AGENDA #7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Award a Contract to Implement Automated Traffic Enforcement for Red Light Violations in Chapel Hill
DATE: May 29, 2002
The attached resolution would authorize the Manager to negotiate and contract with a private company to implement automated traffic enforcement for red light violations in Chapel Hill, based upon proposals received by the Town on May 3, 2002.
This report responds to a Town Council resolution adopted on April 23, 2001 directing the Manager to solicit proposals for automated traffic enforcement for red-light running and to report to the Council with recommendations about proceeding further with program implementation.
The Manager recommends adoption of the attached resolution.
BACKGROUND
On May 8, 2000, the Town Council approved a resolution requesting State enabling legislation that would allow Chapel Hill to monitor and enforce red light running violations using automated enforcement technology. The State legislature subsequently approved an amendment to G.S. 160A-300.1 which authorized Chapel Hill to use photographic images as prima facie evidence of traffic signal violations.
The main objectives of automated red light enforcement are:
· To decrease the number of accidents caused by the traffic signal violations.
· To increase public awareness of safe driving.
· To supplement existing Police resources.
· To decrease the number of traffic violations at intersections.
On October 23, 2000, the Council received a staff report discussing automated enforcement technology and its potential for use in Chapel Hill. The Council subsequently directed the Manager to schedule a public forum to solicit citizens’ comments about the use of automated enforcement technology. The Council also referred this issue to the Town’s Transportation Board and Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Board for review and recommendations.
In November 2000, following review and discussion of the use of automated enforcement technology to monitor and enforce red light running in Chapel Hill, both advisory boards unanimously recommended that the Council approve the proposed project.
On January 16, 2001, the Council held a public forum on the use of automated enforcement technology to monitor and enforce red light running violations in Chapel Hill. During the forum three citizens spoke in favor of, and none in opposition to, the proposed use of automated enforcement technology in Chapel Hill.
On April 23, 2001, the Council received another staff report regarding automated enforcement technology (Attachment #2) that included a proposed Town ordinance that would allow the use of such technology for red light running violations in Chapel Hill in accordance with State statutes. The April 23, 2001 report also included a resolution authorizing the Manager to solicit proposals from private firms to implement a Town automated enforcement program. The Town Council adopted the resolution on April 23, 2001 and the ordinance on second reading on May 7, 2001.
DISCUSSION
In addition to directing that proposals be solicited, the resolution adopted by the Council instructed the Manager to report on several issues associated with automated enforcement. Discussion of the Council’s directives and inquiries is provided in Appendix A.
EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSALS:
We received four proposals by the submittal deadline of May 3, 2002. Staff from the Town Engineering Department and Police Department, in addition to staff from the UNC Highway Safety Research Center, evaluated the proposals based on the following criteria:
· Experience of the firm with similar projects.
· Financial stability of the firm.
· Proposed personnel and staffing plan.
· Proposer’s response to the request for proposals including ability to meet the specific Service Standards outlined in Section III of the request for proposals.
· Proposer’s experience and interest.
· Proposed financial arrangement with the Town.
In order to fairly evaluate proposed financial packages, the following conditions were assumed by each proposer:
· 10 intersections will be monitored.
· Each of the 10 intersections will average 20 violations (not citations) per day.
· 80% of the violations will be collected upon. (20% of the violations will not collected as a result of successful appeals, unclear photo evidence, review of violation circumstances (funeral processions, emergencies), etc. Of the 80% collected:
75% will be collected after the original citation has been sent.
20% will be collected after the second late notice.
5% will require civil action or use of a collection agency.
The evaluation team reviewed and rated each of the four proposals, and a summary of the proposal evaluations is presented in Attachment #4. Attachment #4 also includes a summary and comparison of the financial packages proposed by each company. Proposals were evaluated by assigning excellent, good, average, and below average ratings for several criteria including experience, financial stability, response to required service standards, and quality of public awareness and customer service programs, based on information submitted by each company.
The evaluation team individually reviewed each proposal and then met to discuss each evaluator’s conclusions about each evaluation category for each company that submitted a proposal. As needed, they contacted companies for clarification of items in their proposals. Following discussion and review of criteria evaluations from each evaluator, the team reached agreement on its recommendation for a service provider.
RECOMMENDED PROPOSAL:
The evaluation team recommends, and I concur, that Affiliated Computer Services Inc. (ACS) be selected as the program service provider. ACS’s proposal best meets the Town’s objectives for the program by offering excellent service standards, a comprehensive public information program, and a reasonable financial package. We checked business and financial references and found that ACS is well respected in its field and has a solid business platform for operating a program such as is desired by the Town. ACS currently provides similar program services in 57 locations in the US and Canada, including Charlotte and Fayetteville in North Carolina.
Nestor Traffic Systems has programs at six locations in the United States, and proposed the use of digital video camera technology with the option of extending red clearance time. The evaluation team liked the idea of video technology (which was not proposed by any of the other companies) but rated Nestor lower than ACS in the areas of service standards, public awareness program, and financial stability.
Temple, Traffipax, and ACS proposed the use of digital still camera technology that is relatively standard in the industry at this time. Both Temple and Traffipax were rated lower than ACS in the areas of service standards, staffing plan, and public awareness program. Additionally, Temple currently does not have its automated enforcement system operating in any location in the United States. The evaluation team is not willing to recommend that Chapel Hill serve as a test site for Temple’s program.
COST TO THE TOWN:
We believe the proposed program would be self-supporting, with no significant direct costs to the Town. We emphasize that it would not be our priority to utilize automated traffic enforcement as a source of revenue. However, all of the North Carolina programs to date have shown a net gain after paying for contract services to operate and administer the program. If a Chapel Hill program is implemented, we recommend that the revenue be applied to community traffic control measures (including signal/sign/marking improvements, traffic calming implementation, traffic studies and data collection, intersection improvements, driver education programs, etc.), sidewalk construction, bike path construction or other projects as desired by the Council.
Intersections would be selected for enforcement based on the severity of red light running problems as evaluated by the Town and the program contractor. If the intersection data and analyses determined that there is not a significant red light running problem, we would recommend that the Council not implement a program. Typically, automated enforcement is not practical unless at least 20-25 red light violations occur each day at a proposed camera location. We do not now know the significance of and/or location(s) where red light running may be causing correctable safety problems in our community.
APPEAL PROCESS:
The Council has made clear that the public information and appeal process must be open and responsive to cited offenders, if the Council proceeds with an automated enforcement program. We propose an administrative process which includes three (3) levels of appeal as summarized below:
1. Administrative Review
2. Administrative Hearing
3. Appeal through the General Court of Justice
The proposed appeal and administrative hearing process are presented in Attachment #2, page 13.
NEXT STEP:
If authorized to do so by the Council, the Manager would negotiate and contract with ACS for automated red light enforcement services as outlined in the Request for Proposals. As specified in the Request for Proposals, the initial contract period would be three years with the option to renew annually thereafter. Specific contract termination details would be negotiated in the service contract, if the Council authorizes the Manager to proceed.
Upon successful negotiation and execution of a contract, ACS will conduct a study to identify potential locations for automated enforcement. Intersections would be selected for enforcement based on the severity of red light running problems as evaluated by both the Town and the program contractor. If the intersection data and analyses determined that there are not significant red light running problems in Chapel Hill, based on the 20-25 violation threshold per camera location as noted previously, we would recommend that the Council not implement a program.
Once locations are identified by the contractor and are approved by the Town, the contractor will install the first two cameras within 60 days and issue warning citations for a period of 7 days after the cameras are operational. Please see the Service Standards, Section III of the RFP (Attachment #3) for more information on the program and main elements of the proposed contract. The public information program would be established and the selection of hearing officers would be completed prior to the installation and operation of the first two cameras. The Town Council would appoint hearing officers. Up to eight additional cameras would be installed within 120 days following notice to proceed by the Town.
We think that the use of automated traffic enforcement could reduce red light violations and traffic accidents in Chapel Hill. Because the Town does not routinely utilize Police resources to monitor intersections specifically for red light running violations, we would expect automated traffic enforcement to function as a supplement to existing Police resources rather than as a means for freeing up currently used resources for new assignments. The objective would be to modify drivers’ behavior rather than to generate revenue.
We believe that the proposed program could provide practical and effective opportunity for the Town to improve roadway intersection safety conditions for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. We would place a high priority on treating all citizens fairly if the program were implemented.
That the Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Manager to negotiate and contract with Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. for automated traffic enforcement services for red light violations in Chapel Hill.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Response to previous Council questions and comments (p. 7).
2. April 23, 2001 agenda item #9 (p. 9).
3. Section III (Service Standards) and Section V (Price Proposal) of the RFP (p. 23).
4. Summary of the evaluation of proposals and comparison of pricing packages (p. 31).
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND CONTRACT WITH AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES, INCORPORATED TO IMPLEMENT AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FOR RED LIGHT VIOLATIONS IN CHAPEL HILL (2002-05-29/R-9)
WHEREAS, the Council requested and received State enabling legislation for a local program to use automated traffic enforcement for red-light running violations in Chapel Hill; and
WHEREAS, the Council and advisory boards have received information about typical automated traffic enforcement technology and procedures; and
WHEREAS, the Town received and evaluated proposals from private contractors for studying intersections and designing a local automated traffic enforcement program for red light violations in Chapel Hill.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to negotiate and contract with Affiliated Computer Services, Incorporated to implement automated traffic enforcement of red light violations in Chapel Hill consistent with the proposal submitted by Affiliated Computer Services and with information and guidelines presented to the Council regarding automated enforcement technology and programs.
This the 29th day of May, 2002.