Red light cameras to drop from 43 to 5?

Palm Coast Observer
News

When Palm Coast’s City Council created its red-light camera program, there was little opposition. City meeting minutes from the years leading up to the program’s 2008 birth recount public comment periods in which residents bemoaned repeated traffic crashes, and some spoke of their willingness to even pay more in taxes for a camera program that would lead to safer intersections.

Now, after years of increasingly vocal opposition, dramatic changes in the state law governing red-light cameras — the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act, passed in 2010 — and numerous lawsuits about the cameras throughout the state, Palm Coast is considering reducing the number of its red-light cameras from 43 to five, or perhaps 10. (See the box at the bottom of this page for locations.)

City Council isn’t seriously considering ditching the program altogether for fear of a breach-of-contract lawsuit by camera company American Traffic Solutions, which, City Attorney Bill Reischmann said, would fight a termination or suspension “as vigorously as they possibly could,” in part because the outcome of the current wrangling between ATS and Palm Coast could affect what happens in other cities that have contracts with ATS.

The option to amend the city’s contract with ATS by reducing the number of cameras or the length of the contract was one of three options City Planner Beau Falgout presented to the City Council at a Tuesday, Feb, 25 workshop. The other possibilities were keeping the camera program as it runs currently — not a feasible option, because a recent court decision makes part of the city’s process illegal — or scrapping it entirely.

“I personally don’t want to bear the wrath of a company that size attempting to survive a market,” said Councilman Steven Nobile, historically an outspoken camera opponent. “I like the concept of five cameras, a two-year reduction of the contract, and maintaining our income.”

Falgout had noted in his presentation that reducing the number of cameras and reducing the length of the contract would cut the city’s revenue. With its 43 cameras, the city makes about $361,200 per year from a flat $700-per-camera-per-month payment. With 10, it would make $84,000; with five, $42,000.

“Our time is going up, our revenue is going down with this proposal,” City Manger Jim Landon said. “ATS’s time would go down substantially, and their revenue would stay the same.”

And the city would likely only be able to get ATS to reduce the length of the contract by one or two years — it’s now set to expire in 2019 — by agreeing to collect no flat fee from the cameras, Falgout said.

Meanwhile, the city would have to spend at least as much staff time on the program as it does now: A recent court decision in a case from the city of Hollywood renders illegal the process of using camera companies like ATS — instead of government employees — to send out Uniform Traffic Citations, the $264 fine sent to drivers who failed to pay an initial $158 ticket. Only city employees could legally send them out, which would mean increasing staff time dramatically unless the city cut into the program.

Even with just five cameras, city staff would spend about the same number of work hours per week that they do now: 25. In 2014, Landon said, ATS reviewed 132,000 violations and narrowed those dow to 32,000 for city staff to review. About half of those 32,000 led to violation notices. But the city has been legally advised that it should review all violations, Landon said, and if it drops to five cameras, those cameras would generate 20,000-30,000 possible violations for city staff to review. And, to comply with the Hollywood ruling, the city would also have to mail out the UTCs. The work hours are equal.

Unless the city negotiated to retain its monthly camera fee, it would be paying city workers to administer a red-light camera program whose proceeds go exclusively to the state and to ATS.

Councilman Bill McGuire said he supported the cameras for safety reason, but was willing to be open-minded about reducing or getting red of them.

“I believe that the red light cameras are a good thing for the city; I do not want to see any of them go away,” he said. But, with the council heading in that direction, he said, he was willing to reconsider.

Council members recommended Landon try to negotiate more favorable terms — something along the lines of Nobile’s proposal — with ATS. He said he’d try. “There’s some of it I’m very confident I can get accomplished,” he said. “ I’m not sure I can get it all accomplished.”

BOX: From the City Council minutes on Feb. 17, 2004:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PALM COAST, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE PERMITTED USE OF AUTOMATED CAMERA ENFORCEMENT OF RED LIGHT VIOLATIONS ON THE STREETS AND THOROUGHFARES OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA.
Public Comments
Jerry (last name unknown): Read about this in the paper and it excited him. Since he moved here he has been told this is a micro-city. It really tickled him that it was a consideration. He goes to a stop light and there was a police officer over on the other side heading east and traffic is making left towards Wal-Mart, light changed red and traffic kept coming. Police officer just sat there, but like you said there were eight or nine people who ran the red light. He would volunteer his own time to go to the insurance companies to ask for help in funding this, because it will save them a ton of money. He’ll spend tax money to save a life.
Raleigh Stockton: Civic Association supports this measure because anything that will save a life in this City, they are willing to do.
Bob Crocetta: He is for this, but we need to make sure that our traffic lights go from green, to yellow and then red. Some of the lights do not give you time to stop. Must make sure that you are giving drivers enough time to stop.
— By Council consensus, staff was instructed to prepare an in depth study on this issue noting additional statistical data, costs, vendors, streets and lights where cameras would be installed and, if possible, a test run to see how this program would work for us. A motion was made by Council Member Netts to approve this resolution. Council Member Peterson seconded, with the motion passing 5 to 0.

BOX: Where the cameras might stay

If the city drops to five cameras, they would most likely remain here:
Northbound Old Kings Road North at Kings Way
Northbound Cypress Point Parkway at Boulder Rock Drive
Westbound Palm Coast Parkway Northeast at Harbor Center
Northbound Belle Terre Parkway at Rymfire Drive
Westbound Cypress Point Parkway at Belle Terre Parkway

If the city drops to 10 cameras, they would be at the locations above, plus here:
Northbound Belle Terre Parkway at Cypress Point Parkway
Westbound Palm Coast Parkway Northeast at Old Kings Road North
Southbound Belle Terre Parkway at White View Parkway
Westbound Palm Coast Parkway Northwest at Belle Terre Parkway
Northbound Belle Terre Parkway at Pine Lakes Parkway