Severance council opens discussion on speed cameras, staff to study mobile options

Severance council members spent more than an hour Aug. 12 discussing automated speed-enforcement options including permanent camera systems, mobile vans and officer-operated handheld devices. The discussion was prompted by resident concerns about speeding near schools and other high-traffic corridors.

Mayor Friess said the town’s recent staffing gains for the police department reduced some earlier concern about enforcement capacity but that alternatives should still be considered. “This is not designed to collect tickets,” the mayor said when describing the camera technology; the mayor told council that camera-cited violations — if under the threshold for DMV reporting — do not create driver-record points and therefore may change behavior without long-term insurance impacts.

Town Manager Nick Wharton said the police sergeant’s packet analysis reviewed six locations where analytics show recurring speeding, including areas around the elementary, middle and high schools and intersections on Weld County Road 23 and Highway 14 (Mulberry). Sergeant Tucker’s report — included in staff materials — examined options and returned year‑one implementation cost ranges for a vendor-partnered permanently mounted system between about $180,000 and $330,000 depending on the number of locations and equipment purchased; annual operating costs would decline over time as equipment ownership changed and subscription fees reduced.

Wharton and staff discussed alternatives: vendor-operated permanent cameras that process citations, mobile vans that can be relocated to hot spots, and handheld or officer-operated radar “guns” whose images are processed by a third‑party vendor. Wharton said a vendor partnership model shifts administrative processing and collections away from the town and reduces officer time devoted to citation paperwork. He also said that state law requires advance warning signage for some mobile enforcement configurations and that the town attorney would review regulatory details.

Councilmembers discussed enforcement trade-offs — safety benefits vs. the appearance of revenue-driven policing — and operational implications. Several council members favored a phased approach: test mobile or handheld units before committing to a large permanent installation. Council directed staff to continue evaluating vendor options and to return with additional cost estimates and implementation scenarios; no ordinance or contract was voted on during the meeting.

Public commenters urged caution about impacts on local drivers, and staff acknowledged a need to better model traffic patterns as the school year starts. Wharton noted the town’s July workload for public safety (roughly 658 calls for service in the month) as part of the rationale for exploring technology that frees patrol time for higher‑priority calls.

Staff will return to council with refined cost estimates, mobile-unit pricing, and a recommended implementation path for further council consideration.