6:30 P.M.

 

 

INVOCATION:                                   Reverend Roby Correa, Magnolia Park United Methodist Church.

                                                           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:             DARK MEETING ON AUGUST 5, 2003.

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.      PROPERTY-BASED BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (PBID) � DOWNTOWN BURBANK:

 

The purpose of this agenda item is for the City of Burbank to continue procedures and finalize proceedings on the proposed Property-Based Business Improvement District (PBID), and authorize the opening of ballots. If, upon the conclusion of the hearing, the submitted ballots, which shall be weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property, in favor of the assessment exceed the ballots submitted in opposition, then the Council can adopt the resolution establishing the PBID and levying the first assessment. The City shall not impose an assessment if there is a majority protest. A majority protest exists if, upon the conclusion of the hearing, ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment exceed the ballots submitted in favor of the assessment. The purpose of the PBID is to provide special services and improvements to enhance and revitalize Downtown Burbank.

 

On June 3, 2003, the Council considered initiation of the proposed PBID after receiving a petition representing over 50 percent of the property owners (weighted by the proposed assessment) in support of the proposed PBID.  At that time, the Council authorized the distribution of ballots to the property owners who would be subject to the assessment.  This action was the result of several months of developing a Management District Plan (Plan) in conjunction with various stakeholders in the Downtown, including property and business owners, the Stakeholder�s Association, and a PBID Steering Committee.

 

The Plan outlines major components of the PBID including: the proposed boundaries; service plan and budget; the proposed assessment formula; and, the proposed governance of the organization.  The Plan proposes a number of capital improvements as well as service programs such as maintenance, promotions and administration.  The Plan also proposes a five-year budget, which is the maximum length that a PBID may be established, before reestablishment.  The following summarizes the budget on an annual basis:

 

   CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

               Smart Parking                                                                      $  60,000

               Wayfinding                                                                            $  60,000

               Street/Paseo Upgrades & Holiday Decorations              $120,000

 

   MAINTENANCE/SECURITY                                                           $110,000

 

   PROMOTIONS, ADVERTISING, EVENTS, ETC.                        $250,000

 

   ADMINISTRATION and ADVOCACY                                            $  95,000

 

   CONTINGENCY RESERVE                                                           $  35,000

               TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET                                              $730,000

 

The proposed assessment is $.16 per square foot of land per year, and $2 per linear front footage along San Fernando Boulevard south of Magnolia Boulevard.  For example, an owner with a 10,000 square foot parcel and 50 feet of front footage on San Fernando Boulevard would pay $1,600 (land), and $100 front footage, for a total of $1,700 per year.

 

The City, Redevelopment Agency (Agency) and other government jurisdictions will be assessed at the same $.16 formula.  However, it is recommended that the Agency fund the assessment costs for both the City and the Burbank Unified School District. The City�s annual assessment is estimated to be $81,100, and the School District�s assessment is approximately $6,700 per year.  With the Agency�s assessment of $35,200, the total annual cost to the Agency would therefore be approximately $123,000.

 

If the Council approves the formation of the PBID, it is recommended that staff be directed to solicit applications for the proposed PBID Board of Directors.  Once sufficient applications are received, staff will return to the Council for the selection of the Board.

 

Recommendation:

 

1.  Adoption of proposed City Council resolutions entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK ESTABLISHING THE DOWNTOWN BURBANK PROPERTY AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, APPROVING THE ASSESSMENT FORMULA AND LEVYING THE ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-04.

 

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING A COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURBANK AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BURBANK.

 

2.  Adoption of proposed Redevelopment Agency resolution entitled:  

A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING A COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND THE CITY OF BURBANK AND A COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

 

 

AIRPORT AUTHORITY MEETING REPORT:

 

2.      AIRPORT AUTHORITY COMMISSIONER REPORT:

 

At the request of the Burbank representatives to the Airport Authority, an oral report will be made to the City Council following each meeting of the Authority.

 

The main focus of this report will be issues which were on the Airport Authority meeting agenda of July 21, 2003.  Other Airport related issues may also be discussed during this presentation.

 

Recommendation:

 

Receive report.

 

 

INITIAL OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:  (Two minutes 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 Oral Communications.  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.

 

Initial Open Public Comment 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 two minutes.

 

Agenda Item 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.

 

Final Open Public Comment 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 Initial Open Public Comment 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 two 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 INITIAL OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:

 

 

AGENDA ITEM ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:  (Four minutes on Agenda items only.)

 

COUNCIL AND STAFF RESPONSE TO AGENDA ITEM ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:

 

 

RECESS for the Redevelopment Agency meeting.

 

RECONVENE for the City Council meeting.

 

 

REPORTS TO COUNCIL:

 

3.      APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS  WITH KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. AND WITH TRANSPORTATION AND ENERGY SOLUTIONS, INC. FOR DESIGN SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SAN FERNANDO INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PROJECT:

 

Staff requests Council approval of Professional Service Agreements (PSAs) with Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) for design and integration services and with Transportation and Energy Solutions, Inc. (TES) for design and planning services for the San Fernando Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) project.  The KHA portion of the design project is $266,500, and the TES component is $247,000, for a total design cost of $513,500.

 

The cities of Glendale and Burbank applied to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) in 1999 for a grant to maximize the operational capacity and efficiency of the surface street network adjacent to Interstate 5 (I-5) in the two communities.  The grant application specified the City of Glendale as the lead agency for the project.  The Council approved a formal agreement between the City of Glendale and the City of Burbank on April 2, 2002 to finalize the grant submittal.

 

The grant project includes the development of a traffic management system deployment plan that includes:

 

�         Coordination of traffic signals on major corridors adjacent to I-5;

�         Development of dynamic traffic signal timing plans for the corridors;

�         Seamless traffic signal coordination between Glendale and Burbank;

�         Completion of a regional communications network; and,

�         Improved safety of at-grade Metrolink crossings.

 

The City of Glendale completed a thorough evaluation of five engineering design firms to select KHA to complete the planning and design of their portion of the project, and a Burbank staff member participated in the selection process so that the same design team could be used for both parts of the project.  The KHA design team also included Meyer, Mohaddes and Associates for system planning and integration, and this firm will perform the same tasks for Burbank.

 

TES was selected to complete design and planning work in conjunction with the other firms.  TES successfully completed similar work for the Media District ITS project, for which we are currently soliciting bids.  TES is a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE), registered with the State of California, and has extensive experience with the planning and design of ITS systems.  The selected firms have collaborated on past projects.

 

The breakdown of work is as follows:

 

         Kimley Horn and Associates:             Design of Fiber Communications        $ 122,400

                                                                        Design of DMS Signs                            $   55,000

         Meyer Mohaddes Associates            ITS Planning/ Integration                        $   89,100

         TES                                                       Management and Work Review            $   31,000

                                                                        Fiber Allocation, TMC Equipment         $   99,000

                                                                        Design of CCTV and Detection            $   68,000

                                                                        Construction Support                              $   24,000

                                                                        Fiber Management Software                 $   25,000

 

           TOTAL DESIGN COST                                                                                       $  513,500

 

The total estimated cost for the San Fernando ITS project is $7,114,000, with $4,730,000 allocated to Burbank and $2,681,000 allocated to Glendale.  The division of the grant funds is based on the specific traffic control facilities in each community.  Burbank will receive a total of $3,684,000 from Los Angeles County Proposition C grant funds administered by LACMTA (80 percent of the total project costs).  The required local match from Burbank is $1,046,000.  These funds were set aside for this purpose in the Fiscal Year 2002-03 budget.  The total Burbank project allocation of $4,730,000 includes $4,216,500 for construction and $513,500 for design, which covers the PSAs with KHA and TES.  Construction engineering and project management tasks will be performed by City of Burbank staff as an in-kind contribution to the project.  The in-kind City contribution is estimated at $110,000.

 

Recommendation:

 

Adoption of proposed resolutions entitled:

1.  A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURBANK AND KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

2.  A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURBANK AND TRANSPORTATION & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, INC.

 

 

4.      FIXED GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE DELIVERY METHOD FOR THE ROBERT R. OVROM PARK PROJECT AND THE DEBELL CLUBHOUSE REPLACEMENT PROJECT:

 

Staff is requesting Council authorization to 1) adopt a Fixed Fee, Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) delivery method as an alternative to the traditional Design-Bid Build (DBB) delivery method; and, 2) advertise for Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) for construction management services for the Robert R. Ovrom Park Project and the DeBell Clubhouse Replacement Project. 

 

The City has historically used a DBB delivery method for its capital improvement projects.  This methodology follows the sequential process of designing a project based on specific program needs, competitively bidding completed construction documents, and executing a construction contract with the lowest responsible bidder to build the project.  

 

More recently, hybrid delivery methods have evolved driven by the need to improve project delivery within the constraints of budget and schedule.  In a move to enhance project delivery strategies and improve the City�s protection against project cost overruns and schedule delays, Burbank Municipal Code Section 9-101(g) was amended on August 1, 2000 to allow the Council to approve alternate methods of securing project services when it is in the City�s best interest.  The City adopted alternative delivery strategies for the �Capon Project� (formerly known as the �Verdugo Switching Station Project�) and the Buena Vista Branch Library & Lincoln Park Project. The City also adopted a GMP delivery method for the Development and Community Services Building Project. 

 

The Robert R. Ovrom Park Project and the DeBell Clubhouse Replacement Project are important and critical public facilities that deserve the best project team that can be assembled, within financial constraints, to ensure that these projects meet their goal of providing quality design on schedule and within budget.  Given the size, type and complexity of these projects and some of the inherent challenges of DBB, the City�s interest would be best served by a Fixed Fee, GMP delivery strategy. 

 

GMP Overview

 

Many public agencies, owners and developers object to not knowing a project�s final and actual cost until construction is completed and the occupants have moved in.   The traditional DBB delivery method followed by most public agencies relies on a lump sum, lowest responsible bidder approach.  Although this delivery method identifies the project�s construction cost and completion date prior to construction commencement, it does not necessarily guarantee either.

 

Under a Fixed Fee, GMP strategy the:

• Construction Manager at Risk (CM at Risk � typically a General Contractor (GC)) guarantees project delivery in accordance with the construction documents and within a specified cost and timeframe before construction begins. 

• GC is typically selected by GMP contract negotiation including a Request for Qualifications, Request for Proposal, and interview process.

• All subcontractor trades are competitively bid.

• GC receives a negotiated Fixed Fee for its services.

• GC pays for costs in excess of GMP either out of its fee or its pocket.

• Project savings are returned to owner or may be shared with GC as a project performance incentive.

The GMP is generally developed as a continually refining process and collaborative effort between an owner, architectural-engineering firm (A-E firm), and GC as a project approaches completion.  A GMP can be developed and approved by the owner at various construction document completion stages and/or for separate construction phases.  For example, a GMP can be developed for 70 percent complete construction documents. The owner�s advantage under this scenario is that construction can commence prior to completion of the construction documents and is a similar approach employed for fast-track projects.

 

Separate GMPs can also be developed for the Core & Shell (C&S) and Tenant Improvement (T.I.) construction phases.  This approach also facilitates a project�s completion schedule by allowing construction to start on the C&S component although design for the T.I. component has not been completed.   A primary advantage provided by this scenario is that a project�s duration is shortened by overlapping portions of the design and construction effort versus performing these phases in series.  A GMP delivery strategy has the advantage of flexibility in its programming and execution over the sequential process for DBB.

 

Benefits of a Fixed Fee, GMP Contract

 

The benefits of a Fixed Fee, GMP contract include:

1. The CM at Risk is closely aligned with the City and A-E firm, resulting in a proactive rather than a reactive management approach.

2. The City has increased control over cost development.

3. The project�s construction cost is known in advance of construction commencement and guaranteed not to exceed that amount. 

4. The project schedule is known in advance and guaranteed.

5. The cost exposure inherent in lump sum contracts is mitigated.

6. The GMP represents the most refined and applicable Engineer�s Estimate

7. The City is ensured of enhanced project design, cost control, and management delivery. 

While the GMP process provides these benefits, it also requires early and more active involvement by the City and requires in-house or hired expertise.  This does represent an �added-value� soft cost for the project however.

 

RFQ/RFP Implementation

 

Staff recommends that the City retain a CM at Risk for the Robert R. Ovrom Park Project and the DeBell Clubhouse Replacement Project using the following Request for Qualifications (RFQ)/Request for Proposal (RFP) process:

 

         Step 1:  Time to complete � 90 days

1.      Develop qualification criteria and objective selection requirements for inclusion in the RFQ.

2.      Publicly advertise the RFQ.

3.      Score submitted RFQs using pre-established scoring system to objectively identify qualified list of GCs.

 

         Step 2:  Time to complete � 45 days

1.      Issue RFP to qualified contractors only.

2.      Review submitted RFPs and identify GC shortlist for interviews.

3.      Interview, select, and execute contract with GC.

 

         Step 3:  Time to complete � 120 days

1.      Develop GMP based on subcontractor bidding process and submit to City Council for approval.

2.      Assign subcontractor awards to GC.

3.      Commence construction.

 

The RFQ/RFP process benefits the City by:

 

1.      Screening potential GCs who are not qualified without imposing undue costs for subsequent proposal efforts.

2.      Mitigating potential legal claims filed by GCs the City deems unqualified.

3.      Resulting in a more consistent group of qualified GCs and establishing a �level playing field� while retaining competitive

         benefits.

 

The RFQ/RFP process recommended by staff in this report has been adopted by numerous state agencies and public entities and is the normal procedure in the private sector. 

 

There is no additional fiscal impact if the City Council approves the GMP delivery method recommended by staff.  The Robert R. Ovrom Park Project and the DeBell Clubhouse Replacement Project will remain within the project budgets that will be approved by the Council at a later date. 

 

Recommendation:

 

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK ADOPTING A FIXED FEE, GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE (GMP) PROJECT DELIVERY METHOD AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ADVERTISE FOR STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS (SOQ) FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE ROBERT R. OVROM PARK PROJECT AND THE DEBELL CLUBHOUSE REPLACEMENT PROJECT.

 

 

5.      CITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LAND USE:

 

Community Development Department planning staff is in the process of preparing an updated General Plan Land Use Element.  Over the past year and a half, staff has worked on gathering    information and public input as the basis for the Land Use Element update.  In April 2003, staff presented to the Council a report, entitled Burbank Vision (Vision), summarizing the community input to guide future development in Burbank.  Following the Council�s endorsement of the Vision, staff has been working on implementing the Vision in terms of the City�s land use.

        

The Council is being asked to appoint a two-person subcommittee to work with  planning staff on the updating of the General Plan Land Use Element.  Staff feels that it would be most effective to work with a Council subcommittee on the variety of land use issues being considered.  It is envisioned that the subcommittee would share information with the other Council members and give preliminary input to planning staff.  Any major issues would be brought back to the full Council.  Once a draft of the updated Land Use Element is completed, staff will solicit local community input.  Working with a subcommittee would ensure that the Council is aware of what is being considered in the updating of the Land Use Element so that when staff takes the draft Plan out into the community for input, the Council is aware of the ideas and information being shared.  The draft will then be presented to the Planning Board and the Council with careful documentation of the community input.

 

Recommendation:

 

Staff recommends that the Council appoint a two-person Land Use Element Subcommittee to work with planning staff on land use decisions and to update the Council as appropriate.

 

 

6.      LOCAL TOBACCO RETAILERS LICENSING:

 

At the regular Council meeting of June 3, 2003, a representative for Tobacco Education/Prevention from the Valley Community Clinic requested the Council to consider adopting an ordinance which would require tobacco retailers to secure a City of Burbank �Tobacco Retailers License.�  Council asked staff to research this matter and return at a later date with information concerning this issue.  The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with the information they requested.

 

Tobacco Retailers Licensing is designed to create a local regulatory system for the licensing of merchants who sell tobacco products.  The basic premise of Tobacco Licensing Ordinances is to regulate and educate tobacco retailers, via licensing controls, to make them more vigilant and cognizant of selling tobacco products to under-aged persons (17 years of age or younger).  This in turn is theoretically beneficial for helping prevent minors from becoming addicted to a life-long dependence on tobacco products, and thus enhance the quality of their lives.

 

Tobacco Retailer Ordinances require tobacco product retailers to secure a license in order to sell tobacco products.  Because retailers can lose their license through revocation if they violate the laws concerning tobacco sales, the theory is, that the retailers will be more vigilant when selling tobacco products to youthful buyers.  Threat of losing a required license through a revocation process can be a significant motivator when selling a controlled product such as tobacco.

 

There are costs associated with establishing a Tobacco Retailers License program.  Therefore, staff recommends if the Council decides at a later date to adopt a Tobacco Retailers License Ordinance, a license fee structure would also have to be adopted to recapture the costs of conducting such a program.  If ultimately a Tobacco Retailers License Ordinance is adopted, an acceptable implementation plan must also be created which takes into consideration the workload drain on dwindling staff resources needed for successful implementation.

 

Recommendation:

 

It is staff�s recommendation for Council to direct staff to conduct additional research on drafting a Tobacco Retailers Ordinance including outreach to appropriate community interests and affected parties.

 

 

7.      FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 WORK PROGRAM AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS PRESENTATION (PARK, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT, LIBRARY SERVICES DEPARTMENT, CITY TREASURER�S OFFICE, CITY CLERK�S OFFICE, AND CITY MANAGER/CITY COUNCIL):

 

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with the proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2003-04 Annual Work Program and Departmental Performance Indicators. 

        

In 2000, the Council adopted a 10-Year Strategic Plan entitled, Embarking on a New Millennium (2001-2010).  This Strategic Plan identifies and defines strategic priorities and includes corresponding goals and sub-goals that are designed to direct future actions by the City government to achieve the vision of the plan.

 

The Annual Work Program is used as a management tool to identify, prioritize, and monitor the City's projects in accordance with the Strategic Plan.  The proposed FY 2003-04 Annual Work Program includes over 300 goals and objectives, including several capital improvement projects.  

 

Generally, the Annual Work Program document reflects the objectives defined by each department and suggested by the Council during the annual budget study sessions.  Listing all the specific objectives together in one document allows the  Council, City staff, and the public an opportunity to comprehensively review the City's Annual Work Program as a companion volume to the 10-Year Strategic Plan.

 

Included with the Annual Work Program review are the FY 2003-04 Departmental Performance Indicators.  Performance Indicators are used by the City to assess how efficiently and effectively programs and activities are provided, and determine whether organizational goals are being met.  Performance Indicators have become an integral part of the budget process for most cities and are a needed component to compete for State and national budget awards.

 

Burbank began including Performance Indicators in the Budget in FY 2000-01.  This year the departments spent a great deal of time reassessing their current Indicators and in most cases they have been completely revamped.  A major goal of the changes was to link the Indicators to both the City�s Annual Budget and Work Program.  Further, the modifications are intended to allow the City�s programs and services to be measured in such a way that we can ascertain the following: 1) How well are our services being delivered?;  2) Are planned accomplishments being met?; 3) Are community problems being solved?; and, 4) Are our residents/customers satisfied with the results?

 

Although this is an �initial presentation� and not a �status update,� each Department Manager will present their proposed FY 2003-04 Annual Work Program and Performance Indicators for the Council�s review and be prepared to answer any questions from the Council as per the attached presentation schedule.

 

Recommendation:

        

Staff continues to believe that the Annual Work Program and Departmental Performance Indicators are effective project-tracking and work quality measurement tools that assist the Council in achieving their Strategic Plan goals.  Staff requests that the Council review the proposed FY 2003-04 Work Program and Departmental Performance Indicators per the proposed schedule and provide input and direction as necessary.

 

 

8.      PROPOSED AIRPORT JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS/LETTERS TO UNITED AIRLINES AND AMERICAN AIRLINES:

 

At the July 15, 2003 Council meeting, staff was directed to prepare letters to the cities of Glendale and Pasadena seeking amendments to the Joint Powers Agreement between the three cities which established and governs the Burbank-Glendale-