Farmington council directs staff to design pilot automated speed‑enforcement program

Farmington City Councilors on Monday asked staff to draft a pilot automated speed‑enforcement program after hearing a detailed presentation from a vendor and extensive discussion about safety, technology and community impact.

Councilors voted by consensus to direct staff to return with a proposed pilot plan, including procurement options, site selection, enforcement and adjudication procedures and budget implications. No formal ordinance or contract was approved at the meeting.

The presentation was delivered by Heidi Troso of Novoa Global, a vendor that operates camera‑based speed enforcement systems. Troso said the devices record two photographs and a short video for each alleged violation and that New Mexico state law treats automated speed citations as civil fines, with a maximum fine amount of $100 and a three‑year data retention requirement. She described program features the city could customize: a 30‑day warning period, signage, thresholds above the posted limit and options for payment plans or community service.

City Manager Sam Mace told council the city had asked staff and a consultant to study feasibility because constituents and traffic data showed speeding was a persistent safety problem. Police Chief Heavy (transcript: "Chief Heavy") told council he preferred traditional enforcement but supported a pilot because department resources and statewide recruitment challenges limit sustained traffic enforcement. He said the department has not been able to control organized street racing on stretches such as Twentieth Street.

Council members pressed on technical and policy details: how long a camera corridor records (Troso said a single camera captures about 100 feet in one direction), how vendor fees are charged (Troso described a vendor fee of about $27 per adjudicated violation), how plate lookups are handled, calibration and evidence review, whether a civilian staffer or sworn officer reviews camera events (Troso said officers review violations), and options for returning program revenue to traffic safety projects. Troso said camera units self‑test daily, are calibrated annually by an independent lab and that the vendor can host evidence on a CJIS‑compliant platform. She also recommended sharing a portion of net revenue with traffic engineering projects that improve pedestrian safety.

Councilors requested additional materials before final action: detailed pilot scope and sites (Twentieth Street was discussed as a priority), cost estimates for procurement and operations (including court or hearing examiner costs), anticipated officer time to review violations, models for revenue use (traffic calmed projects vs general fund), and data on how enforcement displaces speeding to nearby streets. Several councilors and staff also asked for ZIP‑code analysis of violators and sample public‑education materials.

The council did not vote to implement cameras at the meeting. City staff will return with a pilot proposal and procurement plan; council members indicated they expect to study the proposal before any ordinance or contract is published or adopted.