Glendale council, housing authority recess to closed session on potential litigation and property lease talks

Glendale — The Glendale City Council and Glendale Housing Authority recessed into closed session March 11 to discuss initiating litigation and to give instructions to city negotiators on the lease terms for a city-owned property, according to the meeting agenda and remarks on the record.

The agenda, posted March 7, listed two closed-session items: (1) a conference with legal counsel to consider initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9 (anticipated litigation; one potential case) and (2) a conference with the city's designated real property negotiators, led by Bradley Calvert, concerning price and payment terms for leasing a city-owned property identified on the agenda as "Events at Eden Property, 1401 North Or Dugo Road" (as written on the posted agenda). Meeting staff stated the council did not anticipate reporting out of closed session.

Why it matters: authority to discuss litigation and real property in closed session is limited by state law and the council's decisions could affect the city's legal exposure or financial terms for leasing municipal property. The items were placed on the publicly posted agenda before the meeting and were read into the record before the recess.

Details from the public record: the agenda notice read aloud on the record said the joint meeting's agenda was posted March 7, 2025, on the bulletin board outside Glendale City Hall. For the litigation item the record lists "Nigerian versus the City of Glendale, LASC case number 24STCP02101, claim number 25-0009" exactly as read into the record. For the real property negotiations the record named Bradley Calvert as the city-designated negotiator and stated the instructions to negotiators would concern the price and terms of payment for the lease of city-owned property.

Attendance and procedure: roll call was completed for both the City Council and the Housing Authority before staff read the closed-session items into the record. The council and authority then recessed to closed session; a staff member present and the meeting record indicated that the body did not anticipate reporting out following the closed session.

What the public record does not show: no substantive discussion of the litigation merits, possible settlement amounts, or specific lease terms appeared in the public portion of the meeting. The agenda language and on-the-record reading specify the topics to be discussed in closed session, but the transcript contains no public deliberations or votes on those matters.

Next steps: the public record for this meeting shows only that the bodies recessed to closed session on the two items listed on the posted agenda. No further public action or report was announced at the time the meeting moved into closed session.