As you already know, the city's contract with ATS will elapse on June 20, 2016. Also, as you already know, in that respect, the staff has received a proposal from ATS to continue our relationship with them. In short, they have established their renewal fee at $4,250 per camera which is a savings in the amount of $618 per camera over the current contract price. They have also requested a five year contract term.
In order to fully analyze this matter there are four factors that should be considered. The first is regarding traffic safety. Specifically, do traffic enforcement technologies serve as effective tools in ensuring compliance with speed limits and other traffic laws? In that regard and attached to this communication, please find an analysis prepared by Chief Bogart which supports the continued use of cameras at certain intersections.
The second is related to the status of recent legal challenges to the program. The lawsuits, all based on the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision in the City of Hollywood vs. Arem, cite the Arem ruling and, based upon it allege that local governments operating red light camera programs have improperly outsourced municipal functions to ATS. On that basis, the class actions seek restitution for violations that have been paid and invalidation of every unpaid violation in addition to injunctive and declaratory relief.
At this time, although the future of the legal challenges is unknown it is unquestionably a factor that needs to be considered in deliberation of this matter. In that respect, it is important to know that from the staff's perspective we believe that the city's administrative procedure related to the processing of red light camera violations provides a strong defense against the challenges and thereby minimizes our exposure in this matter. That being said, until these challenges are brought to conclusion the city undeniably has potential risk. The exact amount of risk is difficult to aggregate since the final rulings are unknown.
As a result of the risk, it is the staffs opinion that the program should be continued for a limited term and the specific recommendation is for a one year period of time. The basis of this recommendation is as follows. At the conclusion of a one year period of time there will be much more certainty surrounding the disposition of the on-going legal issues. Therefore, I believe it is prudent to wait until that time before further committing to the continued operation of the program. Additionally, a one year period of time will not unduly increase our potential liability .
The third factor is program expenses and revenue and in that respect attached you will find a report from our Finance Director which identifies program costs and cost recovery for the time period commencing in October of 2014 and concluding in April of 2016. As you can see from the attachment ATS cash collections are up significantly for the current fiscal year. This is largely due to the fact that the construction on U.S. Highway 19 has ended and therefore the cameras and their ancillary equipment have remained uninterrupted. Also as you can see our operating expenses are fairly constant. The result of which is a net to the program. If all things remain the same, the current estimate of net for the Fiscal Year 2016 is $700,000.
The final factor is public perception and at the risk of being blunt the public perception of the program is not good. This is due in large part to the fact that violators of the road safety program receive tickets and an obvious consequence to tickets is a fine. Additionally, it is difficult to portray the successes of the program i.e.- reducing speeds, cutting road trauma and changing driver behavior. Albeit difficult it is possible and in the area of public perception there is certainly room for improvement.
As such, if the City Council determines that it is appropriate to continue the program, I therefore, recommend the following initiatives be employed to address this factor. First, that a public information campaign about the use of cameras should be launched and continue throughout the life of the automated enforcement program. The campaign to increase public awareness should focus on safety outcomes, camera locations and how program revenue is used as examples of information that could be added to the city's website and may help to mitigate some of the negative public perceptions of the program. Secondly, an upcoming edition of the city newsletter should feature an article which highlights this matter further.