Public Hearing on the Red Light Camera Ordinance Board of County Commissioners Presented by Dana...

Public Hearing on the

Red Light Camera Ordinance

Board of County Commissioners

Presented by Dana Crosby, Assistant County Attorney,

andRuby Rozier, Manager Traffic Engineering,

March 24, 2009

• Overview

• Proposed Ordinance

• Next Steps (implementation)

• Public Hearing

• Requested Action

Presentation Outline

• Overview

• Proposed Ordinance

• Next Steps (implementation)

• Public Hearing

• Requested Action

Presentation Outline

Review of Recent BCC Action

2007, 2008, 2009 -- BCC included a red light bill in its Legislative priorities.

June 7, 2007 -- County Attorney memo issued stating state law preempts local ordinance on this issue.

July 10, 2007 -- BCC voted not to pursue an ordinance absent change in state law.

Oct. 23, 2007 -- BCC approved pilot project for camera placement and issuance of warnings.

Overview

Review of Recent BCC Action

Nov. 2008 – Public Works provided BCC with results of the pilot project.

Feb. 17, 2009 – Comm. Moore Russell made a Motion to Reconsider July 10, 2007 BCC action on the issue; motion passed.

Feb. 17, 2009 -- BCC directed staff to return with an ordinance tracking the requirements of HB 439, filed in the 2009 legislative session.

Overview

Three bills have been filed this session on the issue of red light cameras:

HB 439 (filed 1-19-09)

SB 2004 (filed 2-23-09)

SB 2688 (filed 3-2-09)

Session ends Friday, May 1, 2009

Overview

Overview

HB 439 by Reagan – Referred to the following committees: Roads, Bridges & Ports Policy Committee; Military & Local Affairs Policy Committee; Economic Development & Community Affairs

Policy Council; Finance & Tax CouncilStatus:House Bill passed 1st committee of reference on 3-

4-09; reported as a Committee Substitute (CS) 3-10-09.

PCS for CS/HB 439 to be heard in 2nd committee 3-25.

Overview

SB 2004 by Altman – Referred to the following committees: Transportation; Criminal Justice; Community Affairs; Judiciary; Transportation & Economic Development

Appropriations

Status:Senate Bill passed 1st committee of reference on 3-

17-09; reported as a Committee Substitute (CS) 3-19-09.

Overview

SB 2688 by Peaden -- Referred to the following committees: Transportation; Criminal Justice; Community Affairs; Judiciary; Transportation & Economic Development

Appropriations

Status:No action on bill.

CS/SB2004 and CS/HB439 are similar and provide for a local ordinance to:

Allow for the use of a traffic infraction detectors to enforce red light violations;

authorize a traffic enforcement officer to issue ticket for red light violations observed by cameras;

require the ticket be processed like a parking ticket;

require signs to notify where a camera may be in use; and

require a public awareness campaign and warning period.

Overview

Changes from the bills as they were filed: Adds ‘medical emergency’ to defenses;

Allows cities and counties to place cameras on state or county ROW;

Increases the time for county to issue ticket and for owner to respond with defenses;

Grandfathers existing equipment for ~1 year (bills worded slightly differently).

Overview

Differences in the bills (as of 3-20-09)

HB requires driver improvement class in all cases; SB allows a court to order it.

SB allows for placement on state, county and city ROW in accord with FDOT specifications and so not to impair roadway safety;

SB clarifies that the regulation and use of cameras in enforcing the Uniform Traffic Code is expressly preempted to the state.

SB amends sections of ch 395, FS (Hospital Licensing & Regulation) to provide specifics in distribution of trauma payments.

Overview

SB 2688 is different from the other bills –

for example: Allows state, county or city to establish a traffic

control photographic program.

Allows cameras only at intersections with yellow signal set by state regulation.

Allows for a fine as described in ch. 318, FS.

Contains different owner defenses.

Overview

• Overview

• Proposed Ordinance

• Next Steps (implementation)

• Public Hearing

• Requested Action

Presentation Outline

Section 1 (pg 2, line 64).

• This ordinance was drafted to track HB 439 and was updated prior to publication of notice (3-8-09) to track the CS/HB.

• The Ordinance creates a new Article V in Chapter 35 of the County Code (Traffic) to establish a local red light camera enforcement program as follows:

Proposed Ordinance

Subsection 35-71 (pg 2, line 71):

• States an intent consistent with the

requirements set forth in the House and

Senate bills.

Proposed Ordinance

Subsection 35-72 (pg 2 line 84):

• Provides definitions for traffic infraction

detector and traffic control signal device (per

law).

• Creates a new definition for registered

owner, traffic hearing officer, and traffic

infraction enforcement officer.

Subsection 35-73 (pg 3 line 132):

• Provides that failure to stop at a red light is

a violation of this code the fine for which will

be assessed against the owner of the

vehicle.

• Provides that emergency vehicles in

emergency response mode are exempt.

Proposed Ordinance

Subsection 35-73:

• Provides defenses for the owner:

•Vehicle was yielding to emergency vehicle;

•vehicle was part of a funeral procession;

•law enforcement directed vehicle to pass the light;

•vehicle was stolen at the time of offense;

•driver received a traffic citation at time of offense;

•any other defenses provided in law.

Proposed Ordinance

Subsection 35-73:

• Provides that defense shall be presented in

an affidavit to County Administrator (or

designee) within 30 days of receipt of the

ticket.

• Provides that if defense is not accepted by

County Administrator, matter will be

referred to a Hearing Officer retained by the

County for this purpose.

• Provides owner may contest the

determination that the vehicle failed to stop

before the County Hearing Officer.

Proposed Ordinance

Subsection 35-74 (pg 5 line 221):

• Codifies procedures for issuance of the

ticket.

• Ticket must advise the fine amount and the

date by which fine must be paid or

contested.

• Ordinance requires County to postmark

ticket no more than 14 days after the

offense. (Both bills were amended to allow

more time; therefore, an amendment is

suggested to ordinance.)

Proposed Ordinance

Subsection 35-75 (pg 7 line 274):

• Fine in ordinance shall be as established in law.

• Fine shall be distributed pursuant to the law.

• Bills differ on driver improvement course so

ordinance will require only “if required by state

law”.

NOTE: The two bills as filed contained a

different fine amount and distribution method;

House and Senate bills are consistent today

but that may change.

Proposed Ordinance

Subsection 35-76 (pg 7 line 292):

• Provides a procedure for owner to contest

the findings of the County Hearing Officer.

• Allows an owner to appear before a

designated officer authorized to hear traffic

infractions; may be county judge or traffic

hearing officer.

• Designated officer may assess the fine plus

costs.

Proposed Ordinance

Subsection 35-77 (pg 8 line 320):

• Consistent with County parking code and

with both bills as filed, the ordinance

requires the Comptroller or Clerk to provide

to DHSMV a list of persons who have one or

more outstanding tickets for this type of red

light violation.

• Tag will not be renewed until ticket is paid

and driver’s education is complete.

Proposed Ordinance

Section 2 of the Ordinance (pg 8 line 332):

Directs placement of cameras at locations where County has data to support a history of red light running.

Allows for flexibility in placement options.

(Per BCC direction on Feb. 17, 2009)

Proposed Ordinance

Section 3 of the Ordinance (pg 8 line 336):

Directs that signs be placed at those locations where traffic infraction detector may be in use.

Directs County Administrator or designee to develop and conduct a public awareness campaign 30 days prior to commencing a program.

(Required in SB and HB.)

Proposed Ordinance

Section 4 of the Ordinance (pg 8 line 343):

Allows County Administrator or designee to implement this program in the most cost efficient manner possible, including the County and/or vendor administering the program.

(Vendors authorized in SB and HB.)

Proposed Ordinance

Section 5 of the Ordinance (pg 9 line 347):

Requires any complaint that County is using this program for a reason other than promotion of health, safety and welfare be brought to the BCC.

Requires that complaint and corrective action be included in County’s annual report to FDOT on the program.

(Required in SB and HB.)

Proposed Ordinance

Section 6 of the Ordinance (pg 9 line 353):

Provides that the ordinance will be interpreted in a manner so as to be consistent with other general laws of Florida (e.g. Sunshine, Public Records, Uniform Traffic Code, etc.).

Proposed Ordinance

Section 7 of the Ordinance (pg 9 line 356):

Provides that the ordinance will take effect immediately.

However, implementation of an operational system will occur once:

authorized by general law;

county secures a vendor; and

BCC establishes the implementation date.

(Per BCC discussion on Feb. 17, 2009)

Proposed Ordinance

Proposed staff amendments:

Page 6, line 256 – before the comma insert “and, if required by law, the requirement of owner to attend a basic driver improvement course”

Page 6, line 271 and 272 – strike those lines and replace with “postmarked within the time period established in general law” (time for County to issue a ticket)

Page 8, line 326 – after the word “cartridge” insert “or other electronic means, data”

Page 8, line 333 – prior to the word “where” insert the words “in accordance with law and”

Proposed Ordinance

• Overview

• Proposed Ordinance

• Next Steps (implementation)

• Public Hearing

• Requested Action

Presentation Outline

County Staff is currently: Tracking legislation;

Evaluating placement opportunities; and

Drafting the request for proposal (RFP) to seek a vendor.

Next Steps (implementation)

To discuss issues relating to the RFP, I am pleased to welcome Ruby Rozier, Manager of Traffic Engineering.

Next Steps (implementation)

Request for Proposals: Candidate Intersections

Type of System

Costs

Implementation Schedule

Recommendations

Next Steps (implementation)

Candidate Intersections: Highest Crash Rate Intersections

60 Candidate Intersections Identified

Phased Implementation:

Begin with top 10

Expand

Rotate Camera Locations

Next Steps (implementation)

Type of System:

Turn-key system recommended --

Vendor installs, operates, and maintains system

Vendor maintains website and mails tickets

County staff reviews videos and approves citations

County collects fines and distributes to various entities

Next Steps (implementation)

Costs: Vendor pays all initial and operating costs

County pays for staff to review videos and approve citations

County pays for staff to collect fines and distribute revenue

County pays Vendor per Revenue Sharing

Next Steps (implementation)

Schedule:

Prepare RFP documents Now

Advertise RFP May 11, 2009

Staff Select Vendor June 15, 2009

BCC Approves Vendor July 2009

Execute Contract August 2009

Start Operation November 2009

Next Steps (implementation)

• Overview

• Proposed Ordinance

• Next Steps (implementation)

• Public Hearing

• Requested Action

Presentation Outline

Public Hearingon the

Red Light Camera Ordinance

• Overview

• Proposed Ordinance

• Next Steps (implementation)

• Public Hearing

• Requested Action

Presentation Outline

Requested Action

Ordinance:

County Attorney requests BCC adopt the Ordinance as amended.

Public Hearingon the

Red Light Camera Ordinance

Board of County Commissioners

Presented by Dana Crosby, Assistant County Attorney,

andRuby Rozier, Manager Traffic Engineering,

March 24, 2009