Public Hearing
on the
Red 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
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.
Presentation Outline
• Overview
• Proposed Ordinance
• Next Steps (implementation)
• Public Hearing
• Requested Action
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.
Subsection 35-72 (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
Subsection 35-73 (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
Subsection 35-73:
• 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
Subsection 35-73:
• 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
Subsection 35-74 (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
Subsection 35-75 (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
Subsection 35-76 (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
Subsection 35-77 (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”
Presentation Outline
• Overview
• Proposed Ordinance
• Next Steps (implementation)
• Public Hearing
• Requested Action
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
Presentation Outline
• Overview
• Proposed Ordinance
• Next Steps (implementation)
• Public Hearing
• Requested Action
Public Hearing
on the
Red Light Camera
Ordinance
Presentation Outline
• Overview
• Proposed Ordinance
• Next Steps (implementation)
• Public Hearing
• Requested Action
Requested Action
Ordinance:
County Attorney requests BCC adopt the
Ordinance as amended.
Public Hearing
on the
Red Light Camera
Ordinance
Board of County Commissioners
Presented by
Dana Crosby, Assistant County Attorney,
and
Ruby Rozier, Manager Traffic Engineering,
March 24, 2009