RED LIGHT CAMERAS
you haven't already done so, please read the
Covina section on the Camera Towns page
It may be possible to completely ignore a Covina camera 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 Documents page. If you don't want to
ignore your Covina ticket - or cannot - be sure to
2. If your "ticket" does not have the Superior Court's name and address on it, it is a fake ticket (also called a Snitch Ticket) mailed out by the CPD in an attempt to bluff you into identifying the driver.
For more details about Snitch Tickets, see the Snitch Ticket section at the top of the Your Ticket page.
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
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 also was a vote to put Measure M, 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 may be up for re-election in 2022.
Docs Set # 1
Events (in red type),
Citations Issued 
New 8-12-09, updated 2-16-20
This table made by highwayrobbery.net, using official reports provided by the City under the California Public Records Act.
Official reports, 2007 - 2010, received Jan. 11, 2011
Also see the 2007 - 2009 official reports at the link in Docs Set # 3, below.
Official reports received Jan. 24, 2011
Official reports received Feb. 1, 2013
Official reports received May 23, 2013
Official reports received July 10, 2013
Official reports received Mar. 14, 2014
Official reports received May 20, 2014
Official reports received Mar. 3, 2015
Official reports received July 21, 2015
Official reports received Jan. 19, 2016
Official reports received July 27, 2016
Official reports received Dec. 1, 2016
Official reports received Mar. 16, 2017
Official reports received Sept. 12, 2017
Official reports received Oct. 17, 2017
Official reports received Aug. 29, 2018
Official reports received Mar. 4, 2019
Official reports received Nov. 21, 2019
Official reports received Feb. 13, 2020
[ ] indicates a footnote.
 These totals were provided by the City.
 These annual totals, or annual projections, are by highwayrobbery.net.
 Un-used columns are to allow for later expansion of City's system.
 Except where noted otherwise, the figures given in the table are for the single calendar month indicated. 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 ATS calls Total Events, 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 obtained and posted. The figures in black type are what ATS calls Citations Issued.
 Lane-by-lane data for this month is available in the official reports received 1-11-11 (linked above), which also is the source for the totals given for this month.
 The totals given for this month are from the official reports linked in Docs Set # 3, below.
 The collection rates are from the police department's "Viability Study" linked in Docs Set # 3, below. Page 7 of the Viability Study explains the method by which the collection rates were calculated.
 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.
 Monthly, annual and overall totals are from official reports received 1-24-11.
 Lane-by-lane data for this month is available in the official reports received 5-23-13 (linked above).
 Lane-by-lane data for this month is available in the official reports received 7-10-13 (linked above).
 Lane-by-lane data for this month is available in the official reports received 3-14-14 (linked above).
 Lane-by-lane data for this month is available in the official reports received 7-27-16 (linked above).
 Lane-by-lane data for this month is available in the official reports received 12-1-16 (linked above).
 Lane-by-lane data for this month is available in the official reports received 3-16-17 (linked above).
 Lane-by lane data for this month is available in the official reports received 10-17-17 (linked above).
 From the annual reports required, beginning with 2013, by CVC 21455.5(i). They become available by the Fall of the following year. The figures for 2019 are from the Location Direction Summary Report received 2-14-20 (linked above). Also see Set # 2, below.
 For more info about monthly revenue, see Set # 6, below.
 Lane-by lane data for this month is available in the official reports received 8-29-18 (linked above).
 Lane-by lane data for this month is available in the official reports received 3-4-19 (linked above).
 Lane-by lane data for this month is available in the official reports received 11-21-19 (linked above).
 Lane-by lane data for this month is available in the official reports received 2-13-20 (linked above).
 The 2019 citywide Total Events figure is by highwayrobbery.net. The 2019 citywide Notices Printed figure, and the 2019 lane-by-lane totals, were provided by the City.
Covina Docs Set # 2
In the seven years 2013 - 2019 annual
ticketing was very steady while the number of
violations recorded (red figures in table above) more
than doubled. Is the City safer?
report showed that in 2018, 80% of the City's
tickets were for turns, mostly right turns. In
2016 the figure was 73%.
Covina Docs Set # 3
Possibly No Longer Cost Neutral
On Aug. 10, 2009 the City sent me a 54 page pdf document.
Pages 2 - 19 of the pdf are the original 2006
contract, which at Section 4(f) says:
Remaining year terms: After the first year of the contract, Customer shall not be required to pay ATS more than Customer (or ATS on Customer's behalf) has collected in fines through the use of the Axsis System cumulatively throughout the term of the contract.
Page 1 of the pdf is a 9-15-08 memo to the CPD, in which ATS specifies a lowered "Monthly Unit Price" of $2200 per camera, and concludes:
The terms will remain in effect through December 31, 2008 at which time the City and ATS will review this agreement and jointly review the individual site performance and determine the monthly unit price. In the event that ATS chooses to decommission four or more units, the previous monthly fee shall be reinstated.
Pages 44 - 54 of the
pdf are a June 2009 "Viability Study" which
says, at page 6:
arrangement was re-negotiated this fiscal year
to a flat monthly fee…”
Section 1.2.1 of Exhibit A (page 9 of the contract) specifies an "optional one-time warning period."
Option C of Schedule 1 (page 13 of the contract) sets an extra fee for citing out-of-state motorists.
Pages 20 - 43 of the pdf are the documents used to
create the table, above.
In the Viability Study:
Page 1 mentions the 30-day warning period.
Page 2 mentions that fatalities rose 28.6%.
Page 6 mentions an "operating profit" and the new "flat" fee.
Page 7 assumes a $50 per hour employee cost for police
Page 7 also explains the method by which the collection
rates were calculated.
Page 9 mentions that ATS is capable of issuing
automated tickets to overweight trucks, but does not
indicate if the City is using this service.
2014: Another Two Years
On April 1, 2014 the city council was to vote on a
staff recommendation to extend the program to 2016.
In Jan. 2016 the
City provided a copy of a May 2015 report ATS wrote about the program.
For the council meeting of Mar. 1, 2016 staff
submitted a staff
report, SaferStreetsLA submitted a study,
highwayrobbery.net submitted an email,
and the council voted 4 - 1 (Marquez nay) to do a new
extending the program for another year.
On May 16, 2017 the City Council voted 4 - 1
(Marquez nay) to accept a staff
recommendation to extend the contract for
another five years.
After April 17, 2019 the City can cancel the
contract, but must give 90 days notice.
Covina Docs Set # 5
Covina Docs Set # 6
Do the Cameras Make a Profit? Probably Not
In 2018 the City received $335,000 of fine money from the Court (the City's monthly revenue from the court is noted in the rightmost column in the big table above and in the Revenue Spreadsheet on the LA County Docs page) and paid camera rent of $194,220 to ATS/Verra, leaving $140,780 to pay for the CPD staff who run the program and appear in court. That's $27 per ticket.
For comparison, for many years the Bay Area City of Millbrae, which does not have its own police department, paid $18,550 per month to the City of San Mateo for the SMPD to process and represent in court the (approx.) 1472 tickets Millbrae’s cameras generated each month. That equaled $12.60 per ticket, quite a bargain when compared to the County of Sacramento, which pays the CHP $40,000 per month to process the (approx.) 1211 tickets the joint City/County cameras generate each month. That equals $33.03 per ticket going to the CHP, plus in 2019 the Sacramento sheriff disclosed that its internal personnel and equipment costs are $81,000 per month ($66.89 per ticket), not including the payment to the CHP, or camera rent. (That disclosure was in a report the sheriff submitted to the Board of Supervisors on August 6.) Combining the payment to the CHP and the sheriff’s internal costs, Sacramento's cost to process each ticket is $99.92. Plus the rent paid to the camera vendor.
Covina's cost to process each ticket (and appear in court) most likely lies somewhere between Millbrae's $12.60 and Sacramento's $99.92.