• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
MENUMENU
MENUMENU
  • Home
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • FlaglerLive Board of Directors
    • Comment Policy
    • Mission Statement
    • Our Values
  • Live Calendar
  • Submit Obituary
  • Submit an Event
  • Support FlaglerLive
  • Advertise on FlaglerLive (386) 503-3808
  • Search Results

FlaglerLive

No Bull, no Fluff, No Smudges

MENUMENU
  • Flagler
    • Flagler County Commission
    • Beverly Beach
    • Economic Development Council
    • Flagler History
    • Mondex/Daytona North
    • The Hammock
    • Tourist Development Council
  • Palm Coast
    • Palm Coast City Council
    • Palm Coast Crime
  • Bunnell
    • Bunnell City Commission
    • Bunnell Crime
  • Flagler Beach
    • Flagler Beach City Commission
    • Flagler Beach Crime
  • Cops/Courts
    • Circuit & County Court
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • Federal Courts
    • Flagler 911
    • Fire House
    • Flagler County Sheriff
    • Flagler Jail Bookings
    • Traffic Accidents
  • Rights & Liberties
    • Fourth Amendment
    • First Amendment
    • Privacy
    • Second Amendment
    • Seventh Amendment
    • Sixth Amendment
    • Sunshine Law
    • Third Amendment
    • Religion & Beliefs
    • Human Rights
    • Immigration
    • Labor Rights
    • 14th Amendment
    • Civil Rights
  • Schools
    • Adult Education
    • Belle Terre Elementary
    • Buddy Taylor Middle
    • Bunnell Elementary
    • Charter Schools
    • Daytona State College
    • Flagler County School Board
    • Flagler Palm Coast High School
    • Higher Education
    • Imagine School
    • Indian Trails Middle
    • Matanzas High School
    • Old Kings Elementary
    • Rymfire Elementary
    • Stetson University
    • Wadsworth Elementary
    • University of Florida/Florida State
  • Economy
    • Jobs & Unemployment
    • Business & Economy
    • Development & Sprawl
    • Leisure & Tourism
    • Local Business
    • Local Media
    • Real Estate & Development
    • Taxes
  • Commentary
    • The Conversation
    • Pierre Tristam
    • Diane Roberts
    • Guest Columns
    • Byblos
    • Editor's Blog
  • Culture
    • African American Cultural Society
    • Arts in Palm Coast & Flagler
    • Books
    • City Repertory Theatre
    • Flagler Auditorium
    • Flagler Playhouse
    • Flagler Youth Orchestra
    • Jacksonville Symphony Orchestra
    • Palm Coast Arts Foundation
    • Special Events
  • Elections 2022
    • Amendments and Referendums
    • Presidential Election
    • Campaign Finance
    • City Elections
    • Congressional
    • Constitutionals
    • Courts
    • Governor
    • Polls
    • Voting Rights
  • Florida
    • Federal Politics
    • Florida History
    • Florida Legislature
    • Florida Legislature
    • Ron DeSantis
  • Health & Society
    • Flagler County Health Department
    • Ask the Doctor Column
    • Health Care
    • Health Care Business
    • Covid-19
    • Children and Families
    • Medicaid and Medicare
    • Mental Health
    • Poverty
    • Violence
  • All Else
    • Daily Briefing
    • Americana
    • Obituaries
    • News Briefs
    • Weather and Climate
    • Wildlife

Palm Coast Pledges to Stick to $158 Red-Light Camera Fines and Tackle Vanished Payments

June 11, 2013 | FlaglerLive | 18 Comments

ats-spy-camera

For the most part, the Palm Coast City Council will stick to the current set of traffic fines when a driver is issued a red-light infraction triggered by a camera. The council agreed on Tuesday not to raise those fines to as high as $408, as state law may soon allow. The city will stick with the $158 fine currently being levied, plus a $106 administrative fee should an individual contest a ticket and lose.

“This change is not raising by one cent any of the charges that are currently being charged if you run a red light,” Palm Coast Attorney William Reischmann said. “There’s the bait, and we’re not reaching for the bait.”

For that to be formalized, however, the city would still have to be more explicit than a proposed ordinance aligning with the new state law is at the moment. That proposal does include an allowance of up to $250 in additional administrative costs should an individual contest a ticket and lose. The proposal also includes an extra $50 fee for anyone who decides to contest a ticket only to then decide to pay it after all, and forego a hearing—even though that individual would not have appeared before a hearing officer.

Palm Coast Mayor Jon Netts has said that he would be adamantly opposed to such fees in Palm Coast.

The ordinance the council agreed to on Tuesday is a first step in coming into compliance with a new state law that would go into effect July 1, assuming Gov. Rick Scott signs it (or abstains from vetoing it). Another step would be for the city’s code enforcement division to more specifically set out the fine schedule it may and may not impose. It’s in that document that the city would specify that it would not impose the higher fees, including, presumably, the $50 fee.

Here’s an important distinction: While the council is clearly opposed to imposing higher administrative fees, the ordinance it agreed to today will still be on the books, and will give this or future councils room to impose those extra fees should they choose to do so. That’s not malice on the council’s part: it merely mirrors state law. But the distinction underscores the importance of the fine print yet to be written by the code enforcement division, to ensure that the council’s wishes to avoid any additional fines are followed.

The council made an exception for the extra $106 administrative fine that’s been levied all along, and that is also permissible by law, when an individual contests a ticket and loses.

The proposed ordinance, scheduled to be approved at two council meetings later this month and next, also formalizes a reversal: appeals will once again be heard before a Palm Coast-hired hearing officer, not by an independent magistrate at the courthouse. While the city and the court system favor the switch (back to a set-up in place before July 2010) because it lowers the workload on the court system and goes the city more control, it also diminishes the objectivity of the proceedings, somewhat stacking the deck against appellants: it is in the city’s interest to ensure that as many tickets are paid, because the city profits from them directly. The state court system does not.

Palm Coast previously had hired Sid Nowell, the current sheriff’s office attorney and former Bunnell City Commission attorney, as its hearing officer. The city has a request for proposal seeking officers at the moment.

One final change by the new ordinance: no one may be cited if the driver comes to a full stop while making a right turn, even if the driver goes past the white line. “We weren’t doing it anyway, but now it’s formalized,” Reischmann said.

There are 43 spy cameras currently in place at Palm Coast intersections. They’re run by Phoenix-based American Traffic Solutions, which makes about $1.2 million a year from the deal. Palm Coast makes in excess of $300,000 a year. The state takes roughly half the money generated by each paid traffic ticket.

One issue the new ordinance takes care of only halfway: the payments that seem to vanish in ATS’s ether, costing drivers in hassles and the consequences of actual traffic citations with points assessed—which is what happens when a ticket goes unpaid. It automatically becomes a “uniform traffic citation” issued by the state.

The new law will extend the number of days an individual has to pay or to file an appeal from 30 to 60. But it does not affect what City Manager Jim Landon described as a second, “much more difficult issue to find a solution for.”

Someone sends a check in three weeks before the due date, but it never shows in ATS’s system, and it gets kicked over to the court system as a uniform traffic citation, forcing the driver to owe more money (including that extra $106). “We’re getting too many too those complaints, so either that’s the ongoing—everybody is telling a story to get out of it,” Landon said, “but I actually know one person that happened to, and I trust them, and I think there’s other people. Something is not right there and we’ve got to figure out how we’re going to correct that one. But when the check doesn’t clear and it just seem to vanish, maybe you can help me with ideas as to how to solve that.”

“A mid-course warning,” Netts suggested. “Now that you’ve got 60 days, in the 30 days you send a second letter, we did not get your check in.”

The city intends to do that. But the city must still follow state law: it cannot, for example, require that drivers make their payments by certified mail. And it appears to be an issue with ATS, not just absent-minded drivers.

“I’ve taken it up to the top management at ATS at this point to try to make sure the resources in to help. They’re always very responsive,” Landon said. “When I have correspondence from ATS it’s yes, you’re always going to have some of this, but Palm Coast seems to have a larger number of those complaints than what they’re used to.”

The proposed ordinance is below, with the added language underlined twice, and the removed language in strike-through.

Palm Coast’s Proposed Red-Light Camera Ordinance

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
You and your neighbors collectively read our articles about 25,000 times each day (that's not a typo) with up to 65,000 daily reads during emergencies like hurricanes. Flagler County residents rely on FlaglerLive for essential, bold and analytical journalism that cannot be found anywhere else. But we depend on your support. Please join our December fund drive! If you donate the cost of a scoop of ice cream, you will be helping us continue to provide comprehensive local news and honest, serious journalism for our community. If you can donate more or become a monthly donor, even better. Donations are tax deductible since FlaglerLive is a 501(c)(3) non-profit news organization. Donate by clicking anywhere in this box. Think of it as buying a scoop, in every sense of the term!  
All donors' identities are kept confidential and anonymous.
   

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. r&r says

    June 11, 2013 at 3:37 pm

    I think they save lives.. The people against them are people who run them.. You do the crime you pay the fine.

    Reply
  2. PJ says

    June 11, 2013 at 5:25 pm

    I guess we are supposed to be thankful………………………..PJ……….thank you

    Reply
  3. Sgt Saber says

    June 11, 2013 at 6:35 pm

    Here’s an idea you MONEY SUCKING VAMPIRES…Get rid of all the camera’s and put police at the intersections. Do us all a favor and DON’T DO US ANY FAVORS !!!!

    Reply
  4. Maryjoe says

    June 11, 2013 at 7:28 pm

    People would pay the fine online more if they weren’t charging a fee to do so. I paid mine via mail BECAUSE of the extra money they were trying to collect via the website.
    And.. who is going to reimburse the payer the stop payment fee they have to pay to make sure the original check isn’t cashed when they send another one?

    Reply
  5. pete says

    June 11, 2013 at 10:21 pm

    That’s not true. Those lights change too fast. You’re constantly looking at the lights even before getting to the intersection hoping the light doesn’t change and sometimes when it does, it’s too late. Click, you’re on Candid Camera. You should be allowed to challenge a red light without prejudice and paying extra fees to request a hearing should be illegal. It’s nothing but a scam. In the District of Columbia they have speed cameras snapping motorists for big bucks.

    Reply
  6. Sherry Epley says

    June 12, 2013 at 2:48 am

    There are some countries whose traffic signals have a 2 or 3 delay between the red on one side and the green on the other. This has proven to be a very successful safety technique to clear the intersection before traffic proceeds. . . and it actually lowers the costs to the public. . . in fines and in health and lives saved. If safety were the real motive for the cameras, we could easily implement something like this.

    Oh yes, I forgot. . . it’s not about safety. . . but about profit for the company selling the camera service, and money for city coffers. A tax by any other name. . .

    Reply
  7. Think About it says

    June 12, 2013 at 7:37 am

    One thing about it, You know where the cameras are and should heed them. In Daytona they have them but not like in PC, and it’s a LOT easier to get a ticket there.
    Boils down to, pay attention to your driving and you won’t get a ticket, it’s very simple..

    Reply
  8. DoubleGator says

    June 12, 2013 at 8:00 am

    I think they don’t save lives and were merely imposed as a revenue generator. They are intrusive. You only have to look about the state to see they are not used to any extent and are being eliminated (except for our elightened Commissioners in Palm Coast).

    Reply
  9. David S. says

    June 12, 2013 at 12:34 pm

    It might be time for the residents of Palm Coast to consider placing a referendum on the next ballot that does one of two things. 1. Remove all red light cameras from the city. 2 Set the yellow light times to a minimum of 6 seconds at all intersections with the maximum time set based upon the physical layout and location of the intersection. It that some of the yellow light times are currently so short that traffic violations being issues could be considered a result of intentional entrapment.

    Reply
  10. markingthedays says

    June 12, 2013 at 12:35 pm

    I’ve said it once and I will say it again. Stop running red lights and the problem is solved.

    Reply
  11. FlaglerSurf says

    June 12, 2013 at 3:34 pm

    Attention Palm Coast Commissioners! Want people to be safer? Install these cameras at Graham Swamp & other public parks. Perverts and thugs have been frequenting these places and have destroying property.

    Reply
  12. fla native says

    June 12, 2013 at 4:13 pm

    This scam was doomed from the start. Recall Netts and Landon.

    Reply
  13. Charles "Bub" Robson says

    June 12, 2013 at 4:16 pm

    It does not matter if you agree with the red light cameras. Those cameras deny a citizen the right of DUE PROCESS as set out in the 14th Amendment. Every person in this country is entitled to be able to confront their accusers. This red light MESS does not allow this. These cameras/tickets are ILLEGAL PERIOD. These cameras should only be used as an investigative tool by Law Enforcement after a crash or other crime.

    Reply
  14. Pete says

    June 12, 2013 at 10:32 pm

    These Red Light Cameras under the Commerce Clause are unconstitutional. They unfairly impede pedestrian traffic and are more a nuisance than a safety feature. It reminds me of Merry old London when the Highwaymen stopped and demanded your money for safe passage.

    Remember, the Civil Rights era was promulgated by the Commerce Clause. Remember President Reagan: “Mr Gorbachev, tear down these cameras.”

    Reply
  15. palm coaster 12 says

    June 13, 2013 at 6:31 am

    I will not be voting for anyone who promotes or votes for these cameras

    Reply
  16. Initialjoe says

    June 13, 2013 at 2:56 pm

    The cameras are fine. It keeps my reflexes on alert while driving. I got a ticket a while back but it was because I wasn’t paying attention and went right through the intersection on red. It’s an expensive mistake for sure, but I should have been more alert. In a perfect world nobody would complain about these cameras…but I guess people enjoyed running lights?

    Reply
  17. Charles "Bub" Robson says

    June 14, 2013 at 4:29 pm

    The citizens of Palm Coast must demand their leaders get rid of the cameras. Some day not to long from now the Red light traffic cameras will be ruled unconstitutional and will have to repay those citizen who were ticketed by the camera system. A City in NJ already has been ordered to repay millions to their citizens. It is not whether you like the cameras or not. The 4th and the 14 amendments to the constitution states that anytime you are accused of a crime you will be allowed to confront your accuser. A traffic camera can not confront anybody. The powers in charge in Houston got rid of their PLAGUE (cameras) because the citizens did not let up until the cameras were taken down. Stand up and be HEARD.

    Reply
  18. Magnolia says

    June 16, 2013 at 5:12 pm

    I remember when elected officials used to listen to their constituents. That was a long, long time ago. These dudes don’t care what you think.

    Time to remind them who they work for?

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Advertisers

  • grand living realty
  • politis matovina attorneys for justice personal injury law auto truck accidents
  • WNZF Creekside Festival

Recent Comments

  • Denali on Food Poisoning: What and Where to Never Eat
  • Denali on Flagler School Board Wants ‘Standing’ Closed-Door Meetings Every 3 Months. That Would Be Illegal.
  • Denali on Sally Hunt Raises Questions About Using Schools as Shelters During Hurricane Emergencies
  • Jared on At FPC, Misplaced ‘Man Cave’ Culture and Improprieties Cause Demise of Girls’ Basketball Coach
  • Deirdre on Brendan Depa’s Mother Tells Her Son’s Story
  • Linda on Flagler School Board Wants ‘Standing’ Closed-Door Meetings Every 3 Months. That Would Be Illegal.
  • Sherry on DeSantis Solution to Climate Change: Burn More Fossil Fuels
  • Dennis C Rathsam on Flagler School Board Wants ‘Standing’ Closed-Door Meetings Every 3 Months. That Would Be Illegal.
  • Deborah Coffey on Bible Challenge in Flagler Schools Unravels Inconsistencies, Arbitrariness and Confusion in Review Process
  • Deborah Coffey on Flagler School Board Wants ‘Standing’ Closed-Door Meetings Every 3 Months. That Would Be Illegal.
  • tg on Palm Coast Council Member Steps Back from Malacompra Beach Annexation, Opting for ‘Different Options’
  • The dude on Flagler School Board Wants ‘Standing’ Closed-Door Meetings Every 3 Months. That Would Be Illegal.
  • Fire them ALL! on Flagler School Board Wants ‘Standing’ Closed-Door Meetings Every 3 Months. That Would Be Illegal.
  • Ben Hogarth on DeSantis Solution to Climate Change: Burn More Fossil Fuels
  • endless dark money on DeSantis Solution to Climate Change: Burn More Fossil Fuels
  • Been There on Florida’s Policing of Public Restroom Gender Draws Federal Lawsuit from Trans and Nonbinary Group

Log in