HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 196-1975RESOLUTION NO. 196-75
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT
O- 11, 1975-76 OPERATING BUDGET.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco that, after duly considering the staff report dated
December~17, 1975 , subjectEmployee Parking at Lot No.7 Miller and
Maple Ave.- Appropriation , which is attached hereto as Exhibit A,
the Council does hereby order that the sum of
Six Hundred Thirty Dol 1 ars ($ 630. O0 ) be trans-
ferred from General Fund Reserves
to Account No. 12-4337-230-74 .
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly
introduced-and adopted by the City Council. of_ the City of South
San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the
17th d~y of - December , 1975, by the following vote-
AYES, COUNCILMEN Terry J. Mirri, F. Frank Mm~m~n,i, Leo Padreddi~
_and Warren Steink~m~
NOES, " None
ABSENT, " Richard A. Battaglia
sta
December 17, 1975 EXHIBIT "A" TO
RESOLUTION NO. 196-75
To' Honorable City Council
Subject: Employee Parking at Lot No. 7
Miller and Maple Avenue- Appropriation Amendment 0-11
ACTION' Resolution
RECOMMENDATION-
Council adopt the attached resolution to provide an appropriation of
$630.00 to pay for police parking fees at the subject lot.
DISCUSSION'
On November 30, 1973, police department personnel were directed by the
Chief of Police to "park their personal vehicles in the .city parking lot
at the northeast corner of Maple and Miller Avenue .... " The practice
has continued since that time to the present.
Recently, the Parking Place Commission has taken exception to the parking
activity and has adopted a motion that would impose parking charges for
the employees similar to those imposed upon private autos.
Little is known historically of prior parking permission. The present
activity, however, goes back some time since the lot was built over ten
years ago. It should be pointed out that the subject' lot contains 40
parking places or stalls. The all-day parking fee is 25 cents; the monthly
fee is $4.00. Fiscal year 1974-1975 gross revenue from the lot totaled
only $144.25 indicating o.nly a 4.8% occupancy factor. If a liberal
assumption of 15 spaces being used by police were applied, the net private
occupancy factor would still equal only 13% for the year. Clearly this
tends to indicate that the lot is located in an area not meeting the needs
of the parking public.
The projected net earnings to the district for the current fiscal year
are $12,840 after deducting all budgeted operating costs. If employees
or the General Fund were to support a $7.00 a month parking fee (based on
1976.rates) for the 15 spaces in question for the 6 month period through
June 30, 1976, an additional $630 would accrue to the District.
To' Honorable City Council
December 17, 1975
Page 2
EXHIBIT "A" TO
RESOLUTION NO. 196-75
However,. that doesn't meet the test of equity. Over the years the
General Fund has supported all of the administrative costs of managing
the District. This action was contrary to good accounting practise
but was nonetheless pursued. During the current fiscal year the District
has budgeted $3,750 to meet administrative costs provided by the Finance
Department only. Future years will support all other administrative costs
thereby negating parking costs to the General Fund. The cost of meter
collections and repair are separately budgeted and supported by the
District'.
The proposed solution appears to be reasonable and logical.. If Council
required police personnel -who are the principal users of the lot--to pay
for personal auto parking, it may force those autos onto on-street non-metered
spaces even though the parking area behind the city hall is being used by
employees at no cost to them. (The lot is too small to accommodate employees
from both locations hence the directive to use the Miller Avenue lot.) That
would further impede available residential free parking. Although Council,
alternatively, is asked to consider supporting the parking cost by a contri-
bution to the District, it would further increase the difference between
parking enforcement revenues and enforcement costs. Enforcement costs as
budgeted represent $17,248 for one enforcement officer. When the cost of
day-off and'vacationrelief personnel is added, the total cost reaches $24,440.
Estimated revenue from all parking violations is estimated for the current
year at $18,400 or $6,040 less. _If the revenue--from non-metered parking
violations was deducted--an estimated $3,400--'only $15,000 remains. The
question of supporting the enforcement effort lends itself to differing
academic argument. On the one hand it can be argued that enforcement is
undertaken through the people's police power and the citing of offenders
is not related to parking purposes. After al l~, the theory behind parking
meters, or limited parking~ is not so much to raise revenue as to provide
a continuous supply of commercial parking _in an area otherwise deficient
in supply, -On-the other hand-an argument-can be presented-that- enforcement
wouldn't be necessary if meters didn't exist. The latter is not with
much substance. It would appear that the only solution to the enforcement
cost problem is a substantial increase in parking violation fine or bail
moneys. Such a proposal_ is_ currently being s.tud~edby the San-Mateo -County
municipal court judges.
· A~/,q.q 9.~9. ~'Zi-74'l 4M
To' Honorable City Council
December 17, 1975
Page 3
EXHIBIT "A" TO
RESOLUTION NO. 196-75
FUNDING-
It is necessary to adopt the attached resolution appropriating $630.00
to Account No. 12-4337-230-47.
Edward G. ~Alario -
City Man er
Stanley F. Bara
Director of Administrative Services/Finance
EGA/SFB/cp
Attachment