New London council pauses automated speed-camera ordinance after public concern; chief outlines rollout process

The City Council amended and referred the proposed automated traffic enforcement ordinance to the Public Safety Committee on first reading after public comment and extended council questioning about equity, appeals and costs.

Police Chief Brian Wright, who presented the measure and answered council questions, said the program would follow state law enacted in 2023 (Public Act 23-116 and Conn. Gen. Stat. §14-307c) and would be implemented initially as a lease program with no city upfront cost. Wright said vendors would perform traffic studies and site assessments and the rollout would include a 30-day warning period during which only warning notices are issued.

The ordinance (No. 09152503) prompted public comment from Jessica McCready, who said she worried about how personally identifiable information would be handled, who would be liable when an owner is not the driver, and what happens if fines go unpaid. McCready told the council she was concerned automated enforcement could be intrusive and have disproportionate impacts on lower-income residents.

Councilors pressed Wright on how site locations would be selected and on steps to avoid disproportionate impacts on Black and Latino neighborhoods. Wright said sites would be chosen based on the highest speeds, crash histories and other traffic data and that the department would start with a “lower end” number of cameras and expand only after traffic studies and mitigation steps. He said traffic studies and the results would be publicized and that signage and a warning period are statutory requirements.

Councillors also asked how appeals would work. Wright said notices go to the registered vehicle owner and that an internal appeal process established under the statute is available; there would be no motor‑vehicle points and the city would collect revenue for traffic‑safety purposes. Several councilors said they were uncomfortable delegating adjudication to a private contractor and asked that appeals and due‑process procedures be clarified in writing.

Cost questions drew scrutiny. Wright said vendor pricing under negotiation included a typical lease structure with vendor costs commonly described as about $2,500 per camera per month; citation amounts mentioned in discussion were $50 for the initial notice and up to $75 thereafter plus processing fees. Wright said the vendor would absorb setup costs until the program was operational; revenue collection mechanics would be spelled out in the contract.

After more than an hour of questions and public comment, the council voted to amend the motion to carry only a first reading, striking language about second and third readings, and referred the ordinance to the Public Safety Committee for a public hearing and further study. Councilors asked that the traffic‑study data, maps of potential camera locations and detailed appeal procedures be provided to the committee and published for public review before any final vote.

The council set a Public Safety Committee meeting to take public testimony and review vendor studies; committee members and staff said they expect additional briefings before the ordinance returns for a second reading.

Why it matters: automated enforcement shifts speed enforcement from individual traffic stops to automated detection and can change driver behavior quickly, but it also raises questions about privacy, appeals, fairness and whether revenues will be reinvested in traffic safety. Councilors insisted on a public, data-driven rollout and clearer adjudication procedures before final adoption.

Looking ahead: the ordinance remains pending. The Public Safety Committee will hold additional hearings and receive traffic‑study data, signage plans and a detailed appeals proposal before the council considers second and third readings.