AGENDA #6

memorandum

to:

Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager

from:

Brian Curran, Chief of Police

Lt. Kevin Gunter, Public Information Officer

Terrie Gale, Police Attorney

subject:

Towing from Private Lots

date:

March 3, 2008

INTRODUCTION

The Town Council received a petition at its November 7, 2007 meeting concerning the Town ordinance which regulates towing from private property within Town zoning districts TC-1, TC-2, and TC-3, (Chapter 11, Article XIX, Sections 11-301 through 11-304 of the Town Code).  The Town Council held a public hearing on February 11, 2008, on proposed amendments to this ordinance which would regulate towing fees, require reporting of towed vehicles to the Police Department, and specify procedures for release prior to tow.  We recommend that the Council enact the attached ordinance.

DISCUSSION

Several questions and concerns were expressed during the February 11, 2008 public hearing.  Each issue is discussed below. 

 

1.   Council members wanted examples of confrontational incidents occurring in towing situations.

    1. A woman with two children requested police response after she alleged that the tow operator threatened to tow away her vehicle with her children inside.
    2. A man called police after he was told he owed $50 for the release of his car, which had not been hooked to the tow truck. The man proceeded to walk across the street to use the telephone and when he returned moments later he was told by the tow operator that now he owed $100.00.  
    3. A number of verbal disputes, sometimes escalating into violent behavior, have required police intervention and sometimes resulted in criminal charges of assault.
    4. Police have had to respond to numerous disputes where the driver arrived before the tow operator had touched the vehicle, but was still charged full price.  Officers find themselves thrust into difficult situations attempting to mediate issues such as fees, which are beyond their control.

 

Staff Comment:  The incidents of verbal and physical confrontation and inconsistent fee demands provide a strong rationale for regulation of the procedures and the pricing of towing from private property. Such regulation should help ensure that when drivers and tow operators are dealing with each other, each will have clear notice of what to expect, and will be assured that their interactions are lawful and consistent with other transactions in similar circumstances.

 

2.    A Council member requested more information concerning local tow fees currently being charged by area tow truck operators.  This information was to include maximum fees for tows and for the return of a vehicle which has not been moved but has been hooked up to the tow truck (“drop fee”):  The draft amendment to the ordinance presented at the public hearing would provide for an all-inclusive maximum tow fee of $100, and a maximum fee of $50 for the unhooking of a vehicle which has not been moved from the parking lot.

Staff Comment:   We believe the proposed fees are reasonable.  Tow operators who contract with the Town to remove vehicles in response to police requests (for example, when a vehicle is blocking a street), receives $100 per tow.  The City of Raleigh ordinance on towing from private property similarly includes a maximum of $100.  The City of Charlotte ordinance on towing from private property includes a maximum of $120 (but also includes a lower maximum fee for storage than does either our proposal or the Raleigh ordinance). A survey of Chapel Hill tow operators revealed the following:

  1. Of the operators surveyed, two currently charge the proposed rate of $100.00 to tow and $50.00 to drop the vehicle (when driver returns and the tow operator releases the hooked vehicle).  
  2. Three operators charge $150.00 to tow, and two of the three advised they charge half or $75.00 to drop.  The third charges $100.00 to drop a vehicle.
  3. Two of the operators contacted stated that the amount of their fees really depended on the attitude of the returning motorist.
  4. One tow operator stated that he charges $160.00 for the tow and the same to drop the vehicle.

Tow operators have the option of petitioning the council for higher fees should they feel that an adjustment is needed in the future.

In addition, we believe that the exception in the proposed amendment to the maximum fee for vehicles weighing more than two tons should be eliminated as potentially confusing and as largely irrelevant to the problem of unauthorized parking in the town center area.  The attached proposed amendment does not include that exception.

 

3.    A Council member questioned whether a fee may be imposed when a tow truck has arrived at the location of a parked vehicle, but has not yet hooked the tow truck to the vehicle when the driver arrives.   The proposed amendment would not allow that a fee be charged in these circumstances.

Staff Comment:  Tow operators acting pursuant to this ordinance typically are not traveling significant distances to deal with a vehicle in a downtown private lot.  If they had to come some distance, it would be appropriate to allow them to charge a fee for simply arriving at a lot. Instead, they usually are already present in the Town Center districts of Chapel Hill. 

 

4.    A Council member asked if an additional fee for late hours would be reasonable.  The proposed draft amendment states that the towing fee would be all-inclusive, and thus it would not allow for an additional fee for late hours.

 

Staff Comment:  The great majority of towing pursuant to this ordinance is conducted in the evening and late night hours, after the Town center businesses whose private lots are subject to this ordinance have been closed.  Late night hours are the normal hours for most of the towing, and therefore an additional fee does not appear to be reasonable.

 

5.    Council members requested more information concerning forms of payment and the impact that these payment options would have on the individuals being towed and the tow truck operators.  The draft amendment presented at the public hearing would allow payment of towing charges to be made by cash, debit card, or major national credit card at no extra cost. 

Staff Comment:  There are arguments both for and against various forms of payment.  Allowing payment through checks, credit cards, or debit cards would be a convenience for the drivers, and would assuage safety concerns about carrying significant amounts of cash as well as concerns about accepting a tow operator’s ride to an ATM machine. However, it is easy to stop payment on all of these forms of payment, which could result in losses for the tow operators.  In addition, requiring tow operators to accept credit cards would mean that they would have to purchase equipment for processing the cards and that there would be a card processing fee.   On balance, it is our conclusion that the ordinance should not require tow operators to take checks, credit cards, or debit cards.  Persons whose vehicles are towed presumably would be able to call family or friends who can pick them up, bring the required cash, or transport them to an ATM machine.  The attached proposed amendment does not require tow operators to accept payment by check, credit card, or debit card.  It does require that a receipt for all payments be provided by the tow operator at the time payment is made.

 

6.    A Council member wanted more information relating to the geographical limitation of the ordinance to Town Center districts TC-1, TC-2, and TC-3.  The area encompassed by zoning districts TC-1, TC-2, and TC-3, together, roughly corresponds to Franklin Street and Rosemary Street from Carrboro on the west to slightly east of Henderson Street on the east. 

 

Staff Comment:  This geographical limitation on the applicability of the towing ordinance was determined by the Town Council upon the enactment of the ordinance in 2002 which established the signage requirements for lots.  The proposed amendment does not change the geographical area of applicability.  The majority of unauthorized parking on privately owned parking lots occurs within the Town center districts.  The owners of parking lots elsewhere, if subjected to the ordinance, would be required to adhere to signage requirements which they may consider burdensome, given that they have relatively minimal problems of unauthorized parking.  We believe the current remedy of calling tow operators and having the vehicles removed is appropriate for those lots outside the Town center area that experience problems of unauthorized parking.  The fee limitations and other regulations in this towing ordinance would not apply.  

 

7.   A Council member asked staff to identify parking areas where the most towing incidents or towing problems occur.  A question was raised as to where the largest number of tows and towing problems were occurring.

Staff Comment:  The Chapel Hill Police Department does not have information indicating that towing incidents or problems are occurring disproportionately in particular lots.  The Department receives information only when persons call “911” or otherwise address their towing concerns to Department personnel.  It is likely that the reported cases represent a small percentage of the total number of towing incidents.

 

8.    A citizen questioned what the recourse for individuals with towing complaints would be.   A question was raised as to the actions citizens can take if they believe that they have been improperly towed and or improperly charged for the release of a vehicle.

Staff Comment:  In such circumstances a citizen may file a complaint with the Police Department or may pursue a Small Claims Court action.

 

9.      A citizen requested clarification on specific language requirements for signs.   The current ordinance requires that signs include one of three mandatory phrases. The petitioner of November 7, 2007, noted that some signs use wording that is very similar, but not exactly the same as provided by the ordinance. 

Staff Comment:  As the petitioner states, such similar language “may satisfy the spirit of the ordinance.”  Another part of the ordinance allows a “similar phrase” in lieu of suggested verbiage.  We believe that such flexibility, allowing a “similar phrase,” is appropriate as to the “tow” language on the signs.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend that the Town Council enact the proposed amendment with the following changes from the draft presented on February 11:

ATTACHMENTS

 

  1. Towing from Private Lots memo dated 2/11 (p. 8).
  2. Town Maps TC-1, 2, 3 (PDF) (p. 11).
  3. Letters from Towing Businesses (PDF) (p. 13).

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (March 3, 2008)

  1. Enacted (2008-03-03/O-1) as Amended.