Winchester selectmen hear mixed public reaction to plan for speed‑enforcement cameras

Winchester Town Manager Paul Harrington and SiteStream president Andrew Noble presented a proposed automatic traffic enforcement safety device (ATESD) program at a Dec. 18 public hearing before the Board of Selectmen, saying it would start with three fixed camera locations and — if approved and cleared by Connecticut Department of Transportation review — could be installed around April 2026 with a 30‑day warning period before citations are issued.

Harrington said the town ran temporary speed counters at three Route 44 sites and reported large numbers of vehicles and a high share exceeding the posted 30 mph limit. “We had 55,000 vehicles [at one site]…38,589 of them were speeding,” he said, and cited occasional top speeds recorded during the sample days as very high. Harrington described an RFP process held in August 2025 and said the board selected SiteStream because the vendor’s revenue‑share model requires no capital or maintenance payments from Winchester; SiteStream would be paid from citation revenue only after the town receives payments.

Noble, who identified himself as SiteStream’s president, said the company’s cameras meet international standards for accuracy and data traceability, that program images and records are housed in a law‑enforcement telecommunications system (NLETS) and that state law limits program data retention to one year. “We host our servers inside NLETS,” Noble said, adding the company’s stated commitment to return 1% of program revenue to local driver‑education efforts where possible.

Officials outlined the proposed program rules under Connecticut General Statute 14‑307c: advance signage 1,000 and 500 feet before an enforcement zone, a 30‑day warning-only period when cameras first go live, a review of images by sworn officers or appointed personnel before issuing a citation, annual calibration and a required performance report to DOT with periodic reauthorization. The three proposed initial sites are Route 44 Main Street (northbound and southbound), Route 44 Norfolk Road (Dry Dam area) and North Main Street near the sewer plant; moving a camera would require further process and state review.

Harrington described the citation fine schedule in the proposed ordinance: a first defense civil citation of $50 plus a $15 processing fee (SiteStream’s slide showed a $65 total with a $35 vendor share and $30 to the town), a second offense in 30 days at $75 plus processing fees, and a maximum payment of about $92.70 when credit‑card fees are included. He emphasized that the program does not report civil infractions to the DMV or to insurance companies and does not add points to driver licenses.

During more than two hours of public comment, residents raised technical and policy questions and both support and opposition. Jody Hicks, a local resident, said the presentation “answered 98% of my questions” and asked whether citations would affect insurance; officials confirmed the civil infractions do not add DMV points or report to insurers. Other residents and speakers, including Joe Solovecri, urged the board to reject cameras as government overreach and questioned the presence of a vendor at the meeting and the potential for vendor profit.

Concerns included: whether out‑of‑state drivers and commercial fleets would pay citations, how collection would be handled, calibration and failure rates of equipment, the appeals process, whether municipal vehicles will be treated differently, and whether a program with fines could become a recurring revenue source that the town comes to rely on. Noble said initial collection rates in similar programs often run roughly 75–80% and improve with follow‑up notices and third‑party collections; Harrington said the town hopes to “make $0” if speeding behavior is corrected.

Police and selectmen framed the cameras as one of several tools to improve pedestrian and business‑area safety while acknowledging other traffic remedies — design changes, crosswalks, a traffic officer — are also options but can be costly. The town manager and selectmen repeatedly said the cameras are intended primarily to change driver behavior and improve safety on Main Street and other high‑concern corridors.

No ordinance vote occurred at the hearing; Winchester is scheduled to hold a third ordinance meeting on Jan. 5, after which the town would submit the ordinance and related materials to Connecticut DOT for review (DOT has up to 60 days to act). The public hearing record and video will be included in the town’s submission to DOT, officials said. The selectmen adjourned the hearing without a vote.

What’s next: the Board of Selectmen must complete the three‑meeting ordinance process in Winchester, then obtain DOT approval before installation and the start of the 30‑day warning phase. The board also said it would consider further policy questions — for example, whether future camera additions should require separate public hearings — at upcoming meetings.

Sources and attribution: reporting here is based exclusively on the Dec. 18, 2025 Winchester public hearing transcript and on direct quotes from Town Manager Paul Harrington, SiteStream president Andrew Noble and public commenters who self‑identified in the record.