HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 10/1/2002 * PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at
the Workshops, Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council.
MINUTES
CITY OF GLENDALE
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
October 1, 2002
1:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Thomas R. Eggleston, and
Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet,
H. Phillip Lieberman, and Manuel D. Martinez
ALSO PRESENT: Terry Zerkle, Assistant City Manager; Rick Flaaen, City Attorney;
and Rose Day, Acting City Clerk
1. COURT HEARING OFFICER
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Honorable Cecil B. Patterson, Jr., Acting
Presiding Judge; and Ms. Brenda Way, Court Administrator, and Ms. Pilar Aguilar,
Acting Budget Director.
As an element of the Court's reorganization and in an effort to reduce temporary
staffing, the Court requested the hiring of a full-time hearing officer for the civil traffic
courtroom. If approved, the Court estimates the position could be filled in the month of
November 2002.
Currently the Court does not have enough city judge positions to effectively rotate
judges through the civil traffic courtroom, while maintaining coverage in the other three
courtrooms. Rotating judges through this courtroom leads to inconsistency and
scheduling problems. A hearing officer's expertise and experience level is more suited
for civil traffic hearings and will allow city judges to maintain full schedules in the other
courtrooms.
The City Court operates a civil traffic-hearing courtroom from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday. The Court does not have a judge or hearing officer on staff to cover the
needs of this courtroom. Currently a pro-tem judge presides over the proceedings. A
pro-tem judge is a temporary employee of the Court and may work in other courts
and/or be a practicing attorney in the community.
In researching other jurisdictions, it was found that all multi-judge Valley courts have
full-time hearing officers on staff to manage their civil traffic caseload. Courts have
opted for civil traffic hearing officers rather than judge positions because it allows city
judges to be available for more complex criminal and misdemeanor matters. These
benefits can be accomplished without adding any additional costs and will even offer
savings this fiscal year.
1
Hearing officers are required to have a Juris Doctorate degree from an accredited law
school, two years of experience in a municipal or traffic court, current membership with
the Arizona State Bar, and completion of a Civil Traffic Hearing Course.
During the Court's budget presentation in April of 2002, it was the Court's projection to
hire a full-time hearing officer in line with the Court's reorganization and attempt to
reduce and/or eliminate the use of temporary staffing.
The Court Administrator had previously met with the City Manager and the Acting
Budget Director on separate occasions to discuss the conversion of budgeted funds
into an authorized full-time employee for this fiscal year.
The Court currently expends $79,680 of budgeted funds for a pro-tern judge to preside
over civil traffic hearings. The ongoing funding to hire a full-time court hearing officer,
including benefits, is $76,891. The Court Hearing Officer position for Fiscal Year 2002-
2003 would be funded through a combination of salary savings and monies from
Account Number 01-1410-6020, the Court's temporary staffing line item. For Fiscal
Year 2003-2004, funding would become part of the proposed operating budget.
The recommendation was to direct staff to move forward with selecting and hiring a
hearing officer.
Councilmember Goulet asked what kind of savings would be realized by hiring a
hearing officer. Ms. Way explained that the hearing officer position would not
necessarily save the City money, but it would help reduce temporary staffing at the
Court. She confirmed that traffic matters are heard five days a week.
Councilmember Lieberman asked if one particular pro-tem judge handles the City's
traffic matters now. Judge Patterson said Mr. Craig Ring has been handling the City's
traffic cases full time. He noted that Ms. Alecia Lawler a pro-tem judge, has been
trained to handle these matters and is available to substitute for Mr. Ring, as needed.
Councilmember Lieberman asked if it is the State or jurisdiction that requires a hearing
officer to have a Juris Doctorate degree. Judge Patterson explained that their intent is
to hire a person who would not only act as a hearing officer, but also be able to perform
criminal hearings. He said, while he was not aware of a requirement that states a civil
traffic hearing officer has to be a lawyer, he believed a lawyer would best be able to
manage the Court effectively and efficiently.
Councilmember Clark asked how many hours of civil traffic cases the pro-tern judge
currently hears. Ms. Way said the Court currently has four courtrooms and two judges
on staff, leaving the other two courtrooms staffed by pro-tern judges. Councilmember
Clark asked how much time Mr. Ring contributes to the court. Judge Patterson said Mr.
Ring is at the Court from 8:30 a.m. until approximately 5:00 p.m. every day.
Councilmember Clark questioned the need to move from a pro-tern judge to a full-time
hearing officer, given the fact that the pro-tem judge currently hearing traffic matters is
there full-time and able to hear criminal matters as well. Judge Patterson stated that the
City currently pays pro-tem judges an hourly rate, equating to $79,680 per year. He
said a full-time hearing officer would cost approximately $65,000 annually, plus
benefits, saving the City about $3,000 annually. He stated that, unlike a sitting judge
position, a hearing officer's salary is tied to the City's merit or classification system, not
the Presiding Judge's salary. He stressed the psychological importance of filling the
position with a full-time person. He noted that moving administrative personnel from
2
temporary to full-time status has resulted in a tremendous lift in morale.
Councilmember Clark asked if a full-time hearing officer would have enough traffic
related casework or if he or she would be asked to do other judicial proceedings. Judge
Patterson said he would anticipate that the hearing officer would be primarily
responsible for all civil traffic hearing matters and civil ordinance violations.
Councilmember Clark asked if having a full-time person in the position would enhance
the City's ability to follow through on code violation cases. Judge Patterson said the
matters would be more fully addressed, given the reporting systems and uniform
processes being instituted. Councilmember Clark asked how they proposed to cover
the position's expense in future years. Ms. Aguilar explained that a corresponding
decrease in ongoing expenses should fund the hearing officer's salary.
Mr. Flaaen noted that most of Glendale's code enforcement issues are Class I
misdemeanor offenses and handled through a judge or attorney sitting as a judge. He
pointed out that there could be additional expenses on the part of the Prosecutor's
Office if the hearing officer was expected to hear code enforcement matters.
Ms. Way stated that the civil traffic courtroom is their heaviest volume courtroom, with
approximately 36,000 to 40,000 cases being filed per year. She said everyone at the
Court was recommending that the City hire a full-time employee for the civil traffic
courtroom. She expressed her opinion that the hearing officer would be busy with civil
traffic matters and would not hear criminal matters. She said it would benefit the City to
be able to use the hearing officer for criminal matters if temporary coverage was
needed.
With regard to Mr. Flaaen's comments, Judge Patterson said they were not talking
about a new court and, therefore, there should be no impact on the Prosecutor's Office.
Mayor Scruggs referred to a newspaper article, wherein the City of Tempe announced
that it would be laying off 100 employees. She said the City of Phoenix would be
holding a press conference this week to announce the layoff of substantially more than
100 employees. She pointed out that these layoffs are occurring even before the
Legislature convenes to begin its efforts to reconcile the budget. She said, therefore,
the City of Glendale is not interested in hiring anyone at this time. She clarified that the
request was for one permanent employee to hear civil traffic matters currently being
heard by a pro-tem judge. She asked how the City can have civil traffic matters heard
by someone who is not a judge and not included in the 80% salary rule. She said it
appears the hearing officer acts as a judge. She asked if at some point the hearing
officer could petition the City to be considered a judge. Judge Patterson explained that
the State of Arizona has made a number of traffic matters into civil matters. He said it
was then determined that the persons needed to handle those matters did not
necessarily have to be a judge. He stated that it was similar to the Superior Court
where, besides judges, commissioners and associate judges, there are hearing officers
who handle initial appearances, pleas, release determinations and a variety of other
matters. He said budgetary reasons played a large part in the creation of the hearing
officer position; however, it was also felt that limited functions could be performed well
by others who have appropriate training. Mayor Scruggs stated that she had been
assured the hearing officer would remain a hearing officer position and would not be
changed to an assistant judge position during the next budget cycle.
Councilmember Lieberman noted that Presiding Superior Court Judge Colin Campbell
was trying to do away with pro-tern judges without a law degree in the Justice Court.
3
•
Judge Patterson said everyone he was familiar with is a lawyer by rule of the Supreme
Court. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he supported the request.
Councilmember Clark stated that the Council has supported many of the Court's
requests and has done everything in its power to support the Court's needs. She said,
however, she did not believe a case had been made to justify moving from a pro-tem to
a full-time position. She said, in either case, an attorney would serve and the same
number of hours would be devoted. She said this was a bad time to convert a position
to full time, given future budget concerns and expected constraints. She stated that
she would be more receptive towards the request once those issues were resolved.
In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Ms. Way said the 36,000 cases cited
earlier were filed with the Court during Fiscal Year 2002. She noted that recipients of a
citation have the option of mailing in their payment rather than appearing for a hearing.
Vice Mayor Eggleston asked how many cases the other two judges hear. Ms. Way
explained that the Jail Court courtroom, where new arrestees are seen and informed of
their charges, runs seven days a week, 365 days a year. She said they also have two
jury trial courtrooms, which differ from the civil traffic courtroom in the types of cases
heard and the amount of time and resources they consume. She said the cases heard
in the jury trial courtrooms are more complex and, in most cases, cannot be handled in
one hearing. Vice Mayor Eggleston reiterated a question he had previously posed to
Judge Patterson during a telephone conversation, asking if they should wait to hire a
hearing officer until the new Presiding Judge has had a chance to see how the Court
runs. Judge Patterson said the new judge will be faced with tremendous administrative
demands and will have little time to serve on the bench. He stressed the importance of
transitioning the position to a permanent full-time position, stating that permanence
equates to substance. Vice Mayor Eggleston pointed out that a full-time hearing officer
might not be necessary if the workload lightens in the future. Judge Patterson said they
were in the process of moving towards a different way of doing business and the
hearing officer position would be a major step in that direction. He said he knew of
things being done by pro-tems that are done by full-time employees in other city courts.
Councilmember Goulet asked Judge Patterson if the Presiding Judge could re-assign a
pro-tern judge to another court, resulting in case management problems. He also
asked if that was what they hoped to avoid by hiring a hearing officer who would be
dedicated to one particular court. Judge Patterson said having someone readily
available is a definite benefit. He agreed that a pro-tem could be re-assigned by the
Presiding Judge. Councilmember Goulet asked what percentage they expected the
caseload to increase per year. Ms. Way said it was difficult to predict, given the
number of changes currently underway in the City of Glendale. She stated that they
were working on obtaining accurate court projections, but could easily expect a 2%
increase in civil traffic cases. She pointed out that the number of police officers on the
street has a direct impact on civil traffic court as well.
Councilmember Lieberman asked if the Judicial Selection Review Board, the Human
Resources Department, or the Presiding Judge would select the hearing officer. Judge
Patterson said the Presiding Judge would create a board that would then select the
person. He explained that the board would be similar to the Judicial Selection Advisory
Board.
Mr. Flaaen explained that recruitment would go through the Human Resources
Department, but the Presiding Judge would have an opportunity to establish a board
that would do background and reference checks and make a recommendation to the
Presiding Judge, who would then make the final selection.
4
Councilmember Martinez asked if the number of cases historically grows approximately
2% each year. He expressed his opinion that it would make sense to have a full-time
employee. He said he would support the request. Ms. Way pointed out that, if
approved, the position would result in a decrease in the temporary staffing line item in
their budget.
Councilmember Frate asked if next year's proposed budget was higher due to the full-
time position. Ms. Aguilar explained that there would be an offsetting decrease in the
ongoing budget to offset the salary of the new position. She said they would not
recommend increasing a full-time employee position at this time unless there was a
savings or corresponding decrease in the operating budget.
Mayor Scruggs asked who sets the pro-tern's hourly wage. Judge Patterson said he
was unable to answer that question. He explained that the rate was set when he
arrived. Ms. Way said there is not a set standard. He noted that other courts pay their
pro-tems $50 to $55 per hour. She pointed out that the City competes with other
jurisdictions for the pro-tems. Mayor Scruggs asked if the pro-tems receive annual cost
of living and merit increases.
Councilmember Frate said he understood the Court's position, but he still had questions
about funding.
Mayor Scruggs said she also understood why .the Court would prefer a full-time
employee. She stated that the City is faced with a very difficult budget situation. She
cited an example by stating that, should the State Legislature take away $25 million in
Urban Revenue Sharing due to the City, the City of Glendale would lose $1,353,081.
She said a proposal offered last week took $80 million. She explained that $75 million
would result in a $4,059,242 loss and $100 million would result in a $5,412,323 loss.
She pointed out the City has already agreed to a .2% reduction for the next two years,
based on plummeting collections at the State. She said a reduction in the Urban
Revenue Sharing, if realized, would require departments to cut their budgets. She
stated that pro-tems could be asked not to come in, whereas a full-time employee
would have to be terminated. She asked if the City had the right to ask the Court to
contribute to resolving the budget crisis or if the Court had the right to say the ability to
hear traffic court matters in the most expeditious manner possible takes precedence
over everything else.
Judge Patterson said the Court is currently operating close to the "bare-bones" level.
He stated that, should the eventualities that Mayor Scruggs spoke of became reality,
the efficiency with which the Court operates would be reflected in the revenues
collected. Acknowledging the value that the Court provides and its ability to provide
revenue enhancement, Mayor Scruggs said the question of whether the Court should
contribute to resolving the budget problem remains. She stated that, given different
circumstances, she would be comfortable hiring a full-time hearing officer. She
questioned whether this was an appropriate time to take that step given the City's
uncertain economic future. She asked if the Court has the power to say the City cannot
ask it to contribute if budget cuts are necessary. Judge Patterson said the State is
currently wrestling with the same issue. He explained that they were focusing on
maintaining the base function of the Court and were obligated to refine operations so
that they meet the constitutional mandates. He said, while certain non-essential
services could be reduced or eliminated, they could eventually run into separation of
power issues. Mayor Scruggs said every department would be forced to make severe
cuts that will affect the quality of life for Glendale citizens in numerous ways.
5
Recognizing that it would backlog the Court, result in poor service, and decrease the
City's revenues, Mayor Scruggs asked Judge Patterson if a pro-tern could be asked not
to show up for work if the situation were deemed dire enough. Judge Patterson
responded in the affirmative. Mayor Scruggs expressed her opinion that the City needs
to be realistic about future possibilities. Judge Patterson explained that the Court has to
meet certain obligations within specific time limits. He said, as a result, the city judges
would have to integrate the pro-tem's responsibilities into their routine or cases would
have to be dismissed. Mayor Scruggs said she was leaning towards committing to hire
a full-time employee (FTE) Civil Traffic Hearing Officer once the City's economic
situation was stabilized. She said, until that time, however, the City needs to retain the
flexibility that a pro-tern offers. Sheemphasized the fact that she supported the Court's
preference for an FTE. She noted, however, that she would prefer to wait until they
know more about possible budget cuts.
Councilmember Clark said the Court had made a valid case for converting the position
from pro-tem to full-time. She stated, however, that she agreed with the Mayor
Scruggs' position.
Councilmember Goulet disagreed. He said individuals have the right to a speedy trial.
He stated that the City could expose itself to repercussions within the community if
justice was delayed. He pointed out that the City is expected to grow in a manner not
seen in most other cities in the Valley. He stated that growth would result in challenges
and opportunities that other cities will not face. He expressed his opinion that the
Court's ability to provide efficient service is as important as the City's ability to provide
other basic services to its citizens. He said, therefore, he believed the position was
necessary.
Mayor Scruggs clarified that retaining the pro-tem judge would allow the Court to meet
its deadlines. She explained that her position was, should cuts be necessary, the Court
would have the option of reducing the number of hours a pro-tem works rather than
having to eliminate an FTE position.
Councilmember Lieberman asked Mr. Randy Henderlite, Acting Police Chief, if the City
had any cars and motorcycles on the street. Mr. Henderlite said they currently have 21
motorcycles on the street, at three different locations throughout the City.
Councilmember Lieberman asked how many vehicles capable of writing a ticket were
on the road during a 24-hour period. Mr. Henderlite said he estimated there to be over
100, depending on the day of the week. Councilmember Lieberman said it would only
take 96 officers, writing one ticket per day, to total 36,000 tickets per year. He stated
that traffic is the number one complaint he hears and growth will only increase the
number of tickets written. He acknowledged that the City is faced with budget
difficulties. He stated, however, that the City owes its citizens a prompt and efficient
traffic court. He voiced his support of a full-time position, even given the possibility that
the Court will later be asked to make cuts in its budget.
Councilmember Clark asked if all of the 36,000 to 40,000 civil traffic cases end up in
court. Ms. Way responded that they do not. Councilmember Clark asked how many
cases a hearing officer would handle on a yearly basis. Judge Patterson offered to
provide the figures to Councilmember Clark. He confirmed for Councilmember Clark
that the judge handles all matters that come to the Court. Councilmember Clark stated
that the level of service currently being provided would remain the same, whether the
person hearing the cases is a pro-tern or a full-time employee. She stated that the only
reason there would be diminished service is if Council directed every department to
make budget cuts. She said the City would have to take a serious look at the budget in
6
November. She said she believed they should err on the side of being fiscally prudent
in an attempt to retain flexibility. She emphasized that she was not saying the position
was not warranted just that the timing was inappropriate.
Mr. Zerkle said the Court has the option of taking the funds for the pro-tem and doing a
temporary full-time hire. He explained that it would enable them to get the sense of
permanence they seek. He said the issue could then be re-addressed during next
year's budget process.
•
Councilmembers Martinez and Clark said they both felt that would be a viable interim
solution.
In response to Mayor Scruggs' question, Mr. Flaaen said full-time temporary employees
could be retained for a year without being automatically converted into a full-time
permanent employee. He said they might be able to keep a temporary employee for up
to two years, but courts generally consider temporary employees kept longer than two
years as permanent employees. He noted that the City has extended healthcare
benefits to full-time temporary employees. He said all temporary employees enter into
a temporary employment contract, granting the City the right to terminate their services
upon seven days notice.
Councilmember Martinez asked Judge Patterson if he believed Mr. Zerkle's suggestion
would be acceptable. Judge Patterson said it sounded like a viable solution because it
would allow them to move in the direction they want to head. Councilmember Martinez
asked if a temporary full-time employee would receive the same benefits that a
permanent employee would receive. Mr. Flaaen said the City has the option of offering
the same benefits. He explained that it is typically dependent on whether money is
available within the affected department.
Vice Mayor Eggleston said a temporary employee sounded like a good solution.
Councilmember Goulet stated that the temporary employee, as described by Mr. Zerkle,
would actually be a contract employee. He expressed concern about the pool of
individuals from which they could draw a temporary or contract person. He stated that
the most qualified individuals might opt not to apply for a short-term position. He
reiterated his concern that the pro-tem judge could be re-assigned on a temporary basis
by the Presiding Judge. Judge Patterson said he and Ms. Way believed the solution
would get them headed in the right direction. He said, while the pool from which they
draw may not be optimal, he believed qualified individuals could be found because
there are a number of lawyers looking for a job. Ms. Way pointed out that a temporary
employee would provide the consistency they seek.
Mayor Scruggs summarized the Council's discussion. She stated that the Council
understood the Court's need and desire for a permanent full-time traffic hearing officer
and unanimously supported that eventuality. She said, however, it would have to come
back to the Council through the budget process. She stated that, in the meantime, the
majority of the Council wished to ask the Court to decide how they want to proceed —
either keep pro-tem judges or get a temporary contract hearing officer (temporary being
the key word) - with the understanding that the City is faced with great economic
unknowns.
2. RED LIGHT ENFORCEMENT
7
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager; Mr.
Randy Henderlite, Acting Police Chief; and Mr. Jim Book, Transportation Director.
Earlier this summer, the Council had asked staff to research and prepare an updated
report on red light enforcement programs being used throughout the Valley and the
nation. Specifically, staff was requested to survey other cities in the Valley, as well as
nationally, to determine what enforcement techniques are being utilized.
The City Council has been presented information on red light enforcement on several
occasions. Most recently, staff discussed the City's speed reduction campaign in April
of 2001.
In the process of surveying other cities about red light enforcement, it became evident
that cities use a combination of techniques to increase traffic safety. There does not
appear to be one single remedy for traffic safety improvements or the reduction of
collisions at signalized intersections, but rather a toolbox of measures that all have a
role to play.
Some of the tools being used by communities include increased enforcement by police
officers, public awareness, yellow light extension, photo radar, red light photo
enforcement, advance warning signs, pavement warning lights, red light clearance
intervals and intelligent traffic signals. All of these, as well as other alternatives, have
advantages and disadvantages and associated costs. Comprehensive traffic safety
programs are built around the three E's — enforcement, engineering, and education. All
can be expected to play a role in improving traffic safety.
Current Program: Glendale's award winning speed reduction campaign, "It's
Our Town, Please Slow Down!" has been in effect since October 1, 1997. The
campaign has included more aggressive prosecution efforts for speed violations,
arrests of motorists exceeding the speed limit by 25 mph (miles per hour), and
operation of a speed enforcement unit in the Police Department. It has also
included traffic education for high school and elementary school students,
speeding-related street signage, and a marketing and communications program.
The "It's Our Town, Please Slow Down!" speed reduction program has been
widely publicized through press releases, press conferences, educational
presentations, bumper stickers, billboards, street signage, and door hangars. As
a result, a Marketing Department study indicated that over a million Valley
citizens saw the initial press conference, 84% of all Glendale residents have
seen the campaign signs in medians, and 72% of all residents have become
aware of the campaign through refuse container stickers.
There was a significant reduction in total crashes for the top five violations
(speed too fast for conditions, failure to yield the right of way, unknown,
inattention, and disregarded of traffic signals) from 1997 to 1998. In 1997, the
total number of crashes resulting from these five violations was 3,240, compared
to 2,324 in 1998. This is attributed, in part, to the City's speed reduction
program. However, it appears that the effectiveness of the campaign decreased
in that total crashes increased significantly from 1999 through 2001.
Glendale's 2002 Speed Reduction Campaign, which kicked off April 5th at a
press conference, is a continuation of the City's speed reduction program that
8
started in October of 1997. The 2002 campaign used a multi-faceted approach,
including public information and education, community outreach, police
enforcement, and increased speeding/red-light running fines, to slow down
speeders and make City streets safer. Goals for the 2002 campaign included:
• Developing and implementing campaign initiatives that place special
emphasis on decreasing speeding in residential neighborhoods;
• Using cost-effective techniques that create the most impact to the community;
• Saturating the community with the basic message that speeding is not
tolerated; and
• Making residents and motorists who drive through Glendale aware of the
Speed Reduction Campaign.
A variety of communication tools were used as part of a concerted public
information program throughout the campaign. The comprehensive approach
included movie theater advertising, street banners, billboards, newspapers, and
cable television advertising, library bookmarks, new residential garbage
container stickers, public service announcements, handouts, signage, bumper
stickers, and publicity.
Police-led initiatives were instrumental in furthering the City's speed-reduction
message. The department's special speed enforcement "details" on 59th
Avenue were one of the more effective ways to curb speeding. The Police
Department noted a 26% reduction in the number of hazardous citations issued
after April 5, 2002, the official launch date of the 2002 Campaign.
The amount spent on Fiscal Year 2001-02 initiatives totaled $138,200. In Fiscal
Year 2002-03, $50,000 was budgeted to maintain the ongoing advertising portion
of the campaign. This amount, however, only covers the costs for six months of
cable television and billboard advertising.
Red Light Enforcement Alternatives - Like most Valley cities, Glendale
employs a variety of tools to increase traffic safety. Currently, the City of
Glendale uses public education, increased police officer enforcement, enhanced
signage, and red light clearance interval. The following alternatives are
presented as information that may be helpful to the City Council in understanding
the programs being used by other cities.
Advance Warning Signs - These signs are used to warn drivers of fines
assessed for red light violations. Staff observed this type of signage firsthand in
the City of Sacramento, California. Posted at the intersection was a large sign
with red background and white lettering that stated, "Fine for Red Light Violation
is $270". The sign was effective in getting the attention of drivers. These types
of signs warn drivers of both red light enforcement and the associated fine. One
advantage of these types of signs is that they are a clear warning that there is a
significant financial price to pay for violations. Also, the cost to implement this
alternative is relatively low in comparison to other alternatives. Officials in the
Sacramento have reported that the signs have been an effective tool.
9
Yellow Light Extension - Some cities have extended the length of yellow light
interval as a means of reducing red light violations. Locally, the City of Mesa has
implemented this on a limited basis. Specifically, the City of Mesa has increased
the yellow light interval for double left turn lanes from three to four seconds.
According to Mesa officials, citations have decreased dramatically. The City of
San Diego, California has implemented extended change intervals on both left
turn and through lanes. The City of San Diego reported a significant decrease in
the number of violations due to the increase of the yellow light interval.
However, over time, the effectiveness of this method decreases as drivers adjust
their driving habits to the new yellow light interval. The experience of both the
cities of Mesa and San Diego is consistent with the findings of the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety. Their research indicates that increasing the length
of the yellow light interval significantly decreases the frequency of red light
running, at least in the short term. Further, the research reports that 70% to 82%
of all red light violations happen in less than 1.5 seconds after the yellow signal
indication. Longer change intervals serve to reduce red light violations and the
potential that they introduce for collisions. Also, the cost of implementing yellow
light interval extension is very low compared to other alternatives. Both the cities
of Mesa and San Diego also use photo red light enforcement and were able to
measure the effects of yellow interval extension by measuring the decrease in
violations resulting from photo red light enforcement.
Potential disadvantages of yellow interval extension include reducing the
intersection's' overall capacity by reducing the number of vehicles progressing
through the intersection. This occurs because, to increase the yellow interval,
the green interval is typically reduced. According to Glendale Traffic Engineering
staff, extending the yellow interval can effect the operational efficiency of the
signal system. The City currently operates most of the system on a 90-second
cycle length. This means that each signal will go through one complete
sequence of indications every 90 seconds. This results in a near perfect
progression scheme at 40 mph in the one-mile grid system. This works well with
the citywide policy of 40 mph posted speed on most major arterial streets.
Increasing the yellow interval by one second would require an additional 4
seconds per cycle dedicated to the clearance times. With this change, the City
would need to take this time from the through movement green interval.
Red Light Photo Enforcement—The cities of Chandler, Mesa, Paradise Valley,
Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tempe currently utilize red light photo enforcement.
This method involves the use of two cameras. The first camera provides an
image of the violator behind the violation point with the red light visible and the
second camera provides an image of the violator proceeding through the
intersection with the red light visible. The cameras also capture an image of the
license plate. Public safety personnel review all violations recorded by the
cameras. The cities that were surveyed reported that, on the average, for every
100 citations issued, 70 are resolved (the fine is paid, the violator goes to traffic
school or goes to court), 20 are dismissed, and 10 require process service. Of
the 10 citations requiring process service, 6 are either resolved or dismissed.
Citations are mailed to all violators, including those outside Maricopa County,
even though the service area for most Valley cities is limited to Maricopa County.
One of the disadvantages of red light photo enforcement are implementation
costs, including significant personnel costs in the Police Department, the City
10
Court, and the City Prosecutors Office. Other Valley cities report that 5 to 8
positions are required to administer the program. Another disadvantage is that
red light photo enforcement increases the number of rear-end collisions. This
has been reported in the Valley, as well as nationally. This tends to decrease
over time as drivers adjust their driving habits to red light photo enforcement.
Also, there may be a perceived inequity issue since many of the recorded
violations are not issued a citation. This happens for a couple of reasons:
1. Cities report that only 40% to 60% of the recorded violations result in
citations being issued. Public Safety personnel reject the remaining
camera-recorded violations for such reasons as inability to identify the
driver and/or the license plate.
2. Violators who fail to voluntarily respond to the citation are served a
summons. Valley cities limit their summons servicing to Maricopa
County. Therefore, violators residing outside of Maricopa County who
do not voluntarily respond to the citation escape enforcement. In all
cases, Valley cities use contractors for process serving of citations.
Another potential drawback is that the public may view photo red light
enforcement as an unnecessary intrusion by government.
It appears that red light photo enforcement does result in a decrease in collisions
at the intersections where cameras have been placed. However, in comparing
collision statistics of Valley cities over the past 5 years, it is inconclusive whether
or not red light photo enforcement has had an impact on the total number of
collisions in communities where it is being used. Communities using photo red
light enforcement claim that there is a "halo effect' at intersections that are not
photo-enforced. That is, drivers' change they're driving habits at non-photo
enforced intersections in communities where photo enforcement is being used.
Collision statistics do not support this conclusion.
The red-light program could target red-light runners at "high-crash" intersections
in the City by placing police officers at these intersections at varying hours,
Monday through Friday, when traffic is at its highest. Police vehicles/motorcycles
would be stationed in all four directions of the intersection and "spotters" would
be used to call out the vehicle description and direction of travel. One of the
advantages of increased enforcement is that the visual presence of officers at
intersections would serve as a deterrent to red light running. The estimated cost
for one new motorcycle squadron (1 sergeant and 6 officers) would be $550,000
for the initial year and $400,000 ongoing.
If the Speed Reduction Campaign were to be expanded to include a red-light
running component, more funding would be needed to pay for continued public
education and enforcement initiatives, including special events, advertising,
signage and other collateral material. As a result, an additional $100,000 would
supplement the current campaign and would allow each City department
involved to develop new initiatives (and help pay overtime costs) aimed at red-
light running.
In April of 2001, staff presented to the City Council an update of the speed reduction
campaign and possible options for red light enforcement. After discussing photo radar
11
in Workshop sessions on February 4, February 18, and April 1, 1997, staff was further
directed by the City Council to develop and implement a voluntary compliance-based
program as an alternative to photo enforcement, in order to reduce traffic accidents and
speeding. In addition to the voluntary elements, the Police Department increased
enforcement of existing speed limits. The City Council approved the "It's Our Town,
Please Slow Down!" speed reduction program in 1997.
Citizens of Glendale have been made aware of the "It's Our Town, Please Slow Down!"
campaign by utilizing a variety of mediums, including advertisements, street signage,
bumper stickers, and public service announcements.
All of these alternatives have costs associated with them. Some have fairly low costs,
such as yellow light interval extension and advance warning signs. Others have
significant costs, such as photo red light enforcement and increased marketing and
police enforcement.
The recommendation was to review the report presented to the Council.
Councilmember Frate asked what intersections ranked worst for accidents in the City.
Mr. Book said the Transportation Department typically prepares a list of the top 20
intersections in the City using two categories - one by total accidents per year and a
second by accident rate. He said Traffic Engineering staff believes the rate to be more
indicative of accident severity than raw numbers. He pointed out that, although the
intersection of Peoria and 59 Avenues always shows up as having one of the highest
numbers of accidents, it does not make the top 20 in terms of rate. Councilmember
Frate suggested that they concentrate on the top five worst intersections. He also
recommended that they use signage to inform the public of the fine for running a red
light. He noted that accident rates drop below two by the eleventh or twelfth worst
intersection. He stated that the Federal Highway Administration uses 2.0, as the range
when they think a city should be more aggressive about addressing an intersection. He
stated that the City has been very successful in applying for safety studies. He pointed
out that it paid for the improvements at the intersections of 51 and Olive Avenues and
67t and Peoria Avenues. He said they were scheduled to go under contract soon at
the intersection of 67t Avenue and Bethany Home Road, which is the City's worst
intersection for accidents.
Councilmember Lieberman stated that he was not interested in the Federal Highway
Administration's percentage. He said he wanted the actual number of accidents at the
five worst intersections. He read from an Arizona Republic article regarding the
success of the City of Phoenix's red light photo enforcement program. He said he
believed the cameras were a very effective way to reduce red light running. Mr. Book
agreed that cities using red light photo enforcement have realized significant decreases
in collisions at those intersections where cameras are in place. He explained that they
believed the citywide effects are inconclusive because, while it shows improvements at
specific intersections, the city's five-year history does not indicate any specific citywide
impact. He noted that the implementation of photo enforcement systems could come at
significant costs to the Police Department, the City Court, and the City Prosecutor,
depending on the number of intersections and approaches at each intersection where
the cameras are installed.
In response to Councilmember Martinez' question, Mr. Book said some of the cities
they had contacted indicated that they thought there was a "halo" effect from photo
12
enforcement. He explained that the "halo" effect is when photo enforcement at one
intersection affects the driving habits of drivers at other intersections where photo
enforcement is not installed. He said, however, statistics do not support such a finding.
Councilmember Clark said no one had convinced her that there was a problem with red
light running. She expressed her frustration at the fact that statistics showing the
number of collisions and fatalities attributable to red light running were not readily
available. She suggested that they determine the magnitude of the problem before
they start throwing money at possible solutions. She recommended that they do further
research. She asked if they could issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to find out what
it would cost to implement a photo enforcement program without actually having to
accept a proposal once the bids were submitted. Mr. Flaaen said the City always
reserves the right to accept or reject any and all proposals when it issues an RFP.
Councilmember Clark said the advanced warning sign program and yellow light
extension intrigued her. She stated that research indicates increasing the length of the
yellow light interval significantly decreases the frequency of red light running. She
reiterated her position that the Council needs more and better information before it can
make an informed decision. She suggested that the City utilize education and the
yellow light extension program as short-term measures until the additional research can
be done.
Mayor Scruggs stated that Traffic Engineering does not like yellow light extension
because it slows traffic down. She pointed out, however, that red light running
violations dropped 80% in the City of Mesa when their three-second yellow lights were
extended to four seconds. She said increasing the time of yellow lights from 4 to 5.5
seconds at two intersections in Fairfax, Virginia decreased the number of red light
violations by 96%.
Councilmember Goulet asked how pavement-warning lights could be utilized. He also
asked how the yellow light extension program and the red light clearance interval differ.
Mr. Book said the City of Phoenix has done some implementation of pavement warning
lights in crosswalk areas. He explained that lights in the pavement illuminate when the
crosswalk button is pushed. He pointed out that they have had some trouble keeping
the system operational because of the number of cars that run over the lights.
Councilmember Goulet asked about a previous suggestion to place a warning light prior
to an intersection that would indicate if the light were about to turn red. Mr. Book said
they had looked at that option and found it had varying degrees of success. He stated
that many people use the flashing "Don't Walk" sign as an indicator that the light is
about to change. He pointed out; however, that the length of time the sign flashes
varies depending on the width of the street. He explained that the red light clearance
interval is a combination of the time the light is yellow and the time it is red. He noted
that, as a result, extending the yellow light increases the red clearance interval. He said
the City has added an "all red" phase, where all lights at the intersection are red for one
to two seconds. He said, consequently, people challenge the red light because they
know traffic in the other direction also has a red light. He expressed his opinion that
drivers will similarly adjust their driving habits if the City increases the time a light is
yellow. Councilmember Goulet asked if there was any data that indicates what effect
there would be on commute time if yellow light times were extended. Mr. Book
explained that they measure intersections by the amount of delay. He noted that some
people run red lights because they do not want to tolerate any more delay.
Councilmember Lieberman asked if a car could legally enter an intersection during a
yellow light. Mr. Book responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Lieberman
13
expressed his opinion that extending the yellow light would only extend the amount of
time a car can enter an intersection. He said he preferred having all lights at the
intersection red for a period of time. He suggested that they increase that amount of
time. Mr. Book agreed that an extended yellow light would only allow people more time
to enter the intersection.
Mayor Scruggs stated that extending the yellow light has been proven effective. She
noted that a photo radar contractor in the City of Mesa sought to prohibit Mesa from
extending its yellow lights and a photo radar contractor in the City of San Diego refused
to install photo radar in intersections with extended yellow lights because it effects their
bottom line.
Councilmember Clark said the City standards accept Levels of Service A through D at
major intersections and A through F at minor intersections. She said intersections
would continue to be within appropriate levels of service if the yellow lights were
extended. Mr. Book explained that the Level of Service is based on a cycle length. He
stated that their goal was to bring all intersections too at least Level of Service D during
peak hours and higher during non-peak hours. Councilmember Clark stated that there
were two opposing goals, efficiency and safety. She said she was at the point where
she was willing to sacrifice efficiency for the sake of increased safety.
Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if a person would face any penalty for not acknowledging
a photo ticket received. Mr. Flaaen explained that a summons would be served on a
person who does not respond after receiving a photo citation. He said failure to appear
at that point would result in a warrant being issued. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked how
the installation of strobe lights on red lights and remodeling intersections had effected
accident rates. Mr. Book said the intersection of 51St and Olive Avenues intersection
had 56 accidents in 2000, but only 39 accidents after the improvements were
completed. He stated that there were 40 crashes at the intersection of 67 and Peoria
Avenues in 2000 and only 25 in 2001.
Councilmember Frate asked if they still anticipated getting unmarked cars from the
State. He expressed his opinion that they were very effective in dealing with aggressive
drivers. Mr. Henderlite said they had a couple of State cars, but the State took them
back. He noted, therefore, that they were looking at the City's fleet in an attempt to
increase that type of enforcement. Councilmember Frate said engineering is the most
effective countermeasure in terms of inattentive drivers. He suggested that the Council
direct staff to try extending the yellow lights.
Councilmember Clark said all deterrents have a limited life span because people will
always find a way around them. She stressed the fact that she did not want to throw
out the idea of photo radar as a future possibility. She stated, however, that she did not
believe this was the right time to implement such a program.
Mayor Scruggs said the majority of the Council would like to explore the different
measures that have been documented to produce the kind of results the City desires.
She stated, however, that the Traffic Engineer is reluctant to implement such measures
because of their negative impact on efficiency. She asked what kind of direction the
Council could give, given the opposing views. Mr. Flaaen stated that the Council has
the authority to set policy for the City and, therefore, it would be appropriate for the
Council to direct staff to explore the alternatives. He said, while it is not the case in this
instance, if staff opposed an alternative on the basis of safety concerns, he would
advise the Council to proceed very cautiously.
14
Councilmember Martinez agreed that extending the yellow light would extend the time
that people have to enter the intersection and reduce efficiency on the City's streets.
He said the City of Mesa did a two-year pilot study before implementing its program.
He suggested that the City of Glendale do a similar study on the effectiveness of red
light running cameras at two of its worst intersections. He acknowledged that the City is
facing possible increased budget constraints. He stated that they would have to look at
all aspects of the City's budget and identify priorities.
He said that the City of Glendale is a progressive city that prides itself on its concern
for, and protection of, neighborhoods. He said, however, red light cameras represent
another tool that the City could use to help protect its citizens. Councilmember
Martinez expressed his opinion that it is time for the City to take the next step and
implement a pilot red light camera project at two of the worst intersections. He said the
City has chosen not to do this in the past, primarily for two reasons - process and cost.
He stated that the process is not an insurmountable problem and the cost for a pilot
program would be manageable. He said red light running continues to be a serious
problem - one that results in costly, if not fatal accidents. He said those accidents also
tie up the City's valuable police resources.
He stated that, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, red light
cameras yield reductions in crashes, especially injury crashes. He said the Institute
also reported that the City of Phoenix has the worst record in the nation for red light
collisions. He stated that the American Trauma Society, a partner with the Federal
Highway Administration, lists the following facts: (1) red light running is the leading
cause of urban crashes; and (2) nationally, fatal motor vehicle crashes at traffic speed
increased 18% between 1992 and 1998, compared to a 1% increase in all other types
of fatal crashes. Councilmember Martinez noted that violating traffic control accounted
for 22% of all crashes for the 13 crash types identified in a study performed by
researchers at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. He said, of that 22%, 24%
were attributed to red light running. He reported that red light running results in one
million injuries, 7,000 deaths, and $7 billion in lost wages each year nationally. He
stated that it is responsible for 5,500 injuries, 50 fatalities and $200 million in economic
losses in the State of Arizona.
He noted that the City of Phoenix installed red light cameras at ten intersections on
January 2, 2002 and, after noticing a reduction in the number of injury collisions,
requested 50 additional cameras. He said the City of Scottsdale shows strong support
for photo enforcement as a traffic control method. He cited comments made by other
city officials around the Valley, indicating their support and endorsement of the use of
red light cameras. Councilmember Martinez also read e-mails he had received from
Glendale residents in support of red light cameras and quoted from articles that
appeared in the Arizona Republic, encouraging the City of Glendale to implement a pilot
red light camera program. He said the Council's mission statement was to enhance the
quality of life of its citizens through delivery of services in a courteous, efficient, and
cost-effective manner. He expressed his opinion that red light cameras would add to
that quality of life.
Councilmember Lieberman said he agreed with Councilmember Martinez' comments.
He stated that he also believed it was time for the City to implement a pilot program.
He said he was more concerned about safety than he was with efficiency and he would
like to see if the red light cameras result in a reduction in the number of crashes at the
test intersections. He stated that the most effective sign he had seen was one that
indicates the intersection is monitored by a red light camera.
15
Councilmember Clark said she would support Councilmember Martinez' suggestion
because she did not want to close the door on the issue. She stated that she would be
in a better position to determine how best to proceed once they see information on the
costs involved.
Councilmember Goulet said he would favor implementing an extended yellow light
program.
Councilmember Frate said he agreed with Councilmember Goulet. He stated that it is a
measure that could be easily and quickly implemented. He also agreed that additional
research has to be done to identify the worst intersections. He pointed out that out
several issues would have to be addressed with regard to red light cameras, such as
the camera's ability to capture the driver's image given sun reflecting off the windshield,
visors shielding the driver's face, and so forth. He stated that they would also have to
deal with violators who claim they never received a citation.
Councilmember Clark clarified that she supported Councilmember Martinez' request as
a long-term measure, but she supported extended yellow lights and warning signs as
steps that could be taken immediately.
Councilmember Martinez said the Council has not supported red light cameras in the
past, always opting to take other steps. He said, at a minimum, he would ask the
Council to direct staff to issue an RFP in an effort to obtain information on red light
cameras.
Vice Mayor Eggleston said he did not want to proceed with photo radar at this time.
Councilmember Martinez emphasized the fact that red light cameras were being
successfully utilized in other cities around the Valley.
Mayor Scruggs clarified that, according to a City of Tempe report on photo radar in
June, 3 out of 10 people caught by the cameras are sent a citation. She said 70% of
the people who receive a citation voluntarily resolve the issue, while 10% ignore the
citation.
Mayor Scruggs stated that the Council would not proceed with photo radar.
Councilmember Frate expressed his opinion that they should proceed with a pilot
extended yellow light program at the City's two worst intersections. He said he
questioned the efficacy of red light cameras.
Mayor Scruggs noted that 34 out of the 52 states have an absolute speed limit. She
explained that people are ticketed for going one mile over the posted speed limit. She
suggested that they take other steps, such as right turn lanes, to help reduce frustration
and increase safety. She emphasized the fact that safety is the key issue, not the
issuance of tickets.
Councilmember Clark said the City couldn't afford to close the door on any particular
tool.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
16