Glendale council rescinds June award for Glorietta Park tennis contract, directs new RFP after lawsuit

The Glendale City Council on Sept. 30 voted to rescind its June 10 award of a five‑year contract to operate the tennis courts at Glorietta Park and directed staff to revise and reissue the request for proposals (RFP) after a lawsuit by competing bidder Hard 8 Inc. (also referenced in public comment as FitFun Tennis).

The action comes after Hard 8 filed suit in August challenging the council’s June award to Coach Vigen Khanlarian and the city and Hard 8 agreed to a stipulation to hold the litigation while the council reconsidered the matter. City staff recommended rescinding the June award and either approving an award to Hard 8 or reissuing the RFP; the council voted to rescind and direct staff to return with a revised RFP for council review.

Why this matters: the dispute pits advocates for a long‑running local operator who currently runs Glorietta programming against proponents of a newer, higher‑scoring bidder who says the RFP process must be honored. Council members said they wanted a fresh process that addresses concerns raised in the lawsuit and by residents about hours, pricing and access to public courts.

Legal and factual presentations Arma Matavosian, an attorney representing Coach Vigen Khanlarian, told the council the city faces no liability if it maintains its June decision. "The reservation of rights authorizes this city to reject any proposal," Matavosian said, pointing to RFP language and a 1967 California decision he described as permitting agencies that include such a reservation to reject proposals in their sole discretion. He also warned that rescinding a valid award could expose the city to a claim for attorney fees and injunctive relief on behalf of Khanlarian.

Attorneys and advocates for Hard 8 disputed that reading. Jenny Farrell, an attorney who spoke on Hard 8’s behalf, said the court had already sided with Hard 8 on aspects of the matter and urged the council to "honor that initial RFP process" and either award the contract to Hard 8 or follow the RFP’s stated procedures. Public speakers representing Hard 8 and FitFun Tennis emphasized the program’s affordability, diversity of instructors and community reach.

Public comment and operational facts Speakers in support of keeping Coach Vigen Khanlarian — who has run Glorietta programming for decades, according to public comment — described his work with seniors and long‑standing community ties. Supporters said Khanlarian’s model keeps instruction affordable and preserves drop‑in court access for residents.

Hard 8 and its supporters argued the scoring panels and the RFP process produced a clear recommendation in favor of Hard 8/FitFun Tennis and that overriding the scored recommendation undermines public trust and the purpose of the scoring process.

City staff supplied comparative operational data during the meeting: Khanlarian proposed approximately 84 hours per week of open court time; Hard 8 proposed roughly 79 hours. Khanlarian’s published rental rates were presented as roughly $8–$10 per hour; Hard 8’s rate was presented at about $12 per hour. The parks department said Hard 8 operates classes at Nibley and Montrose parks (about 24 and 15 hours per week, respectively) and that the city’s contract‑class program offers approximately 2,200 spaces per year but that enrollment averages closer to 1,000 unique students annually because sessions are 6–8 weeks long.

City attorney and staff guidance City Attorney Garcia told the council that the city and Hard 8 had entered a court‑approved stipulation pausing litigation while the council considered the item and that the contract awarded in June had not been finally signed because the lawsuit arrived before signature. Garcia also told council members the operator arrangement in place with Khanlarian was functioning on a month‑to‑month basis and that the city retains the right to terminate that license if it signs a new long‑term agreement.

Council direction and next steps The council approved a motion rescinding the June 10 award and directing staff to revise the RFP and return to council for approval of any revised solicitation before reissuance. The motion passed on a recorded roll call. Staff said the revised RFP would be brought back to council for input on selection criteria and could include minimum guarantees for public and free access hours, pricing transparency, and other operational terms discussed during the hearing.

The lawsuit remains pending. City staff and counsel told the council the alternatives available if the case proceeds in court include a judicial order requiring a new RFP or, in some circumstances, an order requiring the city to award the contract to Hard 8 if the court finds the city failed to follow the RFP terms. The council’s instruction to reissue the RFP is intended to address the concerns raised in the litigation and by community members while minimizing further legal exposure.

The rescission and direction to draft a new RFP conclude the special meeting’s discussion on the tennis courts; staff will return with a revised document for council review and public notice.