One Way or Another, the City Council Will Put a (Parking) Boot On Your Ass
The primary point of contention regarding the proposed regulation is whether a parking lot operator that wants to utilize booting as an enforcement tool should be (1) required to provide a receipt for payment either from an attendant or an electronic pay station, or (2) allowed to use a video audit procedure as documentation when full payment has not been provided. Based on prior Committee discussion regarding this point, staff has prepared two draft versions of an ordinance implementing this regulation:We'll tell you which one they're going with after the meeting. And we'll also let you know which second light-rail transit alignment the council's leaning toward downtown. Though we can guess.
- Version 1 -- Without Video Audit Expiration. This version requires either a parking fee receipt or a video audit procedure in order for a parking lot owner to use booting as an enforcement tool.
- Version 2 -- With Video Audit Expiration. This version is identical to Version 1 except that it would cause the video audit procedure option to expire on April 15, 2010 (Section 48C-38(d) -- Page 29). Therefore, after that date, the ordinance would require a parking fee receipt in order for a parking lot owner to use booting.