BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: SB 953
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: ROTH
VERSION: 4/21/14
Analysis by: Nathan Phillips FISCAL: NO
Hearing date: April 22, 2014
SUBJECT:
Vehicles: parking: public grounds
DESCRIPTION:
This bill authorizes county transportation commissions to
enforce parking at facilities that they own or operate.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law gives parking enforcement authority to a number of
public entities, including counties, public schools, parks,
municipal airports, hospitals, rapid transit districts, public
transportation agencies and transit development boards, but does
not confer parking enforcement authority on county
transportation commissions.
AB 2104, (Gordon), Chapter 724, Statutes of 2012, added "public
transportation agency" to the list of public entities authorized
to control parking in their jurisdictions, and defined them as
public agencies that provide public transportation, including
operation of rail, bus, ferry, or other conveyances on fixed
routes, demand response, or otherwise regularly available basis.
Counties create county transportation commissions, pursuant to
state law, to coordinate public transportation services within
counties, reduce traffic congestion, avoid redundant public
transportation services, and provide adequate transit options
for all residents. Although county transportation commissions
may own and operate transit stations, they do not directly
provide or operate transportation services.
This bill includes county transportation commissions under the
definition of a public transportation agency, thereby giving
them parking enforcement authority.
COMMENTS:
SB 953 (ROTH) Page 2
1.Purpose . According to the author, the Riverside County
Transportation Commission (RCTC) does not currently have
authority to enforce parking in the parking lots of five
Metrolink stations within the county. Instead, other local
agencies issue parking citations and enforce parking
regulations, without uniform or consistent coverage. Parking
enforcement at the Metrolink stations tends to be a low
priority for local law enforcement agencies, according to the
RCTC. This bill will streamline management of these parking
lots and provide consistent parking regulations across the
Metrolink stations. Adding impetus to this bill is the RCTC's
construction of four new Metrolink stations in the county,
which will need parking enforcement.
2.Should this bill apply to other county transportation
commissions, or just RCTC ? The sponsor asserts that the other
county transportation commissions in the state are supportive
of a bill that applies to all five county transportation
commissions, even though the other county transportation
commissions had, by virtue of being created earlier than the
RCTC, resolved parking enforcement issues through special code
provisions. There is no indication that this bill would
interfere with the powers of parking enforcement that the
other county transportation commissions already possess, but
the author may wish to obtain formal support from all of the
county transportation commissions to signify their full
consideration and endorsement.
3.Doesn't the RCTC already have the authority it seeks ?
Counties are among the entities that already may enforce
parking, according to the Vehicle Code, raising the question
as to whether a county transportation commission, being a
county agency, is already vested with the authority that RCTC
seeks in this bill. The RCTC notes that the term "county" in
its name is a geographic descriptor rather than a descriptor
of a county as a legal entity, and seeks to clarify and make
explicit its authority to enforce parking with this bill.
4.Does this create a new law enforcement layer ? A potential
concern with this bill is that it may create a costly and
unnecessary new layer of law enforcement, requiring, for
example, a new vehicle fleet and uniformed personnel.
According to the sponsor, this is unlikely. County
transportation commissions will likely continue to contract
with local law enforcement to provide parking citation
services. The citations would, however, be administered under
SB 953 (ROTH) Page 3
the auspices of the county transportation commission rather
than the local enforcement agency, and the county
transportation commission would administer further processing
of citations.
5.Who bears the costs and where do the revenues go ? According
to the sponsor, the mechanisms and costs of ticketing,
adjudication, and revenue collection will remain largely as
is. The main costs of implementing this bill amount to new
signage at station parking lots, which identifies the parking
authority (county transportation commission) and lists parking
lot rules and regulations; and printing and distribution costs
of citation booklets that reflect the new, county-wide parking
enforcement authority (county transportation commission).
According to the sponsor, revenues from tickets and fines will
continue to flow to the general funds of the local
municipalities or counties where the parking enforcement
occurred. Thus, there is unlikely to be opposition from local
government on the basis of a concern that this change to the
Vehicle Code will represent a redistribution of revenues away
from the local level. To that point, a previous bill allowing
Sand Diego North County Transportation District to control
parking in their jurisdiction did not receive opposition from
the local parking enforcement agencies within the District.
6.Are county transportation commissions public transportation
agencies ? This bill includes County transportation
commissions in the definition of "public transportation
agency." Yet, the definition of a public transportation
agency, which "provides public transportation," is at odds
with the definition of a county transportation commission,
which does not generally include the direct provision of
public transportation. The author may wish to amend to add
county transportation commissions explicitly to the list of
agencies and entities that may enforce parking regulations,
rather than to define them as public transportation agencies.
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday, April 16,
2014.)
SUPPORT: Riverside County Transportation Commission
(sponsor)
OPPOSED: None received.
SB 953 (ROTH) Page 4