07/11/06
Red Light Funds in the Red -
Categories: News, Opinions, Police Department, Transportation -
admin
@ 11:33:46 pm
Late last year, the Safelight Program (red light cameras) for FY2006-7 was projected to have a surplus after expenses of $2,103,600.
That money was to be used for a variety of programs:
|
|
Unfortunately, projections show the program will fall short of the budgeted amount by $1,220,781 (53.2%)! Contributing to the shortfall are:
|
To offset the shortfalls but keep the Air Support Unit (helicopter), the staff has suggested program reductions, recognized some potential money saved on the crosswalk markings program, funding the vehicles from another source, using interest earned on CIP monies for the communications tower, delaying the LED traffic lights program, and drawing money from the general fund.
If we start raiding other funds, put off some of the safety improvements that had been planned, spend the interest earned on other monies, and take money out of the general fund, we can just fund the helicopter and still have about $44,000 left over.
In the discussions on the helicopter last year, it was said that the city would use the Safelight Camera funds for the helicopter. At the time some argued that the funds were unreliable and could be threatened in several ways, including being banned by the Legislature or having the state claim a significant portion of the fines. Two bills in last year's session proposed taking all but $1 of the fines. Neither of those bills or any of the dozen other such bills made it out of the legislature. School finance was the driving issue and many proposed bills went nowhere. However, some of the anti-red light bills did receive votes in the House and were approved by 90%!
Helicopter advocates said that if the funds went away, then the helicopter could be sold without a loss.
In the first year, without the Legislature yet returning to session and the helicopter even being delivered, the funds have gone away. Only by taking interest and tax money from other areas can we prop up the first year!
The House most often said they were against red lights because they thought cities would start using them simply as a revenue source. Garland, being the first Texas city to actually install the cameras, has had to defend the use of cameras multiple times before the Legislature. One of our selling points has been that the cameras have seen significant reductions of people running the lights at intersections where they have been used.
Now we advocate moving away for the crime prevention model to a revenue-generating model. Garland uses the funds for a helicopter and must keep the cameras to keep the helicopter. The cameras are effective, fines drop, revenue declines, and we must either raise fines or install even more cameras, all huge red flags before the Legislature. Other cities follow Garland's lead and soon the Legislature can draw no conclusion except the cameras are being used for revenue generation, much like speed traps in small Interstate towns.
The helicopter can be a tremendous tool for law enforcement, as I reported earlier. However, using the Safelight Camera funds to finance it is a disaster waiting to happen. As already proven this year and before being tested before the Legislature for another biennial round, the program has failed to generate sufficient funds.
If Garland is going to have a helicopter, a different funding model must be identified. If none can be, there can only be one conclusion.
[Return to Website]
Comments:
07/12/06 @ 01:55 Comments are closed for this post.
