Frustrated Vallejo council seeks solutions for auto break-ins in city lots

VALLEJO – Vallejo City Council members said Tuesday that they receive numerous complaints about catalytic converter thefts and auto break-ins in the city’s paid parking areas, especially in the city’s parking garage adjacent to the Ferry Terminal.

“That garage is a nightmare,” Councilmember Mina Loera-Diaz said at a meeting Tuesday. “A lot of people figure ‘it’s covered, it has to be safe, I’m not going to park on the street’ – And it's from that garage where they are taking the most catalytic converters.”

Mayor Robert McConnell said that he receives three to five complaints a week about vandalism, catalytic converter theft and vehicle theft. Other council members confirmed that they also receive similar complaints.

The discussion came up as the council voted on a new contract with the city’s parking enforcement services provider. The new contract provides for a parking attendant to monitor the paid lots and ticket vehicles as necessary for an average yearly cost of $235,000 per year.

In the past year, the city’s paid parking lots brought in $850,000 in revenue not including revenue from parking citations, according to Transportation Program Superintendent Mark Helmbrecht. Out of those funds, Park Vallejo pays for a security guard to patrol the downtown and waterfront areas 24 hours at a cost of $300,000 per year, Helmbrecht said.

Hambricht said that the parking enterprise is essentially at a break even point, although prior to the pandemic parking did bring in as much as $1.4 million in yearly revenue, which provided $500,000 in excess of the cost of operation.

Councilmember Diosdado “JR” Matulac said that after he and other councilmembers have received so many emails about robberies, especially in the parking lot areas, he would like to know what the new contract arrangement will do to improve the situation.

Helmbrecht said that the contract for the security guard is separate from the parking enforcement contract. He said that the security patrols are provided by Admiral Security and there is the possibility to increase those services, but there is not a lot of room to do so with the current funds from parking revenue.

McConnell said that there have been complaints about Admiral Security’s performance.  Loera-Diaz asked if the city staff is sure that the guards are not just sitting in their cars.

Public Works Director Melissa Tigbao said her department does monitor Admiral Security’s GPS tracking reports to assure that the patrol itinerary is completed on a regular basis. She said that public works deals with a lot of vandalism and crime in the downtown areas. “There are so many times that the elevator has been broken, lights bashed in, the electrical vehicle charges are vandalized, so it’s not been great and I understand the frustration,” Tigbao said.

City Attorney Veronica Nebb said she wanted to make it clear that the security guards are only there as a deterrent. “They are not police and we cannot accept the liability associated with security guards [when we don’t] control their training,” Nebb said. “They patrol and they certainly call if something happens but they are eyes on as opposed to action individuals.”

Helmbrecht said that he does provide video clips from the garage security cameras for police investigations but there is limited footage available because many of the cameras in the garage have been damaged by vandalism. He noted that the city has obtained partial grant funding to repair the security system this year.

“I don’t see where the contract is going to do anything other than fine people for over parking,” McConnell said. “I don’t see a return of benefit by the approval of this contract.”

He suggested moving toward free parking to attract people to the downtown similar to how the city of Napa is currently operating.

Assistant City Manager Gillian Hayes said that staff could not recommend ending fee collection for parking because the city used those funds to maintain the parking facilities.

The council approved the parking enforcement contract with the caveat that city staff return in six months to report on the contractor’s performance and then return in another six months with a second report, at which point council members can decide to terminate the contract and pursue other options.