Sie sind auf Seite 1von 39

1

Council of the District of Columbia


Committee on the Environment, Public Works, and Transportation

Committee Report
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20004

To: Members of the Council of the District of Columbia

From: Mary M. Cheh, Chairperson
Committee on the Environment, Public Works, and Transportation

Date: June 13, 2012

Subject: Bill 19-217, Residential Parking Protection Act of 2012


The Committee on the Environment, Public Works, and Transportation, to which Bill 19-
217, the Residential Parking Protection Act of 2012, was referred, reports favorably on the
above bill and recommends its approval by the Council of the District of Columbia with the
incorporated amendments.


CONTENTS
Statement of Purpose and Effect Page 2

Legislative History Page 2

Background and Committee Reasoning Page 2

Section-by-Section Analysis Page 3

Summary of Public Hearing Page 3

Fiscal Impact Page 4

Analysis of Impact on Existing Law Page 4

Committee Action Page 4

List of Attachments Page 5

2


STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND EFFECT
B19-217 would amend the existing Residential Parking Permit program to eliminate
reciprocity for full-time students with out-of-state registration in certain neighborhoods.



LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
April 5, 2011 Introduction of B19-217 by Councilmembers M. Brown, Wells, Biddle,
Cheh, Thomas and Graham and referral to the Committee on the
Environment, Public Works, and Transportation.

April 15, 2011 Notice of Intent to Act on B19-217 is published in the District of
Columbia Register.

November 18, 2011 Notice of Public Hearing on B19-217 is published in the District of
Columbia Register.

December 13, 2011 Public Hearing Held on B19-217 held by the Committee on the
Environment, Public Works, and Transportation.

June 13, 2012 Consideration and vote on B19-217 by the Committee on the
Environment, Public Works, and Transportation.



BACKGROUND AND COMMITTEE REASONING
On many residential streets throughout the District, a vehicle is required to display a
Residential Parking Permit to park for more than two hours. These permits are issued for vehicles
registered at addresses in Residential Parking Permit zones. Vehicles with a permit are not
subject to this two-hour time limit within their respective zones. Residential Parking Permits are
generally only given to vehicles registered in the District. However, there are several instances in
which the District will grant the same benefits as the Residential Parking Permit to a vehicle
registered in another jurisdiction. The District will issue a Reciprocity Permit for temporary
residents who are full-time students, military personnel, members of Congress, presidential
appointees, and diplomats. The Reciprocity Permit must be renewed every year and comes with
an additional fee.

Currently, students living near Georgetown University and George Washington
University are unable to receive Reciprocity Permits. This restriction was created because of the
concern of the effect that the large number of out-of-state students living in these neighborhoods
could have on on-street parking. Although universities do provide on-campus parking for their
students, it is generally more expensive than the Reciprocity Permit. As a result, many students
would obtain Reciprocity Permits in order to park on residential streets, if it was available.

3

The concerns about student parking in neighborhoods have been realized in the
residential neighborhoods surrounding American University. Because of student parking, many
residents living there have found it very difficult to park on the street. This bill would address
this problem by expanding the prohibition on issuing Reciprocity Permits to students to include
the neighborhoods surrounding American University.

As introduced, this bill would have eliminated the ability of students to obtain
Reciprocity Permits throughout the entire District. Based upon the testimony of students who
opposed this bill and residents who supported it, the Committee narrowed the bill to target the
areas where on-street student parking seems most acute the neighborhoods surrounding
American University. Instead of eliminating the Reciprocity Permits program for students
altogether, this bill simply would expand the areas deemed ineligible for this program to also
include the neighborhoods surrounding American University. Although students would no longer
be able to obtain Reciprocity Permits, they would still be able to obtain a Residential Parking
Permit by registering their vehicles in the District, like every other resident.



SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 2

This section would amend the District of Columbia Traffic Act of 1925 to add
specific reference to the Single Member Districts where students would no longer
be eligible for reciprocity permits.
Section 3

This section would delay the applicability of this legislation until January 1, 2013,
and would make this bill subject to appropriations.
Section 4

This section would adopt the fiscal impact statement provided by the Chief
Financial Officer.
Section 5

This bill would take effect following signature by the Mayor, a 30-day
Congressional review period, and publication in the District of Columbia
Register.


SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING
On Tuesday December 13, 2012, the Committee on the Environment, Public Works, and
Transportation held a hearing on 19-217, the Residential Parking Protection Act of 2012.
Councilmember Mary M. Cheh, Chairperson of the Committee, called the hearing to order at
10:40 a.m. in room 412 of the John A. Wilson Building. Councilmember Tommy Wells, Ward 6,
and Councilmember Michael Brown

, at-large, were also in attendance.
The Committee received written and oral testimony from residents affected by student
parking, students, advocates, and Terry Bellamy, Director, District Department of
Transportation.

4

Proponents of the bill explained that their neighborhoods are overrun with student cars.
This undermines the original purpose of the Residential Parking Permit program, which was to
ensure the availability of on-street parking for residents living on that street. The overflow of
student parking into residential areas is only expected to increase as the universities grow and
on-campus parking becomes scarcer. Director Bellamy also testified in support of the legislation.
He noted that besides preserving parking for residents, this legislation could have the added
benefit of deterring some students from bringing their cars into the District when they enroll in
local universities.

Opponents stated that students rightly belong in the class of people eligible for
Reciprocity Permits because they, like other members of that class, have more than a passing
connection to the District but may have other reasons not to register their vehicles in the District.
For example, students may want to maintain registration in another state to obtain parking
privileges in another state for when they return home during the summer or other holidays. Some
opponents also raised questions as to whether singling out students in this legislation is contrary
to the DC Human Rights Act, which requires a rational basis when making distinctions based on
matriculation status.
1



Councilmember Cheh adjourned the hearing at 12:55 p.m. A video recording of the
hearing can be viewed at oct.dc.gov. A copy of the witness list is included as Attachment D and
copies of witness testimony is included as Attachment E.


FISCAL IMPACT
The Committee on the Environment, Public Works, and Transportation finds that the
provisions of Bill 19-217 will have a negative fiscal impact of $58,100 in FY 2013 and $261,500
during the financial plan period. A fiscal impact statement, prepared by the Chief Financial
Officer and dated June 11, 2012, is attached to this report.



IMPACT ON EXISTING LAW
Bill 19-217 would amend language in the D.C. Code to prevent students from being
eligible for Reciprocity Permits in certain neighborhoods near American University.



COMMITTEE ACTION
The Committee on the Environment, Public Works, and Transportation met on June 13,
2012 at 12:15 p.m. in room 123 of the John A. Wilson Building to consider and vote on the
Committee Print and Report of B19-217. Present and voting were Chairperson Cheh,

1
The Committee does not believe that expanding the restrictions on Reciprocity Permits violates the Human Rights
Act. However, even if it did, the Council has the authority to amend current laws, such as the Human Rights Act, at
any time.
5

Councilmembers Jim Graham, Muriel Bowser, Tommy Wells, and Yvette Alexander.
Chairperson Cheh gave a brief opening statement on the bill.

The Chairperson moved for the approval of the Committee Print of B19-217 which is
included as Attachment F to this report.

The Committee voted 4-0-1 to approve the Committee Print of B19-217, with members
voting as follows:

YES: Chairperson Cheh and Councilmembers Alexander, Bowser, and Wells
NO: -
PRESENT: Councilmember Graham
ABSENT: -

Chairperson Cheh then moved for approval of the Committee Report on B19-217. The
Committee voted 4-0-1 to approve the Committee Report, with members voting as follows:

YES: Chairperson Cheh and Councilmembers Alexander, Bowser, and Wells
NO: -
PRESENT: Councilmember Graham
ABSENT: -



LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
(A) Bill 19-217, as introduced
(B) Notice of Intent to Act on Bill 19-217, published in the District of Columbia Register
(C) Public Hearing Notice, published in the District of Columbia Register
(D) Public Hearing Agenda and Witness List
(E) Written Testimony Provided to the Committee
(F) Committee Print of Bill 19-217
(G) Fiscal Impact Statement for Bill 19-217




ATTACHMENT A



1
__________________________ ____________________________ 2
Councilmember Tommy Wells Councilmember Michael A. Brown 3
4
5
__________________________ ____________________________ 6
Councilmember Sekou Biddle Councilmember Mary Cheh 7
8
9
__________________________ 10
Councilmember Harry Thomas Jr. 11
12
AN ACT 13
14
_________ 15
16
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 17
18
__________________________________ 19
20
Councilmembers Michael A. Brown, Tommy Wells, Sekou Biddle, Mary Cheh, and 21
Harry Thomas Jr. introduced the following bill, which was referred to 22
_____________________. 23
24
To repeal DC Code 50-1401.02(e) to ensure that full-time students who reside within 25
the boundaries of the District of Columbia shall not be issued or use a reciprocity 26
parking sticker for out of state vehicles. 27
28
BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 29
That this act may be cited as the Residential Parking Protection Act of 2011. 30
31
Sec. 2. Section 8(e) of the District of Columbia Traffic Act of 1925, approved 32
March 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 1123; D.C. Official Code 50-1401.02(e)) is repealed. 33
34
Sec. 3. Fiscal impact statement. 35
The Council adopts the fiscal impact statement in the committee report as the 36
fiscal impact statement required by section 602(c)(3) of the District of Columbia Home 37
Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Official Code 1- 38
206.02(c)(3)). 39
40
Sec. 4. This act shall take effect following approval by the Mayor (or in the event 41
of veto by the Mayor, action by the Council to override the veto), a 30-day period of 42
Congressional review as provided in section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Home 43
Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Official Code 1- 44
206.02(c)(1)), and publication in the District of Columbia Register. 45
46




ATTACHMENT B





ATTACHMENT C





ATTACHMENT D

C O U N C I L O F T H E D I S T R I C T O F C O L U M B I A
1 3 5 0 P ENNS YL VANI A AVENUE, N. W. S UI TE 1 1 1
WAS HI NGTON, DC 2 0 0 0 4
T EL EP HONE: ( 2 0 2 ) 7 2 4 - 8 0 6 2 F AX: ( 2 0 2 ) 7 2 4 - 8 1 1 8
COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT,
PUBLIC WORKS, AND TRANSPORTATION
MARY M. CHEH, CHAIR
WITNESS LIST

A PUBLIC HEARING ON

B19-006, FIREHOUSE PARKING EXCEPTION AMENDMENT ACT
B19-015, PERSONAL MOBILITY DEVICE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITY AMENDMENT ACT
B19-217, RESIDENTIAL PARKING PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT
B19-514, NEIGHBORHOOD SPILLOVER PARKING PREVENTION ACT
B19-568, PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT
B19-571, PEDESTRIAN SAFE STREETS SPEED LIMIT AMENDMENT ACT

DECEMBER 13, 2011
10:30 AM
ROOM 412
JOHN A. WILSON BUILDING
1350 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.


PUBLIC WITNESSES

B19-006, Firehouse Parking Exception Amendment Act
Edward C. Smith, President, Local No. 36, DC Fire Fighters Association

B19-217, Residential Parking Protection Amendment Act
Tim McBride, Public Witness
Tom Smith, Spring Valley-Wesley Heights Citizens Association
Bill Bystricky, National Youth Rights Association
Sally Kram, Consortium of Universities
Evan Brown, Public Witness
Philip Scranage, Public Witness
Noah Gray, Public Witness

B19-568, Pedestrian Protection Amendment Act
Marlene Berlin, Public Witness


GOVERNMENT WITNESSES

Terry Bellamy, Director, District Department of Transportation





ATTACHMENT E

Testimony of Evan Brown
Resident of 4400 Massachusetts Ave NW, Hughes 405
Washington D.C., 20016
Thank you, Chairwoman Cheh and members ofthe committee. My name is Evan Brown, and
I'm a sophomore at American University, and I serve as the Poliey Director for DC Students
Speak. I would like to express my opposition to BI9-217, the Residential Parking Protection Act:
of 20II. I find this bill to be unnecessary and arbitrarily targeted at college students.
I see no reason to change the current policy as it stands. Currently, 892 students have received
reciprocity permits for parking in RPP zones. These students pay nearly $350 for a permit to
park outside houses in whieh they lawfully reside. Many ofthese students have legitimate
reasons for such parking privileges. Many need to drive due to work, school, medical, financial
or family concerns. Undergraduates, graduate, law and medical students may all be affected by
this proposed policy. In the past 48 hours, over 500 students have signed a petition opposing this
bilL
It is the transitory nature of college students that makes the eurrent policy practical. While we
live here for at least four years and many of us vote here, the status of a college student is such
that it would be difficult to untangle the web of burdens that this bill would create. Because
student's cars are often in their parents' names and on their parents' insurance, fiunilies would
have to go through an unnecessary and costly process of re-registering the car and buying newer
and more expensive insurance policies. In addition, such registration may impact parking rights
in a student's home state when they return for breaks.
In essence, the bill creates far more problems for the 892 students it would affect than it would
ultimately resolve. Very few students live on RPP streets, but if they choose to do so, their
residency should not dictate their ability to own a car. Our status as full-time students creates a
legal and financial situation that is further complicated by this policy.
Make no mistake, we as college students are dedicated to supporting and enhancing the quality
of the District of Columbia and we cherish our lives in this great city. But arbitrarily revoking
reciprocity permits for s t u d e n t ~ would serve to limit the economic participation and mobility ofa :
class ofresidents.
Thank you for your time.
Testimony from Philip Scranage
4201 Massachusetts AVE NW; apt 4016 East
Washington, DC 20016
Good morning Chairwoman and members of the committee. Thank you for granting
me this opportunity to speak not only from myself, but also from students across the
city. My name is Philip Scranage and I'm a Sophomore at American University. I am
testifying in opposition to B19-217, the Residential Parking Protection Amendment
0[2011.
I want to start off by saying that our current ~ ' Y s t e m works. Thanks to the current
reciprocity system, students, diplomats, presidential appointees, service members,
Congressional members and staff are able to live in the district for an extended
period of time without declaring residency or giving up their fundamentally
necessary mobility. Indeed, by opposing this measure, I do not seek to reserve a
special privilege for students. Rather, I hope to merely maintain the equal status
students have been granted under current law. To pass the amendment would be to
do away with that very equality protected under the DC Human Rights Act. Indeed,
student rights are human rights.
Of course, there are certain circumstances that apply only to students. But rather
than lower the value of reciprocity to students, these circumstances greatly increase
our need for it. For instance, students are allowed to receive child support
throughout college. However, if the student claims residency in another state, this
crucial funding can be discontinued. My dear friend Kara hopes to bring her car to
the district next year but to do so would force her to abandon a funding source that
allows her to stay in school.
Students are also unique in that they live in the District for only certain months of
the year - notably the months with the lowest tourism traffic. To cut back on
congestion, it would make far more sense to relieve one of the reciprocity categories
that stays in the district over the summer months. Furthermore, because students
often move several times in a year, cars are extra-necessary to our ability to live
comfortably and efficiently in the District.
Cutting down on traffic and congestion are worthy goals. Discouraging driving is
even a worthy goal from an environmentalist viewpoint. However, legislating
against it is, as usual, not the best method. The best method is to improve our
already stellar public transit and to encourage ridesharing programs. I hope you will
join me in opposition to B19-217, the Residential Parking Protection Amendment of
2011.
Thank You.
I
,
i
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, PUBLIC
WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION
BILL 19-217, THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT
OF 2011
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2011
Presented by Sally W. Kram. Director of Public and Governmental Affairs
Consortium of Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area
Good morning, Chairman Cheh, Committee Members and staff. My name is
Sally Kram and I am the Director of Government and Public Affairs for the
Consortium of Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area. I am pleased to
testify today on behalf of the Consortium, which is comprised of fourteen public,
private and federal higher education institutions in the Washington metropolitan
region. Eleven of these institutions are located in Washington, DC but today, I
will be representing the nine nonfederal DC institutions.
I am here today to express the Consortium's strong opposition to 8i1l19217, a
bill that would amend DC Code Section 50-1402 to eliminate reciprocity sticker
eligibility for fulltime enrolled students. I am a bit confused about the need for
this legislation. In many parts of the city, residential parking availability is not an
issue. In parts of Ward 3, for example, Madame Chair, much of the housing is
single family with driveways and garages leaving ample street parking. In those
communities surrounding universities where parking is the most congested,
stUdents are either forbidden from securing reciprOCity stickers, 1 which I will
discuss in greater detail a bit later in my testimony, or are required to park on
campus, as is the case at American University.
So, if this bill in not about parking, perhaps it is about the campus plan process
which has inspired controversy this year as Georgetown University, American
University and the University of the District of Columbia which have all filed ten
year plans. Parking and traffic management is an important element of the
campus planning process and provides a much better method of examining
these issues rather than a bill with citywide applications.
However, in regards to the bill before the Committee today, the Consortium is
opposed for four reasons: the bill contradicts the spirit of the DC Human Rights
Act which defines "matriculation status" as a protected class; the bill does not, on
its face, appear to have a rational basis; the bill would implement a change in DC
regulations that would contradict how other states treat their students in
j Pursuant to D.C. Code Sec. 1401.02 <e) (4), full-time students who reside within the boundaries of ANC
2A, 2E and SMD's 3006 and 3009 "shall not be issued a reciprocity sticker for out of state vehicles."
i

relationship to vehicle registration and may invite negative treatment of DC
students who attend college in other states; and it is unclear how students could
easily comply with the bill. Let me address each of these issues in turn.
DC Human Rights Act
The prologue to the DC Human Rights Act describes the Council's intent in
passing the law "[T]o secure an end in the District of Columbia to discrimination
for any reason other than that of individual merit, including, but not limited to ...
matriculation."
For this reason, the Consortium has consistently testified in opposition to
legislation that seemed designed to restrict student activity or, as the DC Human
Rights Act says, any bill that may restrict the rights of individuals to have an
"equal opportunity to participate fully in the economic, cultural and intellectual life
of the District."
While parking may not be considered a fundamental right along the lines of
housing, enrollment and employment, it is a privilege enjoyed by D.C. residents
who own vehicles. As a result, students should not be treated disparately merely
because of their status as students. Indeed, last year the D.C. government was
happy to consider full-time students as residents for purposes of the U.S. census.
Partially because of college student participation, the District showed its first
population increase in decades resulting in a greater influx of federal resources.
While current law distinguishes between residents and "nonresidents" and
between certain categories of nonresidents
2
, the distinctions are not intended to
be punitive. Rather, they are based on the lifestyle students and the other
nonresidents often exhibit-a lack of permanence in their housing choices. In
fact, the District is not the only state to make an exception for full-time students.
As will be discussed later, the law merely recognizes, as do a majorily of the
states, that students' living arrangements are not permanent and that the District
does not require them to immediately establish "residency" for their vehicles upon
their enrolling in a D.C. college or university. Like Congressional and diplomatic
aides, presidential appointments, and military personnel, D.C. law recognizes
that as long as a vehicle is properly licensed and registered in another state, the
operator can secure a reciprocity sticker and operate the vehicle in the District of
Columbia without additional penalty.
, Sec. 50-1401.02 (c) allows certain people to retain their out-of-state vehicle registration and licensing
including Senators, Representatives and Delegates to the U.S. Congress (c }(I); Personal employees of
Senators, Representatives and Delegates ofthe United States Congress (c )(2); The President and the Vice
President of the United States (c )(3); Officers oflhe executive branch of the united States (c )(4); Any
nonresident service member (0 )(5); any foreign mission, its members or dependents of its members (c )(6);
any minor under 21 years of age or spouse of any person identified in paragraphs (1) through (6) (c )(7).
Sec. 1401.02 (d) allows all those categories listed under ( 0) to secure a reciprocity sticker. Sec. 1401.02
(e) specifically refers to full-time students and authorizes a separate reciprocity program for them.
! :
2

By eliminating the current reciprocity arrangements for students alone, it would
appear that the Council is separating out students from the list of currently
eligible reciprocity sticker holders for special treatment. Indeed, the title of the
bill establishes this principle, distinguishing between "residents" who are in need
of government "protection" and non-residents, who despite their presence in the
District have lesser rights to government protection. Again, under the spirit of the
Human Rights Act protections, this dichotomy appears to be invalid.
State Rationale
If the law contained a rational basis for making this distinction, it might be argued
that it is valid. However, the bill on its face does not contain such a rationale. A
brief review of previously passed legislation that barred full-time students in
Foggy Bottom and Georgetown (ANC 2A and 2E) from obtaining reciprocity
stickers are non-instructive to the principle of making the bar apply to all vehicles
owned by all full-time students wherever they live in the District.
In 1995, for example, Councilmember Evans introduced Bill 11-355, the
Residential Parking Improvement Act of 1995 which, among other things, sought
to enhance the Residential Parking Program ("RPP") in "highly impacted
neighborhoods" by imposing additional non-resident parking restrictions on
residential streets. The bill argued "These additional restrictions will enhance the
physical safety for both residents and business patrons ... by providing more
accessible parking closer to destinations, resulting in a safer, more attractive and
enjoyable neighborhood ...[for] people to live, visit, conduct business, shop, and
park." The bill included the elimination of the reciprocity program for students
living in Foggy Bottom and Georgetown. Extensive testimony was offered by the
public mostly from citizen groups and ANC's in and around Georgetown and
Foggy Bottom. Some students and the Consortium of Universities also offered
testimony in opposition.
While Bill 11-355 was not adopted, a subsequent law amending the RPP
program included the Georgetown/Foggy Bottom language. The committee
report does not explain the rationale for the proposal's adoption. See Law 14
167 amending D.C. Code Sec. 50-1401 :02. However, the copious testimony
supporting the reciprocity sticker ban offered with Bill 11-355 referenced the
severe traffic and parking limitations in Georgetown and Foggy Bottom.
Assuming a similar rationale of addressing neighborhood congestion is at the
heart of Bill 19-217, there is no evidence that the type of residential congestion
referred to in testimony supporting Bill 11-355 exists citywide. Unless the
Council is willing to identify every residential neighborhood in the city as "highly
impacted" thereby eliminating non RPP regulated spaces in their entirety and
requiring every D.C. resident with a vehicle to secure an RPP sticker, this bill
appears to overreach without a rational basis.
3

Assuming, however, that the entire city is highly congested, it is unclear whether
student-owned vehicles have dramatically increased the amount of congestion in
university neighborhoods. Indeed, since it was passed in 2002, it would appear
that the ANC 2Al2E experiment in limiting full-time student parking reciprocity
has been a failure. There is no evidence that the elimination of student parkers
in Georgetown or Foggy Bottom has freed up any more parking for full time
residents. Without evidence, therefore, that such an approach is needed
citywide or would address parking congestion even if it did, this bill has no basis
for passage and should not be approved.
State Comparisons
Should the District eliminate its reciprocity program, it would join a minority of
states that require students and or "nonresidents" to register a vehicle.(and get a
license) in that state. A quick survey of state vehicle registration statutes
indicates that Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
LouiSiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming (28)
expressly exempt full-time non-resident students from any state requirement to
register their vehicle in those states.
In addition, some states such as Maryland and Massachusetts have special
programs for out of state residents. Maryland issues Non-Resident Permits to
students attending college or university in the state. Massachusetts requires
nonresidents enrolled in a Massachusetts college to register their vehicle with the
local police department. Pennsylvania exempts nonresidents from registering
their vehicles in the state altogether.
In general, "residents" need only register their vehicles once they establish the
indicia of residency, including unbroken presence in the state for up to 180 days
or more (some states require seven months), evidence of employment in the
state in work other than seasonal or temporary positions, evidence that a person
has placed his or her children in public schools without paying non-resident
tuition, or attempts by an individual to declare residency for purposes of obtaining
instate tuition rates or license fees. States with such "residency"-based laws
include Arkansas, Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Washington.
Several states have a long "clock" before registration is required such as New
Mexico which allows nonresidents to operate vehicles registered in another state
for a period up to 180 days without registering the vehicles. Michigan requires all
residents to register their vehicle after 90 days, but each time the vehicle leaves
the state and returns, the 90 day clock begins again, meaning that very few out
of-state college students are required to meet the 90-day registration
requirement.
4

In sum, a majority of states view college students as "temporary" residents for
purposes of vehicle registration. While the state may want to collect information
on all vehicles operating in the state on a regular basis, it is not common for
college students to register their vehicle in the state where they go to college
unless they declare that state as their domicile.
Reviewing other state laws also raises a potential unintended consequence of
passing Bill 19-217. Several states permit recognition of out-of-state
registrations provided the other state recognizes their registration. States with
such a reciprocity rule include Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Nebraska,
North Carolina, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Should D.C. eliminate its "reCiprocity"
program, arguably there would no longer be recognition of D.C. registrations in
states with reciprocity. As many as 1,900 D.C. residents may lose their
reciprocity privileges and be required to register their D.C. tagged vehicles in the
states in which they are attending college.
Another unintended consequence may be how the mandatory vehicle registration
will impact voter registration. D.C. Law Sec. 50-1401.01 (a-1)(1) authorized the
creation of a joint application form which will allow applicants registering their
vehicle to register to vote at the same time. Presumably students forced to
register their vehicles in the District will also be more inclined to register to vote in
the District. While this would be a positive development for the District, it may
not be the result the bill's sponsors were seeking. Moreover, it could force full
time students who owned vehicle into an unattractive choice-either register to
vote in D.C. or leave their vehicle at home. Again, without a clearer rationale for
the purpose of this bill, it is hard to understand why the city would
want to force such a choice.
Practicality
On a more mundane level, passage of this law raises a series of practical
concerns. How would students register their vehicles, particularly given that
many of them do not possess a title? Would parents have to accompany their
children to the District to register vehicles? Which car inspection would apply?
Would students have to have their cars re-inspected every time they reregistered
it to the District of Columbia?
If the point of the bill is to effectively bar students from bringing their vehicles to
the District, what about students who need their cars to go to work to help them
pay for tuition? What about students who participate in off-campus activities
such as club sports <lr volunteer opportunities who might need their vehicles for
these purposes? If a student took his or her vehicle back to their home state
each summer, would that state require a re-registration of the vehicle? How
would the student's desire to register to vote either in the District or their non
District state be impacted?
5
All of these questions are raised by Bill 19-217 and are not adequately answered.
The most fundamental question about the bill that remains unanswered is why
the proposal is focused on this particular population when there are many people
moving to the District who bring their cars with them. Rather than pass a new
law, the Counsel should leave the reciprocity program for full-time students as it
currently exists in place. It may also want to reevaluate the effectiveness of the
Foggy Bottom/Georgetown experiment in controlling congestion.
Conclusion
As the District envisions a future with a changing demographic, the Council may
want to more carefully consider the passage of legislation that alienates one of
the likeliest sources for more residents in the future-D.C. enrolled full-time
college students. After all, the District achieved 600,000 residents in the last
census primarily due to the influx of new residents between the ages of 20 and
40. A significant percentage of them graduated from D.C. colleges and
universities. It seems that passing laws that expressly disadvantage these
potential new residents and taxpayers may have unintended consequences since
many students become taxpaying residents of the District-some even become
elected officials!
Thank you Madame Chair for the opportunity to testify. I am available to answer
any questions you may have about this testimony.
6
d.
District Department of Transportation
819-0217, Residential Parking Protection Act of 2011
Testimony of
Terry Bellamy, Director
District Department of Transportation
Vincent C. Gray
Mayor
Committee on the Environment, Public Works, and Transportation
Councilmember Mary M. Cheh, Chairperson
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
10:30 AM
Room 412
Good Morning Chairman Cheh, members of the Committee, and District residents. My name is
Terry Bellamy, and I am the Director of the District Department of Transportation (DDOT). It is
a pleasure to appear before the committee to provide testimony on behalf of Mayor Vincent C.
Gray regarding the proposed legislation, B19-0217-The Residential Parking Protection Act of
2011.
The proposed legislation would repeal DC Code 50-1401.02 (e) which currently permits full
time students within the District of Columbia to obtain and display a valid reciprocity sticker.
Instead the code would ensure that full-time students who reside within the boundaries of the
District of Columbia not be issued nor permit use of a reciprocity parking sticker for out-of-state
vehicles.
DDOT does not oppose the intent of the bill which is to preserve residential parking. Currently
full- time students with out-of-state vehicles living within Advisory Neighborhood Commissions
(ANe) 2A and 2E, better known as Georgetown, are prohibited from obtaining reciprocity
parking stickers. This legislation simply seeks to expand this protection to the rest of the
District.
The repeal of DC Code 50-1401.02(e) would fprce students who are not residents to become
DC residents by obtaining a DC driver's license and registering their vehicles in order to obtain a
residential parking permit (RPP) pass. Such requirements could deter students from bringing
vehicles into the District or students opting not to register their vehicles, therefore running the
risk of receiving a ticket(s). It could also result in a net loss of revenue for the District while
alleviating parking congestion in neighborhoods. Registering a vehicle in the District costs
approximately two hundred dollars ($200)-for a driver's license, registration fee, inspection
fee, a lien fee and title fee-versus three hundred and thirty-eight dollars ($338) for a
reciprocity sticker. There are currently 860 active student reciprocity stickers which is
approximately $290,680 in revenue.
CONClUSION:
In conclusion, while the District remains committed to be a leader in higher education, we, at
DDOT remain sensitive to preserving and protecting residential parking affected by fulltime
students who reside within the boundaries of the District of Columbia. We would like to work
with the academic community to adopt Travel Demand Management (TDM) strategies such as
using Transit, Carsharing, Bikesharing, and other multi modal approaches. We look forward to
working with Chairman Cheh and the Committee on this issue. I'd be happy to answer any
questions you might have and I thank you for your time.
Testimony Of Thomas M. Smith
Chair, ANC 3D
Secretary, Spring Valley-Wesley Heights Citizens Association
Before the DC Council On BI9-0217
The Residential Parking Protection Act Of 2011
December 13, 2011
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this moming in support of Bill 19-0217, the
Residential Parking Protection Act of2011. I am testifying today on behalf of Advisory
Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 3D which has three universities within its area
Georgetown, American, and George Washington's Mt. Vernon Campus. I also have been
asked to testify today on behalf of the Spring Valley-Wesley Heights CitiZens
Association that represents residents living in neighborhoods immediately adjacent to
American University.
ANC 3D voted on December 7 by a vote of7-1 at a publicly noticed meeting in which a
quorum was present at all times to support passage of B 19-0217. The formal resolution
in support ofthe legislation is attached to my written testimony.
The residential parking permit program was established in the 1970's to protect
neighborhoods and ensure that residents could find parking on their blocks near their
homes. For many residents, including many in the Spring Valley and Wesley Heights
neighborhoods, their only parking option is street-parking.
RPP is not designed or intended to guarantee a parking place for residents in front of their
homes; but it limits the ability of non-residents to use neighborhood streets as substitutes
for long-term parking lots during designated daytime and early evening hours. RPP
limits on-street parking to DC residents living on the designated blocks, who register
their cars in DC. For others without an appropriate RPP sticker, parking is limited to two
hours during the hours in which RPP is in operation.
Current law makes some exceptions to allow temporary residents to qualify for
reciprocity permits and obtain RPP. These include members of Congress, presidential
appointees, active duty military, diplomats, and full-time students attending a college or
university in DC. B19-0217 would change current law to ensure that full-time students
who reside in DC would not be issued or use a reciprocity parking sticker for vehicles
registered out-of-state.
It is important to note that the current law does not allow Georgetown students to obtain
RPP stickers by obtaining a reciprocity permit. Current law already prevents students in
ANC 2A and 2E and two Single Member Districts in ANC 3D - 3D06 and 3D09 - from
receiving reciprocity parking permits. 3D06 and 3D09 include the Foxhall Village
community and part of the Palisades near Georgetown University. The George
Washington Mt. Vernon Campus is also located in 3D06. In order to get an RPP, these
1

students must get a DC driver's license and register their vehicles in DC to park in these
areas.
ANC 3D and the Spring V alley-Wesley Heights Citizens Association believe this
prohibition should be extended city-wide. Student parking on neighborhood streets is
one ofthe most significant problems affecting a community adjacent to a university.
Many residents have applied for and obtain RPP status for their blocks near universities
specifically in hopes of reducing the number of students parking in the neighborhood.
But, reciprocity for full-time students undermines the objectives of the RPP program.
ANC 3D and the citizens association believe this legislation is sound public policy and
encourage its adoption.
Student parking has made it very difficult for residents to park near their homes adjacent
to American University (AU) despite well-meaning efforts by AU to discourage student
parking in the neighborhood. Under the terms of AU's current Campus Plan, students are
not permitted to park in the neighborhood. As AU has indicated, there is adequate
parking at on-campus facilities for students, faculty, staff and visitors to the campus.
Nevertheless, AU's high cost of parking gives students an incentive to fmd less
expensive parking alternatives. Our neighborhood streets should not be viewed as a
substitute for the more costly parking facilities available on campus.
Although AU seeks to control student parking in the neighborhood, these efforts have
been largely unsuccessful. The university's own data shows that the number of cars
parked by students in the Spring Valley and Wesley Heights communities has doubled
over the last five years.
We are even more concerned about the future because of the university'S plans for
expansion. AU also is planning to decrease the number of parking spaces available on
campus simultaneously with this growth. The combination ofreduced parking
availability and high parking prices - while intended to discourage driving is more
likely to serve as an incentive for students to park on our neighborhood streets. We also
do not believe the university is doing enough to discourage students from driving to
campus or nearby university facilities in the neighborhood. We believe this legislation
could be a highly effective Transportation Demand Management (TOM) strategy to
reduce auto use associated with the university.
Most RPP blocks in Spring Valley and Wesley Heights are located on streets closest to
AU facilities. Student parking on neighborhood streets has been one of the contentious
issues in the current AU campus planning cycle that has prompted residents to conclude
that the plan's projected growth is objectionable. Neighbors fear that AU's expansion
will lead to more strains on neighborhood street parking. Because passage ofthis
legislation should have the effect of reducing student parking on RPP streets near the
university, there may be fewer disputes between the university and neighbors in the
future over parking issues.
2
The prohibitions outlined in this legislation should apply not just to Georgetown students
or students at GW's Mt. Vernon campus, but to all students.
Over the weekend, I received an e-mail from an AU student who plans to return to the
campus next semester after spending the last few months studying abroad in an overseas
study program. In outlining his opposition to the legislation, he may be the poster child
for those of us advocating for its passage. He will be living off campus next semester in
DC, but not near the campus. In addition to attending classes at the main campus, he will
have an internship in Arlington. Saying that it will take him less time to drive than to take
the metro, he wants the convenience of parJcing on an RPP-designated block near the
campus without the costs of parJcing on campus or changing his car registration from
New York to DC. This is why this legislation is necessary. We believe RPP is a
priVilege that should be largely reserved for DC residents. If a student does not want to
pay on-campus parking rates or register their car in DC so as to qualify for RPP, their
other option is to locate parJcing on a block that is not designated RPP.
This legislation will not prevent students from using their cars in DC or even park their
cars on city streets in DC. Students will still be able to park on an RPP street, but they
will have to comply with time limits to park legally. Otherwise, they have the option of
parJcing on a non-RPP street that may be further away from the campus and less
convenient. Or, they could choose to change their vehicle registration and license to DC.
We thank you for holding this hearing today and encourage you to move swiftly to report
this bill to the full Council and for the Council as a whole to take long overdue action to
help protect our neighborhoods.
3

ANC 3D Resolution On B19-0217
The Residential Parking Protection Act of 2011
Whereas, B 19-0217, the Residential Parking Protection Act of 20 11, was introduced in the
DC Council on April 5, 2011;
Whereas, B 19-0217 would prevent full time students who reside within the District of
Columbia boundaries from being issued or from using a reciprocity parking sticker for out of
state vehicles;
Whereas, student parking in neighborhoods adjacent to universities within ANC 3D have
made it difficult for residents to park near their homes; and
Whereas, university expansion will exacerbate existing parking issues for residents ofANC
3D; and
Whereas, university efforts to discourage driving by students is resulting in a reduction of
parking spaces available at campus facilities and parking fees that are excessive for students;
and
Whereas, these strategies to discourage driving by students are added incentives for students
to park instead on neighborhood streets; and
Whereas, universities within ANC 3D have failed to devise strategies to enforce existing
university-generated restrictions on student parking and have not succeeded in reducing
student parking in neighborhoods adjacent to university and college campuses; and
Whereas, students seeking to park on neighborhood streets and residing in the District of
Columbia should be encouraged to register their vehicles in the District of Columbia; and
Whereas, current law now prevents full time students at Georgetown University who reside
within the District ofColumbia boundaries from being issued or using a reciprocity parking
sticker for out of state vehicles; and
Whereas, B 19-0217 would apply these same restrictions to full time students attending any of
the universities and colleges in the District of Columbia; and
Whereas, Councilmembers Michael Brown, Tommie Wells, Harry Thomas, Marion Barry,
Mary Cheh, Jim Graham, and Muriel Bowser have introduced and co-sponsored BI9-0217;
Therefore, be it resolved, that ANC 3D supports B 19-0217, the Residential Parking Protection
Act of2011, and calls on the DC Council Committee on Environment, Public Works and
Transportation to hold a hearing on the legislation at the earliest possible time and refer the
measure to the DC Council for enactment into law.
Approved 12-7-2011 By A Vote Of7-l (Commissioner Jones opposed; Commissioner
Heuer absent)
Testimony of Tim McBride
4100 Massachusetts Ave NW Apt 1010
Washington, DC 20016
.....~ ~ - - -
Good morning Chairwoman Cheh and members of the committee. My name is Tim
McBride and I'm a junior at American Cniversity. Thank you so much for this
opportunity to speak. I'm here in opposition to BI9-217, the Residential Parking
Protection Amendment Act of20l1. As a student, I find this act to be unfair and an
arbitrary removal of a long-standing, well working parking regulation.
Mobility is practically synonymous with college. At no other point in many of our
lives will we move so frequently: from street to street and state to state. Reciprocity
permits are a long-standing relief to the extra burdens that come with a non-static
home. A burden shared by many other residents of DC, including diplomats,
military personnel, Members of Congress, and Presidential appointees. By creating
these reciprocity parking permits, the District of Columbia recognized the need to
ensure a sound and efficient quality of life for ALL longer-term, yet still temporary
residents.
This Act would continue to grant those parking permits to all those currently
allowed with the exception of students. Which raises the question, why are
students to be singled out? Why are matriculated individuals treated different than
non-matriculated individuals? To this point, no satisfactory answer has truly been
given. To arbitrarily single out students runs counter to the values of this city and
the spirit of the DC Human Rights Act.
This RPP Amendment will also impose practical burdens on students and their
families. Registration with the DC DMV requires that the resident's name be on the
title of the vehicle. While students are specifically insured for their vehicle, many
parents remain on the title. In this instance, a parent who owns the car would have
to transfer the title to the student or come to DC to re-register. Furthermore, not
granting reciprocity permits to students here may create greater hurdles with
regard to parking for students when they return home to their families for winter or
summer breaks and after graduation. If reciprocity permits exist to ensure long
term temporary residents can utilize the city with ease, it simply makes sense to
include students.
The tradition of this city is to welcome people from all parts of the United States and
the world who seek to improve their community, country, and planet. Sometimes
people come her to live for good, but others come temporarily. The RPP
amendment contradicts that heritage by making it more difficult for residents to
take full and efficient advantage of every facet of this city.
Thank you.




ATTACHMENT F

Committee on the Environment, Public Works, and Transportation 1
Bill 19-217, Committee Print 2
June 13, 2012 3
4
5
AN ACT 6
7
_________ 8
9
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 10
11
__________________________________ 12
13
To limit the issuance of residential parking permits to full-time students with vehicles registered 14
in another jurisdiction. 15
16
BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, That this 17
act may be cited as the Residential Parking Protection Act of 2012. 18
Sec. 2. Section 8(e)(4) of the District of Columbia Traffic Act of 1925, approved March 19
13, 1925 (43 Stat. 1123; D.C. Official Code 50-1401.02(e)(4)) is amended by striking the 20
phrase ANC 3D06 and 3D09 and inserting the phrase ANC 3D01, 3D02, 3D06, 3D07, 3D08, 21
3D09, and 3D10 in its place. 22
Sec. 3. Applicability. 23
This act shall apply as of whichever occurs later: 24
(1) January 1, 2013; or 25
(2) Upon the inclusion of its fiscal effect in an approved budget and financial 26
plan, as certified by the Chief Financial Officer to the Budget Director of the Council in a 27
certification published by the Council in the District of Columbia Register.. 28
Sec. 4. Fiscal impact statement. 29
The Council adopts the fiscal impact statement in the committee report as the fiscal 1
impact statement required by section 602(c)(3) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, 2
approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Official Code 1-206.02 (c)(3)). 3
Sec. 5. Effective date. 4
This act shall take effect following approval by the Mayor (or in the event of veto by the 5
Mayor, action by Council to override the veto), a 30-day period of Congressional review as 6
provided in section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 7
24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Official Code 1-206.02(c)(1)), and publication in the District of 8
Columbia Register. 9




ATTACHMENT G






Government of the District of Columbia
Office of the Chief Financial Officer

Natwar M. Gandhi
Chief Financial Officer
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 203, Washington, DC 20004 (202)727-2476
www.cfo.dc.gov


MEMORANDUM

TO: The Honorable Mary M. Cheh
Acting Chair, Council of the District of Columbia

FROM: Natwar M. Gandhi
Chief Financial Officer

DATE: June 11, 2012

SUBJECT: Fiscal Impact Statement Residential Parking Protection Act of 2012

REFERENCE: Bill 19-217, Draft Committee Print shared with the Office of Revenue
Analysis on March 26, 2012


Conclusion

Funds are not sufficient in the FY 2012 budget and the FY 2013 through FY 2016 budget and
financial plan to implement the bill. Implementation of the bill will result in lost permit revenue of
$29,100 in FY 2012 and $261,500 from FY 2012 through FY 2016.

Implementation of the bill is subject to its inclusion in an approved budget and financial plan.

Background

The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) implements the Districts residential parking program.
Only residents are eligible to participate in the residential parking program with a few exceptions
1

for temporary residents through a reciprocity permit program. One exception allows full-time
students who are compliant with the registration and licensing regulations of their permanent
jurisdiction to obtain a one year reciprocity permit for $338. Students who reside in Advisory
Neighborhood Commissions (ANC) 2A, 2E, and 3D
2

are unable to participate in the reciprocity
program.
The bill imposes additional restrictions on ANC 3Ds Single Member Districts 01, 02, 07, 08, and 10.
All of the newly restricted districts are located in the Northwest quadrant in the neighborhoods

1
Exceptions include students, diplomats, military personnel, presidential appointees, and members of
Congress.
2
The ANC 3D restriction only applies to Single Member Districts 3D06 and 3D09.
The Honorable Mary M. Cheh
FIS: B19-217, Residential Parking Protection Act of 2012, Draft Committee Print shared with the Office of
Revenue Analysis on March 26, 2012

Page 2 of 2

surrounding American University. American University is one of two
3

universities predominantly
located within the Ward 3.
Financial Plan Impact

Funds are not sufficient in the FY 2012 budget and the proposed FY 2013 through FY 2016 budget
and financial plan to implement the bill. Implementation of the bill will result in lost permit revenue
of $29,100 in FY 2012 and $261,500 from FY 2012 through FY 2016. Permit revenue is deposited
into the unrestricted portion of the local General Fund. Implementation of the bill is subject to its
inclusion in an approved budget and financial plan.

DMV issued nearly 200 student reciprocity permits to Ward 3 student residents in each of the last 3
fiscal years. Since American University is the largest university wholly located within Ward 3, it is
assumed that 87 percent of the issued permits are for American University students.

Estimated Fiscal Impact of Bill 19-217
Residential Parking Protection Act of 2012
FY 2012 through FY 2016
FY 2012
a
FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
Local General Fund
Revenue Loss
$29,100 $58,100 $58,100 $58,100 $58,100 $261,500
Table Notes
a
Assumes August 1, 2012 implementation.


3
The University of the District of Columbias main campus is located within Ward 3.