County Reconsiders Red Light Cameras

Manatee County may reconsider its decision to keep red light cameras running now that state law changes make it costlier for local governments to run the program.

During its session earlier this year, the state Legislature had considered repealing the hard-fought rule for red light cameras, but instead decided to have localities send most of the fines to the state. The red light cameras were first approved by the state after Rep. Ron Reagan introduced the bill known as the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Program, on behalf of Bradenton’s Melissa Wandall, whose husband was killed by a red-light runner at State Road 70 and Tara Boulevard.

As of July, the legislature made changes to the law requiring that most of the fine for red light runners go to the state and not to the localities. The fine for running a red light and being caught on camera is $158. Of the total fine, $100 goes to the state's general fund; $10 to the Department of Health Administrative Trust Fund and $3 is deposited into the Brain and Spinal Cord Injury Trust Fund. Localities are allotted $45 per ticket, which they use to pay for the cost of law enforcement to review the photos and video for each violation and approve the ticket. The localities must also pay a contracted fee to the company that installs the program and collects the fines.

Some localities have complained with the changes, the red light cameras are actually costing them money to run. The $45 they keep doesn't cover the costs of running the program. Manatee County Sheriff Brad Steube told County Commissioners that he has to add a full time staff person to review photos and videos of red light runners, adding to the cost of the program.

Manatee County has a few cameras installed and running now but commissioners are investigating whether to terminate the contract they now have and to see what happens with the coming legislative session.

"The City of Lakeland is not making money," said County Attorney Ted Williams. "They are supporting it with the electrical system."

Williams said that the County Commission could consider terminating the county's contract because the sheriff said he needs to hire someone under the current vendor's requirements, which means the program is not "revenue neutral." 

"We’re going to have to take a step back and look at it," he said. "We have to be prudent on how we are going to handle it."

County Commissioners asked the county staff to gather information on the costs, the program and the state requirements before terminating the contract. The county is expected to review the red light camera program by the end of the year and make a decision on whether to terminate the program.

County Administrator Ed Hunzeker said he would bring both short term solutions and long term options for the commissioners to consider by the end of the year.

The County contracted with the vendor several years ago, before the state changed the fee structure. In order to make the cameras viable for the county in terms of costs and staff time, county staff wants to follow what will happen in the legislature this year. (There promises to be another movement to repeal the cameras all together). And whether the fines or distribution of fines will change.

In the long term, once the county can determine the costs of the program and whether the state's portion will change, the purchasing department could put out a request for proposal to try to make the red light program pay for itself locally.

Over time, the vendor's fee structure has changes as well, according to Karen Windon, a deputy county administrator. When the county first contracted with the vendor it paid a per citation fee. Now the county pays a monthly fee for each vehicle that approaches a red light camera rather than per citation.

"We had a contract with the vendor several years ago," said Karen Windon, a deputy county administrator. "It pre-dated the legislation that changed the fee structure. We want a contract enforceable under the new component."

County Commissioner Larry Bustle said he wanted to be cautious in the way the county approaches the issue and he doesn't want to county to violate its current contract.

"We all thought this was a valid project," Bustle said "We all voted for it."

All of the changes have taken the county by surprise, last year  they thought the issue would be whether the state would outlaw the cameras or keep them. But by implementing such steep fines the state may have defacto gotten rid of them

"We already have a lot of money tied up in this, the vendor has a lot of money tied up in this," said County Commissioner Robin DiSabatino. "We need to figure out what we are going to do."