Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City presents school-zone speed-camera report showing rising notices; council asks about staffing and costs
Summary
Police presented the required annual report for the city's school-zone speed-camera program; the initial reporting window showed 960 notices and substantial vendor and state distributions.
The City of Niceville presented its required annual report on school-zone speed cameras for the reporting window Oct. 1, 2024–June 30, 2025. City staff said the reporting period reflected an early phase of the program (cameras were active roughly six weeks during that window) and warned that volumes have risen substantially since.
Numbers read into the record: 960 notices of violation were issued during the reported window; 747 of those notices were paid and 213 remained pending. For the 747 paid notices the city received $58,700 in gross payments. Staff provided the distribution breakdown used by the program: the state received 20% ($11,740), the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (3%) received $1,761, the school district (12%) received $7,044, a school crossing-guard program (5%) received $2,935, and vendor payments to the camera company (Ultimate/Altima) totaled approximately $32,008. The city net disbursement reported in the packet for the period was $2,412.96 after those allocations.
Deputy Chief Brandon Chaffee told the council the program's monthly volumes have increased: "Last month, in this month of September, we approved 1,762 violations between the 2 schools on camera," he said, noting Paul Boulevard accounted for the largest share. Councilmembers asked about staff time reviewing violations. Police evidence staff estimated about two hours per day of a sworn evidence custodian to review camera captures and approve or reject notices. Councilmember Tolbert asked whether the program is "paying for itself" and whether the vendor benefits disproportionately from the structure; staff noted vendor fees are derived from collected payments and that the program's behavior-change effects are part of the policy justification.
Why it matters: Council members sought clarity on whether camera revenues cover vendor fees and the additional police review time. Staff emphasized the initial report covered a short trial period and said future monthly reports will show larger volumes and provide a clearer cost/benefit picture.
What happens next: Staff agreed to provide more detailed monthly and year-to-date breakdowns on payments and on vendor invoices. Council asked for monthly breakdowns of citations and a better accounting of police staff hours associated with camera review to assess net fiscal impact.
