20141021 Late CorrespondenceCrrYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
OCTOBER 21, 2014
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA**
Attached .are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No.
B
4
6
Respectfully submitted,
{];b~~
Carla Morreale
Description of Material
Councilman Campbell's version of an excerpt of a portion of
the August 5, 2014 Minutes
Revised Resolution
Email from Don Davis
**PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, October 20, 2014**.
W:\AGENDA\2014 Additions Revisions to agendas\20141007 additions revisions to agenda.doc
f /7Jm: 0Lt1Joilrntt!J aun,kt{
Exceet of Portion of Draft Minutes regarding UUT Item -¥" 0 ~/'f
REGULAR BUSINESS:
Ordinance Reducing the Utility User Tax (UUT) Rate from 3% to 2.75% and
Modernizing the City's Utility User Tax and Emergency Resolution Authorizing
the City Council to Call an Election on November 4, 2014 to Request the Voters to
Approve the Ordinance
Mayor Pro Tern Knight returned to the dais at 8:20 P.M.
*Councilman Campbell joined the meeting at 8:20 P.M., via teleconference from the
remote location as listed on the agenda.
City Attorn·ey Lynch provided a brief overview and PowerPoint presentation regarding
the proposed ordinance reducing the Utility User Tax (UUT) rate from 3% to 2.75% and
modernizing the City's Utility User Tax, and emergency resolution authorizing the City
Council to call an election.
Director of Finance Mclean provided a brief staff report and PowerPoint presentation
responding to questions and issues raised at the July 29, 2014 Council meeting, as well
as fiscal matters to be considered by the Council.
Tom Long, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that when he served on Council, the decision
was made to postpone the issues regarding the UUT until the conclusion of litigations of
other cities. He noted that, unfortunately, the litigation did not sustain the tax, resulting
in the difficult decision that is before the Council for consideration. He stated that
Alternative Nos. 1-3 were not optimal considerations, spoke in support of staff's
recommendation, and opined the matter should be placed before the voters for their
decision.
Discussion ensued among Council Members, staff, and City Attorney Lynch regarding
the following: 1) Potential litigation regarding the past collection of the
telecommunication portion of the UUT; 2) Consideration of UUT ballot measures by
many cities and recent legal claims and challenges against other cities resulting in the
successful award of damages; 3) Temporary suspension of the future collection of the
telecommunication portion of the UUT; 4) The need for UUT funds and cost of the
election if held in November 2014; 5) Alternative 2, as presented in the staff report, if the
resolution to declare emergency was not adopted by the City Council, to temporarily
suspend collection of UUT by telecommunication providers and reconsider UUT
modernization ballot measure in November 2015; 6) An alternative to modernize the
UUT language and keep the UUT rate at 3%; and, 7) An alternative to place the ballot
measure on the November 2014 with the suspension of the UUT during the interim
period.
Draft City Council Minutes
August 5, 2014
Page 1 of 4
B
Councilman Misetich moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Knight, to: Place the UUT
Measure before the voters on the November 4, 2014 Election with the incorporation of
the modernization language, and keep the UUT rate at 3%.
Discussion continued regarding the suspension of the collection of UUT by
telecommunication providers between now and the November 2014 Election and
clarification that the motion did not include the suspension.
Additional discussion ensued among Council Members, staff, and City Attorney Lynch.
Councilman Campbell moved, seconded by Councilwoman Brooks, to call the question.
The motion to call the question passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Brooks, Campbell, Knight, Misetich and Mayor Duhovic
None
None
City Clerk Morreale reiterated the motion on the floor as the following: Councilman
Misetich moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Knight, to place the UUT Measure before
the voters on the November 4, 2014 Election with the incorporation of the modernization
language, and keep the UUT rate at 3%.
The motion failed on the following roll call vote, as a unanimous vote was necessary:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Brooks, Misetich and Knight
Campbell and Mayor Duhovic
None
Discussion continued among Council Members, with Mayor Duhovic noting that he
voted against the motion due to the potential backlash from the public and that he was
in favor of the suspension of the collection of UUT by telecommunication providers.
Councilman Campbell stated that he voted against the motion because he did not see
enough evidence that this was an emergency, opined that the ballot measure has a high
likelihood of failing on the November 2014 ballot, and noted that this matter should be
addressed in a measured businesslike fashion.
Tom Long, stated that he had listened carefully to the concerns of Council and
suggested the following compromise to: Hold the election in March 2015 with the City of
Los Angeles; place the UUT Measure before the voters for their consideration; keep the
UUT rate at 3% or 2.75%, although he was in favor of 3%; and, suspend the collection
of the telecommunication portion of the UUT tax in the interim period.
Councilman Misetich moved, seconded by Councilwoman Brooks, to place the UUT
Draft City Council Minutes
August 5, 2014
Page 2 of 4
Measure before the voters on the March 2015 Election with the City of Los Angeles
conducting the election; keep the UUT rate at 3%, with the incorporation of the
modernization language; and suspend the collection of the telecommunication portion of
the UUT tax in the interim period.
City Attorney Lynch suggested that the motion be bifurcated so as to consider the
suspension of the collection of the telecommunication portion of the UUT tax in the
interim period separately.
City Attorney Lynch reiterated the first motion, as bifurcated, to be the following: To
place the UUT Measure before the voters on the March 2015 Election with the City of
Los Angeles conducting the election; and keep the UUT rate at 3%, with the
incorporation of the modernization language.
City Attorney Lynch stated that the second motion would address the suspension of the
collection of the telecommunication portion of the UUT in the interim period.
Discussion continued among Council Members and City Attorney Lynch.
City Clerk Morreale reiterated the first motion as the following: Councilman Misetich
moved, seconded by Councilwoman Brooks, to place the UUT Measure before the
voters on the March 2015 Election with the City of Los Angeles conducting the election;
and keep the UUT rate at 3%, with the incorporation of the modernization language.
The motion failed on the following roll call vote, as a unanimous vote was necessary:
AYES:
. NOES:
ABSENT:
Brooks, Knight, Misetich and Mayor Duhovic
Campbell
None
Councilman Campbell stated that he voted no because he did not want the matter to be
locked in now, noting that with a March 2015 election there would be several more
months to engage the public. analyze and explore the topic, discuss potential ballot
language and consider other options in order to come to arrive at a better solution., _ _.,.
Mayor Duhovic stated that it was his understanding that the ordinance language could
be modified prior to having that language placed on the ballot. City Attorney Lynch
confirmed that his understanding was correct since the actual ordinance language
would not be submitted to the City of Los Angeles until their deadline for submission of
materials. Councilman Campbell stated that he was not comfortable in favor of placing
this item on the March 2015 ballot until the specific ordinance and ballot language had
been made available to the public for a sufficient amount of time prior to a public
hearing and council vote. Councilman Campbell additionally stated that he was not
going to vote to place this on the ballot now because he considered the proposed
language in its current form misleading. voting for the UUT ordinance language until he
Draft City Council Minutes
August 5, 2014
Page 3 of 4
has read the material in its entirety, and noted he 'Nas not in favor of the language as it
was currently proposed.
RECESS AND RECONVENE:
Mayor Duhovic called a brief recess from 9:47 P.M. to 9:56 P.M.
Councilman Campbell left the meeting at 9:47 P.M.
Draft City Council Minutes
August 5, 2014
Page 4 of 4
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES APPROVING A PROCESS FOR REFUNDING UTILITY USER TAX THAT
WAS COLLECTED BY TELECOMMUNICATION PROVIDERS FROM THE CITY'S
TAXPAYERS BETWEEN AUGUST 13, 2013 AND DECEMBER 31, 2014 AND
DIRECTING THAT CLAIMS FOR REFUNDS BE ADMINISTERED AND PAID
PURSUANT TO THAT PROCESS
WHEREAS, in 1993, the City Council adopted the City's Utility Users Tax ("Tax" or
"UUT"). The amount of the Tax is 3%. It is imposed on City residents who use telephone
servipe, electricity, co-generated electricity, natural gas, and water; and
WHEREAS, subsequently, the voters of the State of California adopted Proposition
62 and Proposition 218; and
WHEREAS, the City Council placed the Tax on the ballot, and the voters ratified
the existing Tax at the same 3% rate; and
WHEREAS, the City's Tax originally was imposed upon all telephone services that
were subject to the Federal Excise Tax ("FET"). In response to litigation, in 2006, the
Internal Revenue Service issued a ruling stating that the FET does not apply to most
common telephone billing plans; and
WHEREAS, in response to these events, some cities, including Rancho Palos
Verdes, amended their ordinances without voter approval to delete the reference to the
FET and replaced it with other terms to cover telephone services that had been subject
to the FET. Other cities placed their UUT measures on the ballot, and some cities took
no action. Subsequent litigation has claimed that changes to UUT (such as the one made
by the City in 2006) also require voter approval; and
WHEREAS, recently, new legal challenges and claims have been filed against
other cities that did not place their amended utility user taxes on the ballot. Attorneys in
those cases have claimed damages and substantial attorney's fees; and
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2014, the City Council directed Staff to notify the
entities that provide telecommunications services to City residents and businesses to
cease collecting the UUT on behalf of the City until such time as revisions to the City's
Utility User Tax are approved by a majority of the City's voters; the City Council further
directed Staff to establish a separate account commitment encumbrance of the City's
General Fund, which shall be referred to as the "Utility User Tax Telecommunication
Claim Account" or "UUT Claim Account," and to place within that account the estimated
amount of the total Utility User Tax collected by telecommunication providers from
taxpayers in the City and remitted to the City during the twelve (12) month period
beginning August 13, 2013, along with all Utility User Tax received from
telecommunication providers after August 19, 2014, through December 31, 2014; and
WHEREAS, on October 21, 2014, a process for presenting and paying claims for
refunds of UUT was presented to the City Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The following process for administering claims for refunds of UUT on
telecommunications services, which shall be administered by a claims administratorthat
will be selected by the City Council, for UUT that was paid and collected during the period
from August 13, 2013 through December 31, 2014, is hereby approved:
Mailed notices shall be sent to every address in the City. In addition, notices shall be
published in both the Palos Verdes Peninsula News and the Daily Breeze and on the
City's website. Claims may be submitted by mail or electronically within six months of the
date of the notice. A City taxpayer may submit a claim for a refund for each
telecommunications account pursuant to any one of the following three options:
1. Submit a claim form provided by the City either electronically or by mail, including
the telecommunications provider(s), account number(s), and a signature releasing
the City from any further claims and costs related to the payment of utility user tax
on telecommunications services. A flat-rate refund of $25 would be issued for each
landline account and wireless account, as applicable.
If a resident or business has paid more than $25 for a telecommunications account during
the claim period and wishes to seek a refund for the higher amount, instead of using
option 1 above, the taxpayer may submit a claim for the account pursuant to one of the
two following options:
2. Submit a claim form provided by the City either electronically or by mail, including
the telecommunications provider(s), account number(s), and a signature releasing
the City from any further claims and costs related to the payment of utility user tax
on telecommunications services, along with a copy of a single bill for each
telecommunications account (note: a single account may include service for
multiple telephone numbers). The UUT listed on the single bill would be multiplied
by 17 months to establish the refund amount.
3. Submit a claim form provided by the City either electronically or by mail, including
the telecommunications provider(s), account number(s), and a signature releasing
the City from any further claims and costs related to the payment of utility user tax
on telecommunications services, along with full documentation of
telecommunications service for each telecommunications account for all of the
months of the claim period to obtain a refund equal to the actual amount of
telecommunications UUT paid during the period covered by the Claim Account.
SECTION 2. Staff is hereby directed to cause claims to be processed and refunds
to be paid pursuant to the process set forth above.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21st day of October 2014.
Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the
above Resolution No. 2014-_ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said
City Council at a regular meeting held on October 21, 2014.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Importance:
Davis, Donald M. <DDavis@bwslaw.com>
Tuesday, October 21, 2014 2:48 PM
CC; Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Carolynn Petru
'Michael Brophy'; Jim Reeves (JReeves@marymountcalifornia.edu)
(JReeves@marymountcalifornia.edu)
PVDE and Crest Road Parking Restrictions -Request for a Continuance: Regular Business
~m% .
High
Dear Mayor Duhovic and RPV City Councilmembers:
I write on behalf of Marymount California University in requesting a continuance on the referenced
item that proposes to place parking restrictions on public streets immediately adjacent to
Marymount's campus. Marymount did not receive any prior notice of this proposed action until Mr.
Mihranian's email to us on Sunday afternoon. As of this time, I still have not received an explanation
for this oversight, and obviously concur with the recommendation to continue the matter so that all
affected property owners are provided adequate notice. Marymount has a number of concerns and
suggestions with respect to the proposed parking restrictions, and the continuance will enable us time
to present them to staff and, if necessary, to the Council at a future meeting date.
Best regards,
Donald M. Davis I Partner
444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400 I Los Angeles, CA 90071-2953
d -213.236.2702 It -213.236.0600 If -213.236.2700
ddavis@bwslaw.com vCard I bwslaw.com
c)':sJ>,~' ,,
'< '~,'; ~~;~: <l:
'' ,::,·,'.,:~~ ;~\\:
;·· <;,
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named
above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product.
Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or
the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error
and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU
RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED
From: Ara Mihranian [mailto:AraM@rpv.com]
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 4:16 PM
To: Davis, Donald M.; Jim Reeves
Cc: Michael Brophy; Nicole Jules; Carolynn Petru; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Joel Rojas
Subject: RE: PVDE and Crest Road Parking Restrictions
Don,
1
City Staff will be recommending tomorrow evening a continuance to the November 18th City Council
meeting to allow a courtesy notice to be sent to properties adjacent to the proposed parking
restrictions including Marymount.
I will give you a call in a few minutes with more information.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
CITY OF RANCHO FAloS VERDES
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Ve'rdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpv.com
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
~ Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Davis, Donald M. [mailto:DDavis@bwslaw.com]
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 12:03 PM
To: Ara Mihranian; Jim Reeves
Cc: Michael Brophy; Nicole Jules; Carolynn Petru; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Joel Rojas
Subject: RE: PVDE and Crest Road Parking Restrictions
Importance: High
Ara,
I have not had a chance to speak with Dr. Brophy yet, but neither Jim Reeves nor I had any notice that this item was
scheduled for Council consideration tomorrow evening. As you know, we have had multiple conversations in recent
weeks regarding parking, including last Tuesday (10/14), and you never mentioned this proposed action. This is
particularly disturbing since the agenda package indicates that you provided notice to others (e.g., Linda Gordon) who
will not be directly impacted over one month ago (9/16), but no such notice was provided to any Marymount
representatives that I am aware of.
Mr. Reeves and I are not available to attend the meeting tomorrow night on such short notice and the University will be
requesting a continuance of the item. I am deeply disappointed by this lack of notice, and would appreciate an
explanation by the end of the today so that I can consider staff's response in our letter to the City Council.
Regards,
2
Donald M. Davis I Partner
444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400 I Los Angeles, CA 90071-2953
d -213.236.2702 It -213.236.0600 It-213.236.2700
ddavis bwslaw.com vCard bwslaw.com
From: Ara Mihranian [mailto:AraM@rpv.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 2:13 PM
To: Jim Reeves
Cc: Davis, Donald M.; Michael Brophy; Nicole Jules; Carolynn Petru; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Joel Rojas
Subject: FW: PVDE and Crest Road Parking Restrictions
Hi Jim,
In case you haven't heard, the City Council will be considering parking restrictions on PVDE and Crest Road at
Tuesday's (October 21st) city council meeting. As you know this has been talked about for a few years now,
including being cited as a recommendation in the Marymount certified EIR. I am contacting you at the request
of Nicole Jules, Deputy Public Works Director, who is taking the lead on this project for the City.
The October 21st City Council Staff Report (with the recommended parking restriction hours) can be viewed at
the following link:
http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2014 Agendas/MeetingDate-2014-10-
21/RPVCCA CC SR 2014 10 21 06 PVDE Parking Restrictions.pdf
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact Nicole Jules.
Have a great weekend,
Ara
3
CrrYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
OCTOBER 20, 2014
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, October 21, 2014 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Materials
2 Emails from: Sunshine; Dave Kost
Respectfully submitted,
~ c::::::::: Carla Morreale
W:\AGENDA\2014 Additions Revisions to agendas\20141021 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc
From: SunshineRPV@aol.com
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 11:38 AM
To: pvpasofino@yahoo.com; amcdougalll@yahoo.com; david.lukac@freshandeasy.com;
raymadelin@gmail.com; jeanlongacre@aol.com; russ@cheapvintage.com;
beachjake@sbcglobal.net; momofyago@gmail.com; verikon@cox.net;
leneebilski@hotmail.com; radlsmith@cox.net
Cc: CC; Carolynn Petru; Michael Throne
Subject: Roadway signage is infrastructure. Re: Fw: Palos Verdes Drive East Improvements
Dear people,
I, too, am disappointed. I have spoken with Nicole about City wide roadside equestrian caution
signage. She assured me that she was coordinating with Madeline and Ray in relation to the PV
Drive East "improvements". She didn't seem to have a clue about who (Staff) might be even thinking
about implementing the RPV Trails Network Plan's signage program. It does address roadside
signage. It is not obsolete. It has not been amended. The Council approved RPV Public Use Master
Plan for the PV Nature Preserve, the RPV Coast Vision Plan and whatever the RPV Traffic Safety
Committee has recommended do not over-ride this particular directive.
It is appropriate that the City has made a relatively huge investment in improving pathways for non-
motorized roadside public access. It is not as though another Citizen Advisory Committee is going to
make any difference. However, I do recommend that the new Infrastructure Management Committee
be given the opportunity to comment (soonest) about Staffs lack of coordination regarding the City's
investment in signage .
... SUNSHINE 310-377-8761
PS: Several years ago, Ara assured me that there would be equestrian level buttons at the new
signalized crossing at the entrance to Terranea. There are none. After the fact is always more
expensive. However, now that the Salvation Army frontage is being improved for "multi-use", are the
buttons and caution signage going to be provided?
In a message dated 10/16/2014 1:24:46 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, pvpasofino@yahoo.com writes:
Hello All
Following is my very disappointing view of the 'improvements' to PVDE (our neighborhood)!
If you agree with me, especially about the overkill of the signage, please let CC know.
Oh, and out of all that signage there is one new 'horse crossing' sign! And, Ray, didn't Nicole assure us she would let us know
when time came to place signs? Our needs were simple ..... our needs were few.
"May the Trails be with you ... " Madeline
-----Forwarded Message-----
From: Madeline Ryan <pvpasofino@yahoo.com>
To: City Council <cc@rpv.com>; Carolynn Petru <carolynn@rpv.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 12:44 PM
Subject: Palos Verdes Drive East Improvements
Dear Mayor, City Councilmembers and Ms Petru:
I invite you to drive the PVDE 'improvement' areas; specifically, the Equestrian Overlay Zone area from Miraleste Drive
to the Rolling Hills Estates border at Larga Vista, and return via same route.
1
~.
At present, the City is in the process of placing signage to identify where bicycles should be and can be, 'No Parking'
signs, which number in high double digits (22 within 3/4 mile) and that's just in one direction! When did it become
illegal to park on PVDE? Many residents have more guests than off-street parking and the overflow was always easily
handled by parking in the shoulder areas next to the traffic lanes along strategic areas of PVDE; safe and out of the
way.
There must be over 100 signs now in both directions of PVDE and, as of this writing, there are more being placed;
repetitious signs, signs on top of signs, signs that interfere with pedestrian and equestrian passage, further cluttering
and blighting our once semi-rural, country-like atmosphere.
I attended a couple of the workshops when the discussion of 'improvements' to PVDE was first mentioned. There was
the discussion of widening PVDE, striping, and signage. A lot of input from the residents in attendance, but, I believe
everyone in attendance was in agreement that traffic-calming measures were first and foremost. My vision and
expectations of this design/build project were entirely different.
Instead of providing the 'inviting' spaces that City spoke of, it's evident that the project favored the motorist and
bicyclist, as we are surrounded by tons of asphalt and curbs, curbs behind barricades that reduce the
pedestrian/equestrian walking width, reflectors on curbs and stretches of paved and widened roadway that now provide
highway speeds for motorists and cyclists. And, with the signage we have what any congested Los Angeles boulevard
would provide. PVDE was always a challenging route, but scenic, and now has been completely urbanized and it doesn't
make any sense.
Please, come drive the 'improvements' and decide for yourselves. Thank you.
Madeline Ryan
28328 Palos Verdes Drive East
"May the Trails be with you ... " Madeline
2
To: Carla Morreale
Subject: FW: Agenda for the October 21, 2014 City Council Meeting -Appointments to the
Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee (!MAC)
From: Dave Kost [mailto:dmkost@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 11:09 AM
To: Carla Morreale
Subject: RE: Agenda for the October 21, 2014 City Council Meeting -Appointments to the Infrastructure Management
Advisory Committee (IMAC)
Hi Carla,
Based on some new and unforeseen circumstances, I will need to ask that my name be removed from the list of
candidates for the IMAC. We'll be moving to Colorado at some point in the next 3-4 months.
Good luck with the IMAC and continued success in RPV!
Dave
1