Public Hearing on the Red Light Camera Ordinance

Public Hearing on theRed Light Camera Ordinance Board of County Commissioners Presented by Dana Crosby, Assistant County Attorney, and Ruby Rozier, Manager Traffic Engineering, March 24, 2009

Presentation Outline Overview Proposed Ordinance Next Steps (implementation) Public Hearing Requested Action

Overview 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 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 Council Status: 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.

Overview 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.

Proposed Ordinance 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. Subsection35-72 (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.

Proposed Ordinance Subsection35-73 (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 Subsection35-73: • 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 Subsection35-73: • 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 Subsection35-74 (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 Subsection35-75 (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 Subsection35-76 (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 Subsection35-77 (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”

Next Steps (implementation) 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

Public Hearingon theRed Light Camera Ordinance

Requested Action Ordinance: County Attorney requests BCC adopt the Ordinance as amended.

Public Hearingon theRed Light Camera Ordinance Board of County Commissioners Presented by Dana Crosby, Assistant County Attorney, and Ruby Rozier, Manager Traffic Engineering, March 24, 2009

Public Hearing on the Red Light Camera Ordinance