RED LIGHT CAMERAS
www.highwayrobbery.net


Email Address
Site Index by Subject

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

City of Marysville Documents (Program Closed)
(and Information)

 Marysville, pop. 13,000, is 42 miles north of Sacramento.



Some of Marysville's 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, and read this Aug. 2011 letter to the Appeal-Democrat.


The Marysville camera program closed in June 2016.  See Set # 2, below.



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
 
R. A. Wieckowski, Author of the anti-motorist bill 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.



In May 2012 the City installed its seventh camera, at 10th and Ramirez.  Article.



Photo of 3rd & F Camera, and Caption, Courtesy of Local Resident 


Marysville Docs Set # 1
Misleading Info on the Court's Website

On Oct. 12, 2006 I noticed that the court's website ( http://www.yubacourts.org ) said:

"If you receive a photo-enforced red light citation or notice of violation and you were not the driver, you must follow the instructions on the citation or notice of violation and complete the accompanying form to identify the driver who committed the violation. If you need further assistance contact Marysville Police Department. Failure to respond to the citation or notice of violation may result in further penalties such as additional fines or driver's license holds."
[Emphasis (bolding) added by highwayrobbery.net.]

I then called them and pointed out that the mandatory "must" was incorrect and should not be on a court website, because no defendant is required to tell anyone who was driving their car.  
( It is OK for such a misleading/false statement to be on a document sent to you by the police - they are allowed to lie to you!  But not so for the court.  If you do not understand why that is, see the "It's Not Me!" section on the Your Ticket page.)

By Oct . 16 they had changed the website to read:

"If you were not the driver, complete the appropriate section on the citation and mail it immediately to the address on the citation. The agency will contact the court regarding your information. If you fail to complete the required information and return it to the address on the citation and do not appear or contact the court by your assigned date, additional penalties will be added to your case and your driverís license will be suspended."

While the court personnel removed the "must" and added a mention of appearing in court, the paragraph still is misleading.  In fact, in one way they made it even worse.  The new wording gives the impression that in addition to filling out the form, you must also ("and")  appear in court or contact it, by the due date. 
The new wording still fails to make it clear that if you do not want to fill out the form and give the name of the driver, appearing in court is an alternative.


A Feb. 2011 review of the website revealed that they have again removed any mention of the option to appear in court.  The site says only:

"If you were not the driver, complete the appropriate section on the citation and mail it to the address on the citation."



Marysville Docs Set # 2
The Illegal/Spendthrift Contracts - and New Cameras

The
original contract was signed in Dec. 2004 and contained, in the Business Assumptions section of its Exhibit D, a cost neutral clause.  See Defect # 10 - B for more information about cost neutrality.

On Dec. 16, 2008 the Appeal Democrat had an article about the effect of a recent appellate court decision on the contract. 

In July 2009 the city council agreed to a renewal.  The renewal reduced the previous monthly fee of $6030 fee for each of the four existing cameras to $5700, a 5% decrease.

Had the council negotiated a $4000 fee like that in the 2008 contract
of the City of Santa Clarita, it could have saved $1700 per camera
per month, or $408,000 for the four cameras over the 60 months
 of the contract.

Or, had the council negotiated a $2500 fee like that in the 2009 contract
of the City of Davis, it could have saved $768,000.

Or, had the council negotiated a $2225 fee like that in the 2009 contract
of the City of Solana Beach, it could have saved $834,000.

In Feb. 2011 the city council agreed to a five-year extension.  They got a 3.5% lower price, $5500, but that still was way too much.  When compared to a $3000 target price, the City will overpay by $600,000 for the four original cameras over the five years.  See FAQ # 17.

Further problems with the 2011 contract extension:

1.  It has no escape clause (Termination for Convenience), something
commonly found in other cities' contracts.
2.  The contract adds a Halo (collision avoidance) system.  See Set # 7, below.

2013:  Proposed New Cameras

By a 3 - 2 vote at their May 21, 2013 meeting, the city council rejected the addition of two more cameras.  The item could come back to the council at a later date.

2014:  Possible Contract Amendment

An early 2014 RedFlex invoice included a handwritten notation which said, "pending amendment negotiation."
2015 invoices (and more 2015 invoices) show that the City still is being billed for the Halo system (see Set # 7, below).

2015:  City is in Dire Straits

A report prepared for an Oct. 22, 2015 budget meeting revealed that the City had a $922,000 negative balance in its General Fund, and that the City could run out of cash.


June 2016:  Program Ended!

A staff report voted upon at the May 17, 2016 council meeting recommended ending the program, and the vote was 5 - 0 to do so.

We don't yet know if the City will ask RedFlex for a refund of the $15,000 they paid RedFlex for the collision avoidance system.  See Set # 7, below.


This contract info was up-to-date as of 5-18-16.




Marysville Docs Set # 3
Ticket Counts


Total Violations, Notices Printed
[4]

New 10-7-09, updated 5-18-16

Cam #
10G-01
10G-03
3F-01
E3-01
E9-01
E9-03
10RA-01
COMING?
COMING?






10th
&
G
10th
&
G
3rd
&
F
[18]
E
&
3rd
E
&
9th
E
&
9th
10th
&
Ramirez
[18]
J
&
5th
(Sbd)
Ramirez
&
10th
(Sbd)
[3]

Total
Citations
Issued
Per Annual
CVC 21455.5(i)
Report [4]
Total
Violations
Recorded/
Notices
Printed
[1] [4]

Apr05














May05
[10]


2759
1287









2759
1287

Jun05
[10]


3013
2224









3013
2224

Jul05
[9]


668
232









668
232

Aug05
[10]


966
463









966
463

Sep05
[10]


893
675









893
675

Oct05
[10]
204
167
130
74
366
257
77
41








777
539

Nov05
[10]
294
224
164
115
255
196
936
610








1649
1145

Dec05
[10]
200
134
176
114
238
136
1277
726








1891
1110

2005














Jan06
[9]
265
171
129
63
196
134
975
574








1565
942

Feb06














Mar06
[21]
266
205
165
111
224
182
850
630








1505
1128

Apr06
[20]












1753
1264

May06














Jun06














Jul06
[9]
295
132
266
145
242
82
1359
492








2162
851

Aug06














Sep06
[21]
406
82
101
17
241
31
1144
189








1892
319

Oct06
[20]












1610
603

Nov06














Dec06














2006












10214
(proj.)

Jan07
[9]
205
137
174
128
173
131
867
608








1419
1004

Feb07














Mar07
[21]
291
228
175
122
179
130
819
637








1464
1117

Apr07
[20]












1025
718

May07














Jun07














Jul07
[9]
273
207
279
200
201
128
307
189








1060
724

Aug07














Sep07
[21]
285
169
230
143
135
102
364
194








1014
608

Oct07
[20]












839
606

Nov07














Dec07














2007
[2]












9554
(proj.)

Jan08
[5]
133
84
142
65
104
67
364
208








743
424

Feb08
[5]











761
565

Mar08
[5]










895
624

Apr08
[5]










993
641

May08
[5]










960
632

Jun08
[5]










1070
612

Jul08
[5]
251
177
185
113
168
69
469
279








1073
638

Aug08
[5]










1389
657

Sep08
[5]










1323
697

Oct08
[5]










1295
746

Nov08
[5]










1214
696

Dec08
[5]










1064
550

2008
[2]












7482

Jan09
[5]
190
126
158
87
355
94
368
213








1071
520

Feb09
[5]










916
519

Mar09
[5]










1208
620

Apr09
[5]










1186
532

May09
[5]










1227
649

Jun09
[5]










1338
632

Jul09
[5]
258
166
162
87
525
109
533
279








1478
641

Aug09
[9]
288
181
203
109
575
133
460
252








1526
675

Sep09
[9]
275
171
196
113
380
74
436
222








1287
580

Oct09














Nov09














Dec09














2009
[2]












7139
(proj.)

Jan10
[10]
135
97
146
89
237
137
288
157








806
480

Feb10
[22]












785
485

Mar10
[20]












834
563

Apr10
[13]












784
506

May10
[21]
217
186
175
103
133
109
363
271








888
669

Jun10
[22]












967
573

Jul10
[10]
218
157
138
72
33
25
439
263








828
517

Aug10
[22]












807
466

Sep10
[20]












853
507

Oct10
[10]
176
113
144
69
105
71
399
218








824
471

Nov10
[21]
165
108
162
105
106
79
382
227








815
519

Dec10
[22]












675
403

2010
[2]












6159

Jan11
[11]
123
83
135
77
75
51
287
168








620
379

Feb11
[13]












593
344

Mar11
[13]












603
341

Apr11
[11]
213
122
118
55
90
57
254
121
60
37
3
2






738
394

May11
[13]












704
390

Jun11
[15]












767
402

Jul11
[11]
173
108
114
66
96
63
372
226
724
253
211
114






1690
830

Aug11
[13]












598
346

Sep11












690
445

Oct11
[11]
213
181
117
84
185
140
386
289
666
397
102
62






1669
1153

Nov11
[13]












723
542

Dec11
[13]












709
556

2011
[2]












6122

Jan12
[11]
87
71
75
60
142
110
231
180
185
120
21
8






741
549

Feb12
[13]












581
467

Mar12
[11]
156
114
101
75
155
127
258
199
407
273
85
64






1162
852

Apr12
[12]
190
138
62
44
44
35
228
165
382
239
85
45
0
0





991
666

May12
[12]
205
154
97
60
0
0
284
225
561
330
118
70
589
378





1854
1217

Jun12
[12]
180
125
96
65
0
0
264
194
637
386
132
85
527
407





1836
1262

Jul12
[12]
201
146
124
75
0
0
293
211
412
245
94
60
491
350





1615
1087

Aug12
[12]
196
127
148
101
65
43
324
220
0
0
39
27
427
227





1199
745

Sep12
[13]
238
172
114
76
78
55
276
200
0
0
0
0
295
169





1001
672

Oct12
[13]
205
168
135
101
78
58
285
201
0
0
0
0
322
168





1025
696

Nov12
[16]


69
58
281
190


344
236





973
656

Dec12
[16] [20]


86
67
226
122


253
150





601
373

2012
[2]












9242

Jan13
[16] [20]


50
31
246
140


349
188





623
351

Feb13
[16] [20]


35
20
229
143


329
207





566
349

Mar13
[16] [20]


52
38
263
179


411
264





700
465

Apr13
[16]


46
32
263
174


451
259





760
465

May13
[17]












708
388

Jun13
[17]












743
326

Jul13
[17]












605
329

Aug13
[17]












719
279

Sep13
[17]












475
201

Oct13
[17]












505
254

Nov13
[17]












568
197

Dec13
[17]












718
338

2013
[2]











1398
3987

Jan14
[17]
0
0
0
0
36
31
1
0


301
162





338
193

Feb14
[17]
0
0
0
0
37
21
208
122


258
138





503
281

Mar14
[17]
0
0
0
0
57
32
352
221


349
193





758
446

Apr14
[14] [20]
0
0
0
0
140
84
440
263


416
175





996
522

May14
[20]
0
0
0
0
158
105
642
391


554
231





1354
727

Jun14
[20]
0
0
3
0
94
52
651
307
[19]
[19]
331
74





1079
433

Jul14
[20]
89
57
191
111
96
44
635
253


512
110





1523
575

Aug14
[20]
134
86
211
115
102
57
529
227


333
83





1309
568

Sep14
[20]
94
43
195
93
97
52
361
139


407
102





1154
429

Oct14
[20]
0
0
0
0
81
55
0
0


443
124





524
179

Nov14
[20]
19
0
7
6
100
46
0
0


541
162





667
214

Dec14
[20]
100
68
152
112
87
34
0
0


415
138





754
352

2014
[1]
436
254
759
437
1085
613
3819
1923


4860
1692




1514
10959
4912

Jan15
[20]
96
58
110
81
77
41
0
0


579
132





862
312

Feb15
[21]
106
64
118
88
101
54
0
0


415
110





740
316

Mar15
[21]
132
65
149
103
120
74
0
0


410
141





811
383

Apr15
[21]
51
14
0
0
133
76
0
0


404
130





588
220

May15
[22]
0
0
0
0
130
96
0
0


604
302





734
398

Jun15
[22]
0
0
0
0
132
95
0
0


483
219





615
314

Jul15
[22]
0
0
0
0
133
99
0
0


576
281





709
380

Aug15
[22]
0
0
0
0
130
93
0
0


525
250





655
343

Sep15
[23]
0
0
0
0
138
94
0
0


511
246





649
340

Oct15
[23]
0
0
0
0
72
52
0
0


535
225





607
277

Nov15
[23]
0
0
0
0
85
54
0
0


328
164





413
218

Dec15
[23]
0
0
0
0
83
48
0
0


337
144





420
192

2015
[2]
385
201
377
272
1334
876
0
0


5707
2344





7803
3693

Jan16














Feb16














Mar16














Apr16














May16














Jun16

C
L
O
S
E
D







2016
[2]












1847
(proj.)

Cam #
10G-01
10G-03
3F-01
E3-01
E9-01
E9-03
10RA-01
COMING?
COMING?






10th
&
G
10th
&
G
3rd
&
F
[18]
E
&
3rd
E
&
9th
[19]
E
&
9th
[19]
10th
&
Ramirez
[18]
J
&
5th
(Sbd)
Ramirez
&
10th
(Sbd)


Total
Citations
Issued
Per Annual
CVC 21455.5(i)
Report [4]
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.

[  ] indicates a footnote.
[1]  Totals are as provided by the City.
[2]  Annual total, or annual projection, is by highwayrobbery.net.  The 2016 projection is 1/2 of 2015.
[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).  Figures in blue italic type are citations filed with the court, per the annual report required by CVC 21455.5(i).  See Set # 4 below for more about the annual report.
[5]  Monthly data for Jan. 2008 - Jul. 2009 has been received but not all of it has been posted yet, due to time constraints. 2008-2009 source data.
[6]  The camera enforcement is believed to be on traffic on the first-named street, but the direction of enforcement (north, south, east, west, thru, left, right) is not yet available.
[7]  Includes enforcement of posted "no turn on red" signs.
[8]  Data was requested on:
[9]  Source data received 11-17-09.  (2005-2007 data was requested for the months of Jan. and July only.)
[10]  2005 and 2010 source data received Jan. 2011.
[11] 2011 - 2012 source data received July 2012.
[12]  Source data for these months was received 10-5-12 and 11-21-12. The citywide totals are by highwayrobbery.net.
[13]  Source data for these months was received on 12-20-12.
[14]  The report for this month was generated a few days before the end of the month, so it is likely that not all tickets (for violations which occurred during the month) had been approved and counted by that time.  A proportionate adjustment has been made and posted above.
[15]  Source data for this month was received on 1-18-13.
[16]  Source data for this month was received on 6-7-13.
[17]  Source data for this month was received on 5-12-14.
[18]  In June 2014 the Grand Jury recommended the removal of these cameras.  See Set # 6, below.
[19]  According to an article in the 6-26-14 Appeal-Democrat, the cameras at 10th & G were to be back in operation soon, and the cameras at 9th & E were not expected to be back in operation "until later this [2014] Fall."
A year later, a 6-26-15 A-D article said that reinstallation of cameras at 9th & E awaited approval from CalTrans.  See Set # 6, below.
[20] 
Source data for this month was received on 3-25-15.
[21] Source data for this month was received on 6-9-15.
[22]  Source data for this month was received on 11-20-15.
[23]  Source data for this month was received on 1-29-16





Marysville Docs Set # 4
Mickey Mouse Tickets - Mostly Right Turn & Mostly to Visitors

An official report showed that in 2013, 75% of the City's tickets were for right turns.
In 2014 it was down to 63%.

In May 2016 a report prepared by RedFlex disclosed that 86% of Marysville's tickets went to visitors.




Marysville Docs Set # 5
"Late Time" Graphs


 The City provided bar graphs of Late Times, etcetera, for all four 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 example pictured above is from another city.

10th & G, camera # 1 (10G-01), Jan. 2006
10th & G, camera # 1 (10G-01), July 2008
10th & G, camera # 1 (10G-01), July 2009


10th & G, camera # 3 (10G-03), Jan. 2006
10th & G, camera # 3 (10G-03), July 2008
10th & G, camera # 3 (10G-03), July 2009


3rd & F (3F-01), Jan. 2006
3rd & F (3F-01), July 2008
3rd & F (3F-01), July 2009


E & 3rd (E3-01), Jan. 2006
E & 3rd (E3-01), July 2008
E & 3rd (E3-01), July 2009

All cameras, July 2011

July 2012, except for 10G-03
10G-03, July 2012

All cameras, Jan. 2015

Bar graphs are available for more than fifty other cities - see the list in the expanded version of Defect # 9.




Marysville Docs Set # 6
  Yellow Light Length - and the June 2014 Grand Jury Report


Think the yellows are too short - even though they may meet the legal minimum?  (You're probably right.)  Call CalTrans! The City runs the cameras, but CalTrans owns the street and operates the signals at 3rd & E, 9th & E, and 10th & G.  So they set the length of the yellow.  CalTrans doesn't get a share of the fine, so they are inclined to be fair, and logical, about signal timing - if a problem is brought to their attention.  In other cities their engineers have increased the yellow, above the minimum, after citizens complained.  Examples are Willow/Bayfront in Menlo Park, 120/29 in Napa, and Mission/Mohave in Fremont.  At each of those locations, violations dropped, a lot, after the lengthening.  And have stayed down.  You can see the data, on those cities' pages here at highwayrobbery.net.  CalTrans is at (530) 741-4318 (in Marysville).  Also call your state legislators.

At intersections where CalTrans owns the street, a City must obtain an encroachment permit in order to install red light cameras.  In 2012, CalTrans refused to renew the encroachment permits in the cities of Riverside and Victorville (but later relented after some high powered lobbying in Sacramento), and refused to issue a new permit at Colusa/Plumas in Yuba City (which later closed its program).  (For more details about encroachment permits, see the CalTrans section at the top of the Links/Ref page.

Another avenue.  Complain to the Yuba County Grand Jury.  (530) 749-7341.  It was effective in Napa - the Napa County Grand Jury ended up recommending that 1000 tickets be dismissed.


Someone Must Have Complained!

A June 17, 2014 article revealed that the Grand Jury slammed Marysville and its camera program.
Among other things,
the Grand Jury Report recommended (page 98) the removal of the cameras at 3rd & F and 10th & Ramirez, and longer yellows.  The Grand Jury
also wrote:

"This investigation found that generally the City of Marysville has provided conflicting,
non-relevant, and/or unsupportable data to justify the use of RLCs within City boundaries. Data
provided by the City of Marysville do not correspond to data available through State-maintained
collision databases."
From page 62 of the report linked above.
 

Cities are required to respond to Grand Jury reports.  Here is Marysville's response (in which they took a hard line stance against longer yellows - see R6 on page 7) , and the very brief minutes of the council meeting during which the report, and the response, were discussed.

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.


Signal Timing Charts

In late 2015 we requested copies of the City's signal timing charts.




Marysville Docs Set # 7
The Collision Avoidance ("Halo") System (Ripoff?)

On June 7, 2011 the city council approved the installation of RedFlex' collision avoidance system at Third and F streets - Redflex' first collision avoidance installation anywhere in the US.
Article 

The 2009 and 2011 contracts (available in Set # 2, above) require the City to pay $250 per month for the collision avoidance system.

On Dec. 6, 2011, in a
TV news piece aired in Phoenix, a RedFlex spokesman described the Marysville collision avoidance system as "very successful."  But had that station contacted Marysville to verify that claim, they would have been told that it was too soon to tell if the program was a success.

It still was too early, six months later.  In May 2012 I filed a public records request, for

"All writings, presentations or communications concerning the City's collision avoidance system."

The Marysville city clerk replied: 

"There is not any information regarding the Collision Pre-emption System."

And even after another six months, it was still too early to tell anything about the program. In Jan. 2013 the city clerk wrote:

"You are correct in assuming that there is no further information regarding the Collision Avoidance System."

I inquired again in Apr. 2014 and again in Feb. 2015 and both times there was no new information about the Halo system.

Since there is no proof that it works, the City should ask for a refund of the (approx.) $9000 it has been charged for the Halo system.

Late 2015 invoices from RedFlex showed that the City is continuing to be charged $250 each month for the Halo system.




Marysville Docs Set # 8
Prevailing Wage Action

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



Marysville Docs Set # 9
2015:  New PD Page on Cameras

In March 2015 the police department was putting together a new web page on the camera program.  The page will eventually include videos.  Have a look.




Marysville Docs Set # 10
More Coming

There may be some more 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