My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Ordinance 2010-347
SIBFL
>
City Clerk
>
Ordinances
>
2010
>
Ordinance 2010-347
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/9/2024 5:05:31 PM
Creation date
7/22/2010 11:17:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CityClerk-Ordinances
Ordinance Number
2010-347
Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
07/15/2010
Description
Amd Chap. 256, Dangerous Intersection Safety/Red Light Traffic Signal
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />To: Honorable Mayor and Commissioners <br />From: Rick Conner, City Manager <br />Date: June 10, 2010 <br />Copy To: Minai Shah, Assistant City Manager <br />Jane Hines, City Clerk <br />Hans Ottinot, City Attorney <br />Subject: Red Light Camera Analysis <br /> <br />As you are probably aware, about a month ago the Governor signed the Red Light Camera Bill (properly <br />known as the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act). This now allows us to legally issue civil citations for <br />drivers running red lights, a process that was put on hold several months ago pending this approval. <br />I have read the new legislation and when you dig down inside all of the normal boiler plate, it is a fairly <br />straight forward setup. <br /> <br />As a municipal government, we have two options when utilizing this process on State roadways. One is <br />to operate the system on our own, incur the expenses necessary to do so, and collect seventy-five <br />dollars per citation. The other option is to authorize the State to run the program within our corporate <br />limits and collect forty-five dollars per citation, with no expenses. If the State desires to run the <br />program in our City, the new law requires that they obtain permission from the City Commission first. <br /> <br />The analysis below shows that we would be better off financially (and operationally) if we had the State <br />to run the pro'gram for us. The problem is that will almost certainly not choose to do so here. If we <br />only cite straight-through violations, under the new proposal from ATS, we would (by law) pay them a <br />flat fee and they have offered $4,500:1:: per camera per month which works out to two citations per <br />camera per day to cover just their costs. During the last eight months of the program, we were seeing <br />a total of three straight through violations per day total (or 1.5 per camera). We therefore believe that <br />you should consider adopting the state required ordinance so that we can participate at a later date, but <br />that you abandon the program for now. <br /> <br />CITY RUN <br /> <br />STATE RUN <br /> <br />Revenues: <br />$75.00 per ticket <br />Expenses: <br />$6.00 per ticket to review by <br />Police <br />$100.00 average per ticket to ATS <br /> <br />Revenues: <br />$45.00 per ticket <br />Expenses: <br />None per ticket to ATS <br /> <br />NET: $-31.00 per ticket <br /> <br />NET: $45.00 per ticket <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.