Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Speed Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County council debate keeps speed-camera funding in police budget after failed motion to remove
Summary
Los Alamos County Council debated police staffing and a proposed $300,000 speed-camera option during FY2026 budget hearings; a motion to remove the speed-camera option (Item 10) failed 5–2, leaving the cameras tentatively in the police budget.
Los Alamos County Council continued discussion of police budget options April 23, focusing on whether to remove funding for a proposed automated speed‑camera program. Councilor Neil Clinton moved to approve the police budget “with the exception of item 10 for the cameras,” saying he supported more officers but not the $300,000 camera line item. The motion failed on a roll call vote, leaving the camera funding included in the tentative budget.
The debate centered on trade‑offs between adding sworn officers and deploying automated speed‑enforcement cameras. Several councilors said adding personnel — “bodies” — would improve safety and provide broader presence for behavior modification, while others said cameras would change driver behavior and provide an enforcement tool in locations where traffic stops are unsafe. Police leadership told council the program would be one part of a multi‑pronged approach and offered to return with performance data if the cameras were deployed.
Councilor Neil Clinton proposed removing the camera funding and made the motion on the floor. Councilor Rieger (second) and others discussed safety concerns where officers cannot safely conduct traffic stops and noted cameras can be a deterrent even when officers are not physically present. Council members who opposed removal cited local accident data and the difficulty of having officers present on all problem corridors.
Police Chief (unnamed in the public transcript) responded that cameras would be used alongside patrols and that the department could provide follow‑up reports showing program performance and statistics. “I can certainly put together some sort of reporting mechanism,” the chief said, offering quarterly or periodic updates to council on camera performance and any changes in crash or speed metrics.
On the procedural motion to remove item 10 (speed cameras) from the police budget, the motion did not receive enough support and failed, 5 no to 2 yes. Council discussion emphasized that staffing remains a priority for many members, even as some urged using technology where enforcement is hazardous.
The police budget, including the camera option, remained part of the set of tentative budget options that council and staff will finalize as they complete the FY2026 adoption process.
Ending: Council left the speed‑camera option in the tentative police budget after the failed removal motion. The department agreed to provide periodic performance reports on the camera program if implemented; councilors emphasized continued attention to hiring and retention to restore staffing levels.
