Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Des Moines council sends expanded speed‑camera ordinance to second reading after debate
Summary
The council voted unanimously to advance an ordinance expanding automated speed‑camera locations (Pacific Highway, 24th Avenue business park and a Kent‑De Moines school‑walk zone) and to authorize a 24‑hour enforcement option at Woodmont Elementary; councilmembers debated hours, signage and equity before passing the motion to a second reading.
The Des Moines City Council voted on June 25 to advance draft ordinance 26‑049 — which would expand the city's automated speed‑camera program — to a second reading after a lengthy staff presentation and council debate.
Assistant City Attorney Matthew Hutchkins summarized the legal framework and a May 2025 field speed study: staff evaluated seven candidate locations with three‑day speed counts and an equity analysis. Hutchkins said the city can add one general‑purpose camera per 10,000 residents, and staff recommend cameras at two locations on 24th Avenue through the business park, a site on Pacific Highway North, and use of the school‑walk‑zone authority for a Kent‑De Moines Road location. He also described an approach other cities have used for schoolwalk zones: operate an existing school camera 24 hours and enforce the lower school limit during school hours and the higher posted speed outside of those hours.
Key findings from staff speed counts included high noncompliance at business‑park approaches (one location recorded more than 40% of vehicles exceeding the posted limit by at least 5 mph in one direction on the sampled days) and several hundred potential violators per day at the busiest corridors, according to Hutchkins' summary of the vendor study.
Council discussion focused on practical and equity concerns: several members supported the expansion as a traffic‑safety 'force multiplier' given limits on officer patrols, while others — notably Council Member Boss — expressed unease about 24‑hour enforcement using school‑zone authority (how that would be signed and perceived at night). Technical questions included signage design, the timing of school‑zone activations, and power/installation logistics with the vendor and the local utility.
Motion and vote: Council Member Netting moved to pass draft ordinance 26‑049 to a second reading on the next regular agenda; Council Member Simons seconded. The motion passed unanimously (roll call recorded as 7‑0).
Next steps: if the council adopts the ordinance at second reading, staff will amend the city's vendor contract, complete permitting and power work, and conduct a 30‑day posted warning and testing period before citations begin. Hutchkins said implementation will likely be staggered by site depending on power availability and vendor timelines; Vera Mobility (the city's vendor) will cover upfront installation costs under the usual contract model but staff still must return to council for contract amendments and to set any additional implementation parameters.
The ordinance as presented authorizes the specific candidate sites and the administrative approach for the Woodmont Elementary camera; council members said they expect staff to return with signs and operational details before final adoption.
