No. 01-1103
California Attorney General Opinion No. 01-1103
Cite as Cal. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 01-1103
01-1103
1
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
State of California
BILL LOCKYER
Attorney General
OPINION
of
BILL LOCKYER
Attorney General
GREGORY L. GONOT
Deputy Attorney General
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
No. 01-1103
April 23, 2002
THE HONORABLE LOUIS B. GREEN, COUNTY COUNSEL, COUNTY
OF EL DORADO, has requested an opinion on the following question:
May a general law city enter into a contract with a private security company
authorizing the company’s employees to issue citations for Vehicle Code parking violations?
CONCLUSION
A general law city may not enter into a contract with a private security
company authorizing the company’s employees to issue citations for Vehicle Code parking
violations.
1 The security company is licensed as a private patrol operator by the Department of Consumer
Affairs. (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 7583-7583.45.)
2 All references hereafter to the Vehicle Code are by section number only.
3 For purposes of this opinion, “citation” means a notice of parking violation. (§ 41601.)
01-1103
2
ANALYSIS
A general law city is considering whether to contract with a private security
company1 to have the company’s employees patrol the city’s parking lots during the summer
months. The contract would specify that the company’s employees would use the ticket
books of the city’s police department to issue citations for Vehicle Code parking violations.
The city’s own employees have previously been issuing the citations, and it is hoped that
contracting with the company will be less costly and allow better use of the city’s resources.
We conclude that the city may not contract with the security company for the performance
of these particular services.
Vehicle code section 402022 governs the issuance of a citation3 for a parking
violation:
“(a) If a vehicle is unattended during the time of the violation, the
peace officer or person authorized to enforce parking laws and regulations
shall securely attach to the vehicle a notice of parking violation setting forth
the violation, including reference to the section of this code or of the Public
Resources Code, the local ordinance, or the federal statute or regulation so
violated; the date; the approximate time thereof; the location where the
violation occurred; a statement printed on the notice indicating that the date of
payment is required to be made not later than 21 calendar days from the date
of citation issuance; and the procedure for the registered owner, lessee, or
rentee to deposit the parking penalty or, pursuant to Section 40215, contest the
citation . . . .
“(b) The notice of parking violation shall be served by attaching it to
the vehicle either under the windshield wiper or in another conspicuous place
upon the vehicle so as to be easily observed by the person in charge of the
vehicle upon the return of that person.
4 The Legislature has authorized the use of members of a “special enforcement unit” to issue
citations primarily for disabled parking violations, but such members are directly employed by the local
agency. (§ 22507.9)
01-1103
3
“(c) Once the issuing officer has prepared the notice of parking
violation and has attached it to the vehicle as provided in subdivisions (a) and
(b), the officer shall file the notice with the processing agency. . . .
“. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .”
Subdivision (a) of section 40202 indicates that parking citations may be issued by “the peace
officer or person authorized to enforce parking laws and regulations,” who is described as
the “issuing officer” (§ 40202, subd. (c)). In 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 719 (1980), we
determined that a city need not use its peace officers but may authorize its other employees
to issue citations for parking violations. Our 1980 opinion, however, did not consider
whether a city may contract to use a private company’s employees to enforce its parking
regulations.
The Legislature has expressly authorized cities to contract with private
companies to process parking citations. Subdivision (a) of section 40200.5 states in part:
“[A]n issuing agency may elect to contract with the county, with a private vendor . . . for the
processing of notices of parking violations and notices of delinquent parking violations . . . .”
(See Lockheed Information Management Services Co. v. City of Inglewood (1998) 17 Cal.4th
170, 173, 185.) Processing, however, takes place after issuance of the citation (id. at pp. 193,
197-198), and no specific authority has been given to cities to have the employees of private
companies issue parking citations. Is express statutory authority required?
General law cities have the authority to contract with private parties as
expressly granted by the Constitution or by the Legislature or as necessarily implied from
such expressly granted powers. (See Service Employees Internat. Union v. Board of Trustees
(1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1661, 1665-1666; City of Lomita v. Superior Court (1986) 186
Cal.App.3d 479, 481-482; City of Lomita v. County of Los Angeles (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d
671, 673-674; Carruth v. City of Madera (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 688, 695; 68
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 175, 178-179 (1985); 10 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3d ed.
1990) § 29.05, p. 263.) While no specific authority allows a city to use the employees of a
private company to enforce its parking regulations,4 the Legislature has authorized cities to
contract for “special services” under the terms of Government Code section 37103:
5 Government Code section 31000 grants similar authority to counties.
01-1103
4
“The legislative body may contract with any specially trained and
experienced person, firm, or corporation for special services and advice in
financial, economic, accounting, engineering, legal, or administrative matters.
“It may pay such compensation to these experts as it deems proper.”5
Another general grant of authority to cities to contract for “special services” is contained in
Government Code section 53060:
“The legislative body of any public or municipal corporation or district
may contract with and employ any persons for the furnishing to the corporation
or district special services and advice in financial, economic, accounting,
engineering, legal, or administrative matters if such persons are specially
trained and experienced and competent to perform the special services
required.
“The authority herein given to contract shall include the right of the
legislative body of the corporation or district to contract for the issuance and
preparation of payroll checks.
“The legislative body of the corporation or district may pay from any
available funds such compensation to such persons as it deems proper for the
services rendered.”
We believe issuing parking citations cannot reasonably be considered the
furnishing of “special services” for purposes of Government Code sections 37103 or 53060.
The test for determining whether services are “special services” depends on “the nature of
the services; the necessary qualifications required of a person furnishing the services; and the
availability of the service from public sources.” (California Sch. Employees Assn. v.
Sunnyvale Elementary Sch. Dist. (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 46, 60; see Service Employees
Internat. Union v. Board of Trustees, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p. 1673; Darley v. Ward
(1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 614, 627; Jaynes v. Stockton (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 47, 51-52.)
Services may be special because of the outstanding skill or expertise of the person furnishing
them. (Kennedy v. Ross (1946) 28 Cal.2d 569, 574.)
We see nothing “special” in issuing parking citations. These services are
dissimilar from those judicially recognized as special services, such as hospital management
(Darley v. Ward, supra, 136 Cal.App.3d 614), research and development (California Sch.
01-1103
5
Employees Assn. v. Sunnyvale Elementary Sch. Dist., supra, 36 Cal.App.3d 46), criminal law
prosecution (Montgomery v. Superior Court (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 657), and bookstore
management (Service Employees Internat. Union v. Board of Trustees, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th
1661). The employees of the city in question have been issuing parking citations and may
continue to do so without “experts” having to undertake these services that are commonly
performed as a municipal function.
No other constitutional or statutory provision requires examination to
determine whether a city has an express grant of authority to contract with a private company
to obtain parking regulation enforcement. Moreover, issuing parking citations cannot
reasonably be considered as the type of service that by implication may be contracted out to
a private party. Rather, it is for the Legislature to determine whether a city should be allowed
to use private employees to issue parking citations, just as it has considered (and granted) the
authority of a city to contract for parking citation processing services.
We conclude that a general law city may not enter into a contract with a private
security company authorizing the company’s employees to issue citations for Vehicle Code
parking violations.
*****