. at 360-361 (holding statute unconstitutional because it "vests virtually complete discretion in the hands of the police" and "entrusts lawmaking to the moment-to-moment judgment of the policeman on his beat"). 95 of 106

GPOA Written Comments – Charter Review Committee

Page 7 of 17 ends

on job-related qualific ations and performance—not politi cal considerations. California's constitution enshrines the merit principle, providing that "[i]n the civil service, permanent appointments shall be made under a general system based on merit ascertained by competitive examination."
Allowing termination based on "alignment" with "philosophy" eviscerates merit protection. A Department Head who has served competently for years could be terminated not because of any performance deficiency, but because a new City Manager has a different political outlook. This returns Glendale to the s poils system that civil service reform was designed to eliminate.

The Association strongly urges the Committee to reject any standard that permits termination based on "alignment," "philosophy," "priorities," or similar subjective, politically tinged criteria. If the City wishes to remove a Department Head, it should be required to identify specific, documented performance deficiencies—not ideological disagreements.

IV. THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO ELIGIBLE LIST DURATION THREATEN

PROMOTIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND LACK ADEQUATE STANDARDS
The proposed amendments to Article XXIV, Section 2(4) would eliminate the Charter's current requirement that eligible lists remain in force "not longer than two years nor less than one year" and replace it with discretionary language that allows the Commission to set whatever duration it chooses. Critically, the proposed language would also allow cancellation of eligible lists "for good cause" without defining that term. The Association strongly opposes these changes for both substantive and constitutional reasons.

A. The "Good Cause" Standard Is Unconstitutionally Vague The Supreme Court has held that public em ployees who can be discharged only "for cause" possess a constitutionally protected property interest in their employment. 18 In
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill , the Court explained that "[t]he need for some form of pretermination hearing is evident from a balancing of the competing interests at stake:
the private interest in retaining employment, the governmental interests in expeditious removal of unsatisfactory employees and the avoidance of administrative burdens, and the risk of an erroneous termination."
19 California courts have applied these same principles. In Skelly v. State Personnel Board, the California Supreme Court recognized that permanent public employees who may be discharged only for cause possess a constitutionally protected property interest in their

18 Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985) 470 U.S. 532, 538-539 (holding that public employees who can be discharged only "for cause" possess a constitutionally protected property interest in their employment).
19 Id. at 542 ("The need for some form of pretermination hearing is evident from a balancing of the competing interests at stake: the private interest in retaining employment, the governmental interests in expeditious removal of unsatisfactory employees and the avoidance of administrative burdens, and the risk of an erroneous termination.").

96 of 106

GPOA Written Comments – Charter Review Committee

Page 8 of 17 ends

employment under both the United Stat es and California Constitutions. 20 The court held that due process requires, at a minimum, "notice of the proposed action, the reasons therefor, a copy of the charges and materials upon which the acti on is based, and the right to respond, either orally or in writing, to the authority initially imposing discipline."21 Officers who have passed promotional exa minations and earned positions on eligible lists have a legitimate expectation—grounded in the Ch arter's current fixed-duration requirement—that their eligibility will persist for a defined period. Introducing an undefined "good cause" cancellation provision without objective criteria undermines this expectation and creates the same constitutional concerns identified in the vagueness cases discussed above.

B. "Good Cause" Must Be Define d to Prevent Arbitrary Application The proposed language requiring "good cause" for cancellation of eligible lists provides no guidance whatsoever. What constitutes good cause? Can a list be canceled because the department prefers different candidates? Because budget constraints de layed anticipated hiring? Because of organizational restructuring that changed position requirements? Because a new administration has other priorities? Without objective criteria, "good cause" becomes whatever administrators say it is—precisely the standardless discretion that the vagueness doctrine prohibits.

The Association requests that if any "good cause" cancellation provision is retained, the Charter must define "good cause" with specificity. At minimum, the Charter should enumerate the limited circumstances that qualify as good cause (such as elimination of the position, substantial change in minimum qualifications mandated by state law, or similar objective circumstances); require written findings docum enting the specific good cause basis; provide notice to affected employees before cancellation; afford affected employees the opportunity to be heard; and expressly prohibit cancellation based on the identity of candidates on the list or preferences regarding promotional outcomes.

C. Fixed Duration Prot ects Officers' Investment in Career Advancement Promotional examinations in law enfor cement are serious unde rtakings. Officers preparing for sergeant, lieutenant, or captai n examinations invest hundreds of hours studying department policies, legal updates, tactical procedures, leadership principles, and management practices. Many officers purchase expensive preparation materials, attend training courses, and sacrifice time with their fa milies—all in reliance on the understanding that passing the examination will provide meaningful eligibility for promotion.

The Charter's current guarantee of at least one year of eligibility is not arbitrary. It reflects the realistic time needed for promo tional vacancies to ar ise through retirements,

20 Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, 206 (recognizing that permanent public employees who may be discharged only for cause possess a constitutionally protected property interest in their employment under both the United States and California Constitutions). 21 Id. at 215 (holding that due process requires, at minimum, "notice of the proposed action, the reasons therefor, a copy of the charges and materials upon which the action is based, and the right to respond, either orally or in writing, to the authority initially imposing discipline"). 97 of 106

GPOA Written Comments – Charter Review Committee

Page 9 of 17 ends

resignations, and organizational changes. Removing this minimum protection means an officer could pass an examination in January and have their eligibility terminated in March—before any vacancy occurs—effectively nullifying their demonstrated merit and wasting their substantial preparation effort.

The Association requests that if any modifications to eligible list provisions are considered, the Committee retain the one-year minimum duration and require that any cancellation be supported by documented, objective criteria with notice to affected employees and the opportunity to be heard.

V. THE "SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE" EXCEPTION TO PROMOTIONAL

EXAMINATIONS VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL MERIT PRINCIPLE The proposed amendment to Article XXIV, Section 2(10) would create a new exception allowing the Chief Examiner to "suspend the promotional examination and authorize the appointment of a person who has attained specialized knowledge or experience unique to the promotional position." This provision directly conflicts with the California Constitution and decades of case law establishing that compe titive examination is the mandatory, exclusive method for civil service promotions.

A. The California Constitution Mandates Competitive Examination for All Promotions
Article VII, Section 1(b) of the California Constitution provides unequivocally: "In the civil service, permanent appointment and prom otion shall be made under a general system based on merit ascertained by competitive examination." 22 This constitutional mandate,
adopted by California voters in 1934, was explicitly designed to eliminate the "spoils system" of political patronage and ensure that promotions are based solely on merit demonstrated through competition—not administra tive discretion or subjective assessment of "specialized knowledge."
The California Supreme Court has confirmed that "the 'sole aim' of the amendment was to establish, as a constitutiona l mandate, the principle that a ppointments and promotions in state service be made solely based on merit." 23 A provision that permits a Chief Examiner to "suspend" the promotional examination and au thorize promotion without competitive testing directly contradicts this constitutional command.

B. California Courts Have Consistently Held That Bypassing Competitive Examination Violates the Merit Principle
In Kidd v. State of California, the Court of Appeal declared that "[t]he merit principle is sacrosanct; however free the hand of the Legislature, neither that hand nor the hand of any other branch or agency of government can ma nipulate the merit principle to serve ends

22 Cal. Const. art. VII, § 1(b) ("In the civil service permanent appointment and promotion shall be made under a general system based on merit ascertained by competitive examination."). 23 State Personnel Bd. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 422, 439 (quoting ballot pamphlet for 1934 constitutional initiative establishing merit principle). 98 of 106

GPOA Written Comments – Charter Review Committee

Page 10 of 17 ends

inconsistent with article V II of the state Constitution." 24 The court further held that "[t]he notion that defendants can hire any applicant who passes an examination without consideration of that applicant's standing in relation to ot hers who passed the examination reads the word 'competitive' out of the state Constitution."25
In Professional Engineers in California Government v. State Personnel Board , the court reaffirmed that competitive examination is "the cornerstone of the constitutional merit principle.” It held that "[c]ompetition denotes a rivalry: 'It encompasses a comparison of relative merit.' Such comparison requires rankings."
26 The court invalidated regulations that
permitted the selection of candidates without ranking them ag ainst competitors, holding that such procedures violate the constitutional requirement of competitive examination.

Most directly on point, in Ligon v. State Personnel Board, the court addressed attempts to circumvent competitive examin ations through alternative pa thways. The court held that permitting promotions based on out-of-class experience rather than examination "would permit different appointing powers to short-cut the me rit system" and allow certain employees to "swiftly bypass other candidates who are dutifully performing their tasks according to their job classifications. Unfairness and acrimony could result."27 The Ligon court quoted with approval the f oundational principle: "If the appointing power could, by assigning duties... to a higher cl ass than that of the employee's original position, give to an employee a permanent civil se rvice status, the entire fabric of the civil service system would fail. Prom otion and appointments in civil service would then no longer be made 'exclusive under a general system based on merit, efficiency and fitness as ascertained by competitive examinations.'"28
C. The Proposed Excep tion Would Destroy the Competitive Examination System

24 Kidd v. State of California (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 386, 401-402 ("The merit principle is sacrosanct; however free the hand of the Legislature, neither that hand nor the hand of any other branch or agency of government can manipulate the merit principle to serve ends inconsistent with article VII of the state Constitution."). 25 Id. at 402 ("The notion that defendants can hire any applicant who passes an examination without consideration of that applicant's standing in relation to others who passed the examination reads the word 'competitive' out of the state Constitution.").
26 Professional Engineers in Cal. Government v. State Personnel Bd. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 678, 689-690 (referring to competitive examination as "the cornerstone of the constitutional merit principle" and holding that "competition denotes a rivalry: 'It encompasses a comparison of relative merit.' Such comparison requires rankings.").
27 Ligon v. State Personnel Bd. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 583, 590 ("To permit out-of-class experience to be substituted for the minimum time 'in the chairs' experience would permit different appointing powers to short- cut the merit system by assigning higher class duties to employees.... Those who attain out-of-class status could swiftly bypass other candidates who are dutifully performing their tasks according to their job classifications.

Unfairness and acrimony could result.").
28 Id. at 589 (quoting Pinion v. State Personnel Board (1940) 29 Cal.App.2d 314, 319) ("If the appointing power could, by assigning duties... to a higher class than that of the employee's original position, give to an employee a permanent civil service status, the entire fabric of the civil service system would fail. Promotion and appointments in civil service would then no longer be made 'exclusive under a general system based on merit, efficiency and fitness as ascertained by competitive examinations.'"). 99 of 106

GPOA Written Comments – Charter Review Committee

Page 11 of 17 ends

The proposed "specialized knowledge" exce ption is not a narrow accommodation for extraordinary circumstances—it is a broad au thorization to bypass competitive examination whenever an administrator concludes that a particular candidate possesses desirable experience. Under this standard, the Chief Examiner could suspe nd examination for any position by simply determining that a favored candidate has "speci alized knowledge or experience unique to the promotional position."
Every promotional position involves sp ecialized knowledge. A sergeant position requires specialized knowledge of supervis ion. A lieutenant position requires specialized knowledge of watch command and program management. A captain position requires specialized knowledge of divisi on management. Under the propos ed language, virtually any promotion could be exempted from competitive examination if the appointing authority prefers a particular candidate.

This is precisely the outcome the constitutional merit principle was designed to prevent.

As the Kidd court observed, the civil service system ex ists to ensure that "appointments and promotions in state service be made solely on the basis of merit"—not administrative preference, political favor, or subjective asse ssment of which candidate the appointing power believes is best. The competitive examination requirement removes that discretion and replaces it with objective, measurable criteria.

D. Promotional Competition is Fu ndamental to Police Professionalism Competitive promotional examinations are not mere administrative hurdles—they are fundamental to professional law enforcement. Su ch examinations ensure that supervisors and commanders not only possess the knowledge necessary to lead officers safely and effectively, but also to ensure the City is protected agai nst preventable civil claims against the police department. They provide objectiv e, defensible criteria for adva ncement that protect against favoritism and discrimination. Such fundamentals motivate officers to develop professionally throughout their careers.

Creating broad exceptions to competitive ex amination undermines these benefits. An officer promoted through the "specialized knowledge" pathway has not demonstrated the comprehensive competency that examination va lidates. Other officers who prepared for and passed examinations are bypassed by someone who avoided the competitive process entirely.

E. The Proposed Criteria Ar e Unconstitutionally Vague The proposed language requires "specialized knowledge or experience unique to the promotional position" and is demonstrated by "documented evidence of the employee's demonstrated proficiency, technical competence, and familiarity with the promotional reallocation position's specific functions." This language is circular and provides no objective standard.

What specialized knowledge is sufficiently "unique" to justify bypassing examination? Who determines whether documentation is adequate? Every posit ion has "specific functions" with which some candidates are more familiar than others —does this justify bypassing 100 of 106

GPOA Written Comments – Charter Review Committee

Page 12 of 17 ends

competition for any promotion? The vagueness of these criteria virtually guarantees inconsistent application and invites challenge under the void-for-vagueness doctrine discussed in Section III above.

F. The Proposed Exception Should Be Rejected Entirely
Unlike other provisions where the Asso ciation has proposed safeguards and modifications, the "specialized knowledge" exception to promotional examination cannot be saved through drafting improvement s. The fundamental concept—that an administrator can suspend competitive examination and authorize promotion based on subjective assessment— is incompatible with the constitutional mandate that promotions be "based on merit ascertained by competitive examination."
The Association strongly urges the Committee to reject this proposed exception in its entirety. If the City believes current examination procedures are inadequate to identify candidates with specialized skills, the appropriate remedy is to modify examination content— not to abandon competitive examination altogether.

VI. PROBATION EXTENSION LANGUAGE REQUIRES CLARIFICATION The proposed amendment to Article XXIV, Se ction 2(7) would allow probation to be extended in "extraordinary circumstances" without defining that term. For police officers, the end of probation marks the point at which PO BRA's full procedural protections attach. 29 Extended probation means extended vulnerability to termination without the due process rights afforded to permanent officers.

The Association does not oppose reasonabl e probation extension in genuinely extraordinary circumstances—for example, when an officer is called to extended military duty or experiences a serious medical situation that prevents evaluation. However, the proposed language must be narrowed in order to avoid abuse. We re quest that "extraordinary circumstances" be defined to include only extended leave (military, medical, or other protected leave) that prevents meaningful evaluation, that written justification be required documenting why evaluation could not be completed, that notice to the employee and Association be mandatory, and that total probation, including extensions, not exceed 18 months except in cases of military deployment.

VII. REDUCTION-IN-FORCE PROVISIONS MUST PROTECT SENIORITY Article XXIV, Section 9b currently requires that reductions in force be made on the basis of seniority "as closely as practicable." The Association is concerned that this language, combined with discretion granted elsewhere in the proposed amendments, may be interpreted to permit departures from seniority-based layoffs.

29 Cal. Gov't Code § 3304(b) ("No punitive action, nor denial of promotion on grounds other than merit, shall be undertaken by any public agency against any public safety officer who has successfully completed the probationary period that may be required by his or her employing agency without providing the public safety officer with an opportunity for administrative appeal."). 101 of 106

GPOA Written Comments – Charter Review Committee

Page 13 of 17 ends

For police officers, seniority-based layoff protection is not merely a preference—it is essential to fair treatment of officers who have dedicated their careers to the Department.

Officers accept lower starting wages and endure the challenges of early-career assignments in reliance on the understanding that seniority w ill be respected if difficult times require reductions.

The Association requests that the Charter be amended to provide that layoffs shall follow strict seniority within classification, that any departure from seniority requires Commission approval after public hearing, that bumping rights within the department be expressly preserved, and that recall rights of at least two years be guaranteed for laid-off officers.

VIII. THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS IMPLICATE MANDATORY

SUBJECTS OF BARGAINING AND REQUIRE EFFECTS BARGAINING
As a preliminary matter, the proposed charte r amendments would fundamentally alter the terms and conditions of employment fo r sworn personnel. Many of the proposed amendments affect terms and conditions of employment for our members and therefore implicate the City's duty to meet and confer under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (“MMBA”). 30 Under the MMBA, these changes implicate mandat ory subjects of bargaining and trigger the City's duty to meet and confer—both over the s ubstance of the proposals and their foreseeable effects on represented employees.

A. The MMBA Requires Meet and Confer Over Terms and Conditions of Employment
Government Code section 3504 defines the scope of representation to include "all matters relating to employment conditions a nd employer-employee relations, including, but not limited to, wages, hours, and othe r terms and conditions of employment." 31 Section 3505 requires the governing body of a public agency to "meet and confer in good faith regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with representatives of such recognized employee organizations."32
The California Supreme Court has interpre ted this language br oadly to protect employee interests. In Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo, the Court held that the phrase "wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment" in the MMBA was taken directly from the National Labor Relations Act, and that federal precedents interpreting that phrase "furnish reliable authority" for construing the MMBA. 33 The Court cautioned against

30 Cal. Gov't Code § 3504 et seq. (Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, requiring public agencies to "meet and confer in good faith regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with representatives of such recognized employee organizations").
31 Cal. Gov't Code § 3504 ("The scope of representation shall include all matters relating to employment conditions and employer-employee relations, including, but not limited to, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.").
32 Cal. Gov't Code § 3505.
33 Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608, 616-617 (holding that "the phrase 'wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment' in the MMBA was taken directly from the National Labor 102 of 106

GPOA Written Comments – Charter Review Committee

Page 14 of 17 ends

restricting the scope of bargaining through "an overbroad definiti on" of management prerogatives.

Here, while the Charter Review Committee process has provided an opportunity for comment, the Association requests that before any proposed amendments are placed on the ballot, the City engage in formal meet and c onfer with the Association regarding provisions that affect promotional procedures and eligible lists, probationary periods and their extension, reduction-in-force procedures and seniority rights, and any other matters within the scope of representation.

B. The Proposed Amendments Address Mandatory Subjects of Bargaining Several of the proposed charter amendments directly implicate mandatory subjects of bargaining:

1. Promotional Procedures and Eligible Lists
The proposed changes to eligible list duration, the "specialized knowledge" exception, and probation extension authority all affect promotional opportunities—a core term and condition of employment. In Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court held that "[r]ules delineating how layoffs will be made clearly fall within the 'conditions of employment' phrase" of the MMBA. 34 By the same reasoning, rules governing promotions, eligib le lists, and competitive examin ations fall squarely within the scope of representation.

2. Disciplinary Procedures and Job Security
The proposed at-will status for the Police Chief and the vague "alignment with philosophy" termination standard affect job security—another mandatory subject. PERB has held that disciplinary procedures and criteria "lie at the core of traditional labor relations" and are "particularly amenable to collective bargaining."35 Changes that affect employee tenure and conditions of discipline require a meet-and-confer.

3. Reduction-in-Force Procedures
The proposed RIF provisions directly affect seniority rights and job security. The Supreme Court has held explicitly that "though an employer has the right unilaterally to decide that a layoff is necessary, he must bargain a bout such matters as the timing of the layoffs and

Relations Act" and that federal precedents "furnish reliable authority" for construing the scope of representation).
34 Los Angeles County Civil Service Com. v. Superior Court (1978) 23 Cal.3d 55, 63-64 ("Rules delineating how layoffs will be made clearly fall within the 'conditions of employment' phrase of the section."). 35 County of Sonoma (2023) PERB Decision No. 2772a-M, p. 24 ("[I]nvestigatory and disciplinary procedures 'lie at the core of traditional labor relations' and are 'particularly amenable to collective bargaining.'"). 103 of 106

GPOA Written Comments – Charter Review Committee

Page 15 of 17 ends

the number and identity of employees affected."36 The procedures for implementing reductions in force are mandatory subjects of bargaining.

C. Even Non-Negotiable Decisi ons Require Effects Bargaining Even if the City contends that certain charter amendments involve fundamental policy decisions outside the scope of mandatory barg aining, the City remains obligated to bargain over the effects of those decisions. PERB has c onsistently held that "the MMBA's duty to bargain extends to the implementation and effects of a decision that has a foreseeable effect on matters within the scope of representation, even where the decision itself is not negotiable."37 The California Supreme Court confirmed this principle in International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 188 v. Pub lic Employment Relations Board , holding that "even where a decision involves a non-mandatory bargaining topic, if the decision has reasonably foreseeable effects on exclusively represen ted employees' terms and conditions of employment, then the employer has a bargaining obligation regarding the decision's effects and implementation."38 The employer's duty includes providing "reasonable notice and a meaningful opportunity to engage in effects nego tiations, before imple mentation begins." 39 A failure or refusal to bargain over effects "is equally as ha rmful as a failure to bargain over a negotiable change, as it disrupts and destabilizes employer-employee relations."40 D. The Proposed Amendments Have Foreseeable Effects Requiring Bargaining
The proposed charter amendments will have numerous foreseeable effects on terms and conditions of employment that require bargaining, including but not limited to: changes to promotional opportunity and career advancement fo r officers currently on eligible lists or preparing for promotional examinations; impact on officers who have invested time and resources preparing for competitive examinations that may be suspended under the "specialized knowledge" exception; effects on probationary employees whose status may be extended under the new probation authority; impact on senior ity rights and bumping procedures under the revised RIF provisions; and effects on workin g conditions and depa rtmental operations resulting from at-will status for executive leadership.

36 Los Angeles County Civil Service Com. v. Superior Court (1978) 23 Cal.3d 55, 64 (citing Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608, 621-622).
37 County of Sonoma (2023) PERB Decision No. 2772-M ("[T]he MMBA's duty to bargain extends to the implementation and effects of a decision that has a foreseeable effect on matters within the scope of representation, even where the decision itself is not negotiable."). 38 International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259, 265, 276.
39 California State University (2024) PERB Decision No. 2915-H, pp. 25-26 ("[I]f an employer reaches a firm decision on a matter outside the scope of representation and the decision has reasonably foreseeable effects on represented employees, then the employer typically must afford the exclusive representative notice and a meaningful opportunity to engage in effects negotiations, before implementation begins."). 40 County of Sonoma (2023) PERB Decision No. 2772-M ("A failure or refusal to bargain over the effects of a non-negotiable change is equally as harmful as a failure to bargain over a negotiable change, as it disrupts and destabilizes employer-employee relations.").
104 of 106

GPOA Written Comments – Charter Review Committee

Page 16 of 17 ends

PERB has emphasized that "[e]ffects bargaini ng contemplates that negotiations may ultimately cause the employer to change its mind about the non-negotiable decision in some way." The Association is entitled to present alternatives, propose mitig ating measures, and negotiate over implementation timelines and procedures before any amendments take effect.

E. The City Must Provide Notice and Opportunity to Bargain Before Implementation
Under the County of Santa Clara decision, the employer has "a duty to provide reasonable notice and an opportunity to bargai n before it implements a decision within its managerial prerogative that has foreseeable effects on negotiable terms and conditions of employment."41 "Reasonable" notice must be "clear and unequivocal" and must "clearly inform[] the employee organization of the nature and scope of the proposed change." Placing proposed amendments on a ballot for voter approval does not satisfy the City's meet-and-confer obligations. The City must engage in good faith bargaining over both the substance of proposals within the scope of representation and the effects of all proposals before implementation. The Association requests that the City fulfill its statutory obligations by engaging in meaningful meet-and-confer on th ese proposals before any charter amendments are finalized for submission to voters.

IX. CONCLUSION
The GPOA recognizes that periodic review of the City Charte r is appropriate and that some modernization may be warranted. Howe ver, the proposed amendments go far beyond modernization. They would fundamentally restructure civil service protections that have served Glendale and its employees well for nearly a century.

We urge the Committee to retain Council approval authority over the appointment and removal of the Police Chief, reject any standard permitting termination based on "alignment" with "philosophy" or "priorities," preserve ci vil service status for the Police Chief position, maintain fixed minimum and max imum durations for eligible lis ts, define "good cause" with specificity if any cancellation provision is retained, substantially narrow or eliminate the "specialized knowledge" exception to promo tional examination, define and limit probation extension authority, strengthen seniority prot ections in reduction-in-force procedures, and engage in meaningful meet and confer before finalizing recommendations.

The men and women of the Glendale Police Officers Association are proud to serve this community. We ask only that the Charter continue to provide the fair, merit-based employment system that allows us to focus on our mission of protecting Glendale's residents and visitors. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Representatives of the Association are available to address any questions the Committee may have.

41 County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M (holding that employer has a duty to provide reasonable advance notice and opportunity to bargain over foreseeable effects of decisions within managerial prerogative).
105 of 106

GPOA Written Comments – Charter Review Committee

Page 17 of 17 ends

Respectfully submitted,

GLENDALE POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
_________________________________
Michael Wenz
President
cc: Glendale City Council
Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Michael Garcia, City Attorney
GPOA Board of Directors
Stone Busailah, LLP, GPOA Legal Counsel
106 of 106

Glendale City CouncilMarch 24, 2026

Glendale City Council
March 24, 2026