PERMISSIBLE USES OF THE PARKING METER FUND

Home Browse Search

Opinion No. 74-21 Page Three It appears, however, that it would be legal to place parking meter funds, in the general fund, provided that in • placing the monies in the general fund, the monies are earmarked for .the purposes specified in S.A.h1.C. Section 36-406. By placing the monies in the general fund, you could thereby re- lease an equivalent amount of general fund monies, that would ' otherwise be expended for the purposes specified in S.A.M.C. Section 36-406, and loan that equivalent sum to the Community Redevelopment P,gency. It is recommended, however, that if this is.done, that it be authorized by a City Council resolution, or be provided for in the City budget ordinance. The next question, is whether or not we may amend S.A.M.C. Section 36-406, to allow use of the parking meter fund for the purposes of making a loan to the Community Redev- elopment Agency for general purposes. There is no California law on this question; however, legal writers have interpreted the dictum contained in De Aryan v. City of San Die o (170 P2d 482) (1946) as an indication that the California Courts would hold that parking meter funds must be used for purpcses substantially related to the overall problem of traffic regulation and control. 35 CLR 235, Marion Allen Grimes, "The Legality of Parking Meter Ordinances and Permissible Use of Parking Meter Funds". The De Aryan case simply held that because a San Diego City ordinance restricted the use of parking meter funds for traffic regulation purposes, that thereby the City of San Diego could expend those -funds only for the purposes so indicated. It did not hold that a City may not .enact a parking meter fund ordinance to provide for use of the funds for other than traffic regulation purposes. Therefore, it is simply Mr. Grimes opinion that parking meter funds may not be used for any other purposes. In the absence of more conclusive authority, we would agree with Mr. Grimes' opinion that a parking meter fund ordinance may not be expanded to allow use of its monies for purposes other than traffic regulation. However, inasmuch as the question has not been definitively decided by any California court, and inasmuch as there is no State statute. presently prohi- biting the same, an ordinance adopting the same could not be so quickly condemned. We know of no cities that have expanded the use of their parking meter funds, nor is the California League aware of any cities that have done so. If such an ordinance were adopted, allowing the lending of parking meter funds to the Commun- ity Redevelopment Agency, in our opinion it would be prudent to -61-