Stratford committee backs state program for school‑zone cameras after technical amendments

The Town of Stratford’s Ordinance Committee voted unanimously to forward an amended automated traffic‑enforcement ordinance to the full Town Council with a favorable recommendation, after hearing a presentation from Police Chief McNeal and Safety Director Larry Ciccarelli and debating privacy, equity and enforcement safeguards.

Chief McNeal told the committee the state approved the program and the town’s planned phase 1 would place cameras in school safety zones, with phase 2 targeting high‑accident corridors such as Lordship Boulevard and the Barnum/Maine area. He said five‑day traffic studies at Nichols and Franklin schools found thousands of violations—roughly 8,000 at Nichols and about 6,000 at Franklin—data the town will submit to the Connecticut Department of Transportation as part of site approval.

The committee pressed for operational and civil‑liberties protections. McNeal said the system is sensor‑triggered and “it’s just looking at the roadway only,” capturing license plates and a vehicle image; vendors supply photos and automated reports, but the town must verify each potential violation before a citation is generated. He described an internal civilian‑style appeals process, plus statutory review by a hearings officer and the option to appeal to superior court. On data retention McNeal said paid violations are expunged after 30 days and vendors may retain unpaid records for collection purposes up to one year.

Members asked how fines might affect low‑income residents and whether the system could be used in a discriminatory way. McNeal said the cameras do not target people: “we're not looking to roll this out all across town right off the bat,” and the town will restrict initial deployment to locations supported by traffic and accident data. He outlined the fee examples discussed in the meeting—$50 for a first offense and $75 for a second, plus a $15 surcharge that the chief referenced in describing the payer cost examples—and said officials are setting up an appeals process that would not be adjudicated by a police officer.

Town Attorney Florek proposed two clarifying ordinance amendments that the committee adopted unanimously: first, to make explicit that the vendor issues first‑instance citations after a town review by a designated police or traffic‑authority employee; second, to specify that a member of the police department or a designated employee will apply to the citation clerk for a judgment against the owner if a citation is not paid and the town seeks collection. After adopting those amendments the committee voted to send the ordinance as amended to the full council with a favorable recommendation.

Chief McNeal and staff said the vendor will cover initial traffic studies and equipment costs and that the town can place fee revenue in a restricted account for traffic‑safety uses. The chief estimated an installation timeline of about 21 weeks after state approval and an initial public education period. He also said the vendor will maintain and certify equipment and the town will verify violations electronically before issuance.

The committee’s action does not adopt an ordinance at the meeting; it forwards an amended draft to the Town Council for further action. The committee also discussed related procedural items including appeals, protections for owners whose vehicles were stolen, and the process for relocating cameras if a site shows long‑term compliance.