Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPS 2018-10-15 Item 2A - Discussion - Red Light Cameras ProposalCity of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor TO: FROM: BY: INFOR ATIONAL E ORANDU Public Safety Committee Bruce Linton, Chief of Police Bill Devlin, Sergeant Traffic Division CC: Mayor Ekberg DATE: 10/10/2018 SUBJECT: Automated Safety Camera Pilot Project Presentation ISSUE Increase public safety on the city roadways through enforcement and education using automated red-light cameras. BACKGROUND The most prevalent complaint from our residents is speeding on our arterials and neighborhoods. Our traffic Division has a difficult time keeping up with the increased call for enforcement. In addition to leveraging this technology for increased efficiency, studies have shown that red light cameras will make the city streets safer by reducing red light running violations. They are currently used in King, Pierce, Snohomish, Spokane, and Chelan counties. Here in King County there are programs in Bellevue, Des Moines, Federal Way, Issaquah, Kent, Lake Forrest Park, Mercer Island, Renton, and Seattle. ANALYSIS Red light running nationally causes hundreds of deaths, tens of thousands of injuries and billions of dollars in property damage. A driver runs a red light about every 20 minutes and more frequently during peak times. Studies show that automated safety cameras have reduce red light running, which in turn reduces the potential serious injury right angle collisions. They educate the public and that education has a spillover effect to the non -camera intersections. They will assist with increased traffic flow and increase the safety of police officers. The camera systems will assist with better tracking of intersection statistics such as traffic flows, number of vehicles, peak hours of the days, number of collisions, and tickets issued in these intersections. They will provide more efficient service with no additional FTE's. The Police, Prosecutor, City Attorney, Public Works, and the Tukwila Municipal Court supports the program. Studies show that nationally a high percentage of the public is in favor of automated red-light cameras and the Tukwila Police Department has reached out at community meetings and through social media to verify support in our area. PROPOSED INTERSECTIONS The proposed intersections for the pilot project were analyzed using collision data, projected violations, layout and potential design difficulty for the cameras system placement. The following proposed intersections are as follows: Boeing Access at Martin Luther King Jr (Southbound and Eastbound - WSDOT), Southcenter Parkway at Strander Blvd (Northbound and Westbound), and Grady at Interurban Ave South (Eastbound and Westbound -WSDOT). Companies such as ATS has worked with WSDOT intersections. The Red -Light vendors will do the installations, that is the normal business model. Signage is required by the RCW and the City will install and maintain them at their expense (vendors will provide the technical assistance with the recommending placement). The cameras have a minimal power draw and will utilize 1 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 existing power. If power is not available, the vendor will bring power in and that power will then be available for other city users. These requirements are all part of the contractual agreement. PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS AND RETENTION Public records requests are forwarded to the city and the city can request needed information from the selected vendor. Images must be retained and accessible up through the exhaustion of the appeals process and then destroyed. VENDOR SELECTION The Police Department has drafted an RFP to select a suitable vender. The review and selection process will incorporate criteria based on experience and a broad level of Service focused on past successes in other jurisdictions. FINANCIAL IMPACT Considering normal Red-light Camera Vendor business models, there is no upfront cost, and the per camera, per month charge quoted is estimated at $4,500.00 to $5,000.00. These programs are self -funding and vendors normally require a 3-5-year contract to actualize their return on investment. RECOMMENDATION Forward to the Council for consideration and approval of the proposal of the 3-year Pilot Program proposal along with the required ordinance at the and ordinance at the October 22, 2018 Committee of the Whole meeting and subsequent November 5, 2018 Regular Meeting. Further, recommend a phased process for the implementation which affords the Council an opportunity to off ramp at various junctures prior to an actual contract being signed. This affords the department to work through the multiple steps required to ensure a successful program. ATTACHMENTS - Automated safety cameras pilot project power point -Draft automated safety camera city ordinance - RCW for automated safety camera systems - Red-light Camera Timeline 2 W:12018 Info MemoslredlightCameras10-15.doc UKWIIEJ, Washington Automated Traffic Safety Camera Program Cameras will make :the city streetssafer, by reducing red light running; which, will reduce potentially serious injury right angle collisions. Cameras will educate the public with potential spillover to surrounding non - camera intersections, which, will help with traffic flow. Cameras will assist with internal investigations, law suits, and traffic collisions in the intersections. Cameras will increase safety of police officers and provide more efficient service, with no additional FTE's.* Camera will allow for better tracking of vehicles, collisions, and tickets issued in these intersections. ork Police, Prosecutor, City Attorney, Public Works, and Court supports this program, and studies show that nationally a high percentage of the public are in favor of RLC. •►Automated enforcemen ` refers © the Ube { f ;ameras © enforce traffic safety laws in, this case we are talking about red Light running 24/7. Their primary purpose is to improve traffic safety by modifying driver behavior. �► Many states have laws that explicitly authorize automated enforcement. Here in Washington it is RCW 46.63.170. ■► The most common type of automated program is for red light violations. The use of cameras to enforce speed limits is less common, but increasing, especially in school zones. Many jurisdictions treat automated enforcement citations just like parking tickets in that the registered owner is liable. Parking tickets do not result in points and/or not recorded on a driver's record. 01 In our State/area there are currently 17 programs, with 343 Safety Cameras They are used in King, Pierce, Snohomish, Spokane and Chelan Counties King County ATS camera programs include Bellevue (9), Des Moines (11), Federal Way (16), Issaquah (2), Kent (8), Lake Forrest Park (11), Mercer Island School District (5) Renton (18) Seattle (59), Seattle Public Schools (120) Their primary purpose is to irprove traffic safet}: From our mission statement -We provide superior services that support a safe, inviting and healthy environment for our residents, businesses and guests, this includes our roadways. And from our core values we are Responsive - We are timely and effective in the delivery of great customer service. We continually strive to find innovative ways to improve. These cameras are an innovative way to make a streets safer. Why is red light running a problem? Red light Runners cause hundreds of deaths, tens of thousands of injuries, and billions of dollars in property damage each year. In 2016, 800 people were killed, and an estimated 137,000 were injured in crashes that involved red light running. co National studies show the t in busy intersections; prior to the use a1= red light cameras, a motorist ran a red light about every 20 minutes and during peak times it was more frequent. One analysis of red-light violation data from 19 intersections without red light cameras, in four different states, found a violation rate of 3.2 per hour per intersection. Yes, in addition fio the decrease° in`red. light running aft camera -equipped' sites, studies show this effect is carried over to nearby signalized intersections that are not equipped with red light cameras. An Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) international red-light camera study concluded that cameras lower red light violations by 40-50 percent. w A 2016 Institute study comparing large cities with red light cameras to those without found the devices reduced the red-light running crash rate by 21 percent and the rate of all types of fatal crashes at signalized intersections by 14 percent. Previous IIHS research in California found significant citywide crash reductions followed the introduction of red-light cameras and injury crashes at intersections with traffic signals were reduced by 29 percent. O Front into side c©ilisions (right an)x file crash type most coseiy associate with red light running, at these intersections declined by 32 percent overall, and front side crashes involving injury fell 68 percent. An institute review of international red-light camera studies concluded that cameras reduce injury crashes by 25-30 percent. The Cochrane Collaboration, an international public health organization, reviewed 10 controlled before -after studies of red-light cameras effectiveness. Based on the most rigorous studies, there was an estimated 13-29 percent reduction in all types of injury crashes and a 24 percent reduction in right angle injury crashes. ome studies 1 ave`reorte to whie redcgh camera front -into -side collisions and overall injury crashes, they can increase rear -end crashes, however such crashes tend to be much less severe that front -into -side crashes, so the net affect is positive. The study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration evaluated red light camera programs in seven cities and they found that overall, right-angle crashes decreased by 25 percent while rear -end collisions increased by 15 percent. N Boeing Access Road at MLK JrW y S (21/2-0/5/13/1) S 133 rd Ave S and Interurban Ave S (22/9-9/6/6/1) Southcenter Parkway at Strander Blvd (34/5-2/15/9/5) W. Valley at 180'h Ave S (26/5-3/3/13/4/4) Grady and Interurban Ave S (24/5-5/9/10 Southcenter Blvd at 615' Ave S (Stets Froml/1/14-12/31/16, 39 with 16 being right angle crashes, with 8 persons injured; 16 sideswipe; 6 rear end crashes; 1 fixed object). • After analysis ©f pro osed intersections usincg'collision stats' t d tape grap narrowed it down to three intersections, two directions each for the Pilot Project: Boeing Access Rd @ Martin Luther King Jr Wy - SB and EB directions Southcenter Parkway @ Strander Blvd - NB and WB directions Grady Wy @ Interurban Ave S - EB and WB directions w Strobe Controller Violation Capture (Video & Data) -= Citation Issued 01 Back Office -Review j44,0444,`, apnea Support Court Support '4* Webalto 2417 availability Viewviolation Images & video FAO • Online payments Violation ; WACO011t ViVationinfatom Customer service reps 8:00 AM-8:00 PM EDT Inquiries regarding violations Payments by phone 4 Citation Recipient Payment Support 0) o upfront cost -The euiprrert a!ried aid riaintained by the contracted company 3 Year contract required). $500.00 per sign includes installation cost by the city, 6 signs 2 per intersection- Signage is required by the RCW - $3,000.00 4,500.00 - $5,000.00 per camera, per month - $360,000.00 1 FTE for the court for the pilot project - S 108,845.00 Judge pro tem for additional mitigation hearings for citations and interpreters - $16,000.00 w Total budget - 5487,845.00 Public Safety Committee Community Orientated Police Citizens Advisory Board Tukwila International Boulevard Action Committee Tukwila Reporter Newspaper Hazelnut Publication City of Tukwila Website linked to Police Department Website 03 ctober 18,2018 Graff pro o Ri P • November 18, 2018 Vender selection and site surveys ■► December 18, 2018 Contract review and Council approval January 2019 Red Light Camera Pilot program begins March 2019 Quarterly analysis of the program begins I. June, September, December of 2019 Quarterly analysis January 2020 Annual Analysis January 2021 Annual Analysis with updates as requested October 2021 Final Public Safety Committee update, full implementation determination Cameras will make the city streets.' safer, by reducing red night running, which, will reduce potentially serious injury right angle collisions. Cameras will educate the public with potential spillover to surrounding non - camera intersections, which, will help with traffic flow. Cameras will assist with internal investigations, law suits, and traffic collisions in the intersections. Cameras will increase safety of police officers and provide more efficient service, with no additional FTE's.* Camera will allow for better tracking of vehicles, collisions, and tickets issued in these intersections. Police, Prosecutor, City Attorney, Public Works, and Court supports this program, and studies show that nationally a high percentage of the public are in favor of RLC. CS) 20 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER OF THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE AUTHORIZING THE USE OF AUTOMATED TRAFFIC SAFETY CAMERAS AND ADOPTING STANDARDS RELATED THERETO, TO BE CODIFIED AS TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.22 PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, very serious traffic accidents involving right-angle collisions at high rates of speed are often the result of drivers running red lights; and WHEREAS, studies show that these accidents result in more serious injury and deaths than other accidents at signalized intersections; and WHEREAS, locating automated traffic safety cameras at signalized intersections has been shown to reduce the frequency of traffic violations at these intersections and has resulted in a corresponding reduction in injuries and associated economic costs, and WHEREAS, the City has arterial intersections that would benefit from the strategic placement of automated traffic safety cameras; and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires to improve traffic safety and pedestrian safety throughout the City with emphasis on critical intersections; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature has adopted Chapter 46.63 RCW, which authorizes local jurisdictions to use automated traffic safety cameras at arterial intersections, subject to some limitations; and WHEREAS, in accordance with RCW 46.63.170(1)(a), the City has prepared an analysis of the locations where automated traffic safety cameras are proposed to be located; W: Word Processing\Ordinances\Automated traffic safety cameras 7-25-18.doc WD:bjs Page 1 of 5 21 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 9.22 of the Tukwila Municipal Code Established. A chapter of the Tukwila Municipal Code entitled "Automated Traffic Safety Cameras," to be codified as Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 9.22, is hereby established to read as follows: CHAPTER 9.22 AUTOMATED TRAFFIC SAFETY CAMERAS Sections: 9.22.010 Automated traffic safety cameras — Detection of violations — Restrictions 9.22.020 Notice of infraction 9.22.030 Prima facie presumption 9.22.040 Infractions processed 9.22.050 Fine 9.22.060 Nonexclusive enforcement Section 2. Regulations Established. TMC Section 9.22.010, "Automated traffic safety cameras — Detection of violations — Restrictions," is hereby established to read as follows: 9.22.010 Automated traffic safety cameras — Detection of violations — Restrictions A. City law enforcement officers and persons commissioned by the Tukwila Police Chief are authorized to use automated traffic safety cameras and related automated systems to detect and record the image of stoplight violations at the intersection of two arterials; provided, however, pictures of the vehicle and the vehicle license plate may be taken only while an infraction is occurring, and the picture shall not reveal the face of the driver or of any passengers in the vehicle. B. Each location where an automated traffic safety camera is used shall be clearly marked by signs placed in locations that clearly indicate to a driver that the driver is entering a zone where traffic laws are enforced by an automated traffic safety camera. C. "Automated traffic safety camera" means a device that uses a vehicle sensor installed to work in conjunction with an intersection traffic control system or a speed measuring device, and a camera synchronized to automatically record one or more sequenced photographs, microphotographs or electronic images of the rear of a motor vehicle whenever a vehicle fails to stop when facing a steady red traffic control signal as detected by a speed measuring device. W: Word Processing \Ordinances\Automated traffic safety cameras 7-25-18.doc 22 WD:bjs Page 2 of 5 Section 3. Regulations Established. TMC Section 9.22.020, "Notice of infraction," is hereby established to read as follows: 9.22.020 Notice of infraction A. Whenever any vehicle is photographed by an automated traffic safety camera, a notice of infraction shall be mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle within 14 days of the violation, or to the renter of a vehicle within 14 days of establishing the renter's name and address. A person receiving a notice of infraction based on evidence detected by an automated traffic safety camera may respond to the notice by mail. B. If the registered owner of the vehicle is a rental car business, the law enforcement agency shall, before a notice of infraction is issued, provide a written notice to the rental car business that a notice of infraction may be issued to the rental car business if the rental car business does not, within 18 days of receiving the written notice, provide to the agency by return mail: (1) a statement under oath stating the name and known mailing address of the individual driving or renting the vehicle when the infraction occurred; or (2) a statement under oath that the business is unable to determine who was driving or renting the vehicle when the infraction occurred, or (3) in lieu of identifying the vehicle operator, the rental car business may pay the applicable penalty. Timely mailing of this statement to the agency shall relieve the rental car business of any liability under this chapter for the infraction. C. The law enforcement officer issuing a notice of infraction shall include with it a certificate or facsimile thereof, based upon the inspection of photographs, microphotographs or electronic images produced by an automated traffic safety camera, citing the infraction and stating the facts supporting the notice of infraction. This certificate or facsimile shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained in it and shall be admissible in a proceeding charging a violation under this chapter. The photographs, microphotographs or electronic images evidencing the violation must be available for inspection and admission into evidence in a proceeding to adjudicate the liability for the infraction. D. The registered owner of a vehicle is responsible for an infraction detected through the use of an automated traffic safety camera unless the registered owner overcomes the presumption set forth in TMC Section 9.22.030, or, in the case of a rental car business, satisfies the conditions under TMC Section 9.22.020.B. If appropriate under the circumstances, a renter identified under TMC Section 9.22.020.B is responsible for an infraction. E. All photographs, microphotographs or electronic images prepared under this chapter are for the exclusive use of law enforcement in the discharge of duties under this chapter and, as provided in RCW 46.63.170(1)(g), they are not open to the public and may not be used in a court in a pending action or proceeding unless the action or proceeding relates to a violation under this chapter. No photograph, microphotograph or electronic image may be used for any purpose other than enforcement of violations under this chapter nor retained longer than necessary to enforce this chapter. W: Word Processing \Ordinances \Automated traffic safety cameras 7-25-18.doc WD:bjs Page 3 of 5 23 Section 4. Regulations Established. TMC Section 9.22.030, "Prima facie presumption," is hereby established to read as follows: 9.22.030 Prima facie presumption A. In a traffic infraction case involving an infraction detected through the use of an automated traffic safety camera under this chapter, proof that the particular vehicle described in the notice of traffic infraction was involved in a stoplight violation, together with proof that the person named in the notice of infraction was at the time of the violation the registered owner of the vehicle, shall constitute in evidence a prima facie presumption that the registered owner of the vehicle was the person in control of the vehicle at the point where, and for the time during which, the violation occurred. B. This presumption may be overcome only if the registered owner, under oath, states in a written statement to the court or in testimony before the court that the vehicle involved was, at the time, stolen or in the care, custody or control of some person other than the registered owner. Section 5. Regulations Established. TMC Section 9.22.040, "Infractions processed," is hereby established to read as follows: 9.22.040 Infractions processed Infractions detected through the use of automated traffic safety cameras shall be processed in the same manner as parking infractions. Section 6. Regulations Established. TMC Section 9.22.050, "Fine," is hereby established to read as follows: 9.22.050 Fine The fine for an infraction detected under authority of this chapter shall be a base monetary penalty of $136.00; and provided further, that whenever, in the future, the state of Washington increases the fine imposed under this chapter, by legislation or court rule, the City's fine shall be increased to a like amount upon the effective date of such legislation or court rule. Section 7. Regulations Established. TMC Section 9.22.060, "Nonexclusive enforcement," is hereby established to read as follows: 9.22.060 Nonexclusive enforcement Nothing in this chapter prohibits a law enforcement officer from issuing a notice of traffic infraction to a person in control of a vehicle at the time a violation occurs under RCW 46.63.030(1)(a), (b) or (c). W: Word Processing \Ordinances \Automated traffic safety cameras 7-25-18.doc 24 WD:bjs Page 4 of 5 Section 8. Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors; references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations; or ordinance numbering and section/subsection numbering. Section 9. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 10. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2018. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Christy O'Flaherty, MMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Rachel B. Turpin, City Attorney Allan Ekberg, Mayor Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: W: Word Processing \Ordinances \Automated traffic safety cameras 7-25-18.doc WD:bjs Page 5 of 5 25 26 RCW f.`" Automated traffic safety cameras —Definition. (1) The use of automated traffic safety cameras for issuance of notices of infraction is subject to the following requirements: (a) The appropriate local legislative authority must prepare an analysis of the locations within the jurisdiction where automated traffic safety cameras are proposed to be located: (i) Before enacting an ordinance allowing for the initial use of automated traffic safety cameras; and (ii) before adding additional cameras or relocating any existing camera to a new location within the jurisdiction. Automated traffic safety cameras may be used to detect one or more of the following: Stoplight, railroad crossing, or school speed zone violations; or speed violations subject to (c) of this subsection. At a minimum, the local ordinance must contain the restrictions described in this section and provisions for public notice and signage. Cities and counties using automated traffic safety cameras before July 24, 2005, are subject to the restrictions described in this section, but are not required to enact an authorizing ordinance. Beginning one year after June 7, 2012, cities and counties using automated traffic safety cameras must post an annual report of the number of traffic accidents that occurred at each location where an automated traffic safety camera is located as well as the number of notices of infraction issued for each camera and any other relevant information about the automated traffic safety cameras that the city or county deems appropriate on the city's or county's web site. (b) Except as provided in (c) of this subsection, use of automated traffic safety cameras is restricted to the following locations only: (i) Intersections of two arterials with traffic control signals that have yellow change interval durations in accordance with RCW 4 13 02, which interval durations may not be reduced after placement of the camera; (ii) railroad crossings; and (iii) school speed zones. (c) Any city west of the Cascade mountains with a population of more than one hundred ninety-five thousand located in a county with a population of fewer than one million five hundred thousand may operate an automated traffic safety camera to detect speed violations subject to the following limitations: (i) A city may only operate one such automated traffic safety camera within its respective jurisdiction; and (ii) The use and location of the automated traffic safety camera must have first been authorized by the Washington state legislature as a pilot project for at least one full year. (d) Automated traffic safety cameras may only take pictures of the vehicle and vehicle license plate and only while an infraction is occurring. The picture must not reveal the face of the driver or of passengers in the vehicle. The primary purpose of camera placement is to take pictures of the vehicle and vehicle license plate when an infraction is occurring. Cities and counties shall consider installing cameras in a manner that minimizes the impact of camera flash on drivers. 27 (e) A notice of infraction must be mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle within fourteen days of the violation, or to the renter of a vehicle within fourteen days of establishing the renter's name and address under subsection (3)(a) of this section. The law enforcement officer issuing the notice of infraction shall include with it a certificate or facsimile thereof, based upon inspection of photographs, microphotographs, or electronic images produced by an automated traffic safety camera, stating the facts supporting the notice of infraction. This certificate or facsimile is prima facie evidence of the facts contained in it and is admissible in a proceeding charging a violation under this chapter. The photographs, microphotographs, or electronic images evidencing the violation must be available for inspection and admission into evidence in a proceeding to adjudicate the liability for the infraction. A person receiving a notice of infraction based on evidence detected by an automated traffic safety camera may respond to the notice by mail. (f) The registered owner of a vehicle is responsible for an infraction under RCW 46.63.030(1)(d) unless the registered owner overcomes the presumption in RCW 46 63.0'75, or, in the case of a rental car business, satisfies the conditions under subsection (3) of this section. If appropriate under the circumstances, a renter identified under subsection (3)(a) of this section is responsible for an infraction. (g) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all photographs, microphotographs, or electronic images prepared under this section are for the exclusive use of law enforcement in the discharge of duties under this section and are not open to the public and may not be used in a court in a pending action or proceeding unless the action or proceeding relates to a violation under this section. No photograph, microphotograph, or electronic image may be used for any purpose other than enforcement of violations under this section nor retained longer than necessary to enforce this section. (h) All locations where an automated traffic safety camera is used must be clearly marked at least thirty days prior to activation of the camera by placing signs in locations that clearly indicate to a driver that he or she is entering a zone where traffic laws are enforced by an automated traffic safety camera. Signs placed in automated traffic safety camera locations after June 7, 2012, must follow the specifications and guidelines under the manual of uniform traffic control devices for streets and highways as adopted by the department of transportation under chapter 47.36 RCW. (i) If a county or city has established an authorized automated traffic safety camera program under this section, the compensation paid to the manufacturer or vendor of the equipment used must be based only upon the value of the equipment and services provided or rendered in support of the system, and may not be based upon a portion of the fine or civil penalty imposed or the revenue generated by the equipment. (2) Infractions detected through the use of automated traffic safety cameras are not part of the registered owner's driving record under RCW 4o 01 and 46,52.120. Additionally, infractions generated by the use of automated traffic safety cameras under this section shall be processed in the same manner as parking infractions, including for the purposes of RCW $.50.100, 35,20,220, 46.16A 120, and 46,20 270(2). The amount of the fine issued for an infraction generated through the use of an automated traffic safety camera shall not exceed the amount of a fine issued for other parking infractions within the jurisdiction. However, the amount of the fine issued for a traffic control signal 28 violation detected through the use of an automated traffic safety camera shall not exceed the monetary penalty for a violation of RCW U50 as provided under RCW 4 63.110, including all applicable statutory assessments. (3) If the registered owner of the vehicle is a rental car business, the law enforcement agency shall, before a notice of infraction being issued under this section, provide a written notice to the rental car business that a notice of infraction may be issued to the rental car business if the rental car business does not, within eighteen days of receiving the written notice, provide to the issuing agency by return mail: (a) A statement under oath stating the name and known mailing address of the individual driving or renting the vehicle when the infraction occurred; or (b) A statement under oath that the business is unable to determine who was driving or renting the vehicle at the time the infraction occurred because the vehicle was stolen at the time of the infraction. A statement provided under this subsection must be accompanied by a copy of a filed police report regarding the vehicle theft; or (c) In lieu of identifying the vehicle operator, the rental car business may pay the applicable penalty. Timely mailing of this statement to the issuing law enforcement agency relieves a rental car business of any liability under this chapter for the notice of infraction. (4) Nothing in this section prohibits a law enforcement officer from issuing a notice of traffic infraction to a person in control of a vehicle at the time a violation occurs under RCW 46.6.t..0:"•%0(1) (a), (b), or (c). (5) For the purposes of this section, "automated traffic safety camera" means a device that uses a vehicle sensor installed to work in conjunction with an intersection traffic control system, a railroad grade crossing control system, or a speed measuring device, and a camera synchronized to automatically record one or more sequenced photographs, microphotographs, or electronic images of the rear of a motor vehicle at the time the vehicle fails to stop when facing a steady red traffic control signal or an activated railroad grade crossing control signal, or exceeds a speed limit as detected by a speed measuring device. (6) During the 2011-2013 and 2013-2015 fiscal biennia, this section does not apply to automated traffic safety cameras for the purposes of section 216(5), chapter 367, Laws of 2011 and section 216(6), chapter 306, Laws of 2013. [ 2013 3rd sp3,4, 44 § 406: 2015 1st sp,z°, c § 702; 2013 c 306 § 711, Prior: 2012 c § 3; 2012 c 8 § 7, 2011 e 367 § 704; 2010 c 161 § 1127: 2009 c 470 § 714; 2007 c 372 § 3, 2005 c 167 §1,] 29 30 Tukwila Police epartment Integratin 21st Century Technology Improving Community n Officer Safety („) Tuk S en on Ti Ian OCT 2021 JAN 2021 ANNUAL ANALYSIS WITH UPDATES AS REQUESTED JAN 2020 ANNUAL ANALYSIS DEC 2019 QUARTERLY ANALYSIS SEP 2019 JUN 2019 QUARTERLY ANALYSIS QUARERLY ANALYSIS MAR 2019.QUARTERLY ANALYSIS OF THE PROGRAM BEGINS JAN 2019RED LIGHT CAMERA PILOT PROGRAM BEGINS BEGINS DEC 18 CONTRACT REVIEW AND COUNCIL APPROVAL NOV 18 VENDOR SELECTION & SITE SURVEYS OCT 18 DRAFT PROPOSAL & RFP FINAL PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE UPDATE FULL IMPLEMENTATION DETERMINATION 2 • Public Safety Committee • Community Oriented Police Citizens Advisory Board • Tukwila International Boulevard Action Committee • Tukwila Reporter Newspaper • Hazelnut Publication • City of Tukwila Website linked to Police Department Website TUKWILA POLICE RED-LIGHT CAMERAS COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY co A