Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council declines to strip speed‑camera option from police budget; motion to remove cameras fails 5–2
Summary
Los Alamos County Council debated police budget options centered on speed cameras and a motion to remove the $300,000 camera option from the police budget failed on April 23 by a 5–2 roll‑call vote. Councilors supporting cameras argued technology and additional officers both play a role; opponents raised staffing and equity concerns.
The Los Alamos County Council debated optional elements of the police department budget, with a contentious discussion focused on a proposed $300,000 speed‑camera program.
Councilor Neil Clinton moved to remove item 10 — the $300,000 allocation for speed cameras — citing opposition to the camera funding. "For me, it was the, 300,000 for the speed cameras ... I'm not on board with," Councilor Neil Clinton said during discussion. Councilor Rieger seconded the motion. After discussion and a roll‑call vote, the motion failed 5–2: two councilors supported removing the camera allocation and five opposed the removal.
Supporters of the camera program, including multiple councilors and the police chief, described the cameras as one tool in a multi‑pronged approach to reduce speeding and modify driving behavior. Councilors who supported leaving the camera option in the budget stressed the program would be accompanied by reporting and evaluation. The police chief said the department could provide periodic statistics on implementation and outcomes and said the cameras were intended as a prevention and behavior‑modification tool rather than a replacement for officers.
Opponents argued the county should prioritize hiring and retaining additional officers first and questioned whether cameras would be the most effective or equitable approach given the county's traffic patterns and limited roadway options. Several councilors also tied speeding problems to regional traffic and housing patterns tied to workforce commutes from the laboratory.
Action: Motion to remove the $300,000 speed‑camera budget option (mover: Councilor Neil Clinton; second: Councilor Rieger). Vote: motion failed, 2 in favor, 5 opposed. Outcome: no change to the budget option. The item remained part of the tentative police budget as originally presented.
The council then proceeded to consider the larger budget. The discussion on policing options will be revisited as part of the final adopted budget and any future implementation would be subject to further council direction and departmental reporting.
