Council Agenda - City of Burbank

6:30 P.M.

INVOCATION: Chaplain Sally Kinarthy, Providence Saint Joseph Medical Center.

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

under the Constitution.

FLAG SALUTE: Sam Engel Sr., Burbank Noon Kiwanis Club.

ROLL CALL:

ANNOUNCEMENT: WEDNESDAY NIGHT PRIME TIME PROGRAMS.

ANNOUNCEMENT: PLANNING BOARD AND YOUTH ENDOWMENT SERVICES FUND ADVISORY COMMITTEE

VACANCIES.

PROCLAMATION: FLAG DAY.

RECOGNITION: FUTURE PROBLEM SOLVING YOUTH COMPETITION CHAMPIONS.

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 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, HOUSING AUTHORITY, PARKING AUTHORITY AND YOUTH ENDOWMENT SERVICES FUND BOARD:

The purpose of this report is to present the proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2003-04 Annual Budget, Citywide Fee Schedule, including an increase in the Transient Parking Tax, and Appropriations Limit to the Council, Redevelopment Agency, Housing Authority, Parking Authority, and Youth Endowment Services Fund Board for public hearing. The adoption of the FY 2003-04 Budget will be considered by the Council at the June 17, 2003 Council meeting.

The past several years have been trying times, not only from an emotional standpoint, but also from an economic one. Following the tragedy of September 11, 2001 the State and Federal economies began suffering tremendously, and this downturn has finally begun to see minimal signs of recovery. The war in Iraq also contributed to this economic uncertainty.

The State of California deficit for the FY 2003-04 Budget has grown to $38.2 billion and despite numerous attempts, the Legislature is experiencing an uphill battle in finding a compromise that will allow them to reach an acceptable approach to deal with the crisis. The Governor released the �May Revision� to his Proposed FY 2003-04 Budget which continues to propose an approximate $250 million cut in redevelopment funding with increasingly larger cuts every year for 15 years, ultimately raising to cuts totaling $1.2 billion. Excluding the expense of administration, the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) cost to Burbank�s Redevelopment Agency would increase from $912,120 (projected for FY 2002-03) to between $2.8 and $3.0 million in FY 2003-04 with 5.0 percent annual increases until the school share is removed from redevelopment agencies.

Additionally, the May Revision will impact the General Fund in the following areas: 1) Public Library Fund (PLF) - in conjunction with the proposed $15.8 million reduction in January and an additional $14.8 million reduction in May, $1 million will be remaining in the PLF. Based on this reduction, the City may receive only three percent of revenues received this year, or around $2,800; 2) Booking Fees - the proposed elimination of booking fees paid would amount to a $12,772 reduction in revenues; and, 3) State Mandates - the proposal recommends the suspension of 34 mandates, the repeal of one (Open Meetings Act which requires the posting of agendas), and the deferral of all other mandates. Although the City has not budgeted reimbursement payments for FY 2003-04, there is an actual real loss of revenues that the City has counted on for many years (approximately $227,000 annually). Of further concern in this area is the fact that the Administration intends to draft statutory language necessary to repeal 27 of the 34 mandates during the development of the FY 2004-05 Governor�s Budget.

The good news for local governments is that the Governor�s proposal includes the restoration of the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) to its 2.0 percent level by July 1^st and the elimination of the backfill with a net zero impact to local agencies. Although there could be a potential loss from a gap in July and August during the transition from backfill to increased VLF payments due to a lag time of 60 to 90 days, the California Department of Finance has stated their intent to ensure that local agencies do not lose any VLF revenue.

Amidst the State�s budget problems, it is important to understand that Burbank is also experiencing increased recurring expenditures coupled with declining revenues which has caused the 2003-04 fiscal year to be grappled with a significant projected recurring budget deficit. As has been disclosed to the Council in the Five-Year Financial Forecast, with FY 2003-04 the City is beginning the first of some extremely difficult financial years.

It is with this in mind that staff has worked diligently over the past few months to develop a balanced approach to address the long-term structural problem that the City is now faced with. The proposed recurring deficit for FY 2003-04 was originally projected to be approximately $9.5 million and does not include any potential hits from the State. A deficit this large is extremely intimidating, and will no doubt have a negative impact on the delivery of services and programs, and most importantly on employees. As the Executive Team began contemplating the types of reductions that would need to be made this year and over the next five years, it became abundantly clear that there was no way that within a few months the best answer to an on-going problem would be found. As such, the Executives held a number of healthy deliberations, beginning in January and through working side by side as a team reached a compromise on a reasonable way to reduce costs and balance the budget.

Although this approach may not meet the true �spirit� of the City�s financial policies because it proposes the use of one-time money to meet a recurring deficit problem, it does close the gap for this fiscal year. More importantly however, it buys time for the Executives to re-group following the adoption of the FY 2003-04 Budget, and begin the process of developing and producing a strategic plan that will help the City effectuate reasonable and prudent changes to the way business is currently conducted. This process will be all-encompassing in that the Executives will work with the unions to ensure that all avenues are explored and that together the City�s future is contemplated and determined. This strategy will include among many ideas, finding efficiencies in our own business practices while also looking to regional synergy and efficiencies to reduce our on-going costs.

In recognizing that a long-term financial strategic plan must be created, it must also be understood that in the absence of a plan, a balanced budget still needed to be presented to the Council for FY 2003-04. Before any appropriation reductions were achieved by the General Fund departments, the Executives agreed on some basic principles that would drive the budget process for FY 2003-04 and beyond. These principles include: maintaining critical City services with little or no impact; minimally impacting the community by avoiding, where possible, elimination of key programs, and maintaining affordable service fees through reasonable recommended increases; assuring that the City pays market based salaries especially in light of the fact that reductions typically mean doing more with less; not impacting programs that pay for themselves; and, achieving durable reductions to address the structural deficit in FY 2003-04 and into the future.

In light of the Executives� principles and the structural deficit facing the City, it was determined that each department would attempt to identify durable reductions and reasonable and fair increases in fees that would provide for an overall 10 percent reduction. For the most part, each General Fund department achieved or came close to achieving a 10 percent reduction through actual cuts in personnel, materials, supplies and services, and programs as well as fee increases. Making these cuts was not easy and each department will be impacted, some more than others, but each is doing its part to address the deficit.

The Council has spent a great deal of time reviewing the FY 2003-04 Proposed Budget. Due to the unfortunate need to make such large reductions this year, an initial Budget Study Session was held on April 9, 2003. This Study Session assisted staff greatly in that the Council gave specific direction on the reductions and fee schedule increases that were being proposed and also requested staff to conduct research on certain areas of concern so that they could be well informed when the time came for final decisions to be made.

The Council was presented with the Proposed Budget on May 1, 2003. Subsequently, Budget Study Sessions were held on May 6, May 20, and May 22, 2003.

The FY 2003-04 Budget, as proposed for Council consideration, includes a total recurring General Fund revenue growth of 2.0 percent versus a recurring expenditure growth of 2.5 percent.

Sales Tax continues to be the largest source of General Fund revenue. For FY 2003-04, Sales Tax is expected to grow at a net 2.2 percent growth rate, accounting for a full year of operation of the Burbank Empire Center, plus anticipated growth in overall collections.

Property Taxes are estimated to increase by 5.5 percent over FY 2002-03. This increase is due to the City�s anticipated growth in assessed valuation related to FY 2003-04.

Utility Users Tax (UUT) was re-estimated downward at the FY 2002-03 mid-year due to the following factors: Cellular telephone UUT revenues continue to increase due to the trend away from traditional telephone usage to cellular, and, UUT revenues from local and long distance phone services continue to decrease while electric UUT revenues continue to under perform budgetary estimates due to another cool summer. However, recent enforcement action related to cellular phone UUT by the City is projected to increase the cellular portion of the UUT, and as such, for FY 2003-04 this revenue category is projected to increase by approximately 4.8 percent over FY 2002-03.

Interest/Use of Money continues to decline due to the interest rates, thus, this revenue category is expected to continue experiencing a significant decrease for FY 2003-04.

Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) had declined by 6.2 percent even before the events of September 11, 2001. Although Burbank is fortunate to have several new hotels come on line in the past year, the TOT revenues are still lagging behind budget estimates. At this point it is projected to increase by 4.3 percent over FY 2002-03.

Transient Parking Tax (TPT) has been a somewhat consistent revenue for the City over the past few years. However, although a new parking lot opened this past fiscal year near the Airport, with the Airport decreasing their daily rates to $5, the revenues are projected to decrease. As part of the City Fee Schedule, staff is recommending the Council take action to increase the TPT to 12 percent. This action, if approved by the Council, will only cause the revenue to be decreased by $100,000.

The expenditure growth assumes (in addition to approximately $9.5 million in reductions) the following costs:

Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) Costs - Like many agencies, for many years, the City was superfunded in PERS and as a result did not have to pay the actual employer rates and was able to use the budgetary savings for other City expenditures. However, with the downturn of the market and the economy in general as well as the enhanced retirement packages offered to the bargaining groups, the City, along with many other agencies, has lost its superfunded status for miscellaneous employees in FY 2004-05, and thus will again be required to pay PERS the actual employer rates. It is anticipated to cost the City $2.48 million in additional PERS costs for FY 2003-04 and an additional $2.15 million in FY 2004-05.

Memorandum of Understanding Projected Costs - Three of the bargaining units have agreements in place for FY 2003-04. The BPOA calls for an increase of 3.5 percent based on the April CPI, and the BFFA and BFFCOU call for a 3.0 to 5.0 percent increase based on survey. Based on staff�s estimate of where the survey will be, the approximate cost of these already negotiated MOU�s along with the remaining bargaining agreements to be negotiated next year is estimated to cost approximately $3.178 million.

Internal Service Funds (ISF) - The General Liability and Workers Compensation Self-Insurance Funds increased by $1,350,070 due to an increase in both the insurance costs and claims, the Communications Replacement Fund increased by $314,000 to provide sufficient funding to replace radios Citywide over a five or more year period, and the Computer Equipment Replacement Fund had a net increase of $103,000.

With the budget parameters, costs, and revenues in mind, the chart below is the proposed source of funds and appropriations for each fund or fund type for the FY 2003-04 Budget:

*Resources represent the total sources available to each fund, such as taxes, fees, charges, sales, interest, use of fund balance (from bond proceeds, depreciation, and available retained earnings) and includes changes disclosed in the addendums to the Proposed Budget.

** The General Fund variance between proposed sources and appropriations is a result of the following: the inclusion of the 1) use of reserves (Utilities Users Taxes, BWP In-Lieu and related interest earnings) previously designated for BWP competitiveness and set-aside in the General Fund and 2) yet to be settled contracts with several bargaining groups.

The primary purpose of the Citywide Fee Schedule is to provide a one-stop listing of all City fees, charges, and rates. The Fee Schedule is reviewed and updated annually as part of the budget process in an effort to document all of the fees that have been revised or changed during the fiscal year.

As was previously discussed, there was a conscious effort made to review all of the City�s fees, charges and rates due to the significant budget reduction facing the City. It was agreed that making reductions in costs alone would not be the most prudent course of action, as many more services, programs and employees would no doubt have been affected. Thus, each department that has fees, charges and rates, spent a great deal of time researching the current rates, identifying areas of concern, and conducting surveys of other cities to ascertain a fair and reasonable charge. In addition, some departments were able to identify new fees that were being charged by surrounding communities that made sense for Burbank to consider.

Although there are a number of changes, the following are the more significant fee changes being proposed.

Until recently the TPT has been a stable revenue stream for the City since its inception in 1996. Since its implementation, it has represented approximately 1.9 to 2.0 percent of total General Fund revenues. On an annual basis the City has received approximately $2.04 million in TPT revenues. The only significant drop in this revenue occurred in FY 2001-02 and that could in large part be attributed to the September 11, 2001 tragedy at which time the City collected $1.87 million.

Recently, two significant things have occurred related to the TPT: a new parking lot opened near the Airport and the Airport reduced their daily rate to $5. While the new lot will most likely have a positive impact on the revenue, the decrease in the rates by the Airport has had a significant negative impact on this revenue. Based on current receipts, it is anticipated that the TPT revenues for FY 2003-04 will decrease by approximately $400,000.

Even before the Airport rates decreased, staff was looking for creative ways to increase the City�s revenues to address the projected budget deficit. Increasing the TPT was one way that was suggested by staff.

Following a lengthy analysis of the TPT, including a survey of the rates charged by other cities (November 26, 2002 report included as Attachment 4), the Council approved placing a ballot measure on the General Election for the citizenry to consider increasing the TPT. At the April 8, 2003 General Election, the voters of Burbank approved the ballot measure which allows the City Council to increase the City�s existing TPT from the current rate of 10 percent up to a maximum of 12 percent, after a public hearing on the matter.

In light of the City�s current financial condition, and the fact that there are very few opportunities for the City to effectuate a positive change in a revenue source, staff is recommending that the Council take public comment on the matter at the June 10, 2003 hearing as required by the ballot measure, and ultimately take action at the June 17, 2003 meeting to approve an increase in the TPT from 10 to 12 percent. It is estimated that this increase will provide for the TPT revenue for FY 2003-04 to be decreased by $100,000 instead of $400,000. It is important to note that all of the owner/operators of parking lots subject to the TPT have been notified of this public hearing.

This is the second year of a five-year smooth ramp-up of a water rate increase, which averages 4.8 percent a year.

Following an extensive analysis of the City�s Sewer Fund cash flow, it was determined that the monthly sewer service charge needed to be increased from $12.89 to $13.99 for a single-family residential household. Other increases are proposed for manure accounts, multi-family residential etc. It is estimated that an approximate $1.10 annual increase will be necessary from FYs 2004-05 through 2007-08.

The street sweeping program, currently funded by the General Fund, will be shifted to the Refuse Fund to comply with the City�s stormwater permit for trash and litter control on City streets. The $.043 charged for this service on the utility bill will be rolled into the refuse rate and charged on a per trash volume basis.

It is recommended that the existing film permit fee be increased from $200 to $300. Additionally, a new street/sidewalk use fee for film permits is recommended at $200. These proposed fees will still allow the City to have its filming fees among the very lowest of the comparison cities, while at the same time providing a more reasonable revenue stream for the City.

The fees for dogs previously altered are proposed to increase from $15 to $25. The fee for dogs altered by the City are proposed to increase from $45 to $60. It is important to note that the City currently subsidizes at least $10 of previously altered dog adoptions, and at least $30 of dogs altered by the City adoptions. Further, these proposed fee increases still keep Burbank�s fees $5 lower than the average of surrounding jurisdictions.

The monthly parking permit fee is proposed to be ramped up over the next three years. It is proposed that the rate increase from $20 to $24 in FY 2003-04, and increase $4 in FY�s 2004-05 and 2005-06. From surveys performed, staff has found that the full $32 rate is still lower than the fees charged by other cities.

The City is required by State law to establish an appropriation limit each fiscal year. Only those revenues received from proceeds of taxes are subject to this limit. This means that only certain revenues from funds such as the General Fund and Propositions A & C Transportation Funds are subject to the appropriation limit. All other funds that fall under the Council�s control (i.e. Redevelopment Agency and Enterprise Funds) are exempt from this limitation. The Agency is statutorily exempt and Enterprise Funds receive their funds through service charges, not general taxes.

The City�s FY 2003-04 appropriation limit is estimated to be $116,607,407. The actual amount of the appropriations contained in the budget that is subject to the limit is $86,174,216. The difference between the City�s appropriation limit and the amount subject to it is $30,433,191. As a result, the City has a significant gap between its legal limit and the actual appropriations subject to the limit.

Heading in to the 2003-04 Fiscal Year, the City was faced with an intimidating $9.5 million deficit. This problem, in addition to the implications of the State�s budget deficit of $38.2 billion, provided for a significant challenge for the City to work through.

City staff, along with the Council through the Budget Study Sessions, has developed a balanced budget for FY 2003-04. As was previously discussed, the budget development was based on some guiding principles agreed to by the Executive Team. While it is true that these principles have caused the City to balance its budget using non-recurring dollars, after reducing approximately $9.5 million from the budget and increasing fees reasonably and fairly, it has become apparent that this is the most prudent course of action for the City to take.

After all reductions have been made, and the proposed revenue from the fee increases have been accounted for in addition to the other adjustments made to the appropriations and revenues, it is projected that the City will need to use $1,347,882 from the BWP set-aside to balance the FY 2003-04 Budget. With this use of funds, there is still projected to be $7 million in the BWP set-aside holding account on June 30, 2004.

The adoption of the Budget sets the initial appropriations for the new fiscal year. Appropriations have been balanced against estimated revenue and other sources of funding, such as reserves or bond proceeds and are in compliance with the Council�s adopted financial policies.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council/Redevelopment Agency/Housing Authority/Parking Authority/Youth Endowment Services Fund Board conduct the public hearing on the Proposed Fiscal Year 2003-04 Annual Budget, Citywide Fee Schedule, Transient Parking Tax increase, and Appropriations Limit. Staff will incorporate any City Council direction into the Budget resolutions that will be presented to the Council on June 17, 2003 for final adoption.

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.

RECESS for the Parking Authority and Youth Endowment Services Fund Board meetings.

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.

Approval of minutes for the regular meetings of March 25, April 1 and April 8, 2003.

Staff is requesting Council approval to move forward with a three-year license agreement with Thomas Bros. Maps. The City has been working with Thomas Bros. Maps for years to acquire Los Angeles County area data to help staff generate Geographical Information Systems (GIS) based maps. Thomas Bros. Maps� digital database contains 15 different GIS mapping layers, upgraded annually, and offers the high standards of quality and digital accuracy that the City has become dependent upon. The current agreement with Thomas Bros. Maps has expired and staff has evaluated various renewal options and recommends proceeding with a three-year agreement rather than a year-to-year agreement which will result in a $6,000 savings over the three-year term. The money for the renewal is appropriated in the Information Technology Department Fiscal Year 2002-03 operating budget.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING THE DATABASE LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURBANK AND THOMAS BROS. MAPS.

The proposed amendments will revise the specification for the classification of Senior Civil Engineer/Burbank Water and Power (CTC No. 0768). These revisions will allow applicants to be better prepared for the specialized duties and requirements of this classification. The revisions will also address the current demands of the department and give the flexibility needed to recruit qualified management candidates in a highly specialized field. There is no fiscal impact from these revisions.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK REVISING THE SPECIFICATION OF SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER/BWP (CTC NO. 0768).

The purpose of this staff report is to bring back, at the Council�s request, the Burbank Sister City Committee�s proposal to use the remaining appropriated Close-Up Program funds of $10,000 to send Burbank exchange students over the next six years to Ota, Japan. The Council has indicated that they would like the money to be used to ensure that deserving students who cannot financially afford the trip be assisted.

Each year the Council allocates $20,000 in the budget to send Burbank students to Washington, D.C. as part of the Close-Up Program. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2001-02, no students were sent on this trip due to safety concerns following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack. As a result, that additional $20,000 was carried over to this fiscal year.

At the January 14, 2003 Council meeting, the Council allocated $30,000 from the $40,000 total to the Close-Up Program to send students on the annual Close-up trip to Washington, D.C. At that time Council Member Ramos suggested that the Council consider allocating the remaining $10,000 to the Sister City Committee, providing $10,000 for the summer 2003 student visit to Ota will buy airfare for 12 students.

At the February 4, 2003 meeting, the Council directed staff to bring back for consideration Council Member Ramos� suggestion to use the $10,000 to assist the Sister City student exchange program. On April 15, 2003, staff returned with that request to the Council. Council Member Ramos pointed out that youth programs like the Sister City Student Exchange are a priority to mold future national ambassadors. She also expressed concern that deserving students might not be able to participate in the program due to financial inability. After discussion by the Council Members, staff was asked to return with a proposal on how to best use the remaining appropriated Close-Up Program funds of $10,000 to send Burbank exchange students over the next six years to Ota, Japan.

On April 28, 2003, a Sister City Subcommittee was formed to discuss the best way to use the proposed $10,000 that would benefit the most students while ensuring that less fortunate students could also participate in the program. After much discussion, the Sister City Subcommittee made the following recommendations:

The unappropriated Close-Up Program funding is currently available in Council expense account No. 001-CL01A-62015 and if approved, $10,000 can be transferred to Library Services account No. 001-LB01A-62690.

It is staff�s recommendation that the Council approve $10,000 from the remaining Close-Up Program Funds to the Sister City Committee to establish scholarships to assist qualified Burbank students with demonstrated financial need to pay airfare for the Burbank Sister City Student Exchange with Ota, Japan.

Council Member Golonski requested the Council discuss the use of City of Burbank Police Officers at the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport.

Following the events of September 11, 2001, the Airport was mandated to upgrade its police force. At the outset, this was accomplished by adding police officers from other agencies, including Burbank, on an overtime basis. The reliance on these additional officers has been gradually reduced as the Airport has increased the numbers and expertise of its own force.

The Airport is also involved in a dispute with the owner of the neighboring parking lot. Whether or not part of that dispute, the Airport removed the previously marked crosswalk at the corner of the private parking lot crossing the perimeter road, and installed a �no crossing� sign. Tickets have apparently been issued to pedestrians who continue to cross at this location, contrary to the �no crossing� sign.

The initial issue is whether Burbank Police Officers are employed in the issuance of these tickets. There is no information suggesting that Burbank Police Officers are performing this function.

It is recommended that Council discuss this item, provide direction, and take the appropriate action.

The Burbank Water and Power (BWP) Financial Reserves Policy is designed to set overall reserve levels that are reasonable, defensible, and consistent with the aggregate risk profile that BWP faces as a municipal utility. Appropriate reserve levels will mitigate risk while promoting long-term fiscal and rate stability.

Electric System

Recommended Electric System Reserves:

The Financial Reserves Policy for the electric system comprises the following four reserves:

Recommended Electric System Reserve Levels:

In conjunction with the establishment of the above four reserves, the Financial Reserves Policy recommends funding the reserves at the following levels and in the following order:

The Financial Reserves Policy proposes funding from the following three sources:

The Financial Reserves Policy recommends that BWP establish a priority of funding for the reserves from existing and future sources. In all cases, all sources of funds, including future additional net wholesale revenues, would be applied as follows:

2. To meet the recommended level of reserves in the Debt Reduction and Capital Funding Reserve;

3. To meet the minimum level of reserves in the FRR and General Plant Reserve; and,

4. To meet the recommended level of reserves in the FRR and General Plant Reserve.

Based on this priority and once each recommended level has been achieved, future sources of funds would be applied to the Debt Reduction and Capital Funding Reserve.

Recommended Water System Reserves:

The Financial Reserves Policy for the water system comprises the following two reserves:

Recommended Water System Reserve Levels:

In conjunction with the establishment of the two reserves above, the Financial Reserves Policy recommends funding the reserves at the following levels:

Funding Sources for Water System

The Financial Reserves Policy proposes funding from the following three sources:

Staff recommends that the Council adopt BWP�s Financial Reserves Policy for recommended reserve levels and funding strategies as discussed in the staff report.

The Ralph M. Brown Act acknowledges the right and necessity of occasionally removing persons from Council meetings for disturbing the meeting (�54957.9). Although rarely used, the Council has adopted such rules to assure the ability to conduct the business of the people of the City. As currently written, Burbank Municipal Code Sec. 2-217(a) provides:

�. . . For the purpose of maintaining order and decorum at any such meeting, the Sergeant-at-Arms shall carry out all orders and instructions given by the Presiding Officer, and shall enforce all laws, statutes and ordinances of any governmental agency applicable to such meeting. Upon instructions of the Presiding Officer, or as deemed necessary by the Sergeant-at-Arms to maintain the order and decorum of the meeting, it shall be the duty of the Sergeant-at-Arms, or any of the members of the Police Department present, to remove any person who violates the order and decorum of any such meeting or who violates any law, from the building, or to place any such person under arrest, issue a citation, and/or refer the matter to the City Prosecutor.�

Staff has reviewed these rules from time to time and noted a gap in the regulations. If a person is removed from a meeting for causing a disturbance, it is highly likely that this person would be angry at the removal, or whatever prompted the removal, or both. Although removal from the building would solve the immediate problem of disturbing the meeting, an angry person can certainly be expected to wait until the conclusion of the meeting to confront members of the Council, board or commission to continue to express his or her disagreement. Since such meetings are generally held at night, it raises serious issues of safety for such members to walk to their cars in the dark with the possibility of a very angry member of the public approaching them. Violence would not be out of the realm of possibility.

As a result staff has prepared an amendment that would provide that when such individuals are removed from the meeting, they must leave not only the building, but the public property on which the meeting is held. This would include the adjacent parking lots. In addition, they may not return for three hours after the meeting is adjourned. This provides the needed protection for the volunteer members of such boards and commissions, and still allows the subject individual to return to conduct business with the City when he or she has had an opportunity to calm down.

Staff has also revised, and subdivided, the present language in BMC Sec. 2-216 and Sec. 2-217 to make it clearer and more readable, but without changing the intent.

Introduction of proposed ordinance entitled: (motion and voice vote only required)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING ARTICLE 2, CHAPTER 2, SECTIONS 2-216 AND 2-217 OF THE BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO DECORUM AND ENFORCEMENT OF DECORUM AT MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.

RECONVENE the Redevelopment Agency, Housing Authority, Parking Authority 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.