Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cheatham County defers proposed photo speed‑enforcement program pending traffic‑engineering study
Summary
After discussion and a legal advisement that a traffic‑engineering study is required, the Cheatham County Legislative Body voted to defer the county’s Photo Speed Enforcement Program to its April workshop to gather more information. Commissioners withdrew a motion and an amendment during debate and asked staff to obtain clarification from CTAS.
Cheatham County commissioners deferred a proposal to adopt a Photo Speed Enforcement Program after the county attorney said state rules require a traffic‑engineering study before implementation.
Sheriff Tim Binkley first brought the item to the floor during the March 20 regular session in Ashland City. County Attorney Michael Bligh told commissioners that, before the county can put photograph‑based speed enforcement into effect, a traffic‑engineering study must be completed to meet legal and procedural requirements.
A commissioner’s amendment to limit any camera program to school zones — and an initial motion to approve the program — were withdrawn while the body discussed the legal and technical requirements. Commissioner Eugene O. Evans, Sr., moved and Commissioner David Anderson seconded a motion to defer the item to the April workshop so staff could gather more information about the required study and the legal framework for enforcement; that motion passed by voice vote (Resolution 9).
Commissioner Calton Blacker said he would contact the County Technical Assistance Service (CTAS) to clarify study requirements and the procedural steps needed to implement any future speed‑camera program. The sheriff and county staff were directed to bring back details on what the engineering study would need to include and how school‑zone limits might change the county’s legal obligations.
What happens next: the item will return to the commission at the April workshop with traffic‑engineering study details and advice from county staff and CTAS. The commission did not adopt any enforcement program at the March 20 meeting.
