Glendale council debates administrative stipends and car allowances; members call for public transparency and follow‑up

The Glendale City Council held an extended discussion of City Administrative Policy 11 — a staff‑level policy that provides council members a $450 monthly car allowance and a $900 monthly stipend — during the Aug. 26 workshop, with members divided over transparency, ethics and whether the allowance should be retained, modified or elevated to a council‑adopted policy.

Budget staff outlined the policy’s parameters: the stipend and car allowance are treated as taxable income under an IRS non‑accountable plan, paid across 26 pay periods, and require no receipts; council members may elect to receive none, one or both payments. "City administrative policy 11 became effective 05/01/2022," Amy Lindsay of budget and finance told the council.

Councilmember Conchas said she stopped accepting the stipend in June and pressed for transparency, saying public records show more than $300,000 paid under the policy since 2022 and that voters rejected an earlier pay increase in 2019. "Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's good policy," Conchas said, asking for an explanation of why the policy was created administratively and for supporting documentation from the time it was adopted. She said constituents had asked who proposed the policy and why it was implemented in executive session.

Other council members underscored divergent perspectives. Several said the allowance and stipend cover legitimate out‑of‑pocket work costs (mileage, constituent meals, home‑office expenses and outreach) and that the stipend avoids administrative burdens of processing many small receipts. Councilmember Tomlachoff said he drives his district frequently and that the car allowance is a practical recognition of travel. Several council members asked staff to show council‑level stipend and allowance expenditures more transparently in budget materials.

Legal and administrative points: the city manager told the council he enacted the administrative policy to reduce staff time processing many small reimbursements; the city attorney said he had provided legal advice to the manager but the council had not requested a written opinion for the record. Questions remain about whether the amounts affect pension/retirement calculations; finance staff said they would confirm whether stipend amounts enter retirement calculations.

Council direction and next steps: members suggested a range of options — eliminate the program, convert it from an administrative to an adopted council policy with public input, reduce the stipend amount, or keep the policy but display the payouts transparently in district budgets. Several members asked that the council resolve the questions before a new city manager is hired. No formal action was taken; staff were asked to prepare follow‑up materials, including clearer budget reporting and advice on whether the council can adopt the policy and how to make the matter subject to public review.