Site Stream outlines automated traffic‑enforcement program; council presses on safety, revenue and privacy

Andrew Noble, a Site Stream executive, presented a detailed demonstration of the company’s automated traffic‑enforcement technology to the Cheshire Town Council on May 27, explaining how cameras, radar and back‑end processing would detect and document red‑light and speeding violations, school‑bus stop‑arm offenses and noise violations, and how municipalities and the state would oversee the program.

Noble said Site Stream’s cameras pair radar with high‑resolution imaging and video and run all captured plates against Nlets (the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System) to identify registered owners. He described a two‑phase launch: Site Stream prepares justification and traffic‑analysis reports (about 30 days), the Connecticut DOT reviews location requests (up to 60 days), then construction and final testing follow. Noble emphasized safeguards: annual calibration certificates, a software “circuit breaker” that prevents a camera from issuing images after its calibration window lapses, and an approvals workflow that requires a town official or officer to review and authorize any citation before it is mailed.

“Inside our cameras, we have a calendar built in… if a camera doesn't get taken down in time, it is inhibited from taking photographs,” Noble said, summarizing the vendor’s software safeguards and calibration process.

Chief Jordan of the Cheshire Police Department, who participated in the discussion, said the system would provide “force‑multiplier” coverage for locations the department cannot patrol continuously and stressed that local personnel retain final discretion over whether to authorize a mailed citation. “We don't make or sell anything at the police department. We're not revenue‑based,” Chief Jordan said, adding that the department would propose specific pilot locations and business rules to the council.

Council members asked detailed questions about legal and operational matters: how long Site Stream retains images and owner data, what constitutes a red‑light violation for camera triggers, how appeals would be handled, and whether the program might disproportionately affect residents. Noble said Site Stream retains violation images for one year in line with the state rules and that the firm expunges photographic data after that period while keeping audit trails for compliance. He described the vendor’s public‑information program (signage and a 30‑day warning period for each camera), an online portal for cited owners to view evidence, and a standard appeals process run by the municipality.

The meeting also focused on finances. Noble described two common contracting models: a per‑camera monthly fee funded from citations, or a per‑paid‑citation fee; he said communities typically receive roughly 55% of net violation revenue under the fee model. He also confirmed Connecticut law sets civil fines at $50 for a first offense (plus up to a $15 processing fee) and $75 for repeat offenses, with a state requirement that installations be justified by crash and traffic data.

Several council members raised concerns that automated enforcement could operate as a revenue source rather than a safety measure and asked for local estimates of likely citations and impacts. Noble said Site Stream had not yet done Cheshire‑specific, line‑by‑line revenue projections, but that a typical active camera in comparable programs issues multiple violations a day in the initial months; he and staff emphasized the state’s needs‑based DOT review as a check against indiscriminate siting.

Noble also outlined program controls: requirement for DOT‑level justification reports, routine performance reporting to the DOT and periodic re‑permit reviews, front‑end public education and warning windows, and local approval for each citation. He offered to produce a detailed traffic analysis and proposed site list for Cheshire if the council wished to pursue the program further.

The council did not take a vote on automated enforcement during the meeting; members asked the police department and staff to return with location‑specific studies, recommended business rules, and clarified appeals and data‑handling procedures before any decision to contract or pursue DOT authorization.

Ending: Site Stream left the council with materials and offered to do the traffic and DOT justification work if the council directs staff to proceed; the council asked staff and the police chief to prepare a follow‑up report with recommended pilot locations, estimated impacts, and draft business rules for review.