HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-0817 Study Session PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
AGENDA
Monday, August 17, 2015
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
5: 30 p.m. Study Session
1. Public Input (15 minutes maximum)
2. Look Ahead review
3. Discussion of parking regulations, penalties and enforcement
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-
2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9. STARTING APRIL 15, 2014,
CHARTER CABLE WILL BROADCAST MEETINGS ON CHANNEL 180 OR 181.
VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
W N W
O J W (JI A
N O O J s CP O A O O W N O .i p> (O 00
O V O) W N cD O cn w A
D cncn0 o x D D c)0c» SOD m om ?i~O -yvD Oct C7
° .z C m 7 -n O N' O y Q 7 .X-. tp 7 7 N fl. (D (D 3 N O j
1D'I N N O n N Q 3 z Co C m o O N CA cn v, C <
a 3 m m v m a (n° m v v 3 a n v v m J. 3.
c or n - 0 0 o n m N' n v v v v m m
C_D
7 ? p' ~J m' o Q m o - m Q Q 23 CD :3 CD CD N CD O 7 N n O O N 7 N to N O cA
`D 7 N. 7~ fn O Q Q
p N O
C m' m 7 W 3~ 5 m ° W 3 o o 7 ~ n 0
m 7 z ! c g' o _a m m m~ a _a 7 7 v c c
(n 3 ED m (n o 0. (n 11 N N 7 7 (n N' 91 - (D Z n N
° Q o ° c r o o' m m.c
7
CL N Q O CL CL 7 m Q 7 CL m 7 3 cp j! N CD Q 7 O O!
°:t1r. c o~7°1 M co a mss m ~i~l 7
7 C CD O (n.
tD (n OT CD N (D (n N fn cD . N fn m 3 (n - M o 3 (n
O 7 n (D m 7 7 W
G N n G N ~ o ;5. c U) CD . ~ y G CD N (0 ~ G =3 (n N CD
G N ~ fNn
N ° O S L. I N N D) N ID O CD N 7' D ~1 •0 3 N y _ 7 O C) Z 7' .ZJ
O 3 m O O m- a 3 0 m O O O
n 7 n v 7~ o n 7 n ° 7 7 Z o (n m 7 Z o 3 7 0 7 ° 7
CD 0 m O O O m O o 0 m C p s <n O Q o
O
3 c 0 m 3 O c m D 0' G G o 3 O 3 s m c .m a
mO ° =c m 3 3 mc0 3 x,23 _ m
cn
(n D o. ~ N N n CD (n n (n n O' L7 (n N O A (D N N 7 CL N n (D
2
<'gQ Cx m 3N r N 3 n l< x D m 3 N ~v D° 0'3 p =x
n 3 -0 Q < 7 v
° ° c) m IA o
CD o D 7 0 co m o° o m ? o ' m m o =3 'D
c 7 'G G (D C 3 C o D C C cn 7' A C C N O °
M. E
17
O o o co 3 3 m
3 ° O N m ;a 3 3 ;1 3 m (n m o m ~ m
;u n U3
p w D 0° o m' o c° v o z7 p-< o ZR3 3 IV 3 o
O CD O o T O v 7 0 m n o m 0 m, r ~ w' _ m 0 -n :E 3 m 3 N 3 0 3 ° 3 Q M O w Q 3
v o a m ~ m D 6-~ :0, 3
7 O D ^ D o 0. ° Q o m
_a :3
0 7 D c 3 o m m 3 D
v = 7 m o 3 o Q o
v m m o o v p
< m Q o o' Q 3 3 m
o O 7. O N m
p.
T D -n _u D m D D n D D -n n -n D D D
Q Q (D Q Q Q Q C Q Q Q
m 3 m 3 " 3 3 3 _3 m `D _3 3 3 n
C7'7 7 n C'1 7 C\ 7 7 7 7 n 7 7 7 x
CD m T CD N
O Z N O
U) D y
v~
M v
D~
_ m a
--I o
D o
(n co z a
(n U) W p
m cn
o z o ~ m m v C
G A _ ;S1 A Z7 I
Co ID
co U) U) C-
M r°
U) cn n
C4
Cl)
E
00
0
n
° m ° x
A U) A
D D
C
~ cn N Z I Q
m
~ y
m o -
cn
cn o -
cn
N
Z
m
~ w
cn
Cn cn
z
m _
J
w
0
~ N
W
N
O_
(n
0 z 0 w D KDE: Ti 0
m p (D O O_ IDc c v_ v 0
C N N O c CD _ (1
3
N 3 3 (D 3 S N N co N tU 3
0- cr
O (5 CD CD N ' < J N
p O CD O v 2' J N
01' C i 0 -
m SQD cn r o o (D
w V
0 (D 0) C)
v
n o. D o w a o ° 3 y c
o n m 3 3. ~ 3 CL
3 C-) CD cn
CD E! p 3 c7 3 7 f/1. 0 3 .Y c N
3 3 3 c 3. m 3 °n o _ 0 a T.
m 3
3 O O
~.v L.o n'~ 3 3 m 0 :3
3. 0
O 3
c O 0 m in y 3
a CD
O O N A (n
:3 0
N
CD O p
D cn
c N N O
'
0 C
3 3
a 3 O
W
O_ 0
o :3
0
_N
W
-10
N
N -h
Dy
v~
D~
_ na
--I 0
D o
zr_
v~
N~
N
O Cc
N co ,
m crtD
On
cc
-i r
00
n
= D
D S
z CD
G) 0
M a
T
W _
N
C? N
~ A
N
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
August 17, 2015, Study Session
Discussion of Parking Regulations, Penalties and Enforcement
FROM:
David H. Lohman, City Attorney, lohmand@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY:
In April, May, and June of this year, Council discussed possible changes to the City's parking
regulations and penalties. At its May 19, 2015 business meeting, Council approved First Reading of a
proposed ordinance that would have made the several changes discussed below. At its June 2, 2015
business meeting, Council voted against approval of Second Reading of the ordinance. Council
decided to discuss possible changes to parking regulations and penalties in a study session when
Municipal Judge Turner could attend. The purpose of this study session agenda item is to have that
discussion with Judge Turner present.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The current municipal code sets forth in Sections 11.24.100, 11.28.110A and 11.28.120 specific dollar
amounts for penalties for multiple parking violations, for enhanced penalties for ignoring parking
tickets, and for a parking fine surcharge. Current code also specifically authorizes impoundment,
immobilization by parking boot, and towing as means for dealing with multiple parking violations.
Current code, however, does not set the amount for a simple, one-time parking violation and does not
state who has responsibility for setting that amount. The current fine for a single, simple parking
violation is $11. It is comprised of a base fine of $7 (which apparently was set by a former municipal
court judge many years ago) and a parking surcharge of $4.
Under the proposed ordinance ultimately rejected by Council on June 2, a presumptive fine for a
parking violation would have been set in the master fee schedule approved annually by Council
resolution. This would encourage regular review of the appropriateness of the amount established for
the presumptive fine. The other parking violation penalties already set by ordinance were not to be
affected, except for the penalties for multiple violations, as described below.
Oregon statutes already make clear that one may seek modification of a presumptive parking violation
fine by requesting a trial or by entering a plea of no contest and delivering to the court the amount of
the presumptive fine, along with a statement of explanation. (ORS 153.061(3)(b); ORS 153.099(2).)
Staff proposed incorporating the statutory process by which a person may seek modification of a
presumptive parking violation fine and adding an explicit further expectation that the presumptive fine
be imposed in the absence of reasonable grounds for modification.
The revisions proposed by staff also distinguished the presumptive fine for a single parking violation
from the penalties for multiple parking violations, the penalties for failing to appear or post bail in the
time required by a parking citation, and the City's parking surcharge making clear that the latter
Page 1 of 4
CITY OF
-ASH LAN D
three charges are in addition to any fine for a single parking violation and are addressed in their own
distinct provisions in the Ashland Municipal Code.
Finally, the revisions proposed by staff sought to clarify the penalties for multiple parking violations.
Current AMC 11.28.110A establishes a $25 penalty for a vehicle that gets a third parking citation in
any calendar year and a $50 dollar penalty on each violation in excess of four violations in any
calendar year. The penalties for multiple parking violations in current Section 11.28.110A are
inconsistent and only partially enforced. First, getting four parking citations currently incurs the same
penalty as getting three. Second, Diamond Parking's tracking system only permits identification of
multiple violations upon the fourth citation, so the penalty for the third citation in one year is never
imposed. Third, the $50 penalty is imposed only for the fifth violation per calendar year and not for
any subsequent violations.
Consideration of possible changes to the City's parking regulation and enforcement raise at least the
following policy questions for Council deliberation:
1. Should the Council undertake consideration of the updating and minor changes discussed in May
and June, or should a comprehensive revision of parking regulations and penalties be undertaken,
with the goal of consolidating and simplifying the pertinent code provisions?
a. Consideration: The "same-block rule," "head-in parking" in some areas, and purportedly
inadequate signage are frequent sources of complaints and appeals that the Council may
want to re-examine.
b. Consideration: AMC 11.24 contains certain parking regulations and penalties. AMC 11.28
contains other parking regulations and penalties. Consolidating these provisions into one
chapter probably makes sense.
2. If presumptive parking fines are significantly increased, should penalties for multiple violations be
continued?
a. Consideration: The provision requiring penalties for multiple violations upon receipt of a
third, fourth, and fifth citation in any one calendar year is (1) complicated enough to be
confusing; (2) arguably not needed as a deterrent if presumptive fines are high enough to
discourage multiple violations; (3) an administrative burden for both Diamond Parking and
the Municipal Court; (4) probably an additional incentive to appeal one's fourth and fifth
citations in hope of dismissal.
3. If penalties for multiple violations are continued, should the $25 penalty for the third and fourth
violations be retained?
a. Consideration: The $25 penalty for the third and fourth violations arguably adds complexity
without adding much effective deterrence.
4. If penalties for multiple violations are continued, should the fine for five or more violations in any
calendar year be $50 for each subsequent violation, or should it be $50 for the fifth violation, with
no additional penalties thereafter?
a. Note: The current ordinance imposes a $50 fine for each violation after the fourth one in
any calendar year. Apparently upon direction from City staff a few years ago, however,
Diamond Parking has been assessing the $50 penalty only upon the fifth citation.
Page 2 of 4
CITY OF
-ASH LAN D
b. Consideration: Arguably, retaining the current Code's $50 fine for each violation after the
fourth one in any calendar year would increase parking availability by making the
consequences of multiple parking violations more costly. On the other hand, such a change
arguably could result in more appeals of parking fines and possibly more dismissals or fine
reductions.
5. Should the amended ordinance require "reasonable grounds" for deviating from the presumptive
fine and specify that financial hardship and number of pending parking citations do not constitute
reasonable grounds?
a. Consideration: In the interest of just application of general laws to individual
circumstances, courts are typically afforded great discretion in deciding whether to dismiss
or reduce presumptive fines for alleged offenses, especially traffic-related offenses.
However, sometimes legislative bodies make policy determinations to set legal standards
that limit such discretion when they believe enforcement has become either too strict or too
lenient. For example, the Oregon Legislature has limited the discretion of prosecutors and
judges in DUI (driving under the influence-of intoxicants) cases by disallowing "guilty" or
"no contest" pleas to any other offense in exchange for a dismissal of the offense charged.
ORS 813.170. The statute further directs that "[n]o attorney or city attorney shall make any
motion and no judge shall enter any order in derogation of this section."
b. Consideration: Eliminating lack of financial wherewithal as a basis for reducing an
individual's fine for a parking violation may be overly punitive in some cases. On the other
hand, persons without means are less likely to violate parking rules, and having to meet the
standards expected of everyone is arguably not punitive.
c. Consideration: The number of parking citations issued and appealed in municipal court and
the number of appealed citations upheld or reduced or dismissed per calendar year may
have some bearing on this question. The attached "Ashland Municipal Court Ticket
Processing Statistics Per Diamond Parking" contains a table and graph displaying such
information and was provided to the Council last May. At the Council meeting, it may be
possible to distribute an updated version of this document that will include monthly data for
May, June, and July of this year. (NOTE: Some dismissals occur because Diamond notifies
the court of mistakes or misunderstandings in the issuance of the citations or credible
excuses, such as forgetting to display a current disabled placard the existence of which is
verified.)
d. Consideration: Also relevant to this question is the number of individual vehicles cited five
or more times each year and the number of individuals who have submitted multiple
appeals each year and their success rates. Diamond Parking may be able to compile
relevant recent information on these factors in time for presentation at the August 17 study
session.
e. Consideration: Increasing presumptive parking fines may well result in more appeals.
Imposing a "reasonable grounds" requirement for deviation from presumptive fines might
counter this impetus - at least over time - by making appeals less likely to be successful.
£ Consideration: The primary objective of parking fines is to discourage persons from
occupying more than a fair share of existing parking capacity. At the same time, however,
revenues from Ashland Municipal Court adjudications of parking citation appeals arguably
should approximately cover the public costs of such adjudications. Total annual revenues
to the General Fund attributable to Ashland Municipal Court are presently well below the
Page 3 of 4
CITY OF
-ASH LAN D
court's annual operating costs. How much of the shortfall is due to dismissals or reductions
of fines for parking violations - as opposed to other factors - is not known.
g. Consideration: Even a significant increase in the number of parking citations upheld likely
would result in only a small increase in the revenue Ashland receives from parking fines.
In 2014, 11,474 parking citations yielded just $135,000 in revenue to the City. Only 3.7%
of those citations were appealed. Even if none of fines associated with those citations had
been reduced or dismissed -instead of the 80.9% that actually were reduced or dismissed -
the impact on revenue to the City would have been small
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
13. Develop and support land-use and transportation policies to achieve sustainable
development.
13.3 Support alternative transportation choices.
20. Embrace and plan ahead for emerging social trends that might impact the economy and
vitality of the community.
21. Be proactive in using best practices in infrastructure management and modernization.
21.1 Complete downtown parking management and traffic circulation plan.
29. Maintain existing infrastructure and plan for future improvements to meet regulatory
requirements and minimum length-cycle costs.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
N/A
SUGGESTED MOTION:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
• Excerpt from Minutes of April 21, 2015 Regular Business Meeting
• Excerpt from Minutes of May 19, 2015 Regular Business Meeting
• Excerpt from Minutes of June 2, 2015 Regular Business Meeting
• "Ashland Municipal Court Ticket Processing Statistics Per Diamond Parking''
• Draft Ordinance rejected at Second Reading at June 2, 2015 Regular Business Meeting
Page 4 of 4PWA
EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING APRIL 21, 2015
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending Chapter 11.28 to
authorize City Council to establish presumptive parking violation fines by resolution and to
clarify determination of fines for single parking violations and their relationship with other
penalties for parking violations"
City Attorney Dave Lohman explained the first three parking citations was $11 and comprised of $7 fine
and a $4 surcharge to pay for parking improvements, leases, and bonds to pay for parking improvements.
The fine for 15 Minute parking was $15. The fourth citation incurred a $25 penalty. The ordinance
added the $25 penalty after the third parking citation but Diamond Parking did not have the ability to
apply the penalty after three fines. The fifth citation was $50 and the sixth went back to $11. Fines not
paid within 10 days received a $10 penalty, 30 days resulted in a $30 penalty, and a $50 penalty for fines
not paid within 50 days. If an individual took the fourth citation to court and it was dismissed, it went
back to three citations.
The issue came up due to the Downtown Parking and Circulation Committee reviewing how to maximize
the limited capacity for parking and increase turnover to make better use of that capacity. The City of
Medford charged $25 for parking citations. In 2014, Ashland had 11,474 parking citations downtown.
Of those, 419 were appealed to the municipal court, 104 were dismissed, and 235 were reduced to zero.
To date in 2015 there were 73 vehicles with four or more citations. Diamond Parking estimated they
spend 18 hours a month dealing with administrative issues related to appeals.
Mr. Lohman had several goals regarding parking fines. One was reduce violations, increase turnover, and
more fairly share the existing parking capacity downtown. The second goal was clarify who set parking
fines and define the process. The third was correlate references in the two different chapters. A fourth
goal would clarify penalties and fines. A fifth goal would set a legal standard for deviating from
presumptive fines. The legal standard required legal grounds. Municipal Court Judge Pam Turner had
concerns regarding the legal standard and wanted to address Council or staff on the issue.
Mayor Stromberg also spoke to Judge Turner and invited her to come to the next Council meeting when
parking violations were on the agenda and present on the topic for fifteen minutes and in the interim
submit something in writing.
Councilor Marsh/Lemhouse m/s to table the item until the May 5, 2015 meeting. Voice Vote: all
AYES. Motion passed.
EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING MAY 19, 2015
ORDINANCES RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS-continued
1. First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending Chapter 11.29 to
authorize City Council to establish presumptive parking violation fines by resolution"
City Attorney Dave Lohman explained current practice added a $25 penalty if an individual received a
fourth parking violation. At five, the penalty was $50 and not enforced for further violations. The
ordinance stated the fifth violation and any following received a $50 penalty. He proposed Council retain
the ordinance and have the City start imposing the current provision.
Councilor Lemhouse/Seffinger m/s to approve the first reading by title only of an ordinance titled,
"An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11.28 to Authorize City Council to Establish Presumptive
Parking Violation Fines by Resolution," and move to second reading. DISCUSSION: Councilor
Voisin wanted to know who was receiving the multiple violations. Mr. Lohman responded there was not
enough information that determined whether the individual was a city or business employee. Councilor
Marsh thought it was premature to start enforcing standards Council had not discussed. Mr. Lohman
clarified voting yes on the motion would continue the current ordinance provision that required the $50
fine for each violation after the fourth. Council could strike "...for each parking violation they receive
in that year," in Section 11.28.110(A)(2).
Councilor Lemhouse raised a point of clarification and asked whether Council could speak with the Judge
between first and second reading. City Administrator Dave Kanner explained the Judge's schedule
precluded her from meeting with the Council until August 17, 2015.
Councilor Marsh/Seffinger m/s to amend the motion to eliminate the words "...for each parking
violation they receive in that year," from paragraph two, Section 11.28.110(A)(2) and from the
table under Additional Penalty. DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh did not think it was appropriate to
enforce a standard not previously enforced when Council would review the parking fine structure in the
future. Councilor Seffinger was comfortable with the change. Councilor Lemhouse leaned towards
voting against the amendment. Waiting to hear from the Judge in August burdened the City and it was
appropriate to move forward. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Rosenthal, Seffinger, and Marsh, YES;
Councilor Morris, Lemhouse, and Voisin, NO. Mayor Stromberg broke the tie with a NO vote.
Motion failed 4-3.
Roll Call Vote on the main motion: Councilor Morris, Seffinger, Lemhouse, and Voisin, YES;
Councilor Rosenthal and Marsh, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING JUNE 2, 2015
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS_
2. Second reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending Chapter
11.28 to authorize City Council to establish presumptive parking violation fines by
resolution"
City Attorney Dave Lohman explained during first reading of the ordinance Council
removed several comprehensive changes to address them later in the year. The proposed
ordinance would allow Council to set presumptive parking fines by resolution. He noted a
correction to the Council Communication that passing the ordinance would retain the language
regarding the $50 fine for the fifth and all subsequent violations.
Councilor Lemhouse thought Section 11.28.110 (C) allowing the Court to issue a warrant
for arrest was a serious escalation. Mr. Lohman noted the language was old, not enforced, and
would look into it further.
Councilor Morris/Lemhouse m/s to approve the second reading by title only of an ordinance
titled, "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11.28 to Authorize City Council to Establish
Presumptive Parking Violation Fines by Resolution." DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh
would not support the motion. It was inappropriate to begin enforcing laws not previously
enforced when Council would review the parking fine process soon. Councilor Rosenthal
would vote against the motion as well. There was a Study Session August 17, 2015 and he
thought Council could start the process review following the meeting.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Voisin, Morris, YES. Councilor Rosenthal, Marsh,
and Seffinger, NO. Mayor Stromberg broke the tie with a NO vote. Motion failed 4-3.
Ashland Municipal Court Ticket Processing Statistics Per Diamond Parking
Calendar Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Total Citations 10,561 9,588 9,558 8,862 10,244 11,474 3,930
Appealed 640 461 481 420 389 419 163
Upheld 227 157 152 91 71 80 41
Zeroed 255 195 214 190 185 133 85
Dismissed 158 109 115 139 133 104 37
% Appealed 6.1% 4.8% 5.0% 4.7% 3.8% 3.7% 4.1%
% Appealed & Upheld 35.5% 34.1% 31.6% 21.7% 18.3% 19.1% 25.2%
% Appealed Reduced to $0 39.8% 42.3% 44.5% 45.2% 47.6% 31.7% 52.1%
% Appealed & Dismissed 24.7% 23.6% 23.9% 33.1% 34.2% 24.8% 22.7%
0
looi Ashland Municipal Court
90% y
80% Appealed Tickets Disposition
4
70% G
60%
50% l
40%
30%
20%
10%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
0 % Appealed & Upheld ■ % Appealed Reduced to $0 % Appealed & Dismissed r,
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11.28 TO AUTHORIZE
CITY COUNCIL TO ESTABLISH PRESUMPTIVE PARKING
VIOLATION FINES BY RESOLUTION
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are
bold lined through and additions are bold underlined.
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and
common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow
municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those
powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto,
shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall
have perpetual succession.
WHEREAS, penalties for certain cumulative violations of parking-related regulations exist in
multiple chapters of the Ashland Municipal Code.
WHEREAS, the amounts of fines for one-time parking violations are not mentioned in the
Ashland Municipal Code.
WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority to determine the amount of a presumptive fine
for each type of parking violation and can exercise that authority in an expeditious manner by
resolution.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 11.28 Restricted Parking Areas, Section 11.28.080 is hereby amended to
read as follows:
Section 11.28.080 Parking Violation Prohibition
A parking violation is a violation of any parking prohibition, limitation or regulation of the City
of Ashland. A vehicle parked in violation of this chapter or Chapter 11.24 shall have a notice of
violation attached to the vehicles and the owner or operator of the vehicle shall be subject to the
fines and other penalties and surcharges provided in Section 1.08.020 11.24.100 and this
chapter, and may be subject to the impounding of such vehicle as provided in Chapter 11.36. A
person who commits a parking violation may not suffer any disability or legal disadvantage
based upon conviction of a crime.
Ordinance No. Page 1 of 4
SECTION 2. Chapter 11.28 Restricted Parking Areas, Section 11.28.110 Penalties for Parking
Violations; Immobilization, Towing, Show Cause and Warrants is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Section 11.28.110 Penalties for parking violations;., immobilization, towing, show cause
and warrants:
A. Fines
M Presumptive fines for parking violations shall be established by resolution of the
City Council
a. Separate from and in addition to other penalties or charges provided
herein, a presumptive fine is the fine amount imposed against a person
who pleads no contest to or is otherwise found guilty of a violation.
Fines shall include the original ticketed amount as well as any enhanced penalties
and surcharges, includin those set forth in Section 11.24.100 and Section
11.28.120. In addition, a person who commits three or four parking violations in any
calendar year shall pay an additional fine of $25, and a person who commits five or
more parking violations in any calendar year shall pay an additional fine of $50. €er
eneh parking violation they r-eeeive ift that yeaT-.-
Multiple Violation Penalties*
Number of violations Additional Penalty
3 violations $25.00
4 violations in one calendar ear $25.00
5 or more violations in one calendar ear $50.00 `^r- eneh viela
*This table does not include the presumptive fines, enhanced penalties, surcharges, or other fees
authorized under this chapter.
B. Immobilizer (boot) Installation and /or Towing.
(1) When a driver, registered owner, or person in charge of a motor vehicle has either (1)
five or more outstanding unpaid City of Ashland parking violations on any number of
motor vehicles, or (2) a City of Ashland parking violation, or any number of such
violations, with a total unpaid balance that exceeds $250, regardless of the number of
motor vehicles involved, then any police or parking enforcement officer, or
contracted parking enforcement provider of the City is authorized, directed and
empowered to immobilize such a motor vehicle or vehicles found upon a public street
or city off-street parking lot by installing on or attaching to the motor vehicle a device
designed to restrict the normal movement of the vehicle. In the alternative, or in
addition to immobilization, after 24 hours has elapsed, any police or parking
enforcement officer or contracted parking enforcement provider of the City is
authorized, directed and empowered to order such vehicle towed, by a licensed tow
company under contract with the City or the City' s contracted parking enforcement
service provider, as applicable.
Ordinance No. Page 2 of 4
(2) For purposes of this section, bail or fine shall be outstanding on a citation when the
citation is issued and shall remain outstanding until the bail is posted or the fine is
paid.
(3) Ten days before immobilizing or towing a vehicle according to the provisions of this
section, the City, or the City' s contracted parking enforcement service provider shall
place a notice on the vehicle or mail a notice by certified mail, return receipt
requested, to the registered owner of such vehicle as shown by the records of the
Oregon Motor Vehicles Division notifying the owner that the motor vehicle or
vehicles may be immobilized and/or towed ten days after the date of mailing the
notice herein for failure to pay outstanding parking bail or fines.
(4) If the vehicle is so immobilized, the person who installs or attaches the device shall
conspicuously affix to the vehicle a written notice on a form approved by the city,
advising the owner, driver, or person in charge of the vehicle that it has been
immobilized pursuant to this section and that release of the vehicle may be obtained
upon full payment of the outstanding balance owed to the contracted parking
enforcement service provider. The notice shall also specify that the vehicle is subject
to tow.
(5) In the event the vehicle is towed, the person who orders the tow, shall send by
certified mail, return receipt requested, a notice advising the registered owner of the
vehicle that it has been towed pursuant to this section and that release of the vehicle
may be obtained upon receipt by the towing company of full payment of the
outstanding balance owed.
(6) A vehicle towed and impounded pursuant to this section shall be held at the expense
of the owner or person entitled to possession of the vehicle. Personnel, equipment and
facilities of private tow companies under contract with the City or the contracted
parking enforcement service provider may be used for the removal and storage of the
vehicle.
C. Warning Letter, Show Cause, and Warrants.
(1) Warning Letter. The Ashland Municipal Court may choose to send a warning letter by
first class mail informing the defendant they have outstanding parking tickets and that
their attendance is necessary at a preliminary hearing before issuing a show cause
order and warrant.
(2) Show Cause. The Ashland Municipal Court may issue an order that requires the
defendant to appear and show cause why the defendant should not be held in
contempt of court, including contempt for failure to appear as ordered or failure to
comply. The show cause order shall be mailed to the defendant by certified mail,
return receipt requested, no less than ten days prior to the appearance date;
alternatively service may be made by any other recognized method, such as personal
service according to the same timeframe.
(3) Warrant. If the defendant is served and fails to appear at the time specified in the
show cause order, the court may issue an arrest warrant for the defendant for the
purpose of bringing the defendant before the court.
SECTION 3. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence
at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced, shall remain valid and in
full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said
Ordinance No. Page 3 of 4
ordinances(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing
situation that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions commenced and
continued under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed.
SECTION 4. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance
are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the
validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
SECTION 5. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code,
and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and
the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or re-lettered, provided however, that any
Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, i.e., Sections 3-5 need not be codified, and the City
Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 12015,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2015.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2015.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David H. Lohman, City Attorney
Ordinance No. Page 4 of 4