Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Placerville updates parking fines and Main Street banner fee to better cover program costs
Summary
Council approved changes to the master parking citation schedule — correcting a typographical error and removing an inapplicable railroad item — and also raised the Main Street banner fee to $388.50 to cover program staffing and installation costs.
Get email alerts on the Municipal Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Placerville City Council approved updates May 10 to parking citation fines and raised the Main Street banner program fee to $388.50, citing cost-recovery needs.
Natalie Torasa, presenting the proposed parking schedule, said the master parking citation fine schedule had not been updated since 2010 and that the recommended $29-per-citation increase would generate about $7,000 for the downtown parking program. She also noted a typographical error on an attachment (it should read parking within 15 feet of a fire hydrant, not 15 inches) and staff recommended removing a citation tied to railroad tracks because the city has no railroad tracks within its limits.
Resident Sue Rodman urged larger fines for hazardous parking — blocking intersections, fire lanes and crosswalks — arguing those infractions should carry higher penalties to deter dangerous behavior. Councilmembers discussed legal nexus between fines and enforcement costs and noted some penalties can bring court costs or additional charges.
The council approved the edited citation schedule by roll call, with members supporting correction of the hydrant distance and removal of the inapplicable railroad item.
Separately, Mr. Nijihara presented the Main Street banner program fee increase, explaining the $200 fee had not kept pace with program costs and that the new $388.50 charge is intended to recover contractor and staff costs for banner installation and maintenance. A public question asked how frequently the fee would be revisited; staff said annual cost and program reviews typically inform future adjustments and do not anticipate repeated large increases.
Both fee actions passed on roll call votes.

