Colorado: Thornton Dumps Camera Plan Over Cash Concerns

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper

Last week, the city of Thornton, Colorado decided to drop the idea of installing red light cameras—after spending more than a year attempting to make the idea work. In the end, the city council was unable to arrive at an acceptable guarantee that, no matter what, the program would make money. A directive handed down by city leaders last year explained the primary objective. “Council’s explicit expectation was that the total costs to operate a Photo Red Light Enforcement system, including service, equipment and city staff costs, were to be equal to or less than the fines received from operating the system, thus resulting in no cost for the city to implement,” a November 2008 memo from the city manager explained.

Two potential vendors, American Traffic Solutions (ATS) and Australia’s Redflex Traffic Systems, were up to the challenge. Both proposed “cost neutral” contracts by which the companies would charge for its services based on the number of traffic citations issued up to a cap of $5000 per intersection approach per month.

Another camera vendor, Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), refused to offer this cost neutrality option because the arrangement “by its nature includes a link to revenue generated by photo red light equipment.” The company warned the city that this requirement was contrary to a state law that mandates that private photo enforcement companies be paid a flat-rate fee.

“No portion of any fine collected through the use of such system may be paid to the manufacturer or vendor of the automated vehicle identification system equipment,” Colorado Revised Statutes 42-4-110.5 states. “The compensation paid by the state, county, city and county, or municipality for such equipment shall be based upon the value of such equipment and may not be based upon the number of traffic citations issued or revenue generated by such equipment.”

Even city staff grew uncomfortable with the idea.

“There is concern by the RFP selection committee that the guaranteed cost neutral models presented by the service providers are not in compliance with the state statute,” the November memo explained. “The city attorney’s office is also hesitant about the guaranteed cost neutral programs proposed by the vendors… The service providers have varying methods of how compliance with the statute is achieved, none of which have been subjected to scrutiny in court.”

Despite this warning and the city manager’s recommendation to drop the idea, the council ordered that the program should proceed. As long as the city did not have to bear the consequences for breaking the law, the council was happy to move forward on the project.

“Council requested that the service providers agree in writing to indemnify the city for all costs if a court were to determine that a cost-neutral approach violates state statute,” the city manager explained in a February 19, 2009 memo.

In order to land the potentially lucrative deal, ATS agreed to this stipulation. Redflex refused. ATS then began exploring which intersections would be most profitable locations to place red light cameras. It found three high-volume approaches that could sustain revenue generation of $100,000 to more than $200,000 per month.

A Thornton Parkway and Huron Street, the only “violations” recorded were right turns on red that would generate an estimated $161,000 in monthly revenue. The east and southbound approaches of 84th Avenue and Washington Street would generate $377,000 in revenue, even though only one straight through violation was recorded during the entire test. The only recommended intersection with through violations was 104th Avenue and Colorado Boulevard, which promised just $100,000 in revenue each month.

Officials were also concerned with the amount of time police officers would spend pouring over photographs and videotapes to ensure no innocent driver ever receives a citation in error. Vendors reassured the city that this would not be a problem. According to ATS, only 2.5 hours a month were needed to “review” the fines issued by the company at each approach, based on spending 30 seconds on each ticket.

Ultimately, the city and vendors could not agree on the final terms of the deal.

The Newspaper
The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Join the conversation
2 of 6 comments
  • AJ AJ on Jul 08, 2009

    What is also amazing is the amount of money/ time that they spent on this money generating scheme. Government at it's best...

  • Enigmaforever Enigmaforever on Jul 08, 2009

    It is all about revenue , and Redflex could care less about safety. The yellow light times have been shortened in nearly every city they have set up the traps. Thousands of violations have had to be voided, and thousands of others have had the fines refunded because Redflex's own sleazy actions. those are just the ones that have been caught. Yet they still use the violations in their stats when promoting the cameras. University studies have shown that longer yellows do much more to prevent accidents than any other method . What this means is Redflex is more than happy to endanger your family to gain revenue. In Phoenix one yellow light time was reduced from 4.5 seconds to 3 seconds the minimum federal law allows ( they blamed the city ). Redflex's tactics with highway cams are worse where again have had to refund monies for their legal, and ethical violations. The only thing lower than Redflex is elected officials who climb in bed with them. I never mentioned that Redflex has a history of loans, and campaign contributions to elected officials.

  • Jalop1991 What is this "dealer" thing Ford speaks of?
  • Picard234 So this release amounts to 2.7 hours of gasoline consumption in the US. You won't even see a penny. The administration is draining the reserves for political optics, nothing more.
  • ToolGuy If that nice young man really wants to help this hardworking American, he can have his people deliver the gasoline directly to my fuel tank. Thanks in advance.[42 million gallons divided by 233 million licensed drivers in the U.S. makes 'my' share almost two 12-ounce soda cans. This is huge, thanks for the effort lol.]
  • The Oracle Farley proves once again he is WAY in over his head.
  • Theflyersfan Gas prices went up $1.00/gal today at the three stations I just passed to get home. Was there a war? No? Could it be oil company greed? Perhaps.