Speaking of old business ... At 2 today, the city council's Transportation and Environment Committee will yet again take up the business of how to regulate parking-lot owners who wanna boot patrons who they claim ain't paid up. Seems months of meetings and complaints from Deep Ellum and downtown patrons and business owners still hasn't resulted in a clear option for the council, which is why the City Attorney's Office has drafted two versions of the ordinance -- one with and one without video auditing. You can read 'em both here, or just skim this summary in advance of an anticipated August 24 vote by the full council. Or maybe not.
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.
