HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 2011-1745
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF SUNNY ISLES BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING A
SETTLEMENT IN THE CASE STYLED "RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.
V. CITY OF SUNNY ISLES BEACH, ET AL. CASE NO. 10-35197
CA-30", REGARDING THE RED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM;
PROVIDING THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY
ATTORNEY WITH THE AUTHORITY TO DO ALL THINGS
NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THIS RESOLUTION;
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Sunny Isles Beach operated its own red light camera program
pursuant to a Red-Light Camera Ordinance adopted prior to the state law change in 2010.; and
WHEREAS, on or about June 23. 20 I O. the City and its vendor American Traffic Solutions
("A TS") were sued challenging the City's ability to implement a red light camera program; and
WHEREAS, at about the same time or before the City was sued, several other local
governments that established an ordinance-based red light camera program prior to July I, 2010, were
also sued based on the same nature of claims; and
WHEREAS, some of those cases have proceeded to trial with mixed results, and the case
involving the City of A ventura is pending on appeal before the Third District Court of Appeal; and
WHEREAS, A TS is the same vendor in all of these cases; and
WHEREAS, A TS directly negotiated with plaintiffs' counsel in all of the pending cases
involving A TS and came to an agreement on a concept for resolving each of the cases; and
WHEREAS, although the City's case in the case styled "Rodriguez. et a/. v. Cit). o.fSunny Isles
Beach. et al. Case No. 10-35/97 CA -30" has not progressed to class cel1itication or trial, the City of
Sunny Isles Beach is being offered the same terms for resolving its case; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the attached Settlement proposal, the City and A TS will agree - for
settlement purposes only - to a class cet1ification with neither the City nor A TS admitting any liability
or wrong-doing; and
WHEREAS, The City Attorney's Office and other local government attorneys have
reviewed the proposal, and believe it is in the best interest of the City to reach a settlement; and
WHEREAS, a settlement would conclude the matter without a court declaration, avoid
additional costs of litigation, avoid the risk that in the event of an unfavorable result all of the funds
could be subject to refund, permit the City to count the ordinance-based program revenue as
revenue to the City and permit the City to wrap up the ordinance-based program.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SUNNY ISLES BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Approving the Settlement. The City Commission hereby authorizes the City
Attorney to finalize the settlement of the case styled "Rodriguez et al. vs. City of Sunny Isles Beach,
et al. Case No. 10-35197 CA 25" regarding the City's Red Light Camera Program.
Section 2. Authorization of City Manager and the City Attorney. The City Manager and the
City Attorney are hereby authorized to do all things necessary to effectuate this Resolution.
Section 3.
Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective upon adoption.
s-r-
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21 day of July, 2011.
.~~A-~
Jane A. Hines, CMC, City Clerk
- "
",
APPROVED *S TO FORM
AND AIlsUFFICIENCY:
Seconded by:
~a ffid.Lj>V" l ~
~~ A-fLtO;J
Moved by:
Vote: S-()
Mayor Edelcup
Vice Mayor Thaler
Commissioner Aelion
Commissioner Gatto
Commissioner Scholl
~(Yes)
(Yes)
-----;-r (. Yes)
~Yes)
~(Yes)
_(No)
_(No)
_(No)
_(No)
_(No)
City of Sunny Isles Beach
18070 Collins Avenue, Suite 250
Sunny Isles Beach, Florida 33160
(305) 947-0606 City Hall
(305) 949-3 II 3 Fax
(305) 947-2150 Building Department
(305) 947-5107 Fax
City Commission
Norman S. Ede1cup, Mayor
Lewis Thaler, Vice Mayor
Isaac Aelion, Commissioner
Jeanette Gatto, Commissioner
George "Bud" Scholl, Commissioner
Alan J. Cohen, City Manager
Hans Ottinot, City Attorney
Jane A. Hines, CMC, City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Honorable City Commission
FROM: Hans Ottinot, City Attome~
DATE: June 21,2011
RE: Rodriguez v City of Sunny Isles Beach - Case No. 10-35197-CA 30
(Red-Light Camera Lawsuit- Ordinance based Program)
RECOMMENDATION:
The Resolution authorizing the settlement of the above-referenced case IS presented for your
consideration.
REASONS:
Prior to permanently suspending the City's Red Light Camera Program, The City of Sunny Isles
Beach operated its own red light camera program pursuant to a Red-Light Camera Ordinance
adopted prior to the state law change in 2010. On or about June 23, 2010, the City and its vendor,
American Traffic Solutions (A TS), were sued challenging the City's ability to implement a red light
camera program pursuant to the adopted Ordinance. The case seeks class action certification for all
individuals that paid for the violations under the City's program. The total received by the City
pursuant to its ordinance-based program (prior to July 1, 2010) is approximately $150,431.85. Of
that amount, ATS is owed approximately $38,935.00. The City has withheld payment to ATS for
the ordinance-based program. The City is entitled to $111,165.00 from the fines collected under the
Red Light Camera Program. Staff will verify all amounts before execution of any settlement
agreement.
At about the same time or before the City was sued, several other local governments that established
an ordinance-based program prior to July 1, 2010, were also sued with the same nature of claims.
Some of those cases have proceeded to trial with mixed results, and the case involving the City of
A ventura is pending on appeal before the Third District Court of Appeal. A TS is the vendor in all
of these cases. The City Attorney currently represents the City in this matter because A TS has
refused to provide legal representation to the City.
A TS directly negotiated with plaintiffs' counsel in all of the pending cases, and came to an
agreement on a concept for resolving each of the cases. Although the City's case has not progressed
to class certification or trial, the City of Sunny Isles Beach is being offered the same terms for
resolving our case.
Pursuant to the attached Settlement proposal, the City and A TS will agree - for settlement purposes
only - to a class certification. Neither the City nor A TS will admit any liability or wrong-doing.
The City and A TS will pursue Option A as the settlement proposal instead of Option B or Option C.
The City and A TS will each contribute 30% of their share of funds from the ordinance-based
program to a Settlement Fund. For the City, that is approximately $33,590.00; ATS's share is
approximately $11,681.00. Because the City is currently holding all payments owed to A TS, it will
contribute A TS' s share ofthe Settlement Fund from the moneys owed to A TS.
Members of the class would need to apply for a refund of a portion of the funds paid to the City
through a claims process. Should someone not want to be part of the class, they will need to
affirmatively opt-out.
As you may know, there is an administrative cost associated with class action settlements. The
administrative cost is partly due to the cost of mailing notices to the class. The costs of the claims
process will be paid by A TS and the City in the proportion of the payments made by each party to
the Settlement Fund, which is approximately 79% of the costs to the City. The City's share of the
costs is estimated to be $8,000.00-$10,000.00. Attorney's fees for Plaintiff's counsel will be set by
Court Order and payable from the Settlement Fund.
The proposed Settlement must be accepted by the Court. Once the Court enters an Order on the
Settlement, it is anticipated that the claims process will take six (6) months. Should any money
remain in the Settlement Fund at the conclusion of the claims process, it will be returned to the City
and A TS in the proportion paid by the parties; approximately 79% to the City and 21 % to A TS.
The City Attorney's Office and other local government attorneys have reviewed the proposal, as
well as the status of the litigation both in the City's specific case and in other cases. Given the
rulings to date, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that the City would ultimately
prevail. A settlement would conclude the matter without a court declaration, avoid additional
costs of litigation, avoid the risk that in the event of an unfavorable result all of the funds could
be subject to refund, permit the City to count the ordinance-based program revenue as revenue to
the City and permit the City to finalize the ordinance-based program. Given these factors, it is
recommended that the City Commission approve the settlement. The form of settlement
documents will be presented to the City Commission at a future Commission Hearing. Please
note that the City of Pembroke Pines, City of Hallandale and other cities have approved the
settlement proposal provided in Option A.
2
..c
()
co
Q)
~l
uQ)
~Ci5
II
"
L{)
(")
0>
CO
(")
E:f)
0)
::J
~ C
('f) 0)
~ >
0)
00:::
L() 0)
~ 0)
Y)-Ll..
0)
a1 .~
... 0)
() 00
Q) 00
o .-
0<C
en
Q) L{)
c co
...-
LL...-
...-
m ...-
...E:f)
o 0)
I- ::J
C
0)
>
0)
0:::
>-
G i
., -
~
at
I~ d
I ~J
I JIll
I
I
ill
II
II
II
II
q
11
,Ii
'Il
'I
,
.
"en I
51
~I
c: 01
ns en I
.~ 01
S :::: I
E ns I
<(.= 1
s..-'
~~11
\~
I'
I
@2010 American Traffic Solutions, Inc I Proprietary and Confidential
0)
+-'
+-'
0)
00
ii
o
>-
~
U
00 - -Ie
0)001"-
C'-I"-
tj:: <C CO_
ctl >- I"-
+-'.c(")
o E:f)
i +-'"00
-O)+-,
"o~~~g-
o 0) C
(") I....
- 0
00 "0 .-
>-O):J
ctl+-'.c
0.. 0 .-
-..O)l:;
.,.-, = C
~OO
U 0 0
-Ie
>-0
+-,0>
.- L{)
U -
-(")
0(")
oE:f)
C;' 0
o +-'
(")0..
00 ::J
>- -
ctl 0)
o..::J
>-C
+-' 0)
.- >
U 0)
0:::
>-
.c
>-
~
:=(")
.co>
.~ L{)
001"-
~E:f)
00 0>
0) .~
+='>-
+-' ctl
~ 0..
00
.-
<C
(")
0>
L{)+-'
.....- C
1- 0)
E:f)E
~ 0)
+-' +-'
::J+-'
.c ~
.C
+-' "0
C I....
o ctl
o ~
00.9
.-
<C
0) 00 -Ie
o 0...-
. - .- ...- CO
2:<COCO
0) 0 N ...--
00 +-' >-...-
-"O-E:f)
o 0) ::J
~~7.9
OO~o..
(") I.... 0.. ::J
o
00 C-
>-~ 0 ~
ctlctl"OO
0..0..0):+:J
00 00 00 ctl
.- 0) ctl 0
<C 0) .c .-
- >
+-'
00
C
00 ctl
.- 0>
<C ctl
o 00
+-' 0)
00 ::J >-
ctl C +-'
oo~G
"0 0 0)
C O..c
0) C +-'
0) 0
00 :+:J
ctl ctl
U 0>
· S
.
0)
..c
+-'
.9 00
>-E
C ctl
o 0
00"0
0) .-
:J ctl
.c >
.- -
l:; 0
c+-,
o C
o 0)
>-x
~ 0)
U
0)
"0"0
ctl ._
E ctl
00 >
.~ 2
o 0
.- +-' 00
:J-E
.c 0._
.C 00 ctl
+-' 00 0
C 0)
0-
0"0
I....
00 ctl
.-0>
<C ~
.
.
o
+-' "0
>-==
- ctl
C >
o _
>-ctl
ctl ::J
0.. 1:5 00
OOctlE
.- - .-
<C 0 ctl
"O"EO
C 0)
ctlx
>-0)
+-'
.- 0)
U..c
+-'
"00)>-
==~.c+-'
ctl 0 1'1\ C
>+-'~ 0)
>- .c E
ctl C ctl 0)
0...2 := +='
oot::~Q)
I- 8. ctl 00
<Co 0)"0
I.... I....
"0 0.. "0 ctl
C ctl ~
ctl.~ E 0
>-OOoo+-'
~E"O..c
U .- C 0
ctl ::J ctl
· 0 - 0)
.
-..
::J
.0
CI)~
,~
~
C,)~
~.Q
~~
CD ~
:-- ,.,..
I.f:: 'u
O~
~ ctl
CI) E
~.8
-5 CD
"- Q.)
~ l.;;:.
'- 0)
"'0 ctl
. s: CI)
'+-~
~q:
CD "'0
.0 t::
E ctl
~~
CD()
~ CD
t::~
o CI)
"'0"'0
CD t::
CI)~
ctl_
.0 ctl
CD-"
.0.8
::::::: CD
.~ ~
-""'0
t:: CD
::J CD
o C,)
E ><
ctl CD
- -..
ctl 0
t:: t::
'u...- :::::::
"-
-Ie s:
Z)-
o~
VlIU
=>11.
uc:t
~'"
CDI
-0
ca
Q)
..c:
ca
~
ca
e
Q)
s
I:::
o
'-
Q)
. .....
CI)
ca
Q)
~
I:::
ca
'-
~
ca
CI)
~
. .....
--..
0)
.1:::
~
ca
=e