Vendor pitches automated school-zone cameras; commission asks questions on contracts and privacy

Nuvoah Global, a Florida-based vendor, presented a proposal to install automated photo-enforcement cameras in Palatka school zones, saying the systems are triggered by radar and use high-definition imaging and algorithms to confirm violations.

The demonstration Friday night described how the system would operate and how it is typically financed. “We are the only vendor that does this 100% based in the state of Florida,” Nuvoah Global representative Jeff Iannuzzi said, and he emphasized the company’s local call center and in‑state processing.

City staff invited the presentation to give commissioners technical details and to allow time for further discussion before any formal request to adopt an ordinance or contract. The vendor outlined two common payment models: a city-paid fixed-fee contract and a violator-supported revenue-sharing model. Iannuzzi said violator-supported citations issued by Nuvoah typically carry a $100 civil penalty and do not assess driving points, while enforcement initiated by an officer would carry the traditional fines and points.

Commissioners referenced Palatka’s earlier experience with red‑light cameras and asked whether automated enforcement increases rear‑end crashes, as was observed with that technology in Palatka previously. Chief of Police outlined a city speed study at Putnam Academy of Arts & Sciences showing dozens of vehicles recorded at 11 mph or more above the limit during a three-day sample; staff said the 11‑mph trigger is set to comply with state law and to reduce false positives. “We did a speed study … 144 on the first day, 181 on the second day and 120 on the third day,” the chief said, summarizing counts of vehicles exceeding the state’s 11‑mph threshold in the sampled school zone.

Iannuzzi said the company uses a multitracking radar and a time‑over‑distance algorithm to confirm speed measurements and that each recorded event is reviewed by a local officer, who retains final discretion to approve or reject a violation. He also described options to integrate license‑plate‑reader data for investigations and said the vendor pays upfront capital costs (engineering, permitting, installation) for violator‑supported contracts.

Commissioners asked how the system would be scheduled around beacons and school activities. The vendor and police staff explained Florida law and local practice: beacons typically operate 30 minutes before and after school start/end times, and schedules can be extended for breakfast programs or special activities. Commissioners also asked about vendor contracts: length (Iannuzzi said five years is typical) and revenue shares (vendor described a split of the $100 civil penalty among state, local, and vendor shares under violator‑supported models).

The commission did not take action at the meeting; staff said the presentation was informational and that any ordinance, interlocal agreement or contract would return for formal consideration with more detail on legal, privacy and procurement issues.

Ending: Staff recommended no immediate changes without a formal staff report and contract terms; commissioners directed staff to continue research and return with ordinance language, vendor‑contract templates and cost analyses if the city pursues automated enforcement.