2. Adoption of proposed City Council resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK REQUESTING INSTALLATION OF SIGNS ON STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF GUIDING MOTORISTS TO THE CITY�S DOWNTOWN AREA (I-5 FREEWAY).

CONSENT CALENDAR: (Items 4 through 7)

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.

4. MINUTES:

Approval of minutes for the regular meeting of January 14, 2003.

Recommendation:

Approve as submitted.

5. APPROVING THE FILING OF VESTING PARCEL MAP NO. 24941-01 (BURBANK EMPIRE CENTER PROJECT-MULTIPLE MAP FILING):

Staff is requesting Council approval of Parcel Map No. 24941-01. Burbank Empire Center is a mixed-use project on 103 acres of land proposed by the Zelman Retail Partners Inc. The Council held public hearings on Planned Development No. 97-3 and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 24941 for the Burbank Empire Center on June 6, 2000, June 13, 2000, September 5, 2000, and September 12, 2000. The Council also certified the Environmental Impact Report (Resolution No. 25,768), approved the Planned Development (Ordinance No. 3554), and approved the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (Resolution No. 25,828) for this development.

The retail portion of the project, including Costco, The Great Indoors, Target, Lowes, and the smaller stores and restaurants have been completed, and the two hotels are open. The first phase of the office portion of the development, adjacent to Buena Vista Street, is complete. All of the public utilities have been installed, and the easement documents have been prepared and received. The Vesting Parcel Map will be recorded in phases to finalize the process.

The property covered on the submitted Parcel Map No. 24941-01 is a three-parcel subdivision. These parcels are located at the corner of Empire Avenue and Buena Vista Street. The property is owned by Burbank Technology Center LLC, a California Limited Liability Company.

Staff has determined that this map is in compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act and Tentative Parcel Map No. 24941, and that it meets the Conditions of Approval for the overall project that pertained to the property. According to the State Subdivision Map Act, Chapter 3, Article 4, Section 66458, and the provisions of Chapter 27 of the Burbank Municipal Code, the Council must approve Parcel Map No. 24941-01 if it conforms to all the requirements. If such conformity does not exist, the Council must disapprove the map at the meeting it receives the map, or at its next regular meeting. If the Council has not authorized an extension to allow more time to disapprove the map, and the map conforms to all requirements, the map shall be deemed approved by operation of law.

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING THE FILING OF VESTING PARCEL MAP NO. 24941-01 (BURBANK EMPIRE CENTER PROJECT-Multiple Map Filing).

6. AMENDMENT TO THE ANNUAL PAVECO CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED CONTRACT TO SUPPORT THE MAGNOLIA POWER PROJECT SITE CLEARANCE:

Staff requests authorization to amend the Annual Contract for Asphaltic Concrete and Portland Cement Concrete Repairs with Paveco Construction Incorporated in order to continue to support the clearance of the Magnolia Power Project (MPP) site for construction as well as perform routine street repairs in response to water and electrical service installation work. The original contract was approved for $225,000. The budget amendment is for an additional $250,000.

Southern California Public Power Authority (SCPPA) has agreed to reimburse Burbank for its costs associated with paving to support the MPP site clearance. The intent for the authorization is to allow SCPPA to reimburse Burbank Water and Power (BWP) for timely work required to clear the MPP site for construction at no cost to BWP. An amendment to the BWP Fiscal Year 2002-03 Budget would authorize expenditure of the SCPPA funds.

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

(4/5 vote required)

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ANNUAL PAVING CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURBANK AND PAVECO CONSTRUCTION, INC. (BID SCHEDULE NO. 1091), TO INCREASE THE CONTRACT LIMIT TO $475,000; AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECEIPT AND EXPENDITURE OF AN ADDITIONAL $250,000 FROM THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POWER AUTHORITY RELATED TO THE MAGNOLIA POWER PROJECT.

7. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT A GRANT PROPOSAL FOR SENIOR CITIZEN NUTRITION AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES:

Staff requests Council authorization to file a grant application with the Los Angeles County Department of Community and Senior Citizen Services and the Area Agency on Aging (AAA) to receive Federal grant monies for the Nutrition and Supportive Services which are part of the Park, Recreation and Community Services Department�s Senior and Human Services Division.

On February 26, 2003, the Los Angeles County Department of Community and Senior Citizen Services requested that agencies desiring to receive Title III Older American�s Act federal funding for senior citizen nutrition and supportive services, submit a grant proposal. This will be the initial year in a new four-year grant cycle, 2003 through 2007, however the grants are approved on an annual basis.

If the application is accepted at the amount submitted, the City will receive $314,081 in Older Americans Act funding for the congregate and home delivered meal program. Home delivered meals are provided five days a week, with some clients receiving individual frozen meals to meet their weekend needs. Congregate meals are served Monday through Friday. This program will also receive additional United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) funding based upon the number of meals served. One hundred volunteers who are instrumental to these programs provide over 16,000 hours of service.

In addition, if the application is accepted at its submittal level, the City will receive $4,632 for supportive services programs. This funding will provide payments for the telephone reassurance program. This program employs four volunteers who are in contact with one hundred clients.

This item has been included in the Fiscal Year 2002-03 budget. The revenue anticipated from the grant has been projected to offset a significant portion of the General Fund cost of these services. In accordance with the County and Federal proposal guidelines, the City of Burbank�s proposal has been prepared to include the following:

In addition, USDA will reimburse the City based upon the number of contracted meals served. Given our service level, it is estimated the City will receive an additional $57,000. The senior consumers also pay a donation for the lunch, which goes to the General Fund and this revenue source is projected to be $159,000.

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND FILING OF A PROPOSAL FOR A FURTHER GRANT UNDER TITLE III OF THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT OF 1965, AS AMENDED, FOR SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAMS AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES.

REPORTS TO COUNCIL:

8. APPOINTMENT OF CITY MANAGER:

At the direction of the Council, the City Attorney has met with Ms. Mary Alvord to consider the terms of a possible agreement to assume the position of City Manager. The following is a summary of the most significant points of the proposed agreement:

1. The City Manager�s salary would be $12,650 a month. This salary would not be changed for the remainder of Fiscal Year (FY) 2002-03, and FY 2003-04 without a performance evaluation by the Council.

 

2. The City Manager shall be entitled to the same City contribution to medical insurance as are other Executives.

 

3. Rather than a City car, the City Manager shall be entitled to a $500 per month car allowance.

 

4. The City Manager will be entitled to compensation equal to six-months salary in the event that employment is terminated with or without cause. However, a severance package will not be offered if the City Manager is convicted of a felony, or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or personal gain.

Recommendation:

If the Council agrees with all of these terms, staff recommends approval of the agreement and the appointment of Ms. Mary Alvord to the position of City Manager of the City of Burbank. If such appointment is made, Ms. Alvord should be immediately sworn in by the City Clerk.

9. DISCUSSION ON AIRPORT OPTIONS:

On February 26, representatives of the cities of Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena, the Airport Authority and Congressmen Schiff, Berman, Waxman and Sherman traveled to Washington, D.C. to meet with new Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Administrator Marion Blakey. The purpose of the meeting was to seek a statement from the FAA that:

� Endorsed the importance of a local stakeholder process designed to reach consensus and resolution on the future of the Airport within a defined time.

 

� Appointed a senior FAA official to participate actively in local stakeholder discussions including attending a local community outreach meeting at the appropriate time during these discussions.

 

� Confirmed that the Airport Authority could retain the B-6 Property while the stakeholders work to reach consensus and resolution.

FAA Administrator Blakey was less than cooperative. While she affirmed that the decision about a new terminal was a local one, she declined to provide any FAA assistance in reaching a local consensus. She indicated that she expected the Airport Authority to develop a plan for re-use of the B-6 Property and reimbursement of the federal investment in that property. She also invited the participants to present a specific plan on how they intend to resolve the airport controversy within 60 days and stated that the FAA would not allow the construction of a new terminal to be explicitly linked to achievement of a curfew.

The hurdles that Administrator Blakey imposed, both in substance and timing, raise doubts whether it is realistic to reach an agreement on a new terminal at this time.

Staff and the City's special counsel have considered at length various options for the next steps. There appear to be three principal options. The first is to support an immediate decision by the Airport Authority to sell the B-6 Property, thereby permanently foreclosing a new terminal at that location. The second is to make a short but intense last-ditch effort to reach a final agreement on a new terminal before expiration of the 60-days that Administrator Blakey suggested as the deadline for a reuse plan for the B-6 Property. Neither of these options appears realistic, in part because Measure B would make it impossible to reach an agreement within 60 days and because a sale and redevelopment of the B-6 Property would only assure that the Authority would have an incentive to find other ways to relocate the terminal on terms that would be unattractive to the City.

Staff believes that this approach has several advantages:

� It continues the Authority's existing flexibility to sell the B-6 property but also allows for the option to generate revenue sufficient to satisfy the FAA's legal concerns about federal funding and returning grant dollars.

 

� The new terminal would not formally be tied to the curfew but, because negotiations over a new terminal would be suspended until a curfew has been secured, the City would have a decision on a curfew before it would consider a new terminal. This satisfies the City's concerns without formally tying the terminal to the curfew.

 

� The Authority would still have an incentive to succeed in the Part 161 Study since the City would be under no obligation to consider a new terminal unless that process is successful.

 

� For the most part, the City would not have to spend time, effort or money on Airport issues for the next 12-18 months (or more) while the Authority completes the Part 161 Study. This has obvious fiscal advantages for the City.

 

� At the completion of the Part 161 Study process, the City could still decide that a terminal is not appropriate or it could negotiate a deal for a terminal, entirely at the City's discretion. If a tentative agreement is reached at that time, the voters would be the ultimate decisionmakers.

 

� If a decision is made to sell all or part of the B-6 Property, that decision would be made by the Authority, not forced by the City.

We believe that this approach would satisfy the FAA concerns, give the City the flexibility to encourage successful completion of the Part 161 Study, and allow the stakeholders to take a break in the ongoing dispute for the time being until the FAA has made a decision on the application for a curfew.

We should note that thus far, these matters have been discussed in Closed Session due to the clear threats of litigation from several parties and in an attempt to protect the legal position that the City has attained in past litigation battles. However, it was the expressed interest of the Council that significant discussion of these matters occur in open session with an opportunity for public awareness and input.

It is recommended that the Council discuss the various options before it and determine how to proceed with reference to the Airport and the FAA directive.

10. PROPOSED CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE:

Staff is recommending a proposed contract between the City of Burbank (Burbank) and the City of Los Angeles (Los Angeles) for wastewater treatment and discharge. After much negotiation with Los Angeles� staff, the Public Works Department has reached a mutually-acceptable agreement.

Burbank has had a contract with Los Angeles since 1927 for the disposal of wastewater. This contract was updated in 1944 and 1946 to include additional provisions, while maintaining the other existing terms of the 1927 contract. Los Angeles has disputed the 1927 contract and its amendments (collectively referred to as the "existing contract"), and both parties have made attempts to negotiate a new contract since the 1960s.

In 1999, Los Angeles reached agreement with a number of other cities and agencies that discharge wastewater into their system. This agreement came after years of litigation and negotiation between parties. The agreement included a 30-year contract known as the Universal Terms Contract, which replaced all of the agencies� previously held contracts. The discharging agencies and Los Angeles agreed that this Universal Terms Contract, which calculates each entity�s payment obligations for wastewater treatment services (including capital, operations, and maintenance costs) on both flow and strength, is a fair and equitable agreement and is consistent with the Clean Water Act requirements.

Each discharging entity agreed to this new contract, with the exception of Burbank and Glendale. Both Burbank, which owns and operates its own treatment facility, and Glendale, which owns 50 percent of a treatment facility, did not feel that the unique concerns of these cities were being addressed. In 1999, Los Angeles threatened to sue Burbank to recover the alleged $38,000,000 in past due amounts unless Burbank signed the Universal Terms Contract. Burbank�s concern at that point was that, although the universal terms part of the contract may be equitable, there were a number of items specific to Burbank ("below-the-line" terms) that were not addressed.

Burbank staff has negotiated with Los Angeles since 1999 on the proposed wastewater discharge contract. The proposed contract is compliant with the Clean Water Act and contains the same universal terms as other cities and agencies discharging into Los Angeles. The proposed contract also contains below-the-line terms specific to Burbank that take into account our unique concerns because of our own treatment facility.

Perhaps the most important issue that this proposed contract resolves is the one that was set aside at the outset of negotiations, the waiver of the $38 million claim against Burbank. Los Angeles based this claim on the alleged underpayments by Burbank from 1984 to 1999. The proposed contract waives this claim and resolves the decades of dispute between Burbank and Los Angeles on wastewater issues.

The Sewer Enterprise Fund covers all expenditures for wastewater treatment and discharge to Los Angeles. When the previous version of this contract was signed in 1999, sewer rates were increased by 5.47 percent each year for three years. This increase was required to recover what was then projected as $3.5 million in annual payments to Los Angeles.

The total cost to Burbank is now estimated at $4,500,000 a year. The potential cost to Burbank would have been much higher if the below-the-line terms were not successfully negotiated. Nevertheless, the anticipated increased costs will need to be offset by rate increases. The Finance Department has determined that the rate increases are necessary to maintain the Sewer Enterprise Fund at a proper financial level.

The sewer rate was lowered from $17.56 in 1995 to $10.90 in 1998. The rate increases being proposed will raise the sewer rate to $18.34 gradually over the next five years. Accounting for inflation, the proposed rates are in line with those in place in 1985. Residents have enjoyed a lower rate in the intervening years due to the prolonged negotiations with Los Angeles.

It should be noted that the charges from Los Angeles are not the only driver for the rate increases over the next five years. Upgrades at the Burbank Water Reclamation Plant, necessary due to regulatory requirements, are another significant cost to the Sewer Enterprise Fund. In fact, it is these increasingly stringent requirements that are causing the high cost of wastewater discharge to Los Angeles.

Although increases in sewer service charges are never desirable, the sewer service charge to Burbank residents is currently one of the lowest in the region. The future sewer rate increases facing Burbank residents will also be experienced by other agencies due to similar regulatory requirements. Burbank sewer rates should continue to be competitive with other cities in the region for years to come.

Staff recommends approval of the Universal Terms Contract with the negotiated below-the-line terms. Resolution of the contract dispute waives all claims from Los Angeles on past damages, alleged to be $38,000,000. It also puts Burbank and Los Angeles in full compliance with the Clean Water Act as it relates to payments made on flow and strength. Furthermore, the negotiated below-the-line terms effectively caps the amount of conveyance charges required by Burbank and retains capacity rights for discharges previously paid.

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURBANK AND THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES.

11. BURBANK WATER AND POWER WATER AND ELECTRIC MONTHLY OPERATION REPORT:

Staff has prepared the Burbank Water and Power (BWP) Water and Electric Monthly Report regarding water quality and power issues for March 2003.

Water quality during February met or exceeded State and Federal drinking water standards.

• Fiscal Year (FY) 2002-03 Year-To-Date Water Fund Financial Results as of February 28, 2003.

The following table shows the systemwide reliability statistics for FY 2001-02 compared to the first eight months of FY 2002-03.

• FY 2002-03 Power Financial Results (preliminary) as of February 28, 2003.