By: Jim Miller
Community Writer
Grand Terrace City News 07 14 2011ed
The Grand Terrace City Council this week authorized City Manager Betsy Adams to notify Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. that operates the red light cameras in the city that Grand Terrace will not be extending the current five year-contract with the company beyond August 14, 2012.
On August 14, 2007, the Grand Terrace City Council authorized city staff to enter into a five-year agreement with Redflex Traffic Systems for the implementation of an automated red light photo enforcement system. In 2007, Michigan Street.
Adams acknowledged that there may have been an element of municipal greed in the motivation behind the red light cameras but, ironically, the program has cost the city money, while enriching Redflex. Adams indicated that the city had sought to disguise its intention to generate money with the program by citing public safety as the rationale for installing the cameras and may have utilized the new housing development to be built in Highgrove as an impetuous for its final approval. Council member Bernardo Sandoval said, “If in fact the sitting council at that time voted this contract into place because of the possible new housing element in Highgrove; it currently has been shown that it didn’t meet the needs that it was intended for.”
“The goals of the city’s red light enforcement program were to reduce the number of fatalities, serious injuries, and property damage that resulted from city-wide traffic collisions and to improve safety for motorists and pedestrians at locations where cameras are in place,” said Adams in a report dated July 12 to the council. “In addition, there was an expectation that citation revenue would cover the cost of the program and provide some additional revenue for the city, which never came to fruition. This coupled with the increased workload the program created for the finance department and the sheriff’s department is the fiscal reason for not extending the program.”
In addition, the red light cameras proved to be overwhelmingly unpopular with residents. Fines for running red lights typically ran to $465. The city saw little of that revenue, as the contract was structured to provide Redflex with a major portion of the money collected up front and court costs ate up much of the remainder of the money obtained in fines.
All around the country as well as in cities where the red light cameras had been installed in San Bernardino County, the devices have been removed by the cities that had once hoped to cash in on them, including Upland, Loma Linda and Rancho Cucamonga.
“At the council meetings of September 14, 2010 and November 9, 2010, during discussion on the resolution of past due payments to Redflex, the council indicated a desire to terminate, the agreement with Redflex, which does not include an early termination clause. Mayor Stanckewitz said, “This does not preclude the council from providing Redflex with early notice of the city’s intent to not renew the agreement and I feel it will provide a peaceful end to the contract.” Councilmember Hays made a motion to issue the termination with Council member LeAnn Garcia seconding it. The motion was unanimously approved.
On August 14, 2007, the Grand Terrace City Council authorized city staff to enter into a five-year agreement with Redflex Traffic Systems for the implementation of an automated red light photo enforcement system. In 2007, Michigan Street.
Adams acknowledged that there may have been an element of municipal greed in the motivation behind the red light cameras but, ironically, the program has cost the city money, while enriching Redflex. Adams indicated that the city had sought to disguise its intention to generate money with the program by citing public safety as the rationale for installing the cameras and may have utilized the new housing development to be built in Highgrove as an impetuous for its final approval. Council member Bernardo Sandoval said, “If in fact the sitting council at that time voted this contract into place because of the possible new housing element in Highgrove; it currently has been shown that it didn’t meet the needs that it was intended for.”
“The goals of the city’s red light enforcement program were to reduce the number of fatalities, serious injuries, and property damage that resulted from city-wide traffic collisions and to improve safety for motorists and pedestrians at locations where cameras are in place,” said Adams in a report dated July 12 to the council. “In addition, there was an expectation that citation revenue would cover the cost of the program and provide some additional revenue for the city, which never came to fruition. This coupled with the increased workload the program created for the finance department and the sheriff’s department is the fiscal reason for not extending the program.”
In addition, the red light cameras proved to be overwhelmingly unpopular with residents. Fines for running red lights typically ran to $465. The city saw little of that revenue, as the contract was structured to provide Redflex with a major portion of the money collected up front and court costs ate up much of the remainder of the money obtained in fines.
All around the country as well as in cities where the red light cameras had been installed in San Bernardino County, the devices have been removed by the cities that had once hoped to cash in on them, including Upland, Loma Linda and Rancho Cucamonga.
“At the council meetings of September 14, 2010 and November 9, 2010, during discussion on the resolution of past due payments to Redflex, the council indicated a desire to terminate, the agreement with Redflex, which does not include an early termination clause. Mayor Stanckewitz said, “This does not preclude the council from providing Redflex with early notice of the city’s intent to not renew the agreement and I feel it will provide a peaceful end to the contract.” Councilmember Hays made a motion to issue the termination with Council member LeAnn Garcia seconding it. The motion was unanimously approved.
