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.
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 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
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 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.
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 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 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. 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
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.
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 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