Police and residents debate speed cameras, speed tables; council advances traffic enforcement ordinance

The Village of East Canton heard extensive public comment and staff briefing on speed enforcement options, including automated speed cameras, permanent speed tables and digital speed‑feedback signs. The council also advanced an ordinance concerning automated traffic enforcement services provided by a private vendor.

An attendee who identified himself during public comment opposed speed cameras and asked whether tickets would be issued at 10 miles per hour over the limit. A police official responding to public comment said the village's 2023 speed study found about 1,500 vehicles per day traveling at least 10 miles per hour over the speed limit and said it was impossible for officers to stop that volume of vehicles. "On average, about 1,500 cars a day speed through the village more than 10 miles an hour over," the official said. He described automated enforcement as a way to allow officers to focus on side streets and other problems such as stop‑sign violations and petty theft.

On the threshold question, the chief said the 10‑mile threshold was selected to avoid perceptions of "nitpicking." The chief noted courts generally treat 10 mph over as excessive speed and cited memorialization in state law. A second official in the discussion said the Ohio Supreme Court has explained municipalities have discretion over thresholds, though courts may prefer evidence of excessive speeds.

Council members and staff also discussed physical traffic‑calming measures. The service director said permanent speed tables cost about $13,000 each and are typically installed 500–700 feet apart; temporary tables have lower upfront costs but may cost more over time because of maintenance. Officials described a series of installed digital speed‑feedback signs and recommended testing one or two speed tables on side streets as a pilot.

On the formal agenda, the council considered ordinances related to traffic enforcement. The meeting record shows a third and final reading was held for ordinance 25‑11, described in meeting materials as a three‑year agreement with a vendor named in the record (Targeting and Solutions Limited) to provide traffic‑violation enforcement services "to supplement" the police department. A roll‑call was taken on the ordinance during the meeting record.

Council members said the goal of automated enforcement is safety, not revenue; the chief said if revenue falls over time, that would be an indication the cameras are slowing traffic as intended.

Council did not take immediate, separate votes on speed tables at this meeting but asked staff to provide more information and to consider pilot installation on one or two side streets. Council also said it would consider speed‑table placement and other traffic‑calming options at follow‑up meetings.