(See pdf below)

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:

Last week I finally received a copy of your new contract with Redflex. It was signed on Aug. 29, more than three months after the May 12 City Council meeting where you approved the continuation of the program.

The signed contract shows that you didn't get the price down, even though the long delay suggests that there might have been some kind of a negotiation going on.

I am writing today to point out that it's not too late to get a better price and save nearly a million dollars. Section 6.2 of the contract allows the city to cancel on 30 days’ notice.

May I suggest that you cancel, and see if Redflex offers you a lower rent — as has happened in other cities?

As I pointed out in my Sept. 7 letter (copy below), getting a better price means you could save having to issue 9,288 extra tickets to cover the extra rent.

After I sent you the Sept. 7 letter, a Councilmember replied, “I love our red light camera program.” I replied to him, “I'm sure you love your car, too, but didn't pay nearly twice the normal price for it.”

Some people fall in love with a car they see in a showroom, and blindly end up paying way more than other buyers do. But the Council is directing a municipal corporation, and red light cameras need to be treated like a business deal, nothing more.

Mr. Lissner may be contacted at jim@vivahermosa.com

My Sept. 7 letter:

Re: The Culver City Red Light Camera Contract — Has It Been Signed Yet? Save $$$

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:

I wrote you a letter a few days before the May 12 meeting during which you voted to continue the city's red light camera program and re-elect Redflex as the vendor. Then after the meeting I sent City Manager John Nachbar a letter.

Early last month I used the Public Records Act to obtain some city documents, and those showed that as of mid-August, the new contract still had not yet been signed. Just in case the contract remains unsigned as of today, I am taking this opportunity to update some of the information I provided in my May 9 letter.

Updating paragraph 1 of my May 9 letter: The first thing I discussed in that letter was the amount of the rent. At the time I wrote the May letters I didn't have a copy of it, but here is the rent schedule which Redflex and the City of Elk Grove agreed to in the contract they signed on April 14. (This table is found in Exh. D of their contract.)

[img]2831|exact|||no_popup[/img]

If this Elk Grove schedule was applied to the Culver City system, the city would pay $1,500 per month for eight of its cameras and $2,000 per month for the remaining 10, versus the $3,211 (for each of the 18 cameras) proposed in May. Culver City's rent — using the Elk Grove schedule — would be 45 percent less than was proposed in May, saving the city $928,800 of rent over the three years. If it does not get the lower rent, Culver City will need to issue an extra 9,288 tickets to cover the extra rent (based upon the city getting about $100 of revenue from each ticket issued).

Updating paragraph 4 of my May 9 letter: On July 8 the Riverside city council voted to close their 17 cameras.

Regards,

Jim Lissner

[img]2832|exact|Jim Lissner Letter PDF||no_popup[/img]