MOTORISTS should better hold their breath. Like the resurrected small town lottery in the country, the Dagupan City Council is poised to resurrect the controversial pay parking ordinance in the city.

This was gleaned during a deliberation in the city council’s session last week where its proponents made known its determination to impose parking fees in designated parking areas, whether in city or in national roads.

In justifying the revival of the proposed ordinance, Councilor Luis Samson Jr. said the city should better regulate the use of streets and parks within the city as many people have already arrogated the roads unto themselves for their own personal interest.

Samson is author of draft ordinance 0-292 which set to fix the rates of parking fees, providing for a 20-80% profit-sharing scheme (in favor of the contractor) and prescribing penalties for violations in relation to Ordinance No. 1853-2005 approved by the council last year.

The implementation of the ordinance was shelved after the 20-80% profit-sharing scheme was questioned in the local media and after the Department of Public Works and Highways expressed its objection to the plan since it was not consulted about coverage of the national roads.

Also, no parking rates were specified in the ordinance. In last Monday’ session, Samson took the floor and explained to his colleagues of the need to finally fix the parking fees to be collected by the private parking operator.

Samson also sought in the ordinance the penalties for violators, which shall be collected too by the private operator.

Under his proposal, light vehicles like cars, jeeps, vans, mini-trucks, sports utility vehicles and pick-ups shall be charged P20 for the first two hours and additional P5 for every hour thereafter.

Medium vehicles like delivery vans and trucks below 10-wheelers shall also be charged P30 for the first hour and P10 for every hour thereafter. The city council is still keen on the 20-80% sharing but a 50/50 sharing basis is also being considered.

However, the name of the private contractor has not been mentioned yet. Samson defended the 20-80% sharing scheme by citing the city government’s inability to provide the needed tow trucks and other equipment to be used in the enforcement of the ordinance.

Under his plan, the tow trucks and other equipment, he said, shall be the responsibility of the private parking contractor. Under the ordinance, all barangays to be affected by the provisions of the ordinance will also have a 20 per cent share from the city government’s net share or profit from the collection of the fees.

All the proceeds of the city’s share shall accrue to a trust fund earmarked for the city’s low cost housing project for the poor. Highway District Engineer Rodolfo Dion said the DPWH is the one responsible in maintaining national roads so it is just right and proper that there should be a prior consultation with his office on the matter.

City Legal Officer Geraldine Baniqued earlier maintained that the city council has the power to regulate the roads within its jurisdiction as this is one of mandates of local governments.

But she agreed that representatives of the DPWH regional office should have been invited or consulted over the matter, admitting that even she was not invited in any of the hearings conducted.

A letter was sent the DPWH inviting any of their representatives to attend the next session on Monday to give their views on the ordinance.

Councilor Michael Fernandez said it is true that the DPWH is the one responsible in maintaining national roads but “we are talking here of governmental function and not totalitarian function.”

The city council will also invite the city engineering office during the session for it to ask if it can provide the equipment to be used in the enforcement of the ordinance to determine if there is a need to tap a private pay parking contractor. – AQL

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments