Form revised February 6, 2008
FISCAL NOTE FOR NON-CAPITAL PROJECTS
|
Department: |
Contact Person/Phone: |
DOF Analyst/Phone: |
|
Seattle Police Department |
Mike Quinn/615-1230 |
Greg Doss/615-1759 |
Legislation Title:
· Summary of the Legislation:
This legislation does two things: 1) it provides the City with authority to use automated traffic safety cameras to detect speed violations in school zones, as authorized in RCW 46.63.170; and 2) it provides that the penalty for violations of SMC 11.52.100 (school zone speed violations) detected by an automated traffic safety camera will be the same as the total penalty for violations of this section detected by a police officer. The monetary penalty for violation of this Code section is currently set at $189. In the future, the penalty for camera-generated violations will track the total penalty for officer-generated violations.
· Background: (Include brief description of the purpose and context of legislation and include record of previous legislation and funding history, if applicable):
Following enactment of state enabling legislation, Ordinance No. 121944, enacted by the Council in September 2005, created SMC Section 11.31.090, which authorized the City to use automated camera equipment to detect violations of circular red signals at two-arterial intersections. Ordinance 122554, which passed in November 2007, amended the original legislation to allow for use of automated cameras to detect violations of red arrow signals. This ordinance also set the monetary penalty for camera-detected violations of red light signals to equal the officer- detected violation.
The 2008 Adopted Budget contains $176,000 for the Seattle Police Department to develop and implement a one-year pilot project designed to test the feasibility and effectiveness of automated cameras for detecting speed violations in school zones, as authorized in RCW 46.63.170. The intent of the pilot is to ascertain the degree to which cameras are effective for lowering speeds in school zones, thereby decreasing the likelihood of pedestrian-vehicle collisions and associated disabling injuries.
This legislation is needed to implement the pilot project.
· Please check one of the following:
____ This legislation does not have any financial implications. (Stop here and delete the remainder of this document prior to saving and printing.)
__X__ This legislation has financial implications. (Please complete all relevant sections that follow.)
Appropriations: This table should reflect appropriations that are a direct result of this legislation. In the event that the project/programs associated with this ordinance had, or will have, appropriations in other legislation, please provide details in the Notes section below.
|
Fund Name and Number |
Department |
Budget Control Level* |
2008 Appropriation |
2009 Anticipated Appropriation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
|
|
|
|
*See budget book to obtain the appropriate Budget Control Level for your department.
Notes: The 2008 Adopted Budget authorized a $176,000 appropriation for SPD to implement a pilot project designed to test the feasibility and effectiveness of cameras for detecting speed violations in school zones.
Anticipated Revenue/Reimbursement: Resulting From This Legislation: This table should reflect revenues/reimbursements that are a direct result of this legislation. In the event that the issues/projects associated with this ordinance/resolution have revenues or reimbursements that were, or will be, received because of previous or future legislation or budget actions, please provide details in the Notes section below the table.
|
Fund Name and Number |
Department |
Revenue Source |
2008 Revenue |
2009 Revenue |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
|
|
|
|
Notes: As a new project, it is not possible to precisely estimate the revenues that will be produced by automated speed enforcement in school zones. The Request for Proposals issued in connection with this project will give preference to bidders offering to hold the City harmless in the event revenues do not equal or exceed vendor costs.
Total Regular Positions Created, Modified, Or Abrogated Through This Legislation, Including FTE Impact: This table should only reflect the actual number of positions affected by this legislation. In the event that positions have been, or will be, created as a result of other legislation, please provide details in the Notes section below the table.
|
Position Title and Department |
Position # for Existing Positions |
Fund Name & # |
PT/FT |
2008 Positions |
2008 FTE |
2009 Positions* |
2009 FTE* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* 2009 positions and FTE are total 2009 position changes resulting from this legislation, not incremental changes. Therefore, under 2009, please be sure to include any continuing positions from 2008.
Notes: Not Applicable.
· Do positions sunset in the future? (If yes, identify sunset date):
Not Applicable.
Spending/Cash Flow: This table should be completed only in those cases where part or all of the funds authorized by this legislation will be spent in a different year than when they were appropriated (e.g., as in the case of certain grants and capital projects). Details surrounding spending that will occur in future years should be provided in the Notes section below the table.
|
Fund Name & # |
Department |
Budget Control Level* |
2008 Expenditures |
2009 Anticipated Expenditures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
|
|
|
|
* See budget book to obtain the appropriate Budget Control Level for your department.
Notes: Not Applicable.
· What is the financial cost of not implementing the legislation? (Estimate the costs to the City of not implementing the legislation, including estimated costs to maintain or expand an existing facility or the cost avoidance due to replacement of an existing facility, potential conflicts with regulatory requirements, or other potential costs if the legislation is not implemented.)
Without this legislation, the Police Department will not be able to implement the pilot project funded by the City Council.
· What are the possible alternatives to the legislation that could achieve the same or similar objectives? (Include any potential alternatives to the proposed legislation, such as reducing fee-supported activities, identifying outside funding sources for fee-supported activities, etc.)
None.
· Is the legislation subject to public hearing requirements: (If yes, what public hearings have been held to date, and/or what plans are in place to hold a public hearing(s) in the future.)
No.
· Other Issues (including long-term implications of the legislation):
None.
Please list attachments to the fiscal note below:
None.