AMENDED
BURBANK CITY COUNCIL
JOINT MEETING WITH THE PARKING AUTHORITY
AND THE POLICE COMMISSION
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2025
4:00 p.m. – Closed Session
4:30 p.m. – Study Session
6:00 p.m. – Open Session
Council Chamber
275 E. Olive Avenue, Second Floor
*Updated due to removal of Closed Session Item #2
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Joint City Council Meeting will be held in the Council Chamber – 275 East Olive Avenue, Second Floor, on Tuesday, October 14, 2025, at 4:00 p.m., to discuss matters on the attached agenda.
Members of the public have the option to participate in the meeting via in-person and/or telephonically for Closed Session, General Public Comment, Public Hearings, and Study Sessions. They may also submit their written comments regarding City business using the eComment feature on the City website, or by emailing the City Council directly at
[email protected]
.
Auxiliary aids and services are available for individuals with speech, vision, or hearing impairments (48- hour notice is required). For more information, please contact the ADA Coordinator at (818) 238-5051.
Interpretation Requests
:
If you would like to participate in Public Comments and require an interpreter, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (818) 238-5851 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.
Si desea participar en los comentarios públicos y necesita un intérprete, por favor llame a la Oficina de la Secretaria Municipal al (818) 238-5851 al menos 48 horas antes de la reunión.
How to View the Meeting
:
Local Cable: Spectrum Channel 6 or AT&T Uverse Channel 99.
YouTube Live Streaming Channel:
Click here
.
City Website Live Streaming:
Click here
.
Public Comment Options
:
1 .
To speak during Closed Session Public Comment, General Public Comment, Public Hearing Public Comment, and Study Session Public Comment periods during the meeting, members of the public may speak in-person in the Council Chamber or call (818) 238-3335
. Speaker time limits will
be determined by the Presiding Officer, depending on how many public comment cards are received and how many callers are in the queue at the commencement of each public comment period (as shown below).
Additional public comment cards and calls will not be accepted once the public comment period commences.
1 – 20 Total Speakers – 3 minutes each
21 – 39 Total Speakers – 2 minutes each
40+ Total Speakers – 1 minute each
Burbank City Council Meeting Agenda
October 14, 2025
1 A.
Public Comment
: (On Closed Session items only) To Comment, please telephone into the meeting at (818) 238-3335, or to speak in person a
PINK
Public Comment Card must be completed and
presented to the City Clerk prior to the comment period.
B.
Closed Session in City Hall First Floor Conference Room :
2 .
The Reports to Council Public Comment periods are only accepted in person – public comment cards must be submitted before the public comment period begins for each report to Council.
Speaker time limits will be determined by the Presiding Officer depending on how many public comment cards have been received at the commencement of each public comment period (as shown below).
Additional public comment cards will not be accepted once the public comment period commences.
1 – 20 Total Speakers – 3 minutes each
21 – 39 Total Speakers – 2 minutes each
40+ Total Speakers – 1 minute each
3 .
eComment will remain open until 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting. 4 .
Email the City Council directly
[email protected]
Emails received on or before 3:00 p.m. on City Council Meeting Day will be distributed to the City Council in advance of the meeting. Any correspondence received after this time will be distributed the following business day.
5 .
The Presiding Officer has the discretion to reduce speaking time for each speaker in order to ensure that City business can be completed at a reasonable hour.
Public Disclosure
:
Please be advised that any communication submitted to the City of Burbank, its officials, staff or City consultants, may be considered a public record under the Brown Act and California Public Records Act.
This means that any information contained in the communication, including personal information, may be subject to public disclosure. The City reserves the right to disclose such information in accordance with the law.
This agenda contains a summary of each item of business which the City Council, Parking Authority and Police Commission may discuss or act on at this meeting. The agenda packet consisting of the staff reports and all other documentation relating to each item on this agenda will be posted on the City's website at
www.burbankca.gov
. Any writings or documents provided to the City Council regarding any item on this agenda subsequent to distribution of the agenda packet will be posted on the City's website at
www.burbankca.gov
. If you have a question about any matter on the agenda, please call the Office of the City Clerk at (818) 238-5851. The Council Chamber is disabled accessible. Auxiliary aids and services are available for individuals with speech, vision, or hearing impairments (48-hour notice is required). Please contact the ADA Coordinator at (818) 238-5051 with questions or concerns.
1. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
a
.
Pursuant to Govt. Code §54956.9(d)(1)
b
.
Name of Case: Anush Kemdjian v. City of Burbank
c
.
Case No.: 25NNCV00700
d
.
Brief description and nature of case: Trip and fall
2. Conference with Real Property Negotiator
a
.
Pursuant to Govt. Code §54956.8
b
.
Property: Burbank Town Center - Burbank Center Stage Home of The Colony Theatre - 555 North Third Street, Burbank, CA 91502
c
.
Parties Whom Agency or City is Negotiating with: Onni Burbank Town Center LLC, 1031 S.
Burbank City Council Meeting Agenda
October 14, 2025
2 C.
Study Session: 4:30 p.m.
–
6:00 p.m. – Council Chamber
:
1. Review of Report from the Office of Independent Review Group Monitoring the Burbank Police Department – Police Department
(with Police Commission)
D.
Call to Order: 6:00 p.m.
E.
Moment of Reflection
:
F.
Flag Salute
:
G.
Roll Call
:
H.
Announcements
:
(The Mayor will make announcements on various topics in addition to any listed) I.
Council Presentations/Recognitions
:
(The Mayor will make presentations to various
groups/persons)
1. Presentation of a Proclamation Declaring October 1–31, 2025, as "Domestic Violence Awareness Month" in the City of Burbank – City Council
2. Presentation of a Proclamation Declaring October 19–25, 2025, as “United Against Hate Week” in the City of Burbank – City Council
3. Presentation of Certificates of Recognition to the Participating High Schools of the City of Burbank's 2025 Clerks' Cup – City Council
J.
City Manager Report
:
(Updates on Notable Events, if any)
K.
Presentations
:
1. Presentation of a Legislative Update from Assembly Member Nick Schultz – City Manager's Office
2. Presentation of an Update on the City's Preparation for the 2028 Summer Olympics – Parks and Recreation Department
L.
Reporting on Closed Session
:
(The City Attorney will report the Closed Session items and report Broadway, Suite 400, Los Angeles, CA - Peter Park; The Colony Theatre Company, 555 North Third Street, Burbank, CA - Heather Provost
d
.
City Negotiator: Marisa Garcia, Parks and Recreation Director e
.
Terms Under Negotiation: Terms for 1. Sublease and Master Lease Modification and 2.
Operating Agreement
Recommendation
:
Note and file Office of Independent Review Group’s Report.
Study Session Public Comment
:
To speak in person, a
GREEN
Public Comment Card must
be completed and presented to the City Clerk prior to the comment period.
Council Action
:
Attachments
:
SR - OIR Report 2024
Att1 - OIR Report
Att2 - Memo
Burbank City Council Meeting Agenda
October 14, 2025
3 out actions taken)
M.
Joint General Public Comment
:
(On any matter concerning City business and/or any agenda items.) To Comment, please telephone into the meeting at (818) 238-3335 or to speak in person, a YELLOW
Public Comment Card must be completed and presented to the City Clerk prior to the comment period.)
N.
Council, City Manager, and/or City Attorney Comment
:
(Responses to General Public
Comment, if any, shall be brief and in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act) O.
Consent Calendar
: (Items on the Consent Calendar are generally routine matters and should be adopted by one motion without an oral report)
1. City Council Minutes – City Clerk's Office
2. Parking Authority Minutes – City Clerk's Office
3. Adoption of a Resolution Amending Fiscal Year 2025-26 Citywide Fee Schedule for the Valet Parking Meter Fee – Community Development Department
(with Parking Authority)
Recommendation
:
Approve the City Council Minutes of the
Joint Meeting of September 30, 2025, and the Dark
Meeting of October 7, 2025.
Attachments
:
City Council Minutes
Dark Meeting Minutes
Recommendation
:
Approve the Parking Authority Minutes of the Joint Meeting of September 9, 2025.
Attachments
:
Parking Authority Minutes
Recommendation
:
Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING ARTICLE I, SECTION 14 OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 CITYWIDE FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE VALET PARKING METER FEE.
Attachments
:
SR - Valet Parking Meter Fee
Att1 - Resolution
Att2 - SR from August 26, 2025
Burbank City Council Meeting Agenda
October 14, 2025
4 4.
Adoption of Resolutions Ratifying and Approving Grant Applications for the Magnolia Power Project with the California Energy Commission for the Bulk Grid Asset Enhancements for the Grid Reliability Program, and Authorizing the BWP General Manager, as the City Manager’s Designee, to Negotiate and Execute All Related Agreements and Forms – Burbank Water and Power
5. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of Funds from the State Citizen’s Option for Public Safety Program in the Amount of $323,374.11 and Amending the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget by Appropriating Funds – Police Department
Recommendation
:
1 .
Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK RATIFYING
AND APPROVING GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR THE BULK GRID ASSET
ENHANCEMENTS FOR GRID RELIABILITY PROGRAM (ADVANCED GAS PATH
RESILIENCY UPGRADE) FOR MAGNOLIA POWER PLANT AT BURBANK WATER
AND POWER (BWP), AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE BWP GENERAL MANAGER, AS THE CITY MANAGER’S DESIGNEE, TO NEGOTIATE, EXECUTE,
AND IMPLEMENT ALL REQUIRED AND RELATED AGREEMENTS AND FORMS
WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION, THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC POWER AUTHORITY, AND OTHER SUBCONTRACTORS AND VENDORS,
SUCH AUTHORITY SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POWER AUTHORITY OF SUCH PROJECT; and
2 .
Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK RATIFYING
AND APPROVING GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR THE BULK GRID ASSET
ENHANCEMENTS FOR GRID RELIABILITY PROGRAM (ADVANCED COMPRESSOR
RESILIENCY UPGRADE) FOR MAGNOLIA POWER PLANT AT BURBANK WATER
AND POWER (BWP), AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE BWP GENERAL MANAGER, AS THE CITY MANAGER’S DESIGNEE, TO NEGOTIATE, EXECUTE,
AND IMPLEMENT ALL REQUIRED AND RELATED AGREEMENTS AND FORMS
WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION, THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC POWER AUTHORITY, AND OTHER SUBCONTRACTORS AND VENDORS,
SUCH AUTHORITY SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POWER AUTHORITY OF SUCH PROJECT.
Attachments
:
SR - Grant Applications
Att1 - Resolution - Gas Path Resiliency
Att2 - Resolution - Compressor Resiliency
Att3 - Terms and Conditions
Att4 - Resolution 2024-001
Recommendation
:
Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO ACCEPT $323,374.11 FROM THE STATE CITIZEN’S OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) PROGRAM AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING THE FUNDS.
Attachments
:
SR - COPS Program
Att1 - Resolution
Burbank City Council Meeting Agenda
October 14, 2025
5 6.
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Approve Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Program Agreements with the Verdugo Consortium and the City of Glendale – Library Services Department
7. Authorize the General Manager of Burbank Water and Power to Enter into an Electrical Services Agreement with SJ4 BURBANK, LLC – Burbank Water and Power P.
Public Hearing:
1. Acceptance of Public Comment on the Proposed Renewal of the Burbank Tourism Business Improvement District – Community Development Department
Recommendation
:
Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE WORKFORCE INNOVATION AND OPPORTUNITY ACT
PROGRAM AGREEMENTS WITH THE VERDUGO CONSORTIUM AND THE CITY OF GLENDALE.
Attachments
:
SR - WIOA Program
Att1 - Resolution
Att2 - Agreement
Recommendation
:
Approve and authorize the General Manager of Burbank Water and Power to:
1 .
Execute an Electrical Services Agreement with SJ4 BURBANK, LLC, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney’s Office, with reasonable changes in form and substance satisfactory to the City Attorney’s Office, if required; 2 .
Execute any other ancillary documents, including amendments, in form and substance satisfactory to the City Attorney’s Office and up to an amount available within any City Council-approved Fiscal Year Budget; and
3 .
Accept all Aid-in-Construction (AIC) payments needed to provide electric service to the project under this Agreement or any other AIC letters or agreements related to the Project.
Attachments
:
SR - Electrical Services Agreement
Att1 - Electrical Services Agreement
Recommendation
:
Accept Public Comment on the Proposed Renewal of the Burbank Tourism Business Improvement District.
*** If Additional Documents/Correspondences are submitted for this item, they will be periodically posted to the City website for public viewing. *** Public Hearing Public Comment:
To comment, please telephone into the meeting at (818)
238-3335. To speak in person, a
SALMON
Public Comment Card must be completed and
presented to the City Clerk prior to the comment period.
Council Action:
Attachments
:
SR - Acceptance of Public Comment for the TBID Renewal
Att1 - SR for Resolution of Intention
Burbank City Council Meeting Agenda
October 14, 2025
6 Q.
Reports to Council:
(Items listed under this section will have an oral report provided)
1. Appointment to Fill One Vacancy on the Burbank Housing Corporation Board of Directors for a Full Two-Year Term – City Clerk's Office
2. Introduction of an Ordinance to Adopt by Reference the 2025 California Building Standards Codes, California Wildland-Urban Interface, City of Burbank Local Amendments, and the 2024 International Property Maintenance Code, and any Amendments thereto, and Adoption of a Resolution Making Express Findings and Determinations that Modifications to the 2025 California Building Standards Code are Reasonably Necessary Due to Local Climatic, Geological, Topographical, or Environmental Conditions – Community Development Department
Att2 - Signed Petitions
Att3 - Notice of Public Meeting and Public Hearing
Correspondences
Recommendation
:
Appoint one member to the Burbank Housing Corporation Board of Directors to fill a full two- year term ending October 31, 2027.
Public Comment:
To speak in person, a
YELLOW
Public Comment Card must be
completed and presented to the City Clerk prior to the comment period.
C
ouncil Action:
Attachments
:
SR - BHC Vacancy
Att1 - Applications and Resumes
Att2 - Redevelopment Agency Resolution R-1878
Att3 - Housing Authority Resolution H-209
Recommendation
:
1 .
Introduce AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 2025 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS
CODE, CALIFORNIA WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE, CITY OF BURBANK LOCAL AMENDMENTS, AND THE 2024 INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE
CODE, TOGETHER WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS THERETO, AND AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 9 OF THE BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE.
2 .
Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK MAKING EXPRESS FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS THAT MODIFICATIONS TO THE 2025
CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE ARE REASONABLY NECESSARY
BECAUSE OF LOCAL CLIMATIC, GEOLOGICAL, TOPOGRAPHICAL, OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS.
Public Comment:
To speak in person, a
YELLOW
Public Comment Card must be
completed and presented to the City Clerk prior to the comment period.
Council Action:
Attachments
:
SR - Building Code Standards
Att1 - Ordinance
Att2 - Resolution
Burbank City Council Meeting Agenda
October 14, 2025
7 R.
Council Comments
:
(Including reporting on Council committee assignments, attendance at conferences, regional meetings, and community events)
S.
Introduction of Additional Agenda Items
:
(Council Members may request future agenda items)
T.
Adjournment
: To Tuesday, October 28, 2025 for a Regular Meeting in the Council Chamber –
275
East Olive Avenue, Second Floor.
Att3 - Resolution, Exhibit A
Att4 - Significant Changes
Burbank City Council Meeting Agenda
October 14, 2025
8 1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 14, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council and
Members of the Police Commission
FROM: Justin Hess, City Manager
Joseph H. McDougall, City Attorney
Rafael Quintero, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Review of Report from the Office of Independent Review Group Monitoring the Burbank Police Department
RECOMMENDATION
Note and file Office of Independent Review Group’s Report (Attachment 1).
BACKGROUND
The Office of Independent Review Group (OIR) has served under contract as the “Outside Independent Monitor” of the Burbank Police Department (Department) since 2012. The current agreement was executed in May 2021 following a Request for Proposal process and has a term of five years, expiring in May 2026. The agreement calls for OIR to annually review and report on certain pre- specified types of law enforcement incidents and/or internal affairs investigations, as well as perform other related audit reviews. The purpose of these oversight services is to assess the adequacy of the Department’s investigation into an incident and the appropriateness of the findings and action taken by the Department in response to an investigation, and make rec ommendations as to procedures. OIR is to review and report on the following types of investigations conducted by the Department: all uses of deadly force and in-custody deaths, all bias based policing complaints, all administrative investigations in which the employee under investigation is the rank of sergeant or higher , and a random sample of administrative investigations, citizens’ complaints, and use of force reviews. OIR also makes a formal assessment of all vehicle pursuits.
CITY MANAGER’S
OFFICE
Study Session
Item #1
9 2
The contractual services also provide that OIR be available to attend Critical Incident Review Board (CIRB) meetings on major incidents, and that OIR receive and review updates on other Department internal review mechanisms, including but not limited to Department’s quarterly discipline reports and its annual early intervention audit of high- volume officers in certain key categories. OIR also performs one audit project per year on a revolving list of subjects, such as hiring or promotional processes, performance evaluations, Department in- house training, review of management level emails, body worn and in-car camera program.
P
ursuant to the Agreement, OIR present ed its report in a joint meeting with the City Manager, City Attorney and Chief of Police. Thereafter, the report is to be presented in a joint public meeting of the City Council and Police Commission.
DISCUSSION
OIR began its formal monitoring of the Department shortly after the Department’s adoption of the 2011 Strategic Plan. At that time, the monitoring was considered more remedial in nature. The adoption of the Strategic Plan and outside oversight was partly in response to allegations of excessive use of force and the appointment of new command staff to initiate reforms in the Department.
S
ince then, OIR's evaluation of the Department’s various internal review systems have evolved in scope and complexity. One constant, however, has been OIR’s acknowledgment of the Department’s willingness to be responsive to new expectations and a commitment to generating its own initiatives in accountability and community outreach.
T
his report covers incidents that occurred in 2024. OIR evaluated a range of misconduct investigations, critical incidents, use of force incidents, vehicle pursuits, and conducted an evaluation of the Department’s Field Training Program. While the report was generally positive, it did identify some individual shortcomings and more general opportunities for improvement among the many cases evaluated.
T
here are 16 separate recommendations in this report. Attachment 2 is a memo from the Chief of Police outlining the Department’s response to the 16 recommendations.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This report has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and as such, is not a “project” subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15378.
10 3
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
CONCLUSION
As reflected in both reports, the Department remains committed to accountability, transparency, and ongoing professional development. The Department is actively implementing progressive policing best practices and upholds the highest standards of policing excellence.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Annual Report of the Independent Police Monitor: 2024 Review by OIR Group
Attachment 2 – Memorandum from Burbank Police Chief Rafael Quintero in Response to the OIR Group Recommendations
11 Burbank Police Department
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT
POLICE MONITOR: 2024 Review
October 14, 2025
Attachment 1
12 562-922-9337
6510 Spring Street #613 | Long Beach, CA
90815
OIRGroup.com
13 Table of Contents
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 Review of Misconduct Investigations .................................................................. 5 Allegations of Biased Policing ......................................................................... 8 Effective Engagement with Complainants..................................................... 10 Improvements to Procedural Review ............................................................ 14 Hands-On / Physical Use of Force ................................................................ 18 Updates in Use of Police Canine ................................................................... 20 Jail Searches .................................................................................................. 22 Taser Safeguards .......................................................................................... 23 Review of Vehicle Pursuits ................................................................................ 26 Formal Pursuits and the Balance Test .......................................................... 27 Tracking Mode and Assessment Period ....................................................... 28 Communication and Code-3 Driving ............................................................. 31 Recalibration of the “Pursuit Philosophy” ...................................................... 33 Special Project: BPD’s Field Training Program ................................................ 36 Burbank’s FTO Program: An Overview ......................................................... 39 FTO Selection and Training ....................................................................... 39 Trainee Onboarding and Progression ....................................................... 41 Program Structure and Phases ..................................................................... 42 Daily Observation Reports ......................................................................... 43 End-of-Phase Reports ................................................................................ 50 Falling Out: Extending Phases or Separation ........................................... 52 Wellness and Resilience for FTOs and Trainees ......................................... 54 BPD Accomplishments ...................................................................................... 56 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 58 Recommendations ............................................................................................. 59
14 P a g e | 1
Introduction
This is the latest independent audit report regarding the activities of the Burbank Police Department (BPD). It was prepared by OIR Group, which has a longstanding relationship with the City and which has tracked the steady evolution of BPD's systems for internal review over the course of more than a decade.
As Independent Police Auditors, our role is straightforward: while we do not conduct our own investigations, our scope of work provides us with comprehensive access to a representative sample of completed cases handled internally by BPD. Our review focuses on three critical areas of law enforcement: allegations of officer misconduct, incidents in which physical force was used, and vehicle pursuits.
This model of oversight reinforces the Department’s primary responsibility for conducting investigations and ensuring accountability. An agency's own ability to scrutinize itself with rigor, objectivity, and fairness is essential to its operational health and legitimacy. These high standards are difficult to impose externally, and harder to enforce. Accordingly, BPD's own commitment to these processes is of paramount importance.
Although we do not review every case, our annual audit process serves a significant purpose as a check on, and complement to, BPD's internal review.
The case files that we do evaluate – and the otherwise confidential evidence that comprises them – offer an open window into BPD's approach to review and provide a transparency that continues to be rare in local law enforcement throughout California. Our annual public reporting amplifies that transparency and adds further accountability to BPD's systems.
Moreover, we are also able to add an outside perspective that allows us to identify potential limitations and to offer recommendations for adjustment and reform. The body of this Report reflects those contributions in what we hope will be a useful way.
15 P a g e | 2
As in the past, our scope of work as framed by the City incorporates a review of the completed investigations according to the following parameters:
• All bias-based policing complaints;
• All administrative investigations conducted by the Internal Affairs Bureau in which the subject employee holds the rank of sergeant or higher;
• 1/3 of all administrative investigations conducted by the Internal Affairs Bureau, as randomly selected by OIR Group;
• 1/3 of all citizens’ complaints randomly selected by OIR Group (this may include review of both sworn and civilian personnel); • 1/4 of all use of force reviews randomly selected by OIR Group; • All vehicle pursuits.
Per the above criteria, we reviewed a total of 21 misconduct investigations. As in the past, we noted several strengths in the Department's process for handling these matters. Body-worn camera recordings continue to have a significant impact on the efficiency and conclusiveness of investigations, and the case memos are quite thorough and methodical in addressing allegations, gathering evidence, and reaching sound dispositions.
We saw examples of uniquely rigorous investigative efforts and again were struck by the Department's willingness to provide complainants with a detailed analysis of the investigation's evidence – well beyond the limited information required by state law for notification. These elements left a favorable impression. However, we discuss a few challenges as well, some of which may be attributable to new personnel in the Internal Affairs unit.
One related to "intake" interviews and a tendency to explain or debate with a member of the public, the complainant, rather than simply hear the person’s narrative. And though we found the case outcomes to be reasonable and backed by evidence, there were instances in which officer demeanor detracted from the overall handling of a disputed incident and was not given the attention warranted. We consider complaint cases to be opportunities for improvement as well as "bottom line" accountability and encourage the Department to pursue holistic adjustments to officer performance even when policy violations are not necessarily implicated.
16 P a g e | 3
This year's group of force review packages included 22 distinct incidents that included a range of force options. In each case, the force applied was determined to be within policy. BPD's review process – one we have consistently endorsed and even shared with other jurisdictions as a model worth considering – continues to evolve and adjust. Several of these improvements stem directly from our prior recommendations, and we discuss them in detail in this year’s report.
Our analysis of this year's use of force cases led to a new series of recommendations focused on enhancing an already strong framework; topics include de-escalation practices, supervisor interviews of subjects, and the evaluation of canine bite incidents. These suggestions are intended to build upon the existing strengths, rather than signal the need for major change.
Past experience suggests that BPD recognizes the importance of refining and improving its strong model for review of physical force by its personnel.
Our annual audits of the Department's vehicle pursuits continue to provide valuable insight into the distinctive challenges posed by this enforcement technique. Since early 2016, BPD has wrestled to navigate the balance between public safety, risk management and effective crime prevention when it comes to this area of policing.
This year’s audit reviews five incidents that were formally classified as pursuits and reviewed under the Department’s established internal review process. In addition to these cases, we examined several new categories that the Department has introduced over the last several years to provide officers with greater latitude in the field. These ongoing adjustments reflect a commendable attempt to respond to realities in the field. At the same time, expanding the framework – while well-intentioned – occasionally led to ambiguity and uncertainty in case classification and response. We encourage the Department to further refine the relevant policies and training in this important risk area.
In recent years, we have also had the latitude to conduct an additional assessment on a "special topic" – some aspect of BPD operations that we can evaluate to share information with the public and to reinforce or enhance the Department's current path with our own recommendations. Over the past several reports, we reviewed the Department’s body-worn camera program 17 P a g e | 4
when the technology was new to the agency in 2021. We assessed BPD's approach to calls for service involving a person experiencing a mental health crisis. And, in our report last year, we reviewed the Department’s compliance with state requirements for gathering demographic data in the context of arrests and traffic stops. In each instance, we supplemented our favorable general impressions with suggestions for further improvement.
Oue experience was similar in this audit cycle. This year, we evaluated the Department's field training program – the process by which academy preparation is translated into field performance for new officers in the patrol setting. This is a crucial part of ensuring readiness, to the point where the state imposes requirements on all police agencies to ensure that certain standards are met. As we explain below, we found that BPD met or exceeded those baseline expectations, and that the training program is structured and managed with real thoughtfulness. While we offer some suggestions for further refinement, we were impressed with the glimpse we got into BPD's approach.
Among other things, 2024 was the final full year of Chief Mike Albanese's tenure as the leader of the Department. The Chief's long and distinguished career began well before the independent oversight of law enforcement was a familiar concept. But in fourteen years of engaging with him in Burbank, we always found him to be not only gracious and professional but genuinely interested in engaging with an outside perspective. We disagreed on a few of the finer points, but it was always a constructive discussion. And we know he was responsible for much of the infrastructure at BPD that we've commended in these audits and recommended to other agencies. We certainly wish him the best in his retirement and look forward to working with his successor.
18 P a g e | 5
Review of Misconduct
Investigations
The Department's handling of allegations of misconduct has, over the years, evolved into a strength of its internal review processes. The case files we assess are notable for their thoroughness and completeness, and the individual investigation memos are consistently methodical, well-presented, and convincing in their analyses.
Based on our selection criteria, we looked at a total of 21 cases this year.
Most were generated externally based on public complaints. Four of them resulted in a finding that involved personnel had in fact violated policy. We found the Department's decisions to be reasonable and grounded in careful gathering and assessment of available evidence.
One of the biggest improvements we have seen is in timeliness: BPD prioritizes the efficient completion of pending cases, and the examples we looked at were reflective of that emphasis. This was not always true. Early in our work, investigative timelines were longer, and some cases were not finalized within the one-year statute of limitations for discipline. The lag not only meant that accountability was precluded as a technical matter, but also that other operational benefits of a prompt resolution – including appropriate corrective action – were being detrimentally delayed. As a result of our focus on that issue, the Department committed to new protocols that included a quarterly "status report" (shared with our office) and helped ensure that open cases were accounted for and on track for timely completion.
That step and increased managerial scrutiny certainly helped, but the adoption of body-worn cameras in 2021 has streamlined the investigative process considerably. Many of the complaints that we reviewed were resolved 19 P a g e | 6
conclusively based on the recorded evidence alone.1 This meant that, in many cases, interviews with witness or subject officers were not essential to determining the events in question, and it was routine for investigations and their accompanying memos to be completed within several weeks.2
Though Burbank was later than other agencies in adopting the cameras, its misconduct investigations are more advanced than many in utilizing and presenting recorded evidence. Key moments are summarized in the written case narrative – with time stamps for reference to the videos themselves, and still shots from the recordings are often included as illustrations. In one case involving claims of impropriety in the service of a search warrant, the investigator made meticulous use of body-worn camera recordings to track relevant activities of involved officers at different stages of the process, thereby creating a thorough record of what occurred.
We observed that, even in cases where body-worn camera footage appeared to offer clear and potentially conclusive evidence, investigators still conducted thorough investigations, reflecting a commitment to due diligence and procedural integrity. In one case, an arrestee was struck and allegedly injured by a closing elevator door as he was being escorted by officers in his apartment building; he alleged this was part of the excessive force he had been subjected to. Along with viewing the body-worn camera evidence, the investigator went to the building, found the elevator, and effectively re-created the incident by allowing the door to close on his own shoulder. He was unhurt and noted instead that the door had recoiled on contact.
1 Another significant effect of the recordings is a substantial reduction in the number of "not sustained" outcomes to individual allegations. That specific finding is issued when the evidence is inconclusive, with the result being no discipline but also a somewhat unsatisfying uncertainty. It was much more common in the days when the conflicting testimony of participants was the only available basis for decision-making. 2 We still consider interviews of subject officers to be an important part of the process in many cases. There are times, for example, when BWC recordings are not totally dispositive for some reason. And the officer should be (and is) routinely interviewed when the recordings are indicative of misconduct; doing so is consistent with the officer's right to put his or her own "best foot forward" in describing or explaining their actions when facing potential discipline. We found the Department's decision-making in this regard to be appropriate.
20 P a g e | 7
As in previous years, we were encouraged by the resourcefulness demonstrated by investigators. In one case, a complaint was submitted via email by a woman who objected to an arrest that had occurred six years earlier, prior to the implementation of body-worn cameras. Although the complaint narrative itself was difficult to follow and direct contact with the complainant proved unsuccessful, investigators made a diligent and well- documented effort to reach her and investigate the incident. The investigator reviewed available records and photographs from the time of the incident; these showed that the injuries the woman sustained, resulting from the application of leg restraints, were minimal, and that she had not reported any pain at the time. Based on the evidence, the complaint was deemed unfounded.
This case exemplifies the Department’s commitment to conducting meaningful reviews, even in the absence of contemporary video evidence or direct complainant participation. It also reflects the value of maintaining detailed records and the professionalism of investigators in pursuing clarity and accountability.
Of the four cases that resulted in findings of misconduct, two were from the jail.3 One related to an incident in which an arrested person was found with a flashlight and a knife after an overnight stay in a cell. In re-tracing that person's time in custody, it was determined that a (civilian) jailer had failed to complete a "cell cleanliness log" – a procedural violation that may or may not have explained the contraband but nonetheless warranted intervention.
The larger questions about the items' presence remained unanswered.
However, the Department responded with procedural changes (including new BWC recording requirements for certain jail activities) that will ideally assist in closing whatever loopholes led to this issue.
In another case, a newly released woman left the facility before staff had recovered an expensive monitoring device she had been provided with
3 The third related to a discourtesy issue in the field, in which a traffic stop had deteriorated into mutual verbal antagonism. The fourth involved a civilian staff member who left an unattended firearm at her workstation during a shift. 21 P a g e | 8
because of self-reported health concerns. Both a witness and the subject jailer acknowledged the mistake – but cited the new pressures to quickly release eligible arrestees after a man died in custody.
The two cases are obviously a tiny fraction of the year's overall performance history. But they are also a reminder of the risks inherent in operating a jail facility within the police station. We discuss these cases and other jail-related concerns in our Use of Force section, below.
Allegations of Biased Policing
Given the significance and sensitivity of biased policing allegations, particularly due to their potential to undermine public trust and raise concerns about profiling and discrimination, our original agreement with the City established that any such case would be automatically included in our audit sample. These matters warrant close attention because of their profound implications for the legitimacy of the justice system and the community’s confidence in fair and impartial policing.
Accordingly, Burbank provides any case involving bias for our review – even when the allegation of bias is only a peripheral part of the overall dissatisfaction that a complainant is sharing. This year, however, only two investigations met this criterion – down from five in last year's Report and the smallest number in recent memory.
Neither of the allegations was substantiated. This outcome is not unexpected; across the country, these types of allegations are inherently difficult to prove because it depends on the subjective intent of the officers involved, an element that is rarely acknowledged, even if present. But BPD has worked in the past to move beyond simple denials and instead evaluate the full context 22 P a g e | 9
of each case in search of objective evidence.4 While this approach was less prominent in 2024's two investigations than in past years, the incidents themselves were relatively straightforward.
In one of this year's cases, an officer asserted that race did not factor in the decision-making process, citing the limited visibility at the time of the stop: the complainant was wearing a hoodie and a mask when stopped, and the encounter occurred in low-light conditions. Our review of the body-worn camera recording supported this assertion, and we concurred with the ultimate finding that the allegation was unfounded.5
The other case turned on the complainant's perception that the officer's use of the word "entitled" was somehow racially coded. But the complainant was unable to make a convincing connection between that term (which he believed was in part related to his expensive car) and a protected class of any kind.
And again, while the body-worn camera showed a fractious encounter between the officer and the complainant, it did not appear to involve race or ethnicity.
Pursuing these issues conscientiously should remain a priority for the Department. Although the small number of complaints, and the specific circumstances of these two incidents, lent themselves to a relatively direct approach here, we have encouraged in the past to consider statistical analysis, officer history, and other objective criteria to strengthen its assessment of bias claims where warranted. We hope BPD will maintain a commitment to the thorough, resourceful consideration of allegations involving this critical concern.
4 For example, in a past case where a young black pedestrian with a backpack was stopped for questioning in the early morning hours, he was unpersuaded by officers' explanation that there had been a number of reported thefts in the area. But the investigator pulled together documentation that showed support for the claim. 5 The Department also reported this case to the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) per California Senate Bill 2 (SB2), which requires that allegations of serious misconduct, including racial bias, be reported for further investigation and review.
23 P a g e | 10
Effective Engagement with Complainants
We reviewed several cases that highlighted the importance of tone, communication, and the broader experience of individuals interacting with law enforcement. While the factual determinations in these cases were generally sound, the investigative process at times missed opportunities to fully acknowledge or engage with the complainants’ perspectives.
We reviewed one case in which the complainant, who had been stopped with his girlfriend for expired registration and was ultimately arrested for possession of contraband after a search of the vehicle, alleged several procedural flaws and instances of discourtesy. This investigation gave us pause for different reasons.
First was the interview of the complainant by the investigator. This lasted for more than half an hour and was marked by the investigator’s patience and willingness to revisit key points to ensure clarity. But we also noted numerous instances in which the investigator, who had reviewed the body-worn camera recordings of the incident in advance, offered explanations or counterpoints to the complainant’s assertions. While the information provided was accurate and, in some instances, persuasive to the complainant, the overall effect at times shifted from informative to adversarial. As the conversation progressed, the dynamic appeared to lose some of its constructive tone.
We recognize that there is a delicate balance to maintain: clarifications about basic points of law or obvious misunderstandings have their place and can potentially defuse a complaint for the mutual benefit of both sides. But, as we have noted in the past, detailed explanations too easily come across as defensive or dismissive, or as an indication that the complainant's concerns have been pre-determined as lacking legitimacy. For that reason, we reiterate our recommendation that intake interviews focus primarily on developing a complete understanding of the complainant's allegations and perspectives, while reserving analysis or explanatory commentary by the investigator for a later stage in the process.
24 P a g e | 11
Recommendation 1
BPD should reinforce the principle that intake interviews with complainants are primarily intended to acquire a full understanding of their allegations and concerns – and not as a forum for rebuttal or defense of officer actions.
We also thought there was legitimacy to several of the specific issues articulated by the complainant. The complainant understandably took offense to the question, "Who do you roll with?" which presumed a gang affiliation that was not substantiated. His girlfriend seemingly being mistaken for a prostitute was also a provocation that added to his feelings of being pre-judged and treated contemptuously.
The final determination that no policy violations had occurred was reasonable based on the available evidence. However, we also found aspects of the complainant’s perspective to be understandable, and these were seemingly disregarded by the determinedly narrow focus of the investigation.
For example, the analysis focused on the fact that the officer had not directly called the woman a prostitute, and that certain aspects of her behavior raised legitimate suspicion. While these points were factually accurate, they did not fully address the broader concerns raised by the complainant.
Interestingly, the complainant also took the time to express disapproval of the lead officer's treatment of his trainee and cited specific examples of impatience or disrespect. There was support for these contentions in the recordings of the encounter. While certainly not egregious, the training officer's curt and exasperated approach seemed hard to reconcile with effective mentoring. 6 We noted that this element of the complaint was not mentioned in the otherwise detailed close-out letter that the complainant ultimately received.
6 Nor did it align with our general impressions of the Department's field training program, which we discuss in detail below.
25 P a g e | 12
A similar dynamic occurred in a different case, in which a man complained about the officer's disrespectful treatment in the context of issuing him a citation for speeding. Though he continued to take exception to the ticket itself, his primary objection was to the officer's alleged rudeness and his numerous assumptions about the man's usual driving behavior.
In our view, the body-worn camera recording made the complainant's perspective quite understandable: the officer's tone was dismissive and scolding at best ("You don't care about anybody else that lives in this City?") and at times even had a bullying quality ("You're gonna get a ticket for your speed and an unsafe turn...Unless you'd rather me impound your car for thirty days...or take you to jail for reckless driving.") But the investigator's analysis seemed to miss that point in favor of a technical defense of the officer's different comments. In our view, the discourtesy allegation could plausibly have been sustained; at the very least, we would have hoped that the Department would question the effectiveness of the officer's approach and its impression on the complainant – and provide a non-disciplinary intervention accordingly.
At its best, the complaint investigation process does a few things. It should certainly pursue the facts so that proper determinations can be made as to policy violations, and that occurred here. But it should also, where possible, leave the complainant with a real sense of being heard and understood – even if that means acknowledging low-level shortcomings that may not technically be matters of policy. And it should also be a forum for evaluating officer performance in holistic ways – including communication styles and effective treatment of the public. These latter goals were not necessarily achieved in these cases.7
Recommendation 2
BPD should address employees’ suboptimal performance issues that emerge in the context of complaint cases, even when the identified issues don't rise to the level of formal policy violations.
7 In fairness to BPD, we also note that it (rightly) sustained a discourtesy allegation that arose in the context of a dispute over a traffic citation in another case. 26 P a g e | 13
Review of Force Cases
The Department reported a total of 74 separate force incidents in 2024, a slight increase from comparable statistics in 2023, but commensurate with previous years’ counts. Of this overall total, a majority were limited to use of “empty hand” force options, such as the "takedown" of a resistant subject or use of control holds for purposes of moving, handcuffing, or otherwise controlling subjects. Seven of the cases involved multiple force options being utilized in the encounter; each was separately evaluated by the Department for compliance with policy and other expectations.
We sampled 22 of these incidents and reviewed the totality of the case file, including all body-worn and in-car camera footage. Ten involved uses of physical force such as control holds, takedowns, or team takedowns – usually a lower level of force that typically constitutes a majority of the agency's annual deployments. Four involved the use of strikes. The others covered a range of force options, including Taser deployments, use of the police canine, and use of a chemical agent, oleoresin capsicum (OC), delivered by the Pepperball launcher and via a canister.8 There were no uses of kinetic energy projectiles or uses of deadly force.9 One case resulted in injuries to the officer.
Five cases resulted in injuries to the subject (including three canine bites).
Two cases involved a complaint of pain by subjects that were medically cleared without injury.
8 OC is a less-lethal force option to incapacitate individuals through intense eye irritation, coughing, and difficulty breathing.
9 “Kinetic energy projectiles” are less-lethal weapons used by police that are designed to hit a person with enough force to stop them but not cause serious bodily injury. “Deadly force” refers to any use of force by law enforcement that is likely to cause death or serious physical injury. This includes actions such as discharging a firearm, applying a carotid neck hold, or striking the head, neck, or throat with a hard object. 27 P a g e | 14
While a number of tactical issues were identified and debriefed, none of the uses of force in our sample were found to be out of policy.10
Improvements to Procedural Review
Developed and refined over the course of several years, BPD’s current internal force review process has become a “gold standard”: it is thorough, rigorous and revolves around a commitment to assess each encounter in a holistic way. It treats each force incident as an occasion for accountability but also as an opportunity to improve future performance. Communication, tactics, equipment, supervision, and post-incident protocols are all subject to evaluation – and often lead to constructive issue-spotting.
BPD’s internal process, which consists of several layers of command review culminating in a Critical Incident Review Board (CIRB), was modeled in part after the Los Angeles Police Department’s robust internal review model, developed during the LAPD’s time under a Federal Consent Decree. In Burbank, it was refined over the years by the two former Chiefs with recommendations from our team. We recommend other agencies adopt BPD's process based on our positive experience. In fact, in late 2024, we went so far as to invite personnel from two of OIR Group’s other client agencies to a meeting with Burbank supervisors and command staff to learn about the particulars of the approach.
We continue to be impressed with the Department’s willingness to further refine and improve the process and noted several new procedural strengths in the last year. For example, the initial sergeant-level assessments – the first phase of review after any use of force – demonstrated improved thoroughness by routinely incorporating surveillance footage, witness canvasses, and
10 In 2024, the Department sent one force incident to Internal Affairs for further investigation, but the Department’s review of this case was not completed by the date of publication for this report. Additionally, the Department had one accidental discharge of a firearm, but that case was also not complete by the date of publication. 28 P a g e | 15
interviews of the individuals upon force was used. In cases where arrestee or witness interviews were not conducted, reviewers consistently documented the reasons why no interview was conducted (we discuss this further, below).
The introduction of standardized sections into the second phase, the Watch Commander memorandum, has enhanced the evaluation by identifying key accountability elements from the outset. Specifically, the memo now regularly assesses de-escalation and the actions of on-scene supervisors, two important components that were sometimes not explicitly reviewed in past years.
The concept of "de-escalation" applies to any steps that officers take to reduce the likelihood that physical force will be necessary. These could range from effective verbal communication that defuses tension to tactical principles like distance and cover that can slow down the need to react to sudden movements. While law enforcement has recognized and trained these concepts for generations, increased public scrutiny and recent legislative requirements have brought new prominence to them – and raised expectations that officers will prioritize efforts to avoid force where possible.
We appreciate the new and more overt emphasis that BPD has introduced into its review process. It frames expectations for supervisors and, by extension, reinforces the notion at the patrol level that de-escalation should be a standard component of strategy in the field.
We found the attendant analysis in the cases we looked at to be quite worthwhile. In one, for example, the watch commander review noted that an officer's failure to acknowledge and respond to the subject's question about the reason for the police contact was likely to have exacerbated that person's resistance to cooperation. On the other hand, officers in another case were appropriately commended for their efforts at communicating with a subject barricaded inside a vehicle: in an effort to convince him that there was indeed a warrant for his arrest, they played relevant radio traffic and showed him a screenshot of a database that featured the information.
We did question the analysis in one of the cases we looked at, in which the "de-escalation" was described as the officer's decision to seize the subject in a preemptive bear hug and take him to the ground – in recognition of the fact that the subject's combativeness was likely to result in more significant fight. 29 P a g e | 16
We don't dispute the legitimacy of the force here, and we recognize that de- escalation is not always possible or applicable to the circumstances of a given encounter. But the characterization of any force as a form of de-escalation is one that we hope the Department will reconsider, to avoid blurring lines in the assessment of an incident's different elements.
Recommendation 3
BPD should refine its agency-wide understanding of "de-escalation" techniques to maintain emphasis on tactics and strategies that lessen the likelihood of physical force being necessary.
We also take this opportunity to affirm BPD for adding a specific line item regarding supervisorial performance to its template. In ways that are obviously dependent on the circumstances of a given incident, supervision can be a significant influence on the tactics and decision-making that precede the use of force (and in some cases supervisors actually direct the use of force) and is therefore worthy of individualized attention.11 The template contributes to that. And we also encourage the executive-level assessment of the initial post-incident reviews, including evidence-gathering at the scene and efforts to secure a statement from the arrestee.
To some extent, body-worn camera recordings have lessened the impact of the arrestee's narrative version of events; there are situations in which the video evidence essentially "speaks for itself." But the interviews can nonetheless be important in establishing the arrestee's state of mind and perception of officer actions.12
With that in mind, we encourage the Department to stay focused on ensuring that the supervisory interview process is objective, appropriately robust, and well-documented. We noted a couple of issues in this regard. For one, the
11 One of the dynamics we noted in the past, for example, was a prevalence of supervisors becoming directly physically involved in the encounter – sometimes at the expense of effective management.
12 And, of course, there are plenty of instances in which camera angles, dislodging of the body worn cameras during the encounter (or failure to timely activate, as we had on occasion in these cases) can leave gaps in the video record. 30 P a g e | 17
case "packages" we received did not routinely include recordings of arrestee or witness interviews (or attempted interviews), which was the practice in the past. (We asked for – and received – a sampling to follow up on a subset of cases.) These interviews should still continue to be evaluated as part of the Critical Incident Review Board (CIRB) assessment (which we discuss immediately below). The Department should also continue to reinforce and train the principles of effective interviewing; some of the subsets that we reviewed had a perfunctory quality that did not lead to optimal results.13
Recommendation 4
BPD should encourage supervisors to prioritize the objective acquisition of detailed statements of individuals upon whom force was used and other witnesses where possible.
Recommendation 5
BPD should continue to include recorded interviews with arrestees and civilian witnesses as part of its routine CIRB process.
The culmination of the BPD process remains the CIRB, which brings together high-ranking members of the agency and subject-matter experts for a roundtable discussion of each case. These sessions occur within two months of incidents, allowing for timely feedback and correction when necessary. And each case file that we assessed contained an email documenting the date, participants, and topic(s) covered when corrective action was necessary, ensuring uniformity in accountability documentation.
The Department’s commitment to ongoing improvement was further evidenced by regular roll call briefings and incident-specific debriefs based on insights
13 In one case, the supervisor said "Hi," to the arrestee, who responded with a profanity and said, "Don't talk to me." The supervisor barely broke stride before saying, "Okay," and leaving in the opposite direction without any attempt to explain his purpose or gain the arrestee’s cooperation. In another, the supervisor woke the arrestee from what was apparently a deep sleep in his cell and got predictably groggy answers to a handful of questions. This was in contrast to a third interview, in which a supervisor accommodated a series of digressions and non sequiturs by the individual and eventually evoked an informative, detailed description overall. 31 P a g e | 18
taken from the individual encounters in the field. We also noted debriefs in cases involving specialized units even when no procedural issues were identified: for example, every use of the police canine was carefully debriefed by the entire unit for lessons learned.
Our review identified only one issue that was not documented in the review process: in one case involving a foot pursuit, officers failed to broadcast essential information during the pursuit and had to be prompted by dispatch after extended communication gaps. In that case, the CIRB did note other tactical concerns and directed that the team debrief the entire incident.
Hands-On / Physical Use of Force
Defensive tactics and hands-on control techniques are among the most frequently deployed strategies in the patrol environment: in 2024, nearly 70% of the uses of force involved some form of hands-on control technique or “body weapon,” such as control holds, takedowns, or strikes. These tactics are frequently used during arrests and field encounters, where officers are tasked with managing uncooperative or combative individuals without escalating to higher levels of force. Proper execution of these techniques helps mitigate injuries to both officers and subjects. Moreover, skilled use of defensive tactics supports legally defensible outcomes, especially under the scrutiny of body-worn camera review and administrative investigations.
As we have reported in the past, however, some incidents in our sample revealed what we perceived to be hesitation and inconsistency in application of hands-on control techniques. Officers appeared reluctant to execute control holds and takedowns decisively; some relied on momentum and body weight rather than trained defensive tactics methods such as leg sweeps.14 This resulted in suboptimal outcomes, including falls into hazardous areas like roadways, and, in two cases in our sample, escalation to close-contact Taser deployment (which we discuss in more detail later). The Department’s review
14 Conversely, in one case we observed officers successfully use a leg sweep to bring a subject to the ground.
32 P a g e | 19
commented on these applications, and, in one case, directed an entire shift to debrief on tactical positioning and officer safety.
The shift debrief is a positive step forward, but these outcomes underscore the need for continued direction to defensive tactics (re)training to reinforce confidence in assertive and controlled physical engagement. Frequent, hands- on instruction ensures officers retain muscle memory and apply control holds, takedowns, and ground control effectively in dynamic situations.
We also acknowledge that, while comprehensive defensive tactics training equips officers with essential tools for safely managing confrontations, it is not a fail-safe in every encounter. Human behavior is unpredictable, and situational variables can render even the most practiced techniques insufficient. We observed this in one case where officers attempted to apprehend a felony subject, but quickly lost control when the subject, who later admitted to being a trained street fighter, punched the officers in the head and slammed one of them to the ground. While officers ultimately gained control and were able to handcuff the subject, one sustained significant injury.
In its review of that case, the Department noted that the first officer should have attempted de-escalation prior to going hands-on, and that he should have waited for additional backup. But, again, it did not direct the officers to any defensive tactics training to regain confidence and skills after this fight.
Despite the need and desire for more defensive tactics training, many law enforcement agencies – including Burbank -- face acute time and budgetary constraints that limit their ability to deliver training beyond the State-mandated training blocks. To address these challenges, the Department might consider adopting a “micro training” approach, such as peer-led, defensive-tactics “refresher” sessions at briefings, and scenario-based tabletop exercises that emphasize tactical decision-making. We encourage the Department to explore these options to provide officers with the training they need to be effective in the field in spite of the practical obstacles.
Recommendation 6
BPD should explore “micro training” in defensive tactics to provide more regular review of hand-on / empty hands techniques.
33 P a g e | 20
Updates in Use of Police Canine
The Department reported nine canine deployments, and we reviewed three.
One of these cases involved a canine deployment in response to a forced entry with intent of burglarizing a commercial building. Officers located a subject hiding in the rear of a large commercial property. After issuing commands to surrender with no response, the canine officer issued warnings that the canine would be deployed. Shortly after, the canine was deployed and located the subject; the canine bit the subject and, when the subject surrendered, the canine officer immediately called the canine off the bite. The subject was arrested with no further incident.
In their after-action debrief of this call, the Department learned that there was confusion over deployment standards in the canine policy (Policy 428): the policy authorizes canine use in situations involving “violent or serious offenses,” but it was not clear if this category included forced entry burglary.
In response, it issued a Department Directive clarifying that forced entry burglary falls within the classification of “serious offenses,” allowing for canine deployment when the suspect has forced entry into a building with intent to burglarize, is believed to be hiding within a structure, and may present a danger to officers or the public.
We reviewed a second case where a canine was deployed to apprehend one of several fleeing subjects wanted for felony (armed) burglary. Officers tracked one subject into a backyard hedge; after several commands and warnings went unheeded, the canine officer deployed the canine. The subject came out from the hedges and was handcuffed, and the canine released the bite.
The deployment was successful, and the dog performed in keeping with the handler's commands – two variables that are standard questions within the evaluation process. However, review of the video footage showed that the canine held the bite for seconds beyond the subject’s initial surrender, and 34 P a g e | 21
until he was securely taken into custody. This was potentially concerning, insofar as minimizing the nature and extent of bite events is a priority.
But the related police report rationalized the decision to leave the canine on the bite based on the nature of the crime, officer safety and known outstanding armed suspects. The rationalization was carefully considered by several levels of the chain of command, who ultimately found the length of the bite to be reasonable.
With evolving case law regarding the length and timing of canine bites, and recent legislative focus on the risk/reward calculus of canine deployment,15 reviewing proportionality and disengagement expectations in this careful way remains essential to mitigate liability and ensure adherence to new and emerging legal standards.16 Ultimately, we, too, concurred with the reasonableness of the bite's duration.
We wish the analysis in our other bite case, involving the apprehension of a female subject at an in-progress residential burglary, had been as thoughtful.
We did not question the legitimacy of the initial deployment; the woman was not responsive to multiple warnings, and had resorted to arming herself with a golf club. But as officers quickly followed the dog into the residence and seized the woman while the dog remained engaged on a bite, they were able to outnumber her, drag her into an open space, and get her in a prone position facing down. But the dog remained on the bite for several more seconds until she was actually in handcuffs.
While acknowledging that she arguably continued to “resist”17 during these moments, our impression was that the dog had ceased to become necessary at a certain point when the woman was surrounded and being physically
15 In recent years, bills have been repeatedly introduced in the California legislature to prohibit the use of police canines to effectuate arrests. 16 See, for example, Rosenbaum v. City of San Jose (2024): in that case, the court ruled that officers may face liability for excessive force when they allow a police dog to keep biting a suspect who has clearly surrendered and is under control. It reaffirmed that this conduct violates the Fourth Amendment. 17 A subject who is being bitten by a police canine will most likely struggle in response to the ongoing pain which an officer might interpret as resisting arrest. 35 P a g e | 22
overpowered. But the subsequent documentation did not reflect any questioning of the efficacy and duration of the bite, or any thought that minimizing contact with the dog seemed like a goal worth attending to. A "can vs. should" analysis here at least seemed worthy of consideration.
Recommendation 7
BPD should continue to ensure that current training of its police service dogs is reflective of evolving legal standards and should ensure that a rigorous review of bite incidents continues to be part of its CIRB process.
Jail Searches
Several cases in our samples underscored the necessity of thorough and well- documented jail searches, particularly when intake processes are modified or bypassed due to combative behavior or physical restraints.
In one case in our force sample from early 2024, officers attempted a search of a combative subject at intake. Even after using control holds to subdue the subject, the search was compromised due to the subject’s resistance, prompting a supervisor to direct staff to “search the best you can.”18
We then reviewed a case that occurred in mid-2024 also involving the jail search protocol. In that Internal Affairs case, a subject who had bypassed the standard booking process because leg restraints had been placed on him was later moved to a dorm cell. He was later found to possess a knife and flashlight over 24 hours after booking, despite prior searches and visible inspection of pockets.
In its review of that case, the Department held personnel individually accountable and also directed a comprehensive analysis of jail search protocols. The Department identified vulnerabilities in search protocols, gaps in technology deployment (e.g., underutilized metal detectors), and challenges
18 This directive, while unusual, seemed like a reasonable attempt to balance priorities in dealing with a highly resistant subject.
36 P a g e | 23
in ensuring contraband is reliably detected and documented. The Department instituted an automated system for jail checks (versus previously used paper logs) and issued directives regarding the use of metal detectors.
Together, these cases supported the Department’s renewed emphasis on training for high-risk bookings, use of all available search technologies, and routine verification of cell and subject checks, especially when intake procedures deviate from standard practice. We will continue to review this topic.
Taser Safeguards
In prior reports, we have documented concerns related to specific aspects of surrounding Taser deployments. Examples included incidents where the device was used in drive-stun mode for pain compliance rather than achieving neuromuscular incapacitation (NMI), which is the use for which the weapon was designed.19 We also focused on deployments involving fleeing subjects, which we considered to be potentially in conflict with Department policy.
In response, we recommend that the Department more carefully evaluate Taser deployments to ensure consistency with both policy and manufacturer guidelines. Since that time, we have observed meaningful improvement in deployment decision-making, as well as more deliberate post-incident evaluation.
19 Drive-stun mode is when the Taser device is placed directly onto the subject’s body and deployed without the Taser probes being ejected. This mode is not advised by either the manufacturer or by research studies because it does not result in neuromuscular incapacitation (NMI). See PERF & COPS, 2011 Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines (March 2011), pages 14, 19. Interestingly, the manufacturer’s latest Taser model -- the Taser T10 -- no longer has the drive stun mode capability.
For BPD officers, policy restricts the use of drive-stun to specialized circumstances; we recommended that the Department revisit these use cases and consider prohibiting the use of drive-stun all together. See BPD’s policy 309.5.1.
37 P a g e | 24
The three Taser cases we reviewed this year showed a more careful consideration of the necessity of the deployment, as well as the tactics leading to deployment. While the deployments themselves were found to be “in policy,” the Department identified areas of improvement and appropriately debriefed the incidents.
For example, in one case, officers used the Taser to control a domestic violence subject who actively struggled as officers attempted to handcuff him.
When the initial deployment did not achieve NMI due to insufficient probe spread, the officer transitioned to close-contact mode, applying the device to the subject’s leg to close the electrical loop.20 This allowed officers to control the subject. The Department’s review considered the close distance and discussed officer safety, and a team debrief was conducted for all involved.
In another case, an officer deployed the Taser to control a trespassing subject who actively fought officers and reached for his waistband. As with the case above, the proximity of the deployment failed to achieve NMI, and the officer transitioned to close-contact mode. Here again, the Department debriefed the incident with an eye toward officer safety and the tactical considerations of the close quarters.
However, our review of that case also identified one area where additional analysis was warranted: we noted a missed opportunity to assess the duration of the Taser deployment. When reviewing the Taser Deployment Log, the digital record automatically captured for each deployment, we saw that the device had rejected a trigger pull “due to agency hard shutdown setting.” This indicates that the officer had likely attempted to initiate another cycle, but that the device rejected it due to the hard shutdown protocol: a safety feature that
20 Taser devices rely on probe spread to complete an electrical circuit across a subject's body and achieve neuromuscular incapacitation. When probes strike too closely together (typically less than 12 inches apart), the circuit may not span enough muscle mass to interrupt voluntary movement. In such cases, officers may transition to close contact mode to close the electrical loop manually. This use is allowed per Department policy.
38 P a g e | 25
automatically stops the electrical cycle after five seconds, regardless of whether the trigger is still being pulled.21
This component of the incident seems noteworthy for two reasons. The first is the functional significance of the device’s hard shutdown setting: it is a built-in safeguard that supports controlled decision-making and subject safety. By interrupting continuous activation, the setting reduces the potential for excessive or prolonged exposure, affording officers the opportunity to reassess and apply only what is reasonable under the circumstances. We continue to be impressed with the Department's commitment to technological innovations that support effective officer performance.
Secondly, we note that the existence of the safeguard should not be a complete substitute for officer awareness and proper tactics. Ultimately, it remains the responsibility of each officer to self-regulate deployment and articulate clear justification for any subsequent activation. In addition, supervisory debriefs and incident reviews should consistently examine whether continued Taser use was warranted and aligned with standards of proportionality and necessity.
We recommend that the Department routinely review the Deployment Logs as part of their review process. Logs that reflect anomalies, such as trigger rejections, short probe spreads, or multiple activations should prompt supervisory commentary on justification, tactical reasoning, and any necessary retraining, or in the appropriate cases, accountability.
Recommendation 8
BPD should routinely review Taser Deployment Logs and direct supervisors to address anomalies (such as trigger rejections or multiple activations) through documented explanation or other needed intervention.
21 This safeguard is designed to prevent prolonged exposure to electrical current and align device operation with the Department’s policy.
39 P a g e | 26
Review of Vehicle Pursuits
Police vehicle pursuits remain a critical issue in public safety discussions, particularly regarding law enforcement accountability and risk management.
Across the country, agencies continue to evaluate the balance between rigorous enforcement and the inherent dangers of high-speed chases.
Oversight efforts, both internal and external, have increasingly sought ways to mitigate risks to officers, suspects and uninvolved civilian pedestrians and motorists.
One very specific way that the issue can be addressed is through policy, and specifically through the setting of thresholds for when pursuits are authorized and when they should be terminated. Many jurisdictions, including San Diego and Oakland, have taken a restrictive approach by limiting pursuits to incidents involving serious crimes. The other end of the spectrum would be a standard adopted by some agencies that allows officers to pursue for any "failure to yield" to an attempted traffic stop, regardless of the initial basis for the enforcement action.
Since 2013, and after identifying what it believed to be excessive engagement in high-risk vehicle pursuits, the Department has consciously used a restrictive threshold to limit pursuit incidents. This has been reflected fairly consistently in the agency's low annual totals. However, as we have discussed in prior Reports, specific refinements to policy and internal discussions about the pros and cons of different approaches have continued in an effort to provide greater clarity and accommodate the importance of officer discretion in real-time decision-making.
Our review this year offered us a window into the status of these ongoing efforts.
In this section, we discuss both formal pursuits and events that were classified as Tracking Mode or Assessment Period – perhaps inaccurately. Our findings suggest that the Department would benefit from a recalibration of its pursuit philosophy overall. A clearly articulated framework, grounded in operational realities and aligned across policy, training, and supervision, can help restore 40 P a g e | 27
clarity, reinforce accountability, and ensure that vehicle engagements are conducted safely, lawfully, and in accordance with the expectations of leadership, the City, and the public.
Formal Pursuits and the Balance Test
The Department reported five formal vehicle pursuits in 2024, two of which stemmed from the same incident involving multiple fleeing suspects. This is a modest number, and one that is both consistent with recent totals and reflective of the agency's stringent requirements for authorization.
As in the past, the Department evaluated these events thoroughly. Each incident received significant internal scrutiny and review, resulting in thorough debriefing and re-training for individuals, units, and across the Department.
Two were found to have been out of policy and addressed accordingly with corrective action and re-training.
To assess these incidents, the Department applied its “Balance Test,” a structured method for evaluating the risk-to-benefit ratio of pursuit engagement. While past applications of the test have yielded inconsistent outcomes, this year’s analyses appeared to apply the framework more consistently and effectively.
For example, in one pursuit case, the initial call for service was for a residential burglary. While that call did not initially appear to meet the pursuit criteria, the Board noted that the call indicated the four subjects who fled might be armed, raising the level of risk to the public. The Board noted that the officers broadcast early and effectively, giving the Watch Commander the necessary information to first authorize, and then monitor, the pursuit. The officers called for assistance of their Air Unit and officers from a neighboring agency. While the officers’ speeds were high in a residential zone, traffic was light and the officer drove with due regard for public safety. These factors were all weighed against each other – an application of the Balance Test -- and the Department found this pursuit to be “in policy.”
41 P a g e | 28
Conversely, the Department used the Balance Test to find two of the pursuits to be out of policy when the risks outweighed the rewards. In these cases, they determined that the officers’ actions, which included unsafe driving behaviors, failure to activate emergency equipment, and limited communication, outweighed the benefits of apprehending the subjects. . In one of these, the Board noted that, even though the pursuit met the initial criteria to pursue – a felony – officers drove at unsafe speeds and without due regard for the safety of the public. Then, technical issues delayed the communication between the Air Unit and ground units in pursuit, resulting in the ground units continuing a high-speed, high-risk pursuit when they should have transitioned into Tracking Mode. These risks did not meet the Balance Test criteria, and the Department found the pursuit to be out of policy.
Tracking Mode and Assessment Period
In our 2022 review, we recommended caution regarding the implementation of two new operational designations -- Tracking Mode and Assessment Period -- intended to provide lower-risk alternatives to formal vehicle pursuits.
These alternatives defined in Policy 314: Vehicle Pursuits. “Tracking Mode” is when an incident meets the criteria for a pursuit, but conditions have become unsafe to continue. In these cases, the officer can request the support of an Air Unit. The officer can still follow the suspect vehicle, either “Code-3” (with lights and sirens) or without. However, the officer must do so “at reduced speed” and “out of the suspect line of sight.”
The policy also allowed for an “assessment period,” where officers are allowed time to assess the violator/suspect actions (i.e., is the violator looking back at the officer, is there a safe place for the violator/suspect to pull over). But, as the policy notes, “An assessment period is not intended to be a pretext for officers to initiate a pursuit without alerting supervision.”
While these categories were designed to offer field flexibility and reduce risk, prior reports noted that their introduction could lead to pursuit-like actions occurring outside the Department’s formal pursuit framework. Specifically, we 42 P a g e | 29
raised concerns that officers might engage in high-risk driving behaviors without meeting the policy criteria for initiating a pursuit – and without engaging the supervision and other safeguards that are built into formal pursuit requirements.
By 2023, our reviews found that both officers and supervisors occasionally misunderstood the operational boundaries of these designations. In some cases, the distinction between Tracking Mode, Assessment, and formal pursuits appeared blurred, potentially undermining the Department’s restrictive pursuit threshold.
In response, the Department refined its policy language, provided targeted training, and implemented a Tracking Mode / Assessment Period Driving Log (Recommendation 16, 2022). The Log was intended to document these specific events, support supervisory awareness, and provide data to evaluate the use and effectiveness of these alternatives. In 2024, the Log recorded 43 such incidents: 34 resulted in disengagement, four in apprehension, and five had other outcomes. 22 The events in this Log, however, were not regularly reviewed unless they involved an incident that required supervisory evaluation per Department protocol, such as use of force.
As part of this year’s review, we randomly selected eight cases from the Log for closer evaluation. The goal was to assess adherence to policy and identify any patterns in operational practice. In these cases, we observed driving behaviors that resembled those typically associated with formal pursuits, such as extended length / duration, intermittent use of lights and sirens, and violations of the vehicle code such as speeding. In short, they were pursuits in practice, if not in name.
22 According to the Department, the three outcome categories are defined as follow:
- Let go – the officers canceled following the vehicle based on their assessment or when the level of offense did not warrant the necessary resources, such as the Air Unit, and/or when other investigative options were available. - Apprehended – most often as a result of Tracking Mode, where the helicopter followed and directed patrol units to the vehicle when it parked. - Other – handed off to another agency, or vehicle was tracked and located/recovered, but was not occupied (or nobody was apprehended). 43 P a g e | 30
To its credit, the Department reclassified one case in real time after a supervisor determined that the driving behavior met the criteria for a formal pursuit. Officers had believed they were in Tracking Mode while pursuing a suspected stolen vehicle but engaged in high-speed driving inconsistent with policy. Once officers began to broadcast their actions, a supervisor cancelled the pursuit, the incident was reclassified, and the Department conducted a full debrief and formal review, ultimately finding the pursuit to be out of policy. This response reflects best practice: real-time correction, supervisory intervention, and post-incident accountability (and reinforces how important communication is to effective outcomes).
But the Department acknowledged that this was not the case with the other events logged as Tracking Mode, which showed comparable patterns. In most, the initiating offense did not meet the Department’s criteria for a formal pursuit and officers did not declare a pursuit or initiate consistent Code-3 (lights and sirens). Instead, they broadcast that they were in Tracking Mode while continuing to follow the subject vehicle at close range, often violating the vehicle code and only intermittently using emergency equipment. The Department acknowledged that this was not consistent with the intended use of Tracking Mode, and presented increased risks while officers waited for an Air Unit to go overhead.
Generally, we did not see officers reduce speed or maintain distance from the subject vehicle once the Air Unit was overhead, as was intended by Tracking Mode. We did, however, observe effective containment and apprehension when officers were directed to the termination of an event by the Air Unit.
Assessment Period cases presented different but equally challenging issues.
These incidents involved lower-level offenses that did not meet pursuit criteria, yet officers engaged in higher-risk driving behaviors for extended periods, such as running red lights, freeway transitions, and sporadic use of emergency equipment. The Department acknowledged that Assessment, as implemented, allowed officers too much discretion in the field. It is now considering eliminating the designation entirely, a plan that we support.
Recommendation 9
BPD should consider eliminating the concept of Assessment Period from Policy 314.
44 P a g e | 31
In both cases, officers’ actions are often not regularly evaluated or corrected (this was even the case when an Assessment Period led to a formal pursuit, as we noted above). To strengthen oversight, the Department plans to assign the Audits and Inspections Unit to conduct regular reviews of the Log to identify incidents that may warrant reclassification or further evaluation.
As these cases exemplified, the distinction between formal pursuits and “pursuit-like” activities is not strictly academic. It is foundational to risk management, policy compliance, and safety.
Communication and Code-3 Driving
Overall, we noted areas for potential improvement in pursuits or pursuit-like activity, such as communication and Code-3 driving, and recommend continued training to address these concerns.
Communication and broadcasting are essential components of pursuit operations; they serve not only to coordinate field units, but also to facilitate supervisory oversight, enabling real-time evaluation of pursuit justification and policy compliance. Communication from the initiating officer regarding location, suspect behavior, traffic conditions, and other critical factors, allows responding units and supervisors to make informed tactical decisions.
In some cases within this period, officers did not provide sufficient radio updates, hampering supervisory control. For example, in one case, the primary officer failed to broadcast that he was in an active pursuit, limiting his supervisor’s ability to cancel the pursuit when it became clear that the pursuit did not meet the criteria for authorization.
Similarly, our case reviews identified three instances where officers inconsistently used emergency equipment while in pursuit (referred to as 45 P a g e | 32
driving “Code-3”), as well as cases of officers passing on the right23 or failing to clear intersections safely. These failures were appropriately identified by the Department in the two cases classified as formal pursuits, and officers were retrained. In a third, however, the officer ran a red light before initiating a formal pursuit and going Code-3, presenting a risk as he drove through the intersection, and this behavior was not addressed.24
Effective communication and Code-3 driving remain central to safe and accountable pursuits. Officers should be trained and encouraged to clearly broadcast their intent and driving behavior, particularly when transitioning from observation to engagement. Supervisors rely on timely and accurate information to assess risk, authorize or terminate pursuits, and ensure compliance with Department policy.
Strengthening training in these key areas will improve outcomes. But we also recognize that more frequent “real world” training, such as the Emergency Vehicle Operation Course (EVOC) Training, can be cost and time prohibitive.25 As such, we recommend frequent and repeated classroom-based vehicle pursuit training during daily briefings; these trainings should include scenario- based table top exercises that replicate the decision-making needed during pursuits, such as testing “go/no-go” decisions against policy and radio communication simulations to reinforce driving skills and communication and coordination with supervisors, dispatch and the Air Unit.
The Department conducted this type of exercise when it debriefed the out of policy pursuit detailed above with involved personnel: it used video footage of
23 Officers are instructed to pass on the left when responding with lights and sirens, as civilian drivers are legally required to yield by pulling to the right side of the roadway.
24 In that case, the officer ran a red light without lights and sirens while he was still in “Assessment Period,” before escalating the event to a formal pursuit. This “pre- pursuit” driving was not evaluated by the Department. We discussed this and other challenges with Assessment in detail above.
25 EVOC is a specialized training program designed to teach first responders how to operate emergency vehicles safely and effectively under both routine and high-stress conditions. It is usually conducted, in part, on a training course behind the wheel of a patrol vehicle.
46 P a g e | 33
the incident alongside a detailed slide presentation to discuss missteps and areas of improvement. This debrief was commendable and should be used as a template for future similar Department-wide training.
Recommendation 10
BPD should conduct frequent and repeated scenario-based vehicle pursuit training during daily briefings as practicable to reinforce best practices.
Recalibration of the “Pursuit Philosophy”
Confusion at the officer level and inconsistent application of the policy continue to be features of the Department's performance in this area. Factors that we identified in past reports remain an issue. Officers, particularly those newer to the field, often lack practical exposure to pursuit dynamics and appear uncertain about when and how to formally declare a pursuit.
Simultaneously, the introduction of alternative classifications such as "Tracking Mode" and "Assessment Period," while intended to enhance operational discretion, has introduced ambiguity that complicates decision- making in the field.
On their face, these descriptions show the complexities involved in trying to "navigate the gray," and find the right balance between risk management and effective enforcement, or between officer discretion and bright line limits. And our recent discussions with BPD leadership have also given us insight into what may be the prevailing mindset at the patrol level: a perception that Department management dislikes pursuits and that avoiding them – or the formal acknowledgment of them – is therefore a priority. This view may have been shaped by past administrative outcomes related to pursuits, limited positive reinforcement for well-managed pursuits, and a more prominent cultural emphasis on risk avoidance.
47 P a g e | 34
As a result, BPD has inadvertently created conditions in which officers may hesitate to engage or may misclassify events in a way that sidelines the structured oversight and safeguards that should be applicable. Certainly, caution is appropriate given the risks associated with pursuits. We respect the thoughtfulness with which BPD established a high threshold while continuing to remain open to the benefits of – or needs for – ongoing refinement. But in some ways, the Department is back to square one: an officer population that is inexperienced, wary, uncertain, and incentivized to characterize their driving activity in ways that may not match the substantive reality of it.
It is important to recognize that vehicle pursuits, when conducted within policy and under supervisory oversight, remain a necessary tool in certain limited enforcement contexts. Avoiding the formal declaration of a pursuit does not eliminate risk; if anything, it is likely enhanced by limiting safeguards such as Code-3 notification, supervisory monitoring, and structured debriefing.
The Department has acknowledged this challenge and is already in the process of revising its pursuit policy yet again. We recommend that the Department use this opportunity to evaluate its overall “Pursuit Philosophy” first, before making policy revisions. In its 2019 Vehicle Pursuit guidelines, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) stated:
The first step an agency should take […] is to clearly outline the overall pursuit philosophy that will be adopted. This overarching philosophy should outline when officers are authorized to pursue and should take into account a variety of factors, to include relevant jurisdictional law; the environment in which the agency operates, such as an urban or rural locale; and community expectations. This philosophy will largely dictate the procedures and tactics to be used during a pursuit.
As pursuit policy continues to evolve, there is a clear need to define and communicate the Department’s pursuit philosophy. Doing so will help the Department develop its new policy, clarify when and why pursuits are appropriate, and align training and supervisory expectations with those goals. 48 P a g e | 35
Doing so may help reduce ambiguity, reinforce operational consistency, and support a culture of informed decision-making and accountability.26
Recommendation 11
Before drafting an updated pursuit policy, BPD should clearly define its “pursuit philosophy,” and use this exercise to develop policy, training, and supervisory expectations that align with this philosophy.
26 In developing this policy, it would be helpful for BPD to solicit input from City leadership and the City’s Police Commission as representatives of the Burbank community.
49 P a g e | 36
Special Project: BPD’s Field
Training Program
As this year’s “special project,” we chose to evaluate Burbank’s Field Training Program to determine if it operates within the framework of California’s standards and best practices nationwide. A field training program is a structured, on-the-job learning experience where new officers are mentored by experienced personnel to develop practical skills, apply departmental procedures, and demonstrate readiness for independent duty.
While this is an aspect of policing that is understandably overlooked by the average member of the public, it is a critical element of effective operations.
The program that helps new officers make the transition from the classrooms of the academy to the "real world" of patrol is a hugely influential factor in preparedness and strong performance. Accordingly, a rigorous approach to field training goes beyond checking boxes and instead contributes in substantive ways to officer development. Strengths are reinforced, weaknesses are identified and addressed, and – on rare occasions – new officers who are unable to meet expectations are separated from the agency.
In California, having a structured field training program is not just optional – it is required by law for agencies that employ peace officers. The implementation of these programs can vary by agency but must adhere to the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) minimum standards. Key POST mandates include:
• A minimum of 10 weeks of field training
• Use of a POST-approved Field Training Program Guide covering specific topic areas and competency requirements (e.g., officer safety, use of force, report writing, community relations, etc.). • Daily observation reports or training journal entries that document trainee performance each shift, reviewed with the trainee • Weekly summary or supervisory reviews of trainee progress by the program supervisor
50 P a g e | 37
• Qualified FTOs: trainers must be experienced (minimum of one year in patrol), complete a certified FTO course, and not have disqualifying misconduct (explicitly, California law bars officers with certain sustained bias or force complaints from being FTOs)
• FTO Coordinator: a designated supervisor (sergeant or above) to oversee the program and review documentation
• End-of-program verification: an attestation by the FTO and department head that the trainee has demonstrated all required competencies before being released from training
• Feedback mechanisms: POST also now requires that trainees evaluate their FTOs and the program at the end of training, and that FTOs receive annual performance reviews of their training duties, to ensure accountability and quality of training.
A sound field training program meets the structural requirements imposed by POST and delineated above. But it also (and obviously) depends on the quality and commitment of the officers who provide the training. They assist in familiarizing trainees with the many practical skills (radio communication, geography, searches, command presence, officer safety) the job entails. And, ideally, they also provide a worthy example in how to engage with the public respectfully and exercise discretion judiciously.
Our review found that BPD’s program has several exemplary features. To begin with, it is beyond compliance with the state requirements listed above.
As we detail in this section of our report, BPD’s six month program exceeds the 10-week minimum, and BPD uses the POST-sanctioned Daily Observation Report (DOR) format with numeric ratings. BPD also has a dedicated FTO program coordinator and completes all required sign-offs and documentation before a trainee is cleared for solo work. Trainees in BPD fill out end-of-phase critiques providing feedback on each FTO, which aligns with POST’s mandate for trainee evaluations of FTOs. (While the relative power imbalance here is a likely impediment to candor, some level of accountability for the training officers themselves makes sense to us as an important feature.) And, the department updates its FTO Policy Manual on a five-year cycle (most recently 51 P a g e | 38
in 2024) to incorporate new state standards and contemporary policing practices.27
In short, our review found that BPD meets or exceeds all core POST program standards.
Further, our review found that while Burbank’s program reflects many of the traditional practices of field training, often referred to as the “San Jose Model”, it also incorporates aspects of the newer “Reno Model,” which focuses on problem-solving and critical thinking over metrics.28 While BPD’s program is fundamentally a San Jose model variant (phased, rated DORs, etc.) with a longer timeframe, the program has incorporated several aspects of the Reno Model as well; for example, the evaluation form includes both numeric scores and narrative feedback, combining structure with reflection. Together, this creates a well-rounded program for trainees.
To evaluate BPD’s approach, we met with FTO program leadership and reviewed source materials to compare how BPD’s program aligns with these model best practices.
27 The 2024 update, for example, added content on procedural justice, updated policies on handling persons with mental illness, and included new written exams on penal codes to ensure recruits have retained academy legal knowledge. 28 The San Jose model, so named because it was developed in San Jose, California, in the 1970s, is characterized by daily numeric evaluations across numerous performance categories. It is by far the most widely used model nationwide and is even integrated into accreditation standards like CALEA. Around 2000, the “Reno Model” was developed with support from prominent national policing organizations and is meant to address some of the perceived limitations with the San Jose approach. It uses adult learning principles and problem-based learning instead of daily numeric ratings, and it emphasizes coaching and reflection. Trainees complete problem-solving exercises for each phase and the model incorporates community- oriented policing skills and critical thinking scenarios.
52 P a g e | 39
Burbank’s FTO Program: An Overview
The FTO program is managed by patrol and training leadership. A lieutenant serves as the FTO Program Coordinator and oversees the training progress, with a sergeant handling day-to-day supervision. This leadership convenes monthly FTO meetings where all FTOs discuss each trainee’s progress, share teaching strategies, and address any issues or complaints that have arisen.
These meetings also cover advanced training topics for FTOs – for example, recent sessions have included investigative techniques and crime scene management refreshers to ensure FTOs are equipped to teach those skills.
BPD also benefits from having former FTOs in supervisory roles on various shifts, which helps reinforce training standards: field supervisors who were ex- FTOs understand the training objectives and can mentor new officers consistent with the program’s expectations.
FTO Selection and Training
Best practice emphasizes that FTOs should be among the department’s best – not just good street cops, but good teachers and role models. Agencies should look for FTO candidates with strong leadership, patience and teaching ability, and a passion for mentorship. Furthermore, recent research underscores how critical FTO selection is: a study funded in part by the National Policing Institute found that the long-term behavior of new officers (like frequency of use-of-force incidents or citizen complaints) was statistically linked to who their FTO was, meaning that a less professional FTO can imprint bad habits that last years.29
BPD reported a rigorous selection process for Field Training Officers to ensure only high-performing, capable officers train new recruits. An officer who
29 Getty, Ryan & Worrall, John & Morris, Robert. (2014). How Far From the Tree Does the Apple Fall? Field Training Officers, Their Trainees, and Allegations of Misconduct.
Crime & Delinquency. 62. See also the National Policing Institute’s FTO page at https://www.policinginstitute.org/onpolicing/police-field-training-programs/ 53 P a g e | 40
volunteers to become an FTO must typically have at least 2 years of law enforcement experience (with a minimum of 1 year served at BPD).
Candidates submit a memorandum of interest and undergo an oral interview panel assessment. The average experience level for BPD’s FTOs is in fact 3– 5 years on the force, meaning trainers have a solid foundation of patrol experience before taking on trainees. BPD also reviews the candidate’s performance record and disciplinary history as part of selection, aligning with best practices that FTOs should model excellent conduct (e.g., no significant use-of-force issues or complaints).
Once selected, new FTOs must complete a 40-hour POST-certified Field Training Officer course, which covers adult teaching techniques, ethics, evaluation methods, and legal/liability issues in training. They are then officially certified as FTOs.
As noted above, California POST regulations mandate periodic updates; BPD adheres to this by requiring FTOs to attend update training at least every two years to stay current on training methods and policy changes; this exceeds the state requirement of 24 hours every 3 years, demonstrating Burbank’s commitment to keeping FTOs sharp. In 2024, BPD updated its FTO curriculum to reflect evolving law enforcement standards: new material was added on community policing, mental health crises, and de-escalation tactics.
FTOs were briefed on improved ways to evaluate performance, including clearer standardized criteria for scoring trainee behavior and knowledge (the FTO manual now has expanded explanations of how to grade performance in each category).
Additionally, BPD employs a tiered FTO role structure tied to experience and incentive: some FTOs are designated full-time trainers (with a pay premium and dedicated training duties), others serve as auxiliary FTOs who train as needed in addition to regular assignments, and a few are “FTO trainees” themselves (experienced officers in a probationary period as new FTOs). This tiered approach, including a small pay differential, motivates officers to become FTOs and recognizes the added responsibility. BPD’s approach aligns with practices in other agencies that offer stipends or career credit for serving as an FTO.
54 P a g e | 41
Trainee Onboarding and Progression
New BPD officers (“trainees”) enter the FTO program immediately after graduating from a police academy. BPD hires recruits and sends them to academies, such as the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Academy or Rio Hondo Police Academy, for training.30 After graduation, these recruits undergo approximately two weeks of post-academy classroom orientation at BPD covering Burbank-specific policies, municipal codes, report writing standards, and key procedures (for example, Burbank’s specific approach to search and seizure, high-risk car stops).
Trainees also spend another two to three weeks in practical skills refreshers, including defensive tactics and physical fitness with a Defensive Tactics sergeant. By the time a trainee begins patrol with their first FTO, they have been grounded in Burbank’s expectations and had an opportunity to rehearse critical skills, which helps bridge the gap between academy training and real policing in the city.
This initial orientation itself is the type of “adult-learning” reflective of the Reno Model, acknowledging that recruits benefit from classroom and hands-on refreshers before field immersion.
To strengthen this onboarding phase even more, the Department might also incorporate a structured community engagement or service component.
Integrating this element into the preliminary phase would provide trainees with meaningful exposure to the communities that they will serve. And, this addition would align with the principles of the Reno Model, which emphasizes community-oriented policing and relationship-building as core competencies for new officers. Moreover, this component would provide new hires unfamiliar with Burbank’s neighborhoods an opportunity to meet residents rather than encountering them for the first time in a criminal enforcement context.
30 Officers who previously served in other departments but transfer to BPD, commonly referred to as “laterals,” follow a similar field training program, but tailored to their level of experience and skill. Some can move through the FTO program at a more accelerated rate, while others benefit from the full FTO program like new-hires. 55 P a g e | 42
The engagement component could include activities such as participating in neighborhood meetings or community events or partnering with local organizations for service-based initiatives. For example, in Columbus, Ohio, trainees engage in a “field immersion” project, where recruits partner with local community organizations for hands-on service projects and ride- alongs outside of traditional police duties, such as working at a food bank, helping a neighborhood clean-up, or shadowing a social services outreach program. And, in New Jersey, the Camden County Police Department made community engagement a core part of its training program: it incorporates community outreach, attendance at local events, and youth engagement initiatives for officers in training. Trainees spend portions of their field training attending block parties, visiting schools, or working with mentorship programs, under the guidance of their FTOs, to learn effective ways to interact with residents.
We recommend that the Department consider adding this feature to its program and evaluating its impact through trainee feedback and supervisor observations.
Recommendation 12
BPD should add a structured community engagement or service component to its training program and evaluate its impact through trainee feedback and supervisor observations.
Program Structure and Phases
Once the initial orientation is complete, trainees enter a structured, six-month on-the-job training program divided into three phases. Each phase lasts approximately two months, and trainees rotate to a new FTO for each phase.
This rotation exposes the trainee to different coaching styles and scenarios, ensuring a well-rounded experience.
56 P a g e | 43
During Phase 1, the trainees ride with their first FTO and is introduced to daily patrol procedures. Early in this phase, the FTO often takes the lead on calls for service while the trainee observes; as days progress, the trainee increasingly handles radio communications, suspect contacts, report writing, and other tasks under close supervision. Regular quizzes and knowledge checks are administered in this phase (FTOs give tests on penal codes, common radio codes, and likely scenarios) to reinforce academy learning. By the end of Phase 1 (~8 weeks), the trainee should be able to perform basic patrol duties with moderate FTO assistance.
In Phase 2, the trainee is expected to take a more proactive role. They work with a different FTO to gain exposure to a new coaching style and potentially a different patrol area or shift. The trainee now handles most calls with the FTO evaluating and only stepping in when necessary for safety or critical corrections. By the end of Phase 2, a trainee should be approaching a level of competency where they can handle routine calls with minimal guidance.
Phase 3 is the final evaluation phase. With yet another FTO mentor, the trainee is treated nearly as a peer officer: they are expected to self-initiate activity (traffic stops, community contacts), manage scenes, and complete detailed reports without the FTO dictating actions. The last weeks of Phase 3 are referred to as the “ghost phase,” wherein the FTO wears plainclothes and acts as an observer. The trainee answers calls alone (though the FTO is present in the car or nearby for safety), and the public typically doesn’t realize that training is technically ongoing during these interactions. This setup tests whether the trainee can function as a solo officer, and builds the trainee’s confidence.
Daily Observation Reports
Throughout all phases, daily performance is rigorously documented and reviewed. After each shift, the FTO fills out a Daily Observation Report (DOR) in BPD’s electronic FTO tracking system (LEFTA). The DOR captures the trainee’s activities and rates their performance across standardized categories (such as officer safety, radio communication, suspect handling, decision- making, report writing, etc.).
57 P a g e | 44
Trainees must review and sign their DOR each day in the system and are given the opportunity to add their own comments or rebuttals to any points – this acknowledgment is an important feedback loop, as it ensures the trainee is aware of deficiencies and can learn from them.
To illustrate the daily tasks and performance of FTOs and trainees, we requested real examples drawn from Daily Observation Reports (DORs) used in BPD’s FTO program. BPD provided the DOR, as well as body-worn camera footage of the incident being evaluated. These vignettes demonstrate the range of scenarios new officers face – from routine tasks done well to critical mistakes – and show how FTOs document feedback and track performance over time.
• Missed Call and Situational Awareness: An example of a “less than satisfactory” day early in Phase 1.
Early in field training, programs should focus on developing situational awareness, communication skills, and problem-solving under supervision.
Trainees must learn to monitor radio traffic, broadcast their actions clearly, and retain critical information.
On one shift early in Phase 1, an FTO noted multiple oversights by his trainee. The DOR for that day captured a clear pattern: the trainee’s situational awareness, communication, and information retention needed improvement.
We reviewed one specific incident from that day: a traffic stop for a missing front plate. In the DOR, the FTO wrote that the trainee was not aware of the location and did not properly broadcast their stop (this occurred prior to the start of the body-worn camera clip). On the video clip, we observed the FTO coach the trainee on properly identifying the driver, who did not have a valid driver’s license, was not coming back in the system, and stated that he did not have any identification documents. The FTO told the trainee that he had to affirmatively identify the driver, provided several ideas on how to do so, and instructed the trainee to “figure it out.” After establishing rapport through conversation, the driver told the trainee that he did, in fact, have an ID, and officers were able to confirm his identity. Officers allowed 58 P a g e | 45
the passenger -- who had a valid driver’s license -- to drive the vehicle.
This marked the end of the traffic stop.
This example showed proactive coaching and illustrated the FTO’s role as a safety net and teacher – the FTO offered space for the trainee to problem solve in real time, while standing by to offer ideas. And, overall, the DOR for that day showed how a daily report memorializes mistakes in detail, allowing the department to track if such issues persist or improve with coaching.
• Focus on Officer Safety: An example of room for improvement in recognizing officer safety concerns in Phase 2.
Field training programs must prioritize officer safety as a foundational competency. FTOs play a critical role in reinforcing situational awareness and correcting unsafe practices in real time. We reviewed an example of this real-time coaching: fifteen days into Phase 2, a BPD trainee demonstrated both a need for improvement and a willingness to learn during a call involving a subject reportedly engaged in lewd conduct.
According to the DOR and body-worn camera footage, the trainee approached the subject and requested identification without first assessing the safety of the scene. The subject was surrounded by unidentified objects, wore baggy clothing, and had items tucked into his socks, all within arm’s reach. The trainee conducted a cursory pat-down without placing the subject in a position of disadvantage.
Recognizing the safety concerns, the FTO intervened and advised the trainee to reposition the subject and perform a more thorough search. The trainee complied, adjusting his approach.
The FTO noted that the trainee needed to improve his overall attention to officer safety, including maintaining tactical advantage and conducting comprehensive searches. However, the report also highlighted the trainee’s strong interest in protocol, his thoughtful questions, and his positive attitude toward learning. The trainee’s openness to feedback and desire to grow were seen as promising indicators of future success.
59 P a g e | 46
• Problem-Solving in Non-Critical Conditions: An example of accuracy and decision-making in non-critical conditions in Phase 3.
Field training programs should emphasize decision-making and procedural accuracy in routine, non-critical calls. Trainees must demonstrate initiative, attention to detail, and familiarity with documentation. We reviewed one clear example of this: ten days into Phase 3, a trainee demonstrated strong problem-solving and decision-making skills during two routine calls, as documented in the DOR and supported by body-worn camera footage.
In the first incident, the trainee observed an unoccupied vehicle that appeared to have been involved in a traffic collision. Using the Mobile Data Terminal, the trainee identified the vehicle as stolen, contacted the registered owner by phone, and completed a CHP-180 form to document the recovery. Although the body-worn camera did not capture the full resolution of the call, the FTO noted that the trainee closed out the incident appropriately and independently.
Later that shift, the trainee responded to a petty theft call at a retail store.
He reviewed surveillance footage, captured screenshots of the suspect, collected detailed information from the reporting party, and provided a report number to the store’s loss prevention team. When prompted by the FTO, the trainee obtained an itemized receipt to complete the documentation. The body-worn camera clip ended shortly thereafter, but the FTO’s report noted that the trainee and FTO canvassed the area and located a suspect matching the description.
The FTO commended the trainee’s attention to process and detail, noting that his methodical approach made both calls easy to manage and effective. The FTO also advised that improving speed and efficiency would further enhance the trainee’s patrol readiness. This highlighted the trainee’s ability to apply investigative tools, follow procedure, and respond thoughtfully to routine calls. It also reflects the FTO’s role in reinforcing best practices and coaching the trainee toward greater efficiency.
• Compassion and command presence: An example of the varied responses needed when responding to different calls for service late in Phase 3.
60 P a g e | 47
Field training programs should prepare trainees to adapt their demeanor and tactics based on the nature of the call. Late in Phase 3, a trainee demonstrated this adaptability across two distinct calls for service, as documented in DORs from days 12 and 16.
On day 12, the trainee responded to a sexual battery call. The FTO commended the trainee’s tactful and thorough approach. Body-worn camera footage showed the trainee engaging the survivor with compassion and professionalism, advising her that he might ask personal questions and offering breaks if needed. He asked detailed, respectful questions and apologized when asking more probative questions, maintaining confidence while navigating a sensitive interview. This interaction reflected the trainee’s ability to apply trauma-informed practices and build trust with a vulnerable community member. 31
Four days later, on day 16, the trainee responded to a suspicious vehicle call. Here, he displayed a markedly different approach: assertive and tactically safe. The body-worn camera showed the trainee approaching the driver with command presence, coordinating with his FTO who approached the passenger side. When the FTO observed drug paraphernalia in the driver’s hand, he alerted the trainee, who then ordered the driver out of the vehicle. When the driver refused, the trainee opened the door and calmly escorted him out. The driver became agitated, and the trainee de- escalated by speaking in the driver’s native language and modulating his tone, raising his voice briefly to gain control, then lowering it once compliance was achieved.
During the consent search of the vehicle, the trainee located a large number of keys and the FTO found bolt cutters. The trainee consulted the FTO, who advised that these items were suspicious. The trainee then determined that Miranda advisement was appropriate and proceeded with
31 If anything, at times the trainee's careful approach seemed better suited to the needs of the woman being interviewed than that of his training officer. We noted a couple of instances in which the FTO interjected (presumably in an effort to help advance the process), and in a way that seemed relatively jarring to the woman. It made the trainee's sensitive handling of the encounter all the more impressive. 61 P a g e | 48
questioning, which the driver refused. Later, the FTO guided the trainee through the impound process, which the trainee completed successfully.
These two clips illustrated the trainee’s ability to shift between compassion and authority, depending on the call. It also highlighted the strong rapport between the trainee and FTO, marked by open communication, real-time guidance, and collaborative problem-solving. The trainee’s confidence in asking questions and the FTO’s responsive mentorship exemplify the kind of dynamic that supports growth.
This DOR also noted that FTOs and trainees practiced “role playing” Field Sobriety Tests on each other, and that the FTOs provided feedback for administering the tests as well as proper report-writing for these incidents.
Here, we see implementation of the Reno Model, which emphasizes scenario-based role play as a training tactic. The FTO also noted that he quizzed the trainee on the five most commonly used Burbank Municipal Codes and the practical application of these codes while on patrol.
• Balancing Independence with Fundamentals: An example of demonstrating initiative while reinforcing core skills.
As trainees approach the end of field training, they should demonstrate initiative, sound judgment, and the ability to operate independently – all while maintaining the core skills they acquired during Phases 1 and 2, such as thorough and accurate report-writing. On Day 25 of Phase 3, the FTO documented commendable performances by his trainee, which showed strong investigative instincts and initiative.
But the shift also highlighted areas for improvement in documentation.
During the shift the trainee made several reporting errors that required correction: the FTO emphasized the importance of reporting accuracy, especially as the trainee neared the end of Phase 3.
We reviewed body-worn camera footage for one of these: the trainee completing the booking process. While the trainee was methodical and precise in the process, according to the DOR, the trainee submitted a form with inaccurate information, which was caught by the Watch Commander and corrected by the FTO. This example illustrated the balance between 62 P a g e | 49
growing independence and the continued need for attention to detail. The FTO’s feedback and coaching ensured that the trainee remained focused on core skills while becoming more independent.
• Managing Stress and Maintaining Protocol: An example of keeping a calm demeanor and focusing on proper procedures, especially when responding to high-stress calls for service.
Field training programs should prepare trainees to manage stress effectively while maintaining procedures. Trainees must demonstrate calm decision-making, safe driving practices during emergency responses, and adherence to investigative protocols. We observed these in a DOR that occurred toward the end of Phase 3: a trainee demonstrated composure across multiple high-stress calls.
During a Code-3 response to an injury traffic collision, the trainee maintained control while driving with lights and sirens, choosing the most direct route and avoiding overdriving. Upon arrival, he calmly contacted each of the victims and conducted a methodical investigation. The FTO noted that the trainee completed all necessary documentation independently and that he used the incident as an opportunity to review the mission and responsibilities of the Traffic Bureau.
Later in the same shift, the trainee responded to two additional high-stress calls, including one involving a person experiencing a mental health crisis and self-harming. In each case, the FTO reported that the trainee demonstrated sound judgment, emotional steadiness, and appropriate tactical response (we did not review the body-worn camera footage for these calls).
The FTO commended the trainee’s ability to remain focused and professional under pressure, which reflects BPD’s emphasis on preparing trainees to navigate emotionally charged situations with clarity, confidence, and procedural accuracy.
These example cases collectively show how the FTO program documents a trajectory from mistakes to mastery. Early on, DORs might read like detailed lists of errors (missed radio calls, poor geographic awareness, etc.), but as 63 P a g e | 50
training progresses, the tone shifts to documenting solid, acceptable police work and occasional commendations for excellent performance.
Because each DOR is preserved in the LEFTA system, BPD’s training coordinators and command staff can track each trainee’s development. For example, if an officer had recurring issues with situational awareness in multiple DORs, the program leaders would flag that and perhaps adjust training. Conversely, improvements would be evident if later DORs no longer mention those problems.
Ultimately, this review underscored that field training is a daily educational process. Every patrol shift becomes a classroom. The FTOs not only supervise but also document the learning that occurs to gauge how well new officers are being prepared for solo service.
End-of-Phase Reports
At the end of each phase, a more formal End-of-Phase Report is prepared.
This report summarizes the trainee’s performance over that phase, documents any remedial training completed, and recommends whether the trainee should advance to the next phase. The End-of-Phase report is reviewed and signed by the FTO Supervisor, the FTO Program Lieutenant, and the Patrol Division Captain. This chain-of-command review enforces oversight: it ensures multiple levels of leadership agree the trainee has met the required competencies to progress.
If a trainee is not ready to advance, the program can “re-phase” them – meaning they repeat the phase with a new or extended training plan. BPD policy allows one re-phase opportunity for a trainee to improve in deficient areas. In some cases, targeted remedial training will be assigned during the re-phase; for instance, if a trainee struggled with conducting searches properly, they might be sent for a day of intensive remedial training on search techniques (e.g. practicing searches on arrestees at the jail under supervision).
We looked at several recent examples of End of Phase reports that were provided by BPD at our request. The reports follow a template that guides the 64 P a g e | 51
FTO toward capturing both the most and least acceptable aspects of trainee performance during the phase. One "Phase 1" report listed multiple examples in each category, with specific supporting details. ("In the last two weeks, he only used his map once...and was arriving to locations in a timely manner." And, less favorably, "...there were at least three instances when he allowed the detainee to dictate the interaction...and in one instance allowed a detainee to enter a vehicle."). The mixture of genuine praise and fair criticism reflected the thoughtfulness of the preparer's evaluation, and a true understanding of the trainee's strengths and weaknesses.32
While other sample reports were less detailed, each was convincingly individualized. While many of the same issues came up in multiple reports (geography, handling of radio traffic, report writing, officer safety), it was interesting to note that the trainees often differed from each other as to whether a given topic fell into the positive or negative side of the ledger.
As the phases progressed, the end of phase reports often became more concise – an evolution that seemed commensurate with the expected development of the officers as they advanced through the program and gained experience. Importantly, the reports also listed out the interventions that were used to address noted shortcomings. And a part of the template is for listing and description of any "remedial training" necessary.
Those who do succeed in all three phases are released from the FTO program and continue to work independently for the remainder of their 12-month probation. During that post-FTO probationary period, training staff continues to monitor the new officers’ progress informally – field supervisors keep an eye on their reports and tactics, and any slip in performance can be addressed with additional coaching. By the one-year mark, the officer’s overall performance is assessed again before they are considered fully past probation.33
32 Where relevant, the reports also tended to put individual issues into a larger context of typical challenges for new officers, and part of a normal arc that trainees travel along. This experienced perspective helps FTO's draw useful distinctions between real concerns and "rookie mistakes."
33 In this first year of service while on probation, new hires may be released for any performance related concerns.
65 P a g e | 52
One suggestion for further strengthening the evaluation program would be the addition of formal problem-solving exercises or written self-assessments from trainees at the end of phase period. For example, BPD could ask trainees in Phase 3 to write a brief reflection on a significant incident they handled. This would address the critique that traditional programs may not promote enough reflective learning. BPD might also consider assigning each trainee a community project or mini-study (like analyzing a specific crime problem in their area) during training to foster broader thinking.
Recommendation 13
BPD should consider incorporating formal problem-solving exercises or written self-assessments from trainees to promote reflective learning and assign trainees a community-based project to foster broader thinking.
Falling Out: Extending Phases or Separation
Nationwide, agencies report that roughly 10% of trainees “fall out” (do not advance) by the end of a given phase and require re-phasing or remediation. If after remediation a trainee still cannot meet performance standards, or if serious issues arise, the trainee may be separated from the department. BPD has historically seen an overall attrition rate of about 24% in the field training program. Much of this attrition is due to trainees self-selecting out of the career (resigning when it becomes clear the job or the scrutiny of training isn’t for them) rather than outright terminations, according to program data.
On the remedial side, BPD does well: they have a structured plan for remediation (additional training, re-phasing) which is a best practice to salvage those who have potential but need more time. Not all departments formally allow re-phasing; BPD’s willingness to extend training for those showing progress aligns with a modern view that sometimes a rigid time limit is not right for every individual.
66 P a g e | 53
BPD provided two examples of trainees who, unfortunately, did not meet the Department’s standards and were separated from the program. This is surely disappointing to the involved officer, as well as to the agency that has invested time, money and attention and that depends so heavily on staffing to accomplish its responsibilities. At the same time, it reflects well on the program in one important sense: maintaining standards of competent performance in the field is seemingly recognized as so important that it overrides the incentives to look past a marginal employee's limitations.
We had the opportunity to assess the "close-out" packages which explained in detail the unsuccessful arc of the trainee's time in the program, and the basis for the determination that further remediation would likely not be sufficient to overcome identified challenges. We found them to be impressive in their thoughtfulness, thoroughness, and specificity; it seemed clear that the trainees had been given every opportunity to succeed, and that the decision to end their tenure with the agency was made correctly.34
The first trainee had been in the program for five months. Not only had the officer not progressed in fixing the various shortcomings in his performance, but he had also seemingly regressed in some areas. Training officers found his engagement level to be curiously low and were puzzled by his seeming reluctance to talk through performance challenges. Efforts at remediation were documented (and often added up to several hours on a given topic).
The other trainee was in the program for three months; this trainee was found to continuously underperform in every critical aspect of policing in the field, even after extensive, documented, extra training outside of the formal program by two FTOs. For example, even after twenty extra hours of report-writing training, the trainee made no progress in this skill, taking hours to complete a basic report with repeated errors that required correction. Beyond this, however, the FTOs suspected that the trainee may have integrity issues, and his high scores on paper tests did not align with his knowledge in the field.
And FTOs noted challenges with his professionalism when engaging with members of the public.
34 The officers are given the opportunity to voluntary resign from the agency, which is presumably helpful for future employment prospects (though other law enforcement agencies would nonetheless be on notice of concerns).
67 P a g e | 54
These two cases, while unfortunate, underscore a critical strength of the program: a clear commitment to maintaining professional standards, even when doing so is difficult. In a profession where public trust and operational effectiveness hinge on the quality of individual officers, the ability to recognize and act on persistent deficiencies is essential.
Wellness and Resilience for FTOs and
Trainees
One emerging best practice area is ensuring the wellbeing of both trainees and their FTOs. Field training is stressful for both parties: trainees are under intense scrutiny, and FTOs have the weight of constant evaluation and dual responsibility of patrol and teaching.
The IACP has promoted resilience strategies for FTOs, encouraging departments to help FTOs avoid burnout and cynicism by providing support resources, training in stress management, and reasonable rotations (not overusing the same FTO continuously).35 Some agencies cap how many back-to-back training cycles an FTO can do before a break to prevent fatigue.
BPD does consider FTO workload – with 12 FTOs for about 10 trainees at a time, they can spread out assignments.
For trainees, best practices include taking mental health into account: for example, if a trainee has a particularly traumatic call (a gruesome scene or a child death), a good program will ensure a debrief with a peer support or counselor if needed, not just an evaluation on the daily observation reports.
Currently, BPD does not have a formal mechanism for trainees to meet together for debriefing or peer support, outside of their daily one-on-one feedback from FTOs. Program leadership identified this as a gap – while FTOs meet monthly to discuss trainees, the trainees do not have similar
35 See strategies at https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2024- 05/Resilience_Strategies_FTOs.pdf
68 P a g e | 55
regular meet-ups to collectively discuss their experiences or stressors.
Establishing a periodic trainee debrief or mentoring session could help new officers process the challenges of field training (a recommendation the department is now considering). This kind of support can bolster resilience and mental health for trainees who are under significant pressure to perform during their probation.
Recommendation 14
BPD should develop a structured program for trainees to meet regularly to debrief and for peer support.
On the positive side, BPD’s culture of involving multiple FTOs means no single mentor has undue influence or burden the entire time, which can mitigate overattachment or bias. Going forward, as a best practice, BPD might implement a short “check-in” meeting with each trainee class by a psychologist or peer support team, separate from evaluation, to discuss stress and coping.
Additionally, ensuring FTOs themselves have support (perhaps periodic meetings among FTOs not just to discuss trainees tactically, but also to vent frustrations or share support strategies for themselves) can improve the program.
Recommendation 15
BPD should implement a short “check-in” meeting with each trainee class by a psychologist or peer support team, separate from evaluation, to discuss stress and coping.
Recommendation 16
BPD should develop periodic wellness sessions for FTOs to vent frustrations or share support strategies for themselves.
69 P a g e | 56
BPD Accomplishments
Each year, our office asks the Department to provide highlights from the prior calendar year so that we can inform and educate the public and the City Council. While these are not subjects of our routine review process, we nonetheless include this summary annually because it offers useful context about operational initiatives and performance indicators that matter to the community.
According to the Department, emergency response remained a core emphasis, with an average emergency response time of two minutes and thirty-eight seconds. The Department offered this metric as a current performance indicator of its commitment to rapid response when emergencies arise. The Department also reports that it launched a Community Service Officer (CSO) program, assigning trained non-sworn personnel to tasks such as basic report-taking, traffic control and parking enforcement, and community outreach. The stated rationale is to preserve sworn capacity for priority calls and investigative work while maintaining service levels for lower-risk assignments.
Internally, the agency introduced a new wellness program intended to support both sworn and professional staff. The initiative emphasizes physical fitness, nutrition, and broader well-being, with the expressed aim of sustaining a resilient workforce and strengthening decision-making and service delivery.
The Department further expanded the Mental Health Evaluation Team (MHET) by adding a clinician-officer pairing on Fridays and Saturdays, raising the team’s days of service from four to six per week to better align coverage with periods of higher call volume and community need. As context, our office has previously conducted an audit of BPD’s response to mental-health-related calls, including the operations of MHET, and found performance in this area to 70 P a g e | 57
be strong. The added coverage builds on a positive foundation and demonstrates the Department’s continued commitment to timely, specialized responses for individuals in crisis.
The Department reported achieving a new four-year accreditation through the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). This accreditation is earned by meeting externally developed standards of excellence in policy, procedures, operations, and service, and reflects an ongoing commitment to professionalism, accountability, and continuous improvement.
Finally, the Department highlighted continued investment in technology, including expansion of Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) tools and integration with the FUSUS real-time crime center platform to enhance situational awareness and investigative capacity in the field.
We appreciate the Department’s willingness to share these developments.
71 P a g e | 58
Conclusion
Our 2025 review of the Department affirms the Department’s continued commitment to accountability, transparency, and professional development.
The Department has made meaningful strides in refining its internal review systems, particularly in the areas of misconduct investigations and use of force oversight. These efforts reflect a culture of responsiveness and a continued willingness to evolve in alignment with best practices.
Looking ahead, BPD should continue to refine its pursuit policies to ensure clarity and consistency across operations. This includes articulating a more defined “pursuit philosophy” and reinforcing it through targeted training and supervisory guidance. Enhancing scenario-based training, especially in defensive tactics, vehicle pursuits, and de-escalation, will further equip officers to respond effectively in dynamic situations.
We also encourage the Department to integrate structured community engagement into its field training program. By embedding relationship-building into the early stages of officer development, BPD can foster trust and mutual understanding with the public it serves. In parallel, wellness initiatives for both trainees and their FTOs should be expanded to promote resilience and mental health throughout the organization.
We also want to acknowledge and express our appreciation for the time and effort BPD staff dedicated to supporting this review process. Their timely responses and provision of thorough data were instrumental in enabling our work. As the Department transitions to new command leadership, we look forward to continuing our collaborative relationship and supporting BPD’s ongoing efforts.
72 P a g e | 59
Recommendations
1: BPD should reinforce the principle that intake interviews with complainants are primarily intended to acquire a full understanding of their allegations and concerns – and not as a forum for rebuttal or defense of officer actions.
2: BPD should address employees’ suboptimal performance issues that emerge in the context of complaint cases, even when the identified issues don't rise to the level of formal policy violations.
3: BPD should refine its agency-wide understanding of "de-escalation" techniques to maintain emphasis on tactics and strategies that lessen the likelihood of physical force being necessary.
4: BPD should encourage supervisors to prioritize the objective acquisition of detailed statements of individuals upon whom force was used and other witnesses where possible.
5: BPD should continue to include recorded interviews with arrestees and civilian witnesses as part of its routine CIRB process.
6: BPD should explore “micro training” in defensive tactics to provide more regular review of hand-on / empty hands techniques.
7: BPD should continue to ensure that current training of its police service dogs is reflective of evolving legal standards and should ensure that a rigorous review of bite incidents continues to be part of its CIRB process.
8: BPD should routinely review Taser Deployment Logs and direct supervisors to address anomalies (such as trigger rejections or multiple activations) through documented explanation or other needed intervention.
73 P a g e | 60
9: BPD should consider eliminating the concept of Assessment Period from Policy 314.
10: BPD should conduct frequent and repeated scenario-based vehicle pursuit training during daily briefings as practicable to reinforce best practices.
11: Before drafting an updated pursuit policy, BPD should clearly define its “pursuit philosophy,” and use this exercise to develop policy, training, and supervisory expectations that align with this philosophy.
12: BPD should add a structured community engagement or service component to its training program and evaluate its impact through trainee feedback and supervisor observations.
13: BPD should consider incorporating formal problem-solving exercises or written self-assessments from trainees to promote reflective learning and assign trainees a community-based project to foster broader thinking.
14: BPD should develop a structured program for trainees to meet regularly to debrief and for peer support.
15: BPD should implement a short “check-in” meeting with each trainee class by a psychologist or peer support team, separate from evaluation, to discuss stress and coping.
16: BPD should develop periodic wellness sessions for FTOs to vent frustrations or share support strategies for themselves.
74 ATTACHMENT 2
1 MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 14, 2025
TO: Justin Hess, City Manager
FROM: Rafael Quintero, Chief of Police
BY: Adam Cornils, Deputy Chief
Viviana Garzon, Police Administrator
SUBJECT: Response to the Office of Independent Review Group Recommendations in the 2024 Annual Report of the Independent Police Monitor
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to the Independent Police Monitor agreement with the City of Burbank, the Office of Independent Review (OIR) Group conducted its annual review and analysis of Burbank Police Department (Department). The review covered areas such as critical incidents, use of force incidents, vehicle pursuits, and the Department’s Field Training Program. The Department values OIR’s thorough evaluation as a n important tool for continuous improvement and for ensuring the delivery of high- quality public safety services to the Burbank community.
DISCUSSION
The 2024 annual report provided 16 recommendations. B elow is the Department’s response to each of the OIR Group’s recommendations:
Recommendation 1:
BPD should reinforce the principle that intake interviews with complainants are primarily intended to acquire a full understanding of their allegations and concerns – and not as a forum for rebuttal or defense of officer actions. Page 11
The Department generally agrees with this recommendation and will incorporate it into upcoming supervisor training sessions. The Department also recognizes the value to be had in dialogue between supervisors and complainants, where clarifying POLICE
DEPARTMENT
75 2
misunderstandings or asking probing questions may be necessary, while stopping short of defensive rebuttals or arguments.
Recommendation 2:
BPD should address suboptimal performance that emerge in the context of complaint cases, even when the identified issues don’t rise to the level of formal policy violations.
The Department agrees with this recommendation. In 2025, the Department has been addressing suboptimal performance uncovered during administrative investigations, which do not amount to formal policy violations, via directed counseling / training conversations, which are then documented in a comment card and side memo associated to the investigations.
Recommendation 3:
BPD should refine its agency -wide understanding of “de- escalation” techniques to maintain emphasis on tactics and strategies that lessen the likelihood of physical force being necessary. Page 16
The Department will incorporate this recommendation into upcoming supervisor training sessions.
Recommendation 4:
BPD should encourage supervisors to prioritize the objective acquisition of detailed statements of individuals upon force was used and other witnesses where possible. Page 17 The Department agrees with this recommendation and will incorporate it into upcoming supervisor training sessions.
Recommendation 5:
BPD should continue to include recorded interviews with arrestees and civilian witnesses as part of its routine CIRB process. Page 17
The Department agrees with this recommendation. The Department is currently revamping its process for the investigation of critical incidents, with a focus on optimizing the use of available technology and software platforms. This will eliminate steps and allow supervisors to directly link and attach recordings to the investigative file, instead of the more cumbersome practice of downloading and copying recordings to media devices such as compact discs and USB drives, which creates opportunities for files to be overlooked.
76 3
Recommendation 6:
BPD should explore “micro training” in defensive tactics to provide more regular review of this most commonly used force option. Page 19
The Department agrees with this recommendation and will explore having the Training Bureau develop a curriculum of Defensive Tactics training sessions, suitable for regular presentation in briefings and Roll Call trainings.
Recommendation 7:
BPD should ensure that current training of its police service dogs is reflective of evolving legal standards and societal expectations and should ensure that a rigorous review of bite incidents continues to be part of its CIRB process. Page 22
The Department has a robust training regimen for its police service dogs, handlers, and supervision, which includes ongoing legal updates. The Department recognizes the potential concerns, as well as the tremendous value, in the effective deployment of police service dogs, and will continue to ensure a rigorous review of their deployments.
Recommendation 8:
BPD should routinely review Taser Deployment Logs as part of their protocols. Logs that reflect anomalies, such as trigger rejections, or multiple activations should prompt supervisory commentary on justification, tactical reasoning, and any necessary intervention. Page 25
The Department is now including the Training Coordinator in the review process, prior to the overall CIRB meeting, and will ensure the deployment logs are reviewed and issues as mentioned are reconciled in the process.
Recommendation 9:
BPD should consider eliminating the concept of Assessment Period from its policy. Page 31 The Department agrees with this recommendation and eliminated the “Assessment Period” concept from its pursuit policy during an update published in August, 2025.
Recommendation 10:
BPD should conduct frequent and repeated scenario-based vehicle pursuit training during daily briefings as practicable to reinforce best practices. Page 33
77 4
The Department agrees with this recommendation and will examine opportunities to incorporate tabletop exercises, video reviews, and other scenario- based training vignettes into its Roll Call training schedule.
Recommendation 11:
Before drafting an updated pursuit policy, BPD should clearly define its “pursuit philosophy,” and use this exercise to develop policy, training, and supervisory expectations that align with this philosophy. Page 35
The Department will discuss and define its “pursuit philosophy” during upcoming meetings of the Management Team and Executive Staff as it seeks to refine its pursuit policy to meet public safety expectations in the coming year.
Recommendation 12:
BPD should add a structured community engagement or service component to its training program and evaluate its impact through trainee feedback and supervisor observations.
The Department emphasizes trainees’ participation in community engagement activities.
Training units are regularly incorporated and expected to participate in events such as “Coffee with a Cop,” National Night Out, and other community events. The Departm ent will ensure the Field Training Program is documenting the trainees’ participation, observations, and feedback in their evaluations and reports.
Recommendation 13:
BPD should consider incorporating formal problem -solving exercises or written self - assessments from trainees to promote reflective learning and assign trainees a community-based project to foster broader thinking. Page 52
The Department will explore incorporating problem -solving and self -assessment exercises in Field Training. Based on the structured nature of the Field Training Program and the need to expose the trainee to a variety of investigative and field procedures, the Department expects the community -based project suggestion to be better suited to incorporation during the time when an officer has graduated from Field Training and is working independently on probation, under the guidance of a field supervisor.
Recommendation 14:
BPD should develop a structured program for trainees to meet regularly to debrief and for peer support. Page 55
The Department is currently working to enhance its overall peer support program and will explore incorporating a structured program for trainees as part of this. 78 5
Recommendation 15:
BPD should implement a short “check -in” meeting with each trainee class by a psychologist or peer support team, separate from evaluation, to discuss stress and coping. Page 55
The Department will explore including this in the training time that trainees undergo in between their graduation from the Academy and immersion in the Field Training Program.
Recommendation 16:
BPD should develop periodic wellness sessions for FTOs to vent frustrations or share support strategies for themselves. Page 55
The Department will explore incorporating this suggestion periodically during its scheduled monthly FTO meetings.
CONCLUSION
The OIR Group’s annual review provides significant value to the Burbank community by ensuing accountability, transparency, and continuous improvement within the Department. By evaluating critical areas of operations, the review enhances public safety, promotes equity, and reinforces the trust between the Department and the community.
ATTACHMENT:
None
79 1
CITY OF BURBANK
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JOINT MEETING WITH THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2025
Call to Order:
A Closed Session Meeting of the City Council of the City of Burbank was held in the Council Chamber, 275 East Olive Avenue, on the above date. The meeting was called to order at 4:03 p.m. by Mayor Perez.
Present: Council Member(s) Anthony, Mullins, Rizzotti, Vice Mayor Takahashi, and Mayor Perez
Absent: None
Also Present: City Manager Hess, Chief Assistant City Attorney Vander Borght, and City Clerk Clark
Closed Session Public Comment:
There being no response to the Mayor's invitation for Public Comment on Closed Session matters, the City Council recessed at this time to the City Hall First Floor Conference Room to hold a Closed Session on the following:
1. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
a. Pursuant to Govt. Code §54956.9(d)(1)
b. Name of Case: Iuliia Skrypka v. Andrew Ohanian, et al. c. Case No.: 25NNCV02215
d. Brief description and nature of case: Personal Injury - Auto accident
2. Conference with Real Property Negotiator
a. Pursuant to Govt. Code §54956.8
b. Property: 2244 N. Buena Vista St., Burbank, CA 91504 c. Parties Whom Agency or City is Negotiating with: Home Again LA (HALA) d. City Negotiator: Simone McFarland, Assistant Community Development Director – Business & Economic Development
e. Terms Under Negotiation: Insurance requirements and monthly rent
3. Conference with Real Property Negotiator
a. Pursuant to Govt. Code §54956.8
b. Property: Burbank Town Center - Burbank Center Stage Home of The Colony Theatre - 555 North Third Street, Burbank, CA 91502
c. Parties Whom Agency or City is Negotiating with: Onni Burbank Town Center LLC, 1031 S. Broadway, Suite 400, Los Angeles, CA - Peter Park; The Colony Theatre Company, 555 North Third Street, Burbank, CA - Heather Provost d. City Negotiator: Marisa Garcia, Parks and Recreation Director e. Terms Under Negotiation: Terms for the Sublease and Master Lease Modification
Consent Calendar
Item #1
80 2
The meeting reconvened at 6:09 p.m. with all Council Members present.
Call to Order:
A Joint Meeting of the City Council and the Housing Authority of the City of Burbank was held in the Council Chamber, 275 East Olive Avenue, on the above date. The meeting was called to order at 6:09 p.m. by Mayor Perez.
Moment of Reflection:
Mayor Perez held a Moment of Reflection to begin the meeting with positive and collective support for our beloved community.
Flag Salute:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Perez.
Roll Call:
Present: Council Member(s) Anthony, Mullins, Rizzotti, Vice Mayor Takahashi, and Mayor Perez
Absent: None
Also Present: City Manager Hess, Chief Assistant City Attorney Vander Borght, and City Clerk Clark
Announcements:
Mayor Perez displayed a PowerPoint presentation announcing the following: (1) Burbank Housing Corporation Board of Directors Vacancy; (2) Clean Air Day; (3) Burbank Animal Shelter Adoption Event; (4) Sustainable Burbank Commission Vacancy; (5) Art in Public Places Committee Vacancy; and (6) Infrastructure Oversight Board V
acancy.
Council Presentations/Recognitions:
1. Presentation of a Certificate of Recognition to the Burbank Boys U10 All-Stars for Earning the Title of the AYSO National Champions
Mayor Perez presented a Certificate of Recognition to the Burbank Boys U10 All- Stars for earning the title of the AYSO National Champions. Mrs. Julie Gurian accepted the certificate on behalf of Coach Gurian and the team.
2. Presentation of a Proclamation Declaring October 5-11, 2025, as “Fire Prevention Week” in the City of Burbank
Mayor Perez presented a Proclamation declaring October 5-11, 2025, as “Fire Prevention Week” in the City of Burbank and introduced Danny Alvarez, Burbank Fire Chief, and Jim Moye, Fire Marshal, who made remarks.
City Manager Report:
City Manager Hess introduced Damian Skinner, Interim Public Works Director, who made remarks; Taj Graham, Plan Check Engineer, who provided an update on the ProjectDox program; and Kimberley Clark, City Clerk, who announced the Passport Acceptance Facility's 10th anniversary celebration.
Reporting on Closed Session:
81 3
Chief Assistant City Attorney Vander Borght reported that the City Council met in Closed Session regarding the agendized Closed Session items and City Council took no reportable action.
Joint General Public Comment:
Appearing to comment were: Ron Bax, Monica Moye, Mark Scroggs, Eric Hawk, Andrés Garcia, Susan O'Carroll, Elizabeth Bax, Diana Pulver, Daniel, Jo Pimienta, Jackie Waltman, Harry Timuryan, and David Donahue.
Calling in to comment were: Earle LeMasters, Anonymous, Graham Matthews, and Laura Ioanou.
Council, City Manager, and/or City Attorney Comment:
Council Members and Staff responded to Public Comment.
Consent Calendar:
It was moved by Council Member Anthony, seconded by Council Member Mullins, and carried 5-0 by roll call vote to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried 5-0 with the following roll call vote: AYES: Anthony, Mullins, Rizzotti, Takahashi, and Perez.
NOES: None.
1. City Council Minutes
Approve the City Council Minutes of the Joint Meeting of September 9, 2025, and the Dark Meetings of September 16 and September 23, 2025.
2. Housing Authority Minutes
Approve the Housing Authority Minutes of the Joint Meeting of September 9, 2025.
3. Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Homeless Incentive Program Interagency Agreement between the Los Angeles County Development Authority and the Housing Authority of the City of Burbank (BHA), Awarding the BHA $99,888 for Fiscal Year 2025-26; and Authorize the City Manager or His Designee to Execute the Agreement and Any Future Amendments (with Housing Authority)
RESOLUTION NO. H-25-274
Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 HOMELESS INCENTIVE
PROGRAM (HIP) INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (LACDA) AND THE
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BURBANK (BHA), AWARDING THE BHA $99,888 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26; AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY
MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND ANY FUTURE AMENDMENTS.
82 4
4. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Design-Build Contract with Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. and Delegating Authority to the Parks and Recreation Director to Approve Plans and Specifications for Equipment to Upgrade the Existing 1500-Watt Metal-Halide Lighting at Robert E. Gross Park Ballfields to Light-Emitting Diode Technology
RESOLUTION NO. 25-29,644
Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A DESIGN-BUILD
CONTRACT WITH MUSCO SPORTS LIGHTING, LLC. AND DELEGATING
AUTHORITY TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR TO APPROVE
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR EQUIPMENT TO UPGRADE THE
EXISTING 1500-WATT METAL-HALIDE LIGHTING AT ROBERT E. GROSS PARK BALLFIELDS TO LIGHT-EMITTING DIODE TECHNOLOGY.
5. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Grant Agreement with LA84 Foundation 26 Champions to Support the City of Burbank’s Adaptive Soccer Program and to Promote Inclusive Soccer Opportunities in the Amount of $26,000, Authorizing the City Manager, or Designee to Execute the Agreement, and Amending the Adopted Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Budget by Appropriating Funds
RESOLUTION NO. 25-29,645
Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE LA84 FOUNDATION 26 CHAMPIONS TO SUPPORT THE CITY OF BURBANK’S
ADAPTIVE SOCCER PROGRAM AND TO PROMOTE INCLUSIVE SOCCER
OPPORTUNITIES, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, OR DESIGNEE TO
EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT, ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,000, AND AMEND THE ADOPTED FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING FUNDS.
6. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Grant Agreement with the National Recreation and Park Association in the Amount of $2,500 to Support Youth Sports Coach Training, Authorizing the City Manager, or Designee to Execute the Agreement, Acceptance of Grant Funds, and Amending the Adopted Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Adopted Budget
RESOLUTION NO. 25-29,646
Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH
NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,500 AND IN-KIND TRAINING FROM POSITIVE COACHING ALLIANCE TO
SUPPORT YOUTH SPORTS COACH TRAINING, AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER, OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT, ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT FUNDS, AND AMEND THE ADOPTED FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING FUNDS.
83 5
7. Adoption of a Resolution Acknowledging Receipt of the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Fire Inspection Performance Report
RESOLUTION NO. 25-29,647
Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 FIRE
INSPECTION PERFORMANCE REPORT REGARDING REQUIRED ANNUAL INSPECTIONS IN OCCUPANCIES PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 13146.2, 13146.3, AND 13146.4 OF THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE.
8. Adoption of Resolutions Approving the Establishment of the Salary and Conflict of Interest Code Designation for the Classifications of Network Engineer, Lead Network Engineer, and Principal Network Engineer; Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Revision of the Title and Specification for the Classifications of Park, Recreation, and Community Services Director, Assistant Park, Recreation, and Community Services Director, and Secretary to the City Manager; and Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Citywide Salary Schedule RESOLUTION NO. 25-29,648
Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK
APPROVING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SALARY AND CONFLICT OF
INTEREST CODE DESIGNATION FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF NETWORK ENGINEER.
RESOLUTION NO. 25-29,649
Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK
APPROVING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SALARY AND CONFLICT OF
INTEREST CODE DESIGNATION FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF LEAD NETWORK ENGINEER.
RESOLUTION NO. 25-29,650
Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK
APPROVING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SALARY AND CONFLICT OF
INTEREST CODE DESIGNATION FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL NETWORK ENGINEER.
RESOLUTION NO. 25-29,651
Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK
APPROVING THE REVISION OF THE TITLE AND SPECIFICATION FOR THE
CLASSIFICATION OF PARK, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR TO PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR.
RESOLUTION NO. 25-29,652
Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK
APPROVING THE REVISION OF THE TITLE AND SPECIFICATION FOR THE
CLASSIFICATION OF ASSISTANT PARK, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY
SERVICES DIRECTOR TO ASSISTANT PARKS AND RECREATION
DIRECTOR.
84 6
RESOLUTION NO. 25-29,653
Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK
APPROVING THE REVISION OF THE TITLE AND SPECIFICATION FOR THE
CLASSIFICATION OF SECRETARY TO THE CITY MANAGER TO SENIOR EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER.
RESOLUTION NO. 25-29,654
Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING THE CITYWIDE SALARY SCHEDULE.
9. Authorize the General Manager of Burbank Water and Power to Enter into an Electrical Services Agreement with the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority
Approve and authorize the General Manager of Burbank Water and Power to:
1. Execute an Electrical Services Agreement with the Burbank-Glendale- Pasadena
Airport Authority, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney’s Office;
2. Execute any other ancillary documents, including amendments, in form and substance satisfactory to the City
Attorney’s Office and up to an amount
available within the City Council-approved Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget; and
3. Accept all Aid-in-Construction payments needed to provide electric service to the Hollywood Burbank
Airport.
10. Authorize the Approval of a License Agreement with the Burbank-Glendale- Pasadena Airport Authority for Access to the Hollywood Burbank Airport for the Installation, Operation, and Maintenance of an 8-inch Potable Water Service Authorize the General Manager of Burbank Water and Power (BWP), or designee, to execute a License Agreement with the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority that grants BWP access to the Hollywood Burbank Airport for the installation, operation, and maintenance of an 8-inch potable water service connection, and find the item exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
11. Adoption of Burbank Water and Power’s Cross-Connection Control Plan Adopt Burbank Water and Power’s Cross-Connection Control Plan, and find the item exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Reports to Council:
1. Appointment to Fill a Vacancy on the Burbank Water and Power Board for an Unexpired Term
Kimberley Clark, City Clark, presented the report and responded to City Council inquiries.
85 7
Public Comment:
Appearing to comment were: Ari Altman, Michael Graves, and Robert Nielson.
Council Action:
It was unanimously approved by Council consensus to appoint Ari Altman to the Burbank Water and Power Board to fill an unexpired term ending July 31, 2028.
2. Consideration of Board, Commission, and Committee Member Absences for Reporting Period 2024-2025
Kimberley Clark, City Clark, presented the report and responded to City Council inquiries.
Public Comment:
Appearing to comment were: Linda Bessin, Maria Coronado, Philippe Eskandar, and David Donahue.
Council Action:
It was unanimously approved by Council consensus to excuse the absences of the following Board, Commission and Committee Members:
Philippe Eskandar (Burbank Water and Power Board)
Earle LeMasters (Burbank Water and Power Board)
Iveta Ovsepyan (Civil Service Board)
Arthur Solis (Heritage Commission)
Maria Coronado (Infrastructure Oversight Board)
Myeisha Peguero Gamiño (Park, Recreation and Community Services Board)
Limor Zimskind (Sustainable Burbank Commission)
Council Comments:
Council Members reported out on Council committee assignments and attendance at conferences, regional meetings, and community events.
Introduction of Additional Agenda Items:
Council Members did not request any additional agenda items.
Adjournment:
There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. to Tuesday, October 14, 2025 for a Joint Meeting in the Council Chamber – 275 East Olive Avenue, Second Floor.
__________________________
Kimberley Clark
City Clerk
__________________________
Nikki Perez
Mayor
86 8
APPROVED DATE:
87 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
DARK MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2025
A Regular Meeting of the Council of the City of Burbank was not held on the above date.
_______________________________
Kimberley Clark
City Clerk
_______________________________
Nikki Perez
Mayor
APPROVED DATE:
88 1
PARKING AUTHORITY MINUTES
A JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2025
CALL TO ORDER:
A Joint Meeting of the Parking Authority and the City Council of the City of Burbank was held in the Council Chamber, 275 East Olive Avenue, on the above date. The meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m. by Chair Perez.
MOMENT OF REFLECTION:
Chair Perez held a Moment of Reflection to begin the meeting with positive and collective support for our beloved community.
FLAG SALUTE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chair Perez.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Members Anthony, Mullins, and Rizzotti, Vice Chair Takahashi, and Chair Perez.
Absent: None.
Also Present: Executive Director Hess, City Attorney McDougall, and Secretary Clark.
Closed Session, Announcements, Council Presentations/Recognitions, City Manager Report, Reporting on Closed Session, Public Hearing, Council Comments, and Introduction of Additional Agenda Items were City Council items only and can be found in the City Council Meeting Minutes.
JOINT GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT:
Appearing to comment were: David Donahue, Angela Towne, Ron Bax, Mark Scroggs, Mike Derian, Jamie Keyser, Stephanie Cyphers, Jim Lane, Diana Pulver, Mary O'Hare, Jackie Waltman, Steve Starleaf, Paul Darrigo, Elizabeth Bax, and Edward Parker (Bridging Community Resources).
Calling in to comment were: Allison Thomas, Gevik Sherverdian, Dimple Chirumamilla, Jo Pimienta, Liliana Martirosyan, Michelle Papazyan, and Hovik Keshishian.
COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER AND/OR CITY ATTORNEY COMMENT:
Members and Staff responded to Public Comment.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
It was moved by Member Mullins, seconded by Vice Chair Takahashi, to approve the Consent Calendar. For Item Nos. 1-6 and 8, the motion carried 5-0 with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Anthony, Mullins, Rizzotti, Takahashi, and Perez. NOES: None. For Item No. 7, the motion carried 4-0-1 with the following roll call vote: AYES: Mullins, Rizzotti, Takahashi, and Perez. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Anthony.
Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3 and 5-8 were City Council items only and can be found in the City Council minutes.
4. Parking Authority Minutes
Approve the Parking Authority Minutes of the Joint Meeting of August 26, 2025.
Consent Calendar
Item #2
89 2
REPORTS TO COUNCIL:
Reports to Council Item No. 3 was a City Council item only and can be found in the City Council minutes.
1. Approval of the 2025 City of Burbank Investment Policy (with All Agencies) Krystle Ang Palmer, City Treasurer, presented the PowerPoint presentation and responded to Parking Authority inquiries.
Chair Perez left the dais at 8:05 p.m.
Joint Public Comment:
Appearing to comment was: None.
Council Action:
It was moved by Member Rizzotti, seconded by Member Anthony, to approve the 2025 Investment Policy as proposed. The motion carried 4-0 with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Anthony, Mullins, Rizzotti, Takahashi. NOES: None. ABSENT: Perez.
2. Review of City Treasurer's Investment Portfolio Report for June 30, 2025 (with All Agencies)
Krystle Ang Palmer, City Treasurer, presented the PowerPoint presentation and responded to Parking Authority inquiries.
Member Anthony left the dais at 8:25 p.m.
Joint Public Comment:
Appearing to comment was: None.
Council Action:
It was approved by Authority Consensus to note and file.
Chair Perez returned to the dais at 8:30 p.m.
Member Anthony returned to the dais at 8:37 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Parking Authority , the meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. to Tuesday, September 30, 2025 , for a Joint Meeting in the Council Chamber – 275 East Olive Avenue, Second Floor.
___________________________________
Kimberley Clark
Secretary
___________________________________
Nikki Perez
Chair
APPROVED DATE:
90 1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 14, 2025
TO: Justin Hess, City Manager
FROM: Patrick Prescott, Community Development Director
VIA: David Kriske, Assistant Community Development Director, Transportation
BY: Angelica Gonzales, Parking Analyst
Karen Pan, Transportation Services Manager
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Amending Fiscal Year 2025- 26 Citywide Fee Schedule for the Valet Parking Meter Fee
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING ARTICLE I, SECTION 14 OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 CITYWIDE FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE VALET PARKING METER FEE (Attachment 1).
BACKGROUND
At the August 26, 2025 City Council (Council) meeting, Council received a report on valet parking meter fees for paid parking meter zones (Attachment 2). These fees were established when Council approved a new parking meter zone for Downtown Burbank in November 2024. The valet parking meter fee applies to valet operators who wish to use any on-street curb spaces within a parking meter zone since the spaces would otherwise be available to the general public for pay. The valet operator is charged the hourly meter parking rate for each space it uses, for the duration of their valet operations. The adopted valet parking meter fee is currently the same as the public meter parking space fee of $2.00 per hour.
When Council approved the new parking meter zone, they directed staff to delay implementation of the valet parking meter fee and propose other options for crediting or discounting the fee. The parking meter zone was implemented i n March 2025 and is operating today. On August 26, 2025, Council reviewed options for discounting the Valet
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Consent Calendar
Item #3
91 2
fee per space and hour. In addition, Council directed staff to delay imposition of the fee on valet operators who began operating prior to March 7, 2025 (the date when parking meter fees were implemented in Downtown Burbank) for one year until March 6, 2026.
DISCUSSION
In November 2024, Council established a new parking meter zone for Downtown Burbank where drivers pay to park at street parking spaces . Approval included amending the FY 2024-25 Citywide Fee Schedule that would apply to valet operators who wish to use any on-street curb spaces within the parking meter zone. Based on Council’s direction in August 2025, this staff report is to amend the Valet Parking Meter fee in the current FY 2025-26 Citywide Fee Schedule.
The proposed language in the FY 2025- 26 Citywide Fee Schedule Article 1, § 14.D.5 states that the valet parking meter fee (referenced as “Valet Parking Spaces in Parking Meter Zones”) will equal 50% of the top hourly parking rate charged in the parking meter zone. The fee would apply hourly for each metered curb street parking space for the duration of valet operation during parking meter hours. It is not uncommon for a parking meter zone to have different hourly parking rates based on street location. For example, on San Fernando Boulevard it costs $3.00 per hour to park while on Palm Avenue it costs $2.00 per hour, in the same parking meter zone. In this instance, the valet operator would be paying $1.50 per hour (50% of $3.00 per hour) for each parking space and the fee would only apply during the established valet hours. Those spaces would be reserved for the valet operator’s exclusive use for the valet operator hours by using signage.
Additionally, the proposed language includes a footnote explaining that any businesses with a permanent valet parking operation that began prior to March 7, 2025 , will receive a one-year grace period waiving the fee until March 6, 2026. Beginning March 7, 2026, all valet parking operators will be charged the fee. The one -year grace period and discounted rate are intended to support businesses and provide them with adequate time to adapt to the transition.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This staff report has no potential for resulting in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment and as such, falls outside the definition of a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is therefore not subject to CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15378. S taff recommendation would simply implement a modified fee previously approved in November 2024, and implementing the modified fee does not affect the overall management of the existing use of par king and roadway network infrastructure.
Parking Meter Fee and directed staff to modify the fee to 50% of the public parking meter 92 3
FISCAL IMPACT
Modifying the valet parking meter fee will have a fiscal impact to the Parking Authority Fund 310. The revenue from the parking meter zone fees in Downtown Burbank are intended to be reinvested back into Downtown Burbank to be used to offset the operations, maintenance, active transportation amenities, and management of Downtown Burbank’s public parking lots and structures.
Ther
e is currently one valet parking operator in Downtown Burbank, and their current four- space valet zone will cost $ 13,104 per year in lost parking revenue to Parking Authority Fund 310. Additional businesses that wish to operate valet parking in Downtown Burbank and occupy curb street parking spaces would continue to reduce revenue to the Parking Authority Fund 310. If the cost to manage the Downtown Burbank parking management operations exceeds revenues, other funding sources like the General Fund would need to subsidize the difference.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends Council adopt the Resolution amending Article I, § 14 of the FY 2025- 26 Citywide Fee Schedule to modify the valet parking meter fee and provide a one-year grace period to existing valet operators in the parking meter zone. These changes would support businesses in Downtown Burbank and provide a discounted rate for their valet parking programs.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Proposed Fee Resolution
Attachment 2 – August 26, 2025, City Council Staff Report 93 ATTACHMENT 1-1
RESOLUTION NO. ______________
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF BURBANK AMENDING ARTICLE I, SECTION 14
OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2025 -26 CITYWIDE FEE
SCHEDULE FOR THE VALET PARKING METER
FEE
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK RESOLVES:
1. Article I (MISCELLANEOUS), Section 14 (PARKING FEES), Subsection D (VALET OPERATOR) of the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Adopted Citywide Fee Schedule is amended as shown on Exhibit “A” attached hereto.
PASSED and ADOPTED this ____ day of October, 2025.
__________________________
Nikki Perez
Mayor
Approved as to Form:
Attest: Office of the City Attorney
____________________________ By: _______________________ Kimberley Clark, City Clerk Lisa Kurihara Senior Assistant City Attorney
94 ATTACHMENT 1-2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF BURBANK )
I, Kimberley Clark, City Clerk of the City of Burbank, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by a majority vote of the Council of the City of Burbank at its regular meeting held on the ____ day of ______________ 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
____________________________
Kimberley Clark, City Clerk
95 ATTACHMENT 1-3
EXHIBIT “A”
The following text shall be added to or deleted from Article I, Section 14 of the 2025- 2026 Burbank Fee Schedule. Underlined text indicates addition, and strikethrough text indicates deletion.
SECTION 14. PARKING FEES
(Added on 5/14/19, Resolution 19-29,088)
(Moved from Article 2, Section 8 on 5/4/21, Resolution 21-29,233) (Last Update 6/3/25, Resolution 25-29,616)
Description Amount Unit/Time
D. Valet Operator
(1) New Application $346.00 Each
(2) Renewal Application $270.00 Each Per Year
(3) Temporary Application (less than 7 days) $346.00 Each (4) Valet Operator Appeal $270.00 Each
(5) Valet Parking Spaces in Parking Meter
Zones*
50% of the top hourly
rate charged in the
Parking Meter Zone.
See Section (F)
Per Space Per
Hour for Duration
of Valet
Operation During
Parking Meter
Hours
(6) Valet Zone Sign Installation Fee See Section (E) Each
* Any business with a permanent valet parking operation that began prior to March 7, 2025 (the date of implementation of the City’s paid parking program), will receive a one- year grace period waiving the fee until March 6, 2026). Beginning on March 7, 2026, this fee will be charged to all valet parking operators.
96 1
STAFF REPORT
DATE
: August 26, 2025
TO: J
ustin Hess, City Manager
FR
OM: Patrick Prescott, Community Development Director
VIA: David Kriske, Asst. Community Development Director, Transportation BY: Angelica Gonzales, Parking Analyst
Karen Pan, Transportation Services Manager
SUBJ
ECT: Discussion of the Valet Parking Meter Fees for Paid Parking Meter Zones RECO
MMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council direct staff to implement the Valet Parking Meter Fee as approved in November 2024.
BACKGRO
UND
On November 26, 2024, the City Council (Council) adopted an Ordinance to establish a new parking meter zone for Downtown Burbank (Ordinance) where drivers pay to park at street parking spaces along San Fernando Boulevard between Magnolia Boulevard and Angeleno Avenue, as well as the side streets on either side of San Fernando between First Street and Third Street. The hourly parking fee is set to ensure that drivers always have at least one or two parking spaces available on each block at any time, making it easier for visitors to find a parking spot. Council also approved a new fee to park at curb spaces in the parking meter zone, which can be adjusted by staff, within broad limits, a few times a year to ensure that drivers always have one or two spaces available to park.
The current parking fee is $2.00 per hour and is required between 8:00 AM and midnight each day.
The C
ity offers a valet parking permit program that allows private valet operators to reserve on- street parking spaces to collect and deliver cars from patrons of adjacent businesses. The permit requires valet operators to identify the spaces to be used, provide a valet operation map, locate appropriate off-street parking to store customer cars, and provide appropriate insurance to cover unexpected events. The City charges a one-time
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
ATTACHMENT 2-1
97 2
permit fee to process the application and allows the valet operator to use the public curb spaces for free. Permanent valets are charged a nominal annual fee.
Approval of the Ordinance included a Valet Parking Meter fee that would apply to valet operators who wish to use any on-street curb spaces within the parking meter zone. This is because in a parking meter zone, valet operators are using public spaces that the general public pay to use through the parking meter fee. The Valet Parking Meter fee is the same as the public fee of $2.00 per hour . The valet operator is charged the hourly parking rate for each space it uses, for the duration of their valet operations. For instance, if the public is paying $2.00 per hour to park their vehicle and a valet operator establishes a two-space valet zone for six hours per evening, it would pay $24 per day to use the paid spaces. These spaces are reserved for the valet operator’s exclusive use for the valet operator hours using signage.
During the November 19, 2024, City Council meeting introducing the Ordinance , the restaurant owner at 269 E Palm Avenue submitted a public comment expressing that valet operators in the Downtown parking meter zone should not be required to pay for parking fees. This business owner has operated a four-space valet zone, operating seven hours per day Tuesday through Thursday and 14 hours per day Friday through Sunday since October 2024. In response to the public comment, Council approved the parking meter zone and the valet parking meter fee but directed staff to come up with options for crediting or discounting the fee.
In March 2025, staff implemented the parking meter zone for Downtown Burbank, but it delayed charging the Valet Parking Meter fee to the entire parking meter zone while responding to Council’s request. This staff report provides information and options for addressing valet operators’ use of on- street paid parking spaces in Downtown Burbank .
Staff has informed the current valet operator about the upcoming discussion and Council meeting date.
DISCUSSION
There are currently two permanent valet operations in the City, with one located in the Downtown Burbank parking meter zone (at 269 E Palm Avenue) and the other located at 3500 W Olive Avenue, which is not in a parking meter zone. To address the issue of accommodating valet operators in a parking meter zone where the City charges a fee to the public to use parking spaces, s taff has identified three options for Council consideration:
Option A
– Implement Valet Parking Meter Fee as Approved in November 2024 Option A would implement the fee as approved by Council when the parking meter zone was established. Valet operators would continue to be allowed to exclusively utilize curb parking spaces for valet collection and delivery to customers but would pay a fee equal to the hourly rate charged to the public, multiplied by the number of spaces used for the valet zone and the number of hours the zone is in operation.
ATTACHMENT 2-2
98 3
Example 1 shown below shows how much the quarterly fee would be for a business that would like to use two parking spaces in the evenings for a valet zone:
Example 1. Valet Parking Meter Fee Calculation
Curbside Valet Spaces Requested: 2
Hourly paid parking charge: $2.00
Valet Hours of Operation per day: 6 (6PM-12AM Thurs. thru Sun.) Number of Days per Quarter in Operation: 52
Quarterly Valet Curb Spaces Fee $1,248
Staff found that nearby cities charge similar fees. Table 1 shows the fees Glendale, Los Angeles, and Pasadena charge businesses seeking to provide valet services in a parking meter zone. None of these neighboring cities offer a credit or discount to businesses, although Glendale caps the rate at $3.00 per hour, and Los Angeles charges the average of the actual hourly revenue collected at parking spaces in the applicable zone.
Table 1. Neighboring Cities’ Parking Fees and Credits
City Parking Meter Cover Fee Credit Offered
Burbank 100% per hour per parking space None.
Glendale 100% per hour per parking space. None. Hourly fee is capped at $3.00 per
hour.
Los Angeles Hourly charge per parking space,
where hourly charge is the average
hourly fee collected by parking
spaces in the specific neighborhood
or district.
Example:
• Neighbor A: $5 per hour per
parking space
• Neighbor B: $3 per hour per
parking space
• Valet Operator’s Fee: $4 per
hour per parking space
None
Pasadena 100% per hour per parking space None.
Staff recommends Option A, which is to implement and manage the paid parking operations based on the existing policies and fees that were adopted by Council in November 2024, and not to offer the spaces for free (via fee removal or fee credit). The purpose of establishing the parking meter zone for Downtown Burbank is for the Parking Authority to manage parking through price, so that customers ATTACHMENT 2-3
99 4
and visitors to Downtown always have a convenient parking space available, along with ensuring parking turnover and reducing traffic congestion . Parking fees collected are important to offset the costs to manage the paid parking infrastructure as well as reinvest back into Downtown’s parking assets. Reducing or waiving the valet parking fee is contrary to this goal, as it allows some users to receive C ity resources for free while others must pay and reduces resources available to maintain overall parking assets in Downtown. The clear goals and revenue transparency approved by Council helps build trust and support for the City’s parking management operations Downtown and potentially in other neighborhoods.
Option B – R
educe the Valet Parking Meter Fee
Option B would reduce the valet parking meter fee by 50% and allow valet operators using spaces in parking meter zones to use those curb spaces at a reduced price compared to members of the public . When applied to Example 1, the valet operators would pay $1.00 per hour instead of $2.00 per hour for each parking space. Option B creates a discount for businesses but results in lost revenue for the parking meter zone that could otherwise be used for parking management operations and active transportation amenities and improvements in Downtown Burbank. For these reasons, Option B is not recommended.
Option C – R
emove Valet Parking Meter Fee and Implement Valet Space Cap Option C would remove the valet parking meter fee from the City’s fee resolution and would allow valet operators using spaces in parking meter zones to use those curb spaces for free. To minimize impacts to the remaining paid parking spaces in Downtown, staff recommends this option include a cap so that no more than 5% of the paid parking spaces may be used for valets, on a first-come-first serve basis.
For Downtown, this cap would be seven spaces. Additionally , staff recommends no valet operations be allowed on San Fernando Boulevard in Downtown. Option C would remove all financial impacts to existing and future valet operators in Downtown, but would result in more significant loss of revenue (compared to Option B) meant to support parking management operations and active transportation amenities. Further, a valet space cap is proposed under Option C because giving away too many parking spaces to valet operators would result in fewer spaces available to the public, thereby potentially raising the price paid by members of the public to park at the remaining spaces (above what they would otherwise pay). This is based on Council’s policy to set curb space fees to ensure that a few spaces are always available. For th ese reasons, Option C is not recommended.
Since the implementation of the parking management program in March 2025, the City has received one public comment about valet parking in Downtown Burbank. The person wrote that the City should not have valet services in Downtown Burbank.
ATTACHMENT 2-4
100
5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This staff report has no potential for resulting in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment and as such, falls outside the definition of a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is therefore not subject to CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15378. The staff recommendation would simply implement the fee previously approved in November 2024, and implementing the other options does not affect the overall management of the existing use of parking and roadway network infrastructure.
FISCAL IMPACT
All parking fees are deposited into the Parking Authority Fund 310 to pay for parking management services provided by the Parking Authority . The revenue from the parking meter zone fees in Downtown Burbank are reinvested back into Downtown Burbank to be used to offset the operations, maintenance, active transportation amenities, and management of Downtown Burbank’s public parking lots and structures.
Implementing Option A would have no fiscal impact. Implementing Options B or C will reduce the revenue received by the Parking Authority Fund , depending on the number and hours of public parking spaces reserved for valet operators. The current four-space valet zone operating in Downtown Burbank is costing up to $ 26,208 per year in lost parking revenue. With only about 145 spaces in the Downtown parking meter zone, further reducing revenue from a small parking meter zone is concerning as it may impact the ability for these fees to cover the cost to manage the zone. If the cost to manage the Downtown Burbank parking management operations exceeds revenues, other funding sources like the General Fund would need to subsidize the difference. Further, additional zones could create additional fiscal impact. The parking spaces on Palm Avenue have been shown to be heavily used since the parking management program has been implemented, suggesting that the lost revenue from the existing valet zone is likely similar to this maximum amount.
CONCLUSION
The recent establishment of the parking meter zone in Downtown Burbank is an essential tool to enhance convenience of parking for residents and visitors by making one to two parking spaces available per block at all times . Staff recommends Council implement Option A to continue to apply existing parking fees consistently to the public and businesses who wish to occupy street parking spaces in Downtown Burbank. This is consistent with Council’s Parking Management Principles of dedicating all parking fees towards supporting parking and transportation services and infrastructure in Downtown Burbank.
ATTACHMENT
None.
ATTACHMENT 2-5
101
1 STAFF REPORT
______
________________________________________________________________ DATE
: October 14, 2025
TO:
Justin Hess, City Manager
FR
OM: Mandip Kaur Samra, General Manager, Burbank Water and Power VIA: Erik Olsen, Acting Assistant General Manager, Power Supply BY: Frank Messineo, Power Production Manager
SUBJ
ECT: Adoption of Resolutions Ratifying and Approving Grant Applications for the Magnolia Power Project with the California Energy Commission for the Bulk Grid Asset Enhancements for the Grid Reliability Program, and Authorizing the BWP General Manager, as the City Manager’s Designee, to Negotiate and Execute All Related Agreements and Forms
_____________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK RATIFYING
AND APPROVING GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR THE BULK GRID ASSET
ENHANCEMENTS FOR GRID RELIABILITY PROGRAM ( ADVANCED GAS PATH
RESILIENCY UPGRADE) FOR MAGNOLIA POWER PLANT AT BURBANK WATER
AND POWER (BWP), AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE BWP GENERAL MANAGER, AS THE CITY MANAGER’S DESIGNEE, TO NEGOTIATE, EXECUTE,
AND IMPLEMENT ALL REQUIRED AND RELATED AGREEMENTS AND FORMS
WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION, THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC POWER AUTHORITY, AND OTHER SUBCONTRACTORS AND
VENDORS, SUCH AUTHORITY SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POWER AUTHORITY OF SUCH PROJECT (Attachment 1); and
2. Adop
t A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK RATIFYING
AND APPROVING GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR THE BULK GRID ASSET
ENHANCEMENTS FOR GRID RELIABILITY PROGRAM (ADVANCED
COMPRESSOR RESILIENCY UPGRADE) FOR MAGNOLIA POWER PLANT AT
BURBANK WATER AND POWER (BWP), AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE BWP GENERAL MANAGER, AS THE CITY MANAGER’S DESIGNEE, TO
WATER AND
POWER
Consent Calendar
Item #4
102
2 NEGOTIATE, EXECUTE, AND IMPLEMENT ALL REQUIRED AND RELATED
AGREEMENTS AND FORMS WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION,
THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POWER AUTHORITY, AND OTHER
SUBCONTRACTORS AND VENDORS , SUCH AUTHORITY SUBJECT TO
APPROVAL BY THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POWER AUTHORITY OF SUCH PROJECT (Attachment 2).
BACKGROUND
Magnolia Power Project (MPP) is a Southern California Public Power Authority (SCPPA) project that went into commercial operation in 2005. SCPPA is a Joint Powers Authority, created in 1980, for the purpose of providing joint planning, financing, construction, and operation of transmission and generation projects. Comprised of eleven municipal utilities and one irrigation district, SCPPA’s members serve more than 5 million Californians (2 million customers) across a service area of 9,000 square miles. SCPPA members supply 16% of California’s power. SCPPA participants included in the MPP are Anaheim, Burbank, Cerritos, Colton, Glendale, and Pasadena. In addition to being a project participant, Burbank is also the operating agent responsible for operating and maintaining MPP for SCPPA.
After several summers with statewide energy shortages and governmental request s to evaluate opportunities to make generation capacity improvements, Magnolia Power Project (MPP) participants, which includes representatives from the six cities participating in the project, requested that BWP, as the MPP operating agent, evaluate the potential to improve the generation capacity of MPP. In July 2022, the MPP Operating Committee (a group of project participants who monitor and address operational matters) authorized an uprate study with General Electric (GE) to further evaluate this.
In early 2024, the California Energy Commission ( CEC) released a new Grant Funding Opportunity (GFO) through the Distributed Electricity Backup Assets (DEBA) Program, entitled “Bulk Grid Asset Enhancements for Grid Reliability” (GFO-23-401) (Attachment 3). This GFO make s available $150 million to support the purchase and installation of efficiency upgrades and capacity additions to existing bulk grid power generators in California. Projects receiving funding through this solicitation are intended to support grid reliability during extreme events. The due date for GFO-23-401 applications was February 20, 2024 and BWP submitted two grant applications for consideration.
On April 22, 2024, BWP received notice from the CEC that the Notice of Proposed Award for GFO- 23-401 includes an award of $12,755,466 for the MPP: Advanced Gas Path Resiliency Upgrade grant application and $23,293,654 for the MPP: Advanced Compressor Resiliency Upgrade grant application. A California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) assessment is required, and the CEC is the lead agency in this case. Upon completion of the CEQA assessment, grant agreements with the CEC can be entered. 103
3 On
May 16, 2024, the MPP Coordinating Committee ( a group of authorized representatives from each participant city designated to make decisions for the project ), approved a Resolution (Attachment 1) expressing the c ommittee’s interest in pursuing the development of the MPP: Advanced Gas Path Resiliency Upgrade project and the MPP: Advanced Compressor Resiliency Upgrade project (MPP Projects ), subject to receipt of a DEBA grant award and environmental clearance for the proposed projects including under CEQA (Attachment 4) . Combined, the MPP Projects would result in approximately $45.3 million as SCPPA’s responsibility to pay. The MPP Coordinating Committee discussed a proposal to fund SCPPA’s cost of such proposed projects by utilizing MPP reserves beginning in Fiscal Year ( FY) 2025-26. Should the grants be awarded, the soonest implementation could occur in the first quarter of 2027. This is because these projects require manufactured components and the current expected schedule to manufacture these items is over 12 months. There is also approximately a 90-day period required to install these items once they arrive onsite in 2027.
DISCUSSION
GFO-23-401 and the proposed MPP Projects provide beneficial opportunities for MPP participants as they would provide needed in-basin generation capacity to help with electric demand peaks and emergencies at the lowest available cost. These proposed upgrades combined are approximately $81.3 million for a generation capacity increase of approximately 48 megawatts. In this case, the CEC would cover approximately $36 million of the cost and SCPPA would cover the remainder ($45.3 million). These upgrades also provide a maintenance cost avoidance of approximately $14.7 million. With taxes and consideration of the maintenance cost avoidance, the upgrades would be cost less than $665 per kilowatt of generation capacity , which is not currently available anywhere else.
Consi
dering that MPP has a very competitive fuel efficiency rate and the best available emissions control technology, it is an optimal facility to implement such upgrades.
The C
EC grant agreements contain certain standard terms, including, but not limited to, cost compliance provisions, prevailing wages, contracting and procurement provisions, retention, recordkeeping, auditing and indemnification . In addition, the CEC may terminate for breach of the CEC grant agreements and may terminate at its convenience (in which case, SCPPA would be responsible for all remaining amounts). Under the CEC grant agreements, BWP, as operating agent, would be responsible for administering to GE contract on SCPPA’s behalf. In addition, Burbank and SCPPA would need to separately execute “flow down” agreements whereby certain provisions of the CEC grant agreements would need to be extended between Burbank and SCPPA. 104
4 GFO-23-401 requires that the upgrades be operational by July 1, 2027. The primary cost of the upgrade projects would come from an amendment and an extra work agreement between GE and SCPPA. Due to the long lead time items, SCPPA must issue a notice to proceed to GE by December 1 9, 2025. In addition, SCPPA must provide payment deposits to GE by December 29, 2025. Lastly, CEC grant agreements must be executed by BWP prior to any SCPPA payments to GE. As a result, there is a tight schedule to complete the CEQA. If environmentally cleared, there would be limited time for BWP to execute grant agreements and for SCPPA to provide GE a notice to proceed.
SC
PPA will be seeking approval of the MPP Projects, with the applicable flow -down agreements, on October 16, 2025 . T he approvals granted under the resolutions for Council’s consideration will be subject to SCPPA’s approval of such projects and the applicable flow-down agreements.
ENVIROMENTAL REVIEW
To implement the proposed upgrade projects, SCPPA submitted to the CEC a Petition to Amend (PTA) the license and conditions of certification for the MPP. As part of the CEC’s review of the PTA, CEC staff is preparing a staff assessment to evaluate the environmental impacts and consistency with laws, ordinances, regulations and standards.
This post-certification evaluation prepared pursuant to § 1769 of Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations is part of the CEC’s certified regulatory program and, if adopted, can also serve as a lead agency environmental analysis for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, the CEC will be able to use the same environmental analysis to support its CEQA determination for awarding the DEBA f unds for the proposed upgrade projects. CEC must complete the § 1769 assessment before the CEC can approve and execute the CEC grant agreements.
The pr
oposed upgrade projects would be limited to the installation of internal components and the air quality/public health operational impacts associated with a slight increased air emissions, but no ground disturbance or excavation is expected and no other physical changes are planned, and as a result, it is expected that the impacts associated with the PTA would be less than significant.
The pr
oposed upgrade projects do not alter the nameplate capacity of MPP, an existing facility, and involves minor physical alteration of the existing physical structure and facilities of MPP, involving negligible or no expansion of use of an existing faci lity of a publicly owned utility used to provide electric power, and is therefore categorically exempt under § 15301 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3.
The pr
oposed upgrade project s involve the replacement or reconstruction of facilities within the existing physical structure and facilities of MPP, involving replacement or 105
5 reconstruction of components of existing utility systems and/or facilities involving no expansion of nameplate capacity, and is therefore categorically exempt under § 15302 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3.
FISCAL IMPACT
As the operating agent, the City of Burbank would be reimbursed for its costs associated with implementing the CEC grant agreements. Additionally, SCPPA would need to fund a minimum of 55% of the costs of the Advanced Gas Path Resiliency Upgrade and the MPP Advanced Compressor Resiliency. If there is a default or termination of the CEC grant agreements, SCPPA would be responsible for 100% of the costs. As a participant, Burbank would be responsible for its pro rata portion of SCPPA’s obligations for each project. Burbank’s obligation share is approximately $9.5 million with grants and approximately $20.7 million under an unexpected loss of grants scenario.
CONCLUSION
Adopting the resolutions ratifying and approving grant applications with the CEC for bulk grid asset enhancements under the grid reliability program, and authorizing the BWP General Manager, as the City Manager’s designee, to negotiate and execute all related agreements and forms, is in the best interest of the MPP participants . If environmentally cleared, this will allow BWP to complete upgrades and be operational by July 1, 2027, as required by the CEC grants. Implementing the upgrades will increase MPP capacity and significantly improve electric system reliability for Burbank and the entire S tate of California during the peak seasons and emergencies. By taking the recommended action, the City Council would avoid potential energy shortages and customer outages within Burbank as well as reduce risks for the state . In addition, reduce exposure to extremely high peak season energy purchase costs in cases where energy is needed and available for purchase.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Resolution (Advanced Gas Path Resiliency Upgrade) Attachment 2 – Resolution (Advanced Compressor Resiliency Upgrade) Attachment 3 – CEC Standard Terms and Conditions
Attachment 4 – Resolution No. 2024-001
106
ATTACHMENT 1
A1-1
RESOLUTION NO. ____________________
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURBANK RATIFYING AND APPROVING GRANT
APPLICATIONS FOR THE BULK GRID ASSET
ENHANCEMENTS FOR GRID RELIABILITY PROGRAM
(ADVANCED GAS PATH RESILIENCY UPGRADE) FOR
MAGNOLIA POWER PLANT AT BURBANK WATER AND
POWER (BWP), AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE
BWP GENERAL MANAGER, AS THE CITY MANAGER’S
DESIGNEE, TO NEGOTIATE, EXECUTE, AND IMPLEMENT
ALL REQUIRED AND RELATED AGREEMENTS AND
FORMS WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION,
THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POWER
AUTHORITY, AND OTHER SUBCONTRA CTORS AND
VENDORS, SUCH AUTHORITY SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
BY THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POWER
AUTHORITY OF SUCH PROJECT
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK FINDS:
A. The Magnolia Power Project (MPP) is a two -stage combustion turbine generator and heat steam recovery generator facility that is owned by the Southern California Public Power Authority (SCPPA, or Owner) and operated by Burbank Water and Power (BWP, or Operator ), as operating agent for SCPPA on behalf of its participants: Anaheim, Burbank, Cerritos, Colton, Glendale and Pasadena.
B. The California Energy Commission (CEC) has made $150 million available to support the purchase and installation of efficiency upgrades and capacity additions to existing bulk grid power generators under the Distributed Electricity Backup Assets (DEBA) Program, entitled "Bulk Grid Asset Enhancements for Grid Reliability" (GFO -23- 401).
C. The City of Burbank (City) and BWP submitted two applications to the CEC’s GFO-23-401 for two grant funding opportunities under the Distributed Electricity Backup Assets program (DEBA) for proposed upgrades to the MPP, including an application for deployment of: a new advanced gas path resiliency upgrade onto MPP’s existing gas turbine system (Advanced Gas Path Resiliency Upgrade, or Proposed Project).
D. On April 22, 2024, BWP received notice from the CEC staff that the Notice of Proposed Award for GFO -23-401 includes proposed funding for $12,755,466 for the Advanced Gas Path Resiliency Upgrade grant application.
E. To implement the Proposed Project, SCPPA submitted to the CEC a Petition to Amend (PTA) the license and conditions of certification for the MPP. As part 107
ATTACHMENT 1
A1-2
of the CEC’s review of the PTA, CEC staff is preparing a staff assessment to evaluate the environmental impacts and consistency with laws, ordinances, regulations and standards.
This post -certification evaluation prepared pursuant to Section 1769 of Title 20 of the California Code o f Regulations is part of the CEC’s certified regulatory program and, if adopted, can also serve as a lead agency environmental analysis for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, the CEC will be able to use the same environmental analysis to support its CEQA determination for the awarding the DEBA funds for the Proposed Project. Likewise, BWP and SCPPA may elect to rely on the forthcoming assessment to support any respective determinations under CEQA as Responsible Agencies. For the CEC, staff must complete the Section 1769 assessment before the CEC can approve and execute the grant.
F. In order to implement the Proposed Project, SCPPA must obtain approval of amended conditions of compliance from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the amended conditions of certification from the CEC.
G. BWP, as operating agent for MPP, is expecting to receive formal authorization and approval from SCPPA as the Owner of MPP, to implement the Proposed Project subject to the amended conditions of compliance from SCAQMD, the amended conditions of certification from the CEC, and all terms and conditions required by the CEC for the DEBA funding (“SCPPA Approval”), which is anticipated to occur on October 16, 2025.
H. As a condition of the funding award with the CEC, the BWP will enter into a subaward flow-down agreement (“Flow-Down Agreement”) with SCPPA in order to flow down terms specified in the funding award to carry out certain tasks in the scope of work and SCPPA will be the entity making payments under the PSSA and EWA (each, as defined below).
I. BWP, as operating agent for MPP, has represented SCPPA in connection with a Parts and Special Services Agreement (PSSA) with General Electric Vernova, LLC, as successor the General Electric International, Inc. (GE) and SCPPA, that was signed on September 29, 2005; BWP has recently negotiated an Amendment Four to the PSSA and a related Extra Work Agreement (EWA) that includes an option to implement capacity upgrades including the Proposed Project supported by the DEBA funding.
J. It is in the best interest of the City, on behalf of BWP, to ratify and approve the Advanced Gas Path Resiliency Upgrade grant application, to accept the grant award, and to authorize and direct the BWP General Manager as the City Manager’s designee, to execute, negotiate, and implement all required and related agreements and forms with the CEC, SCPPA, and other subcontractors and vendors, and to implement and carry out the Proposed Project subject to the amended conditions of compliance from SCAQMD, the amended conditions of certification from the CEC, and all terms and conditions required by the CEC for the DEBA funding.
108
ATTACHMENT 1
A1-3
K. The Proposed Project would be limited to the installation of internal components and the air quality/public health operational impacts associated with a slight increased air emissions, but no ground disturbance or excavation is expected and no other physic al changes are planned , and as a result, it is expected that the impacts associated with the PTA would be less than significant.
L. The Proposed Project does not alter the nameplate capacity of MPP, an existing facility, and involves minor physical alteration of the existing physical structure and facilities of MPP, involving negligible or no expansion of use of an existing facility of a publicly owned utility used to provide electric power, and is therefore categorically exempt under Section 15301 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3.
M. The Proposed Project involves the replacement or reconstruction of facilities within the existing physical structure and facilities of MPP, involving replacement or reconstruction of components of existing utility systems and/or facilities involving no expansion of nameplate capacity, and is therefore categorically exempt under Section 15302 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3.
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK RESOLVES:
1. The City ratifies, approves and accepts the grant applications and the associated Notice of Proposed Award for GFO -23-401 that includes $ 12,755,466 for Advanced Gas Path Resiliency Upgrade grant application for MPP by BWP, as operating agent of MPP on behalf of SCPPA.
2. That the General Manager of BWP, as designee of the City of Burbank City Manager, is hereby authorized and directed to execute, negotiate, and implement all required and related agreements and forms with the CEC, SCPPA, and other subcontractors and vendors, and to implement the Proposed Project subject to the amended conditions of compliance from SCAQMD, the amended conditions of certification from the CEC, and all terms and conditions required by the CEC for the DEBA funding, including the SCPPA Flow-Down Agreement, subject to review and approval of the City Attorney’s Office.
3. The General Manager of BWP, as designee of the City of Burbank City Manager, is hereby authorized and directed to submit any required documents, invoices, and reports required to obtain grant funding and any other documents, invoices and reports required under any agreements with the CEC.
4. The authority granted in this Resolution is subject to obtaining the SCPPA Approval.
109
ATTACHMENT 1
A1-4
5. The City finds that the Proposed Project has less than significant effects, and involves existing facilities and reconstruction and replacement of components within such existing facilities, and therefore is categorically exempt under Sections 15301 and 15302 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3.
PASSED and ADOPTED this ____ day of _________, 2025.
__________________________
Nikki Perez
Mayor
Approved as to Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Attest:
_____________________________ By: _______________________ Kimberley Clark, City Clerk Christopher Chwang Senior Assistant City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF BURBANK )
I, Kimberley Clark, City Clerk of the City of Burbank, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Burbank at its regular meeting held on the ____day of ______, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
____________________________
Kimberley Clark, City Clerk
110
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-1
RESOLUTION NO. ____________________
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURBANK RATIFYING AND APPROVING GRANT
APPLICATIONS FOR THE BULK GRID ASSET
ENHANCEMENTS FOR GRID RELIABILITY PROGRAM
(ADVANCED COMPRESSOR RESILIENCY UPGRADE)
FOR MAGNOLIA POWER PLANT AT BURBANK WATER
AND POWER (BWP), AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
THE BWP GENERAL MANAGER, AS THE CITY
MANAGER’S DESIGNEE, TO NEGOTIATE, EXECUTE, AND
IMPLEMENT ALL REQUIRED AND RELATED
AGREEMENTS AND FORMS WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENERGY COMMISSION, THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC POWER AUTHORITY, AND OTHER
SUBCONTRACTORS AND VENDORS, SUCH AUTHORITY
SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POWER AUTHORITY OF SUCH
PROJECT
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK FINDS:
A. The Magnolia Power Project (MPP) is a two -stage combustion turbine generator and heat steam recovery generator facility that is owned by the Southern California Public Power Authority (SCPPA, or Owner) and operated by Burbank Water and Power (BWP, or Operator ), as operating agent for SCPPA on behalf of its participants: Anaheim, Burbank, Cerritos, Colton, Glendale and Pasadena.
B. The California Energy Commission (CEC) has made $150 million available to support the purchase and installation of efficiency upgrades and capacity additions to existing bulk grid power generators under the Distributed Electricity Backup Assets (DEBA) Program, entitled "Bulk Grid Asset Enhancements for Grid Reliability" (GFO -23- 401).
C. The City of Burbank (City) and BWP submitted two applications to the CEC’s GFO-23-401 for two grant funding opportunities under the Distributed Electricity Backup Assets program (DEBA) for proposed upgrades to the MPP, including an application for deployment of : a new advanced compressor onto MPP’s existing gas turbine system (Advanced Compressor Resiliency Upgrade, or Proposed Project).
D. On April 22, 2024, BWP received notice from the CEC staff that the Notice of Proposed Award for GFO -23-401 includes proposed funding for $23,293,654 for the Advanced Compressor Resiliency Upgrade grant application.
E. To implement the Proposed Project, SCPPA submitted to the CEC a Petition to Amend (PTA) the license and conditions of certification for the MPP. As part 111
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-2
of the CEC’s review of the PTA, CEC staff is preparing a staff assessment to evaluate the environmental impacts and consistency with laws, ordinances, regulations and standards.
This post -certification evaluation prepared pursuant to Section 1769 of Title 20 of the California Code o f Regulations is part of the CEC’s certified regulatory program and, if adopted, can also serve as a lead agency environmental analysis for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, the CEC will be able to use the same environmental analysis to support its CEQA determination for the awarding the DEBA funds for the Proposed Project. Likewise, BWP and SCPPA may elect to rely on the forthcoming assessment to support any respective determinations under CEQA as Responsible Agencies. For the CEC, staff must complete the Section 1769 assessment before the CEC can approve and execute the grant.
F. In order to implement the Proposed Project, SCPPA must obtain approval of amended conditions of compliance from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the amended conditions of certification from the CEC.
G. BWP, as operating agent for MPP, is expecting to receive authorization and approval from SCPPA as the Owner of MPP, to implement the Proposed Project subject to the amended conditions of compliance from SCAQMD, the amended conditions of certification from the CEC, and all terms and conditions required by the CEC for the DEBA funding (“SCPPA Approval”), which is anticipated to occur on October 16, 2025.
H. As a condition of the funding award with the CEC, the BWP will enter into a subaward flow-down agreement (“Flow-Down Agreement”) with SCPPA in order to flow down terms specified in the funding award to carry out certain tasks in the scope of work and SCPPA will be the entity making payments under the PSSA and EWA (each, as defined below).
I. BWP, as operating agent for MPP, has represented SCPPA in connection with a Parts and Special Services Agreement (PSSA) with General Electric Vernova, LLC, as successor the General Electric International, Inc. (GE) and SCPPA, that was signed on September 29, 2005; BWP has recently negotiated an Amendment Four to the PSSA and a related Extra Work Agreement (EWA) that includes an option to implement capacity upgrades including the Proposed Project supported by the DEBA funding.
J. It is in the best interest of the City, on behalf of BWP, to ratify and approve the Advanced Compressor Resiliency Upgrade grant application, to accept the grant award, and to authorize and direct the BWP General Manager as the City Manager’s designee, to execute, negotiate, and implement all required and related agreements and forms with the CEC, SCPPA, and other subcontractors and vendors, and to implement and carry out the Proposed Project subject to the amended conditions of compliance from SCAQMD, the amended conditions of certification from the CEC, and all terms and conditions required by the CEC for the DEBA funding
K. The Proposed Project would be limited to the installation of internal components and the air quality/public health operational impacts associated with a slight 112
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-3
increased air emissions, but no ground disturbance or excavation is expected and no other physical changes are planned , and as a result, it is expected that the impacts associated with the PTA would be less than significant.
L. The Proposed Project does not alter the nameplate capacity of MPP, an existing facility, and involves minor physical alteration of the existing physical structure and facilities of MPP, involving negligible or no expansion of use of an existing facility of a publicly owned utility used to provide electric power, and is therefore categorically exempt under Section 15301 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3.
M. The Proposed Project involves the replacement or reconstruction of facilities within the existing physical structure and facilities of MPP, involving replacement or reconstruction of components of existing utility systems and/or facilities involving no expansion of nameplate capacity, and is therefore categorically exempt under Section 15302 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3.
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK RESOLVES:
1. The City ratifies, approves and accepts the grant applications and the associated Notice of Proposed Award for GFO -23-401 that includes $23,293,654 for Advanced Compressor Resiliency Upgrade grant application for MPP by BWP, as operating agent of MPP on behalf of SCPPA.
2. That the General Manager of BWP, as designee of the City of Burbank City Manager, is hereby authorized and directed to execute, negotiate, and implement all required and related agreements and forms with the CEC, SCPPA, and other subcontractors and vendors, and to implement the Proposed Project subject to the amended conditions of compliance from SCAQMD, the amended conditions of certification from the CEC, and all terms and conditions required by the CEC for the DEBA funding, including the SCPPA Flow-Down Agreement, subject to review and approval of the City Attorney’s Office.
3. The General Manager of BWP, as designee of the City of Burbank City Manager, is hereby authorized and directed to submit any required documents, invoices, and reports required to obtain grant funding and any other documents, invoices and reports required under any agreements with the CEC.
4. The authority granted in this Resolution is subject to obtaining the SCPPA Approval.
113
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-4
5. The City finds that the Proposed Project has less than significant effects, and involves existing facilities and reconstruction and replacement of components within such existing facilities, and therefore is categorically exempt under Sections 15301 and 15302 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3.
PASSED and ADOPTED this ____ day of _________, 2025.
__________________________
Nikki Perez
Mayor
Approved as to Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Attest:
_____________________________ By: _______________________ Kimberley Clark, City Clerk Christopher Chwang Senior Assistant City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF BURBANK )
I, Kimberley Clark, City Clerk of the City of Burbank, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Burbank at its regular meeting held on the ____day of ______, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
____________________________
Kimberley Clark, City Clerk
114
P age 1 of 45 GFO-23-401
CEC Standard Grant Terms Exhibit C Recipient
EXHIBIT C
CEC STANDARD GRANT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
SECTION PAGE NO.
1. GRANT AGREEMENT ................................................................................................... 2
2. DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE ...................................................... 2
3. STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE ................................................................................. 3
4. DUE DILIGENCE ........................................................................................................... 3
5. PRODUCTS ................................................................................................................... 3
6. AMENDMENTS .............................................................................................................. 5
7. CONTRACTING AND PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES .............................................. 8
8. PAYMENT OF FUNDS ..................................................................................................1 4
9. TRAVEL AND PER DIEM .............................................................................................22
10. PREVAILING WAGE ....................................................................................................2 3
11. RECORDKEEPING, COST ACCOUNTING, AND AUDITING.......................................2 6
12. WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE ...............................................................2 8
13. PERMITS AND CLEARANCES ....................................................................................2 8
14. EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................................2 8
15. STOP WORK ................................................................................................................2 8
16. TERMINATION .............................................................................................................2 9
17. INDEMNIFICATION ......................................................................................................30
18. CONFIDENTIAL RECIPIENT INFORMATION ..............................................................30
19. PRE-EXISTING AND INDEPENDENTLY FUNDED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ......31
20. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY .......................................................................................33
21. ROYALTY PAYMENTS TO THE COMMISSION ..........................................................3 6
23. CERT
IFICATIONS AND COMPLIANCE GENERAL PROVISIONS .............................39
24. CALIFORNIA TAXPAYER ACCESS TO PUBLICLY FUNDED RESEARCH ACT .......41
25. RUSSIAN SANCTIONS ................................................................................................44
26. COMMISSION REMEDIES FOR RECIPIENT’S NON-COMPLIANCE ..........................46
27. RECEIPT OF CONFIDENTIAL CEC OR THIRD-PARTY INFORMATION
28. DE FINITIONS ................................................................................................................4 6 ATTACHMENT 1: CONFIDENTIAL PRODUCTS AND PROJECT-RELEVANT
PRE-EXISTING AND INDEPENDENTLY FUNDED INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-1
115
CEC Standard Grant Terms Exhibit C Recipient
EXHIBIT C
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. GRANT AGREEMENT
This grant agreement (Agreement) between the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission, Commission, or CEC) and the grant Recipient includes: (1) the Agreement signature page (form CEC-146); (2) the scope of work (Exhibit A); (3) the budget (Exhibit B); (4) these terms and conditions (Exhibit C); (5) any special terms and conditions that address the unique circumstances of the funded project (Exhibit D); (6) a contacts list (Exhibit E); (7) all attachments; and (8) all documents incorporated by reference.
All reimbursable work and expenditure of funds (CEC-reimbursed and/or match share) must occur within the Agreement term specified on the CEC-146 form, except for Agreements funded by the Clean Transportation Program or Zero- emission Vehicle Infrastructure which have statutory authorization for early expenditure of Match Funds. The CEC cannot authorize any payments until all parties sign this Agreement.
2. DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
The documents below are incorporated by reference into this Agreement. These terms and conditions (this Exhibit C and if included, Exhibit D) will govern in the event of a conflict with the documents below, with the exception of the documents in subsections (e) and (f) below. Where this Agreement or California laws and regulations are silent or do not apply, the CEC will use the federal cost principles and acquisition regulations listed below as guidance in determining whether reimbursement of claimed costs is allowable. Documents incorporated by reference include:
Solicitation Documents (if award is made through a competitive solicitation)
a. The funding solicitation for the project supported by this Agreement b. The Recipient’s proposal submitted in response to the solicitation Federal Cost Principles (applicable to state and local governments, Indian tribes, institutions of higher education, and nonprofit organizations) c. 2 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Subpart E (Sections 200.400 et seq.)
Federal Acquisition Regulations (applicable to commercial organizations) ATTACHMENT 3
A3-2
116
CEC Standard Grant Terms Exhibit C Recipient
d. 48 CFR, Ch.1, Subchapter E, Part 31, Subpart 31.2: Contracts with Commercial Organizations (supplemented by 48 CFR, Ch. 9, Subchapter E, Part 931, Subpart 931.2 for Department of Energy grants) Nondiscrimination
e. 2 California Code of Regulations, Section 11099 et seq.: Contractor Nondiscrimination and Compliance
General Laws
f. Any federal, state, or local laws or regulations applicable to the project that are not expressly listed in this Agreement
3. STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE
In performing work under the Agreement, the Recipient, its Subrecipients, and any lower tiered level of Sub-Subrecipients, and Vendors, and their employees are responsible for exercising the degree of skill and care required by customarily accepted good professional practices and procedures for the type of work performed.
4. DUE DILIGENCE
The Recipient must take timely actions that, taken collectively, move this project to completion. The Commission Agreement Manager (CAM) will periodically evaluate the project schedule for completion of Scope of Work tasks. If the CAM determines that: (1) the Recipient is not diligently completing the tasks in the Scope of Work; or (2) the time remaining in this Agreement is insufficient to complete all project tasks by the Agreement end date, the CAM may recommend that this Agreement be terminated, and the Commission may terminate this Agreement without prejudice to any of its other rights and remedies.
5. PRODUCTS
a. “Products” are any tangible item specified for delivery to the CEC in the Scope of Work, such as reports and summaries.
If the CAM determines that a product is substandard given its description and intended use as described in this Agreement, the CAM, without prejudice to any of the CEC’s other rights and remedies, may refuse to authorize payment for the product and any subsequent products that rely on or are based upon the product under this Agreement.
b. Confidential Products
Please see Section 18 (Confidential Recipient Information) for instructions regarding confidential recipient information in products.
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-3
117
CEC Standard Grant Terms Exhibit C Recipient
c. Rights in Products
The CEC owns all products identified in the Scope of Work, with the exception of products that fall within the definition of “intellectual property.” As between the CEC and the Recipient, the Recipient owns all intellectual property developed under this Agreement (please see the “Intellectual Property” section).
d. Failure to Submit Products
A Recipient’s failure to submit a product required in the Scope of Work may be considered material noncompliance with the Agreement terms.
Without prejudice to any other rights and remedies, noncompliance may result in CEC actions such as the withholding of future payments or awards, or the suspension or termination of the Agreement. e. Final Report and Payment
The Recipient may only submit a request for the final payment (including any retention) after the final report is completed, submitted to the CAM, and CEC management has verified satisfactory completion of work. f. Legal Statements on Products
1) All documents that result from work funded by this Agreement and are released to the public must include the following statement to ensure no Commission endorsement of documents:
LEGAL NOTICE
This document was prepared as a result of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees, or the State of California. Neither the Commission, the State of California, nor the Commission’s employees, contractors, or subcontractors makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability for the information in this document; nor does any party represent that the use of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights.
This document has not been approved or disapproved by the Commission, nor has the Commission passed upon the accuracy of the information in this document.
2) The Recipient will apply copyright notices to all documents prepared for this Agreement that are released to the public ( including reports, articles submitted for publication, and all reprints) using the following form or any other form that may be reasonably specified by the CEC.
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-4
118
CEC Standard Grant Terms Exhibit C Recipient
“[Year of first publication of product] [the Copyright Holder’s name]. All Rights Reserved.”
6. AMENDMENTS
a. Procedure for Requesting Changes
The Recipient must submit a written request to the CAM for any change to the Agreement. The request must include:
• A brief summary of the proposed change;
• A brief summary of the reason(s) for the change; and
• The revised section(s) of the Agreement, with changes made in underline/ strikethrough format.
b. Approval of Changes
Unless otherwise allowed in this Agreement, no amendment or variation of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by both of the parties except for the CEC’s unilateral termination rights in Section 16 and Section 25 of these terms. No oral understanding or agreement is binding on any of the parties.
Changes to the Agreement must be
approved at a CEC business meeting or by the Executive Director (or his/her designee).
Upon Recipient’s request, the CAM or Commission Agreement Officer will provide the Recipient with a document titled “Changes to Grants – Level of Approval and Notification Chart” commonly referred to as the “Changes Chart.” This document explains the level of CEC approval required for a proposed change.
c. Personnel Changes
Except when replacing “key personnel,” the Recipient, Subrecipients, and any lower-tiered level of Sub-Subrecipient, and Vendors can make changes to their respective personnel without written approval. Although changes to “key personnel” do require written approval, that approval can be requested and granted through an email communication or other form of written communication.
Recipients may be reimbursed for actual expenses incurred by new “key personnel” during the term of the Agreement, even if written approval comes after an individual begins work on the project. However, if the replacement is not approved, then the CEC will not reimburse for any expenses charged for the individual. Accordingly, Recipients are strongly encouraged to obtain advance written approval for “key personnel” or risk not being reimbursed for their work.
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-5
119
CEC Standard Grant Terms Exhibit C Recipient
Recipient must keep the CAM informed of personnel changes through monthly calls and quarterly progress reports. In addition to any other rights and remedies available to the CEC, the CEC retains its authority to issue a Stop Work Order if it becomes clear that the personnel, key or otherwise, of the Recipient, a Subrecipient, any lower-tiered level of Sub- Subrecipient, or Vendor are unable to fulfill their responsibilities under the Agreement. In addition to all other rights and remedies, the CEC shall not pay (or may require Recipient to repay if the CEC has already paid) for personnel who are unnecessary to complete the scope of work or otherwise perform under the Agreement.
d. Budget Reallocations
No CEC approval is needed for a Recipient, Subrecipient, or any lower- t
iered level of Sub-Subrecipient to move funds within each of the following Budget Categories listed in Exhibit B: Direct Labor, Fringe Benefits, Travel, Equipment, Materials and Miscellaneous, Subrecipients and Vendors, and Indirect Costs. However, please note per parts e. and h., directly below in this Section 6, any new Materials and Miscellaneous, Equipment, Subrecipient, Sub-Subrecipient or any lower-tiered level of Sub-Subrecipient or Vendor not listed in the Exhibit B does need approval prior to reimbursement. If the Recipient wants to move funds between Budget Categories or submits an invoice that if paid would exceed a Budget Category, the Recipient has at least the following choices:
1)
Request an amendment from the CEC. The CEC shall not pay the invoice if and until an amendment is executed. In its sole discretion, the CEC might pay the portion of the invoice that does not involve the amount that goes beyond the Budget Category. 2) Retract the invoice and resubmit a corrected one that keeps within Budget Categories. The Recipient can treat the amount paid beyond the Budget Category as match funds if the expenditure meets all of the applicable Agreement requirements for match funds.
Neither this nor any other flexibility in these terms for approval without executing an amendment allows the Recipient, Subrecipient, Sub- Subrecipient, any lower-tiered level of Sub-Subrecipient, or Vendor to exceed the overall Agreement amount.
e. New Items Under Materials and Miscellaneous, and Equipment Without having to execute an amendment to this Agreement, the CAM must approve in writing of any new materials and miscellaneous expenses of $5,000 or more or new equipment the Recipient, Subrecipient, any lower-tiered level of Sub-Subrecipient, or Vendor plans to purchase and be reimbursed under this Agreement that is not already listed in Exhibit B, Budget. To accomplish this, the Recipient can submit either prior to ATTACHMENT 3
A3-6
120
CEC Standard Grant Terms Exhibit C Recipient
invoicing or with its invoice a completed form titled “NEW EQUIPMENT/M&M FORM” which includes a description of the item and a brief explanation of the need for the item. The CAM will approve items that he or she determines to be necessary to the Agreement and do not exceed budgeted amounts for each Budget Category unless Recipient follows the process in this Section 6, part d. directly above.
Any restrictions in the solicitation or elsewhere in the Agreement still apply to the specific items under Materials and Miscellaneous, and Equipment that can be purchased using CEC Funds or Match Share Funds. The restrictions still apply even though a CAM does not have to approve new materials and miscellaneous expenses under $5,000.
f. Assignment of New Personnel to a New or Existing Job Classification The Recipient, Subrecipient, and any lower-tiered level of Sub-Subrecipient can assign new personnel to a new or existing job classification without CEC approval. However, the Recipient shall keep the CAM informed of all personnel changes and provide any information requested by the CAM during monthly calls and/or quarterly progress reports. g. Promotion of Existing Personnel to a New or Existing Job Classification The Recipient, Subrecipient, and any lower-tiered level of Sub- Subrecipient can promote existing personnel to a new or existing job classification without CEC approval. However, the Recipient shall keep the CAM informed of all personnel changes and provide any information requested by the CAM during monthly calls and/or quarterly progress reports. However, as stated in section 8.c. below, the CEC will not pay more than the total amount in each Budget Category, including Direct Labor, without an amendment.
h. Replacing Subrecipients or Vendors
Under these Terms, all changes of Subrecipients and Vendors require advance written approval by at least the CAM. A higher level of approval may be required based on CEC policy. Required approvals are included in the “Changes to Grants – Level of Approval and Notification Chart” commonly referred to as the “Changes Chart.”
Recipients may be reimbursed for actual expenses incurred by a new V
endor during the term of this Agreement, even if CEC written approval comes after the entity has completed work on the project. However, if the new Vendor is not approved by the CEC, the CEC will not reimburse for any expenses charged for the entity. Accordingly, Recipients are strongly encouraged to obtain advance written approval for new Vendors or risk not being reimbursed for their work.
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-7
121
CEC Standard Grant Terms Exhibit C Recipient
However, any work completed by an entity that may replace an existing Subrecipient WILL NOT BE REIMBURSED for any work completed prior to advance written approval. If a Subrecipient expends funds prior to approval, they can only be claimed as Match Funds.
7. CONTRACTING AND PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES
This section provides general requirements for Subawards entered into between the Recipient and Subrecipients and Vendors for the performance of this Agreement.
a. Recipient’s Obligations to Subrecipients and Vendors 1) The Recipient is responsible for handling all contractual and administrative issues arising out of or related to any Subawards it enters into for the performance of this Agreement.
2) Except for the “CEC as Third-Party Beneficiary” term (see section
22.m), nothing contained in this Agreement or otherwise creates any contractual relation between the CEC and any Subrecipients and Vendors, and no Subaward may relieve the Recipient of its responsibilities under this Agreement. The Recipient agrees to be as fully responsible to the CEC for the acts and omissions of its Subrecipients and Vendors or persons directly or indirectly employed by any of them as it is for the acts and omissions of persons directly employed by the Recipient.
The Recipient’s obligation to pay its Subrecipients and Vendors is an independent obligation from the CEC’s obligation to make payments to the Recipient. As a result, the CEC has no obligation to pay or enforce the payment of any funds to any Subrecipient or Vendor.
3) The Recipient is responsible for establishing and maintaining Subawards with and reimbursing each Subrecipient and Vendor for work performed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 4) A Subrecipient is defined as a person or entity that receives grant funds directly from the Recipient and is entrusted by the Recipient to make decisions about how to conduct some of the Agreement’s activities. A Subrecipient’s role involves discretion over grant activities and is not merely just selling goods or services.
Characteristics that support the classification of the entity as a Subrecipient include when the entity:
• Has its performance measured in relation to whether
objectives of a CEC program were met;
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-8
122
CEC Standard Grant Terms Exhibit C Recipient
• Has responsibility for programmatic decision-making;
• Is responsible for adherence to applicable CEC program requirements specified in the CEC award agreement;
• In accordance with its agreement, uses the CEC funds to carry out a program for a public purpose specified in authorizing statute, as opposed to providing goods or services for the benefit of the Recipient or Subrecipient; or,
• Provides match share funding contributions to this Agreement.
A Sub-Subrecipient has the same meaning as a Subrecipient except that it receives grant funds from a Subrecipient. There can also be further levels below of Sub-Subrecipients.
5) A Vendor is defined as a person or entity that sells goods or services to the Recipient, Subrecipient, or any lower-tiered level of Sub-Subrecipient, in exchange for some of the grant funds, and does not make decisions about how to perform the Agreement’s activities. The Vendor’s role is ministerial and does not involve discretion over Agreement activities. A Vendor is an entity selected through a competitive process or is otherwise providing a product or service at a fair and reasonable price. Characteristics indicative of a procurement relationship between the Recipient, Subrecipient, and any lower-tiered level of Sub-Subrecipient and a Vendor are when the Vendor:
• Provides the goods and services within normal business operations;
• Provides similar goods or services to many different
purchasers;
• Normally operates in a competitive environment;
• Provides goods or services that are ancillary to the operation of the CEC program; and
• May not be subject to compliance with all of the requirements of the CEC program as a result of the agreement, though similar requirements may apply for other reasons.
b. Subrecipient Flow-Down Terms
Subrecipients funded in whole or in part by this Agreement must include language conforming to the terms below, unless the Subawards are entered into by the University of California (UC) or the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories. UC may use the terms and conditions negotiated by the CEC with UC for its Subawards. DOE national laboratories may use the terms and conditions negotiated with DOE (please contact the Commission Grants Officer for these terms).
Recipients do not have to flow down the terms on this list that in their respective sections only state “[RESERVED].”
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-9
123
CEC Standard Grant Terms Exhibit C Recipient
• Standard of Performance (Section 3)
• Legal Statements on Products (included in Section 5, “Products”). This term does not have to be included if the Subrecipient will not generate any Products.
• Profit (Section 7.g.)
• Travel and Per Diem (Section 9). This term does not have to be included if the Subrecipient will not be reimbursed for travel with CEC funds. • Prevailing Wage (Section 10)
• Recordkeeping, Cost Accounting, and Auditing (Section 11) • Equipment (Section 14). This term does not have to be included if the Subrecipient will not be reimbursed for equipment with CEC funds. • Termination, Executive Order N-6-22 – Russia Sanctions (Section 16.d) • Indemnification (Section 17)
• Confidential Recipient Information (Section 18). This term does not have to be included if the Subrecipient will not have access to or generate confidential information. Confidential Recipient Information as defined in Section 18.
Pre-Existing and Independently Funded Intellectual Property (Section 19) • Intellectual Property (Section 20)
• Royalty Payments to the Commission (Section 21)
• Access to Sites and Records (included in Section 22, “General Provisions”)
• CEC as Third-Party Beneficiary (included in Section 22, “General Provisions”)
• Nondiscrimination (included in Section 23, “Certifications and Compliance”)
• California Taxpayer Access to Publicly Funded Research Act (Section 24) • Receipt of Confidential Information and Personal Information (Section 26) • Survival of the following sections:
o Equipment (Section 14)
o Recordkeeping, Cost Accounting, and Auditing (Section 11) o Pre-Existing and Independently Funded Intellectual Property o (Section 19)
o Intellectual Property (Section 20)
o Royalty Payments to the Commission (Section 21)
o Access to Sites and Records (included in Section 22, “General Provisions”)
o CEC as Third Party Beneficiary (included in Section 22, “General Provisions”)
o California Taxpayer Access to Publicly Funded Research Act (Section 24)
o Receipt of Confidential Information and Personal Information (Section 26)
Subrecipients funded in whole or in part by this Agreement must also include the following:
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-10
124
CEC Standard Grant Terms Exhibit C Recipient
• A clear and accurate description of the material, products, or services to be procured.
• A detailed budget and timeline.
• Provisions that allow for administrative, contractual, or legal remedies in instances where subcontractors breach contract terms, in addition to sanctions and penalties as may be appropriate.
• Provisions for termination by the Recipient, including termination procedures and the basis for settlement.
• A statement that further assignments will not be made to any third or • subsequent tier subcontractor without additional advance written consent of the Commission.
c. Vendor Flow-Down Terms
The flow-down requirements either come from the CEC or the law.
Recipient does not have to include any of the CEC-created Subrecipient flow-down terms in its Subawards with Vendors unless it is necessary for the Recipient to meet its obligations to the CEC under this Agreement.
But the Recipient is still required to make sure Vendors comply with all applicable laws. For example, the Recipient still must ensure any Vendor complies with applicable Public Work Requirements, including the payment of prevailing wage, and also with the Nondiscrimination clause.
These are requirements under the law.
The Recipient does not have to include in its Subawards with V endors,
CEC-created terms, such as Equipment, Travel and Per Diem, Retention of Records, and Audits, if the Recipient does not need them to fulfill its obligations to the CEC. An example of when the Recipient might need to include a CEC-created term in a Vendor Subaward is if intellectual property and royalty payments are involved. The Recipient must ensure the CEC has the intellectual property rights required under this Agreement and receives royalty payments due. If, for example, a Vendor creates intellectual property that the Recipient provides to the CEC as part of this Agreement, the Recipient shall ensure its Vendor Subaward secures the appropriate rights. Another example is the receipt of confidential information of personal information. If a vendor will have access to confidential information of personal information provided by the Energy Commission or a third-party for the performance of this Agreement, the Recipient must ensure its agreement with the vendor includes the Energy Commission’s special terms and conditions for the receipt of confidential information and personal information before the vendor has access to any such information.
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-11
125
CEC Standard Grant Terms Exhibit C Recipient
d. Audits
All Subawards entered into for the performance of this Agreement are subject to examination and audit by the CEC and/or Bureau of State Audits for a period of three (3) years after payment of the Recipient’s final invoice under this Agreement.
e. Copies of Subawards
The Recipient must provide a copy of its Subawards upon request by the CEC.
f. Conflicting Subcontract Terms
Prior to the execution of this Agreement, the Recipient will notify the CAM of any known or reasonably foreseeable conflicts between this Agreement and any of its Subawards (e.g., conflicting intellectual property or payment terms). If the Recipient discovers any such conflicts after the execution of this Agreement, it will notify the CAM of the conflict within fifteen (15) days of discovery. The CEC may, without prejudice to its other rights and remedies, terminate this Agreement if any conflict impairs or diminishes its value.
g. Profit
1) Recipient shall ensure that only Subrecipients, Sub-Subrecipients, and Vendors meeting the definition of an “Unrelated Company” include in their budgets, invoice for, and receive a profit.
2) For purposes of this Agreement, an Unrelated Company is defined as a for-profit business, appropriately licensed and in good standing, that does NOT meet any of the following criteria:
a) Directly or indirectly, partially or fully owns or controls Recipient.
This includes, but is not limited to, owning 5% or more of Recipient’s stock.
b) Is directly or indirectly, partially or fully owned or controlled by Recipient. This includes, but is not limited to, having 5% or more of stock owned by Recipient.
c) Has one or more common employees, including, but not limited to, owners, officers, directors, or managers, with Recipient.
d) Shares a Parent Company with Recipient. For purposes of this Agreement, Parent Company is defined as an entity that directly or indirectly, partially or fully owns or controls both the Recipient and the Subrecipient or Sub-Subrecipient or shares the same ATTACHMENT 3
A3-12
126
CEC Standard Grant Terms Exhibit C Recipient
employees with them. This includes, but is not limited to, owning 5% or more of stock in both the Recipient and
Subrecipient or Sub-Subrecipient.
e) Does not, for any other reason, have an arm’s-length relationship (e.g., a relationship involving independent, competing interests) with the Recipient. This could be due to any reason, including but not limited to, both entities being part of the same business group or could stem from family or personal ties between officials of the two entities.
3) R
ecipient shall further ensure the profit to each Unrelated Company that is a Subrecipient or a Sub-Subrecipient does not exceed 10% of only the CEC funds the Unrelated Company will receive. None of the following count towards the 10% profit maximum:
a) T
he Profit Amount Itself. For example, assume Recipient and its Subrecipient SubX agree to a total, all inclusive, budget amount of $200,000 in CEC funds. SubX cannot claim $20,000 of this as profit. If $180,000 is the base for expenses on which profit is calculated, 10% is only $18,000 and not $20,000.
b) Non-CEC Funds in any Form. Only CEC funds a recipient will receive can count towards profit. For example, assume
Recipient’s Subrecipient SubX has a budget showing it
receiving $100,000 in CEC funds (not including the profit amount) and $50,000 in federal funds with the federal funds counting as match under the CEC’s grant. The maximum SubX can be paid with CEC funds for profit is 10% of $100,000 CEC funds, or $10,000 (assuming the $100,000 CEC base does not include any of the other expenses that cannot be included in calculating profit). The $50,000 in federal funds does not count towards the profit calculation because it is not CEC funds.
c) Equipment. Continuing the example from b), assume SubX’s $100,000 CEC budget shows $10,000 earmarked for
equipment. The maximum SubX can be paid with CEC funds for profit is 10% of $90,000, or $9,000 (assuming the $90,000 base does not include any of the other expenses that cannot be included in calculating profit).
d) Amounts Paid to Sub-Subrecipients and Vendors. Continuing the example from b) and c), assume SubX’s $100,000 CEC
budget also shows $20,000 earmarked to pay Sub-SubY. SubX cannot include in its profit calculation the $20,000 to Sub- SubY. The maximum SubX can be paid with CEC funds for
profit is 10% of $70,000 ($100,000 in CEC funds minus $10,000 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-13
127
CEC Standard Grant Terms Exhibit C Recipient
in equipment from c) above and minus $20,000 to Sub-SubY) or $7,000.
Vendor Unrelated Companies do not have a 10% profit
maximum and also do not have to adhere to the same
restrictions in a) through d) directly above. However, as stated in the requirements for Vendors in Section 7.a.5) in this Exhibit C, Recipient must be able to demonstrate that the Vendor was selected through a competitive process or is otherwise providing a product or service at a fair and reasonable price.
4) Profit can only be paid by the CEC as the amounts on which it is based are invoiced and paid. Profit will NOT be
advanced. Continuing the example from 2.d) above, assume SubX submits an invoice for $5,000 (of its $70,000) in costs on which profit is based, and the Recipient includes SubX’s invoice as part of its invoice to the CEC. The Recipient can include in the invoice, and the CEC will pay, assuming other Agreement requirements are met, $500 in profit on this particular invoice. Please realize that Retention (see Section 8.n. in these Terms) may reduce the CEC’s overall payment on the invoice.
5) Budget changes may affect an Unrelated Company’s profit. For example, funds moved from a Subrecipient’s direct labor, a category counting towards the profit calculation, to a Sub- Subrecipient, a category that does not count towards the profit calculation, would reduce the allowable profit.
h. Penalties for Noncompliance
Without limiting the CEC’s other rights and remedies, failure to comply with the above requirements may result in the termination of this Agreement and repayment of any profit amounts in violation of these terms.
8. PAYMENT OF FUNDS
a. Definitions
For purposes of this Section 8, the following terms have the following meaning:
• “Advance Payment” means the CEC pays Recipient prior to the Recipient Incurring or Paying the expense.
• “Incurred Cost” means an expense for which the Recipient has become liable (legally obligated) to pay. Here are examples of incurred costs:
o The Recipient’s staff has completed work during the month but has not been paid by the Recipient. These labor and associated costs (e.g., fringe benefits) are considered Incurred Costs.
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-14
128
CEC Standard Grant Terms Exhibit C Recipient
o The Recipient has purchased a piece of equipment and received an invoice, bill, or receipt. The Recipient has not yet paid the invoice. The invoice shows the amount to be paid and confirmation of the sale. This is an Incurred Cost.
I
ncurred Costs for equipment DO NOT include purchase orders unless accompanied by an invoice, bill, or receipt that shows the payment amount due to the seller for the equipment.
• “Paid Cost” means an expense for which the Recipient has already made payment.
b. Advance Payments
Recipients can receive Advance Payments only for Subrecipients or any lower-tiered level of Sub-Subrecipient with the U.S. Department of Energy laboratories. Otherwise, Advance Payments are NOT allowed under this Agreement. The CEC in its sole discretion, and not the Recipient, decides if the CEC will make an Advance Payment.
c. Reimbursable Cost Requirements
In addition to any other requirements in this Agreement, the CEC is only obligated to reimburse the Recipient for Incurred and Paid Costs that are (1) incurred during the Agreement Term; (2) invoiced within the required timeframes of this Agreement; (3) made in accordance with the Agreement’s Budget; and (4) actual and allowable expenses under this Agreement.
The only exception to the CEC paying actual expenses is rounding to the nearest cent. The Recipient, Subrecipient, and any lower-tiered level of Sub- Subrecipient shall round invoiced amounts to the nearest cent ($0.01) using standard rounding, which is rounding down from $0.000 through $0.004, and rounding up for $0.005 through $0.009. Rounding cannot be used to exceed the amount in any Budget Category or exceed the total Agreement amount.
In Exhibit B, the Budget, the rates for Direct Labor and Fringe Benefits are treated as estimates and not capped rates. The Recipient, Subrecipient, and any lower-tiered level of Sub-Subrecipient can invoice at higher rates as long as it is only invoicing for actual expenditures it has made. However, the CEC will not pay more than the total amount in each Budget Category without an amendment, or for more than the total Agreement amount.
Please note that rates listed in Exhibit B, the Budget, are NOT “negotiated rates” that can be charged – documentation must be made available upon request to show that the rates charged reflect actual costs incurred.
This Exhibit C’s terms allow the Recipient, Subrecipient, and any lower-tiered level of Sub-Subrecipient to receive reimbursement for actual Indirect Costs.
A Recipient, Subrecipient, and any lower-tiered level of Sub-Subrecipient may choose among three options described below. However, the option selected cannot increase the Indirect Cost amount included in the application upon ATTACHMENT 3
A3-15
129
CEC Standard Grant Terms Exhibit C Recipient
which the application was scored. Once the Recipient, Subrecipient, and any lower-tiered level of Sub-Subrecipient has received payment for Indirect Costs for one of the options, it cannot switch. It is locked into that option.
Option 1: De Minimis
The Recipient, Subrecipient, and any lower-tiered level of Sub-Subrecipient can elect to invoice and receive a de minimis amount at the set rate of 10% of the Modified Total Direct Costs (MTDC) for Indirect Costs. This cannot be combined with any other Indirect Rate option.
MTDC is defined for purposes of this Agreement as all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $25,000 of each subaward (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards under the award). MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, and the portion of ach subaward in excess of $25,000. This is the same definition used in federal grants. Keeping this the same as the federal definition should make it easy for entities that have both federal and CEC grants and elect this option.
Entities choosing this de minimis option for Indirect Costs will not have to provide backup documentation for the de minimis amount and will not be audited on it.
Option 2: Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) or other Federally Approved Indirect Rate
A Recipient, Subrecipient, and any lower-tiered level of Sub-Subrecipient that has a federally approved indirect rate from DCAA or another Federal agency may use the approved indirect rate for this Agreement. A copy of the Federal agency’s letter must be provided, and the letter, or the letter together with other supporting documentation, must allow the CEC to verify that the rates charged to the CEC are the federally-approved rates.
This rate will typically shift annually, and this shift is generally acceptable.
This is the only Indirect Cost option that is not strictly subject to the maximum rate cap that typically applies to Indirect Costs. If the federal rate decreases from year to year, that will be a cost savings under this budget category. If the federal rate increases from year to year, this will require a budget reallocation. If the CEC, in its sole discretion, determines that a budget reallocation to accommodate an increased Indirect Rate would risk the ultimate success of this Agreement, or is otherwise not in its best interest, the CEC reserves, in addition to all of its other rights and remedies, the right to either propose a smaller increase that would not risk the ultimate success of the project, or refuse to increase the Indirect Rate. For any increase the CEC will not reimburse from CEC Funds, the entity can choose to charge the increase as Match Funds.
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-16
130
CEC Standard Grant Terms Exhibit C Recipient
If this Option 2 is chosen, the entity will not be audited on this budget category.
Option 3: Indirect Costs based on Cost Allocation Plan
A Recipient, Subrecipient, and any lower-tiered level of Sub-Subrecipient may choose to budget for Indirect Costs based on the entity’s cost allocation plan.
The amount of Indirect Costs included in Exhibit B cannot be increased through a budget reallocation. If this option is selected, Indirect Costs are subject to audit, and the entity is required to provide backup documentation upon request proving the actual amount of their Indirect Costs. d. Recipient’s
14-Day Payment Requirement for Incurred Costs
The Recipient, Subrecipients, and all lower-tiered Subrecipients shall pay ALL Incurred Costs within 14 calendar days of receiving payment under this Agreement for the Incurred Costs. For example, if the Recipient invoices and then receives payment from the CEC on September 15 for an Incurred Cost of $10,000, the Recipient shall pay the entire $10,000 by September 29. This requirement is needed to prevent entities from creating long lead times for Incurred Costs (e.g., invoicing and receiving payment from the CEC but not paying for the Incurred Costs for weeks or months).
The Recipient shall only invoice the CEC, Subrecipients shall only invoice the Recipient (and so on for any lower-tiered level of Sub-Subrecipients), for Incurred Costs it will pay within 14 calendar days of receiving payment of CEC funds. For example, assume the Recipient has an Incurred Cost for a piece of equipment that costs $300,000 and will pay in three installments of $100,000 each over three months. The Recipient shall only invoice the Commission for $100,000 each month. The Recipient shall not invoice for the entire $300,000 and retain the balance over the three months.
For any Incurred Costs for which the Recipient, Subrecipient, and any lower- tiered level of Sub-Subrecipient has received CEC funds and does not pay within 14 calendar days, the entity shall on the very next business day after the 14 calendar days submit repayment of the unpaid amount back to the CEC. Repaid funds will be placed back into the Agreement and will be available to reimburse allowable costs in accordance with this Agreement.
When making a repayment under this provision, the Recipient shall specify “Repayment of Unspent Funds under Agreement [Insert this Agreement #].” Recipient shall remit the repayment to:
California Energy Commission
Accounting Office
715 P Street, MS-2
Sacramento, CA 95814
This repayment requirement of the Recipient is in addition to any other rights the CEC can enforce relative to this Agreement. Recipient agrees and ATTACHMENT 3
A3-17
131
CEC Standard Grant Terms Exhibit C Recipient
acknowledges that time is of the essence in paying Incurred Costs and submitting repayments and the CEC can treat the Recipient’s breach of either requirement as a material breach. Recipient can contact the CAM for any questions about the logistics of making repayments.
e. Payment Requests
The Recipient may request payment from the CEC at any time during the term of this Agreement but no more frequently than monthly. The final payment request, including retention, MUST be received by the CEC no later than the Agreement end date.
Recipient agrees and acknowledges that time is of the essence in submitting the final payment request. The CEC has a limited period of time, set by law, in which it can reimburse funds under this Agreement. Without prejudice to the CEC’s other rights, the Recipient risks not receiving any funds, and relieves the CEC of any duty and liability whatsoever to pay, for any payment requests received after the end of the Agreement.
No reimbursement for food or beverages shall be made other than allowable per diem charges.
All Recipient expenditures, reimbursable and match, must occur within the approved term of this Agreement.
f. Invoice Approval and Disputes:
Each request for payment is subject to the CAM’s approval. Payments will be made to the Recipient for undisputed invoices. An undisputed invoice is an invoice submitted by the Recipient for work performed, for which project expenditures meet all Agreement conditions, and for which additional evidence is not required to determine its validity.
The invoice will be disputed if the invoice is inaccurate or if it does not comply with the terms of this Agreement. If the invoice is disputed, the Recipient will be notified in writing.
g. Recipient’s headquarters:
For purposes of payment, the Recipient’s headquarters is the location of the Recipient’s office where the majority of its employees assigned responsibilities for this Agreement are permanently assigned.
h. Multiple Non-Energy Commission Funding Sources:
No payment will be made for costs identified in Recipient, Subrecipient, and any lower-tiered level of Sub-Subrecipient invoices that have been or will be ATTACHMENT 3
A3-18
132
CEC Standard Grant Terms Exhibit C Recipient
reimbursed by another source, including but not limited to an agreement with another government entity.
“Government Entity” means: (1) a state governmental agency; (2) a state college or university; (3) a local government entity or agency, including those created as a Joint Powers Authority; (4) an auxiliary organization of the California State University or a California community college; (5) the federal government; (6) a foundation organized to support the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges; and (7) an auxiliary organization of the Student Aid Commission established under California Education Code Section 69522.
i. Reduced funding:
If the CEC does not receive sufficient funds under the Budget Act to fully fund the work identified in Exhibit A (Scope of Work), the following will occur:
1) If the Energy Commission has received a reduced amount of funds for the work, it may: (1) offer an Agreement amendment to the Recipient to reflect the reduced amount; or (2) cancel this Agreement (with no liability occurring to the State).
2) If the Energy Commission has received no funds for the work identified in Exhibit A: (1) this Agreement will be of no force and effect; (2) the State will have no obligation to pay any funds to the Recipient; and (3) the Recipient will have no obligation to perform any work under this Agreement.
j. Allowability of Costs
1) Allowable Costs
The costs for which the Recipient will be reimbursed under this Agreement include all actual costs, direct and indirect, incurred in the performance of the work identified in the Scope of Work. Costs must be incurred within the Agreement term. Factors to be considered in determining whether an individual item of cost is allowable include: (i) reasonableness of the item, including necessity of the item for the work; (ii) applicable federal cost principles or acquisition regulations incorporated by reference in Section 2 of this Agreement; and (iii) the terms and conditions and any other requirements of this Agreement.
2) Unallowable Costs
Recipient shall not invoice or obtain from the CEC any profit for itself under this Agreement. This Agreement is a grant for the Recipient’s project. This is not a services contract to the state. The Recipient is already receiving the benefit of the grant funds. The CEC shall not pay profit to the Recipient on top of the benefit it is receiving from the grant ATTACHMENT 3
A3-19
133
CEC Standard Grant Terms Exhibit C Recipient
funds in this Agreement. Some Subrecipients and Sub-Subrecipients may be able to receive up to 10% profit (please refer to section 7.g. in these terms).
Below are examples of other unallowable costs. Details concerning the allowability of costs are available from the CEC’s Accounting Office. a) Contingency costs;
b) Imputed costs (e.g., cost of money);
c) Fines and penalties;
d) Losses;
e) Excess profit taxes; and
f) Unapproved, increased rates and fees for this Agreement. 3) Except as provided for in this Agreement or applicable California law or regulations, the Recipient will use the federal cost principles and/or acquisition regulations incorporated by reference in Section 2 of this Agreement when determining allowable and unallowable costs. In the event of a conflict, this Agreement takes precedence over the federal cost principles and/or acquisition regulations.
k. Payment Request Format
The Recipient, and any Subrecipients or lower-tiered level of Sub- Subrecipient with a total budget of $100,000 or more, shall use the Invoice Template and any further modifications to it, provided by the CAM. The CAM can change the Invoice Template without amending this Agreement.
Please submit invoices electronically per the instructions included in the document entitled “Procedures for Submitting and Reviewing Grant Invoices Electronically” available at https://www.energy.ca.gov/media/4469.
Recipient shall provide documentation showing the Recipient’s payment of Incurred Costs as soon as possible and not later than three working days from a request from CEC personnel.
l. Certification
The Recipient, and any Subrecipients or lower-tiered level of Sub- Subrecipient with a total budget of $100,000 or more shall include and sign the certification provided by the CAM in the Invoice Template. The CAM can change this certification without amending this Agreement. m. Retention
The CEC shall retain 10 percent of any payment request or 10 percent of the total CEC award at the end of the Agreement. The CEC has the sole discretion to decide which of these methods of retention will be used in this Agreement. The Recipient must submit a completed payment request ATTACHMENT 3
A3-20
134
CEC Standard Grant Terms Exhibit C Recipient
requesting release of the retention within the required timeframe (see part e. “Payment Requests” above in this term). The Commission Agreement Manager will review the project file and, when satisfied that the terms of the funding Agreement have been fulfilled, will authorize release of the retention.
Retention may be released upon completion of tasks that are considered separate and distinct (i.e., the task is a stand-alone piece of work and could be completed without the other tasks). Tasks for administration or management of the Agreement and/or subcontractors are not considered separate and distinct tasks. The tasks for which retention may be released prior to the end of the Agreement must be identified in Exhibit B (budget) or elsewhere in this Agreement.
When the CEC withholds 10% retention from each invoice, the Recipient can choose to flow down the retention requirement to its Subrecipients subject to the following restrictions and any other requirements in this Agreement:
• The Recipient shall not flow down retention requirements to U.S.
Department of Energy national laboratory Subrecipients. • The retention flowed down to Subrecipients can only be up to a total of 10% of the amount of CEC funds the Subrecipient is to receive. The Recipient is responsible for carrying the retention for its funded portion of the entire Agreement and cannot pass its share of retention to Subrecipients or Vendors.
• Here are three examples:
i. A Subrecipient submits an invoice for $100,000 to the Recipient, and the Recipient in turn submits it to the CEC. The CEC will only pay $90,000 of the invoice and the Recipient can elect to pay only $90,000 to the Subrecipient.
ii. The Subrecipient is the U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory and it submits an advance request for $100,000 to the Recipient, including any other documents required in the CEC’s U.S. Department of Energy Terms and Conditions. The Recipient in turn submits the advance requests to the CEC for payment. The CEC will pay the full amount of the advance requests to the Recipient and the Recipient must pay the full amount to the U.S. Department of Energy.
iii. The Recipient’s submits an invoice for its own staff in the amount of $20,000. The CEC will only pay $18,000 to the Recipient, and the Recipient cannot withhold the $2,000 difference from Subrecipients or Vendor reimbursements.
These requirements apply to all levels of Subrecipients (e.g., any lower- tiered level of Sub-Subrecipients).
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-21
135
CEC Standard Grant Terms Exhibit C Recipient
9. TRAVEL AND PER DIEM
a. Travel not listed in Exhibit B, the Budget, can be added without an amendment via CAM approval. CAM approval can come in one of two forms: written authorization from the CAM prior to the trip being taken, or through the invoice review. Outside of a budget reallocation, additional travel requests are submitted using the CEC’s
Travel Form. Any travel
taken that is not listed in Exhibit B, the Budget, or not pre-approved by the CAM in writing, is at the financial risk of the Recipient, Subrecipient, and any lower-tiered level of Sub-Subrecipient taking the trip. Please note that the Recipient, Subrecipient, and any lower-tiered level of Sub-Subrecipient cannot invoice and be paid for more than the total amount in the Travel Budget Category without an amendment, or for more than the total Agreement amount.
b. N
o reimbursement for food or beverages will be made other than for allowable per diem charges.
c. The Recipient will be reimbursed for authorized travel and per diem up to, but not to exceed, the rates allowed nonrepresented state employees.
Current allowable travel reimbursement rates can be obtained from the Commission’s web site at
http://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/TRAVEL_PER_DIEM.PDF. B ecause
the rates can change over time, Recipient, Subrecipient, and any lower- tiered level of Sub-Subrecipient will be allowed to be reimbursed for the rates in the Grant Manual when the trip expenses become an Incurred Cost. The CEC shall notify the Recipient in writing by way of the Active Agreements listserve if the travel rates in the Grant Manual change.
Please sign up for the Active Agreements listserve to stay informed of all updates.
d. Lod
ging
The Recipient, Subrecipient, and any lower-tiered level of Sub- Subrecipient can invoice at standard room rates. The CEC will not reimburse for luxury accommodations.
e. Airfare
The Recipient, Subrecipient, and any lower-tiered level of Sub-Subrecipient can invoice at coach rates on commercial flights. The CEC will not pay for upgrades on flights.
f. Rental Car
The Recipient, Subrecipient, and any lower-tiered level of Sub-Subrecipient can invoice for vehicles appropriate for the purpose of the travel. The CEC will not reimburse expenses for luxury vehicles.
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-22
136
CEC Standard Grant Terms Exhibit C Recipient
g. Bus/Train
The Recipient, Subrecipient, and any lower-tiered level of Sub-Subrecipient can invoice for standard coach rates. The CEC will not reimburse for upgrades. h. Per Diem
Per diem is allowable for actual costs incurred up to the total daily maximum for the following combined expenses:
• Meals
• Incidentals (i.e., tips for hotel staff and taxi/ride share drivers) • Parking
• Tolls
• Taxi/ride share
The CEC will not reimburse any expenses under this Agreement for alcoholic beverages. In addition, the daily per diem is for the individual expenses of those traveling and working on the Agreement only. It cannot be used to pay expenses of others (e.g., it cannot be used to buy a meal for someone else).
10. PREVAILING WAGE
a. Requirement
Projects funded by the Energy Commission often involve construction, alteration, demolition, installation, repair, or maintenance work over $1,000. Such projects might be considered “public works” under the California Labor Code (See California Labor Code Section 1720 et seq. and Title 8 California Code of Regulations, Section 16000 et seq.). Public works projects require the payment of prevailing wages. Prevailing wage rates can be significantly higher than non-prevailing wage rates. b. Determination of Project’s Status
Only the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) and courts of competent jurisdiction may issue legally binding determinations that a particular project is or is not a public work. If the Recipient is unsure whether the project funded by the Agreement is a “public work” as defined in the California Labor Code, it may wish to seek a timely determination from DIR or an appropriate court. As such processes can be time consuming, it may not be possible to obtain a timely determination before the date for performance of the Agreement.
By accepting this grant, the Recipient is fully responsible for complying with all California public works requirements, including but not limited to payment of prevailing wage. As a material term of this grant, the Recipient must either:
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-23
137
CEC Standard Grant Terms Exhibit C Recipient
1) Timely obtain a legally binding determination from DIR or a court of competent jurisdiction before work begins on the project that the proposed project is not a public work; or
2) Assume that the project is a public work and ensure that:
• Prevailing wages are paid unless and until DIR or a court of competent jurisdiction determines that the project is not a public work;
• The project budget for labor reflects these prevailing wage requirements; and
• The project complies with all other requirements of prevailing wage law, including but not limited to keeping accurate payroll records and complying with all working hour requirements and apprenticeship obligations.
California Prevailing Wage law provides for substantial damages and financial penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages when such payment is required.
c. Subrecipient and Vendor Flow-down Requirements
The Recipient will ensure that its Subrecipients, any lower-tiered level of Sub-Subrecipients, and Vendors also comply with the public works/prevailing wage requirements above. As applicable, the Recipient will ensure that all agreements with its Subrecipients and Vendors to perform work related to this Project contain the above terms regarding payment of prevailing wages on public works projects, and also as applicable that Subrecipients and Vendors also contain these terms. The Recipient is responsible for any failure of its Subrecipients, any lower- tiered level of Sub-Subrecipients, and Vendors to comply with California prevailing wage and public works laws.
d. Indemnification and Breach
Any failure of the Recipient or its Subrecipients, any lower-tiered level of Sub-Subrecipients, and Vendors to comply with the above requirements will constitute breach of this Agreement which excuses the CEC’s performance of this Agreement at the CEC’s option, and will be at the Recipient’s sole risk. In such a case, the CEC will refuse payment to the Recipient of any amount under this award and the CEC will be released, at its option, from any further performance of this Agreement or any portion thereof. The Recipient will indemnify the CEC and hold it harmless for any and all financial consequences arising out of or resulting from the failure of the Recipient and/or any of its subcontractors to pay prevailing wages or to otherwise comply with the requirements of prevailing wage law.
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-24
138
CEC Standard Grant Terms Exhibit C Recipient
e. Budget
The Recipient’s budget on public works projects must indicate which job classifications are subject to prevailing wage. For detailed information about prevailing wage and the process to determine if the proposed project is a public work, the Recipient may wish to contact DIR or a qualified labor attorney for guidance.
f. Covered Trades
For public works projects, the Recipient may contact DIR for a list of covered trades and the applicable prevailing wage.
g. Questions
If the Recipient has any questions about this contractual requirement or the wage, record keeping, apprenticeship, or other significant requirements of California prevailing wage law, the Recipient should consult DIR and/or a qualified labor attorney before entering into this Agreement.
h. Certification
The Recipient will certify to the CEC on each payment request form either that: (a) prevailing wages were paid to eligible workers who provided labor for work covered by the payment request and the Recipient and all contractors and subcontractors otherwise complied with all California prevailing wage laws; or (b) the project is not a public work requiring the payment of prevailing wages. In the latter case, the Recipient will provide competent proof of a DIR or court determination that the project is not a public work requiring the payment of prevailing wages.
Prior to the release of any retained funds under this Agreement, the Recipient will submit to the CEC the above-described certificate signed by the Recipient and all Subrecipients, any lower-tiered level of Sub- Subrecipients, and Vendors performing public works activities on the project. Absent this certificate, the Recipient will have no right to any funds under this Agreement, and CEC will be relieved of any obligation to pay any funds.
11. RECORDKEEPING, COST ACCOUNTING, AND AUDITING
a. Cost Accounting
The Recipient will keep separate, complete, and correct accounting of the costs involved in completing the project and any match-funded portion of the project. The CEC or its agent will have the right to examine the Recipient’s books of accounts at all reasonable times, to the extent necessary to verify the accuracy of the Recipient’s reports.
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-25
139
CEC Standard Grant Terms Exhibit C Recipient
b. Accounting Procedures
The Recipient’s costs will be determined on the basis of its accounting system procedures and practices employed as of the effective date of this Agreement, provided that the Recipient uses generally accepted accounting principles and cost reimbursement practices. The Recipient’s cost accounting practices used in accumulating and reporting costs during the performance of this Agreement will be consistent with the practices used in estimating costs for any proposal to which this Agreement relates; provided that such practices are consistent with the other terms of this Agreement and that such costs may be accumulated and reported in greater detail during performance of this Agreement.
The Recipient’s accounting system will distinguish between direct and indirect costs. All costs incurred for the same purpose, in like circumstances, are either direct costs only or indirect costs only with respect to costs incurred under this Agreement.
c. Audit Rights
The Recipient will maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence, based on the procedures set forth above, sufficient to reflect properly all costs claimed to have been incurred in the performance of this Agreement. The CEC, another state agency, and/or a public accounting firm designated by the CEC may audit the Recipient’s accounting records at all reasonable times, with prior notice by the CEC.
It is the intent of the parties that the audits will ordinarily be performed not more frequently than once every twelve (12) months during the performance of the work and once at any time within three (3) years after payment by the CEC of the Recipient’s final invoice. However, performance of any such interim audits by the CEC does not preclude further audit.
The Recipient will allow the auditor(s) to access such records during normal business hours, and will allow interviews of any employees who might reasonably have information related to such records. The Recipient will include a similar right of the state to audit records and interview staff in any subcontract related to the performance of this Agreement. d. Refund to the Energy Commission
If the CEC determines that any invoiced and paid amounts exceed the actual allowable incurred costs, the Recipient will repay the amounts to the CEC within thirty (30) days of request or as otherwise agreed by the CEC and the Recipient. If the CEC does not receive such repayments, it will be entitled to take actions such as withholding further payments to the Recipient and seeking repayment from the Recipient.
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-26
140