Avondale council hears data on speed safety camera program; staff to return with contract options in November

The Avondale City Council on Sept. 8 received a joint presentation from the Avondale Police Department and Avondale City Court on the mobile speed safety camera program (photo radar), including deployment criteria, speed and crash data, vendor operations and court impacts. Councilmembers raised safety, labor and constitutional concerns and asked staff to return with contract termination costs and additional data in November.

Lieutenant Justin Iowen of the Avondale Police Department, who oversees patrol and traffic, said the program was approved by council in May 2022 and implemented in May 2024 with Vero Mobility under a five‑year contract. The city operates two movable units rather than fixed sites. Iowen described the city’s site‑selection criteria: accident history and trends from the Spillman and state tracking systems, officer and traffic bureau input, community requests to a traffic hotline, and Vero Mobility site assessments to ensure camera placement and signage requirements are met.

Iowen summarized evaluation data for Aug. 1, 2024, through July 31, 2025. He said one covert speed sensor deployment on Dysart Road (45 mph posted) recorded about 60,000 vehicles in one week; pre‑deployment 3,200 vehicles were recorded at 11 mph or more over the limit and post‑deployment that number fell to about 1,600—a roughly 50% reduction in vehicles exceeding the 11‑mph threshold. Iowen said Veri/Vero Mobility recorded roughly 45,000 violation events during the evaluation period; about 12,356 citations were issued and just under 33,000 events were rejected for reasons such as image quality or inability to confirm speed. The vendor processing and monthly device fees include $5,250 per unit per month ($10,500 for two units) and ancillaries: a $2 fee for citations above 500 per month, and process‑server fees (about $48 inside Maricopa County, $67 outside) when personal service is required.

Iowen noted operational challenges: image glare for some east‑west deployments at sunrise or sunset (Vero Mobility added sun visors), images unreadable due to windshield glare, and vandalism to units (spray paint on lenses five times and one instance of a device pushed into the roadway). He said vandalism costs are covered by the vendor. He described the city’s image‑review workflow: the vendor filters images then the police review team accepts or rejects images before cases are sent to the court.

Judge Craig Jennings presented court impacts and finances. The court received 12,356 filings from photo radar during the same period and 9,585 of those cases had been resolved at the time of the report. Of the resolved cases, Jennings said 2,504 were dismissed after offenders completed defensive driving school, 3,161 were dismissed (including for lack of service), and 3,920 resulted in responsible findings. About 2,771 filed cases remained pending. The court reported $391,269 to the general fund from sanctions (responsible findings) during the period and $287,960 to the general fund from defensive driving school fees; total revenue connected to the program was $743,665 for the 12‑month snapshot.

Staff also provided a budget projection. Iowen said two dedicated employees currently support the program (one PD, one court) with combined salary and ERE of about $176,000; staff recommended two additional positions and forecast total personnel costs of $352,000 for fiscal year 2026. Combined with device and vendor fees, staff presented an anticipated FY2026 program cost of about $561,482.

Councilmembers debated effectiveness, labor demands and costs. Councilmember White pointed to the Dysart sensor’s 50% reduction in vehicles exceeding the 11‑mph threshold as evidence of behavior change. Councilmember Garcia said she opposed the program on constitutional grounds and expressed concern about the financial burden on residents. Councilmember Condi asked that, if the program is discontinued, existing staff have other duties; the city manager said the positions would be reassigned if the program ends. Councilmembers also asked staff to compare citations issued by patrol officers and consider other engineering measures, such as additional fixed speed indicators and roadway design changes to lower speeds.

City Manager Ron said staff will bring back a report no later than November with answers to specific questions: the contract out‑clause and estimated termination costs (staff said termination would be a six‑figure fee, to be confirmed), updated speed measures for previously deployed locations and a plan to move a unit to gather new data. If council directs continuation through the Safe Streets planning process, staff said they will fill two vacant positions; if council decides otherwise, staff will present options. No council vote was taken Sept. 8; the presentation was for discussion and direction.