Loading...
Item 5 Date: 06DEC 11 TO: Mayor (City of Southlake, City Council Meeting of Dec. 6 of 2011, Public Forum) City Council Place No. 1 (City of Southlake, City Council Meeting of Dec. 6 of 2011, Public Forum) City Council Place No. 2 (City of Southlake, City Council Meeting of Dec. 6 of 2011, Public Forum) City Council Place No. 3 (City of Southlake, City Council Meeting of Dec. 6 of 2011, Public Forum) City Council Place No. 4 (City of Southlake, City Council Meeting of Dec. 6 of 2011, Public Forum) City Council Place No. 5 (City of Southlake, City Council Meeting of Dec. 6 of 2011, Public Forum) City Council Place No. 6 (City of Southlake, City Council Meeting of Dec. 6 of 2011, Public Forum) CC: City Manager (City of Southlake, City Council Meeting of Dec. 6 of 2011) "� City Secretary (City of Southlake, City Council Meeting of Dec. 6 of 2011) FR: M. Aram Azadpour (P.O. Box 2644, Grapevine, TX 76099) RE: Member of Public's Comments: on Traffic Light Camera, Oath of Office, and City Attorney The Honorable Members of the City Council for the City of Southlake,' Since the Public Forum Section designates about three minutes for each person as such the time may be short, I have elected to prepare a written statement with adequate number of copies for each Council Member, others, and for the record of Dec. 6 Council Meeting. I. I was issued a notice of traffic - light- camera violation at the corner of FM1709 & Carroll Ave., as the result of self - education of this matter, I came to end up being here before you. It is my understanding that the City Council has been or shortly will be provided with the comprehensive annual report on traffic - light- cameras within the City. I was able ' The City of Southlake Charter, §2.01 incorporates the Mayor within the term City Council; therefore, no disrespect intended on my part. 2 I would like to express my gratitude to the City Secretary and her staff for responding to my public information requests submitted under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA); at times, I perhaps, tested their patience; and I know the said Office waived certain fees; for which I am appreciative. 3 For this letter, I am referring to the Memo of January 20, 2010 from Mr. Jim C. Blagg (Asst. City Manager & Dir. of Public Safety) as the annual- report; however, a more current one is being developed to include FY 2011. I do not believe the data from FY 2011 will disprove me (I do not believe the red- light- Page 1 of 5, cty_council0 to get a copy of the said Memo of January 20, 2010 by -way of my PIA requests. Also, I was able to get a copy of pre - camera installation engineering study. The City has an Ord. which I presume the City Council is aware of, additionally, the State of Texas within the Transportation Code has a chapter specific to the matter of traffic - light- camera. Therefore, I will not be redundant here, and, only state my summary & understanding. The City Ord. constructed upon the Transp. Cd. states the foremost aim of having such electronic device is to be that of "reducing" accident caused by running a red -light (and there is an applicable definition of what constitutes running a red -light & study- red - light). The engineering study shows "zero" accident attributed to running of a red -light at the subject- intersection of FM1709 & Carroll Ave. Therefore, I reason how can there be even a less than "zero" accident count? Hence, I question why then such a device was installed at FM1709 & Carroll Ave.? Also, making a right- turn-on -red (when permitted by law) does "not" fall into the definition of running a red -light (as such is defined to be going thru the intersection). The violation- notice for me was at 11:59 PM making a right -turn on -red. While I would admit that I did not come to a full stop (considering the time and having been on a right -turn-only lane), I did not see the harm on not having come to a full -stop (as visible on the still - photo, I had enough presence of mind to have used my turn - signal). As the said report of January 20, 2010 indicated, some 63% of the camera - device noted violations had been rejected. I wonder if such equipment are worthy of operation! I would think that none of the Councilpersons would, for example, fly on an airline having "over" 50% failure of an aircraft, scheduled flight, service, etc. Also, the said annual report indicated that for the intersections having red - light- camera, the accident -count had "increased. " I have obtained (and for brevity will not attach a copy here) the certificate of calibration and theory of operation for such red - light- cameras. I have to beg the differ with the technician who certified the subject red - light- camera as being calibrated (elsewhere the theory of operation indicates calibration is not required, which I still beg the differ). The theory of operation (in summary) states that once a passing vehicle has been detected traveling passed the initial sensor while superseding a threshold speed; then the system comes alive (as it were) and takes a picture; then, a subsequent picture is taken if the vehicle passed the stop -line- sensor within a specified time; and, if the second picture shows the vehicle has passed the stop -line- sensor, then the system considers that a violation and triggers a notice - generation (of course for the City thereafter a person will running has been decreased because of installed red - light- camera; I believe the data should be separated in that right - turn-on -red is not counted as a running -of -red- light). 4 The report, later, tries to sugarcoat the data by stating, paraphrasing here, that when considering all of accidents throughout the City at intersections controlled by a traffic - light; then over -all number has decreased. However, neither the State law nor the City Ord. cares about the over -all- number for all of City's intersections controlled by a traffic- light. Page 2 of 5, cty_council° review such notices and decides to reject or to process the notice as a violation). The "idea" behind two photos taken at a fixed time - interval between them; is to measure (or to indicate) distance travelled. Therefore, if one's starting speed is greater than another person; then it is sure to trigger the system and it is sure to travel farther. As such, speed - limit is a factor. The still - photos accompanying my violation- notice indicted speed -limit of 40 MPH. However, I can "not" find any City record to clearly indicate what is the speed -limit for traveling on FM1709 (in the direction of coming from State Hwy. 114 towards the Town Center). The best I can find is Ord. No. 332 from June 18, 1986; if so, the speed limit for traffic - light- camera would be 45 MPH and not 40 MPH; hence, that is an anomaly needing attention and correction. Therefore, for discrepancy of speed limit and vast number of rejected generated- notices, I question the calibration and accuracy of the installed red - light- camera system (assuming there was no bias towards or against any driver). To locate any posted speed - limit -sign, on FM1709 between Carroll Ave. and SH114, I have driven on both directions on FM1709 looking for such a speed - limit -sign. I am informing you that there is "no" such a speed - limit -sign. I would suggest the City Council: (1) to take any necessary action to set an appropriate speed -limit for FM1709 between Carroll & FM1709; (2) to require an appropriate speed- limit -sign to be erected on both sides of FM1709 in the quantity- and - frequency required by any applicable State Statute or standard; and, (3) to require the City Municipal Court of Record to refund any 5 I did not spend much time finding out the review process; however, it seems to me that one officer can not and did not spent the hours- upon -hours of reviewing lOs of 1000s of violation notices. The Memo of January 20, 2010 from Mr. Jim C. Blagg (Asst. City Manager & Dir. of Public Safety) states of the 38,843 notices- generated, 23,801 were rejected; and 15,042 violation - notices were issued. At "my" estimated two - minutes per review - and - acceptance /rejection; that would have been some 1,295 hours. An average person working 40 hours per -week at 52 weeks - per -year (for none - leap - year); with 80 -hours for sick/vacation/down -rime; would be working 2,000 hours per calendar -year. I do not know the average salary of a "trained" police - officer who may be assigned to such review; I would venture to guess $30K a- year salary and 20% for benefits, puts it at $36K per -year; if so, then roughly that is $17 -an -hour. Aside from all other cost; the employee -cost of "rejected" notices (on my estimate) starts at about $13,500.00 per year and goes up. For all reviews, employee -cost per year (on my estimate) starts at about $22,015.00 per year and up. 6 The material I received in response to my PIA request is on speed limit of White Chapel Blvd. and not for FM1709. While §18.78 of City's Code of Ordinances sets a "default" speed limit of 30 MPH for street or highway having no posted speed limit; since FM1709 is "not" a City street or highway (it is a State Farm to Market Road), its default speed comes from the Transp. Cd. which, I believe, sets it at 50 or 55 MPH. It requires an act of the City Council to modify it. The said Memo of Jan. 20 of 2010; indicates the highest violations the red - light- camera had detected were for Carroll & Kimball. Both these cross roads of FM1709 have a right -turn-only -lane. I make a fair vaguer that the number of violations noted are "mostly" on making aright - turn-on -red for cars not coming to a full -stop; and mostly, because of "good" visibility that these right -turn- only -lanes provided (making it somewhat unnecessary to come to a full -stop; although, I realize it may be the State law; however, no one's personal or property is in danger when there is no other car in the intersection). I do not believe such should be counted as a red - light- camera violation; as indeed the type of accidents to prevent, as the utility of such devices, were accidents for going thru the intersection (and not making a right -turn). Page 3 of 5, cty council0 fine collected on speeding citations between the said segment of FM1709 (or in the alternative the City Council to take an action which it finds to be appropriate and in compliance with law and sense of fairness; given that there has not been an appropriate speed -limit set). While I am for reducing accidents (and who is not), I was not in agreement for the violation notice issued to me (given the time of the night, no possibility of a cross - traffic, I had used my turn- signal, etc.). Surely money collection is not the intent of the State law or the City's Ord. Initially I had decided to contest the said notice (for all of the above reasoning), however, given that my administrative appearance was set for the weekend of Thanksgiving and my plan had changed to be out of town for that holiday, I decided to pay the citation. However, I still think my reasoning above is worth the attention of the City Council. I would like to make suggestion for some changes. I would suggest: (1) the time of operation of such red - light - camera to be set for times most likely such intersection(s) is(are) susceptible to running -of -red -light (otherwise the camera to be dormant), (2) having a flashing yellow arrow for right- turn- only -lane, i.e., yield as oppose to full -stop, during certain hours, e.g., 10PM -4AM; (3) dismantle camera- devices when/if study shows not to achieve their intended objective (which is to reduce accident by reducing running -of- red - light). While the technology exists that every car (and indeed every person born) to be fitted by some electronic surveillance- and - reporting device to monitor every act (from not taking one's medical - doctor prescribed medication to driving to cheat on one's spouse to etc.) big- brother (as referred to in the book 1984) just for the sake of big- brother is not constructive or useful to the society. For example, technology, already, exists (and for most part is already within every modern car) for a car to issue a ticket to its own owner (without a need of any police - officer's intervention) for, say, speeding or turning without signaling. I wonder if any Councilperson would wish to own such a car! II. I believe the appointed and/or elected officials for the City are required to have on -file an oath -of- office. The City's Charter, Chp. 7, §7.21 requires such. Although the said section, seems, to indicate it was made a requirement for the City of Southlake effective November 06, 2007; the Texas Constitution, Art. 16, §1 (in effective since the 1930s), requires such an oath (I am not, however, certain when such an oath may had been required for none - state -level officials, e.g., counties and municipalities). I had sought such an oath -of- office for the City Attorney by -way of my PIA request and I learned there is none on -file. 8 I am not a religious person and do "not" prescribe to notions such as mark -of -the- beast. I find all such notions incorrect (with utmost respect with those who may differ with me). I find such as misinterpretation of the Bible, the historical source, and science on hand. Personally, I subscribe to Age of Reason (and likes). I wanted to denoted this matter here for not being confused by others mark -of -the -beast is not the same as Big Brother of 1984. Page 4 of 5, cty_council0 s 7 III. Due to seeking an oath -of- office for the City Attorney, I learned that what seems to me, i.e., my understanding, to be a law -firm is considered to be the City Attorney. If my understanding is correct; then that seems to be in violation of the City Charter, Chp. 6, §6.O1 (for it requires even if a law firm is retained, with the City Council's approval, i.e., some act of the-City Council, e.g., a resolution), that a "person" within that law -firm to be designated as the City Attorney (with the City Council's approval) and not just the entire such a law -firm. For reasons that I (like most other people) may wish not to receive unsolicited mail from a law -firm; I would suggest the City Council to require any law -firm (or attorney) while acting as the City Attorney to announce that by having such indicated on the outside of any envelope and on any letter -head used. It seems to me the Law Firm of TOASE is representing the City of Southlake. Further, it seems to me that the Law Firm of TOASE is representing other municipalities in the area (apart from the City of Southlake) either as a city attorney or a special counsel. For reasons unrelated to the City of Southlake, I had declined to receive mail from TOASE; and returned such mails; unopened. Had such mailers indicated that the particular mailer was acting as the Attorney for the City of Southlake, I would have not returned it. However, its return address only stated TOASE and nothing more (for example, require the TOASE Law Firm to mark on its envelope: TOASE for City of Southlake). My suggestion is either TOASE (as matter of good business practice) of its own initiative, or by a requirement of the City Council to have different stationary when acting on behalf of a particular client. I leave it to the City Council to spent sleepless night thinking will such an attorney having many municipalities as its client keep in confidence matters of City of Southlake when such matter may be in conflict or competing with interest of another municipality which may be represented by the same attorney or law -firm (keep in mind that a city attorney sits at closed Council Meetings and is purview to all city - government matters). I have not considered self - education on any legal conflict this may have, e.g., does the Local Government Code sets any requirement. Are we to see a city manager to concurrently be managing multiple municipalities, or will a city mayor be elected to multiple municipalities! Regards, M. Aram Azadpour Page 5 of 5, ay_council0