Monday, January 29, 2007

Where the parking money is supposed to go

Rob,

Just caught up on your blog. That's excellent that you've reported the huge revenue from parking in SF. You might want to take a look at the SF Traffic Code, section 213, which the City is in flagrant violation of. It says that they have to spend the money they take in from their $3.00/hour meters, garages, etc., for "acquisition, construction, completion or leasing of public parking lots, storage space, garages, single- or multi-level structures, and other off-street parking facilities on, under, or above the surface of any property, including public parks, squares [etc.] for the accommodation of automotive vehicles, and necessary or conveninent for parking facilities to relieve congestion..."

Under section 213(b) They (DPT) are supposed to deposit the booty into a special fund called the "Parking Meter Revenue Account."

Where they collect the dough from off-street sources, they (DPT) are supposed to deposit it into a fund called the "Off-Street Parking Revenue Account."

Under section 213(c), the "Parking Meter Revenue Account" is supposed to be expended: (i) to pay for any indebtedness for "construction, acquisition and/or equipping of any off-steet parking facilities; (ii) to the General Fund in the amount of $7,600,000.
IN SHORT, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO USE THIS MONEY TO PAY FOR NEW PARKING FACILITIES.

Under section 213(d) the money in the "Off-Street Parking Revenue Account" has to be spent in the following priority: (1) for "acquisition, construction, completion or leasing of public parking lots, storage space, garages... and other off-streeet parking facilities...for the accommodation of automotive vehicles"; (2) "Payment of the costs of engineering and related studies and surveys"; (3) "payment of costs, operation and maintenance of parking faiclities and related structures hereafter acquired or constructed..."; (4) "the sole pedge for the servicing of past or future indebtedness incurred by the issuance of bonds or other instruments by or on behalf of the City and County of San Francsico for the acquisition, construction and completion of off-street parking facilities"; (5) "the sole additional pledge augmenting a pledge of revenue from off-streeet parking faclities for the servicing of past or future indebtedness incurred by the issuance of revenue bonds or the revenue instruments by or on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco for the acquisition, construction and completion of off-street parking facilities; payment of the costs of engineering and construction of on-street parking bays in parking meter districts within neighborhood commercial districts by sidewalk narrowing afer adoption of appropriate legislation by the Board of Supervisors"; (6) "payment of the administrative and operating expenses of the Department of Parking and Traffic, the Parking and Traffic Commission and the Parking Authority"; (7) "payment to the General fund, for traffic regulation and control, of amounts remaining in said special fund after making provision for the requirements under (1) - (7) above.
THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH MESSING AROUND WITH THIS FUND BUT THE PRIORITY IS SUPPOSED TO BE SPENDING THE DOUGH FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC PARKING.

Under section 213(e) they can jerk around with the definition of "net revenue" by deducting "maintenance and operation costs," which include "salaries and wages, fees for services, costs of materials, supplies and fuel, reasonable expenses of management, legal fees, accounting fees, repairs and othe expenses necessary to maintain and preserve the facility in good repair and working order, and reasonable amounts for administration, overhead, insurance, taxes (if any), and other similar costs..."

I wonder when the last time was that they actually did spend a penny of the huge amount they get on acquisition, construction, completion or leasing of public parking facilities.

Maybe a PRA request is overdue on this whole thing.

Labels: ,

4 Comments:

At 10:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are too many parking lots as it is.

 
At 11:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rob,

You might consider attributing the letter.

 
At 1:43 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

I've already considered it. The writer doesn't want his name used.

 
At 3:35 PM, Anonymous jaybee said...

What do they spend the money on?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home