BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: ab 61 SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: gatto VERSION: 1/7/13 Analysis by: Mark Stivers FISCAL: no Hearing date: June 11, 2013 SUBJECT: Inoperable parking meters and payment centers DESCRIPTION: This bill prohibits, until January 1, 2017, a city or county from citing vehicles for parking at an inoperable parking meter or parking payment center for up to the posted time limit. ANALYSIS: Under current law, a city or county may establish parking meter zones, within which the city or county may charge for on-street parking. SB 1388 (DeSaulnier), Chapter 70, Statutes of 2012, established a general rule that a vehicle owner may park without penalty in any parking space for up to the posted time limit if the parking meter or parking payment center is inoperable but allows a city or county to opt out and adopt a different rule if it provides adequate notice of the rule at parking locations, parking meters, or parking payment centers. This bill , until January 1, 2017, prohibits a city or county from opting out and adopting a different rule regarding parking at inoperable parking meters or parking payment centers. As a result, the bill allows all vehicle owners to park without penalty in any parking space for up to the posted time limit if the parking meter or parking payment center is inoperable until January 1, 2017, at which time cities and counties will again be able to opt out and establish alternative rules. COMMENTS: 1.Purpose of the bill . According to the author, in the wake of SB 1388, the City of Los Angeles passed an ordinance upholding the city's policy of ticketing drivers who park in spaces with broken parking meters. A recent investigation by the NBC affiliate in Los Angeles found that the city issued more than AB 61 (GATTO) Page 2 17,000 parking tickets in a single year for meters that were reported as malfunctioning, costing motorists untold amounts in fines for circumstances beyond their control. This measure will protect individuals from cities and counties that are overzealous and unfair in their parking enforcement and force local governments to take greater responsibility for maintaining their meters and keeping them in working order, rather than punishing citizens for the city's mistakes and inefficiencies. 2.Opting out of SB 1388 . It is not clear how many cities have opted out of the SB 1388 rule and now ticket motorists for parking at broken meters, but staff is aware of a few. As mentioned above, the City of Los Angeles has passed an ordinance to ticket motorists for parking at broken meters. In addition, the City of San Francisco has adopted a local ordinance that allows a vehicle to park at an inoperable parking meter or payment center for the posted time limit or two hours, whichever is shorter. In other words, even when the time limit is greater than two hours, the city does ticket for parking for longer than two hours at a broken meter. The League of Cities reports that San Luis Obispo and Culver City have also adopted opt-out ordinances. 3.Concern of vandalism . The one concern with allowing parking at broken meters is that it could encourage meter vandalism. If parking at a broken meter is free, a driver has a financial incentive to disable a meter. On the other hand, it is not clear how often this occurs, and vandalism of public property is itself a crime that carries a higher penalty than a parking citation, a base fine up to $1,000, up to one year in jail, or both. Moreover, one supporter notes that cities that opt out of the SB 1388 rule "may have a perverse incentive not to repair [meters and payment centers] in a timely fashion, as they may collect more for parking tickets than for parking fees." The author has put a three-year sunset on this bill in order to revisit the issue in the event that vandalism does become a major problem. 4.Arguments in opposition . Opponents cite concerns of vandalism discussed above and argue for flexibility in the statewide policy to address local problems. They believe that SB 1388 struck an appropriate balance between a statewide policy and local control and that there is no demonstrated need to reverse the agreement made just a year ago. AB 61 (GATTO) Page 3 Assembly Votes: Floor: 72-0 L Gov: 8-0 POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday, June 5, 2013.) SUPPORT: Atwater Village Chamber of Commerce Automobile Club of Southern California Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety National Federation of Independent Business United Chambers of Commerce: San Fernando Valley & Region OPPOSED: California Public Parking Association City of Sacramento City of San Luis Obispo League of California Cities San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency