HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 14 Correspondence from Al Peterson w Staff Response
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 9/27/2017
To: Gino Grimaldi COMMUNICATION
From: Courtney Griesel, Economic Development Mgr PACKET
Subject: Downtown Parking Program Structure MEMORANDUM
INFORMATION SHARE:
On July 25th, 2017, Mr. Al Peterson provided a letter (Attachment 1) to Republic Parking
Northwest, copying City Council and the City Manager’s Office. Mr. Peterson received a parking
citation for parking outside of posted restrictions (specifically, 2 Hour Time Expired) which he
did not dispute. This was Mr. Peterson’s first, and only to date, ticket issued by the Downtown
Parking Program.
Mr. Peterson identified two specific areas for concern; the lack of employee
name/identification stated on the citation and a question related to process for presenting
‘legal challenge’ to the ticket. Both questions are addressed in this memo and the Council
approved administrative structure of the Downtown Springfield Parking Program, which is
allowed under Oregon Revised Statute 153.030 (Attachment 2).
Employee Identification
At the time of Mr. Peterson’s citation, a unique employee identifier was not provided on the
citation. The Downtown program employs lean staffing and location monitored technology,
both contributing to other, non-ticket displayed, means for constant management awareness
of staff location during enforcement hours. While we utilize these methods, and it is not
required to display an employee name on a citation, the decision was made out of best practice
to update the display on a citation, as Mr. Peterson recommends, reflecting a unique employee
identifier. For the safety of our enforcement staff, we have recommended to Republic Parking
Northwest that citations not display employee names, instead utilizing employee numbers.
Administrative vs Judicial
Mr. Peterson’s reference assumes the Downtown Parking Program to be judicial, which it is
not. Instead, the City of Springfield has intentionally crafted a program, with guidance and case
law to substantiate the decisions, which provides a constitutionally sufficient process for
administratively administering and contesting a citation, therefore non-judicial. This was done
for two main reasons;
(1) To provide a less stressful experience for citizens when contesting a ticket, removing a
requirement to attend traffic/parking/regular court and/or stand in line at the courts
counter.
(2) To remove court costs and decrease the administrative costs of reviewing citation
appeals, therefore decreasing ticket costs and overall costs associated with
adjudicating contested citations.
A parker may utilize a judicial process, should they prefer, but only after first using the
administrative process. Should a parker/citizen choose to pursue an appeal through the judicial
process, they do so at their own cost and burden, as the program provides the administrative
alternative.
Current Administrative Process
MEMORANDUM 9/28/2017 Page 2
In the interest of efficient adjudication of parking enforcement matters, the City provides a
process allowing for either an administrative review or a judicial hearing on parking citations. A
citizen is, per the citation, directed first to follow the City’s legally established process, which
includes making a written request to the City on the form which the City provides for such
purposes. This form can be accessed online, by phone or in person at the downtown parking
office. These locations are provided on the citation. The City has provided parking staff limited
flexibility in making exceptions and/or waiving citations, working instead to consistently follow
the process established by ordinance.
If a citizen is not satisfied with the result of parking staff’s review, they may file an additional
appeal which will be forwarded to the City Manager’s Office, specifically the City Manager’s
designee which is currently myself. Should the citizen not be satisfied with the result of CMO
office review, they may elect to forgo the administrative review decision and pursue citation
into municipal court. Once filed into municipal court, the municipal judge’s decision on the
matter is the City’s final decision. Should the judge find in favor of the parking program
issuance of the citation, the citizen bears the court costs and paying the originally issued
citation and will be unable to later file an administrative appeal of the citation.
From the program’s inception in 2015, no citation has been appealed beyond the City
Manager’s Office and fewer than 20 citations have been appealed to the City Manager’s Office,
with the last received in March of 2017.
Remedy
As this was Mr. Peterson’s first, and only, citation in Downtown Springfield, he was responded
to by parking staff within a week of receiving his citation and notified that his citation had been
waived. Additionally, this memo/information has been provided to Mr. Peterson. We continue
to welcome feedback, like Mr. Peterson’s, as it helps us continue to improve upon the
program, in this case providing an opportunity to improve communication on the citation
regarding identification of enforcement staff.
8/30/2016 ORS 153.030 Applicability 2015 Oregon Revised Statutes
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/153.030 1/2
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
2015 ORS § 153.030¹
Applicability
• statute of limitations
The procedures provided for in this chapter apply to violations described in ORS 153.008
(Violations described). Except as specifically provided in this chapter, the criminal
procedure laws of this state applicable to crimes also apply to violations.
Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, ORS 153.633 (Distribution to state) and all
other provisions of this chapter and of the criminal procedure laws of this state do not
apply to violations that govern the parking of vehicles and that are created by ordinance or
by agency rule.
The statute of limitations for proceedings under this chapter is as provided in ORS
131.125 (Time limitations).
This chapter does not affect the ability of a city described in ORS 3.136 (Jurisdiction over
violations of Portland charter and ordinances) (1) to engage in the activities described in
ORS 3.136 (Jurisdiction over violations of Portland charter and ordinances) (3). Nothing in
this chapter affects the ability of any other political subdivision of this state to provide for
the administrative enforcement of the charter, ordinances, rules and regulations of the
political subdivision, including enforcement through imposition of monetary penalties.
Except for ordinances governing the parking of vehicles, administrative enforcement as
described in this subsection may not be used for any prohibition designated as an
offense.
Nothing in this chapter affects the ability of any political subdivision of this state to
establish rules relating to administrative enforcement as described in subsection (4) of
this section, including rules providing for the use of citations or other procedures for
initiating administrative enforcement proceedings.
Nothing in this chapter affects the ability of any political subdivision of this state to
conduct hearings for administrative enforcement as described in subsection (4) of this
section, either before a hearing officer or before the governing body of the political
subdivision.
Nothing in this chapter affects the ability of any political subdivision to bring a civil action
to enforce the charter, ordinances, rules and regulations of the political subdivision, or to
bring a civil action to enforce any order for administrative enforcement as described in
subsection (4) of this section.
Nothing in ORS 153.042 (Citations) affects the authority of any political subdivision of this
state to provide for issuance of citations for violation of offenses created by ordinance on
the same basis as the political subdivision could under the law in effect immediately
before January 1, 2000. [1999 c.1051 §7; 2011 c.597 §111a; 2012 c.89 §3]
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 2
8/30/2016 ORS 153.030 Applicability 2015 Oregon Revised Statutes
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/153.030 2/2
• • •
Notes of Decisions
Statutory speedy trial pro vi sion (former ORS 135.747) is part of crim i nal pro ce dure laws
made applicable to viola tions by this sec tion. State v. Greenlick, 210 Or App 662, 152 P3d
971 (2007)
1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 153—Violations and Fines, https:// www. oregonlegislature. gov/
bills_laws/ ors/ ors153. html (2015) (last ac cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat utes, Cumulative Supplement 2015,
Chapter 153, https:// www. oregonlegislature. gov/ bills_laws/ ors/ ano153. html (2015) (last ac cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to
the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been
apparent.
by Robb Shecter, robb@oregonlaws.org
www.oregonlaws.org
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 2