Comments by the public on Closed Session items only. These comments will be limited to three minutes.

For this segment, a PINK card must be completed and presented to the City Clerk.

CLOSED SESSION IN CITY HALL BASEMENT LUNCH ROOM/CONFERENCE ROOM:

a. Public Employee Appointment:

Pursuant to Govt. Code �54957

Title of Position: City Manager.

Brief description of position to be filled: Administrative Head of Burbank City Government.

b. Conference with Legal Counsel � Anticipated Litigation (City as possible plaintiff):

Pursuant to Govt. Code �54956.9(c)

Number of potential case(s): 3

When the Council reconvenes in open session, the Council may make any required disclosures regarding actions taken in Closed Session or adopt any appropriate resolutions concerning these matters.

6:30 P.M.

INVOCATION: Rabbi Richard Flom, Temple Emanuel.

The Courts have concluded that sectarian prayer as part of City Council meetings is not permitted under the Constitution.

FLAG SALUTE:

ROLL CALL:

ANNOUNCEMENT: WEDNESDAY NIGHT PRIME TIME PROGRAMS.

ANNOUNCEMENT: PRIMARY NOMINATING ELECTION ON FEBRUARY 25, 2003.

ANNOUNCEMENT: COUNCIL MEETING DARK ON FEBRUARY 25, 2003.

RECOGNITION: POLICE RESERVES RECOGNITION.

RECOGNITION: ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL AND BEVERLY MANOR RECOGNITION.

COUNCIL COMMENTS: (Including reporting on Council Committee Assignments)INTRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS:

At this time additional items to be considered at this meeting may be introduced. As a general rule, the Council may not take action on any item which does not appear on this agenda. However, the Council may act if an emergency situation exists or if the Council finds that a need to take action arose subsequent to the posting of the agenda. Govt. Code �54954.2(b).

6:30 P.M. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY:

1. OPPORTUNITY SITE NO. 2 (OLD POLICE BLOCK) BURBANK VILLAGE WALK � THE OLSON COMPANY:

The purpose of this report is to present the information necessary for Redevelopment Agency Board and Council consideration of the proposed sale of Agency property and development entitlements for the Burbank Village Walk project. The specific land use applications include: Planned Development No. 2002-1; Development Review No. 2002-11; Tentative Tract Map No. 53905; a Mitigated Negative Declaration; Development Agreement; and the associated legal documents. The terms of the proposed sale of Agency-owned property are documented in the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA). Opportunity Site No. 2 (commonly referred to as the old police block) is bound by Olive Avenue, Third Street, Angeleno Avenue and San Fernando Boulevard, excluding the corner parcel at Olive Avenue and San Fernando Boulevard, more commonly referred to as the Radio Shack parcel.

The applicant is requesting approval to construct a mixed-use development consisting of 140 residential units that are proposed to be offered for sale, approximately 14,000 square feet of restaurant and retail space and 423 parking spaces. The tract map proposed will place condominiums on the site separated from common spaces and will allow for the separate sale of the commercial space.

The purpose of the Planned Development process is to provide an alternate process to accommodate unique developments for residential, commercial, professional, or other similar activities, including modified development standards which would create a desirable, functional and community environment under controlled conditions of a development plan. Mixed-use projects certainly fit within this category, especially given there are no development standards for mixed-use projects (Burbank Municipal Code requires developments follow R-4 standards except for setbacks and landscaping in setbacks). Specifically, the land use components that were considered for this project include: density; height; setbacks; parking; lot coverage; open space; landscaping; amenities; design; alcohol sales and hours of operation (retail component).

The Planning Board, by a vote of four to zero, recommended approval of the proposed Planned Development project. The Board discussed several issues related to design and compatibility with the surrounding areas and their discussion focused on setbacks and architecture. The Board recommended that the setbacks along Angeleno Avenue and Third Street be increased in certain areas to provide a larger landscaped area adjacent to the sidewalk. This change has been incorporated into the attached recommended conditions of approval. In addition, the Board expressed to staff their desire to have the ultimate design of the building be in substantial conformance with the renderings provided in order to maintain the visual aesthetics of the project.

Inasmuch as the proposed project requires the Agency to sell property to the Developer, a DDA has been negotiated to document the real estate transaction and to outline the roles and responsibilities of both the Agency and the Developer. Highlights of the proposed DDA include the following:

DEVELOPER RESPONSIBILITIES

• The Developer must acquire the site for $3,050,000;
• The Developer will make a deposit of five percent of the purchase price, or $153,000 at the opening of escrow, which shall be non-refundable (unless the Agency defaults or both parties mutually agree to terminate the transaction);
• The balance or $2,897,000 will be paid at the close of escrow on the site;
• The Developer must complete the Project in a timely manner as described in the Schedule of Performance;
• The Developer must provide the owner of the parcel at Olive Avenue and San Fernando Boulevard (2453-13-010) with a perpetual access easement and right-of-way for the private alley to be located on the site;
• Prior to the close of escrow, the Developer must secure a Letter of Intent from a suitable restaurant tenant meeting the criteria as described in the DDA;
• The Developer must submit evidence that sufficient equity capital and construction financing has been committed to fund 100 percent of the Project cost;
• The Developer must prepare the Declaration of Covenants and Conditions (CCRs) for the residential component to which the City and Agency must be named as third party beneficiaries. Also included in the CCRs are the following requirements: occupancy standards for all units will allow two persons per bedroom, plus one additional person; all ongoing maintenance requirements, that meet the Agency�s defined standards, must be imposed; and the home owners or home owners association cannot modify the CCRs without the City�s and Agency�s approval.
• The Developer must develop the site in accordance with the City�s Planned Development No. 2002-1;
• The Developer must pay prevailing wages to all contractors and subcontractors engaged to construct the project, in accordance to the Agency�s prevailing wage policy (which was a requirement, and the policy made available at the time of Request for Proposals [RFP] circulation) and other applicable laws; and
• The Developer must sell 14 (10 percent of the total number of units) of the 932 square foot two-bedroom, single story, residential units to households earning less than 120 percent of the Los Angeles County median income (moderate level).

AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES

• The Agency must convey the project site to the Developer free of any buildings, structures and active utilities;
• All tenants shall have been relocated from the Site, and the Site must be conveyed free and clear of tenancies, occupancies and possessory rights of any third parties; and
• The Agency is conveying the site in an "as is" condition. However, if it is determined during escrow, that environmental remediation is required, the Developer will fund costs up to $50,000. If the costs exceed $50,000, the Agency will fund up to an additional $50,000 worth of costs. If potential remediation costs exceed a total of $100,000 the parties will meet and confer with the option to terminate the transaction. However, once escrow has closed, the Developer must indemnify the Agency and City from any hazardous materials claims related to the Site.

Pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law, both the DDA and 33433 Report have been available for public review immediately following the initial publication (January 25, 2003) of the public notice.

In addition to the land sales proceeds of $3.05 million, the City Centre Redevelopment Project Fund will realize property tax increment revenue. Based on the overall project value, the Project Area will collect tax increment revenue through 2021 (the last year in which the Agency can collect tax increment revenue) totaling roughly $8.8 million in nominal terms or $5.1 million in present value terms (using a six percent discount rate). These two revenue components yield a total anticipated Agency revenue projection of approximately $11.9 million in nominal dollars or $8.2 million in present value terms.

When comparing the total Agency costs associated with the subject project (roughly $6.7 million) and the anticipated Agency revenue, the net revenue to the Agency is projected at $5.2 million (in nominal dollars) and $1.5 million (present value, again using a discount factor of six percent).

Assuming the proposed Village Walk project is approved on February 11, 2003, the Developer will proceed with design development drawings and construction plans. Groundbreaking for the project is anticipated for fall 2003 and project completion trailing by roughly 24 months or fall 2005.

Since the relocation of the former police headquarters to the "new" police and fire headquarters was anticipated and, more specifically since the release of the initial release of the 1997 request for development proposals, the Redevelopment Agency has been actively working toward the redevelopment of Opportunity Site No. 2.

The Village Walk project will build upon the desired 24-hour, 7-day a week downtown population, which will enhance the Downtown area and help support the existing businesses and Agency investments in Downtown. The proposed project, as a component of the entire block�s master plan, will redevelop an underutilized and blighted block into a mixed-use, in-fill development that captures a significant current market, enhances the economic viability of the area and provides another visible anchor for the Downtown. Furthermore, the proposed project supports the goals of the City Centre Redevelopment Plan as well as provides additional units to the City�s affordable housing inventory.

Recommendation:

1. Adoption of proposed City Council resolutions entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (OLD POLICE BLOCK, INCLUDES BURBANK VILLAGE WALK).

2. A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 53905 AND CONSENTING TO THE SALE OF PROPERTY (OLSON URBAN HOUSING LLC, APPLICANT).

3. Introduction of proposed City Council ordinance entitled: (motion and voice vote only)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 2002-1 AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATED THERETO (BURBANK VILLAGE WALK).

4. Adoption of proposed Redevelopment Agency resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND OLSON URBAN HOUSING LLC. (BURBANK VILLAGE WALK).

REPORTING ON CLOSED SESSION:

FIRST PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: (One minute on any matter concerning City Business.)

There are four segments of Oral Communications during the Council Meeting. The first precedes the Closed Session items, the second and third segments precede the main part of the City Council�s business (but follow announcements and public hearings), and the fourth is at the end of the meeting following all other City business.

Closed Session. During this period of oral communications, the public may comment only on items listed on the Closed Session Agenda(s). A PINK card must be completed and presented to the City Clerk. Comments will be limited to three minutes.

First Period of Oral Communications. During this period of Oral Communications, the public may comment on any matter concerning City Business. A BLUE card must be completed and presented to the City Clerk. NOTE: Any person speaking during this segment may not speak during the third period of Oral Communications. Comments will be limited to one minute.

Second Period of Oral Communications. This segment of Oral Communications immediately follows the first period, but is limited to comments on agenda items for this meeting. For this segment, a YELLOW card must be completed and presented to the City Clerk. Comments will be limited to four minutes.

Third Period of Oral Communications. This segment of oral communications follows the conclusion of agenda items at the end of the meeting. The public may comment at this time on any matter concerning City Business. NOTE: Any member of the public speaking at the First Period of Oral Communications may not speak during this segment. For this segment, a GREEN card must be completed and presented to the City Clerk. Comments will be limited to three minutes.

City Business. City business is defined as any matter that is under the jurisdiction of the City Council. Although other topics may be of interest to some people, if those topics are not under City Council jurisdiction, they are not City business and may not be discussed during Oral Communications.

Videotapes/Audiotapes. Videotapes or audiotapes may be presented by any member of the public at any period of Oral Communications or at any public hearing. Such tapes may not exceed the time limit of the applicable Oral Communications period or any public comment period during a public hearing. The playing time for the tape shall be counted as part of the allowed speaking time of that member of the public during that period.

Videotapes must be delivered to the Public Information Office by no later than 10:00 a.m. on the morning of the Council meeting in a format compatible with the City�s video equipment. Neither videotapes nor audiotapes will be reviewed for content or edited by the City prior to the meeting, but it is suggested that the tapes not include material that is slanderous, pornographic, demeaning to any person or group of people, an invasion of privacy of any person, or inclusive of material covered by copyright.

Printed on the videocassette cover should be the name of the speaker, the period of oral communication the tape is to be played, and the total running time of the segment. The Public Information Office is not responsible for "cueing up" tapes, rewinding tapes, or fast forwarding tapes. To prevent errors, there should be ten seconds of blank tape at the beginning and end of the segment to be played. Additionally, the speaker should provide the first sentence on the tape as the "in cue" and the last sentence as the "out cue".

As with all Oral Communications, videotapes and audiotapes are limited to the subject matter jurisdiction of the City and may be declared out of order by the Mayor.

Disruptive Conduct. The Council requests that you observe the order and decorum of our Council Chamber by turning off or setting to vibrate all cellular telephones and pagers, and that you refrain from making personal, impertinent, or slanderous remarks. Boisterous and disruptive behavior while the Council is in session, and the display of signs in a manner which violates the rights of others or prevents others from watching or fully participating in the Council meeting, is a violation of our Municipal Code and any person who engages in such conduct can be ordered to leave the Council Chamber by the Mayor.

Once an individual is requested to leave the Council Chamber by the Mayor, that individual may not return to the Council Chamber for the remainder of the meeting. BMC �2-216(b).

Individuals standing in the Council Chamber will be required to take a seat. Also, no materials shall be placed in the aisles in order to keep the aisles open and passable. BMC �2-217(b).

Your participation in City Council meetings is welcome and your courtesy will be appreciated.

COUNCIL AND STAFF RESPONSE TO FIRST PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:

SECOND PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: (Four minutes on Agenda items only.)

COUNCIL AND STAFF RESPONSE TO SECOND PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:

JOINT MEETING WITH THE YOUTH ENDOWMENT SERVICES FUND BOARD:

2. REVIEW OF THE CITY�S FINANCIAL STATUS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2002, APPROVAL OF MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 BUDGET AND PREVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 BUDGET:

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with a review of the City�s financial status as of December 31, 2002, and to request Council and Youth Endowment Services (YES) Fund Board approval of mid-year adjustments to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2002-03 approved budget. The report will also provide relevant detail as it pertains to the development of the City�s FY 2003-04 Budget.

This report is intended to provide the Council with an as accurate as possible picture of how all City Funds are operating six months into the fiscal year based on the original revenue and expenditure estimates. Although it is the intent of this report to review the status of all Funds, the focus is primarily on the General Fund.

Further, the middle of the fiscal year is also a good time to ascertain whether any expenditures, outside the realm of the original approved budget, have surfaced which would potentially jeopardize the current budget authority and thus, require legislative action of appropriate budgetary adjustments. Moreover, this mid-year report is especially important in light of the economic uncertainty prevailing the State and Federal economies.

Following the annual audit, the General Fund ended FY 2001-02 with an available undesignated fund balance of $5,642,748. At the first quarter report in November 2002, the FY 2001-02 year-end available projected fund balance had been reduced to $3,581,932. However, due to other factors not previously known, the fund balance has now been reduced to $200,453. The following identifies the components that have caused this fund balance to be reduced:

Projected Projected

FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04

Anticipated Recurring Revenues $ 110,994,925 113,546,453

Less BWP Set-Aside (4,049,000) (4,204,000)

Available Recurring Revenues 106,945,925 109,342,453

Recurring Appropriations, *Includes MOU

and PERS Rates for 03/04 108,336,429 117,967,709

Recurring Revenue Over Recurring Appropriations (1,390,504) ( 8,625,256)

Available Beginning Balance $ 5,642,748 200,453

Non-Recurring Revenues (Attachment A) 2,874,832 3,052,907

Sub-Total of Non-Recurring Revenues 8,517,580 3,253,360

Non-Recurring Appropriations:

One-Time Appropriations (Attachment B) (4,368,481) (675,000)

Mid-Year Adjustments, Net (1,777,142) -0-

Required Increase in Reserves:

**Working Capital -0- -0-

**Emergency (181,000) -0-

Compensated Absences (600,000) (600,000)

Sub-Total Non-Recurring (6,926,623) (1,275,000)

Excess of Non-Recurring 1,590,957 1,978,360

Ending Available Fund Balance $ 200,453 (6,646,896)

* For FY 2003-04 the Burbank Police Officers Association (BPOA), Burbank Fire Fighters Association (BFFA) and Burbank Fire Fighters Chief Officers Unit (BFFACOU) already have adopted Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) in place. A projected amount is also included in the budget for the remaining MOU agreements to be negotiated next year.

** The required increase of $543,000 in the Working Capital Reserve for FY 2002-03 will be funded out of year-end budget savings. The required increase in Emergency and Working Capital Reserves for FY 2003-04 will also be funded out of year-end budget savings.

Overall, the City�s recurring revenues for FY 2002-03 have been decreased by $501,809 as a result of major losses in the following revenue categories: Utility Users Tax (UUT), Interest/Use of Money, Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), Franchises and Intergovernmental Revenues. The decrease was not as high as it might have been due to the fact that the City�s Property Tax, Sales Tax and Motor Vehicle In-Lieu revenues have realized a moderate increase over the original projection, which has offset the total realized decrease in revenues. It is also significant to note that pursuant to Council direction, the performance of the overall revenues has been further impacted by a projected $4,049,000 decrease for the Burbank Water and Power (BWP) Competitiveness Revenue. This BWP Revenue includes the incremental increase in the UUT and BWP-In-Lieu revenues from the electric rate increases. It also includes any interest earned on the monies that are set-aside. Additionally, it is important to understand the need to continue to fund the City�s Reserve Funds (Working Capital and Emergency) at the level established by the City�s Financial Policies; however, it should be noted that the ending balance in FY 2002-03 will not be adequate to fund the Working Capital Reserve. Therefore, staff will propose funding the Working Capital Reserve out of the FY 2002-03 budget savings.

It is worth mentioning that the current Sales Tax information is for receipts collected for the first four months of the fiscal year. Due to the way in which Sales Tax dollars are reported and distributed from the State to local governments, there is typically a two to three month lag. Thus, it is possible that the City�s Sales Tax revenues could further grow throughout the remainder of this fiscal year because the impact of the holiday shopping season has not yet been realized.

With the exception of the requested mid-year adjustments detailed in this report, the City�s current expenditures are on target, with 47 percent of the appropriations expended as of December 31, 2002. The majority of the requested mid-year adjustments are either related to higher than expected program costs and the addition of a street sweeper due to the City�s stormwater permit; or, the impact of the clean-up of the Fire Department salaries and benefits. The total mid-year adjustments requested are as follows: General Fund - $4,336,653; Non-General Fund - $521,487. Due to offsetting revenues, the net impact to the General Fund is $1,777,142 and to the Non-General Funds is $130,024.

The City is heading into the 2003-04 fiscal year with a projected year-end available fund balance of $200,453. More importantly however, due to known decreases in revenues, continual increased costs for the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) rates, known and projected 2003-04 bargaining unit costs, the need to replenish the City�s reserves, and the anticipated State budget impacts, the City is headed into an even more serious budget crisis that has no chance for improvement over the next several fiscal years.

It is good that, unlike most cities in California and in many cases throughout the nation, Burbank�s outlook is not as bleak. This is in large part due to the City�s hard work and success over the years to create a viable economy that is well balanced with strong property values, varied tax sources, etc. That being said, it is still important to remember that Burbank has its own increasing costs and declining revenues and will ultimately be subjected to the State�s overall economic doldrums and the Governor�s efforts to balance the State�s budget. Obviously, our economy is struggling and all levels of government will feel their share of the pain. Unfortunately for Burbank, this means we are not in a position to be considering new programs or services; instead, all departments are in the process of developing realistic 10 percent budget reduction scenarios and are also considering other ideas that will cut program costs with minimal impact and/or increased fees to pay for programs, all of which will eventually be discussed by the Council and possibly included in the FY 2003-04 budget. The State of California is currently projecting a $34.6 billion shortfall for this and next year. Based on the Governor�s current proposal to deal with this enormous deficit, which is being highly debated by the legislature, we believe our hit from the State for FY 2003-04 will be $4,093,127 from the General Fund and $3,009,921 from the Redevelopment Agency and Low and Moderate Housing Funds; however, it could get worse rather than better. Most importantly we must remember that even before the City considered the potential State budget impacts to the 2003-04 budget, the City was already progressing into a deficit position over the next five years due to the underperformance of several of our revenue categories and the significant increase in our recurring costs, especially the PERS rates.

Recommendation:

1. Adoption of proposed City Council resolution entitled:

(4/5 vote required)

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING THE BUDGET OF FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 FOR THE PURPOSE OF MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS.

2. Adoption of proposed Youth Endowment Services Fund Board resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE YOUTH ENDOWMENT SERVICES FUND OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 BUDGET AND APPROPRIATING $500 FOR THE PURPOSE OF MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS.

CONSENT CALENDAR: (Items 3 through 5)

The following items may be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a Council Member so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent calendar and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. A roll call vote is required for the consent calendar.

3. RESOLUTION OF INTENTION FOR THE WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM:

The annual weed abatement program removes the nuisance created on various properties by weeds, rubbish, refuse and brush. These nuisances create a potential fire hazard and a haven for rodents and vectors. The purpose of the Resolution of Intention is threefold:

1. To declare weeds and debris to be a public nuisance;

2. To declare the Council�s intent to abate the nuisance; and

3. To establish the date of February 18, 2003, at 6:30 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing relating to this issue.

The County of Los Angeles has provided the City a list of properties within the City of Burbank which need to be cleared of weeds, rubbish, refuse, and debris during the 2003 Weed and Debris Clearance Program. Data used in compiling this list has been developed from the official weed maps of the County of Los Angeles, which identify private property locations by parcel number. Notices to destroy weeds will be mailed to the property owners as required by the Government Code of the State of California upon receipt of Council approval. An affidavit of mailing will be returned to the City by the County of Los Angeles Department of Agricultural Commissioner/Weights and Measures when the mailing of notices, as provided by law, has been completed.

The Resolution of Intention declares weeds and debris a public nuisance and is the first Council action necessary for the City to carry out the annual program of abating weeds and debris on certain private properties throughout the City. The owners of the private property involved may either complete the abatement themselves or the County will do the work and recover the cost of the abatement through a property tax lien. There is no cost impact on the City�s General Fund or Redevelopment Agency�s budget for this program other than incidental administrative costs.

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK DECLARING THAT WEEDS GROWING UPON AND IN FRONT OF, AND BRUSH, RUBBISH, REFUSE, AND DIRT UPON AND IN FRONT OF CERTAIN PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE CITY ARE A PUBLIC NUISANCE, AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE ABATEMENT THEREOF.

4. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AN AGREEMENT WITH WIDOM WEIN COHEN O�LEARY TERASAWA FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING:

Staff is requesting Council approval of an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Widom Wien Cohen O�Leary Terasawa (WWCOT) for architectural design services for the Development and Community Services Building (DCSB).

On September 8, 1998, the Council directed staff to demolish the Municipal Services Building (MSB), which had been damaged in the 1994 Northridge earthquake. The Council also directed staff to temporarily relocate the MSB employees and proceed with programming and site analysis for a replacement facility.

Staff presented the results of a programming study and a conceptual project budget developed by the Nello Group to the Council on December 19, 2000. The conceptual budget included an austere and pragmatically designed 57,200 square foot three-story building, housing 153 employees. The Council directed staff to proceed with the design and construction of the new DCSB.

On November 6, 2001, the Council approved a PSA with WWCOT for architectural design services for the DCSB with a not-to-exceed fee of $1,077,500.

City staff and WWCOT staff presented a schematic design and schematic design budget for the DCSB to the Council on December 10, 2002. The schematic design budget included several key components added to the project since the development of the conceptual budget presented to the Council in December 2000. These components will help the City better serve the public and enhance the DCSB�s functionality as a civic center. The additional components will also secure a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certificate for the DCSB that will decrease long-term operational costs, improve indoor air quality, and be recognized as an environmentally responsible building. The schematic design budget also comprehensively identified all additional costs associated with the additional components. These costs included an increase in the funds budgeted for architectural design services to cover the following:

1. Additional costs already incurred by WWCOT in the pre-design and schematic design phase and the design development phase due to the expansion of the DCSB project; and,
2. Increases in the cost of future services to be provided by WWCOT also due to the expansion of the DCSB project.

The Council approved the schematic design budget and directed staff to proceed with the DCSB project through the completion of construction documents, at which time the Council will revisit the DCSB project and decide whether or not to proceed with construction.

Staff is requesting Council approval of an amendment to the PSA with WWCOT for architectural design services for the DCSB. The amendment increases WWCOT�s scope of services and accompanying schedule of compensation to reflect the following:

1. Additional work already completed by WWCOT during the pre-design, schematic design, and design development phases due to the expansion of the DCSB project. This work includes: $35,000 in pre-design and schematic design services (line two in the table below); $46,084 in design development services (line three); $36,543 in master site planning services (line 7); $295,053 in additional program studies, Public Information Office/community room/workstation layout, civic district design/implementation, LEEDs MEP consultants, LEEDs evaluation/strategy/implementation, system furniture design/specification services, and telecommunication consulting services with ALFA Tech (lines 13-19).
2. Additional future work beyond the original PSA�s scope of services needed to complete the DCSB project as outlined in the project�s schematic design budget.

The amendment also extends the original completion date of the PSA from June 30, 2004 to January 31, 2005. The following table shows WWCOT�s original scope of services and the cost of additional services provided for in the amendment.

Staff recommends that the Council approve this amendment to WWCOT�s PSA to enable the City to pay WWCOT for additional work already completed during the pre-design, schematic design, and design development phases due to changes to the DCSB program.

Approval of this amendment to WWCOT�s PSA does not preclude the Council from subsequently postponing completion of the DCSB project at any time in the near future. Under the terms of the PSA, the City may terminate the agreement at the City�s convenience and pay WWCOT for its services through the date of termination, plus reasonable demobilization costs incurred due to the early termination.

The original not-to-exceed fee was $1,077,500. The cost of the additional services provided under the amendment is $555,600. The revised cost of the PSA with WWCOT is $1,633,100. The Council approved the funding for this amendment as part of the schematic design budget on December 10, 2002.

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURBANK AND WIDOM WEIN COHEN O�LEARY TERASAWA.

5. APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURBANK AND CLIFFORD DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.:

Staff is requesting Council approval for a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) between the City of Burbank and Clifford Development Group, Inc. (CDG, Inc.).

The Council adopted a resolution on February 27, 2001 to retain CDG, Inc. for capital project management services for the new Buena Vista Branch Library, the Development & Community Services Building (DCSB), and the Chandler Access Way projects. The Council adopted a subsequent resolution on October 2, 2001 to retain CDG, Inc. for project and construction management services for the Buena Vista Branch Library and the Chandler Access Way projects only.

In light of pending budgetary challenges, retaining CDG, Inc. provides the City with an on-going and flexible opportunity to acquire capital project management services while maintaining the ability to address possible workload fluctuations within the Public Works Department. An example of the benefits proffered and realized by this strategy was the City�s substitution of the Chandler Access Way project that was substantially delayed by outside governing authorities with two recently identified capital projects, the DeBell Clubhouse Replacement Project and the South San Fernando Park Project. The PSA retains the flexibility for the City to terminate or suspend the PSA with CDG, Inc. should the workload significantly diminish.

Staff considers the continuity of CDG, Inc.�s project and construction management services important for the timely and successful completion of on-going capital improvement projects. Professional services would be rendered from January 22, 2003 through February 29, 2004. The completion date for the subject PSA coincides with completion of CDG, Inc.�s on-going PSA for project management services.

A maximum not-to-exceed fee of $134,000 includes $3,400 for project related reimbursable expenses and represents no increase to the $9,800 monthly service fee established in the original PSA. Funding for this PSA is available for each project listed below. Other capital projects that have not been identified at this time may also be included under CDG, Inc.�s auspices.

• DCSB Project (10 percent)
• South San Fernando Park Project (45 percent)
• DeBell Clubhouse Replacement Project (40 percent)
• City Hall Tenant Improvements Project (5 percent)

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURBANK AND CLIFFORD DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.

END OF CONSENT CALENDAR *** *** ***

REPORTS TO COUNCIL:

6. APPOINTMENT TO THE LOS ANGELES EQUESTRIAN CENTER ADVISORY BOARD:

The purpose of this report is to request the Council to consider appointing two members and two alternates to the Los Angeles Equestrian Center Advisory Board. One Board member will be appointed to a two-year term ending January 2005 and the other to a one-year term ending January 2004, allowing the Council to fill one term each January. The alternates would replace the appointed members in the event that they could not serve.

At the Council meeting of January 7, 2003, the City Clerk�s Office was directed to solicit applications for two positions and two alternates to serve on the newly-formed Los Angeles Equestrian Center Advisory Board. The Advisory Board will review and advise the Los Angeles Recreation and Parks Board of Commissioners on various issues regarding the Equestrian Center and will comprise of eight members; two each from the cities of Burbank, Glendale, and Los Angeles and two representatives from the Equestrian Center. On January 10, 2003, the City Clerk's Office began advertising and accepting applications. Efforts were made to advertise in the local newspapers, on the City website, announcements were made at Council meetings, and notices of the filing period were run on Burbank's Channel 6 in order to obtain qualified candidates. As of the deadline of February 3, 2003, eighteen applications have been received from: Frank R. Barneburg; Esther M. Barr; Bea Ellen Cameron; John A. Canavan; Karol E. Carleton; Charles P. Curcuruto; Lisa Maria Dyson; Floran Frank; Jay J. Geisenheimer; Ralph J. Herman; Melissa L. Hyams; Bill Kelley; Cathy Landis; Geraldine H. Rondou; Vera Rubin; Jean M. Schanberger; Maureen Stratton and Diana Woolley.

The City Clerk's Office conducted a random drawing to select the order that the eighteen applicants will appear on the voting sheets. The order is as follows:

1. Karol E. Carleton
2. Geraldine H. Rondou
3. Floran Frank
4. Melissa L. Hyams
5. Charles P. Curcuruto
6. Bill Kelley
7. Vera Rubin
8. Ralph J. Herman
9. Jay J. Geisenheimer
10. Lisa Maria Dyson
11. Cathy Landis
12. Jean M. Schanberger
13. Esther M. Barr
14. Diana Woolley
15. Frank R. Barneburg
16. Maureen Stratton
17. Bea Ellen Cameron
18. John A. Canavan

The Council votes on the number of vacancies on the Board, Commission or Committee. For example, if there is one vacancy on the Board, Commission or Committee, each Member is allowed one vote. The applicant receiving the majority of votes will be appointed.

This process is based on past practice. The Council could certainly make any desired changes to the process. If changes should be requested, staff would recommend that the process be clarified prior to any voting.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Council consider appointing two members and two alternates to the Los Angeles Equestrian Center Advisory Board. One Board member will be appointed to a two-year term ending January 2005 and the other to a one-year term ending January 2004, allowing the Council to fill one term each January. The alternates would replace the appointed members in the event that they could not serve.

7. FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE ENTRIX, INC. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-03:

This $150,000 first amendment to the ENTRIX, Inc. Professional Services Agreement (PSA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2002-03 is required to fund three tasks regarding environmental regulatory matters that have exceeded prior estimates or were not known at the time of budgeting. The three tasks are the following:

1. Lake One environmental compliance $115,000
2. Separating Olive 1 and Olive 2 NOx retrofit compliance filings $ 20,000
3. Communities for Better Environment lawsuit $ 15,000

Total$150,000

The current PSA is for $250,000. This amendment will bring the total contract to $400,000.

ENTRIX, Inc., formerly known as Sierra-Pacific Environmental Inc., has represented Burbank Water and Power (BWP) since 1992. Their track record has been good, both in terms of meeting regulatory objectives, as well as staying within budgetary limits. However, environmental regulatory issues have been particularly difficult this year.

ENTRIX, Inc. proposes to perform the following services:

• Preparation of numerous breakdown reports for submittal to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as a result of Lake One catalyst and ammonia injection system malfunctions.
• Response to failed source compliance demonstration test in August 2002.
• Preparation of interim and regular variance petitions for submittal to the SCAQMD Hearing Board, and participation in variance hearings.
• Technical support to City staff and contractors for diagnostic testing conducted during the variance period, and preparation of remedial action recommendations.
• Participation in project team meetings.

• Review of Lake One testing results and preparation of the testing analysis report.
• Assist the City in the selection of technical support contractors to perform flow modeling analyses and provide system enhancement recommendations to achieve compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations and permit emission requirements.
• Support the City in the installation of Lake One system enhancements and in the final source compliance demonstration testing.

All that remains to make the Lake One combustion turbine operational is successful operation of the unit's NOx reduction equipment, the Selection Catalytic Reduction (SCR). Prior tests nearly passed. At high load levels the NOx levels exceeded the 5 parts per million standard by just a fraction. As a result, BWP conducted a detailed evaluation of the complete system, finding numerous refinements to improve the performance. The manufacturer of the catalyst has replaced the catalyst and provided BWP staff with training regarding the installation and handling of the catalyst at no cost to BWP.

Tests will be scheduled as soon as possible and under the most favorable conditions possible. The test results will be compiled and certified by an independent testing company and sent to the SCAQMD staff for review. If the results are satisfactory, a permit to operate will be issued. This process can take approximately two months.

It is important that Lake One returns to service for this summer. Delays in securing SCAQMD authority to proceed with installation of the NOx retrofit for Olive 1 and 2 will delay the availability of these plants into early summer. In order to complete Lake One, secure the required authority to proceed with the Olive 2 NOx retrofit, and to properly evaluate the technical issues associated with an environmental lawsuit, the services associated with this PSA amendment are required. ENTRIX, Inc. is the best firm to provide these services because of their experience with BWP.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must approve rules made by the SCAQMD. There is a considerable delay, at least 12 months and often longer, in securing EPA approval. However, during this period when rules have been enacted by the SCAQMD, but not yet approved by the EPA, the federal Clean Air Act makes it possible for individuals and citizens� groups (like CBE) to file lawsuits against those following such rules.

Sufficient funds are available from bond proceeds related to the NOx retrofit and Lake One capital projects to fund the $135,000 required for those projects. The remaining $15,000 for the CBE lawsuit will be funded by budget transfers from the FY 2002-03 Power Supply budget.

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURBANK AND ENTRIX, INC. FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES.

8. Report on Conditional Use Permit and Planned Development Conditions of Approval Verification Pilot Program:

As part of this year�s budget process, the Council directed staff to put together a Conditions of Approval Enforcement Pilot Program. The purpose of this report is to provide details of the proposed pilot program prior to its initiation.

Over the past couple of years, Planning Board members have expressed their concerns that conditions of approval to certain discretionary land use entitlements such as conditional use permits (CUPs) and planned development zones (PDs) are not being met throughout the community. Consequently, during this year�s budget process, a Conditions of Approval Enforcement Program was introduced as a discussion paper item. While adopting the budget, the Council appropriated $100,000 for a six-month pilot program and directed staff to implement such a program as it deemed necessary.

Currently, confirmation of compliance with conditions of approval which prescribe restriction on the use or performance standards is done only when a complaint is received, or when City inspectors verify a violation while in the field. In addition, confirmation of compliance with use restrictions and/or performance standards needs to be accomplished repeatedly during the life of the entitlement. Proactively verifying these types of conditions would be the primary focal point of this pilot program.

Due to the need for familiarity with City codes and inspection procedures, in addition to a condensed timeframe, it is recommended we conduct this pilot program "in-house" utilizing existing staff as opposed to using a contracted consultant. If this program is approved, staff proposes to proceed with the pilot program "in-house" using a Code Compliance Inspector, who is extremely familiar with the City, inspection procedures, existing CUP and planned development projects and permit processes.

Staff proposes to begin by verifying conditions of approval on all PDs. Staff will also verify conditional use permits over the past 10 years (beginning 10 years ago). Emphasis will be on conditional use permits which currently receive the most complaints, such as those that are residentially adjacent. Staff will inspect a geographical cross section of the community along with a mix of various types of CUPs and will return to the Council having pursued verification on several different discretionary permits. It is important to note that, as a result of new state law and the City's interim development control ordinance, enforcement on second dwelling unit CUPs has been stayed pending City adoption of a new ordinance and therefore, those types of CUPs will not be subject to this program.

Curbside field inspections will be conducted for each selected site. If compliance can be verified with a curbside field inspection, then the inspector can move onto the next case. Whenever a curbside inspection cannot be conducted, letters requesting entry will be sent out to notify property owners of the pending inspection. The License and Code Services Inspector will then inspect the premises for compliance with the conditions. Inspectors can enter private property with the consent of the property owner or person in control of the property, in addition to entering properties readily open to the public. However, should inspectors be denied entry, they will need to obtain an Inspection Warrant to complete the inspection. When entry is not voluntarily granted, then the City Attorney�s Office will need to advise the inspector on securing an Inspection Warrant. As a result, a program of this nature will require staff support from other departments, in particular, the City Attorney�s Office. Support from other departments will largely be determined by how complicated any one case becomes.

Staff contacted several other cities, in addition to the League of California Cities, to see if a proactive citywide verification program (specifically for conditions of approval) existed and if so, to determine what types of efforts were the most successful. Although several cities have considered conducting such a program, staff was unable to find a city that had adopted and implemented such a proactive program. Additionally, staff contacted two well-known and reputable planning consultants, Willdan & Associates and Berryman-Henniger, and neither indicated that they had been contracted to perform a proactive verification program as extensive as the aforementioned proposal. These firms did confirm that many cities have tickler files (a few with sophisticated software-based notifications) that periodically remind staff of annual inspections on certain cases as opposed to complaint-driven inspections. Additionally, it was indicated that if there was non-compliance with conditions of approval, the method typically used by most cities was to ultimately have a revocation hearing before the City Council or Planning Board/Commission.

Should staff discover that a permit be in non-compliance, staff would proceed in a manner similar to that used for building code violations. A Notice of Violation would be issued and if the violation is not resolved, revocation procedures could result with respect to the permit. At this time, a code amendment would need to occur to make a violation of a condition of approval to certain land use entitlements a criminal violation. Currently, when a valid discretionary permit (i.e. CUP) is used contrary to a condition (which may be one of many), the City can only initiate a revocation of that entitlement under the existing Municipal Code. An amendment to the code will specifically recognize conditions of approval and state that it is a crime to use certain entitlements contrary to conditions of approval. Because conditions can be outdated or no longer necessary, a property/business owner would be encouraged to amend their existing CUP. While the existing code could be interpreted as adequate, basically requiring a property/business owner to apply for a new CUP, a code amendment is proposed to directly address modification of a CUP condition. A fee amendment would also be needed; however, the fee proposed would be identical as a new CUP application, since similar analysis and noticing would be required.

In essence, the property/business owner would have the following options should they be in non-compliance with any of their respective condition(s) of approval:

Option 1: After the Notice of Violation is issued, the property/business owner has a reasonable period to meet all the conditions of approval; or

Option 2: The property/business owner may elect to go to the Planning Board after providing the Planning Division with an application to amend its existing permit to modify/delete/change any condition of approval that the applicant may feel is necessary for that particular discretionary permit. Only those conditions proposed to be changed would be considered at the hearing. This decision, similar to any other discretionary permit, could be appealed to the Council for a final decision.

One of the results that staff foresees with this type of proactive enforcement is the program generating "spin-off" complaints, which occur when a property/business owner is made aware that he/she is not in compliance and they make staff aware of alleged violations on neighboring properties. Staff is required to investigate and inspect these other properties, adding to the workload. It is important to note that this is the primary reason that many cities have not implemented a proactive program. It is proposed that the dedicated staff person for this program will follow up with all these spin-off complaints.

While not directly part of the pilot program, certain cost recovery measures as to code enforcement will be examined. These include imposing inspection fees for repeated code violators; continuing to work on an administrative citation process for certain code violations; and, exploring an annual inspection program as part of future CUPs where an annual fee is charged for the service.

Recommendation:

In light of the recent state budget proposals and the overall uncertainties of the budget impacts to the City, staff is reluctant to support spending funds on a new code enforcement pilot program that may evolve into an ongoing city program. Although funds have been appropriated this fiscal year to implement a pilot program, and a well-planned proposal has been outlined in the staff report, staff feels the fiscally prudent action is to put this pilot program on hold until the impacts of this year�s budget are known. To that end, it is recommended that the Council direct staff to bring this pilot program back to the Council for consideration following the upcoming budget process.

9. APPROVING A HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF BURBANK AND GLENDALE FOR CONTINUED USE OF THE GLENDALE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CENTER:

Staff is requesting that the Council approve an agreement that allows the continued use of the Glendale Environmental Management Center (EMC) by Burbank residents until December 31, 2003. The new agreement keeps the cost to use the EMC at the current $50 per vehicle. Staff has found that the $50 per vehicle cost is generally lower than the cost of similar programs. The sustained use of the EMC by Burbank residents since March 2000 demonstrates that residents are aware of the program and understand the need to properly dispose of household hazardous waste (HHW) and keep it out of the City�s landfill, and off of the City�s streets, alleys, and gutters. The Glendale EMC is open to accept HHW from Burbank residents every Wednesday from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and the second Saturday of every month from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

In both Fiscal Years (FY) 2001-02 and 2002-03, Burbank budgeted $45,000 to pay for the continued use of the EMC. The budgeted amount pays for 75 vehicles per month. Since approximately 86 residents have historically used the EMC per month, Recycle Center staff has taken several steps to promote the most efficient use of the FY 2002-03 funds. These steps include encouraging residents to use Los Angeles County roundups, promoting the Recycle Center�s own HHW programs such as household battery, oil, oil filter, and anti-freeze collection, suggesting alternative HHW disposal sites, providing educational materials explaining alternatives to using HHW products, and encouraging residents to make the best use of the Glendale EMC by taking the maximum amount of HHW in one trip whenever possible.

Initial research on the feasibility of accepting paint, the most common HHW, at the Recycle Center indicates that it would be more cost effective to have Burbank residents continue to use the EMC for paint disposal than to meet the State�s space, financial and hazardous waste handling requirements for establishing an anti-freeze, batteries, oil and paint (ABOP) collection at the Recycle Center.

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF BURBANK AND GLENDALE REGARDING USE OF THE GLENDALE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY (KNOWN AS THE GLENDALE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CENTER) BY THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF BURBANK.

10. TEN-YEAR EXTENSION OF BUS SHELTER LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH VIACOM OUTDOOR, INC.:

Staff is requesting Council approval for a 10-year extension of the bus shelter license agreement with Viacom Outdoor, Inc. for the construction, installation, maintenance, repair and management of bus shelters, and maintenance of concrete bus benches.

On March 19, 1993, the City entered into a 10-year agreement with Gannett Outdoor Company of Southern California (Gannett) to construct, maintain, operate, and manage advertising bus shelters and non-advertising bus benches at various locations throughout the City. In July of 1996, Outdoor Systems, Inc. acquired Gannett. However due to an exclusivity clause in the agreement, reassigning the bus shelter agreement to Outdoor Systems, Inc. for the remainder time of the contract required Council approval.

On December 17, 1996, the Council approved a non-exclusive agreement with Outdoor Systems, Inc. now known as Viacom Outdoor, Inc. (VO), for the construction, installation, maintenance, repair and management of 82 advertising bus benches, and maintenance of 180 concrete bus benches within the City. The agreement was signed on December 24, 1996, and expires on March 18, 2003. The terms of the agreement allow for an extension of up to 10 years.

In 2002, staff retained the accounting services of Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP (VTD) to audit VO�s records for the calendar years ending December 31, 2000 and 2001. VTD�s analysis consisted of verifying the mathematical accuracy of the fee remittances, advertising contracts, allocations of advertising revenue and tracing such amounts to the company�s monthly revenue summaries. VTD did not find any inconsistencies with the contract, billing invoices or postings recorded by VO. VTD�s overall findings resulted in recommendations to clarify language and include provisions to the agreement.

The terms and conditions of the current agreement with VO remain essentially the same with the following exceptions:

1. Staff re-negotiated the rental fees due to the City under this license. VO will pay the City 20 percent of net revenue for each shelter, less a guaranteed base amount of $100 per shelter for the first two years. The base amount will increase $10 per month per shelter every two years. The final increase in 2011 will bring the base amount to $140 per month per shelter. The compensation under the current agreement is 12.5 percent of net revenue for each shelter, less a guaranteed fixed base fee of $75 per shelter per month.
2. A provision was added to address the issue of late payments made to the City. Late payments will result in a fee of $5 per day for the first 15 days after the date upon which the payments are due. The late charges will increase to $20 a day for each day after the first 15 days past the due date. It should be noted that VO was not delinquent with any payments to the City.
3. The current agreement is silent as to the treatment of "trade-outs." Trade-outs occur when VO�s customers remit payments in a form other than cash, such as studio tickets. Under the new agreement, VO will notify the City in writing when trade-outs are received. The value of such trade-outs will be considered revenue and treated as such.
4. The interpretation of the current payment structure was clarified in the new agreement. This will assure the City is not under paid.

VO has provided high level and quality services to the City. Renewing this license agreement will insure continuity in the level and quality of services. The proposed agreement will also increase the minimum guaranteed revenue, over the 10-year term, by $484,170, from $792,000 to $1,276,170.

Staff surveyed the cities of Alhambra, Anaheim, Baldwin Park, El Segundo, Inglewood and Pasadena, all of which have bus shelter license agreements. The City�s re-negotiated rental fees are competitive with today�s market rates.

The proposed License Agreement with VO will provide a revenue source for the City and will not have a negative fiscal impact. The minimum guaranteed revenue, over the 10-year term, is $1,276,170.

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING A BUS SHELTER LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURBANK AND VIACOM OUTDOOR, INC.

ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE:

11. Proposed Ordinance Amending the Burbank Municipal Code to Formalize the Current PerformArts Grant Program Policies and to Rename the Park and Recreation Board the Park, Recreation, and Community Services Board:

The PerformArts Grant Program establishes of a grant review panel, to be appointed annually by the Park, Recreation and Community Services Board. The review panel has been rating proposals and making funding recommendations to the Board since the program�s inception. The panel consists of two staff members and four community representatives knowledgeable about performing arts organizations and the local arts community.

Although the Council approved the policies and procedures of the PerformArts Grant Program, the Burbank Municipal Code does not specifically provide the Park, Recreation and Community Services Board with the authority to make funding decisions or award grants. In order to assure that the PerformArts Grant Program operates in accordance with the rules and regulations as set forth by the Charter and Code of the City of Burbank, it is staff�s recommendation that the Burbank City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Burbank Municipal Code. This amendment would expand the Park, Recreation and Community Services Board�s authority to make PerformArts Grant Program funding decisions and award these grant funds, as has been done for the past ten years.

In April 2001, the Charter of the City of Burbank was amended to change the name of the Park and Recreation Department to the Park, Recreation and Community Services Department. At the same time, the name of the Board was also changed. Staff is proposing that the City Council formally amend the Code to change the name of the Board to conform to the recent change in the Charter.

This ordinance was introduced at the February 4, 2003 City Council meeting.

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed ordinance entitled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING ARTICLE 4, CHAPTER 2 OF THE BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PARK, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD.

RECONVENE the Redevelopment Agency and Youth Endowment Services Fund Board meetings for public comment.

THIRD PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: (Three minutes on any matter concerning the business of the City.)

This is the time for the Third Period of Oral Communications. Each speaker will be allowed a maximum of THREE minutes and may speak on any matter concerning the business of the City. However, any speaker that spoke during the First Period of Oral Communications may not speak during the Third Period of Oral Communications.

For this segment, a GREEN card must be completed, indicating the matter to be discussed, and presented to the City Clerk.

COUNCIL AND STAFF RESPONSE TO THE THIRD PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:

ADJOURNMENT.