RED LIGHT CAMERAS
If you haven't
already done so, please read the Montebello
section on the Camera Towns page
City of Montebello
It may be possible to completely ignore a Montebello ticket!
1. The LA County
Superior Court does not report ignored red light
camera tickets to the DMV. More info is in
"Countywide Information," which is Docs Set # 2
on the LA County
In June 2018, Vote No on
Do you live in LA County? Was
Zev Yaroslavsky your County Supervisor? (He
represented the Third District, which includes the
central and western San Fernando Valley, Malibu, Santa
Monica, Venice, Beverly Hills, the City of West
Hollywood, and part of Hollywood.)
Zev "termed out," and in the Nov. 2014 election Sheila Kuehl won the race to succeed him, by a narrow margin.
Sheila "Kuehl Cams" Kuehl, in 2007
During her career in the California
Legislature, Kuehl made three attempts to pass bills to
allow the use of automated speed enforcement (photo
radar) in California.
As an LA County Supervisor, she has a seat on the MTA/Metro board and she will be a vote to continue and expand Metro's huge (101 cameras, so far) red light camera system.
She was a vote to put an additional LA County-wide sales tax, to go to Metro, on the Nov. 2016 ballot - and it passed. (See Measure M on the Action/Legis page, for more about that tax.)
Kuehl will be up for re-election on June 5, 2018 and Nov. 2022.
Recorded (in red
type), and Citations Issued 
New 11-6-04, updated 4-6-18
This table made by highwayrobbery.net, using official monthly tabulations of citations actually issued.
Official reports, Jan. 2007 - Apr. 2010
Official reports, 2010 - 2011
Official reports, 2011 - 2012
Official reports, 2011 - 2013
Official reports, 2007 - 2013
Official reports, 2013 late
Official reports, 2010 - 2014
Official reports, 2008 - 2015
Official reports, 2015 early
Official reports, 2015 Spring
Official reports, 2015 late
Official reports, 2016 to July
Official reports, 2015 & Aug. 2016
Official report, Aug. 2016 to Mar. 2017
Official reports, Aug. 2016 to Apr. 2017
Official report, May to Oct. 2017  
[ ] indicates a footnote.
 Totals are as provided by the City.
 These annual totals, or annual projections, are by highwayrobbery.net. The 2017 projection is based upon Jan. - October.
 Un-used columns are to allow for later expansion of City's system.
 Month-by-month data was requested on 11-7-17.
 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 ACS (the city's camera supplier before 2007) calls Citations Issued and
RedFlex (the supplier after 2007) 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).
 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..
 One of these camera codes (Cam #) will appear in the data bar above the
photos on your ticket.
 The title bar has been repeated solely for the convenience of the reader - there is no difference between it and the one at the top of the table.
 The Dec. 2011 report generated in Jan. 2012 differs from the Dec. 2011 report generated in Dec. 2012. highwayrobbery.net has entered the later-generated report in the table.
 For more info about monthly revenue, see Set # 5, below.
 From the annual reports required, beginning with 2013, by CVC 21455.5(i). They become available by the Fall of the following year.
 The official report for this time period was generated less than ten days after the end of the final month. 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 figures given in the official report 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 time periods during 2017 the proportion used was 63%.
Montebello Docs Set # 2
Reasons to Stay Out of Montebello
1. Mickey Mouse tickets. An
report showed that in 2016, 70% of the City's
tickets were for right turns.
2. Between 2014 and 2016,
Montebello nearly doubled the number of tickets, and
they more than tripled the ticketing by the Garfield/Via
Campo camera. With the failure of the Nov. 2017
ballot measure which would have raised the local sales
tax, Montebello City Hall will be so desperate for money
that they may be tempted to increase ticketing to even
Montebello Docs Set # 3
"Late Time" Graphs
The City provided bar graphs of Late Times, etcetera, for all eight 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.)
The picture above is an example from another city.
Highwayrobbery.net has periodically requested bar graphs for each camera.
The following are those received.
BEGA 2009 - 2010
GAVC 2007 - 2010
MOBE 2009 - 2010
MOPA-01 2009 - 2010
MOPA-03 2009 - 2010
MOWH 2009 - 2010
VCGA 2009 - 2010
WAGR 2007 - 2010
Oct. 2012 - All Cameras
Oct. 2013 - All Cameras
Oct. 2015 - All Cameras
Oct. 2016 - All Cameras
Bar graphs are available for more than fifty other cities - see the list in the expanded version of Defect # 9.
Montebello Docs Set # 4
In 2010 the contract was amended to
substitute "Financial Feasibility" for "cost
neutrality." The new Financial Feasibility clause
allows the City to cancel the contract upon 30 days'
notice. From Exhibit D, as amended:
"...no out of pocket costs for the
"Financial Feasibility includes, but is
not limited to, whether the Customer's costs, including
payment to RedFlex, exceeed or nearly exceeds the
monthly revenue received by Customer."
The 2010 amendment also provided for an
$18,000 monthly "concession" to the City, which had the
effect of reducing the monthly rent per camera to
$3750. Many RedFlex customers have negotiated
lower prices, with at least seven of them paying less
than $3000, and had Montebello negotiated a $3000 price
it would have saved $216,000 in twelve months. See
FAQ # 17.
The one-year extension effective Feb.
2011 provided for a $28,000 monthly concession, which
reduced the rent to $2500 per camera.
At their meeting on Wednesday May 14,
2014 the city council adopted a staff
recommendation to extend the program for another
year, to April 2015, at a total monthly rent of $20,000,
equal to $2500 per camera.
Two months earlier
(March 2014) the City of Elk Grove, California approved
a new contract which specified the following rents for
their five RedFlex cameras.
As of late 2014 the City of Montebello still was paying $2500 per camera.
By April 2015 all of Montebello's cameras were seven years old, or more.
Beginning in May 2015, the City signed a series of short extensions more extensions of the contract. The latest of the those extensions received here at highwayrobbery.net extended the contract two months to Nov. 2017, without reducing the rent.
Beginning when the cameras hit seven years of age, the City should have negotiated to pay no more than $2000 per camera. Because they did not negotiate the rent down, they paid an extra $96,000 between May 2015 and May 2017 (compared to Elk Grove prices). To cover that extra rent, the City needed to issue tickets to an additional 1264 motorists (the City's fine revenue averages $76 for each ticket it issues).
2017: Seven More Years
In late Summer 2017, after more than a dozen short extensions of the contract, the City put the camera program out to bid and got three responses. The lowest bidder, RedFlex, bid $2500, the same price the City paid them beginning in 2011. On Dec. 13, 2017 the council approved, 5 - 0, a seven year extension of the program.
The draft contract (attached to the staff report presented at the Dec. meeting) said, at section 5.1:
"Contractor has established rates for the City which are comparable to and do not exceed the best rates offered to other governmental entities in and around Los Angeles County for the same services."
Will that contract clause - if it makes it into the final contract - overrule the $2500 bid? There are cities enjoying lower rates even though they have fewer cameras than does Montebello, including nearby Covina with seven cameras at $2200. Or, if we look further away, there is Del Mar with two cameras at $1578 and Elk Grove which has contracted to pay RedFlex $1500 per camera once its five cameras reach ten years in service - see that city's price table, above. If we look at cities having more cameras than Montebello, there is Garden Grove at $2200 and Ventura at $2190. (FAQ # 17 has more info about the rent other cities pay.)
If Montebello sticks with the $2500 price they will pay an extra $672,000 (compared to a $1500 rent), and to cover that extra rent the City will need to issue an extra 8097 tickets. (In the first ten months of 2017 the City's fine revenue averaged $83 for each red light camera ticket it issued.)
The draft contract included, at section 9.22, a Termination for Convenience clause allowing the City to end the contract on short notice, without penalty. If that clause makes it into the final contract, it will give the City some leverage to negotiate a better price.
Our Letter to the City
Montebello Docs Set # 5
The City's monthly ticket revenue from the court is available in the Revenue Spreadsheet on the LA County Docs page.
Montebello Docs Set # 6
Montebello Docs Set # 7
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