SUPPORTS ITEM NO. 2
CS&B AGENDA
FEBRUARY 20, 1997
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Date: February 10, 1997
C.C. File No. 5650-1
TO: Standing Committee of Council on City Services and
Budgets
FROM: General Manager of Engineering Services
SUBJECT: Re-issuing of Meter Checkers' Tickets
RECOMMENDATION
THAT staff report back on the effectiveness of a change in
impound authorization procedures following completion of the
current trial procedure.
COUNCIL POLICY
Council has created a Parking Enforcement Program and approves the
staffing and budgets of that program.
BACKGROUND
At a recent public meeting on the budget, one delegation spoke of
the inefficiencies caused by the fact that Parking Checkers must
re-issue tow-away tickets originally issued by Meter Checkers. It
has been variously stated that the cost to the City is $750,000 or
$1 million per year. The speaker, a now-retired civic employee,
had previously won an award for a suggested change.
Original Situation
When the Parking Enforcement Program was originally created in
1976, Meter Checkers dealt only with parking meters. They operated
on foot and did not have tow-away authority.
Subsequently, the scope of the program was expanded by creating the
position of Parking Checker in 1982. These individuals are more
highly trained, operate vehicles, and have discretion to enforce a
wide variety of offences, including tow-aways. Because of the
extra responsibilities, these positions receive additional salary.
Although the branch has expanded and now operates on foot, bicycle,
wheelchair, transit and automobile, the original distinction of two
levels of checkers has persisted.
The Inneficiency
From time to time, a Meter Checker may encounter a vehicle
requiring tow-away, for example in a bus zone. The vehicle can be
ticketed, but a Parking Checker must be called to re-issue the
ticket and authorize the tow-away. This is the source of the
inefficiency identified by the delegation.
-2-
The speaker proposed that the Meter Checkers be given impound
authority, indicated that the procedure costs the City $750,000 per
year, and complained that nothing had been done to implement the
situation.
The inefficiency is real and is a source of concern. However, the
reality of the situation differs in two important aspects:
1. the cost to the City is not $750,000 per year. By the end of
1995, parking Checkers were being called to re-issue 4,000
Meter Checker tickets annually (about 1% of all tickets) at a
potential loss in revenue of up to $80,000, assuming the
Checker would have written other tickets. Offsetting this
would be the annual cost to the City if all Meter Checkers
were reclassified to Parking Checkers, which would be $50,000.
Thus, the net cost of the inefficiency was perhaps $30,000 in
potential fine revenue. However, staff suggest that the
stronger reason for a change is to provide better service to
the public, with fewer delays.
2. the suggestion has been pursued. It was delayed, partly
because of the job action by the Checkers through 1994 and
1995. However, on September 1, 1996, the Parking Enforcement
Branch, in agreement with CUPE Local 15 and the Meter Checkers
within the Branch, commenced a trial program in which Meter
Checkers have had the authority to issue tow-away notices in
rush routes only. As part of this trial, the new flex-hours
provision of the contract has been used to extend hours of
operation. This has had a greater benefit to ticket revenue
than the re-ticketing issue.
RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE
The trial program now underway will be complete shortly. Following
that, staff will be in a position to provide more detailed
assessment of the effectiveness of a permanent change in
procedures. In addition, there needs to be further consultation
with employees, and their Union representatives, concerning
potential changes to the Meter Checker job description and
classification.
In conclusion, it must be stressed that the 4,000 Parking Checker
re-issued tickets in 1995 represent only 1% of the work of the
Parking Enforcement Branch and, based on the entire Parking
Enforcement budget, 1% of the operating costs represents only
$42,000 per year. This should clearly show that the figures
presented at a recent citizens' forum were inaccurate. However,
the award for the suggestion is still valid, regardless of cost
saving to the City, because of improved service to the public.
This suggestion, along with others, is being pursued as part of our
continual program for operations improvement.
* * * * *