Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 4, 2004 Agenda AGENDA CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL October 4, 2004 After determining that a quorum is presem, the City Council of the City of Demon, Texas will convene in a Special Called Work Session on Monday, October 4, 2004 at 11:30 a.m. in the Council Work Session Room, 215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas at which the following items will be considered: Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the use of automated red light enforcement cameras at selected intersections in the City of Denton. 2. Closed Meeting: mo Consultation with Attorney -- Under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551.071. Discuss and consider legal issues concerning the City of Demon's proposed Automated Red Light Enforcement Camera Program patterned on an existing City of Garland Program including the legal enforceability of such a program under the City of Demon's home rule authority, the Texas Transportation Code and other applicable law, including the legal aspects of enforcemem as a criminal violation or as a civil penalty where to discuss these legal issues in public would conflict with the duty of the City's attorneys to the City Council under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas. ANY FINAL ACTION, DECISION, OR VOTE ON A MATTER DELIBERATED IN A CLOSED MEETING WILL ONLY BE TAKEN IN AN OPEN MEETING THAT IS HELD IN COMPLIANCE WITH TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, CHAPTER 551, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT SUCH FINAL ACTION, DECISION, OR VOTE IS TAKEN IN THE CLOSED MEETING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF §551.086 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE (THE 'PUBLIC POWER EXCEPTION'). THE CITY COUNCIL RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADJOURN INTO A CLOSED MEETING OR EXECUTIVE SESSION AS AUTHORIZED BY TEX. GOV'T. CODE, §551.001, ET SEQ. (THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT) ON ANY ITEM ON ITS OPEN MEETING AGENDA OR TO RECONVENE IN A CONTINUATION OF THE CLOSED MEETING ON THE CLOSED MEETING ITEMS NOTED ABOVE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION §551.071-551.086 OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT. CERTIFICATE I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall of the City of Demon, Texas, on the day of ,2004 at o'clock (a.m.) (p.m.) CITY SECRETARY NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON COUNCIL WORK SESSION ROOM IS ACCESSIBLE iN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE iNTERPRETERS FOR THE HEAR1NG IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48 HOURS iN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED MEETING. PLEASE CALL THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 349- 8309 OR USE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING 1-800-RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE iNTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY' S OFFICE. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: October 4, 2004 DEPARTMENT: ACM: Police Jon Fortune, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the use of automated red light enforcement cameras at selected intersections in the City of Denton. BACKGROUND Drivers who run red lights pose a danger to themselves and, especially, other drivers on the roadway. The Federal Highway Administration has identified red light running as one of the leading causes of urban accidents in the United States. Across the country each year, drivers running red lights account for approximately 100,000 accidents resulting in close to 1,000 deaths and about 90,000 injuries. More than half of the red light running-related fatalities are pedestrians and occupants in other vehicles hit by the red light runners. The number of red light runners continues to climb at an alarming pace. From 1992 through 1998, accidents from red light violations increased by eighteen percent. This violation of the law is one of the most feared by drivers on the roadway. One national study conducted by the Federal Highway Administration showed that 96 percent of drivers fear being hit by a red light runner. In the State of Texas, Department of Public Safety records indicate that the number of people killed or injured in red light running crashes increased by 250 percent from 1975 to 1999. In 1998, red light fatalities in the State of Texas ranked as the second highest in the country, with 11 percent of the national total. The societal costs of these accidents is staggering. In 1999, these costs, excluding property damage, were estimated as high as 3 billion dollars. In Denton, statistics for 2002 - 2004 indicate that there were 213 accidents involving red light violations and police officers issued an additional 2,354 citations for red light violations across the city. As the city continues to grow in population and traffic volume, the number of red light violations is projected to increase. Traditional Enforcement Traditional enforcement of red light intersections involves the positioning of a police officer at a specific intersection to visually observe violations of the law. This type of enforcement has shown to have tremendous deterrent effect on would-be violators of most traffic laws during the time the officer is present. In many cases, the mere presence of the officer near the intersection, or the presence of an officer actively engaged in a traffic stop near the location is an effective reminder for other drivers to obey traffic laws. Where violations are observed, the officer contacts the offending driver and issues a citation for the violation. However, while the public generally views traditional enforcement as effective, employing this practice at red light intersections is often challenging for police agencies. Traditional red light enforcement is challenging in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, and safety. Effectiveness Police agencies typically face a limited number of resources to address a host of public safety and community concerns. They are charged with providing emergency response to life-threatening situations, the investigation of motor vehicle accidents and criminal cases, and responding to calls for service throughout the city. in addition, they proactively work to control traffic violations to provide safer streets for drivers and pedestrians. The ability of most police agencies to place a significant emphasis on any one problem is difficult at best. Most police departments prioritize problems and assign resources based on these priorities. While traffic problems are a chief concern cited by most citizens, they are still one of several major areas of priority for a police department. Among traffic concerns, the problem of red light running is significant, but it must share priority with other hazardous traffic violations, such as DWi, speeding, and many other reckless driving violations that endanger lives. The vast number of red light intersections makes it impractical to consistently provide a visible presence at even a small portion of the intersections during the busiest traffic times. Currently, the City of Denton has one hundred and one red light intersections. On any given shift, it is difficult, if not impossible, to assign sufficient manpower to have any effective impact on red light violations. Efficiency The use of traditional enforcement for red light violations is not an efficient use of limited resources. Studies have shown that consistent red light enforcement at a specific intersection will reduce the frequency of violations at that intersection during the times the officer is present. However, once the officer is no longer there, the frequency of violations quickly escalates and is back to the previous levels in less than two weeks. Safety Traditional enforcement at red light intersections places the individual police officer in a difficult situation. When a violation occurs at an intersection, the officer has to stop traffic and enter the intersection to stop the violator. This places the officer and other drivers in the intersection at additional risk. Because of these dangers, many departments have turned to enforcement "packs", where multiple officers work a given location. One officer is positioned at the intersection and calls out violators via radio to other officers positioned a safe distance down the road. While this enforcement method helps to mitigate some of the officer safety issues, it multiples the efficiency issues outlined above. Use of Automated Enforcement Because of the difficult challenges associated with traditional enforcement of red light violations, the use of automated enforcement cameras is a growing trend for cities across the United States and in several other countries. There are currently more than 100 communities in the United States using automated red light enforcement programs. As opposed to traditional enforcement methods, automated red light enforcement is a safer, more effective, and more efficient method of addressing the problem of red light running. This technology allows for the consistent monitoring of intersections around the clock and seven days a week. Proponents of these automated systems cite their effectiveness in reducing the number of accidents involving red light violations. The State of California currently has the highest number of cities using automated red light enforcement systems. A review of the red light camera programs in California from the State Board of Audits found a ten percent reduction statewide in accidents caused by motorists running red lights. The city of Oxnard, California reported a reduction in accidents at red light camera intersections of more than forty-five percent. New York City reported a reduction of red light accidents at automated enforcement intersections of more than sixty percent. Red light camera proponents also point out the effectiveness of these cameras in reducing the number of red light violations. The city of Fairfax, Virginia reported a reduction in red light violations at automated enforcement intersections of forty percent. In Texas, the City of Garland is currently the only city using automated red light enforcement. In their first year of operation, they report a reduction of violations at their four monitored intersections of fifteen percent. Based in part on the success in Garland, several other communities in North Texas are in the process of investigating and instituting similar programs. Proponents of automated red light enforcement also point out the effective deterrent value of these systems. Because of the recording capabilities of these automated systems, they are much more effective in terms of notifying violators than traditional enforcement efforts. The City of Plano ran a program to concentrate on red light violations for several years using traditional enforcement methods. During this program, their officers issued more than six thousand red light citations a year. Using the automated enforcement system, the City of Garland issued notices of red light violations to more than twenty-four thousand violators at four intersections in a period of eight months. Of note, the City of Piano recently moved to institute an automated enforcement program. Automated enforcement proponents also cite the spillover, or "halo" effect these systems have on red light violations throughout a participating municipality. The City of Oxnard, California has automated enforcement at just eleven of the city's one hundred twenty-five intersections. However, research showed that red light violations dropped throughout the city at the same proportions at intersections with and without cameras. Programs in other cities have shown similar results. Legal Issues There are four general areas of legal issues related to the use of automated red light enforcement: criminal versus civil offense, liability of the owner or operator, privacy rights, and revenue structure. Criminal versus Civil Offense Traditional enforcement by a police officer is done by issuing a citation to the driver of a vehicle for a criminal violation of the Texas Transportation Code. These violations are processed through the Municipal Court. When a violator either pleads or is found guilty of the violation, the conviction is noted on their driving record and may have a future impact in other areas, such as insurance rates. Because of the criminal nature of the offense, and subsequent impact from a potential conviction, the burden of proof for the prosecution is significantly higher. In a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person charged committed the offense. Challenges can be made to any number of factors involved, and therefore the length of time involved in a criminal prosecution can be substantial. In contrast to the traditional criminal avenue, automated red light enforcement works under the civil process. In the civil venue, the burden of proof is based upon the preponderance, or greater weight, of the evidence. Civil penalties do not appear on a person's driving record or have any additional impact like criminal convictions. Because there are no "criminal" issues related to the violation, the process is generally handled much more efficiently and the related fees can be substantially lower than the fines imposed in a criminal case. Liability of the owner or operator In the traditional enforcement of a red light violation under criminal law, the operator of the vehicle is liable for the infraction. With the automated red light enforcement program, civil violations of the city ordinance are charged against the registered owner of the offending vehicle. The ordinance is crafted so that the registered owner of the vehicle is responsible for the violation. The civil penalty is applied the same as a city fee for excessive false alarms at a residence or business. In many aspects, the presumption that the owner of the vehicle is liable for a red light violation is consistent with the presumption that the owner of the vehicle is responsible for parking violations made with their vehicle. Privacy issues One of the chief argumems against red light cameras is based on the idea that taking a photograph of the driver of a vehicle infringes on that individual's privacy, which is protected by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that photographing a driver of a vehicle operating on a public roadway is not in conflict with any expectation of privacy afforded under the Fourth Amendment. in addition, cameras are quite pervasive in today's society, being in use at ATM machines, convenience stores, office buildings, banks, and many other locations. These cameras make constant recordings of individuals in these settings. Red light cameras only take photographs of drivers when they are in violation of an applicable ordinance, in jurisdictions using civil penalties and owner liability, the red light cameras are designed to photograph only the rear of the vehicle and the license plate. The driver of the car is not identified in any of the photographs. Revenue Structure The fee and revenue structure used in the automated red light enforcement program is an important issue. The intention of using automated red light cameras is the education and alteration of driving behavior that is dangerous to the citizenry. These systems should not be viewed as any sort of long-term revenue source, as the use of automated camera enforcement has consistently shown a significant reduction in the number of violations at an intersection. It only stands to reason that with the reduction of violations at a given location, the money generated from such programs would decrease over time. Many critics, based on the success of several programs, argue that these systems are intended to generate funds for communities that are short on resources and in need of operating revenue. To combat this perception, most cities utilizing automated enforcement establish a special fund where all revenue generated above and beyond the operating costs of the system are deposited. These funds are used solely for public safety improvemems and enforcemem, such as the purchase of improved signals and signage for imersections and school speed zones, self-funded grams to pay for officers to conduct additional traffic enforcemem, and many other public safety programs. These programs and purchases help make the automated enforcement system a true "workforce multiplier". The fact that these additional public safety programs are funded through the fees paid by red light violators helps to offset some of the financial burden for public safety initiatives on the tax-paying citizen. Critics of automated enforcement point to the fact that a company that is involved in the installation, maintenance, and application of such a system has a vested interest in the number of violations processed by that system. In contrast, many of the companies involved in automated enforcement systems work on a set contract. The contract establishes a monthly cost for individual cameras that is not based on any sort of sliding or weighted scale regarding the number of violations. The cost of a single camera at a specific location remains the same over the course of a contract whether that camera fails to produce enough violations to offset the monthly cost or if it generates significantly more revenue than is needed to cover the monthly cost. An additional financial argument against the use of automated enforcement systems is that tax dollars are being used to subsidize a system that generates a profit for a private company. In reality, most of these systems are designed to be self-funded based on the fees generated through the recorded violations. It takes approximately 3 - 4 paid violations per day from a single camera at an intersection to cover the monthly cost of that camera. Because of the necessary delay between the time a camera is turned on and the time the first payments for violations are made, most companies include a "grace period" for payments. Additionally, most contracts for automated systems can be structured to include a "no risk" clause. This clause ensures that no tax dollars are spent on the system. For instance, if the contract cost of a system is $6,000 dollars each month, and the system only generated $3,000 in a given month, the city would not be obligated to pay the balance out of other funds. Where there is an overage in any subsequent month, that overage would be applied to any shortages in previous months. If the contract ended with a shortage, that burden falls to the company. This helps to ensure that no citizen tax money is used to subsidize the private company. Automated Enforcement Process Detection Technology Automated enforcement involves the use of a fixed, mounted camera to record violations on a specific approach to a given intersection. The cameras are mounted on poles and connected to the traffic signal at the intersection. As the light turns red for the recorded lanes of traffic, the camera is activated. Buried under the pavement in the recorded lanes just prior to the intersection is a loop sensor that records the speed of a T~r a, ffk P~[e Cme[-~ 1©~ ,T' Abor~ ~a~le vehicle traveling across it. If the speed of an approaching vehicle is above a minimum set speed, the camera will photograph the vehicle as it enters the intersection on the red light. It will take a second photograph of the vehicle as it continues through the intersection. Embedded on the photograph is a display of the date and time, the intersection, the posted speed limit for the roadway, the vehicle speed at the time of the photograph, the length of the yellow interval, and the length of time the light had been red at the time of the photograph. The camera is positioned to take a photograph of the vehicle and the rear license plate. Camera Technology There are generally three types of cameras used for red light enforcement: 35-mm wet film cameras, digital cameras, and video cameras. The majority of current systems use 35-mm wet film, but with the recent developments regarding digital technology, digital cameras are becoming quite popular. Video camera systems are available, but their use is currently limited and primarily for documentation as opposed to actual enforcement. As the technology continues to develop, additional options with digital cameras and digital video will become available. The 35-mm wet film cameras are currently the most popular choice for enforcement programs. They are generally less expensive than digital cameras and are viewed by many as having a distinct advantage in that it is difficult to tamper with the film. However, they require frequent maintenance in terms of film retrieval and replacement. Additionally, the need to develop the film necessitates a longer period of time to process, prepare, and mail notifications of violations. Digital cameras are quickly becoming the standard for red light enforcement. This increase in popularity is primarily due to improvements in technology that addresses tampering issues, produces better resolution photographs, provides for better definition of license plates, and a reduction of smears, blurs, and reflections from headlights. Digital cameras are more expensive than 35-mm wet film cameras, but the cost savings in maintenance and film helps to offset the difference. The biggest advantage of digital cameras is in the reduced processing time and increased automation of violator notification. Video cameras are primarily used to record intersections over a length of time for documentation. These systems can provide insight in to the events that occur over a set period of time, but currently, they are rarely used for the enforcement of violations. There are some newer systems being introduced that are intended for use in monitoring and enforcement at red light intersections. These systems use "virtual" detectors in place of the loop sensors. These systems are still being developed, and they currently show about a 67% successful detection rate. As the technology continues to improve, the inclusion of digital video loops in the detection and enforcement process may well become the industry standard. Violation Procedures Typically, the vendor processes recorded violations, which are then forwarded to a police officer to review and verify the violation. Once verified by the officer, the vendor sends a notice to the registered owner of the vehicle in violation. Included in the notice is an explanation of the violation, a photograph of the vehicle in the imersection, and a complete explanation of the process to handle the violation. The vendor provides customer service for the violation notices and handles the collection process, eliminating any extra burden on the Municipal Court. For those owners who wish to comest the violation, a hearing before a city-employed hearing officer can be scheduled. The hearing officer reviews the photographed violation, hears any argumem from the owner, and makes a determination of whether or not the owner is liable under city ordinance. If the owner is found liable at the hearing, an additional hearing fee can be applied to the original fee. Should the owner wish to appeal the decision of the hearing officer, they can schedule a hearing before the Municipal Court Judge. Procedures are established to handle cases where the owner was not driving the vehicle or where they previously sold the vehicle but the registration was not changed. Application in Denton Use of automated red light enforcemem cameras in Demon is a complex issue. Our city faces a couple of distinct challenges that have the potential to impact our program. While neither of these challenges serve to preclude the use of the automated enforcement, they do substantially alter our options and should be noted. Placement of Cameras The Texas Departmem of Transportation (TXDOT) will not allow for the placemem of automated enforcemem cameras at imersections involving roadways they maimain. For most cities, this is not problematic. However, for the City of DeNon, this is a significam issue. With the presence of so many TXDOT roadways, we are very limited on where we can place red light cameras. Of the top ten imersections in terms of red light accidems for the past two years, only one does not involve a TXDOT road. The map Legend: ~1 Accident Locations \,, O Available Camera Locations High Acciden[ Locations 1 135@University 2 135@Ft Worth Dr 3 135@Loop 288 4 135@Teasley 5. 135@Slate School Rd 6.Loop 288@Colorado 7 Loop288@Mckinney 8 Teasley@Dallas 9 University~Carroll 10 CaFoll~Eagle pictured here depicts the top ten high-hazard accident imersections and the single location among them where a camera could be installed. The elimination of TXDOT roadways leaves a few imersections that are high-volume and could likely benefit from the use of automated enforcemem. Primary among these are the imersections of Eagle at Carroll (#10 high hazard imersection), Bell at E. Hickory, and Bell at McKinney. There are other imersections that could be selected. Additional research on the frequency of violations at potential intersections would be a requisite step in the implementation process. Legality of the System This information will be forthcoming via the October 1 City Attorney Status Report. Public Awareness Campaign The intention of the red light camera program is to educate drivers on the danger of red light running to themselves and others. One of the best ways to enhance the effectiveness of the program is to couple it with a public awareness campaign regarding red light violations and the automated enforcement program. This campaign could include public- access television spots, information on the city website, and mailers in city utility bills that all serve to make drivers aware of the program and the need to stop for red lights. This campaign also helps to mitigate the claims of opponents to the red light cameras that they are intended as a revenue source for the city. Process Implementation Timeline Once the decision is made to pursue the use of automated red light enforcement, there are a number of necessary steps that need to be accomplished before the system can be operational: 1. Draft and approval of the city ordinance used as the basis for enforcement under the red light camera program. 2. Request for Proposal process. 3. Selection of vendor. 4. Contract discussion and Council approval. 5. Study and selection of intersections. 6. Installation of equipment. Provided that there are no major problems encountered during these steps, it is anticipated that the red light camera program could be operational within a year. OPTIONS 1. Council can endorse the use of automated red light enforcement cameras and direct staff to proceed with the process to implement the program. 2. Council can direct staff to conduct further research and provide additional information on the use of automated red light enforcement cameras. 3. Council can reject the use of automated red light enforcement cameras. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council endorse the use of automated red light cameras and direct staff to proceed with the process to implement the program. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW None FISCAL IMPACT While not designed to be a revenue-generating endeavor, the automated red light enforcement camera program is intended to produce enough revenue from collected fees to offset the operating costs. In several cases, these programs have been able to pay for the operating costs and produce a fairly significant net gain. In gauging the potential fiscal impact for the city from such a program, a number of factors must be considered. First and foremost, determining the variables necessary to calculate the related costs and gains are somewhat problematic. There are a number of costs that are dependent on the number of cameras utilized, the specific vendor chosen for the program, and several potential underlying costs associated with road preparation and program operation. Many of these costs cannot be accurately determined until a later point in the process. On the revenue side, it is difficult to accurately determine the average number of violations and the percentage of paid violations for each camera. Because the automated cameras capture violations at an intersection consistently, there is no means to accurately project the number of violations. Currently, the City of Garland is the only municipality in Texas with an operational program. Based on their figures for the first year of operation, we can extrapolate some basic numbers and percentages and apply them to our city. The accuracy of the projections for our program is solely based on our ability to produce similar numbers. Program Costs A single camera typically costs approximately $6,000 each month. This cost normally includes all associated maintenance and service for the camera, the customer-service work provided by the vendor, and a pro-rated portion of the installation costs of the system at that intersection. Most vendors provide for the process of violation notification, the collection of fees, and the scheduling of requested hearings on violations. In addition to the monthly camera costs, there are several additional costs necessary to support the program. The city would need to provide a part-time hearing officer, which would necessitate the addition of half an FTE, as well as provide office space and related technology equipment for the hearing officer. Program Revenue Each paid violation from the red light cameras yields $75. Given the rate for paid violations and the recurring monthly costs for the program, we would need to average just less than 4 paid violations per camera per day to break even. Research on a number of automated red light programs indicates a reduction of up to fifteen percent after the first year of operation, and an average reduction of forty percem over 5 years. Based on this, the number of violations should drop significamly over the course of several years. An additional factor to consider is an increased awareness of red light cameras as more cities in the region implement automated enforcement. This increased awareness will likely have an impact on the frequency of red light violations in Demon and the surrounding cities. Respectfully submitted, Charles Wiley Chief of Police Prepared by: Lt. Scott Fletcher - Police Stephanie Berry - Legal Antonio Puente - Finance Tim Smith - Police