Existing law requires the schedule of parking penalties for parking violations and late payment penalties to be established by the governing body of the jurisdiction where the notice of violation is issued, as specified.

This bill would specify that, when paid by mail, payment of a parking penalty or late payment penalty is deemed received on the date payment is postmarked. This bill would, notwithstanding any other law, prohibit a late payment penalty for a parking violation from exceeding 30% of the established parking penalty.

Existing law establishes a process by which a person who has received a notice of a parking violation or a notice of a delinquent parking violation may contest the notice. Existing law requires the notice of delinquent parking violation to include information that renewal of the vehicle registration is contingent upon the registered owner paying the parking penalty or contesting the citation within 21 calendar days from the date of issuance of the citation or 14 calendar days after the mailing of the notice of delinquent parking violation, or filing a specified affidavit. Existing law prohibits the addition of additional fees, assessments, and charges if the owner complies with the above-described deadlines and requirements. Existing law authorizes a person to request an initial review of the notice by the issuing agency for a period of 21 calendar days from the issuance of the notice of the parking violation or 14 calendar days from the mailing of a notice of delinquent parking notification, exclusive of the days the processing agency receives a specified request and the day the processing agency complies with the request.

This bill would extend the time for the registered owner to pay the penalty or contest the citation to 30 calendar days, and extend the time to pay following issuance of the notice of delinquent parking violation to 21 calendar days. The bill would prohibit the imposition of additional fees until after the expiration of 30 days from the date of issuance of the parking violation. The bill would prohibit governing bodies from sending citations to the Department of Motor Vehicles for registration renewal hold until after 30 days from the date of issuance of the parking citation.

This bill would extend the time for the person to request an initial review to 30 calendar days from the issuance of the notice of the parking violation or 21 days from the mailing of a notice of delinquent parking notification, exclusive of the days the processing agency receives a specified request and the day the processing agency complies with the request.

By creating new duties for local entities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law requires the schedule of parking penalties for parking violations and late payment penalties to be established by the governing body of the jurisdiction where the notice of violation is issued, as specified.

This bill would specify that, when paid by mail, payment of a parking penalty or late payment penalty is deemed received on the date payment is postmarked. This bill would, notwithstanding any other law, prohibit a late payment penalty for a parking violation from exceeding 30% of the established parking penalty.

Existing law establishes a process by which a person who has received a notice of a parking violation or a notice of a delinquent parking violation may contest the notice. Existing law requires the notice to include information that renewal of the vehicle registration is contingent upon the registered owner paying the parking penalty or contesting the citation within 21 calendar days from the date of issuance of the citation or 14 calendar days after the mailing of the notice of delinquent parking violation, or filing a specified affidavit. Existing law prohibits the addition of additional fees, assessments, and charges if the owner complies with the above-described deadlines and requirements. Existing law authorizes a person to request an initial review of the notice by the issuing agency for a period of 21 calendar days from the issuance of the notice of the parking violation or 14 calendar days from the mailing of a notice of delinquent parking notification, exclusive of the days the processing agency receives a specified request and the day the processing agency complies with the request.

This bill would extend the time for the registered owner to pay the penalty or contest the citation to 30 calendar days, and extend the time to pay following issuance of the notice of delinquent parking violation to 21 calendar days. The bill would prohibit the imposition of additional fees until after the expiration of 30 days from the date of issuance of the parking violation. The bill would prohibit governing bodies from sending citations to the Department of Motor Vehicles for registration renewal hold until after 30 days from the date of issuance of the parking citation. The bill would additionally prohibit governing bodies from sending a notice of a delinquent parking violation to the Department of Motor Vehicles in order to secure fines or fees imposed by a delinquent parking violation.

This bill would extend the time for the person to request an initial review to 30 calendar days from the issuance of the notice of the parking violation or 21 days from the mailing of a notice of delinquent parking notification, exclusive of the days the processing agency receives a specified request and the day the processing agency complies with the request.

By creating new duties for local entities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law requires the schedule of parking penalties for parking violations and late payment penalties to be established by the governing body of the jurisdiction where the notice of violation is issued, as specified.

This bill would specify that, when paid by mail, payment of a parking penalty or late payment penalty is deemed received on the date payment is postmarked. This bill would, notwithstanding any other law, prohibit a late payment penalty for a parking violation from exceeding 30% of the established parking penalty.

Existing law establishes a process by which a person who has received a notice of a parking violation or a notice of a delinquent parking violation may contest the notice. Existing law requires the notice to include information that renewal of the vehicle registration is contingent upon the registered owner paying the parking penalty or contesting the citation within 21 calendar days from the date of issuance of the citation or 14 calendar days after the mailing of the notice of delinquent parking violation, or filing a specified affidavit. Existing law prohibits the addition of additional fees, assessments, and charges if the owner complies with the above-described deadlines and requirements. Existing law authorizes a person to request an initial review of the notice by the issuing agency for a period of 21 calendar days from the issuance of the notice of the parking violation or 14 calendar days from the mailing of a notice of delinquent parking notification, exclusive of the days the processing agency receives a specified request and the day the processing agency complies with the request.

This bill would extend the time for the registered owner to pay the penalty or contest the citation to 30 calendar days, and extend the time to pay following issuance of the notice of delinquent parking violation to 21 calendar days. The bill would prohibit the imposition of additional fees until after the expiration of 30 days from the date of issuance of the parking violation. The bill would prohibit governing bodies from sending citations to the Department of Motor Vehicles for registration renewal hold until after 30 days from the date of issuance of the parking citation. The bill would additionally prohibit governing bodies from sending a notice of a delinquent parking violation to the Department of Motor Vehicles in order to secure fines or fees imposed by a delinquent parking violation.

This bill would extend the time for the person to request an initial review to 30 calendar days from the issuance of the notice of the parking violation or 21 days from the mailing of a notice of delinquent parking notification, exclusive of the days the processing agency receives a specified request and the day the processing agency complies with the request.

By creating new duties for local entities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Date of Hearing: August 7, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1487

Author:(Glazer) – As Amended Ver:July 3, 2024

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill limits the amount of penalty that may be assessed for late payment of a parking violation and generally extends timeframes to contest and to pay parking violations.

Specifically, this bill, among other things:

1. Limits a late payment penalty for a parking violation to no more than 30% of the established parking penalty.
2. States that payment by mail of a parking penalty for a parking violation or late payment penalty is deemed received on the date postmarked.
3. Provides that, if the registered vehicle owner, by appearance or by mail, makes payment to the agency that process the parking violation within 30 calendar days from the date of issuance of the citation or 21 calendar days after the mailing of the notice of delinquent parking violation, then the parking penalty is to consist solely of the amount of the original penalty, and that additional fees, assessments or other charges are not to be added until after 30 days from the date of issuance of the citation.
4. Extends the deadlines for a registered owner to pay or contest a parking citation, from 21 days to 30 days from the issuance of the citation, or from 14 days to 21 days after the mailing of the notice of delinquent violation.
5. Specifies that a notice of delinquent parking violation shall not be sent to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for a registration hold until 30 days after issuance of the original citation.
6. Extends the deadline for a registered owner to ask for an initial review of the notice, from 21 days to 30 days from the issuance of the citation, or from 14 days to 21 days after the mailing of the notice of delinquent violation.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Potential reduction in revenue, possibly in the millions of dollars collectively, to state agencies, such as the California State University, that issue parking citations that, under the bill, are limited to charging 30% of the established parking penalty for late payment of a parking violation (State University Parking Revenue Fund, other funds administered by institutions of higher education).
2. Minor costs to the DMV to update manuals and memos.

In addition to these state costs, local transit agencies will likely see significant reductions in parking violation-related revenue. Each local agency has authority to set its parking fines and penalties as it sees fit, and such fines and penalties vary widely across agencies. Therefore, the size of the reduction in revenue to any local agency will depend on its existing parking fine and penalty structure.

Local transit agencies warn that many of them use parking fine and penalty revenue to support operation of their transit systems; therefore, reductions in revenue to those systems may harm the essential transit services relied upon by many of the people the author of this bill intends to help.

In any case, the state is likely not liable to reimburse these local losses because, generally, local transit agencies have the ability to charge fees to compensate for the losses. However, the losses create cost pressure on state funds, nonetheless. This is because the state has recently provided monies from the General Fund to local transit agency operations, in response to severe operating shortfalls faced by many such agencies.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. The author intends this bill to address what the author describes as “unreasonable citation collection practices in California.” The author asserts fees for late payment of parking tickets are excessive and the time to pay such tickets is too short, all of which creates an overly cumbersome process, especially for low-income Californians. The author writes “Recognizing the importance of promoting economic equity and alleviating burdens on our citizens, SB 1487 aims to create an equitable system that ensures compliance without unduly burdening vulnerable residents.”
2. Background. Existing law allows a local governing body to set fine and fee amounts for violation of parking ordinances. Local entities have done so, and the amounts set for parking violations, and for late payment of parking violations, varies widely from place to place. In some places, the initial fine is steep, but fines for late payment are low. In other jurisdictions, the initial fine is low, but the penalties for late payment are steep. Still other jurisdictions set high initial penalties and costly late fees.

State law requires a local jurisdiction to notify a registered owner of a cited vehicle that, unless the owner pays the parking penalty or contests the citation within 21 calendar days from issuance of the citation or 14 days after the delinquent notice has been mailed, the renewal of the vehicle registration will be contingent upon payment of the penalties. The local jurisdiction may then forward notice of the unpaid fines and fees to DMV, for collection with registration.

To illustrate the potential cost of a parking ticket, the Assembly Committee on Transportation described some of the parking fines and late fees charged by the City and County of San Francisco:

In San Francisco, the parking ticket for overstaying in a residential zone is $102 and the fine for failing to move your car during street cleaning is $90. If someone is unable to pay that ticket after the first payment due date, the late fee adds an additional $38, and another $53 after the second payment due date and an additional $40 special collection fee would be added.

If San Francisco then were to ask DMV to collect the unpaid debt, DMV would add the entire cost of the outstanding parking ticket and fines to vehicle registration fees. If someone were unable to pay this amount all at once on top of their vehicle registration fees, late fees for vehicle registration increase by 60% of the original fee for payments over 30 days late, which can increase the registration fee as much as $100. If a person is then pulled over for having an unregistered vehicle, the fine for driving unregistered vehicles is currently $285. All totaled, these fines and late fees alone add up to $770.

The Legislature has recently approved a number of measures to lessen the burden of parking tickets on Californians, especially low-income Californians or other particularly vulnerable populations. For example, state law, since 2018, requires a local jurisdiction offer an indigent person with outstanding parking fines a payment plan and a waiver of penalties before filing an itemization of those penalties with DMV. The Legislature also passed a bill to lessen the burden of parking tickets on person experiencing homelessness, though the Governor vetoed that legislation.

So, there seems to a general, if not universal, agreement, that parking fines and fees should not be economically catastrophic. Writing in support of the bill, the Western Center for Law and Poverty asserts “the established parking ticket fee structure is overly harsh and punitive” and “for individuals already living under severe economic stress, an initial late fee that is or close to double the original ticket amount can seem impossible to pay,” describing the program of fees and late fees as “not only unjust but counterproductive.”

Yet, for better or worse, many local jurisdictions rely on parking penalties to fund local services, including the transit services that many low-income Californians rely on. Most of the transit agencies that provide these services are in poor financial health, so much so that the Budget Act of 2023 provided $5.1 billion from the state’s General Fund to transit agencies over several years. This bill’s restrictions on parking penalties seem likely to worsen transit agencies’ budget woes. Indeed, this is the argument made by the California City Transportation Initiative (CaCTI)—a coalition of eight of California’s largest cities, which, while not having a position on the bill, and while supporting “the author’s efforts to alleviate the burden of debt on vulnerable residents,” nonetheless writes the bill’s cap on parking citations and late penalties “would result in a reduction in essential public services that cities provide the residents of our cities.”

Analysis Prepared by: Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: July 1, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Lori D. Wilson, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1487

Author:(Glazer) – As Amended Ver:April 2, 2024

SENATE VOTE: 37-0

SUBJECT: Vehicles: parking violations

SUMMARY: Prohibits a late payment penalty for a parking violation from exceeding 30% of the original penalty and would extend the time to pay a parking violation before additional penalties accrue. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires that the late payment penalty for a parking violation shall not exceed 30% of the original parking penalty.
2. Requires processing agencies to deem payments for parking penalties sent by mail as received on the date postmarked.
3. Extends the deadlines for a registered owner to pay or contest a parking citation to 30 days from the issuance of the citation or 21 days after the mailing of the notice of delinquent violation.
4. Specifies that a notice of delinquent parking violation shall not be sent to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for a registration hold until 30 days after issuance of the original citation.
5. Extends the deadline for a registered owner to ask for an initial review of the notice to 30 days from the issuance of the citation or 21 days after the mailing of the notice of delinquent violation.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Authorizes the schedule of parking penalties for parking violations and late penalties to be established by the local governing body. (Vehicle Code (VEH) 40203.5)
2. Requires the parking processing agency to deliver a notice of delinquent parking violation if the payment of a parking penalty is not received by the date fixed on the notice of the original violation. (VEH 40206)
3. Requires this notice to specify that unless the registered owner pays the parking penalty or contests the citation within 21 calendar days from issuance of the citation or 14 days after the delinquent notice has been mailed, the renewal of the vehicle registration shall be contingent upon payment of the penalties. (VEH 40207)
4. Specifies that if the registered owner makes payment of the original penalty within 21 calendar days of issuance of the citation or 14 days after mailing of the delinquent notice the penalty shall only consist of the original penalty and no additional fees. (VEH 40207)
5. Requires processing agencies to allow for reviews of the notice within 21 days from the issuance of notice of the parking violation or 14 days from the mailing of the notice of delinquent violation. If the individual is dissatisfied with the results of the review they may request an administrative hearing, as specified. (VEH 40215)
6. Authorizes the DMV to refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the owner or lessee has not paid parking penalties and administrative fees. (VEH 47600)
7. Authorizes processing agencies to file an itemization of unpaid parking penalties and service fees with the DMV for collection with registration, so long as the agency: (VEH 40220)
   1. Provides a payment plan option for indigent persons that allows unpaid parking fines and fees to be paid off in monthly installments of no more than $25 for total amounts due that are $500 or less, in a period within 24 months;
   2. Waives all late fees and penalty assessments, exclusive of any state surcharges, if an indigent person enrolls in the payment plan;
   3. Limits the processing fee to participate in a payment plan to $5 or less for indigent persons and $25 or less for all other persons; and,
   4. Allows the application for indigence determination for a period of 120 days from the issuance of a notice of a parking violation, or 10 days after the administrative hearing determination, whichever is later.
8. Requires processing agencies to rescind a filing of itemization of penalties and fees for an indigent person for one time only, if they enroll in a payment plan and pay a late fee of no more than $5. (VEH 40220)
9. Defines “indigent” for the purposes of this payment program to mean anyone who meets the income requirements for, or is currently on, Supplemental Security Income, Supplemental nutrition Assistance Program, Medi-Cal, or In Home Support Services. (VEH 40220)

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee: “Minor costs for the DMV to update manuals and memos to reflect the extended timeframe for referral of citations to the DMV. (Motor Vehicle Account)

Unknown, likely minor one-time costs for state parking entities (primarily state institutions of higher education) to revise processes and procedures and update websites to reflect the 30% cap on parking penalty fees, extended timelines for paying parking penalties, contesting violations, and forwarding delinquent violations to DMV, as well as reflecting those timelines on notices of delinquent parking violations. (General Fund, State University Parking Revenue Fund, other funds administered by institutions of higher education)

Unknown, significant reduction in state parking citation revenue (for citations issued by state parking entities) related to the provision that limits the late payment penalty for a parking violation to a maximum of 30% of the established parking penalty. Staff notes that each higher education institution establishes its own schedule of parking fines and penalty fees, with some basing it on a percentage of the parking penalty and others charging a flat fee, regardless of the type of parking violation. (State University Parking Revenue Fund, other funds administered by institutions of higher education)

Unknown significant local costs and revenue losses related to the requirements that processing agencies extend specified timeframes for paying parking penalties, contesting violations, and forwarding delinquent violations to DMV, as well as revising notices of delinquent parking violations to reflect extended timeframes, and limiting late payment penalties. It is unlikely that these costs and revenue losses would be reimbursable by the state because local entities appear to have fee authority that disclaims state responsibility for reimbursement. Ultimately, however, whether local costs are reimbursable would be subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates, to the extent an eligible local agency files a test claim. (Local Funds or General Fund)”

COMMENTS: The parking meter was invented in 1935 in Oklahoma City. According to the Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture, “The problem was that people who worked downtown occupied all of the parking spots every day, forcing retail customers to park far away from stores. The city had placed time limits on parking, with enforcement performed by traffic policy who chalked tires, marked time, and gave tickets on hourly rounds...on July 16, 1935, 175 meters were installed and tested on fourteen blocks in Oklahoma City, and when the system proved successful, the city placed meters all over downtown.

The impact of the parking meter was threefold. First, it straightened out Oklahoma City’s parking problem. Second, it brought revenue into the city coffers through meter money and parking fines. Third, it stimulated a huge growth in assessed valuation of downtown commercial property.”

Cities use parking tickets today to reduce congestion in downtown areas, ensure local residents have a place to park, enable people to park near retail stores for a limited period of time, to prevent individuals from parking in spaces for emergency vehicles, keep open spots for people with disabilities, and ensure that non electric vehicles are not parking in spots meant for electric vehicles to charge.

Late fees and spiraling debt. The cost of fines and fees associated with traffic and parking citations has steadily increased over the last few decades. After adding on fees to base fines, tickets can total in the hundreds of dollars.

Under current law, local agencies can use DMV to collect unpaid debt on parking tickets by requiring full payment of unpaid parking tickets and related fees in order for a person to renew their vehicle’s registration. After six months, a vehicle can be towed for an expired registration. For indigent individuals, fees accumulating on top of one another can create a cycle of debt where they are unable to pay back parking fines, and then receive additional fines for driving an unregistered vehicle and an increased vehicle registration fee for late payments.

The cost of late payment of a parking ticket could easily spiral out of control for an indigent person. In San Francisco, the parking ticket for overstaying in a residential zone is $102 and the fine for failing to move your car during street cleaning is $90. If someone is unable to pay that ticket after the first payment due date, the late fee adds an additional $38, and another $53 after the second payment due date and an additional $40 special collection fee would be added. If San Francisco then were to ask DMV to collect the unpaid debt, DMV would add the entire cost of the outstanding parking ticket and fines to vehicle registration fees. If someone were unable to pay this amount all at once on top of their vehicle registration fees, late fees for vehicle registration increase by 60% of the original fee for payments over 30 days late, which can increase the registration fee as much as $100. If a person is then pulled over for having an unregistered vehicle, the fine for driving unregistered vehicles is currently $285. All totaled, these fines and late fees alone add up to $770. This would amount to over 40% of a single individual’s monthly income if they made the maximum amount of money to be eligible for Medi-Cal.

To address the issue of the accrual of insurmountable fees, the Legislature passed AB 503 (Lackey), Chapter 741, Statutes of 2017 to require cities to waive late fees for persons on public benefits and establish an affordable payment plan of $25 a month. One of the drawbacks of that legislation was it placed a ceiling on the number of parking tickets that are eligible for relief from late fees and payment plans. The Legislature has since adjusted the ceiling to $500.

Parking tickets as revenue. Parking citations and associated fines and fees are a significant source of revenue for local jurisdictions. In 2018, the Oakland Department of Transportation issued 174,392 tickets for violations of parking during street sweeping hours under Oakland Municipal Code Section 10.28.240. This represented 51% of all tickets issued in 2018 and resulted in citations totaling $11.5 million.

Many localities use revenues (include late fee revenue) to pay for other city services. A cap on late fees for parking tickets could significantly impact revenue generation and cause a cut in services. The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) estimates that the 30% cap on late fees this bill proposes would result in a revenue loss of $9.7 million annually. This comes at a time when SFMTA forecasts a $130 million budget deficit in 2025 and projects the deficit could reach $214 million by 2026. This bill could have the unintended consequence of impacting the same demographic of people it intends to benefit if SFMTA is forced to cut transit services due to lack of revenue.

According to the author, “SB 1487 is vital in addressing the issue of unreasonable citation collection practices in California. While localities need flexibility to enforce parking laws, many have implemented ticketing policies like excessive late fees and short payment times that are overly cumbersome, especially to low income residents. More so, the state is required to enforce these punitive measures by withholding vehicle registration until payment, which further contributes to a cycle of financial instability. Recognizing the importance of promoting economic equity and alleviating burdens on our citizens, SB 1487 aims to create an equitable system that ensures compliance without unduly burdening vulnerable residents.”

According to supporters of this bill, “Existing law provides municipalities with discretion to determine parking ticket polices that best fit with its’ needs. However, where flexibility was provided, abuse developed. Many cities have implemented ticketing policies that are overly punitive, such as exacting exorbitant late fees and short payment times which only increases the inability to pay them fully and on time. This system disproportionately affects low-income Californians, who face escalating fines and financial instability due to exorbitant late fees on parking citations. SB 1487 addresses this issue by extending the time to pay a citation to 30 days before late fees are applied and limiting late fees to 30 percent of the original penalty.”

According to opponents of this bill, “Where we vehemently disagree with the bill’s authors is the proposed removal of local control by setting a statewide cap of parking citation delinquency (late) fees at 30% of the initial fine. To mandate a one-size fits-all solution is a disservice to every city, county, port, park, and college campus. It ignores the local context, sustainability strategies, and methods for maintaining sufficient open space for all to enjoy. Most egregiously, it ignores local jurisdictions’ decades upon decades of experience with their local populations.

Committee concerns. Parking enforcement is an important local tool to reduce congestion and create vibrant communities. Capping late fees would restrict a local jurisdiction’s ability to set late fees for parking citations, and consequently could result in lost revenue for some jurisdictions and unintended consequences for the most financially vulnerable citizens in California. Many local jurisdictions are facing budget shortfalls and if late fees are capped at 30%, they may choose to simply raise the base fine for parking violations in order to cover the lost revenue, or raise other local fines and fees. Raising parking fines or other fines or fees would put a greater burden on individuals who may be exempt from late fees under this bill, but are still required to pay the base fine. Likewise, increasing other local fees could also negatively impact low-income persons.

Committee amendments. The committee has proposed, and the author has accepted amendments to align the implementation date of this bill with the beginning of a local jurisdiction’s fiscal year. This allows local jurisdictions to plan for the revenue loss they may experience as a result of this bill.

Related and previous legislation. AB 1082 (Kalra of 2023) would have, among other provisions, revised the ability of local processing agencies to refer delinquent parking violations to the DMV and revised requirements for payment plans. The bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee on suspense.

AB 1685 (Bryan of 2022) would have required processing agencies to forgive at least $1,500 in parking fines and fees annually for a qualified homeless person. The bill was vetoed by Governor Newsom.

AB 3277 (Reggie-Jones), Chapter 55, Statutes of 2020 made various eligibility and programmatic changes to the payment plan program administered by local agencies relative to parking citations.

AB 503 (Lackey), Chapter 741, Statutes of 2017 required the offering of a payment plan and the waiver of penalties for indigent people with unpaid parking tickets prior to filing an itemization of them at the DMV, starting on July 1, 2018.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

East Bay Leadership Council

Western Center on Law & Poverty

Opposition

California Mobility & Parking Association

Analysis Prepared by: Aaron Kurz / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 1487

Author: Glazer (D), et al.

Amended: 4/2/24

Vote: 21

SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: 15-0, 4/9/24

AYES: Cortese, Niello, Allen, Archuleta, Becker, Blakespear, Dahle, Dodd, Gonzalez, Limón, Newman, Nguyen, Portantino, Seyarto, Umberg

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/16/24

AYES: Caballero, Jones, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab

SUBJECT: Vehicles: parking violations

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill prohibits a late payment penalty for a parking violation from exceeding 30% of the original penalty and would extend the time to pay a parking violation before additional penalties accrue.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the schedule of parking penalties for parking violations and late penalties to be established by the local governing body. (VEH §40203.5)
2. Requires the parking processing agency to deliver a notice of delinquent parking violation if the payment of a parking penalty is not received by the date fixed on the notice of the original violation. (VEH §40206)
3. Requires this notice to specify that unless the registered owner pays the parking penalty or contests the citation within 21 calendar days from issuance of the citation or 14 days after the delinquent notice has been mailed, the renewal of the vehicle registration shall be contingent upon payment of the penalties. (VEH §40207)
4. Specifies that if the registered owner makes payment of the original penalty within 21 calendar days of issuance of the citation or 14 days after mailing of the delinquent notice the penalty shall only consist of the original penalty and no additional fees.
5. Requires processing agencies to allow for reviews of the notice within 21 days from the issuance of notice of the parking violation or 14 days from the mailing of the notice of delinquent violation. If the individual is dissatisfied with the results of the review they may request an administrative hearing, as specified. (VEH §40215)
6. Authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the owner or lessee has not paid parking penalties and administrative fees (VEH §47600)
7. Authorizes processing agencies to file an itemization of unpaid parking penalties and service fees with the DMV for collection with registration, so long as the agency: (VEH §40220)
   1. Provides a payment plan option for indigent persons that allows unpaid parking fines and fees to be paid off in monthly installments of no more than $25 for total amounts due that are $500 or less, in a period within 24 months;
   2. Waives all late fees and penalty assessments, exclusive of any state surcharges, if an indigent person enrolls in the payment plan;
   3. Limits the processing fee to participate in a payment plan to $5 or less for indigent persons and $25 or less for all other persons;
   4. Allows the application for indigence determination for a period of 120 days from the issuance of a notice of a parking violation, or 10 days after the administrative hearing determination, whichever is later;
8. Requires processing agencies to rescind a filing of itemization of penalties and fees for an indigent person for one time only, if they enroll in a payment plan and pay a late fee of no more than $5.
9. Defines “indigent” for the purposes of this payment program to mean anyone who meets the income requirements for, or is currently on, Supplemental Security Income, Supplemental nutrition Assistance Program, Medi-Cal, or In Home Support Services

This bill:

1. Requires that the late payment penalty for a parking violation shall not exceed 30 percent of the original parking penalty.
2. Requires processing agencies to deem payments for parking penalties sent by mail as received on the date postmarked.
3. Extends the deadlines for a registered owner to pay or contest a parking citation to 30 days from the issuance of the citation or 21 days after the mailing of the notice of delinquent violation.
4. Specifies that a notice of delinquent parking violation shall not be sent to the DMV for registration hold until 30 days after issuance of the original citation.
5. Extends the deadline for a registered owner to ask for an initial review of the notice to 30 days from the issuance of the citation or 21 days after the mailing of the notice of delinquent violation.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “SB 1487 is vital in addressing the issue of unreasonable citation collection practices in California. While localities need flexibility to enforce parking laws, many have implemented ticketing policies like excessive late fees and short payment times that are overly cumbersome, especially to low income residents. More so, the state is required to enforce these punitive measures by withholding vehicle registration until payment, which further contributes to a cycle of financial instability. Recognizing the importance of promoting economic equity and alleviating burdens on our citizens, SB 1487 aims to create an equitable system that ensures compliance without unduly burdening vulnerable residents.”
2. Paying for parking. In dense, urban environments, space is one of the most valuable resources. In order to support a transportation system largely designed for cars, cities have traditionally tried to devote a significant portion of space to parking. Giving the high value of this space, cities need mechanisms to make sure those spaces are being used effectively. Cities will often meter valuable spaces in order to incentivize shorter trips and discourage congestion. Illegal on-street parking can increase travel time and congestion. Cities use parking tickets today to reduce congestion in downtown areas, ensure local residents have a place to park, enable people to park near retail stores for a limited period of time, prevent individuals from parking in spaces for emergency vehicles, keep open spots for people with disabilities, and ensure that non electric vehicles are not parking in spots meant for electric vehicles to charge.
3. Parking enforcement. Cities do not have many enforcement mechanisms to collect outstanding parking tickets, particularly from individuals visiting the city that live outside their jurisdiction. As such, the state allows cities to collect outstanding parking tickets through the DMV when a person tries to register their vehicle. According to the DMV there are currently 692 parking agencies that may report tickets to the DMV for collection with the annual registration renewal. Using a 5-year average, DMV estimates it has received approximately 1.8 million parking tickets annually. Approximately 30-40% of the parking tickets reported to DMV annually are collected by DMV during the registration renewal, as people may instead pay the parking agency directly. The DMV collected approximately $81.7 million in total parking citation bail in FY 2021/22.
4. Spiraling Debt. The cost of being late or being unable to pay a parking ticket on time can easily spiral out of control for an indigent person. An unpaid parking ticket can accrue multiple cycles of late fees. Local agencies are authorized to file unpaid tickets with the DMV, which can require payment in full for unpaid parking tickets when the vehicle owner renews their vehicle registration. However, if someone were unable to pay their parking tickets, then they are unlikely to be able to pay their vehicle registration, which means additional late fees and additional fines for driving an unregistered vehicle, or giving up using a vehicle that may be essential for them to get to work. In order to solve this problem the Legislature has acted by passing AB 503 (Lackey, Chapter 741, Statutes of 2017) to require agencies to provide indigent people a payment plan for unpaid parking tickets that also waives late fees, prior to asking DMV to collect their unpaid parking debt, starting on July 1, 2018. Since passage of that bill several subsequent pieces of legislation have updated the requirements of those payment plans in order to make them more accessible. This bill would build upon that work by preventing late payment penalties for a single ticket from accruing to more than 30% of the original ticket.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

“Minor costs for the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to update manuals and memos to reflect the extended timeframe for referral of citations to the DMV. (Motor Vehicle Account)

Unknown, likely minor one-time costs for state parking entities (primarily state institutions of higher education) to revise processes and procedures and update websites to reflect the 30% cap on parking penalty fees, extended timelines for paying parking penalties, contesting violations, and forwarding delinquent violations to DMV, as well as reflecting those timelines on notices of delinquent parking violations. (General Fund, State University Parking Revenue Fund, other funds administered by institutions of higher education)

Unknown, significant reduction in state parking citation revenue (for citations issued by state parking entities) related to the provision that limits the late payment penalty for a parking violation to a maximum of 30% of the established parking penalty.

Staff notes that each higher education institution establishes its own schedule of parking fines and penalty fees, with some basing it on a percentage of the parking penalty and others charging a flat fee, regardless of the type of parking violation. (State University Parking Revenue Fund, other funds administered by institutions of higher education)

Unknown significant local costs and revenue losses related to the requirements that processing agencies extend specified timeframes for paying parking penalties, contesting violations, and forwarding delinquent violations to DMV, as well as revising notices of delinquent parking violations to reflect extended timeframes, and limiting late payment penalties. It is unlikely that these costs and revenue losses would be reimbursable by the state because local entities appear to have fee authority that disclaims state responsibility for reimbursement. Ultimately, however, whether local costs are reimbursable would be subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates, to the extent an eligible local agency files a test claim. (local funds or General Fund)”

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/16/24)

East Bay Leadership Council

Safer Streets LA

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/16/24)

None received

Prepared by: Jacob O'Connor / TRANS. / (916) 651-4121

5/17/24 11:56:28

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

SB 1487 (Glazer) - Vehicles: parking violations

Bill Summary:

SB 1487 would prohibit the late payment penalty for a parking violation from exceeding 30% of the established parking penalty, and extend the timeframe for a registered vehicle owner to pay a parking penalty or contest the violation before additional penalties accrue.

Fiscal Impact:

• Minor costs for the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to update manuals and memos to reflect the extended timeframe for referral of citations to the DMV. (Motor Vehicle Account)
• Unknown, likely minor one-time costs for state parking entities (primarily state institutions of higher education) to revise processes and procedures and update websites to reflect the 30% cap on parking penalty fees, extended timelines for paying parking penalties, contesting violations, and forwarding delinquent violations to DMV, as well as reflecting those timelines on notices of delinquent parking violations. (General Fund, State University Parking Revenue Fund, other funds administered by institutions of higher education)
  
• Unknown, significant reduction in state parking citation revenue (for citations issued by state parking entities) related to the provision that limits the late payment penalty for a parking violation to a maximum of 30% of the established parking penalty. Staff notes that each higher education institution establishes its own schedule of parking fines and penalty fees, with some basing it on a percentage of the parking penalty and others charging a flat fee, regardless of the type of parking violation. (State University Parking Revenue Fund, other funds administered by institutions of higher education)
  
• Unknown significant local costs and revenue losses related to the requirements that processing agencies extend specified timeframes for paying parking penalties, contesting violations, and forwarding delinquent violations to DMV, as well as revising notices of delinquent parking violations to reflect extended timeframes, and limiting late payment penalties. It is unlikely that these costs and revenue losses would be reimbursable by the state because local entities appear to have fee authority that disclaims state responsibility for reimbursement. Ultimately, however, whether local costs are reimbursable would be subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates, to the extent an eligible local agency files a test claim. (local funds or General Fund)

Background:

Existing law requires the schedule of penalties for parking violations and late payment penalties to be established by the governing body of the jurisdiction where the notice of violation is issued. To the extent possible, issuing agencies within the same county must standardize parking penalties. Existing law requires a parking processing agency to deliver a notice of delinquent parking violation if payment of a parking penalty is not received by the date specified in the original violation. The notice must specify that renewal of vehicle registration is contingent upon payment of penalties, unless the registered owner pays the parking penalty or contests the violation within 21 calendar days from issuance of the citation or 14 days after the delinquent notice has been mailed. Existing law specifies that the penalty shall only consist of the original penalty and no additional fees or charges if the owner pays the original penalty within 21 calendar days from issuance of the citation or 14 days after the delinquent notice has been mailed.

Existing law authorizes an agency that processes notices of parking violations and delinquent parking violations, after completing specified collection efforts, to file an itemized list of unpaid parking penalties and service fees with the DMV for collection when a vehicle owner attempts to register his or her vehicle. Existing law requires DMV, after receiving an itemized list of a person’s unpaid parking penalties and fees, to refuse to renew his or her vehicle registration until all outstanding penalties and fees are paid. After collecting payments for unpaid parking penalties and fees, DMV forwards the revenues to the local jurisdictions that filed the itemized list of unpaid tickets, after deducting its administrative costs.

Existing law prohibits a processing agency from referring an itemized list of unpaid tickets to DMV to collect on delinquent amounts unless a payment plan is provided for indigent persons, as specified. The payment plan must allow monthly installments of no more than $25 for total amounts less than $500, and provide for a waiver of all late fees and penalty assessments, exclusive of specified assessments. Processing agencies must include information regarding the availability of the payment plan option on their public websites, and a web link and telephone information line.

Proposed Law:

SB 1487 would cap late payment penalties for parking violations and provide additional time for a registered owner to pay a parking penalty or contest the violation. Specifically, this bill would:

• Prohibit a late payment penalty for a parking violation from exceeding 30% of the established parking penalty.
• Deem the postmarked date of a mailed payment of a parking penalty or late fee to be the date that the payment is received.
• Extend the deadlines for a registered owner to pay a parking penalty, contest a parking violation, or request an initial review of the violation from 21 days to 30 days from the issuance of the citation, or from 14 to 21 days after mailing a notice of delinquent violation, as specified
• Require a parking penalty to consist solely of the amount of the original penalty if the registered vehicle owner makes payment to the processing agency within 30 days from the date of issuance of the citation or 21 days after the mailing of the notice of delinquent parking violation.
• Prohibit a notice of delinquent parking violation from being sent to the DMV for registration hold until after 30 days from the issuance of the citation.

Related Legislation:

AB 1082 (Kalra), which was referred to this Committee’s Suspense File last year, would delete the authority for law enforcement and local parking enforcement officials, not including higher education institutions, to tow and impound, or immobilize a vehicle that has five or more delinquent parking tickets, as specified. The bill would also revise the ability of local processing agencies, excluding higher education institutions, to refer delinquent parking violations to the DMV for collection with vehicle registration, and revise requirements for processing agencies to offer payment plans for payment of delinquent parking ticket fines and penalties

AB 1685 (Bryan), which was vetoed by the Governor in 2022, would have required processing agencies to establish a parking citation forgiveness program for homeless individuals. The veto message included the following statements indicating the reason for the veto:

I am sympathetic to the author's intent to provide financial relief to extremely low-income Californians, but a statewide requirement for parking ticket forgiveness may not be the best approach. Under current law, processing agencies are already required to take several steps prior to asking DMV to collect the unpaid debt from indigent individuals, including establishing a payment program and waiving late fees and penalty assessments. Under this bill, there would be no limit to the number of times a person could ultimately seek relief from the program.

AB 503 (Lackey), Chap. 741/2017, prohibited a processing agency, beginning on July 1, 2018, from referring unpaid parking penalties and fees to the DMV for collection, unless the agency provides a payment plan option for indigent persons, as specified.

Staff Comments:

This bill has been keyed as a state mandated local program by Legislative Counsel because it would require local agencies to revise policies and procedures to reflect the specified extended timelines in the bill and limiting late payment penalties for parking violations, and likely require official action by local agency governing bodies to revise the schedule of late payment penalties. Any local agency costs are unlikely to be deemed reimbursable by the state. Staff notes that local agencies have the authority to adjust parking fines and fees to cover costs to administer and enforce parking requirements, and existing law disclaims the requirement for state reimbursement if a local agency has that authority. Furthermore, Committee staff is unaware of any claims for state-reimbursement for other similar mandates, such as the existing requirement for parking citation processing entities to establish payment plans for unpaid parking tickets and forgive late fees for indigent persons. Whether the requirements of this bill require state reimbursement would ultimately be subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates, to the extent an eligible local agency files a test claim.

This bill would limit the amount that a parking ticket issuing agency, including local agencies and state higher education institutions, can charge as a late payment penalty for a parking violation to no more than 30% of the established parking penalty. The amounts that issuing agencies charge for parking fines and late payment penalties varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The following are illustrative examples of the variation among several higher education institutions:

• UC Berkeley: Parking fines range from $48 for a meter violation to $352 for parking in a Disabled Space, and late payment penalties for any violation are a flat fee of $54.
• UC Davis: Parking fines range from $64 for exceeding a time limit to $469 for parking in a Disabled Space, and late payment penalties for any violation are double the assessed parking violation fine.
• CSU-Sacramento: Parking fines range from $43 for exceeding a time limit to $333 for parking in a Disabled Space, and late payment penalties for any violation are a flat fee of $28.

Staff notes that limiting late payment penalties to 30% of the established parking penalty would result in significant revenue losses for state and local parking ticket issuing agencies. These revenues could be mitigated in some jurisdictions, to the extent it would be feasible for local and state entities to raise the fines for parking violations to offset the revenue losses of mandatory limits on late payment penalties.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Senator Dave Cortese, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: 4/9/2024

SUBJECT:

DIGEST: This bill would prohibit a late payment penalty for a parking violation from exceeding 30% of the original penalty and would extend the time to pay a parking violation before additional penalties accrue.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the schedule of parking penalties for parking violations and late penalties to be established by the local governing body. (VEH §40203.5)
2. Requires the parking processing agency to deliver a notice of delinquent parking violation if the payment of a parking penalty is not received by the date fixed on the notice of the original violation. (VEH §40206)
3. Requires this notice to specify that unless the registered owner pays the parking penalty or contests the citation within 21 calendar days from issuance of the citation or 14 days after the delinquent notice has been mailed, the renewal of the vehicle registration shall be contingent upon payment of the penalties. (VEH §40207)
4. Specifies that if the registered owner makes payment of the original penalty within 21 calendar days of issuance of the citation or 14 days after mailing of the delinquent notice the penalty shall only consist of the original penalty and no additional fees.
5. Requires processing agencies to allow for reviews of the notice within 21 days from the issuance of notice of the parking violation or 14 days from the mailing of the notice of delinquent violation. If the individual is dissatisfied with the results of the review they may request an administrative hearing, as specified. (VEH §40215)
6. Authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the owner or lessee has not paid parking penalties and administrative fees (VEH §47600)
7. Authorizes processing agencies to file an itemization of unpaid parking penalties and service fees with the DMV for collection with registration, so long as the agency: (VEH §40220)
   1. Provides a payment plan option for indigent persons that allows unpaid parking fines and fees to be paid off in monthly installments of no more than $25 for total amounts due that are $500 or less, in a period within 24 months;
   2. Waives all late fees and penalty assessments, exclusive of any state surcharges, if an indigent person enrolls in the payment plan;
   3. Limits the processing fee to participate in a payment plan to $5 or less for indigent persons and $25 or less for all other persons;
   4. Allows the application for indigence determination for a period of 120 days from the issuance of a notice of a parking violation, or 10 days after the administrative hearing determination, whichever is later;
8. Requires processing agencies to rescind a filing of itemization of penalties and fees for an indigent person for one time only, if they enroll in a payment plan and pay a late fee of no more than $5.
9. Defines “indigent” for the purposes of this payment program to mean anyone who meets the income requirements for, or is currently on, Supplemental Security Income, Supplemental nutrition Assistance Program, Medi-Cal, or In Home Support Services

This bill:

1. Requires that the late payment penalty for a parking violation shall not exceed 30 percent of the original parking penalty.
2. Requires processing agencies to deem payments for parking penalties sent by mail as received on the date postmarked.
3. Extends the deadlines for a registered owner to pay or contest a parking citation to 30 days from the issuance of the citation or 21 days after the mailing of the notice of delinquent violation.
4. Specifies that a notice of delinquent parking violation shall not be sent to the DMV for registration hold until 30 days after issuance of the original citation.
5. Extends the deadline for a registered owner to ask for an initial review of the notice to 30 days from the issuance of the citation or 21 days after the mailing of the notice of delinquent violation.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of bill. According to the author, “SB 1487 is vital in addressing the issue of unreasonable citation collection practices in California. While localities need flexibility to enforce parking laws, many have implemented ticketing policies like excessive late fees and short payment times that are overly cumbersome, especially to low income residents. More so, the state is required to enforce these punitive measures by withholding vehicle registration until payment, which further contributes to a cycle of financial instability. Recognizing the importance of promoting economic equity and alleviating burdens on our citizens, SB 1487 aims to create an equitable system that ensures compliance without unduly burdening vulnerable residents.”
2. Paying for parking. In dense, urban environments space is one of the most valuable resources. In order to support a transportation system largely designed for cars, cities have traditionally tried to devote a significant portion of space to parking. Giving the high value of this space cities need mechanisms to make sure those spaces are being used effectively. Cities will often meter valuable spaces in order to incentivize shorter trips and discourage congestion. Illegal on-street parking can increase travel time and congestion. Cities use parking tickets today to reduce congestion in downtown areas, ensure local residents have a place to park, enable people to park near retail stores for a limited period of time, prevent individuals from parking in spaces for emergency vehicles, keep open spots for people with disabilities, and ensure that non electric vehicles are not parking in spots meant for electric vehicles to charge.
3. Parking enforcement. Cities do not have many enforcement mechanisms to collect outstanding parking tickets, particularly from individuals visiting the city that live outside their jurisdiction. As such the state allows cities to collect outstanding parking tickets through the DMV when a person tries to register their vehicle. According to the DMV there are currently 692 parking agencies that may report tickets to the DMV for collection with the annual registration renewal. Using a 5-year average, DMV estimates it has received approximately 1.8 million parking tickets annually. Approximately 30-40% of the parking tickets reported to DMV annually are collected by DMV during the registration renewal, as people may instead pay the parking agency directly. The DMV collected approximately $81.7 million in total parking citation bail in FY 2021/22.
4. Spiraling Debt. The cost of being late or being unable to pay a parking ticket on time can easily spiral out of control for an indigent person. An unpaid parking ticket can accrue multiple cycles of late fees. Local agencies are authorized to file unpaid tickets with the DMV, which can require payment in full for unpaid parking tickets when the vehicle owner renews their vehicle registration. However, if someone were unable to pay their parking tickets, then they are unlikely to be able to pay their vehicle registration, which means additional late fees and additional fines for driving an unregistered vehicle, or giving up using a vehicle that may be essential for them to get to work. In order to solve this problem the Legislature has acted by passing AB 503 (Lackey, 2017) to require agencies to provide indigent people a payment plan for unpaid parking tickets that also waives late fees, prior to asking DMV to collect their unpaid parking debt, starting on July 1, 2018. Since passage of that bill several subsequent pieces of legislation have updated the requirements of those payment plans in order to make them more accessible. This bill would build upon that work by preventing late payment penalties for a single ticket from accruing to more than 30% of the original ticket.

Related Legislation:

AB 1082 (Kalra, 2023) would have, among other provisions, revised the ability of local processing agencies to refer delinquent parking violations to the DMV and revised requirements for payment plans. The bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee on suspense.

AB 1685 (Bryan, 2022) would have required processing agencies to forgive at least $1,500 in parking fines and fees annually for a qualified homeless person. The bill was vetoed by Governor Newsom.

AB 3277 (Reggie-Jones, Chapter 55, Statutes of 2020) made various eligibility and programmatic changes to the payment plan program administered by local agencies relative to parking citations.

AB 503 (Lackey, Chapter 741, Statutes of 2017) required the offering of a payment plan and the waiver of penalties for indigent people with unpaid parking

tickets prior to filing an itemization of them at the DMV, starting on July 1, 2018

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,

April 3^rd.)

SUPPORT:

Safer Streets LA

OPPOSITION:

None received

-- END --