The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-09-14 Handouts @ Mtg. oo*sts tut;a woad 1uatuARd itdiauuni;tj Ja`tau utpaadS 0001 $ aa3 icaeagq ML's L9'9l $ tan o,J 00'SL$ 00'00 l $ a�ia�uaanS a1L 00'SL$ &aupins 3 /EIS Lut'a1oad dVD spidt;ll uooj awls aL{J of JuaWA »d auid Jav L huipaadS J »P!1 u!paadS 007Z$ 00'0 Al!D „ cinJgrJ MT'"] 3 S 0071$ ac�.IL'q�.lil 0 MS weaoad 4a)p!1 ledmunw awls luawAed auH laPP!1 Supped laPP!12ui )Iaed 00'06$ it /clip o"sc$ aga�gaan 00 $ a��ls aa� Xaragt-I Ann IL p s 00'0$ uaeaoad la)lpil ledmun W 43 awlS Ol luaua/ted aui j 11 ieaS Ilea leas Net Revenue Based on Various Models $80,000.00 $71,000.00 $70,000.00 -- — — Assumptions Number of Citations 500 Avg. Fine per Ticket $135 $60,000.00 Program Expense $21,500 $50,000.00 $46,000.00 $40,000.00 $33,500.00 $30,000.00 $20,000.00 $16,666.67 $10,000.00 $8,500.00 $0.00 Proposed Model "High Revenue" Model Conservative Model Coon Rapids "CAP" Fines Paid To State *Based on an average fee/fine of $135.00 Net Revenue Based on Various Models $160,000.00 $151,000.00 $140,000.00 Assumptions Number of Citations 1000 Avg. Fine per Ticket $135 $120,000.00 Program Expense $34,000 $101,000.00 $100,000.00 — -- - $80,000.00 $76,000.00 $60,000.00 $40,000.00 $33,333.33 $26,000.00 $20,000.00 • $0.00 Proposed Model "High Revenue" Model Conservative Model Coon Rapids "CAP" Fines Paid To State *Based on an average fee/fine of$135.00 Traffic Report January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010 Agency Total Agency Total Offense Description 2009 2010 Offense Description 2009 2010 9000 "TRAFFIC - ALL OTHER 6 11 9108 PARKING - NO PARKING (ANYTIME 0 0 9001 413 389 9109 AlliNajkARKING ZONE (PO; 3 2 9004 UNREASONABLE ACCELEF 1 3 9112 PARKING - TRAFFIC HAZARD 16 9 9005 ACCIDENT - MV HIT & RUN 2 3 9114 PARKING - IMPROPER 0 1 9006 INAI IENCIVE DRIVING 15 21 9115 PARKING - W/O PERM 0 0 9007 RECKLESS DRIVING 3 4 _ 9116 PARKING - RESIDENTIAL AREA RE 1 0 9008 CARELESS DRIVING 14 25 9130 PARKING - SNOW EMERGENCY VI( 11 9 9009 FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE 1 3 A 9131 PARKING - SNOW BIRD TOW 8 9 9020 STOP/YIELD VIOLATIONS - 1 I 9140 PARKING - WARNING 174 77 9021 STOP SIGN;_ 89 67 . 11 9200 NON - MOVING - ALL OTHER 0 1 9022 STOP LIGHT 18 30 MI 1 0 9023 FAILURE TO YIELD 8 5 11 9220 DL VIOLATION 2 0 90 STOP ARM VIOLATION 0 0 M DAR/DAC/DAS j11111111Ir 120 189 9026 - PEDES1 0 0 :® 9222 NO VALID DL 21 29 9027 FAILURE TO YIELD - EMER. I 3 ER NO DL IN POSIIII 17 19 9030 PASSING VIOLATIONallIMMIIIIIIMP 9224 V IOLATIONS OF RESTRICTIONS 3 4 9031 IMPROPER LANE CHANGE / 21 26 I25 VIOLATION OF ENDORSEMENT 0 17 9032 PASSING ON SHOULDER/DI 1 5 9226 FAILURE TO CHANGE ADDRESS 9 11 9033 WRONG WAY ON A ONE W. 4 7 9227 EJC""" �'�` 5 4 9034 BARRICADE VIOLATION 0 29 9778 ALTERED DL 0 1 9035 OFF ROAD MV 0 0 9230 MOTORCYCLE REQUIREMENTS 2 3 9036 ATV/DIRTBIKE VIOLATION 0 0 ill 9231 PERMIT VIOLATIONS 5 2 9037 SNOWMOBILE VIOLATION 2 0 9240 INSURANCE VIOLATION 0 1 9038 MOTORCYCLE VIOLATION 2 1 TP. 9241 NO PROOF OF INSURANCE 165 188 9040 TURNING VIOLATIONS 1 9 9242 NO INSURANCE 48 99 9042 IMPROPER U -TURN 0 2 9243 INSURANCE VERIFICATION I 0 9061 VISION OBSCURED 5 6 9260 REGISTRATION - ALL OTHER 4 8 9062 WEARING HEADPHONES 1 1 9261 USE OF UNREGISTERED VEHICLE I 2 9063 SEAT BELT VIOLATION 361 536 416 SAL FAILURE TO TRANSFER TITLE 2 1 9064 CHILD RESTRAINT VIOLAT 2 10 9263 FRAUDULENT USE OF TABS /PLATE I 1 9070 EQUIPMENT VIOLATION 43 62 9264 EXPIRED VEHICLE REGISTRATION 72 63 9071 ILLEGAL EQUIPMENT 27 24 9265 DISPLAY SUSPENDED /REVOKED P 4 4 9072 LEAKING LOAD 0 1 9268 IMPROPER SNOWMOBILE REGISTF 0 2 9074 OVERWEIGHT 0 0 9280 LITTERING 17 14 9075 NO FRONT /REAR PLATE 7 5_;, 9281 PEDESTRIAN VIOLATION 0 0 9076 PLATE NOT LIGHTED 11 13 9282 BIKE VIOLATION 21 23 9077 -- Oi fUCTEb E --- 3 9081 FAILURE TO DIM LIGIITS 2 3 I Total Citations 1890 2468 9082 FAILURE TO USE LIGHTS 5 7 ill 9083 SIGNALING VIOLATION 16 38 Police Interactions Resulting in NO Citation 9100 PARKING - ALL OTHER 26 15 9098 FIX ET 1004 979 9101 PARKING - DESIGNATED H1 19 158 9099 TRAFFIC WARNING 2037 1948 9102 :. PYja§ap HOC 4 58 9141 PARKING - NO TAG/NO TOW 52 60 9104 PARKING - HANDICAP 1 12 9105 PARKING - FIRE LANE 16 41 I Total Un -cited Interactions 3093 2987 9106 PARKING - FIRE HYDRANT 3 7 9107 PARKING - ON WRONG SIDI 0 1 I Grand Total* 4983 5455 *This does not included alcohol related violations Timeline of Events A. Test Phase 1. approximately 30 days 2. limited to 100 tickets 3. limited to petty misdemeanor Chapter 169 offenses a) i.e. seatbelts, speeding, stop signs 4. each ticket will be manually reviewed during processing 5. objective: a) test software for errors b) test basic procedures c) implement necessary changes d) create financial reporting & monetary transfers per City / Ops Committee requirements B. During Test Phase 1. Seek approval from JLEC RMS Committee for conversion to new data sets supplied by JLEC a) Approval will be sought at JLEC RMS Committee meeting on 9/15 C. Post Test Phase 1. review financial implications of system changes 2. seek final approval from CLPD / Ops Committee for operation of program a) ratify formal policy and procedures, and operation agreement b) seek City Council adoption of fee schedules D. Implementation Phase 1 1. implement immediately after test phase revisions & after receipt of final data set forms from JLEC 2. expand scope to all moving violations from Court's payables list 3. objective: a) convert to new data set (if approved by JLEC) b) test process for tickets to flow through system without manual intervention c) final software revisions to create "permanent" software operating system, and make final changes to `look and feel' of user interface E. Implementation Phase 2 1. approximately 15 days 2. add parking offenses 3. objective: a) add additional coding to the software for parking offense (in time for `snowbird' & plowing tickets) 1 F. Implementation Phase 3 1. approximately 30 days 2. add all remaining payable offenses 3. objective: a) create prosecutor policies regarding misdemeanor offenses b) test process for tickets flowing through the system which will require manual or prosecutor intervention (1) i.e. Tickets for no insurance, driving without a valid license, `fix -it' tickets. c) review financial implications of manual intervention G. Optional Implementation Phase 4 1. approximately 30 -60 days 2. add ordinance violations a) objective(s): (1) work with City staff to create workflows (2) add additional coding to the software for ordinance violations (3) additional processes for building code / nuisance enforcement b) review financial implications of manual intervention H. Closing Phase 1. after implementation of Phase 4 2. review software operations, manual procedures, and financial procedures to finalize scope system I. Optional Add -on Components 1. Create statistical analysis of system data 2. Create crime maps (Google Earth) by geo- location of crime event or offender's address 3. Create email campaign(s) to offenders. For example send public service emails, notification of Night to Unite, City events, etc. Project Goals Ticket Program • Increase net revenue to Cities • Lower cost through automated web applications versus manual processes • Lower cost through centralized processing of administrative matters • Provide relevant public safety objectives or educational content for defendants • Public interface "Branded" for each City & City Attorney • Usable on mobile phones • Usable by those who do not own 'cutting -edge' computers • Usable by those who have slow interne connections • Functionality does not discriminate against those of low income / means • Scalable to encompass wider uses by Cities / Police • Scalable to include City 'livability offenses' & civil enforcement • Scalable to include Administrative Traffic Tickets • Scalable to include DVS License Diversion Program 2 System Process and Data Security Data used in the Ticket Payment Program can travel through several servers. This is common for web ecommerce. At its beginning, data is taken from the Anoka County JLEC RMS system. The data is filtered to remove material which is protected by the Minnesota Data Practices Act. The remaining data is uploaded to a "cloud" server where pieces of data may pass to several venders who use it to process functions of the Ticket Payment Program. Initially, the data is uploaded to a server managed by SurveyGizmo. They provide cloud -based storage of the data and hold the educational components of the process. Once a defendant begins using the program some of their data initially appears through SurveyGizmo site and is passed to the UltraCart company server. Only basic information such as name, address, email, citation number, and offense codes are passed into a `shopping cart' of offenses. The cart calculates the total each user is asked to pay. The cart then passes data to merchant processor which takes credit card or check data. During the testing phase of the Program payments will be processed by the Intuit company (payments will be processed by Wells Fargo after the system is finalized). Payment data is downloaded back to an in -house server at MLS. Money is deposited to Wells Fargo. Credit card data is not transmitted to MLS, and is only used by the merchant processor. Below are descriptions from the vendors regarding their data security. Statement from SurveyGizmo website regarding Data Security How Secure is SurveyGizmo? All of the surveys and data collected reside on our servers. We use what is called Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) 256 bit encryption on secure survey links to transmit data back to our servers. The Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) is the encryption method used by the US government, including the US National Security Agency for classified top secret information. In regards to the servers themselves, our database, a MySQL database cluster, is a firewalled private network with tight system, database, application level security. We went through a 3 month long security review with a third party vendor called Applied Trust. We are already PCI compliant, and Applied Trust is working on recommendations for additional certifications. SurveyGizmo is scanned daily by HackerSafe to help protect data. It is monitored 24 -7 with a state of the art service and hardware based intrusion detection system Physical access is restricted, requires card access and is monitored 24 -7. Our data servers are managed by Viawest in their Denver facility. They are in high security data centers, monitored via closed circuit television and 24x7 onsite security personnel guard the facility while military-grade pass card access and biometric handscan units provide further layers of security. The facilities are equipped with an FM200 gas - based, hardware- friendly fire suppression system and diesel backup power generators. 3 We use firewall software and perform daily scans for viruses and rootkits. Data sent between the survey production machines is sent over an AES -256 (256 bit) encrypted connection. Our database is behind a firewall and configured to only accept connections from a single machine in our local network. User passwords are encrypted/hashed and salted via MD5. Plus some other security measures that are not discussed publically! If you have any other questions about the security of SurveyGizmo, please give us a call at 800.609.6480 ext 1. UltraCart regarding Data Security The UltraCart web functions process transactions securely using 128 -bit SSL2 encryption. The company is PCI Compliant for Visa & Master Card. Each user or relying party is warrantied to $10,000.00. Statement Intuit Merchant Services Processing website Regarding Data Security Intuit internet functions process transactions securely using 128 -bit SSL encryption. The following is a statement from the Intuit website. Protecting your information • We have workers whose sole purpose is to run a safeguarding program, monitoring and adjusting the program as circumstances change. • We continually perform internal risk assessments to determine and address potential risks. • We perform external security audits for critical financial applications. • We secure our facilities, our network, and our servers. • If we transmit financial information, we encrypt it and transmit it securely. • We prepare for disasters to enable timely and secure recovery. • We install virus protection on all relevant servers. • We continually scan our network for vulnerabilities and remediate against any we might find. • We run back -ups to a secure off -site location. • We have an incident response plan in place should it be needed and test it on regular basis to ensure we are ready to act. Ensuring our workers handle your data securely • We perform background checks on workers at hiring. • We remove individuals' access credentials to systems and facilities when workers leave. • We only allow authorized individuals access to information when it is critical to complete tasks for you. • We provide training on security and privacy to all workers at hire. Workers take the security training annually and the privacy training bi- annually thereafter. 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Centennial Lakes Police Department, Operating Committee FROM: Kurt B Glaser, City Attorney DATE: August 30, 2011 RE: Municipal Ticket Payment Program — Examination of whether the Program can avoid payment of State Surcharges for traffic violations Question Presented for City authorization: The question presented in this memorandum is whether or not the Municipal Ticket Payment Program can avoid payment of the State Surcharges for each ticket. Generally speaking, state law requires payment of a surcharge to the state for each ticket issued. There are two surcharges rates: $12 for parking and $75 for everything else. There are two Cities in Anoka County which offer ticket payment programs. One program collects the surcharge and pays it to the State, the other program does not. This has a revenue implication to the proposed Municipal Ticket Payment Program for Centennial Lakes Police Department. The purpose of this memorandum is to request authorization from each City as to the question of whether or not the Municipal Ticket Payment Program should, or should not pay the Surcharge to the State. Discussion Until recently, state law regarding the imposition of this Surcharge appeared to apply its requirements to City -based ticket payment programs. Coon Rapids paid this Surcharge to the state. Lino Lakes collects the amount of the Surcharge but has not paid that revenue to the State. Various Cities through the State have mix of different practices regarding their ticket payment programs. The State Auditor issued an opinion in which she warned Cities that non - payment of the Surcharge could result in action by the State to collect those amounts from Cities. This position may be politically implausible but it remains untested. Then, the Surcharge law was revised during the 2011 Special Session. The Legislature revised the Surcharge law during the 2011 Special Session intending apply the Surcharge whenever possible. This revision redefined and expanded the scope for applying the surcharge. However, this revision appears to have defined a means under which a prosecutor may conduct a ticket payment program which avoids payment of the surcharge. Since this theory is untested, and the intention of the legislature is to apply this Surcharge whenever possible, it is recommended that the City Councils make a decision about how they wish to proceed. Legal Analysis The old law, M.S. 357.021 (2009), subd. 6, formerly read that the surcharge shall be applied to "A person who successfully completes a diversion or similar program" for violation of chapter 169. A municipal ticket payment program likely fell within the term of "or similar program." The 2011 amendment reads that the surcharge shall be applied to: "A person who enters a diversion program, continuance without prosecution, continuance for dismissal, or stay of adjudication" for violation of chapter 169 (traffic offenses). Removing the term "or similar program" appears to have big consequences for Cities. The follow paragraph parses the new definition by process of elimination. The following phrases within quotations marks require payment of the Surcharge. 1) "Continuance for dismissal" and "stay of adjudication" are procedures which must be approved by a judge. This revision may ruin prosecutor's plea bargaining efforts in court but has no effect on a municipal ticket payment program which occurs before court proceedings begin. 2) A "diversion program" is defined by statute. There are only two such programs for criminal or traffic offenses (with the exception of juvenile offenses). The first such program is "pretrial diversion" defined under M.S. 401.065. This statute authorizes only County Attorneys to conduct this form of pretrial diversion. The second such program is "pretrial diversion" defined under M.S. 628.69. This statue does authorize City Attorneys to conduct this form of pretrial diversion; however, it is strictly limited to `worthless check' charges. Accordingly, as long as the municipal ticket payment program does not include worthless check charges then this revision does not appear to have an impact on a municipal ticket payment program. (Hence, the reason to stop calling municipal ticket payment programs, `diversion programs.') 3) "Continuance without prosecution" is a generic term which is not defined by statute. Two aspects of this phrase appear to allow a prosecutor to have a ticket payment program. a. First, if a municipal program is not based on a continuance of the case over a period of time but instead is based on the achievement of an objective then such a program does not appear to be subject to the Surcharge. Payment of a fee to the City plus completion of an objective appears to fit within this parameter. The objective could be an education component, "fix -it" ticket, reinstatement of license, etc. b. Second, if a ticket is issued by the police or by a complaint charge by the prosecutor then a "prosecution" has begun. That part of the phrase appears to bar programs whereby the City issues no citation or complaint but instead issues an administrative ticket. This phrase seems necessary to bar traditional municipal administrative ticketing (aka "city tickets ") for traffic offenses. (Please note that "livability" / nuisance crimes or municipal civil regulation is not addressed as part of this discussion.) Using`objective' based criteria is consistent with the previous opinions of the State Auditor. Where State traffic or criminal law preempts municipal regulation a City may not simply collect fine revenue which would otherwise go to the State. However, a City may impose a fee for a service in conjunction with the Constitutional authority conferred on a prosecutor to exercise discretion to dismiss a case. An `objective' based municipal ticket program is consistent with other statutory based administrative models allowing for the dismissal of a charge or citation. For example, a defendant cannot be convicted of a charge for failure to produce proof of insurance if proof of insurance is tendered to the court administrator before the offender's arraignment. (See, M.S. 169.791, or 169. 797.) If that offense was the only violation charged on the defendant's ticket, the ticket is dismissed and the surcharge is not imposed. In contrast to the term "diversion program" found in M.S. 357.021, Minn.R.Crim.Pro 27.05 — Pretrial Diversion, clearly sets out a procedure for court approved pretrial diversion. Here too, this Rule is based on the concept that a case subject to pretrial diversion would be continued for a period of time. (Rule 27.05, subd. 1(1) states, "suspended for a specified time and then dismissed. ") The only limitation here is that in this form of diversion the agreement with the prosecutor cannot include a condition which cannot be imposed as a condition of probation. An `objective' based ticket program should follow the requirements of this Rule. Given that requirement, implementing a municipal ticket payment program prior to the defendant's arraignment in court gives the prosecutor even more latitude to conduct a program for ticket payments. The notes to the Rule state, "Rule 27.05 (Pretrial Diversion) does not preclude the prosecutor and defendant from agreeing to diversion of a case without court approval if charges are not pending before the court." The existing standing agreement with the Anoka County Bench allows municipalities to continue arraignments for the purpose of allowing defendants to complete a municipal ticket payment program. Given the statutory prohibition against `continuances' it would be wise for the prosecutor not to continue cases for this purpose. This would not bar a defendant from continuing an arraignment if they felt it was appropriate. Finally, Rule 27.05 & M.S. 611A.031), require a prosecuting attorney to "make every reasonable effort to notify and seek input from the victim" before employing pretrial diversion for certain offenses. This requirement applies to a municipal ticket payment program. Conclusion If the City Councils were to adopt a policy that the State Surcharge does not apply to the proposed municipal ticket payment program, the program should only be conducted in a manner consistent with the following conditions. These conditions should be set forth in a written policy or procedure statement. 1) The program may not impose a fee which exceeds the maximum statutory fine. 2) The program may not impose any condition which could not otherwise be imposed as a condition of court- ordered probation. 3) Completion of the program should be based on the achievement of an objective (i.e. education or other goal). 4) The program must conclude prior to the defendant's arraignment. 5) The prosecutor may not request the court to continue a defendant's arraignment for the purpose of allowing them to complete the requirements of a ticket payment program. However, a defendant may request continuation of their arraignment pursuant to District Court policy. 6) The prosecutor may not `continue' a charge as a condition of the program. 7) Where appropriate, the prosecutor should make every reasonable effort to notify and seek input from a victim before employing the ticket payment program for certain offenses. 8) To avoid payment of the Surcharge, the program cannot include charges for worthless checks, or alternatively, if such charges are part of the program the Surcharge should be paid to the State for each of those cases. Municipal `livability crimes' (i.e. nuisance properties) or municipal civil regulation (i.e. license regulation) may be included in the proposed municipal ticket payment program. In order to be consistent and avoid confusion, I recommend that if these violations are included in the Program that they are subject to the same guidelines as criminal or traffic offenses. PILOT PROGRAM Municipal Violations Bureau Serving Cities in Anoka County Pay Your Ticket Here • • ■ • • ; :: v, • • www.payvourticket.org Online or on your mobile phone "Attend a class, get a pass." If you: ✓ Qualify ✓ Pay a fee ✓ Watch a short educational video ✓ Complete the questionnaire No violation goes on your record! Go to www.PayYourTicket.org for more information and to apply today! * *This is a web -based program. If you do not have internet at home, it can be accessed at any of the Anoka County Library Location. Centennial Branch, Circle Pines 100 Civic Heights Circle :JI Please note: you must wait at least 5 business days after receiving a citation to apply