Loading...
LTC 280-2012 Financial Impact MIAMI Fgg OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER L�OZ ��� ��' NO. LTC # 280 -2012 LETTER TO COMM, M, LI _$IC),� F I C E TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission FROM: Kathie G. Brooks, Interim City Manager DATE: November 2, 2012 SUBJECT: Financial Impact of the Repeal of Miami -Dade County's Red Light Camera Ordinance This Letter to the Commission shall serve to provide the Mayor and City Commission with information regarding the fiscal impact of the proposed repeal of Section 30 -422 of the Code of Miami -Dade County, which sets forth the policy that pertains to the implementation or placement of red light cameras within unincorporated .areas of Miami- Dade- County or on Miami -Dade County roads. On November 8, 2012, the Miami -Dade County Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing and second reading of an ordinance (attached) which repeals: 1. Direction and Authority to implement a red light camera program in Miami -Dade County; 2. Sets policy that no red light camera program shall be implemented or maintained by Miami -Dade County in the Unincorporated Area; and 3. Sets policy that no red light camera program shall be implemented on County Roads. Item number three, the repeal of the authorization for municipalities to place red light cameras on County Roads, will have an impact on the City of Miami Beach. The Administration is in contact with the Miami -Dade League of Cities, which is working on this issue to limit and /or eliminate the negative impact on municipalities. The City of Miami Beach's, Red Light Camera Photo System (the "Program ") utilizes ten (10) red light cameras within the general camera system group. A review of the legislation that proposes to repeal of Section 30 -422 determined that two of the Program's intersections are located upon Miami -Dade County roads: Dade Boulevard and Washington Avenue and Dade Boulevard and 23` Street. Impact on the Safety Benefits of Miami Beach's Red Light Program The intended purpose of traffic safety the Program was realized with a decrease in the number of crashes at the red light camera intersections from Fiscal Year 2009/2012 through the first three (3) quarters of Fiscal Year 2011/2012, as further detailed in the attached July 30, 2012 Letter to the Commission. The two intersections that are impacted by this legislation have demonstrated a reduction in crashes through the first three quarters of this Fiscal Year: Location FY2009/2010 FY 2010/2011 FY 2011/2012 Dade Blvd & Washington 3 6 0 Dade Blvd & 23` Street 2 0 0 Letter to Commission j November 2, 2012 1 Red Light Camera Program Fiscal Impact to Miami Beach's Red Light Program Section 27 of the City's Agreement with ACS State and Local Solutions Inc. imposes a . cost neutral provision which states: 27. Cost Neutral Requirement: The parties (ACS, Inc. and City of Miami Beach) agree and hereby acknowledge that this agreement is expected to be cost neutral. Accordingly, the actual revenue collected from the civil fees will at least match the cost of vendor's fees. Should the revenue collected from the civil fees fall short of cost of the vendors fees at any time over the term of the agreement, vendor will . absorb the difference in cost, the City will not pay any additional fees not covered by actual revenue received. The cost neutral determination of this Section 27 shall be accomplished during the monthly "true up" of fees and payments for all cameras installed for more than' six (6) months, as required in Section 7.5 hereof. This section does not apply to the revenue collected during the initial six (6) month period of time following the installation date for each individual camera, as stated in Section 7.5. The City's program has not generated sufficient revenue that exceeds the monthly cost for those cameras in the general camera system group. In that regard, the cost neutral provision has controlled the financial obligation of the City's Program, and as such, the reduction of the two (2),cameras will not have a negative impact on the Program. Conclusion The intended purpose of traffic safety the Program has been realized with a decrease in the number of crashes at the red light camera intersections, and the proposed ordinance may have a negative impact on safety at the two affected intersections. If you have any questions or comments, or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. KGB /KC 9tMN0/ Attachments (2) i I MEMORANDUM Agenda Item No. 5(A) Public Hearing 11 -8 -12 TO: Honorable Chairman Joe A. Martinez DATE: October 23, 2012 and Members, Board of County Commissioners FROM: R. A. Cuevas, Jr. SUBJECT: Ordinance related to red County Attorney light cameras; repealing Section _ 30 -422 of the Code The accompanying ordinance was prepared and placed on the agenda at the request of Prime Sponsor Chairman.Joe A. Martinez and Co- Sponsor Commissioner Rebeca Sosa. A N R. A. Cuevas, Jr. County Attorney i RAC /jls i • _ I I i, Memorandum MIDd4D Date: November 8, 2012 To: Honorable Chairman Joe A. Martinez and Members, Board of Coun C irmhmissioners From: Carlos A. Gimenez Mayor Subject: Ordinance Related to Red !_fight ras; Repealing Section 30 -422 of the Code ' I The proposed ordinance related to red light cameras, repealing Section 30 -422 of the -Code, repeals the authority to use traffic infraction detectors /red light cameras `in the unincorporated area of the County. Because no red light cameras have been installed, the implementation of this ordinance will not have a fiscal impact to the County. Genaro "Chip" lglesi Deputy Mayor Fis1213 i I I - C7 MEMORANDUM (Revised) TO: Honorable Chairman Joe A. Marthiez DATE: Novembbr: 8, 2012 and Members, Board of County Commissioners FROM: R. A C evas, Jr SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. 5 (p,) ' County Attorney Please note any items checked, " 3 -Day Rule" for committees applicable if raised 5 weeks required between first reading and public bearing 4 weeks notification to municipal officials required prior to public hearing Decreases revenues or increases expenditures without balancing budget Budget required . Statement of fiscal impact required Ordinance creating a new board requires detailed County Manager's report for public hearing No committee review Applicable legislation requires [Wore than a majority vote (i.e., 2/3's , 3 /5's _ , unanimous to approve Current information regarding funding source, index code and available balance, and available capacity (if debt is contemplated) required Approved Mayor Agenda Item No, 5 (A) Veto 11 -8 -12 Override i ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE RELATED TO RED LIGHT CAMERAS; j REPEALING SECTION 30 -422 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI- DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; REPEALING THE AUTHORITY TO USE TRAFFIC INFRACTION DETECTORS /RED LIGHT CAMERAS IN THE - UNINCORPORATED AREA OF MIAMI - DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. R- 759 -10, REPEALING DIRECTION AND AUTHORITY. TO THE MAYOR OR DESIGNEE TO IMPLEMENT A RED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM IN MIAMI -DADE COUNTY; SETTING POLICY THAT NO RED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED OR MAINTAINED BY MIAMI -DADE COUNTY IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OR ON COUNTY ROADS; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, on July 8, 2010, this Board adopted Resolution No. R- 759 -10, which set policy for Miami -Dade County, authorized the installation of red light cameras and directed the Mayor or designee to implement a red light camera program in Miami -Dade County; and WHEREAS, on January 20, 2011, this Board adopted Ordinance No. 11 -01, which created section 30 -422, Code of Miami -Dade County, authorizing the use of red light cameras in the unincorporated area of Miami -Dade County, and authorized the Mayor or designee to implement a red light camera program in the unincorporated area of Miami -Dade County pursuant to the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act, enacted by the Florida Legislature in 2010, Chapter 2010 -80, Laws of Florida; and WHEREAS, no red light camera system has been implemented by Miami -Dade County to date; and Agenda Item No. 5(A) Page 2 . 1 WHEREAS, as such, not a single notice of violation or traffic citation has been issued on I behalf of Miami -Dade County based on red light cameras; and i WHEREAS, this Board now desires to repeal all authority and direction to implement or maintain a red light camera program in the unincorporated area of Miami -Dade County by repealing Ordinance No. 11 -01 and Resolution No. R- 759 -10, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI -DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA: Section I. Section 30 -422 of the Code of Miami -Dade County, Florida, is hereby deleted in its entirety as follows: 1 LL safet detectors. (4) Fur-pose ead intent. The purpose ef this or-diamee is to implement the Mark Alandall Traffle Safety 7 Ghapier-s 201 Qn ,d 2010 163 L aws o f F :.d.. (14B 325 af..d 14B 5501) a sue mti 1^ rl a f rom to ti .after the 11 1♦i o '(X an d.,ll �vc- arncnctca- rrc�rrr cm ° v `11V1V111K1YVA Y11V +TiKL11 TT Ki1a4Ki1 T-r-affle, Safety 11 11 I1 f in order- to promote, proteet and health improve the safety and welfare of kidivi"als and pr-eteet (2) Seepe of regulation and app" bile y. The ons of this seWen sha-14 apply to and c- ° i�vivvd in vpAy the !3l_ U of T T,-.f..,at;e D eteet8r". Miam Dade Count h ere b y exere its ,Tthefity pu rs uan t + th A T 1 �v n�+ ^ VV 1 - lYlurAt _ �•1��1.i1ZI�C7[fSyL�l - Ge pJL G1TLI11V - Z11Z1 CLV I.1 L Vl� Aithin the iifiineefper-ated afeas of Miami Dade L. le enfer-ee the Uniform T raffic C o f th S tat e of Fiefi Mayor of designee is authorized to implement the pr-oVisiens and- s as sue may be amended from tkne to time. T he - vv Klla`j is vxyrv.luly Words stricken through and /or [[double bracketed]] shall be deleted, words underscored and/or >>double arrowed<< shall be added. Remaining provisions are now in effect and remain unchanged. Agenda Item No. 5 (A) Page 3 + h ,1 + ffi i' +ie 1 +e+e to „ r ed 1; h+ \a lV µUV + uu v aa. µVl-1V i wv e ,- vv..vav vv v.. +vivo avw •abaaw signal — eIations pufsua to see lens- 316.074(l) and 316. 075iivn)i 1a1 'a c+ +„ +o w f +„ stop a t K ., iTQ� A GGCCRCGj, w w+. ♦ awaaa, ,.v u„vl✓ w. tr s i gn al s4 +n a nd highway within th ,I,, 11111 - 'GliV - lllll Val are of Mi Da de Coun The r eicision. of thi errl:r +.. ff e'+ t' t a driver f or- r ed light s eln +;e Statutes Ldl 1?i t,,.•,, on red e„F reeme h „_traffie inff et;er .1 + ter. pro hibited . Traffi ir,f.net:e„_,leteeter shall no t he us ed t s, r li& s eln +:e when m aking - a 1 ac rircalullb a rig ht +„ „he eh +„ s:hl This subse sh '�'N .,,a �,eaaaaa�.. .... , + + h pr- ehibit a In ++fn r.t offi� f rom n +, ffi + +' t a .1 r f or- eh+ tors. violation i er.in v wwa w ith Ghe 316 and 318 Ctn Lct T fF' i n f rac 4i on enfereemen+ e f earn The M or- — designee is au her4zed to designate tfa€fie i nfraetion f + ff to ad the County's red li e w aaF,aa. .,Kaaa.,l.a. may be amended frem time to finie.- (6) AT +' an d app ea4s. Ne +if;nn +;.,,, o f e _ el ie of th M 1 W ,1.,11 Trnff;e S A et and a shall he r i.le.l as t f rth i th A as sue m b ame nded f time t time Th +i„e 1U4 ssl„ shall a &ise the reeis +e,eul- Av _. V )F + ' �,V1L llt/1 t h e h' 1 th h she h a r ight to r ev i ew the_rhete.,mphie o L7\_ D 1+; • A v i o l a ti on o f th h f 1 Wand a ll T r a ffie C f + A „+ .1 +;er. 3i1 422 hall he uf li s hable as s et f Ah in aurccT rxcc umr�cvcro�v— r�c�x �sslr ove=r .,......... ..,..,... �..�....a. th nh he f e +: + t' T'h A mvzx , a me nded ti me t o �lltle. 111e a av +1 se fi + h h un d re d h+ d t41 58 nn\ cmrrena�— aee�rcnvz ace vriv�rlsunTi� resrc; °a�� e �.�.a.,.,.,..,� Per- violation. Signage and pOlie awareness . M ayor- r de s i gnee is .lir e te.l te• i, P r i o r - + i o f ., trn ff:n ;r,f metier, .le+eeter at an AT l ess 30 d ays h F + ff; +i e ge e .ter—s ii r[' i� xca u �zlan 7v i ilir� ccv zrvll - cc v..�vlu i Agenda Item No. 5 (A) Page 4 (9\ D '+ f + 11 +' o f + ff i .a + VV V r ti�I- LLIU by minkipalities on eeun-�y roads and infrastruetuTe. The Mayor- or- I designee--shall develop- a p8liey for appreva4 b thi B —' i : On civuny ivutru= vrrcaiir ^ v..... to ........,, and ii-. On Oeenty tfaffie signal mast mms and L e] F j ��y ll VV b.a i J� astfU Gle. R evenue. R e v en u e -- „1: a by the r., .. y p art - r v a' _ to the Aet, -ene all— asse -eests hfA been paid and distributions made as req uired by the -A„ +, 9 1,.,11 .,temen+ the upAneer-perated niunieipal serviee— arm —(UM "fidget. This An shall be sW�eot to annffal-appr-apfiation by the Beard. Repeffing. The Mayer- or- desigiiee shall submit -a by Oc4eber 1, > , to both th Vehicle- sciee esser s t a t e a , 1 ei# (D14SM � =d this B 7 detailing the enfereeme or- -fie pr-eeeding- state- f}seal year. Th i f„r.V. th D14SM -V t 1 to t pw4 r ham. + r - the Mafk Wan Section 2. Resolution No. R- 759 -10 is hereby repealed. Section 3. It is the policy of this Board that no red light camera program shall be implemented or maintained by Miami -Dade County in the unincorporated area or on County roads. Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity. i Agenda Item No. 5 (A) Page 5 Section 5. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance, including any sunset provision, shall become and be made a part of the Code of Miami -Dade County, Florida. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or other appropriate word. Section 6. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10). days after the date of enactment unless vetoed by the Mayor, and if vetoed, shall become effective only upon an override by this Board. i. PASSED AND ADOPTED: Approved by County Attorney as to form and legal sufficiency: .� Prepared by: "__ a• 0_ Jess M. McCarty Prime Sponsor: Chairman Joe A. Martinez i E , - MIAMIBEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER NO. LTC 197 -2012 LETTER TO COMMISSION TO: Mayor Mati Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission M FROM: Kathie G. Brooks, Interim, City Manage/ -� DATE: July 36, 2012 SUBJECT: Crash Data at Red Light Camera Traffic Intersections r � The purpose of this Letter to the Commission is to provide an update on the Red Light Camera Photo` Enforcement Program and its impact on traffic safety per the request at the June 6, 2012 Committee of the Whole. The program began on April 15, 2010, limited to City - owned roadways, with all'ten (10) cameras becoming operational by October 2410. Following is a comparison of crash data at the nine (9) traffic locations With ten (10) Red Light Cameras from 2004 -2011. The table below shows the ' number of crashes at each red light camera intersection since the inception of the program by fiscal year. The data shows that the number of crashes at red light camera intersections has gone down since the inception of the ....program.. From ,Fiscal Year 200912010 to Fiscal Year 201012011, the number of crashes at these Intersections has gone down from 59 to 49. Data for the first three (3) quarters of Fiscal Year 241112012 (October 2011 through June 2012) reflects a continuation of this downward trend, with a total of only 19 crashes: In addition, It is important to note, that the number -of total crashes repeated citywide has increased from 4,723 in 2009 to 5;114 In 241.1 — an 8 increase. LOCATION Date Oct. 20 — Od. 2010 — Oct. 2011— Camera Sept. 2010 Sept. 2011....,,.. Year to Date Operational (June 2012) 17 ST AND ALTON RD 4/15/10 7 9 is 17 ST AND WASHINGTON 4/15/10 14 11 3 AVE DADE BLVD AND , 4 /15 /0 3 6 0 WASHINGTON AVE 23 ST AND PINETREE DR 4/15/10 2 0 0 CHASE AVE AND ALTQN RD 4/15/10 6 6 1 4157 AND PRAIRIE AVE 4/15/10 3 3 i 63 ST AND INDIAN CREEK 4/15/10 14 9 2 ABBOTT AVE AND INDIAN 10/1/10 4 2 0 CREEK 71 ST AND INDIAN CREEK 4/25/10 6 3 2 49 19 TOTAL 59 Moreover, data has been analyzed to determine if there is a trend when most crashes occur at these intersections. Below is a graph that shows the total number of crashes per month: Total Number of Crashes at Red Light Camera Intersections 10 s e s s —FY 09 4 —FY 10 /1T FY 11/12 S 1 0 6 k �� % 4 d Crash data shows that in 2009 and 2010, most crashes took place in January and November, and spikes in 2010 and 2011 occurred in Jenne, as well as the early part of the tourist season. ENFORCEMENT DATA All ten (10) red light cameras have only been operational since €Jct6ber 2010. As a result, there is only one (1) full year of data available that reflects the impact of this program. The table below indicates the number of violations issued to date this year:... ,..... YEAR TO DATE AVG Unuary 1, 2012 -May 31, 2012 ISSUED PER 96 TOTAL VIOLATIONS DAY REJECTED LOCATIONS REVIEWED ISSUED REJECTED DADE BLVD = WASR5WON AVE 40 3 4 6 0.2 5S% 17 ST- WASHINGTON AVE - SE3 971 440 531 2.89 45% 17 ST - WASHINGTON AVE - E8 359 196 163 1.29 6% 17 ST - ALTON RD - WS 393 368 25 2.42 2% 23 ST-, PIAIMEE D 'Sly;, 103 , i0l 2 O} 66 66% .....CHASE AVE - ALTON.RD -'NB ............ ' 1804 613.: 1191, 4.03 67% 41,ST- PRAIRIE AVE 134 44 } 0.29' 2% INDIAN CREEK - 63 ST - SB 190 186 4 1.22 51% INDIAN CREEK - 71 ST - NB 601 293 308 1.93 18% INDIAN CREEK - A880T"r AVE = SS 259 ........ Zit 47 2.39 15% TOTAL 4,854 2,487 2,367. 1.63 43% V As `you can note, ,average'violations issued per day is now 1.63. In comparison, a total of y F 7;522 red ligh# camera Viblatians ,were- issued- 201:0,: witW`an average of` 2.94 per camera a ,{ er da In 2411; 7,03(3 violations Were issued with aii,avera a of vidlatians p er da p y. 9 p Y: "reflected• in the ,table above, certain intersections are averaging less than one (1) violation n ° per day ;which has spurred discussions about" "carries" "relocations.;; • ,CONCLtISI{3N g " Overall, data shows that driver behavior is :certainly being modified, as the number - of z; violations .per intersection has :,declined since. the inception;o€ the program. Last year, the (aommission auikiorized =atlie Atlministratian to' pursue •fhe 'relocation of twa (2) 0"eras = ;ln order to ; ensure that the relocation' was appropriate from a "safety'" perspective; 'the Administration vendor with three (3} proposed locations based on crash data ' anii valiirYie o €`traffic, 'Which would Wva i I'dated' by) 'AIik66.Cc�mputer ysterris (ACS} iris, the City's vendor for the red light cameras. through manual counts at their expense. These counts: % virould ":provide information as :to the number.of.red,light violations on a given,day in "blocks'of. time t©�disce " productivity at peak" hours;' °for a total of`.7.5 hours: " "`initial results i indiaated ;that the locations proposed by the City were not problematic intersections for red -N liht violations. Therefore,. camera relocation =to these interseetions,:was naf' =fecomniendedm:: , <' .C•. . t .•-:,' .�3 `;3,;;", ✓ {{fig,,,., "[. ,sy;` After reviewing additional data and ,utilizing field experience, from the Miami Beach Police Motor`Sgiad Unit; an add�tici "rial list af intersections to felocatei: two (,2 )%of.th = e..red' light cameras was.provided to'ACS and a secondseries of,manual counts were conducted. 1"he initial cost.provided -by ^ ACS Mc'.,, to relocate the two cameras was priced at $184,000 a °($94,444' per intersection); however, °,through negotiations'with ACS Inc ;,tFie Admm�strafion �-p was able to reduce the price per camera relocation; which to approximately $445,006 per - {. .'intersection. As:. a result, "two.;(2) new locations have now been - ideriti e ' ,and validated _ tf r ", h ' manual counts; °'where °camera 'reliication would cost R the ..City approximately s p <; ;:: • ` : ^ $90,000. The relocation would move cameras from 4V.,& Prairie Avenue and , Dade Boulevard'& Washington Avenue to 41� Street &Alton Road and 43r Street &'aAitori Road ; . Northbound. a :U ou have an. uestions, ol6ase feel free to",cantacf•.me. R;4M1L1M /MG ;`:t<�r B='i -; y> r;C "',x , xa''a � z g , Y{ : _ _