Loading...
2009-27146 ResoRESOLUTION NO. 2009-27146 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH AFFILIATED COMPUTER SYSTEMS (ACS) TO INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A RED LIGHT VIOLATION ENFORCEMENT CAMERA SYSTEM IN THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, AND TO PROVIDE RELATED SUPPORT SERVICES PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 02- 08/09. WHEREAS, on December 10, 2008, the Mayor and City Commission enacted Ordinance No. 2008-3621, creating Article XI entitled "Dangerous Intersection Safety" of Chapter 106 of the Miami Beach Code, entitled "Traffic and Vehicles"; and WHEREAS, Article XI, Chapter 106 of the Code authorizes the enforcement of red light infractions through the utilization of automated image capture technology in an effort to reduce traffic crashes and resulting injuries; and WHEREAS, on October 7, 2008, the Mayor and City Commission authorized the issuance of Request for Proposals No. 02-08/09 for a Red Light Camera Enforcement System (the RFP); and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2009, the City Commission approved Resolution No. 2009- 27022, authorizing the City Administration to negotiate with ACS, as the first recommended proposer pursuant to the RFP; and WHEREAS, accordingly, the Administration has negotiated the attached agreement with ACS for installation, operation, and maintenance of a red light violation enforcement camera system. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Commission hereby approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the attached Agreement between the City and ACS, to install, implement, and maintain a Red Light Violation Enforcement Camera System in the City of Miami Beach. PASSED and ADOPTED this 15th day of July , 2009 MA O A TEST: Matti Herrera Bower Q~~.~ CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO Robert Parcher FORM & LANGUAGE ts< FOR EXECUTION !~~ ~ City Attu D COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY Condensed Title: A Resolution approving an Agreement with Affiliated Computer Systems (ACS) to install, operate and maintain a red light violation enforcement camera system in the City of Miami Beach, and to provide related support services pursuant to RFP #02-08/09. Key Intended Outcome Supported: Increase resident ratings of public safety services. Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): Safety across the City was rated as the number one most important area regarding quality of life the City of Miami Beach. Enforcing traffic laws was rated as one of the areas that the City can address in regards to public safety. Issue: Shall the Mayor and City Commission approve the Resolution? Item summa IKecommendat~on: On December 10, 2008, the Mayor and City Commission enacted Ordinance No. 2008; creating Article XI entitled "Dangerous Intersection Safety" of Chapter 106 of the Miami Beach Code, entitled "Traffic and Vehicles". This provision authorizes the enforcement of red light infractions through the utilization of an automated image capture technology in an effort to reduce traffic crashes and resulting injuries. At the February 25, 2009 City Commission meeting, the City Commission selected ACS and directed the City Manager to begin negotiations. One of the key issues addressed in the contract negotiations was language that concerned the indemnity provided to the City. ACS had agreed to match the best language available in the industry and has agreed to language that the City believes to be the best in the industry. ACS has agreed to install the cameras at 15 traffic light intersections in the City, based on 2006 through 2008 and 2009 year to date crash data and intersections prone to red light infractions. This information was collected, analyzed and recommended by the MBPD motorcycle officers and accident investigators. Through negotiations, the City has been able to reduce the flat rate per camera price from the original amount in the RFP of $3,950 per camera per month to a rate of $3,555 per camera per month. A $1,000,000 revenue is included in the budget projection, which in light of many variables affecting revenues, is an appropriate estimate until actual operation and experience is obtained. It is important to note that the vendor does not and can not guarantee the projected revenues nor can the Administration as there are a number of variables that affect the resultant collections by the City. The negotiated agreement with ACS provides for a high quality red light enforcement program and all the necessary processing services so as not to burden existing staff resources. Beyond its primary objective to improve public safety, the agreement provides for the potential for a positive revenue stream. Board Recommendation: Financial Information: Source of Funds: Amount Account OBPI Total Financial Impact Summary: City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking: Robert C. Middaugh, Assistant City Manager Department Director T:WGENDA\2009Wu1y 15\Regular\RedLightCameraSu m MIAMIBEACH City Manager -15-09.doc City Manager JMG AGENDA ITEM dA7E 7'~ m MIAMIBEACH City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, w~ww.miamibeachfl.gov COMMISSION MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager DATE: July 15, 2009 SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH AFFILIATED COMPUTER SYSTEMS (ACS) TO INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A RED LIGHT VIOLATION ENFORCEMENT CAMERA SYSTEM IN THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, AND TO PROVIDE RELATED SUPPORT SERVICES PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS N0.02-08/09. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Resolution. ANALYSIS On December 10, 2008, the Mayor and City Commission enacted Ordinance No. 2008; creating Article XI entitled "Dangerous Intersection Safety" of Chapter 106 of the Miami Beach Code, entitled "Traffic and Vehicles". This provision authorizes the enforcement of red light infractions through the utilization of an automated image capture technology in an effort to reduce traffic crashes and resulting injuries. In the interest of public safety, the City's Administration has monitored the use of this technology for several years before pursuing this type of enforcement program. Installation of this system consists of a camera, strobe and lasers mounted on a metal pole near an intersection with a traffic light. This equipment is designed to monitor the traffic light signal phases and upon the light turning red any vehicle proceeding into the intersection without stopping will be photographed and captured on video. The images are then electronically forwarded to the vendor reviewed for quality and then sent to a Miami Beach Police Department (MBPD) employee for review to ensure an infraction has taken place. After these reviews have taken place an infraction notice is then sent to the violator via United States Mail. The Infraction notice will contain the photographs of the violation to include the traffic light and phase, the offending vehicle prior to and after the vehicle proceeds through the intersection. In each of the photograph frames, there will be a data bar that will note the date, time and location of the infraction. To implement this project the City of Miami Beach requested formal proposals from various vendors who perform this type of work. Six vendors provided proposals to the City's Procurement Division. An Evaluation Committee was established to evaluate the vendor proposals. As a result of two separate meetings the Evaluation Committee comprised of City employees from the MBPD, Information Technology Department and residents of the City recommended Affliated Computer Systems (ACS) and American Traffic Solutions (ATS) the two vendors with the highest scores on the structured evaluation criteria system. The City Administration determined it was in the best interest of the City to invite representatives of ACS and ATS to give a presentation on their respective Red Light Violation Enforcement System before the City Commission at the February 25, 2009 meeting. At the conclusion of these presentations, the City Commission selected ACS and directed the City Manager to begin negotiations with ACS to develop a suitable agreement. Since the February 25th City Commission meeting, key personnel from City Administration and the Legal Department met with representatives of ACS and have negotiated acceptable terms and recommend entering into an agreement to implement the Red Light Camera Violation Camera Enforcement System. One of the key issues addressed in the contract negotiations was language that concerned the indemnity provided to the City. As the State has not been able to pass legislation relative to the use of cameras to enforce red light violations, there is still some measure of exposure to legal challenges that makes this language very important for the agreement. During the negotiations, the City Attorney and the Administration identified a number of other contracts for red light cameras to verify the best clauses available from any of the camera vendors. ACS had agreed to match the best language available in the industry and has agreed to language that the City believes to be the best in the industry. As part of this indemnification provision, ACS will share with the City pro-rata costs associated with any court ordered reimbursement and will spend up to $100,000 for outside Counsel or experts in the event of a lawsuit. As the final agreement language was being discussed late on Friday, the agreement will be available with all agreed upon changes on Monday. The infraction revenue sharing agreement with ACS includes a flat rate fee structure that favors the City (see pricing model). The entire billing and notification process is coordinated by ACS with oversight by the City's Finance Department. In an effort to facilitate the infraction collection process, ACS has the infraction photographs and video and payment process posted on a website for review by the violator. In furtherance of due process there is an appeal provision that brings the matter before the City's current Special Master, if the violator wishes to contest the infraction. This appeal provision is consistent with the City's appeal process for Code and Parking Violations and has the support of the Special Master. In support of the administrative process, ACS has agreed to be the custodian of record and will keep these photographic and video images for at least five years. The MBPD will use these images only for its intended purpose of traffic enforcement but may be accessed for the purposes of furthering an investigation if it is in the best interest of the City. ACS has agreed to install the cameras at 15 traffic light intersections in the City, based on 2006 through 2008 and 2009 year to date crash data and intersections prone to red light infractions. This information was collected, analyzed and recommended by the MBPD motorcycle officers and accident investigators. (For details see Exhibit 1). Upon the installation and implementation of two red light camera systems at an intersection, there will be a thirty day warning period that will coincide with a City public information and education campaign that will detail the purpose of the red light camera enforcement system, explain how the system is designed as well as advise the process for payment and appeal. During this warning period violators will be issued a Warning notice in lieu of an actual violation. The Warning notice will be sent to the violator and have a photograph of the vehicle committing the infraction. This campaign will use the resources of ACS in addition to participation of the City's Communications and Police Department. During the contract negotiations, On April 14, 2009, Mr. Greg Parks, Senior Vice President, Business Development and Public Safety Solutions for ATS e-mailed a letter outlining his concerns with the ACS proposal. Mr. Parks concerns centered on the inability of ACS to deliver their product as outlined in their proposal essentially challenging the technology relative to the quality of their cameras and the installation of anon-obtrusive infrastructure. Each of these concerns were researched during the contract negotiations and determined not to be an accurate critique of ACS's capability or the product offered to the City through 2 the RFP process and the subsequent negotiations. As a result of the added due diligence of the Administration, all concerns were satisfactorily allayed (Exhibit 2, ATS Letter). Also attached are Exhibits 3-10 that illustrate the actual appearance of the red light camera and how it is typically installed. Exhibits 3 and 4 show the camera pole and the laser/strobe light pole that will be used in the City. Our program installation, consistent with the RFP proffer by ACS, requires two (2) poles per each intersection approach that has a red light camera. Strobe lights are only required to supplement lighting conditions, but if needed are mounted on the pole used for the laser detector. Exhibit 5 shows a schematic of the system operation. Exhibits 6 -9 illustrate typical intersection installations from different perspectives. Exhibit 10 is a photo of an actual red light camera of the same style to be used in the City of Miami Beach. FISCAL IMPACT In the Red Light Camera negotiation process, the cost of implementation of the red light camera enforcement program to the City was also an item that was negotiated with the vendor. Initially, the vendor proposed in its RFP response two options for addressing their reimbursement pursuant to the contract agreement. One method utilizes a cost per infraction with a decreasing cost per infraction as the total number of infractions increases. The other method proposed by the vendor was a flat rate per camera per month which is paid to the vendor irrespective of the number of infractions which are generated by the particular camera. Prior to negotiations, both the per infraction and the flat rate per camera methodology were modeled in order to assess the relative cost and benefit to the City of each method. It became very clear that the per infraction approach to paying for red light cameras was more expensive and therefore less advantageous to the City than the flat rate per camera method. In modeling on cost and resultant revenues, any camera forwhich there were more than three (3) paid infractions per day generated a higher level of return to the City on a flat rate basis than on the per infraction basis. For two (2) or three (3) paid infractions per camera per day, the City still has positive income on a flat rate basis. Only at one (1) paid infraction per day or no paid infractions per day per camera is there is a potential expense for which the City's revenue share is less than the actual cost per camera on a flat rate basis. As the vendor has guaranteed that the City is never expected to pay expense for the program in excess of revenues received, there is no risk to the City associated with the Flat rate method. Overall the flat rate approach to paying for the red light camera system is the most advantageous to the City. In the table below, two (2) cost and revenue projections are offered as part of the fiscal analysis. One cost projection is based upon the installation of ten (10) red light cameras and the other cost projection is based on installing fifteen (15) red light cameras in the City. It is believed that the City has a sufficient number of intersections to warrant the feasible installation of fifteen (15) or perhaps more red light cameras. Based on the projections, fifteen (15) cameras will be the recommended number for initial installation pursuant to the Agreement. For each of the two projections, it is presumed that ten (10) infractions per camera per day would be issued and that the City would collect 75% of the infractions issued. Using this assumption, it is illustrated in the table for the ten (10) cameras the total gross revenue expected to be collected by the City is $3,421,875, while at fifteen (15) cameras the total gross revenue is expected to be $5,132,813. Through negotiations, the City has been able to reduce the flat rate per camera price from the original amount in the RFP of $3,950 per camera per month to a rate of $3,555 per camera per month. This represents a 10% reduction in the cost to the City. The total flat 3 rate cost per camera using ten (10) cameras is $426,600 while at fifteen (15) cameras the total cost to the City is $639,900. For comparison, the cost to the City on the per infraction method for ten (10) cameras would be $770,150 and for fifteen (15) cameras it would be $899,999. The resultant revenue to the City for the flat rate method, after deducting the vendor cost with ten (10) cameras is $2,995,275 and at fifteen (15) cameras the revenue is projected to be $4,492,913. It is important to note that the vendor does not guarantee the projected revenues nor can the Administration as there are a number of variables that will affect the resultant collections to the City. The previous assumptions include a number of variables, anyone of which may impact the final revenues received by the City. The model assumes a rate of collection that is 75%, a full year operation, and a certain number of infractions to be issued. If the collection rate is less, permitting takes longer than expected or fewer infractions are generated, revenues will be impacted. The assumption for revenue with no practical supporting experience of $1,000,000 is a conservative and appropriate amount, which can be adjusted subsequently if the program performs better. As the Agreement contains language that provides language that guarantees cost neutrality to the City, there is no exposure to the City for potential losses. Cost neutrality means that in the event revenues generated are not sufficient to cover vendor expenses, the vendor will absorb the difference so that the City suffers no losses. 10 Cameras at 8 citations er da 15 Cameras at 8 citations er da Total Revenue Collected $3,421,875 $5,132,813 Flat Rate er Camera er Month $3,555 $3,555 Total Camera/ ro ram Costs to Ci $426,600 $639,900 Ci Share of Pro ram Revenue $2,995,275 $4,492,913 It is suggested that the City Commission upon approval of a Red Light Camera Agreement with a vendor subsequently amend the City's Red Light Camera Ordinance to provide that an infraction fine be valued at $150.00 rather than the current $125.00. The $150.00 infraction fine will mirror the amount which is anticipated by the State to be mandated for all municipalities and will allow the City of Miami Beach to collect slightly higher revenue for a longer period of time before any state statutory impacts. At a $150.00 infraction fine amount for fifteen (15) cameras using the same assumptions associated with the Table above, the City's share of program revenue would increase to $5,519,475 or an increase of slightly over $1,000,000 from the $125.00 citation level. Again, it is important to stress the number of variables affecting revenue and that a conservative program start up expectation is recommended. In terms of the infraction fine amount that might be paid, for the first thirty (30) days from the issuance of the citation, the infraction would cost $150.00, if increased as recommended. For payments made by Internet or by telephone, an additional $4.95 will be charged for the infraction. If an infraction is paid after thirty (30) days, a $16.50 late fee will be assessed by and paid to the vendor and it is suggested that the City also levy and collect a late fee of $8.50, which would make the total infraction cost $175 if paid late. In the negotiated Agreement a warning letter is required to be sent at about the twenty-first (21St) day from citation issuance relative to late payment. In the event an infraction is not paid after forty-five (45) days, it is determined to be a delinquent account and sent to collection (handled by ACS as part of the Agreement) and an initial $35.00 is added by and collected by the vendor as part of the infraction cost. It is recommended the City assess a charge for delinquent infractions to be paid to the City in the amount of $10.00 making a delinquent infraction if paid, $220.00. 4 Any amount obtained by the City through late or delinquency fees would be added to those illustrated in the Table above and as the number of infractions is not possible to calculate that would fall into this category, an accurate revenue projection is not possible. Depending upon the volume of infractions that must be reviewed in the Police Department, it may be necessary and appropriate for the Department to hire a Public Safety Specialist (PSS) in order not to impact current staff. A PSS can be utilized by the Police Department to review infractions if provided the required training to meet the requirements to be a traffic control infraction review officer as set forth in FS 316.640(5) (a). An estimated cost for a PSS, including benefits is $65,000 per year, which is recommended to be paid from program revenues. One additional impact that may be experienced by the City in the initial stages of program implementation is increased activity in the Office of the Special Master. Inmost jurisdictions that use red light cameras there is a short period of time for which appeals are filed. This activity drops off significantly as cases are adjudicated and the community becomes more familiar with the ordinance. Assuming one additional Special Master session to deal with any appeals of this program every two weeks for a period of three months (six (6)additional four (4) hour sessions), an approximate cost would be $6,000, to be paid from program revenues. CONCLUSION ACS has been in this business for over twenty years and currently has their system in several cities throughout the United States including Bradenton, Florida; Montgomery, Alabama; Baltimore, Maryland; Atlanta, Georgia; Raleigh, North Carolina; Wilmington, Delaware; Cleveland, Ohio; Portland, Oregon and Denver, Colorado. As part of the agreement, ACS will install and maintain the system at no cost to the City of Miami Beach. In essence, the System is designed to be a complete turnkey operation from installation to implementation. Terms of the agreement include a commitment by ACS to install unobtrusive poles, mounting devices, cameras, strobes, and lasers that will fit in with the existing environment. The camera system will be state of the art with the capability to produce photographs and video with sufficient detail and quality to read the license plate, color of the vehicle and in some instances the manufacturer and model; in all types of weather and lighting conditions. Specifically, ACS has agreed to install these camera systems at key intersections in accordance with an implementation plan mutually agreed to at no cost to the City. This process will entail ACS obtaining the proper permits, provide to the City for approval, construction and installation specifications for laser deployment, electrical and traffic controller connections for each of the intersections. For camera system installations that may be on private property, ACS will seek rights from private property owners for the placement of equipment. In recent surveys of City of Miami Beach residents it was determined that public safety and maintaining traffic flow was considered a top priority and as a result is reflected in the City strategic plan as a key intended outcome. The implementation of the red light enforcement program by ACS would provide another tool for the Miami Beach Police Department to enhance the accomplishment of these key intended outcomes. The negotiated agreement with ACS provides for a high quality red light enforcement program and all the necessary processing services so as not to burden existing staff resources. Beyond its primary objective to improve public safety, the agreement provides for the potential for a positive revenue stream. Approval of the agreement with ACS is recommended 5 EXHIBIT 1 Miami Beach Police Department Recommended Intersection Locations First Priority Intersections 5th Street and Alton Road 5th Street and Washington Avenue 17th Street and Alton Road 17th Street and Collins Avenue Alton Road and Dade Boulevard 41St Street and Pinetree Drive 41St Street and Alton Road 63rd Street and Indian Creek Drive 69th Street and Abbott Avenue 71St Street and Collins Avenue 41St Street and Prairie Avenue Second Priority Intersections Abbott Avenue and Indian Creek 17th Street and Washington Avenue Dade Boulevard and Washington Avenue Dade Boulevard and 23rd Street Lagorce Drive and Pinetree Drive Lagorce Drive and 63rd Street McArthur Causeway and Fountain Street 67th Street and Collins Avenue 10th Street and Ocean Drive Chase Avenue and Alton Road F:\cmgr\$ALL\BOB\RedLightCameralntersections.doc EXHIBIT 2 American " Traffic Solutions" ~ April 13, 2009 Mr. Jorge Gonzalez, City Manager City of Miami Beach 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach, FL 33139 RE: Red Light Camera Program Dear Mr. Gonzalez: Thank you for meeting with us Thursday evening concerning the City's proposed Red Light Traffic Program. As we indicated in our meeting, we felt there were several important items which could not be considered by the City Commission at the time of its initial meeting, and which required further clarification. In short, ACS deceived the Commission and the City through creative embellishment and obfuscation that would be hard to decipher from a layman's standpoint. I. Misleading Information Submitted by ACS At the Commission meeting, ACS accused ATS of misleading the City Commission about the camera ATS had proposed. In addition, ACS showcased a model camera which ACS claimed to be a 21MP video and still camera with all necessary detection, processing and networking equipment completely self-contained within the camera unit. As a result, ACS claimed they could complete a streamlined installation on a single pole with just two (2) components: the camera and a strobe, without any additional boxes or poles. In short, ACS is unable to deliver what was promised. What ACS really proposed is: • A 10.1 Mega-Pixel RLCS-1 Camera -page 13 and 23, ACS Proposal • A three pole per intersection installation -page 12, ACS Proposal • An installation on two (2) poles with many components, including at least: 1 APX enclosure, 1 Cisco Router, 1 Terminal Block, 2 Custom Flash Cabinets, 2 Flash Units, 4 Single Lane Laser Detection Units, 1 cable harness, 1 Camera System, 1 Camera Control Unit, 1 Laser Interface Module and 1 Video Module -page 21, ACS Proposal • Additional roadside cabinets mounted to poles -page 52, ACS Proposal • The system that ACS proposed is not in production usage anywhere in the US. There is a beta system in Baltimore Maryland which uses embedded loops in the road and has exposed wiring and electronics stuffed into a pole base on the ground. II. The Proposed Camera is not Operational ~;: 7681 East Gray Road Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 rE~: 480.443.7000 F,ax: 480.607.0901 ww,wvr.atsol.com www.RedLightCamera.com wvrw.PlatePass.com ,~ July 6, 2009 Page 2 ACS cannot deliver the streamlined " 2 component, no box" solution they described verbally to the City Commission. Additionally, although ACS stated that their 21 mega-pixel camera had been successfully installed in Baltimore, this is also not true. The ACS RLCS-1: • Is a beta system with only 1 prototype in existence (Baltimore installation). The Baltimore installation is based on embedded loops and is suspected to be a 10.1 mega pixel Canon consumer grade camera. • Is not used to issue citations in Baltimore, or anywhere else. • Has never been deployed with non-invasive laser vehicle detection, only in-ground loops. ACS has never proven that its RLCS-1 camera can work with laser detection, regardless of the camera resolution. Laser detection is a poor detection method for red light enforcement. • Has never deployed the RLCS-1 or any other camera system with the proposed optical signal detection. Optical signal detection is anon-trivial, highly complicated application that takes yeazs to develop and perfect. • ACS has no experience designing or building Red Light Cameras -all work is subcontracted to others. • Per its proposal, ACS admits that the RLCS-1 is not operational. (ACS Proposal page 156). III. The RLCS-1 Baltimore Beta Test is Fatally Flawed Worse, the ACS proposal itself calls into question whether the RLCS camera is able to deliver enforceable photographs. For example, the data bazs on camera still-shots provided to the City as a model of the camera's performance show shocking, and legally fatal, technical errors, including: • Page 24, "Daytime Violation". Still "A" shows a vehicle at the red light with a speed of 0 mph. Likewise, Still "B" shows the same vehicle cleazly in a different spot, again with a speed of 0 mph. Obviously, a caz cannot be illegally traversing the intersection at 0 mph. • Page 25, "Nighttime Violation". Still "A" shows the vehicle at the intersection with a clocked speed of 0 mph. Again, Still "B", in which the caz is moving through the intersection, also shows a speed of 0 mph. Additionally, while Still "A" lists the car as being in "Lane 1 ", Still "B" describes the same car as being in "Lane 4". Shockingly, the "B" shot, which supposedly occurs 2 seconds later, also displays the exact same time stamp as the "A" shot - "8/21/2008 6:39:28AM". • Page 25, "Daytime Raining Violation". Still "A" shows a caz approaching the intersection at "0 mph". Still "B" shows the same car 0.6 seconds later, clocked at "69 mph". • Page 26, "Nighttime Raining Violation". Still "A" shows a speed of 0 mph. The same caz is clocked in Still "B", 0.6 second later, at 90 mph. Each of these violations, presented by ACS as a model for its program, is fatally flawed. If issued for a real ticket, these errors would subject the entire program to jeopardy. Since the RLCS-1 camera that created these violations is the sole test model available, Miami Beach should have serious questions about whether the camera can ever work in Miami Beach - pazticulazly when it has never ~~ July 6, 2009 Page 3 been tested with laser detection. The camera in use in Baltimore utilizes in-ground loops which are generally considered to be more effective than laser, yet are prohibited in Florida. ACS' failure to install a single camera in Florida calls into question whether it is even capable of installing the proposed system with laser. There is no possibility that the ACS RLCS-1 system would ever pass the nationally recognized IACP Model Minimum Requirements for red light cameras based on the current design and operation of the system. By comparison, ATS has successfully installed over 1,000 cameras nationwide, including over 35 in Florida. ATS has never had a program successfully challenged, nor has it had a program terminated in favor of a competitor. Not surprisingly, ATS has taken over a large number of ACS programs, including high-profile programs in Phoenix, Mesa, Washington, D.C., Anne Arundel County, San Diego and Edmonton In light of these serious questions, ATS believes its proposal is in the City's best interest, and proposes ahead-to-head installation with ACS. To that end, ATS will install a complete camera installation for comparison purposes against the ACS system (estimated cost to ATS: $100,000.00) within 10 days from the date the city provides a permit to ATS. The City will be able to measure installation time, camera effectiveness and cityscape impacts for each system and determine which system better meets its needs. Additionally, ATS will offer the City the ultimate in indemnification protection: in addition to the indemnification language contained in its Pembroke Pines contract, ATS will withhold billing and allow the City to retain all red light fees until such time as a state law is passed by the Florida Legislature incorporating red light enforcement into the State Uniform Traffic Code. ATS is confident that the abbreviated City Commission consideration of this item missed these critical key points for consideration. We are equally confident that ACS will not be able to deliver the streamlined system promised. As that fact becomes clear in negotiations, we urge you to reach an impasse and recommend aside-by-side comparison of these two vendors. We invite you to experience the ATS difference. Sincerely, Crreg Parks, Senior Vice President Business Development Public Safety Solutions EXHIBIT 3 18'-35' Pule Height EXHIBIT =4 W z w J z0 Od ~- J - ~ ICJ F- ~~ = W w J 0 J Q U W ~~ ~ L m U L~ O EXHIBIT 5 w z Q Q ~- h') w U Z Q w U Z Q ~_ W U Z Q F- N ~* M t`3 f a 0 0 N N b w z Q J N ~ L~ z Q J N W Z Q J W Z Q EXHIBIT 6 EXHIBIT 7 EXHIBIT 8 EXHIBIT 9 al amore, . 1 . ins a ation. ame pole and camera as proposed for Miami Beach. Miami Beach installation has flush mount at street with no cabinet.