Council directs new RFP for Glorietta tennis operations after legal challenge

The Glendale City Council on Sept. 30 chose to rescind its prior award decision for operation of the tennis courts at Glorietta Park and directed staff to revise and reissue a request for proposals after a lawsuit from a competing vendor.

The dispute centers on a June 10 council action to award a five-year contract with renewal options to an operator identified in the procurement. Hard 8 Inc., which operates programs at other city parks, filed suit alleging the council'level award failed to follow the city's published RFP procedures. The city and Hard 8 agreed to a court stipulation that postponed litigation while the council reconsidered the procurement.

At the Sept. 30 meeting, attorneys and advocates for both sides spoke during an extended public-comment period. Armin Matavosian, attorney for the incumbent coach, argued the city's RFP reservation-of-rights language allowed the council to reject proposals and that a currently operating month-to-month agreement with coach Vigan remained in place. "The reservation of rights authorizes this city to reject any proposal, which is what it did," Matavosian said during remarks to council.

Hard 8'aligned speakers, including Jenny Farrell and FitFun Tennis representatives, urged the council to honor the documented RFP scoring and award. "When y'all toss that aside, when you put a finger on the scale, that ain't small," said Chris Pratt of FitFun Tennis. Multiple public commenters said Hard 8'branded classes provided accessible, affordable instruction and diverse coaching and criticized any change that would reduce public access or raise costs.

City staff and the city attorney outlined options for council: maintain the June award, award to Hard 8, or rescind and reissue the RFP with clearer criteria. City Attorney Garcia noted the parties had executed a stipulation to defer court action while the council reconsidered; he also said the earlier contract in place was operating month to month and would not prevent the city from entering a new agreement if council so directed. Parks staff explained both proposers had submitted comparable proposals for public availability and court rental rates, and staff said the recommended vendor had completed successful prior bids but that the competing vendor had challenged the process in court.

After public comment and deliberation about process, scoring criteria and public access hours, the council voted to rescind the June award and direct staff to revise and reissue the RFP so council can review the draft criteria before reissuance. The roll-call motion passed with one abstention.

Councilmembers asked staff, when drafting a new RFP, to address concerns raised in public comment and council discussion: specify minimum hours courts must be available to the public (including free drop-in hours), clarify fee structures and class pricing disclosure, require demonstrable coach qualifications for program instructors, and include language to limit exclusive or long-term private use during prime-time hours. Staff said they would return with proposed RFP language and options for council review prior to reissuing the solicitation.

The meeting record shows widespread public engagement: parents, long-time residents, senior players and attorneys all addressed the council. Several speakers described Glorietta as a community hub for seniors and children and urged continuity in affordable instruction and availability of free court time.

The council's direction does not itself select a new operator; rather it restarts the procurement with council input on the RFP criteria and is intended to reduce legal risk by ensuring the process adheres to the city's published procedures and addresses public concerns about access and pricing.