Orting council hears vendor presentation on school‑zone camera program; no vote tonight

Orting City Council members on May 20 heard a detailed presentation about a proposed automated school‑zone speed‑enforcement program following a city RFP; staff said Novoa Global was the vendor selected and that the council was not being asked to take action tonight.

The presentation, delivered by Heidi Traverso, a consultant and former Seattle Police Department officer, explained how cameras would detect and document speed violations inside active school‑zone beacons and how the program would be run. "This program is really customizable to whatever Orting wants," Traverso said.

Why it matters: Council members and staff said the city expects traffic to grow as infrastructure and housing projects are built, making school‑zone safety a higher priority for enforcement and engineering. Staff framed the camera program as a force multiplier for the police department rather than an immediate staffing substitute.

Key facts: Traverso told the council that Washington law governing automated traffic‑safety programs (RCW 46.63.220) classifies captured infractions as civil violations that "don't go on your driving record." The law also requires an equity study and a 25 percent revenue share to the state for program proceeds, she said. Traverso added that the company provides equipment, installation, evidence processing and a public portal; local officers must review and approve each violation before a notice is issued.

On enforcement mechanics, Traverso said the typical trigger for a capture is a driver exceeding the posted school‑zone speed by about 6 mph (many programs choose a 6‑mph tolerance), and that the system records two photos and a short video segment as the evidence package. "These violations are civil. They don't go on your driving record," she said. She also noted a required 30‑day warning period at the start of any camera deployment.

Staff emphasized how the vendor model is funded. Traverso said the vendor installs and maintains hardware and handles initial processing; the program is paid from violator fines rather than the city general fund. She described a typical contract pricing example that staff uses to estimate sustainability (vendors often price monthly service for each camera pair), and said that if a program never generates net revenue after operational costs, the city would not owe the state share. "If you are out of state... you would never pay the state," she said, describing how the state's share is calculated from net program revenue after costs.

Council members asked about common misunderstandings and impacts. Traverso said a common misperception is that cameras must be everywhere to be effective; instead, a well‑placed pair of systems produces a "halo effect" of lower speeds across a wider area, reducing the number of installations needed. She also described common questions about privacy, noting that images are captured from behind and state law prohibits use of the imagery for unrelated law‑enforcement searches; retention and permitted uses are governed by statute.

Process and next steps: Staff said no vote was scheduled; the presentation will return to the Public Safety Committee for additional review and staff will bring contract details and proposed sites back to council for formal approval if the committee recommends proceeding. Traverso recommended starting with a single pair of cameras in the northern school zone and re‑studying after the fall term to evaluate impacts before expanding.

What wasn't decided: Council did not adopt any ordinance, set the specific enforcement trigger or award a contract tonight. Staff said the program and contract terms would be the subject of future committee and council action.

Speakers quoted or referenced in this article: Heidi Traverso, consultant and former Seattle Police Department officer; Chief Gabrilek, Orting Police Department; Jade (city staff who introduced the item); Council Member Sproul (questions); Council Member Gunther (questions).