WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 2008

FINANCE COMMITTEE WORK SESSION

Presentation by Redflex Traffic Systems regarding traffic signal cameras

6:00 P.M.

1. CALL TO ORDER. Mrs. Hammond opened the Finance Committee Work Session at 6:00 P.M., with the following members present: Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sauer, and Mrs. Sanders. Mr. Wisniewski was absent due to vacation. Others present were: Tim Hansley, Lynda Yartin, Linda Fersch, Chief Mike Taylor, Commander Ralph Portier, Joe Moore, and others.

2. SCHEDULED MATTERS:

A. Presentation by Redflex Traffic Systems regarding traffic signal cameras. Chief Taylor stated in order to provide the level of safety that the people of Pickerington have grown accustomed to, and knowing there will be no additional police officers this year and next, he has been searching for ways to help the police department provide safety. He stated one of the methods he has been looking at is traffic light cameras. Chief Taylor stated he had invited Mr. Joe Moore of the Redflex Company to come and speak to the Committee this evening to broaden their knowledge regarding red light cameras.

Mr. Moore stated his company provides the red light cameras to several major cities including Dayton, Springfield, Toledo, Chillicothe, Cleveland, Chicago, and he spent this afternoon speaking to Public Safety in Columbus talking about expanding their program. Mr. Moore stated Chief Taylor had invited him to speak tonight to address supplementing the police officers with a 24-hour a day, 7 day a week, digital eye. Mr. Moore stated in the State of Ohio there are about 20 years of aggregate photo inducements in all of the cities he just mentioned. He stated those cities have been the forerunner for cities such as yours that are considering the placement of cameras in their community for enforcement. Mr. Moore stated there is not one city in the State of Ohio that his company manages that has not shown dramatic decreases in red light running and speeding. He stated his company is the largest vendor of this kind of product and service in the United States. He stated east of the Rocky Mountains, most communities have taken their existing law and have made it a civil penalty where the registered owner of an automobile is responsible, by ordinance, and the Ohio Supreme Court in a 7-0 ruling, concurred that automated enforcement, by camera, is a supplement to the Ohio Revised Code and an aid to the Ohio Revised Code and not in conflict with it.

Mr. Moore stated what the cameras do are take digital pictures of an automobile committing an infraction, and around those digital still pictures are 300 frames of video showing the violation. He stated they have had tremendous success where the cameras are placed because it does modify driving behavior and has broad based effects on other locations throughout the city. Mr. Moore stated his company has cameras in 23 states, and many other states are considering legislation for photo enforcement. Mr. Moore stated he would not state that the city cannot live without a camera, but if there is an area that can be addressed that the police department and traffic engineers have identified as a dangerous area, and they can do it at no cost to the city, and they can do it based on the successes of other communities, why should it not be explored. He stated the first issue to be identified is a high accident location, and he has discussed this with the police department, and they have discussed 70/256, Refugee, and Diley and what they might experience in the future. He stated they would identify any engineering issues, if the street needs to be reconstructed or reconfigured, do that first, and then maybe there wouldn’t be a need for a camera as a supplement to police. Mr. Moore stated they would target dangerous intersections, and offer photo enforcement as an option. He stated this is a civil violation and if they took the existing ordinance for running red lights and speeding and reduced them to a civil violation, making the registered owner of the car responsible for the infraction. He stated no record goes to the BMV, the fines are typically in alignment with what an officer issuing a ticket would be, and any concerns regarding issues of privacy and the photography of the interior of the automobile don’t exist because it is simply rear photography, the license plate, vehicle background only, and nothing else. He stated the registered owner is responsible, if your vehicle is photographed in a three position digitized photograph running a red light, you are going to receive a ticket. He stated if you are not driving the vehicle, you can nominate who was by signing an affidavit stating who was. He stated if a lease or rental car company gets a photo enforcement ticket, they cannot pay that ticket and charge the lessee or renter extra money, they have to nominate that person and send it to them. He stated this is the Ohio Revised Code’s recognition of automated enforcement. Mr. Moore stated there is an administrative hearing process as well. Mr. Moore stated no one in his company or anywhere else can approve the sending of a fine bearing ticket. He stated this can only be done by the police. Mr. Moore stated the objective is to reduce incidents of red light running and speed by a public awareness program, by warning signs posted at the intersections, and if all else fails, sending out a civil notice. He stated for approximately 60 days before the cameras would be installed they work with the police department and have media presentations. He stated there is also a 30-day warning period in which letters are sent to the person who is the registered owner of a vehicle caught by a camera. He stated after that 90-day period, there is a fine bearing notice sent out. He stated his company’s objective is to assist in traffic calming, they simply take pictures of wrong doing and it is up to the police department to evaluate that evidence and determine whether a civil fine is sent out. Mr. Moore stated in some intersections in Dayton, the incidents of red light running have been reduced by 60 to 70 percent and have sustained that reduction. Mr. Moore further stated within an hour of a crash at an electronic intersection the police department can have the video in their computer in the police station to see what happened.

Mr. Moore stated his company installs the equipment, they take pictures, they capture photographic evidence for the police department and if they agree that a ticket needs to go out, his company will produce and mail the notices of liability as prescribed by the City’s laws. He stated they are simply an agent of the City. He stated further they will provide daily reports of camera activity to the police department and they support the administrative hearing process by providing evidence if you decide to go that way. Mr. Moore stated if the City decides to move this way, the legal advisor should write a municipal ordinance for photo enforcement he has provided some ordinances adopted by other entities to Chief Taylor. Mr. Moore stated photos taken at intersections go to their office for three verification processes, so by the time the police get the digital images they are worthwhile looking at. He stated there is no sense sending the police department photos of a funeral procession or a police officer directing traffic through an intersection. He stated the verification process filters out things that are not worthwhile to send to the police. He stated on behalf of the police department they are authorized to go to the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, and any other state, and obtain the name and address of the registered owner only. They cannot get social security number or anything else. He continued that when the police department receives the images each day they can look at them and concur. If the police department accepts the data, the ticket is printed that day and mailed to the registered owner. If the police department rejects it, they just indicate why for quality control purposes. Again, this is a civil violation and the amount of the fine in Ohio is as low as $85 and as high as $120.

Chief Taylor stated in the past six months as you get on the freeway at S.R. 256/I-70 there have been 61 accidents; at 204/256 there have been 32 accidents; and, at Refugee/256 there have been 19 accidents.

Mr. Moore stated in order for them to amortize the cost of the equipment and operate at a profit, they must be able to recover their costs. He stated that is why they would look and see how many red light running violations there are, they will take video, determine traffic movement and get a glimpse of what kind of red light running there is. He stated if there aren’t any, they would not put in a camera. Mr. Moore stated at $100 per ticket his company would need to get a certain amount of the fine, but the City would keep a certain percentage. He stated in most communities 25 to 35 percent stays in the city.

Mr. Sabatino clarified that an initial contract with Redflex is typically for three to five years, and then the City would have an option to renew for a year or whatever.

Chief Taylor stated he would like to stress that he was recommending this for safety purposes. He stated the City would receive some revenue, however, if his sole purpose was revenue he would have the cameras in all four directions and he is only intending to put cameras in north and south.

Mrs. Hammond thanked Mr. Moore for his presentation and determined there were no further questions from the Committee.

3. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mrs. Hammond closed the work session at 6:56 P.M., March 19, 2008.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

____________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk