Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Safety Cameras topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves school‑zone speed cameras (excluding Industrial Drive) and adds two east‑west red‑light locations
Summary
After a months‑long study, the Crestview City Council authorized speed zone cameras in school zones citywide except at Industrial Drive, and approved adding east‑west red‑light camera coverage on Highway 90 and new coverage at PJ Adams; the speed enforcement threshold will be 11 mph over the limit and cameras will operate during statutory hours.
The Crestview City Council voted to install automated speed‑zone cameras at the city’s studied school zones, excluding the Industrial Drive site, and separately agreed to add east‑west red‑light camera coverage on State Road 90 and camera coverage at the PJ Adams intersection.
Speed zones: Council approved installation of speed cameras in the identified school zones with the explicit exclusion of Industrial Drive (the motion passed unanimously). Staff and the Police Chief told the council that the study used industry standards and that the enforcement threshold would begin at 11 miles per hour over the posted limit (staff said they use 11 mph “to give everyone the benefit of the doubt” while statute allows citations beginning at 10 mph). The Chief noted the cameras operate during the posted beacon hours for school zones and that the city’s reading of state law allows citations during broader school‑zone hours (not only while beacons flash). A council member asked whether emergency vehicles and on‑duty officers would receive tickets; staff answered that vehicles responding to calls with emergency lights on may be exempt but that otherwise all vehicles could be captured and cited if they meet violation criteria.
Red‑light cameras: After reviewing vendor studies, the council also approved adding east‑west coverage on State Road 90 (eastbound and westbound) and north/south coverage at PJ Adams/Ferdon as additional east/west or north/south camera placements (motion passed 4‑1). Council discussion considered current and planned roadway construction: members asked to avoid placing cameras at intersections where imminent construction or redesign (which would change traffic patterns and require camera relocation) is planned; staff said contract terms can sometimes shift relocation costs to the vendor but that specifics depend on negotiated terms.
Why it matters: Staff said the goal is deterrence and compliance rather than revenue. The traffic‑safety presentation documented hundreds of drivers traveling at least 11 mph over the posted limits at several school zones during the study period; council members cited both pedestrian safety concerns and neighborhood complaints in support of cameras. Opponents raised concerns about camera placement during active construction and the fairness of issuing citations during non‑beacon hours; one council member said he preferred enforcement only during flashing beacon times at some locations.
Next steps: Staff will return with a formal ordinance (required by statute) and contract documents for the chosen camera sites and with recommended contract language addressing relocation/termination costs. The Council asked staff to confirm whether relocation costs can be contractually shifted to the vendor for future construction at affected intersections.
