RED LIGHT CAMERAS
www.highwayrobbery.net

Email Address
Site Index

If you haven't already done so, please read the Citrus Heights section on the Camera Towns page.

City of Citrus Heights Documents

Some of Citrus Heights' tickets can possibly be ignored.  If your "ticket" does not have the Superior Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket."  For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.


Do you live in the South end of Alameda County or the North end of Santa Clara County - State Sen. Ellen Corbett's former District?

In late 2014 Sen. Corbett termed out, and was replaced by this person


Wieckowski, author anti-motorist bill AB 666
 
Wieckowski, Author of the anti-motorist bills SB 1 and AB 666

who will be running for re-election in 2018 and 2022.

Please don't vote for him.

Send him back home to his bankruptcy law practice.

As of 2017 he is in the State Legislature in Sacramento and was a co-author of SB 1 (raises gas tax and car registration fees beginning Nov. 2017).  In 2013 he was the author of AB 666 which - had it passed - would have increased the number of red light camera tickets.  Before reaching the Legislature he was a member of the Fremont City Council, and during his time on the council he approved two extensions of Fremont's contract with RedFlex:  He was the maker of the 2005 motion to extend the contract to 2010, and in 2010 he made the motion to extend the contract to June 2017.




The City may need to refund a number of tickets issued after Aug. 1, 2015, as it appears it may have missed the deadline to set longer yellows at some of its camera enforced intersections.  See Set # 5, below.



Citrus Heights Docs Set # 1
Ticket Counts

Total Violations, Notices Printed [4]

New 11-5-10, updated 2-3-17

Cam #
ANGG
01
AUAN
01
AUGR
01
GRFS
01
GRSU
01
SJGR
01
SU0A
01
SUOA
03









CITY OF
CITRUS
HEIGHTS

RED LIGHT
CAMERA
PROGRAM
Wbd
Ante-
lope
at
Garden
Gate


Nbd
Auburn
at
Antel-
ope



SWbd
Auburn
at
Green-
back


[9]
Ebd
Green-
back
at
Foun-
tain
Square

Ebd
Green-
back
at
Sunrise


[9]
Sbd
San
Juan
at
Green-
back


Nbd
Sunrise
at
Oak



Sbd
Sunrise
at
Oak








[3]
Avg.
Notices
Printed
Total
Citations
Issued
as %
of Events
Re-
corded
Total
Violations
Recorded/

Notices
Printed
[1] [4]

Jan08

















Feb08

















Mar08

















Apr08

















May08

















Jun08



[6]
[6]










Jul08















561
260

Aug08















689
269

Sep08

















Oct08
[6]
[6]



[6] [6]








Nov08















1583
685

Dec08















1599
676

2008

















Jan09















1373
701

Feb09

















Mar09

















Apr09















2066
712

May09

















Jun09

















Jul09















1161
637

Aug09

















Sep09

















Oct09















1049
552

Nov09

















Dec09

















2009
[2]















7806
(proj.)

Jan10













527

670
375

Feb10













527


Mar10













527


Apr10













527
831
518

May10













527


2010
9 Months
[8]
888
544
1120
608

499
248

4188
2458
930
508
603
379







8195
4745

Jun10













527


Jul10













527
1121
662

Aug10













527


Sep10













527


Oct10

















Nov10

















Dec10

















2010
[2]















6324
(proj.)

Jan11
70
44
333
149
0
0
49
29
0
0
1438
331
231
112
54
34







2175
699

Feb11

















Mar11















2141
629

Apr11















2285
710

May11

















Jun11

















Jul11
109
57
297
111
0
0
33
10
0
0
1452
292
233
119
68
33







2192
622

Aug11

















Sep11















2059
664

Oct11
109
80
370
143
0
0
46
30
0
0
1324
266
260
126
61
32







2170
677

Nov11

















Dec11

















2011
[2]















8002
(proj.)

Jan12















1774
531

Feb12















1833
528

Mar12

















Apr12















1923
516

May12

















Jun12

















Jul12
105
71
239
86
0
0
60
24
0
0
1293
325
288
176
50
29







2035
711

Aug12















1991
682

Sep12















1855
529

Oct12















1546
437

Nov12


NEW
[9]

NEW
[9]










993
326

Dec12
42
24
-
-
0
0
55
40
0
0
791
209
-
-
-
-







888
273

2012
[2]















6029
(proj.)

Jan13
70
46
0
0
331
248
31
17
52
25
981
209
0
0
0
0







1465
545

Feb13
69
49
-
-
689
235
43
28
132
72
801
193
-
-
-
-







1734
577

Mar13


765
208

184
107










2119
632

Apr13


743
226

195
90










2196
650

May13


1490
396

11
4










2764
760

Jun13


1450
339

154
54










2928
816

Jul13
106
69
0
0
1983
368
56
27
638
170
983
194
68
44
49
37







3883
909

Aug13
120
83
0
0
1227
214
79
39
908
350
829
184
94
58
105
73







3362
1001

Sep13
95
60
0
0
1033
257
65
41
967
403
884
176
120
45
95
60







3259
1042

Oct13


1124
257

591
332










2883
927

Nov13


1056
230

190
84










2367
629

Dec13


941
216

79
41










2290
628

2013
[2]


12832
3194

4101
1732









29%
31250
9116

Jan14


604
143

270
104










2137
608

Feb14


383
127

210
73










1694
470

Mar14


1383
219

189
101










3034
716

Apr14
88
59
157
46
629
219
69
34
593
225
1011
131
69
39
93
66







2709
819

May14


489
175

610
236










2661
816

Jun14


613
149

549
176










2702
695

Jul14
97
52
97
7
644
97
84
25
388
131
1094
76
72
28
113
74







2589
490

Aug14


618
157

483
250










2379
726

Sep14
[5]


542
126

516
224










2719
790

Oct14
118
85
253
74
601
260
79
50
452
236
1004
169
83
39
110
84







2700
997

Nov14


445
186

295
167










2045
830

Dec14
[5]


515
185

348
206










2353
850

2014
[2]


7466
2043

4902
2129









30%
29722
8807

Jan15
121
96
159
44
460
181
73
47
340
194
727
123
101
72
85
58







2066
815

Feb15
103
53
228
55
364
151
63
45
286
144
662
129
82
57
83
57







1871
691

Mar15
143
94
190
43
802
266
88
43
469
246
994
181
88
51
121
96







2895
1020

Apr15
139
97
204
48
699
185
86
49
489
257
945
136
96
65
119
100







2777
937

May15
176
112
322
100
1003
223
88
40
432
204
836
157
91
62
103
62







3051
960

Jun15
[5]
135
81
327
48
879
210
84
39
569
190
917
147
31
18
86
60







3028
793

Jul15
118
67
426
89
820
215
87
37
577
221
1141
149
97
55
85
70







3351
903

Aug15
123
76
159
60
797
191
91
29
608
219
884
128
104
55
75
62







2841
820

Sep15
120
86
151
50
649
133
78
31
448
212
805
119
103
50
79
63







2433
744

Oct15
159
128
119
55
670
143
72
33
460
245
912
131
110
58
91
73







2593
866

Nov15
115
90
89
44
688
145
50
31
484
243
908
142
88
50
80
69







2502
814

Dec15
157
121
45
25
527
128
69
39
430
204
748
118
76
37
113
102







2165
774

2015
[2]
1609
1100
2419
661
8358
2168
929
463
5592
2578
10479
1657
1067
630
1120
872






32%
31573
10137

Jan16
124
97
154
62
608
152
66
31
386
200
885
150
94
58
127
96







2444
846

Feb16
150
105
149
62
662
191
70
44
422
223
933
155
80
47
114
91







2580
918

Mar16
158
100
122
48
765
99
73
42
562
240
1029
120
90
46
150
115







2949
810

Apr16
159
95
141
35
906
126
86
41
622
219
1020
114
117
50
157
111







3208
791

May16
164
114
138
37
878
76
97
45
582
165
1090
82
112
60
115
60







3176
639

Jun16
151
105
177
45
856
52
108
39
689
182
1244
89
122
72
63
54







3410
638

Jul16
145
102
149
46
1252
80
123
33
657
166
1243
91
141
91
200
152







3910
761

Aug16
[5]
167
79
157
40
1095
106
131
42
716
212
1149
141
148
72
199
137







3762
829

Sep16
169
100
106
25
840
83
105
38
613
202
897
86
104
57
180
138







3014
729

Oct16
149
96
126
38
857
141
87
36
563
232
966
124
121
70
130
95







2999
832

Nov16
139
108
143
43
805
160
101
60
542
270
873
107
90
52
145
94







2838
894

Dec16
148
105
104
36
694
135
75
46
522
260
932
115
79
48
164
115







2718
860

2016
[2]
1823
1206
1666
517
10218
1401
1122
497
6876
2571
12261
1374
1298
723
1744
1258







37008
9547

Cam #
ANGG
01
AUAN
01
AUGR
01
GRFS
01
GRSU
01
SJGR
01
SU0A
01
SUOA
03









CITY OF
CITRUS
HEIGHTS

RED LIGHT
CAMERA
PROGRAM
Wbd
Ante-
lope
at
Garden
Gate


Nbd
Auburn
at
Antel-
ope



SWbd
Auburn
at
Green-
back


[9]
Ebd
Green-
back
at
Foun-
tain
Square

Ebd
Green-
back
at
Sunrise


[9]
Sbd
San
Juan
at
Green-
back


Nbd
Sunrise
at
Oak



Sbd
Sunrise
at
Oak








[3]
Avg.
Notices
Printed
Total
Citations
Issued
as %
of Events
Re-
corded
Total
Violations
Recorded/

Notices
Printed
[1] [4]

This table made by highwayrobbery.net, using official reports provided by the City under the California Public Records Act.

Official report, Jan. - Sep. 2010
Official reports, Jan. 2011 - July 2012
Official reports, Aug. 2012 - Feb. 2013
Official reports, Jul. 2008 - Apr. 2013 (28 MB file)
Official reports, May 2013 - July 2014
Official reports, Apr.2009 - Feb. 2015
Official reports, Spring 2015
Official report, June 2015
Official reports, Late 2015
Official reports, Aug. & Sep. 2015
Official reports, Oct. - Dec. 2015
Official reports, Early 2016
Official reports, Late 2016
Official report, Dec. 2016

[  ] indicates a footnote.
[1]  Totals are as provided by the City.
[2] Annual total, or annual projection by highwayrobbery.net.
[3]  Un-used columns are to allow for later expansion of City's system.
[4]  Any figures in red type (or, if you are looking at this table in black and white, the upper figure when there are two or more figures in a cell) are what RedFlex calls Total Violations, or all incidents recorded by the cameras, and due to time limitations may have been posted here only for selected months or locations.  If there is sufficient public interest, the remaining months will be posted.  The figures in black type are what RedFlex calls Notices Printed, and represent the sum of genuine citations issued (those filed with the court) plus any Nominations mailed (not filed with the court, a.k.a. Snitch Tickets).
[5]  The official reports for Sept. 2014, Dec. 2014, June 2015 and Aug. 2016 were generated shortly after the end of those months.  As a result, many violations were still  "in progress" and the eventual number of "approved violations" would be expected to be greater than the number shown in the official report. Before being posted in the table above, the citywide total figures given in the official monthly reports were adjusted by assuming that the "in progress" violations would be approved in the same proportion that violations were approved during the previous calendar year.  For the 2014 months the proportion used was .29.  For June 2015 the proportion used was .30.  For Aug. 2016 the proportion used was .32.  
[6]
  Per the City document (see link in Set # 5, below), these are the enforcement start dates for these cameras.  Also per that document, warning notices were issued until the enforcement start dates.
[7]  Includes enforcement of posted "no turn on red" signs.
[8]  Figures are from report covering Jan.1, 2010 to Sep. 30, 2010.  Month-by-month data has been requested.
[9]  Activated on Dec. 31, 2012, per Bee article of same date.  Began issuing real tickets on Jan. 31, 2013.





Citrus Heights Docs Set # 2
Mickey Mouse Tickets - Mostly Right Turns & Mostly to Visitors

An official report showed that in 2014, 62% of the City's tickets were for turns, mostly right turns.

In May 2016 a report prepared by RedFlex for another client disclosed that 70% of Citrus Heights' tickets go to visitors.




Citrus Heights Docs Set # 3
"Late Time" Graphs

The City provided bar graphs of Late Times, etcetera, for all of its cameras.
These graphs track violations recorded, not tickets issued.
Where there is a large number of long Late Time violations in a curb lane, it is believed to indicate heavy ticketing on right turns.
(The curb lane will be the lane with the highest lane number.)

Grand Terrace late times bar chart
The picture above is an example from another city.

Jan. 2008 - Sep. 2010:

ANGG
AUAN
GRFS
SJGR
SUOA-01
SUOA-03

July 2013 - All Cameras

June 2014 - All Cameras

Aug. 2015 - All Cameras (Tabular Version)

June 2016 - All Cameras (Tabular Version)

Bar graphs have been received from more than fifty other cities - see the list in the expanded version of Defect # 9.




Citrus Heights Docs Set # 4
The Contract, Etc.


Like the cities of Baldwin Park, Capitola, Highland, South San Francisco, Victorville and Walnut, Citrus Heights failed to hold the formal public hearing required by CVC 21455.6 before it approved the 2007 contract - see the expanded version of Defect # 6.
2007 Contract   July 2007 Staff Report   July 2007 Minutes

The 2007 contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost.  See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

The contract possibly provides a monetary sanction against the city if city traffic engineers lengthen the yellows.  The contract reads:
"Cost neutrality is guaranteed except as follows:  If the Customer [the City] fails to maintain the minimum yellow light change interval as established by Section 21455.7 of the California Vehicle Code."
The passage is open to two conflicting interpretations.
1.  The City is required to maintain yellows that are at least as long as the length specified by the Code - but can be longer.
2.  The City is required to maintain the exact length specified by the Code, and may not set yellows that are longer.

The contract also specifies that there shall be equipment to issue citations for right turn violations, and penalizes the City should it choose not to enforce those violations.

In Nov. 2012, six or seven months before the end of the initial term of the 2007 contract, the City amended the contract, to extend it for three more years.
2012 Staff Report and Amendment
 
The amendment retained cost neutrality, and city council agreed to pay $5500 rent per camera, which is way too high.  Many other cities have obtained a price of $3000 or less.  The City will overpay $540,000, compared to a $3000 target, over the three years - and there is no escape clause in the contract.
2014:  Sample Invoices and Payments
To cover the extra rent (above the $3000 target noted above), the City will have to issue an extra 5400 tickets during the three-year period 2013 - 2015 (assuming that 2/3 of those ticketed pay up and that the City's portion of a fully paid fine is $150).
(To see what other cities are paying for their cameras, see FAQ # 17.)


2015:  Three More Years -- or Seven!

 
At their Dec. 10, 2015 meeting the city council approved, 5 - 0, a staff recommendation to extend the program for another three years, with the option to (later) add two additional periods of two years each - for a potential total extension of seven years, ending in Dec. 2022.
2015 Staff Report
Contract Amendment, and Minutes of the Meeting

The City agreed to pay $36,500 per month to rent the cameras.

Based upon the age of the Citrus Heights cameras, and using the Elk Grove price table (below) as a target, Citrus Heights should have agreed to pay not more
than $21,392 per month during the initial three years of the extension.  At the $36,500 price it agreed to pay, the City will overpay by $544,000 during the three year extension and a total overpayment of $1,619,000 during the potential seven year period
(compared to Elk Grove prices).  To cover that extra rent, the City will have to issue an extra 16,190 tickets during the seven years (assuming that 2/3 of those ticketed pay up and that the City's portion of a fully paid fine is $150).

Part of Elk Grove (CA) contract
                with Redflex
Table imaged from 2014 contract between RedFlex and the City of Elk Grove, California, which has five cameras.

Until the three year extension ends in 2018, there is no way for Citrus Heights to escape from the too-high prices - the 2015 amendment did not add an escape clause (formal title:  Termination for Convenience).

RedFlex Invoices, 2016

The previous cost neutrality clause was replaced with a novel cost neutrality clause (the only other one in California is in the City of Ventura) under which the term of the contract will be extended one day for each day's worth of fine revenue the City falls short of paying RedFlex.


This listing of contracts and amendments was up-to-date as of Aug. 19, 2016.



Citrus Heights Docs Set # 5
Possible Big Refund in Early 2017

The City may need to refund a number of tickets issued after Aug. 1, 2015, as it appears it may have missed the deadline to set longer yellows at some of its camera enforced intersections.

On 4-7-15, in response to highwayrobbery.net's public records requests for information about locations having red light cameras, the city clerk emailed ten Engineering and Traffic Surveys dated 2013 and seven signal timing charts bearing "date[s] printed' in 2013 and 2014 but which were blank in the spaces for "date installed,"  "prepared by," and "approved by."  More recently, on 8-23-16 the city clerk postal mailed seven more signal timing charts, for the same locations and all bearing the "date printed" of 6-17-16.  Of them, five had "date[s] installed" in mid-2016, and two of them were blank in that space. 
Speed Surveys and Timing Charts

1.  For camera ANGG the 85th Percentile Speed was 46, which would require a yellow of at least 4.7 seconds.  (The new statewide rule effective Aug. 1, 2015 requires that the 85th Percentile Speed be rounded up to the next 5 mph increment, and that the resulting number be used to look up the applicable minimum yellow.  The lookup table requires a 3.9 yellow when the so-adjusted 85th is 40, 4.3 when it is 45, 4.7 when it is 50, and 5.0 when it is 55.)  The ANGG signal timing chart printed in 2014 shows a setting of 4.8 seconds, which is long enough, but we are concerned that there is no evidence that said setting actually was installed at that time.  While the timing chart printed in 2016 shows 4.8 seconds and does carry a "date installed," the 6-17-16 date indicated was ten months after the effective date of the new rule.

2.  For camera AUAN  the 85th Percentile Speed was 44, which would require a yellow of at least 4.3 seconds.  The signal timing chart printed in 2014 shows a setting of 4.6 seconds, which is long enough, but we are concerned that there is no evidence that said setting actually was installed at that time.  While the timing chart printed in 2016 shows 4.8 seconds and does carry a "date installed," the 5-20-16 date indicated was nine months after the effective date of the new rule.

3.  For camera AUGR  the 85th Percentile Speed was 48, which would require a yellow of at least 4.7 seconds.  The signal timing chart printed in 2014 shows a setting of 4.6 seconds, which is not long enough.  While the timing chart printed in 2016 shows 4.8 seconds, it does not carry a "date installed," and if that 4.8 was installed on or about the date printed (6-17-16), that would be ten months after the effective date of the new rule.

4.  For camera GRFS  the 85th Percentile Speed was 48, which would require a yellow of at least 4.7 seconds.  The signal timing chart printed in 2014 shows a setting of 4.8 seconds, which is long enough, but we are concerned that there is no evidence that said setting actually was installed at that time.  While the more recent timing chart shows 4.8 seconds and does carry a "date installed," the 6-17-16 date indicated was ten months after the effective date of the new rule.

5.  For camera  GRSU  we haven't yet received a speed survey.

6.  For camera SJGR  the 85th Percentile Speed was 47, which would require a yellow of at least 4.8 seconds.  The signal timing chart printed in 2014 shows a setting of 4.3 seconds, which is not long enough.   While the timing chart printed in 2016 shows 4.8 seconds, and does carry a "date installed," the 4-15-16 date indicated was eight months after the effective date of the new rule.

7.  For the two SUOA cameras  the 85th Percentile Speed was 44, which would require a yellow of at least 4.3 seconds.  The signal timing chart printed in 2013 shows a setting of 4.8 seconds, which is long enough, but we are concerned that there is no evidence that said setting actually was installed at that time.  While the more recent timing chart shows 4.6 seconds, it does not carry a "date installed," and if that 4.6 was installed on or about the date printed (6-17-16), that would be ten months after the effective date of the new rule.

The above too-short and/or undocumented yellows were brought to the City's attention on Feb. 13, 2017.  On Mar. 29 they
replied that all but one of the yellows were long enough well before the deadline.  We have written back to them about the two month delay they noted at San Juan and Greenback.



Citrus Heights Docs Set # 6

2015:  Grand Jury Slams Camera Program

A June 25, 2015 KCRA piece (archived copy) revealed that the Grand Jury slammed Citrus Heights and its camera program.
Among other things,
the Grand Jury report (archived copy) said:

 "Citrus Heights chronically and systematically ignores its own policies for oversight, testing, monitoring, maintenance and record keeping."

If you would like to read some grand jury reports from other counties, about their red light cameras, see the Grand Jury entry in the Site Index.



Citrus Heights Docs Set # 7
Info on CHPD Site

There is some red light camera program info at the police department's website
If the link has stopped working, drill down:
citrusheights.net > your government > departments > police > inside CHPD > patrol services > traffic > RedFlex.



Citrus Heights Docs Set # 8
Prevailing Wage Action

RedFlex' construction work in Citrus Heights was the subject of a
Prevailing Wage action by the California Department of Industrial Relations.




Citrus Heights Docs Set # 9
More Coming

There may be some more Citrus Heights information posted in the next few weeks.  Mark your calendar to remind you to come back here and look!




---------------------------------
RED LIGHT CAMERAS
www.highwayrobbery.net
www.highwayrobbery.net