3 ms·
I assumed that the cost to the city was mostly of the startup variety, namely installation and associated tasks. This would mean that in the future, it could be
by mrbird 16y ago
I assumed that the cost to the city was mostly of the startup variety, namely installation and associated tasks. This would mean that in the future, it could be a revenue generator. But it turns out that it's running at a loss, annually. From the report itself:
2008: 2.3M revenue, 3.8M costs (1.5M loss)
2009: 3.0M revenue, 4M costs (1M loss)
The bulk of the cost is "vendor contract cost" which I believe means ongoing support, and appears to be on top of the initial investment.
It appears adding more cameras would only compound the losses.
(disclaimer: I do not read reports like this for a living; interpret my analysis at your own risk)
- greyboy 16y agoI believe another 'cost' is that the vendor gets a cut of payment (a certain percentage). Warning: that's what I've read in the past.
- Cushman 16y agoWhich sounds pretty damn shifty, but if I were selling a traffic monitoring system I'd probably try to get some profit sharing in the contract.
- njharman 16y ago> more cameras would only compound the losses There's volume efficiencies to consider. Typically the vendor processes the images, mails citations, maintains equipment, provides court testimoney does everything except sign citations (which in most jurisdictions must be done by a sworn peace officer).