|
Arizona cities still raising revenue with photo radar
Despite Arizona lawmaker's curbs, cities not slowing down in photo enforcement Posted: Saturday, May 7, 2011 6:00 am By Mike Sakal, Tribune East Valley Tribune A new state law requiring cities to change the wording on mailed photo-enforcement tickets to clearly reflect a speeder’s rights and obligations to pay them doesn’t appear to be putting the brakes on the East Valley cities issuing citations. Senate Bill 1398 is Arizona lawmakers’ latest attempt to hamper photo enforcement. The state ended its experiment with speed cameras along freeways last summer, when the Arizona Department of Public Safety chose not to renew its contract with Phoenix-based vendor Reflex. But cities vow to keep issuing the controversial tickets — and when offenders don’t pay up, they’ll keep sending process servers in an attempt to hand-deliver a court summons. With SB 1398 on the books, it remains to be seen how many people will stop forking over fines for a ticket, ranging from $171 for motorists traveling 11 mph over the speed limit to slightly more than $250 if they’re going 19 mph or faster over the speed limit. On average, one third to one half of speeders are paying them now, while speed and red-light photo enforcement for cities throughout the East Valley have been operating at losses to the tune of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars being drained from general funds. Cities differ in how they tally the costs of their photo-enforcement programs, some adding it in to the costs of staff hired specifically to process the tickets or identify the people behind the wheel of the vehicle flashed by the camera. Mesa, the East Valley’s largest city, has experienced nearly an $800,000 loss through its speed photo program the last three fiscal years, according to information from the city. Phoenix, which has limited speed photo enforcement to red-light cameras and radar vans in school zones, is in the black, netting $458,951 last year after raking in $1.4 million, but paying a portion of that to the state and to Redflex, its vendor. KEEP SMILING SB 1398, is co-sponsored by state Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert — who is no fan of photo enforcement. It does not require the people who receive citations in the mail to respond to them or be forced to identify the person driving their vehicle. The bill, which was signed by Gov. Jan Brewer last week, more or less just confirms the rights people have when it comes to responding to the tickets. Biggs has said that the way tickets are worded now implies that people have to respond to them and identify the driver of the vehicle if it isn’t them. “It’s intended to raise revenue, not to provide a deterrent to speeding,” Biggs said. Biggs also has contended that the tickets are not issued by an officer, but generated by machines at Phoenix-based Redflex Traffic Systems, thus, not making them court documents. Mesa, Chandler and Tempe contract with Redflex. If individuals can dodge a process server for 90 days after receiving a ticket in the mail, that ticket is dismissed. But, if a process server catches up with you, speeders and red-light runners will wind up paying $37 extra (if they are residents of the county they are caught speeding in) or $50 for out-of-county residents to offset the process serving costs to the city. The new law, which goes into effect July 20, also adds $13 more in surcharges. Eight dollars will go to the state, four dollars will go to the law enforcement agency overseeing the photo-enforcement tickets and one dollar will go to the county where the ticket is issued. Sen. Frank Antenori, R-Tucson, who co-sponsored the bill with Biggs and received a photo citation in Pima County three years ago (and said he paid it), said his goal is to completely rid the state of traffic cameras. “Photo enforcement is a huge infringement on the liberty of citizens in the state because they monitor one’s movement,” Antenori said. “I don’t want it to be a money maker, but people need to be properly served. Under the current way tickets were being sent out, when people receive a photo ticket in the mail, they believed they officially were being served a summons and they were not. People are not compelled to respond until they are properly served. “If cities are saying they are using photo enforcement for safety reasons, that’s fine, but if it’s being used to generate revenue, it isn’t,” Antenori added. “There’s a lot of flaws in photo enforcement. They aren’t discretionary and those who get them are denied due process because you can’t cross examine your accuser. The state Legislature never went through the proper process of reviewing it or debating it. These photo-enforcement companies quietly came in and just started up.” Municipal court officials contend that photo enforcement never has been as great a source of revenue as many people believe. “I don’t see any significant impact the law would have on us,” said Lenny Montanaro, deputy administrator for Mesa City Court. “We’ve always made it an option for the person receiving the ticket to identify the driver, not a requirement. There’s no law to say that they have to. But, people have to respond to these, and they will get processed served — that’s per rule. Did the state Legislature say we can’t process serve speeders?” Rick Rager, administrator for the Tempe City Court, echoed Montanaro’s sentiments about the law. “I don’t believe the law will have any effect on what we do,” Rager said. “There’s people out there who are going to pay or they’re not going to pay. It would have been nice if the state would have sent us a sample of the verbiage or wording we’re supposed to put on the ticket. On ours, we always said, ‘If you’re not the driver, you can nominate the person who was driving your car,’ but we never said you shall or must. Our wording was somewhat of an advisement, but we will make the verbiage change.” OPERATING AT A LOSS Montanaro, who has worked for Mesa City Court since 1992, said speed photo enforcement was implemented in 1997 more as a deterrent than a way to pad the city’s coffers. “Photo enforcement is not the cash cow everyone thinks it is,” Montanaro said. [I suspect that is based on how you do the accounting - method A shows that they lose money, method B shows the make money - I suspect photo radar is often a jobs program for the cops who run it even it the government doesn't make revenue off of it the cops involved do] “Speed photo enforcement is a way to shape the driving behaviors of our city. People need to slow down and obey those driving devices.” For the last three fiscal years, Mesa’s speed photo enforcement has been deep in the red — operating at a $289,311 loss for the 2009-10 fiscal year, a $309,342 loss for the 2008-09 fiscal year, and a $196,446 loss for the 2007-08 fiscal year. [Wonder what these numbers mean? Are the loses the amount of wages paid to the cops who run the program? Or perhaps to Refflex?] “Photo enforcement was never intended to be a money-making thing, but a break-even thing,” Montanaro said. “It has enlightened people in the sense that if their driving behavior doesn’t change, they’ll continue to get cited. We’re getting the numbers to be where they need to be.” In Chandler, speed photo enforcement was operating at a loss to the city of $23,123 for the 2010-11 fiscal year through Jan. 31 — money that goes toward its vendor Redflex, Cox Communications and personnel costs, according to Carla Boatner, administrator for Chandler City Court. For the 2009-10 fiscal year, the city’s speed photo enforcement also operated at negative balance of $22,514, but it made $149,329 in the 2008-09 fiscal year. That was the year the city added cameras to intersections, Boatner said. Of the 9,000 filings in Chandler through March 30, 2,346 people paid the tickets averaging $225 in full, and 1,540 went to traffic school, according to Boatner. For the court’s 2009-10 fiscal year, there were 12,174 speed photo-enforcement tickets, of which 4,737 were paid in full. There also were 2,904 offenders who went to traffic school, according to information from the court. In an email to the Tribune, Chandler police Sgt. Joe Favazzo said that nothing would change in their photo-enforcement program and they plan to continue using it. “The city will send out a notice of violation, and if the person chooses not to respond, and personnel can identify them through a driver’s license photo, a complaint will be sent to them in the mail,” Favazzo said. Chandler police have an officer dedicated to weeding through the photo-enforcement tickets that Redflex issues to compare the speeder to the driver’s license photo of the vehicle’s owner. [Which means the Chandler is paying the police at least $50,000 a year to run the program because entry level cops have a starting pay of about $50,000] If they can be identified, that complaint will be mailed to them — but if not, the ticket will be sent to the owner of the vehicle asking them to identify the driver. However, if that person ignores the complaint and dodges the process server for 90 days, that ticket, too, will be dismissed. In Phoenix last year, there were 14,725 photo-enforcement tickets filed with 12,143 of them being for red-light violations and 2,582 of them being speeders in school zones. Of those tickets, 8,285 of them were paid, according to information from the city. Gilbert does not have enforcement cameras in its jurisdiction and will not be affected by the new law, said Sgt. William Balafas, a Gilbert police spokesman. • Contact writer: (480) 898-6533 or msakal@evtrib.com
Traffic camera makers see growth Despite Ariz. backlash, U.S. market expanding by Ryan Randazzo - Mar. 20, 2011 12:00 AM The Arizona Republic In a bright south Tempe office amid dozens of workers and computers, an employee reviews video of a GMC pickup cruising through the Scottsdale Road and Shea Boulevard intersection well after the signal turned red. The camera captured a clear picture of the driver's face and plate number, and soon enough, with a few clicks of a mouse and verification from Scottsdale police, a notice of violation will arrive in the driver's Wyoming mailbox. At the next desk, another American Traffic Solutions Inc. employee watches on his screen as a driver whizzes past the snow-laden sidewalks in Edmonton, Alberta, reviewing the clip to ensure a violation occurred. Similar scenes played out nearly 3 million times last year, with speeding drivers and red-light runners contributing $150 million in revenue for ATS and millions more for their local law-enforcement agencies. And that number is growing rapidly as ATS and its competitors expand traffic-camera programs nationwide. The tremendous growth has come despite a national recession and fierce backlash against photo enforcement in ATS' home state. The company faces proposals to ban the cameras, the governor nixed the state-highway camera program and a driver fatally shot a camera operator working for ATS competitor Redflex in 2009. "We've gone back and forth about how visible we want to be," ATS Chief Executive Jim Tuton said. "There is a fine line we need to walk. But we are a successful local company." Tuton launched the first photo-enforcement program in the nation in 1987 when he put a camera along Lincoln Drive in Paradise Valley. The town was trying to slow drivers cutting through suburban neighborhood between Scottsdale and Phoenix. Growth was slow at first. So slow that in 1999, he sold the camera business to Redflex, only to get back in the business years later, when photo enforcement gained popularity. In 2010, ATS installed about 500 new cameras nationwide, bringing in revenue of more than $150 million, and it expects to add another 700 cameras to U.S. streets this year. "We just finished an incredible year," Tuton said. "But safety is the backdrop. This is funded through the violators, so in the end, everyone wins." Redflex Holdings Ltd., an Australian company with its North American headquarters in Phoenix, also is growing fast. Three-quarters of its business is in the U.S., and it serves Phoenix-area communities including Chandler. Redflex reported $136 million in revenue last year, up about 4 percent from 2009. Australia's Macquarie Group Ltd. and U.S. finance company the Carlyle Group have proposed buying the company for about $300 million, apparently confident that despite some backlash, the industry is likely to grow. Tickets from the now-defunct state program cost drivers a minimum of $165 plus $20 in service charges. Cities charge varying amounts for tickets. Scottsdale's fee schedule includes at least 19 different fines enforced by photo, ranging from $175 to about $360, depending on the violation. Backlash intense With a business based on giving people traffic citations, ATS employees expect to make a few enemies, but detractors in Arizona are among the most vocal. One is Sen. Frank Antenori, R-Vail, who introduced three bills in the Arizona Legislature this session aimed at ridding the state of traffic-safety cameras. Two of those bills died in the Senate, but a referral that passed the Senate still could send the matter to voters if approved in the House. "I hate photo radar," Antenori said during a committee session before a vote on his bills. "I think they infringe on several constitutional principles. The first is due process." Antenori also said he was concerned that some people, such as motorcyclists wearing face shields, could avoid prosecution in states such as Arizona, where a picture of the driver's face is required for a citation. "They don't provide discretion, where a human being can analyze the situation," he said. "You also have a difficulty having the ability of being able to face your accuser and ask questions. They also seem to be more of a revenue-generating tool rather than a safety tool." He said he was present when the city of Tucson evaluated its camera program. "It is not about safety, in my opinion," he said. "It is clearly about revenue and fleecing the motorists out there." ATS officials said that after years of avoiding most debates over their business, they recently decided to engage their critics, who have proposed similar camera bans in several locations. "We let the opponents of these things cast themselves as the victims," said Charles Territo, ATS vice president of communications. "The reality is that the only victims are those who are killed or injured when a person runs a red light. More than two-thirds of those fatalities are pedestrians, bicyclists and passengers in other cars, not the red-light runners." Among the people who testified against Antenori's bills in Arizona are people who lost loved ones in vehicle accidents. "For those people who get tickets for breaking the law to label themselves as victims, if they want to meet real victims, I'll introduce them to a man who has lost his daughter to a red-light runner," Territo said. "These are people who live in Arizona who are the real victims of red-light accidents. Not some guy who broke the law, ran a red light and got a $50 ticket." Debate over traffic cameras turned deadly in April 2009 when a disgruntled driver shot and killed a man working for Redflex. The shooter, Thomas Patrick Destories, is serving a 22-year sentence for the murder. The incident sent a shockwave through the photo-enforcement industry. "We took that seriously," Tuton said. "I've been doing this 20 years, and we only have had one or two cameras even been shot, and that was the only incidence I know of when a driver was shot. But all it takes is one crazy person." After the shooting, ATS took extra safety measures with its own drivers to protect them from such an event, and installed video cameras in its trucks to film anyone approaching the vehicles. Arizona program ends The year after the shooting, Gov. Jan Brewer allowed a state program for enforcement cameras along highways to expire, which has cost Redflex more than $5 million in write-downs, the company said in its annual report to shareholders. While most of Redflex's operations are in Arizona, it is a global company. Camera opponents took the defeat of the Arizona highway program as a major victory. The fact that the market-leading traffic-camera companies have offices here, a camera operator was killed here and the governor buried the state program made Arizona a flashpoint for the public debate over cameras. "Arizona definitely is a hotspot," said Henry Bentley, a Florida home remodeler who also builds websites. One of his sites is banthecams .org, where he keeps a collection of news stories regarding traffic-safety cameras from across the country. Bentley's opposition to the cameras started about a year and a half ago, when he was ticketed in Florida. "I'm not the smartest guy in the world, OK, and I'm a pretty easy-going guy, but if I get . . . (provoked), I'm like a bulldog," Bentley said. Bentley said that it appears cities using photo enforcement shorten the length of their yellow lights to entrap drivers. "I did tons of research," he said. "I've gotten a lot of people on board knowledgeable about what is going on. When people realize all the deception and lies, there is just too much opportunity for fraud. I am totally against it." He said that if Arizonans get the chance to vote on photo enforcement, he believes they will ban it. Safety countered The camera companies counter their opponents by arguing that under the watchful eyes of their equipment, people drive slower and safer, and as a result, fewer people die in car accidents. They post to websites such as YouTube, showing video, captured by their cameras, of drivers going through intersections and causing accidents. Redflex even has a video on the homepage of its website showing a pedestrian in a crosswalk violently struck by a rolling vehicle after a car runs a red light. The video and several other graphic accident sequences run in a loop on the site. The companies tout research from the independent Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which represents insurance companies, that shows cities with cameras on their streets have fewer fatalities. The most recent study, released in February by the institute, reported that 14 cities with cameras from 2004-08 showed a 35 percent decline in fatal red-light-running crashes compared with the years 1992-96. The institute reported that the fatality rate also fell in 48 cities without camera programs, but only by 14 percent. The researchers concluded that the rate of fatal red-light-running crashes in cities with cameras was 24 percent lower than it would have been without cameras. That adds up to 74 fewer fatal red-light-running crashes and approximately 83 lives saved. Critics such as Bentley say that the institute is covertly funded by the camera companies, which the institute denies. "The entire effectiveness for the institute rests on our credibility," said Adrian Lund, institute president. The institute relies on its research to inform insurance companies, which have a financial stake in safety: The fewer fatalities from car accidents, the less insurance companies must compensate people and the lower it can make premiums. If the institute's research determined that red-light and speed cameras did not make roads safer, the institute would publish those results, he said. The cameras do coerce drivers into operating their vehicles more safely, he said. "There is a payoff here in public health," Lund said. "But one of the reasons we are supported by insurance companies is it affects their bottom line as well. We are kind of unique as an institute. The interests of our member companies are aligned with the public-health interest." The institute has found that in some cases, red-light cameras increase the number of rear-end collisions, at least initially after the cameras are installed, he said. "There are two reasons we are less concerned about that," Lund said. "One, it doesn't always occur. And two, the reductions in other crashes are larger, and rear-enders are less likely to involve serious injuries or fatalities." Other critics charge that the institute supports photo enforcement only because it allows insurance companies to charge higher rates to people who get tickets. "Their members make more from insurance surcharges," said Craig Peterson of Mesa, the general manager of Radartest.com. Peterson both sells radar-detection equipment and works as a consultant for the radar-equipment industry, and is opposed to cameras because he says they don't make roads safer. "Depending on the state, insurance companies can charge you three to seven years on those tickets," he said. "If you have several expensive cars, what was a $200 or $300 ticket becomes a several-thousand dollar ticket with insurance surcharges." Lund responds to that criticism by saying that the organization doesn't support all laws that lead to more tickets, because some laws, such as texting bans, have not been proven to influence drivers to be safer. Lund said that the institute did not endorse text messaging on a cellphone while driving, but said that bans had proven ineffective. Photo-enforcement is different, he said, because the cameras change how people drive. "We are pointed to as a tool of the insurance industry," he said. "In this case, they are disagreeing with the research. Almost no matter what position the data point toward, there will be somebody's ox in there getting gored." Municipal revenue One of the most contentious issues for critics of traffic-safety cameras is the money they generate for municipalities and the camera companies. Arizona's statewide program was widely perceived to be a revenue generator rather than a public-safety program, especially after former Gov. Janet Napolitano predicted in 2008 the system could generate $90 million in revenue in its first year. "We did not care for the statewide program because we felt it was put in place as a revenue generator," said AAA Arizona spokeswoman Linda Gorman, adding that AAA supports traffic cameras in general. "The state program was such high visibility, and when it was put in they said they would put in 100 cameras across state. That had a huge impact on motorists. And it was intentionally designed to raise a certain dollar amount. We've never seen in any other instance where a program has intentionally been put in place to raise revenue." AAA "recognizes cameras as an effective tool to encourage people to drive safer," Gorman said, but the insurance company and auto club does not like to see them replace actual officers or raise funds that are not directed back to traffic safety. Some officials said it is a misconception that traffic cameras raise lots of revenue for cities. Scottsdale, for example, reported $427,000 in net revenue in fiscal 2009-10 from its camera program, which includes seven intersection cameras and two midblock speed cameras. The city collected $2.21 million in fines and court fees from photo tickets that year, but paid ATS $1.79 million. If the city calculated the actual time and expense for the staff to process those photo tickets, and the judges' time spent on the cases, "I believe we'd probably just about break even," Court Administrator Janet Cornell said. "In Scottsdale, we have pretty much fine-tuned as much efficiency and economy of scale as possible from the program," she said. Chandler does track the time staff and judges spend on photo-enforcement tickets, and the city reports that in the last fiscal year, its program actually cost $22,500 more than it generated. Officials from cities that use photo enforcement all said that the programs were aimed at safety first. "For our police chief, it is first and foremost a safety issue," said Mary Okoye, a government-relations spokeswoman for Tucson. She said that the cameras free officers to work in the most critical areas. "It has been shown over and over that increased traffic enforcement has a positive effect on traffic safety," she said. "The use of photo enforcement allows the City of Tucson Police Department to increase its presence in the traffic enforcement arena by enforcing laws without stationing actual officers at the locations where photo enforcement is used." Chandler Police Sgt. Frank Mendoza said that the city didn't install its cameras in 2001 to generate revenue, and that a ban on them would make the city's streets less safe. "As you are approaching those intersections, you know (the cameras) are there, so it alerts you," he said. "You know if you are going too fast, you will get popped, so you change your behavior. That is the goal, to change behavior to reduce accidents or the severity of accidents." |