City of Beacon

Parking Violations Enforcement - Executive Summary

The City of Beacon (City) issues parking tickets for parking violations pursuant to the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law (Law). Any individual who receives a parking ticket may settle the ticket by paying the designated fine within 30 days of the date of the ticket. After 30 days the amount of the fine doubles. After 60 days an additional $10 penalty is assessed. Individuals may choose to protest the ticket. Failure to respond to the ticket results in initiation of the City’s enforcement procedures which include sending out collection letters, assessing penalties, filing judgments against violators and participating in the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Parking Scofflaw Program.

In September 1990, the City entered into an agreement with an independent contractor (Contractor) for the processing of parking tickets and enforcement of unpaid tickets. The Contractor is responsible for, among other things, entering parking tickets on the Contractor’s computer database and processing all current and outstanding parking tickets. Processing includes mailing collection letters, assessing penalties, filing judgments against violators, and reporting scofflaws to the DMV. The City is charged 30 percent of the total revenue collected plus the cost of reporting scofflaws to the DMV. The City issued about 1,700 parking tickets and reported parking violation fine revenue of approximately $44,000 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, the City issued about 1,300 tickets and reported approximately $30,000 in fine revenue.

Scope and Objective

The objective of our audit was to determine the effectiveness of the City’s parking ticket enforcement activities. Our audit addressed the following related question for the period January 1, 2003 through December 21, 2005:

• Is the City properly accounting for all parking tickets and pursuing collection of all tickets issued?

Audit Results

The City has not properly accounted for all the tickets issued, or pursued the collection of all fines and fees due because City officials do not adequately monitor the City’s parking violations operation. City officials have not established comprehensive written policies and procedures to govern and direct the processing and enforcement of parking violations, including procedures for monitoring the Contractor’s performance.

The City needs to improve its procedures for collecting and enforcing parking violation tickets. We found that the City’s collection rates fall below 85 percent, the recognized benchmark of an effective collection system. The City collected only 72 percent of the parking tickets issued in 2003, and 67 percent of the parking tickets issued in 2004. Had the City achieved the 85 percent collection rate, the City would have realized additional revenue totaling $10,183 and $6,494 for the 2003 and 2004 years, respectively. Additionally, we found the Contractor does not mail collection letters, assess late penalties, file judgments and register applicable scofflaws in accordance with the City’s ordinance, and as set forth in its contract with the City.

City officials do not adequately account for stocks of parking violation tickets. We found the City does not maintain an inventory control record, use ticket books in sequential order or properly restrict access to the ticket book inventory. Further, the City does not retain a copy of the issued tickets (or any other information) sent to the Contractor for processing. Without a copy of the issued tickets, City officials cannot verify the Contractor has processed tickets accurately, or use reconciliation procedures to ensure all parking violation tickets are accounted for.

We found the Contractor recorded tickets as dismissed without evidence the Court authorized the dismissals. The City does not require its Contractor to retain the transmittal form to allow Contractor or City personnel to readily verify such authorization. Without such documentation, there is an increased risk that unauthorized ticket dismissals and fine reductions will occur and the City will lose revenue. Also, we noted that the City imposes a mandatory surcharge on handicapped parking violations, as allowed by the Law. However, the City has not complied with the Law’s requirements that a portion of the surcharge be remitted to the County, and that the City’s share be used for local criminal justice or disability awareness programs.

Comments of Local Officials

The results of our audit and recommendations have been discussed with City officials and their comments, which appear in Appendix A, have been considered in preparing this report. City officials generally agreed with our recommendations and indicated they plan to initiate corrective action.