What if San Diego's parking meters could detect when you drive away, erase the time you already paid for, charge the next motorist again, and even help parking officers find vehicles the moment their meters expire? The technology exists, San Diego's longtime parking vendor openly markets it, and the City's own multimillion-dollar procurement documents specifically call for those capabilities.
Yet San Diego officials insist the controversial sensors are not currently active and have never been used to erase purchased parking time. Now, after weeks of unanswered questions, the City claims to have no records responsive to SanDiegoVille's formal California Public Records Act request investigating the technology, while its communications office is directing further questions to a telephone conversation rather than providing written answers.
The controversy began September 2, when a Reddit post alleged that San Diego parking meters automatically eliminate unused paid time when vehicles leave. The allegation raised an infuriating possibility: a driver could purchase two hours of parking, leave after 30 minutes, and the City could collect another payment for the same space before the original two hours expired.
SanDiegoVille began investigating, uncovering official contracts, technical specifications and vendor materials demonstrating that the technology is not only commercially available but has already been deployed in other American cities.
San Diego's own records make the questions particularly difficult to dismiss. In August 2025, the City approved a contract with San Diego-based IPS Group authorizing up to $10,122,550 over five years, with options bringing the potential ten-year expenditure to $17,048,600.
The City's procurement specifications identified approximately 850 existing vehicle-detection sensors integrated into its parking system. These devices were designed to identify when vehicles entered and exited individual spaces and communicate information in real time.
More revealingly, the specifications called for sensors capable of adding or removing parking time based on vehicle movements.
IPS's own proposal, submitted in response to the City's solicitation, confirms that the company understood those requirements. The vendor identified approximately 850 existing sensors among San Diego's parking equipment and proposed replacing the City's aging inventory with new smart meters and stereoscopic vehicle-detection sensors.
The proposal expressly addressed the City's requirement for sensors capable of adding or removing time from a parking meter based on a vehicle's arrival or departure. IPS responded that its equipment complied.
The company's response also confirmed that its sensors could record vehicle arrival and departure times, transmit real-time occupancy information and integrate with third-party enforcement applications.
IPS markets similar functionality as a revenue-generating feature. Its promotional materials explain that meters can reset to zero when vehicles leave, preventing arriving motorists from using remaining time purchased by previous drivers. The company has advertised potential revenue increases of approximately 25% to 50% from sensor technology.
And this isn't just marketing.
In Laredo, Texas, IPS documented the deployment of sensors that reset paid meters when vehicles departed. According to the company's case study, Laredo estimated a 25% to 30% increase in parking revenue from that functionality alone.
Santa Monica has also used sensors to reset paid parking meters, with the technology reportedly generating approximately $1.4 million annually in additional revenue. In San Jose, faulty sensors reportedly triggered erroneous parking citations after incorrectly detecting that vehicles had departed.
But whether San Diego has ever activated the same paid-time reset functionality remains unverified.
City Senior Public Information Officer Richard Berg emphatically denied that San Diego has used sensors to erase purchased parking time.
"At no point did we ever zero out time if a sensor was ever installed where a customer had to pay," Berg told SanDiegoVille.
He also asserted that "The City no longer has any meters on the street with a vehicle detection sensor installed."
According to Berg, the sensors were most recently used only at free 15- and 30-minute parking spaces, where they restored the full free parking allowance for newly arriving motorists.
There is historical support for at least part of that explanation. In 2017, a City parking official told the San Diego Union-Tribune that sensors being installed in Hillcrest would not reset remaining paid time during the pilot program.
But the City's latest procurement documents raise an obvious question: if all the sensors were being eliminated, why was San Diego soliciting proposals to replace them?
The procurement's stated objectives included replacing the City's aging parking meters and vehicle-detection sensor inventory. IPS's proposal specifically offered new stereoscopic sensors, while the contract pricing included $168,500 for sensors in the first year alone.
The vendor also described its existing relationship with San Diego, explaining that it had supplied the City's parking technology since 2014 and was already operating approximately 3,600 single-space meters, 211 multi-space pay stations and 850 vehicle-detection sensors.
In its proposal, IPS described the objective of the solicitation as obtaining new parking meters and vehicle-detection sensors to meet the City's future needs. It expressly offered equipment capable of recording vehicle arrivals and departures, modifying meter time and supplying real-time occupancy data.
Those are not merely theoretical capabilities found in a generic sales brochure. They appear in the vendor's formal response to San Diego's own procurement requirements.
Following additional inquiries from SanDiegoVille, the City provided a new written explanation on October 28 that raises further questions about its earlier statements.
Anthony Santacroce, a supervising public information officer for the City, confirmed that San Diego currently has no active vehicle-detection sensors and has never used sensor technology to reset paid parking meters.
"The City of San Diego never used sensor auto reset technology on paid parking meters," Santacroce wrote.
He also confirmed that the City's recent sensors were used exclusively at free 15- and 30-minute spaces, where they restored the parking allowance when a vehicle departed.
But when asked to confirm that all vehicle-detection sensors had been physically removed, rather than merely disabled or deactivated, Santacroce offered a different explanation.
"As stated previously, all on-street meters are being replaced as part of the conversion project currently underway. Any remaining sensors are not active and will be removed during this project and replaced with new hardware. The new hardware has no sensor technology."
That response is significant because it leaves open the possibility that some sensors remain physically installed, even though the City maintains that none are operational.
It also introduces another unresolved discrepancy. The City's 2025 procurement contemplated replacement vehicle-detection sensors, and IPS submitted a proposal offering them. Yet officials now say the replacement hardware being installed has no sensor technology.
The City has not provided SanDiegoVille with documentation explaining when that decision was made, whether the sensor portion of the procurement was canceled or modified, whether any replacement sensors were purchased, or how many of the approximately 850 previously identified devices remain installed.
The distinction matters. A procurement requirement does not establish that every advertised feature was purchased or activated, and the City's latest statements provide a possible explanation for why the replacement meters may differ from the original specifications. But the apparent change in plans should be traceable through purchasing records, implementation documents or communications between the City and its vendor.
And the potential implications extend beyond unused parking time.
Another provision in San Diego's procurement specifications calls for its parking system to communicate with enforcement officers' handheld devices through an application programming interface, or API, providing payment and/or occupancy information for what the City calls "guided enforcement."
That could allow parking officers to identify expired meters electronically rather than relying exclusively on routine patrols.
IPS has already demonstrated this functionality elsewhere. In Laredo, its technology provided maps identifying spaces in violation and helped direct officers toward them. The company reported that the system resulted in more tickets being issued.
San Diego's specifications also call for real-time sensor information, detailed parking analytics and meters capable of displaying negative time after expiration to assist enforcement.
The vendor's proposal reinforces those capabilities. IPS described a centralized data management system capable of integrating parking meters, vehicle-detection sensors, mobile payments and enforcement applications. It also confirmed that sensor information could be transmitted to third-party enforcement systems and used to monitor occupancy.
Importantly, none of this establishes that San Diego currently sends officers automatic notifications when a particular meter expires. Nor does the City's denial of active vehicle-detection sensors establish that parking officers lack access to electronic payment or expiration information through other parts of the system.
The City's own documents expressly contemplate data-assisted enforcement, and SanDiegoVille has repeatedly asked officials whether those capabilities are operational.
The City has not provided a substantive explanation of what information its parking enforcement officers currently receive through handheld devices or other software.
On September 2, SanDiegoVille filed California Public Records Act Request 26-9052 seeking documents concerning parking sensors, meter resets, vendor contracts, enforcement software, real-time payment information and guided enforcement.
The request initially went to the City Treasurer's Office, which oversees Parking Meter Operations. On September 11, that department was removed from the assignment and Transportation was added.
Over the following weeks, the City repeatedly extended its response, explaining that additional departmental consultation was necessary.
Berg separately indicated that he would address SanDiegoVille's outstanding questions the following week. More than six weeks later, the promised substantive follow-up had not materialized.
On October 9, the City said it was still consulting departments and anticipated another update by October 23.
Instead, on October 21, Public Records Administration Program Coordinator Lori Hernandez closed the request with a startling determination.
"After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry the City of San Diego has determined that it has no responsive documents."
Not a single document was produced.
That response is difficult to reconcile with the City's own publicly available procurement materials, particularly because the request expressly included contracts, statements of work and records concerning guided enforcement.
The IPS proposal itself contains extensive descriptions of the City's existing sensor inventory, proposed replacement equipment, real-time occupancy monitoring and integration with enforcement software.
It remains possible that the City interpreted certain portions of the request as limited to currently operating sensor-reset systems, or that its search was otherwise narrower than SanDiegoVille understood. The precise wording and scope of the request are important to evaluating the City's determination.
But the existence of relevant procurement documents raises legitimate questions about how the City conducted its search and why no responsive records were identified.
SanDiegoVille formally challenged the determination, requested that the matter be reopened, and sought an explanation of which departments and records systems were searched.
On October 28, Santacroce initially offered to clarify or answer questions concerning the public records request and parking enforcement. After SanDiegoVille requested a written response, he provided the additional sensor-related explanations but did not identify the records systems searched, explain the no-records determination or address the outstanding guided-enforcement questions.
When SanDiegoVille subsequently sought clarification of those remaining issues, Santacroce declined to provide further written answers and instead directed the publication to contact him by telephone.
"We have previously responded in writing to your initial queries and completed a PRA request. All other questions or concerns you can call me to discuss," Santacroce wrote.
The response is notable because SanDiegoVille had expressly requested written communications to preserve an accurate record of the City's representations, particularly given the discrepancies between its procurement documents, earlier statements and public records determination.
There is nothing inherently improper about a public information officer offering to speak by telephone, and the California Public Records Act does not require officials to answer every question posed by a journalist. However, a telephone conversation does not replace the City's obligation to search for and disclose responsive, nonexempt public records.
SanDiegoVille responded by reiterating its request for written clarification and identifying four categories of outstanding questions: the number and status of any remaining sensors, the decision to exclude replacement sensors from the current installation, the operation of guided enforcement technology, and the departments and records systems searched in response to CPRA Request 26-9052.
The publication also requested confirmation of whether any replacement sensors were purchased or paid for, whether contract amendments or other records document the apparent change in procurement plans, and whether parking officers currently receive real-time or near-real-time information identifying expired parking sessions through handheld devices or other software.
These are specific questions arising directly from the City's own records and statements. Although the City has repeatedly denied using sensors to erase paid parking time, its responses have not explained what happened to the existing equipment, why the replacement project apparently differs from the original procurement requirements, or how its electronic enforcement system currently operates.
SanDiegoVille advised Santacroce that the City's preference for telephone discussions, despite repeated requests for written clarification, would be included in its reporting. The publication remains willing to incorporate any substantive response the City provides.
The investigation has also uncovered another development: IPS Group was acquired October 1 by publicly traded payments company Nayax in a transaction valued at approximately $350 million. The acquisition does not establish any improper conduct, but illustrates the substantial commercial market for technology that collects parking payments, analyzes vehicle activity and supports enforcement.
For now, San Diego's position is that its vehicle-detection sensors are inactive, any remaining devices will be physically removed during the meter replacement project, and the City has never used them to eliminate purchased parking time. SanDiegoVille has not obtained evidence proving otherwise.
But the City's own procurement records establish that its parking system previously included approximately 850 sensors, that its solicitation contemplated replacing them, that the proposed technology could modify parking time based on vehicle movements, and that the system was designed to support integration with enforcement devices.
The newly obtained vendor proposal makes those questions more difficult to dismiss. IPS expressly offered the sensor technology the City solicited, confirmed its ability to meet the requirements and described how occupancy information could be integrated into enforcement systems.
The City's latest response suggests those plans have since changed. What remains unexplained is when, why and through what documented process.
Those facts deserve more than a public records response declaring that nothing exists, particularly when the City's own procurement materials describe the equipment and capabilities at issue.
SanDiegoVille continues to seek answers about what happened to the approximately 850 sensors, whether replacement equipment was purchased, what information parking officers receive from the system, why the City's implementation apparently departed from its procurement specifications, and why its records office has been unable to produce documents addressing those questions.
Until those answers arrive, San Diego motorists are left with a troubling contradiction: the City's procurement documents describe a sophisticated parking technology system capable of monitoring vehicle movements and assisting enforcement, while its officials insist the most controversial functions were never activated, the remaining sensors are being removed, and its public records search turned up nothing. And when pressed to reconcile those positions in writing, the City's communications office has directed the questions to a phone call.
Originally published November 3, 2026.