Council votes to remove $300K for speed cameras amid staffing concerns

As the sun dipped below the horizon, casting a warm glow over Los Alamos County, council members gathered for a special meeting focused on the pressing issue of public safety and budget allocations. The atmosphere was charged with anticipation as discussions unfolded around the proposed implementation of speed cameras, a topic that has sparked both support and skepticism among councilors.

At the heart of the debate was a proposed budget allocation of $300,000 for speed cameras aimed at addressing the growing concerns over traffic safety in the community. Councilor Neil Clinton expressed his reservations, advocating for the removal of the funding for the cameras, citing the need to prioritize staffing within the police department, which currently faces significant vacancies. “We have quite a bit of catch up to do,” he remarked, emphasizing the importance of fully staffing the department before investing in new technology.

Councilor Rieger echoed Clinton's sentiments, suggesting that the council was getting ahead of itself with the camera proposal while the department struggled with staffing challenges. He argued that the focus should be on filling vacancies and ensuring adequate police presence on the streets, which he believes is crucial for effective behavior modification among drivers.

However, other council members, including Councilor Hermann, defended the speed camera initiative, highlighting the alarming statistics of speeding incidents in the area. “We’ve got to do something to change it,” she stated, advocating for the cameras as a necessary step toward enhancing safety. Hermann pointed out that similar programs have been successfully implemented in numerous jurisdictions across the country, suggesting that Los Alamos could benefit from adopting a proven strategy.

The discussion also touched on the broader implications of traffic safety in relation to the local workforce, particularly the influx of employees from the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). Councilor Reger raised concerns about the lab's responsibility in managing the increased traffic and housing demands that have arisen from its expansion. He expressed frustration that the burden of addressing these issues seemed to fall on the community rather than the institution that contributed to the congestion.

As the meeting progressed, the councilors deliberated on the potential effectiveness of the speed cameras. Chief of Police assured the council that if the program did not yield the desired results, there would be opportunities to reassess and adjust the approach. “We want to use a multi-pronged approach to this issue,” he stated, emphasizing the importance of ongoing evaluation and community feedback.

In a final push for the cameras, Councilor Reedy highlighted the necessity of having additional tools to enforce traffic laws, acknowledging that while more officers would be ideal, the cameras could serve as a practical solution in the interim. “We can’t have police everywhere all the time,” he noted, reinforcing the idea that the cameras could help alleviate some of the pressure on law enforcement.

As the meeting drew to a close, the council faced a pivotal decision that would shape the future of traffic safety in Los Alamos County. With a mix of apprehension and hope, council members prepared to vote on the budget proposal, aware that their choice would resonate throughout the community, impacting not only traffic patterns but also the overall sense of safety for residents and visitors alike.