HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1981/12/22 Item 23
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
•
ITEM TI
Meeting Date.
Ordinance No. 1960 - Amending Section 10.62.010 (B) of the Municipal Code
relating to parking fees for the purpose of regulating the use of streets -
Second Reading and Adoption
Item 2 3
SUBMITTED BY: City Attorney
•
(4/5ths Vote: Yes NoX )
he City Council, at its meeting of Decenber 15, 1981, placed upon
first reading an ordinance that would have imposed a $2 surcharge
n parking tickets providing, however, that the matter would be
ubject to reconsideration to determine whether the minimum of
1.50 should be added to parking tickets.
ECOMMENDATION: Place Ordinance on Second Reading and Adoption
OARD~COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A
ISCUSSION:
he City Attorney, after discussion with other City Attorneys,
ontinues to recommend a $2 surcharge even though it is recognized
hat this is entirely a policy consideration.
basis for the recommendation is twofold:
(1) Although the County has indicated a willingness to pick up
the front end administration costs, i.e., the cost to the
City of reprinting citations forms and bail schedules and
whatever other costs may be involved in the implementation
of the new schedule including the surcharge, I am informed
that the County has not, at least in their discussions
with the East County city officials and judges, made any
commitment as to on-going administrative costs which may
not be substantial.
(2) In the processing of parking tickets at the present time,
all of those tickets which are not paid by the end of 30
days usually end up in the hands of the Department of
Motor Vehicles, which acts as a collection agency at the
time of license renewal. The Department of Motor Vehicles
has notified E1 Cajon and some of the East County cities
that their computer will not handle anything but whole
dollar amounts so that a ticket which at the end of 30
days may cost $20 to clear could not be processed as a
$21.50 ticket, but would have to be processed as a $22
charge unless the City at that point is willing simply to
settle for $18.50 and forward the $1.50 to the County when
the amount is finally collected.
Continued on page two.....
12/22/81
Form A+113 (Rev. 11/79)
r
•
•
Agenda Item No. 23
Meeting Date: 12/22/81
Page Two
t should further be noted in this regard that the City of Chula
ista does not process traffic citations on its own through to
final disposition as many other cities do. We do prepare the
otices that go to the person who has committed the offense, and
hen forward those to the court which, in turn, transmits them to
MV if they are not paid. This means that the division of fines
nd forfeitures does come into effect and we must pay to the
ourts 23% of the amount of the ticket. It also means that a $3
dministrative charge is added to the ticket so that those tickets
hat are not paid and which are transmited through the court cost
he person at the present time $23 and would, with our surcharge,
ost $25.
e would renew the recommendation that has been made several times
y the Assistant City Attorney that the City assume the full
esponsibility for processing of parking citations. Not only
ould this result in greater revenue to the City, but from an
lterior motive of the City Attorney's office, it would mean that
he processing could be completely taken out of the Attorney's
ffice, which at the present time, involves approximately 6 hours
er week of a secretary's time.
SCAL IMPACT: Failure to impose the surcharge would cost the
City an estimated $16,000. This would mean based
upon the figures for FY 1980-81 that the City's
revenue from parking citations would be reduced
from $32,320 to $16,320. The imposition of the $2
surcharge would increase the $32,320 to $37,653.
If the City handled the processing of parking cita-
tions entirely on its own and did not refer them to
the court, the City would receive approximately
$11,000 per year in additional revenue.
.7
.] I
t~
_.
:lgk ;. -j
_..
..___.,
~~~~
• L.i~.::T"`SUS CC`;...~:_-~~ Fnn,.t
Ii IS HEP.~ BY C?UrSTED b,~ the u::dersic~.ed t.zat the folio:-ring
ite:. , .~rith t~~e u^ar.i,~:cus cor.s~r.t o_` the Ci t-.' Cou_:cil o~ the Cit~,• of
CiZU a Vista, be con sic:ered anc actod ucon by t:.e Council pursuant
to he p~cvisiors o~ Sec.2.04.090 0~ the Ch~.:la Vita Cit~r Coco.
ORD~CNANCE - AMENDING SECTION 10. 62. 010 (B) OF CHAPTER 10.62
OF HE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING FEES FOR
THE PURPOSE OF REGULATING THE USE OF STREETS
~ ,-~
(Signature) ~~
Una imous Consent of the City Council, as indicated by the f llowing
sig atures:
~ ~ ~7i ~J ~ ~''~r~4y'~
•
CA--3101
alb
b\